Displaying 2,311 To 2,340 Of 19,504 Comments Iraq And The Ghosts Of South Vietnam Very good addition to my Manifest Destiny charge, Murph, and as NoMan mentioned, big fan of Kipling so appreciated the quote. It is very human to feel that one’s own religious, political or nationalistic community is the “right” one and unfortunately for some, it is very human to believe in self-righteousness instead of empathy…that those in different communities of these types have just as much reason to feel theirs are “right” (after all, if by chance one was born in a different country instead of the US and into a different religion, might we not feel just as “right” about the country and religion one was connected to?). What gets me is the willingness to act upon self-righteousness…which usually contradicts the principles one’s nation and religion are based on. We’ll see what happens in Iraq but sad to say, with this being an election year and Obama constantly being portrayed as weak, the sending over of consultants could signal a return to US air strikes an drones in Iraq…on behalf of protecting the oppressive and religiously self-righteous leader of Iraq. It’s almost like our supporting Saddam as long as he fought Iran, having such flexible definitions of “bad guys”, influenced by who helps us with our selective goals the most, destroys the credibility of claims of moral authority. » Posted By AdLib On June 26, 2014 @ 12:28 am Exactly Nirek, if Bush really had wanted to force regime change on tyrants who oppress most of their citizens, finance and support ISIS, Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attack and are arguably the most destabilizing power in the region, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia. But then, that’s not what the Iraq war was really about. » Posted By AdLib On June 26, 2014 @ 12:13 am GreenChica, so true that the military failures that we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan destroy any reasonable support for trying to fight conventional wars in regions that are in conflict because of sectarian conflict. Like McCain and the other moronic Repubs calling for air strikes against ISIS…they’re not marching in a column like the British Army in the American Revolution, they mingle into the resident population of the towns they control…so we should kill as many or more innocent Iraqis as long as we kill members of ISIS…to stop them from killing more innocent Iraqis? Complex conflicts as in Iraq need a more complex approach than just bombing people who look like the bad guys. Any solution would be years long require chess playing, not dodgeball. Under Obama, that is possible. Have to say though, under a Hillary Presidency, who shows a more hawkish view towards the world, maybe so but maybe not so much. And since this would take many years to work out, whichever President follows Obama will be responsible to for following the smarter course…or not. . » Posted By AdLib On June 26, 2014 @ 12:02 am NoMan, I think you put your finger on it. Though we look at our leaders differently because they are ours, how was murdering US soldiers and innocent Iraqis through their campaign of greed through war, any less horrible than terrorists or tyrants killing less innocent people in pursuit of power and wealth? To an innocent Iraqi whose family members were killed by the US waging the Iraq war, Bush and Cheney are terrorists and the US is a terrorist state. And objectively, that is hard to debate. » Posted By AdLib On June 25, 2014 @ 11:50 pm KT, I agree that there was little more than greed filling the heads of the neocons and Bush Admin as they pushed a phony threat on the world to justify war in Iraq. What I was addressing though was the Repub constituency and many other Americans who are prone to being manipulated by the war mongers. Those Americans have been conditioned to think in simplistic binary terms so telling them to get behind us “Good Guys” needing to invade a country to to take out an “Evil Guy” is all you need to say to get them on board. Of course, whipping up their fear of “a mushroom cloud” is the closer. The Old Testament Fundamentalists believe in evil needing to be destroyed wherever they see it which is such an easy button for cynical neocons to press. To those in the American public who supported it, the Iraq War was about attacking an ally of Al Qaeda (a lie) who was also responsible for 9/11 (a lie) and killing an evil tyrant (true) who was in the process of creating weapons of mass destruction including nuclear bombs which he would use to attack the US (lie). To those who promoted and conducted it, the Iraq War was about oil, money and power in the region (just thought of the soldiers killed by electrocution in their showers by the faulty wiring KBR did through their Cheney-aided war profiteering…they murdered our soldiers through their greed, a stark example of what direction the true evil was coming from). » Posted By AdLib On June 25, 2014 @ 11:32 pm Maybe there is a deeper, more philosophical flaw in the mentality of Americanism. It is natural for Americans in general to believe that there is always a way to right a wrong, stop bad guys and impress the values of “good” on those who just aren’t enlightened to being “good” like Americans. I wonder if it’s not a natural expression of the religious undercurrent in the nation, a kind of spiritual Manifest Destiny that makes many Americans believe that when they see people doing “wrong” in the world, that it is our duty, as the morally superior, to step in and fight against the bad guys. So with the fear and propaganda of the Domino Effect in Vietnam, America dives into a war in a small, distant, mostly irrelevant nation to defeat the evil communists. With the fear and propaganda of “Saddam is evil and thus he could nuke us!”, the nation is stampeded into war in another sovereign nation to do away with the evil one (and need I go into the “Axis of Evil” imagery?). Religion has a binary aspect to it. Good and evil, heaven and hell, right and wrong. Religion has far more complexity than that to the thoughtful person but to the small minded, it justifies the mimicry of the “vengeful God” mentality…and one of the many problems with trying to replicate that is of course that the US is not omnipotent or all powerful. So when we “righteously” invade other nations, we do not have the control over destiny and the view of righteousness is quite subjective (as horrible as Saddam was, consider the hundreds of thousands if not millions of destroyed lives that resulted from the US invading Iraq). Isn’t that a true moral quandary? If intervening in a nation with an “evil” leader leads to the deaths of far more innocents than that evil leader would have killed, is it better to do so? The US is in bed with plenty of evil leaders of nations around the world, consider that Saudi Arabia is the home of the main financiers of the most rabid terrorism (including ISIS and Al Qaeda) and yet because they buy our nation off with oil, you don’t see the US calling for regime change in Saudi Arabia (just the opposite, we would protect THOSE “evil” people with the full might of the US military). One of the most difficult things in life is having to witness the results of terrible people harming others and recognizing that stepping in could make things worse. That simplistic dualism that was so dominant in the Bush Admin of good vs. evil simplified the perception of war and conflict which is far more complex and reverberating. And the Neocons were hand in hand with the RW religious extremists in the GOP that espoused fighting evil wherever they saw it in the world (just as communists were evil and we “needed” to fight them when we went into Vietnam). War isn’t fiction, it’s not comic books or movies where Superman flies in to defeat the bad guys and rescue the good people. It is much more complex and in real life, while a nation is trying to fight the bad guys, innocents always get killed and displaced simply because a conflict is taking place. It’s sometimes like the old saying, the operation was a success but the patient died. I am generally against the US taking any military action unless there is a direct threat to the US, an attack on allies we have treaties with or in pursuit of enemies who have and will continue to directly attack us (so I did support the SEALS going in to Pakistan to get Bin Laden). Being very appreciative of history, I do think that before any military action is taken, great consideration has to be taken to consider the ultimate outcome and blowback of taking that action. In the short term, the US stepping back from acting in Iraq could lead to some of the bad guys out there being empowered and encouraged. But in the long run, those same bad guys may actually be sewing the seeds of their own destruction, as seems to happen to the most murderous and tyrannical throughout history. » Posted By AdLib On June 23, 2014 @ 6:48 pm “At Last!”: How HP Continues to Cultivate Cynicism Thirded! » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 11:38 pm Mini Music Thread – Happy Father’s Day! Opening Theme From Courtship of Eddie’s Father – Harry Nilsson » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 3:51 pm PDL, it is pretty astounding to read that list of accomplishments that took place during that era, so many we take for granted as being cornerstones of environmental and social protections yet didn’t exist beforehand (and some of which have been whittled down by Republican politicians). Of course when it comes to the Civil Rights Act which was arguably the biggest achievement to come out of that era, JFK and LBJ should get their well deserved nods. What seems to have happened in the times since Nixon signed a variety of environmental laws and the current GOP that believes in terminating all of those laws and the EPA, is that a vision for America being prosperous has shrunken down to just the wealthiest being prosperous…at any cost. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican too and his aggressive actions to set up a national park system and preserve the environment was unprecedented. Of course, he was his own man as a Republican, he may not have much in common with today’s Republicans but he was one of the greatest Presidents (along with Lincoln) that the GOP ever brought America. There is nothing political about Americans having unpolluted air to breathe, water to drink and land to live on. I think most Republicans and Democrats would agree about having a healthy environment in which to raise their families. It is the wealthy though who see the environment as irrelevant to their growing their wealth and since they call the tune for the mainstream GOP, it is Republican policy to despise pollution control because it interferes with corporate greed. With all the disasters that Climate Change, fracking and deep sea oil drilling are causing, dwarfing that iconic day when the Cuyahoga River caught fire (NYC and New Orleans have flooded, drinking water can be set on fire in fracking areas and earthquakes are being generated, the BP gulf oil spill and many spills from pipelines in the US since then), it is a pity that there seems to be less pressure today about government stopping the ongoing pollution and destruction (the RW is frantic about building the Keystone Pipeline and increasing the probable pollution of land, air and water). At the very least, anyone who has kids, nephews or nieces or grandkids, should be very vocal about recognizing that we are not the last generation to live on this Earth and that leaving a poisonous world for those we claim to care about would be a horrible thing to do. » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 9:01 am The Bush Legacy 2.0: The Dissolving of Iraq Into Warring Factions monicaangela, excellent point. The big picture has to include who McCain fronts for in Congress. It is much easier to follow the money, you’re right. » Posted By AdLib On June 13, 2014 @ 4:22 pm outlandish, excellent article and welcome to The Planet! I think John McCain has many unresolved psychological issues, maybe PTSD related, maybe not. It would not be far fetched to imagine that he harbors such hatred for being powerless as a POW and mistreated that he feels an ongoing need to exert power and punishment over whoever he sees as “the enemy”. There is nothing sane about proposing a war with Iran, it’s crazy. Or North Korea or Syria. But I don’t know that he’s nuts in a conventional sense. McCain has been hobbled and controlled by the enemy and he just seems driven mindlessly to get revenge on the world. And reigniting the failed conflict in Iraq? I guess that after 2008, McCain has become addicted to failing. Again, can you imagine what things would be like right now if McCain had us at war in Iran, Syria and now in Iraq? Our nation would be torn to shreds. He certainly is not a well balanced man and the idea of him in the WH and Palin as VP? Did that really almost happen? Human civilization may be in the cross hairs of Climate Change but it just dodged a possible extinction event when Obama beat McCain in 2008. » Posted By AdLib On June 13, 2014 @ 3:19 pm JJF – You’re avoiding the facts above and that’s your right to do. Despite what RW detractors may say, Obama is not king of the world, he can’t dictate to Iraq to allow troops to stay on the ground in their nation. Iraq would not agree to continued US troops presence. I know it makes a better anti-Obama story to say it’s Obama’s fault but it’s not supported by facts. » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 6:17 pm So you think the President who steered the US and Iraq into this disaster was more qualified than the President who worked to get us out? Under Bush, the economy blew up and we were misled into an unnecessary war that continues to haunt us. How is that reflective of a “qualified” president? Do you see Bush as a qualified and successful President? If so, why? » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 5:28 pm JJF, is there anything negative that you attribute to the Bush Presidency due to any of the decisions Bush made? » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 5:25 pm Huh? Bush drove the nation through a red light, crashed it financially and into a war, then ran away from the scene. Whoever follows him is “unqualified” because they’re left trying to clean up the damage Bush left? Don’t understand the reasoning. Wasn’t the guy who crashed the nation the one who was unqualified to drive it? » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 5:20 pm JJF – Read my comment to you above, yes, he is lying and it’s not unprecedented for Generals to lie. Colin Powell lied about anthrax to the UN, Generals lied about the friendly fire killing of Pat Tillman, they lie in sexual assault cases and who can count the lies during Vietnam. Being a general doesn’t mean being above lying. Some are honest, some aren’t, just like everyone else in real life. » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 5:14 pm JJF – Yes, that works. If you read the whole article, there is NOTHING in it that says Obama refused to leave troops. Here’s the opening paragraphs: The last American commander in Iraq recommended to the Obama administration that 23,000 U.S. troops remain to cement the victory, but no deal was ever reached with Baghdad, and all combat forces went home. This is compatible with the article I quoted above from the Times that states the reason was due to Iraq’s refusal to agree to US terms. Again, NOT because Obama refused. As to this canard about Iraq being “won”, consider how contradictory the following is: Retired ArmyGen. John M. Keane, who advised commanders in Iraq and helped devise the 2007 troop surge, remembers how the U.S. achieved victory by working hand in hand with Iraq’s military to conduct pinpoint strikes. The effort was so effective that the enemy, al Qaeda in Iraq, stopped sending killers into Iraq because they would be exterminated quickly. And this from another RW source, the Ron Paul Institute: The surge temporarily paid off enough Sunni fighters to let American commanders and politicians claim that violence was coming down. But it also gave Iraqi Sunnis greater material and organizational wherewithal with which—once U.S. forces were gone—to attack what were bound to be non-Sunni-dominated central governments. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, who led U.S. forces in northern Iraq during the surge, says he “never anticipated” that Sunnis his troops trained would join with—and give U.S.-provided weapons to—radical jihadis. But at least some of Hertling’s troops recognized, in the words of a former Marine, that they were paying and training “hired thugs.” Added to this from the article I quoted from the Times: Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits. The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans’ terms. So, the claims about Iraq being “stable” or the surge working…is incomplete because part of the “success” of the surge is…the arming and empowering of ISIS. The blowback from Bush’s “successes” only worsens with each month. » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 5:11 pm You mentioned below that Iraq was stable when Bush left office, the facts are that 2008, Bush’s last year in office, was a benchmark year for terrible disintegration and violence in Iraq. All you had to do was Google “Iraq 2008 violence” and you’d have found numerous articles such as this one, that compares a later year of horrible violence to Iraq in 2008: Iraq suffers its deadliest year since 2008 The NGO’s own figures suggest 9,475 civilians were killed in 2013, compared with 10,130 in 2008. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/01/iraq-2013-deadliest-year-since-2008 With such massive amounts of civilian killings, Calling Iraq in 2008 “stable” just isn’t reality. » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 4:27 pm Your comments often bring this image to my mind for some reason 😉 : [img]http://dmulva.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/cherry-picking.jpg[/img] JJF, you have to admit that you cherry pick items from conservative blogs that support the Republican agenda you support…and in this case, those items aren’t accurate. Of course RW blogs and think tanks happily twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny responsibility for what resulted from their President’s actions and blame it on the other party’s President. Are you surprised, is anybody? Would anyone expect AEI or RW blogs to say, “You know what? Bush is to blame for whatever resulted from his actions.” I don’t think so. But it is an alternate reality. Isn’t it curious to you that you can’t find what’s expressed on right wing blogs confirmed on any objective or mainstream sites? The scam is to say that there’s a conspiracy to hide the truth but the reality is…it’s not the truth. A RW blogger has an opinion that Obama didn’t want to keep forces in Iraq but that’s just made up out of thin air. Here is an article from the 2011 Washington Times, a conservative paper as I’m sure you know: Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits. The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans’ terms. Facts. Not opinion and provided by a conservative newspaper. Happy to debate reality but the RW think tanks and bloggers you linked to and quoted don’t seem to live in that neighborhood. » Posted By AdLib On June 16, 2014 @ 4:16 pm NWGuy, yes, greed is blinding and the GOP seems to be an ongoing lesson in that. They want wealth, oil, power, etc. so badly that they are capable of any and every deception to pursue them. Even self-deceptions. And welcome to The Planet, NWGuy! » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 3:43 pm sillylittleme, the U.S. has done this a lot, setting up a regime then turning against it (remember Manuel Noriega?). And the hypocrisy of handing chemical weapons to Saddam to use on Iran then howling about how he has them and must be “removed” is what Republican politics is all about. Agreed, Biden’s realism makes enormous sense, the borders of Iraq are artificial and were forced on those now called “Iraqis”. It’s pretty straightforward now, Iraq was about oil and enriching oil companies. The documentation is all solid at this point. If only we could put these war criminals on trial…I don’t think it ever will happen but if only… And welcome to The Planet, sillylittleme! » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 3:37 pm AllenMcW, agree with all of your points, Iraq continues to create a chain reaction of disasters and all stem from the Bush Admin’s lying us into that war. Republicans keep trying to brand Obama as a criminal yet there were real, documented criminals in the White House before Obama and although they are paying no price for their crimes, the rest of the world is. Glad the caching feature here saved your comment! And welcome to The Planet, AllenMcW! » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 3:19 pm Murph, it does seem apparent now that Bush Sr. recognized Saddam had to be left in power to keep Iraq stable. George W. Bush however was easily manipulated by Cheney and the other neocons into the delusion that killing Saddam would make democracy spread across the region…and open up oil deals for US oil companies. History should put the blame for the instability of Iraq and all that flows from that at the feet of W., right where it belongs. » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 3:11 pm Plainly true, ST. » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 3:02 pm Harleigh – And we’re having a fire sale on Iraq military uniforms! We’ll tear the uniforms right off our backs to give you the best deal! » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 3:00 pm Cheers Funk! At this point it’s just like a law of nature that whenever anything happens in the world, Repubs will say, “It’s Obama’s fault,” so it’s becoming white noise. Another country has a crisis? Obama’s fault. Another terrorist attack somewhere in the world? Obama’s fault. Open the refrigerator and you’re out of cheese? Obama’s fault. What would be surprising is one bad thing happening and Repubs not blaming him. The exit from Iraq was signed by Bush. Iraq would not agree to keep US forces there after that deadline. Iraq was continuing to have terrorism and division while the US had troops there. Lastly, none of this was happening while Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. Who decided to take him out? Bush did…but it’s Obama’s fault. » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 2:58 pm Very cool! Thanks exfanofariana!!! » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 2:51 pm Mojave, the only thing that namecalling convinces anyone of is that the one calling names can’t argue facts and is operating on emotions instead of reason. Resorting to hostility and name calling is for kids on playgrounds, not adult conversations. Many here may oppose Republicans but they display the maturity to call them Republicans (or Repubs for short). All of the insulting nicknames one tosses out are a double edged sword, cutting away at one’s target but also slicing up the perception of oneself and whatever one has to say. Please do feel free to present whatever views you have but let’s leave the playground name calling to the 6 year olds. » Posted By AdLib On June 15, 2014 @ 2:50 pm What do you post at both sites? » Posted By AdLib On June 13, 2014 @ 6:31 pm NoMan, thanks for zooming back out to give even better perspective on why what’s happening is happening. The shoving together of disparate tribes and ethnicities to suit the imperialist pursuits of the victors laid the groundwork for the instability in Iraq. As I’ve mentioned. it is fascinating to consider that as bad as Saddam Hussein was, his tyranny held back the country from falling into the disaster it now finds itself in. This can only be laid at the feet of George Bush and his Administration, they attacked Iraq under false pretenses and had him hanged…now the entire country is collapsing. Has there ever been such a failure in the White House who left so much destruction in his wake? » Posted By AdLib On June 13, 2014 @ 4:38 pmComments Posted By AdLib
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats