Bush: Decisions Have Made Iraq More Unstable

[Gunny]

no...Gunny was bullshitting about the costs and manpower...now you wanna join him in the tapdance?

He clearly and unambigously stated that Saddam had tied up over 25% of our military. Now...do you wanna disagree with that statement or do you wanna keep his "package" warm?

Tapdancing, huh? For a literalist, you really suck at your own game. I did not state Saddam tied up over 25% of our military, nor did I state he tied up 25% of our budget. Is there some reason you feel the need to embelish my words?

I took a stab in the dark at the pecentage. Big deal. You're resting your whole bullshit argument on that, and the fact that agreements for defense of our allies are everything but treaties in name. Neither of which are really all that relevant to the argument. You have continually tried since to keep the argument about me rather than the issue even though I went to the trouble to clarify my statements.

If you don't like it, tough shit. I'm not addressing it again. And I'm just wondering how someone who could attain the rank required to stay in the US military for 25 years could be such a petty fuck.

[Gunny]

Yes. Overemphasizing with wrong statistics.

Please feel free to provide the exact statistics since you're so damned smart and want to stick your crank in the hatch.

[Gunny]

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stmil.html

Be sure and check out page 5 where it states over one quarter of military personnel are stationed outside the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...usstrength.htm

This one's a strength breakdown from 1998. Feel free to take a quick guess at what the pecentage is.

[retiredman]

Tapdancing, huh? For a literalist, you really suck at your own game. I did not state Saddam tied up over 25% of our military, nor did I state he tied up 25% of our budget. Is there some reason you feel the need to embelish my words?

I took a stab in the dark at the pecentage. Big deal. You're resting your whole bullshit argument on that, and the fact that agreements for defense of our allies are everything but treaties in name. Neither of which are really all that relevant to the argument. You have continually tried since to keep the argument about me rather than the issue even though I went to the trouble to clarify my statements.

If you don't like it, tough shit. I'm not addressing it again. And I'm just wondering how someone who could attain the rank required to stay in the US military for 25 years could be such a petty fuck.

Gunny: here's the deal. I think the Iraq war is the most counterproductive, boneheaded foreign policy move my country has made in my lifetime. I am 100% FOR getting the bad guys in this world.... I am ESPECIALLY 100% behind getting the guys who had anything to do with the planes flying into the buildings that I have seen and seen and seen over and over and over again in my dreams nearly every single night since 9/11/01. I have been retired since 09/93, but I wrote the SecNav on 9/12/01 and volunteered to go back on active duty and do whatever I could to get the bastards that did that to us. They wrote back and said thank you but old grey haired commanders like me needed to let younger folks do it from now on. I am anything BUT a petty fuck.

The war in Iraq was dumb. It enflamed the arab world. It pissed off our allies. It turned the heat up on sunni-shi'ite hatred and resentment in Iraq. It gave those very guys who we ought to have been seeking and destroying a rallying cry to further their agenda. It emboldened Iran who now is seen as an heroic state by the Islamic world. All of those ancillary reasons you throw up to justify this boneheaded war don't cut it. They didn't cut it BEFORE 9/11 and they CERTAINLY don't cut it afterwards. We had -and have - an enemy...and it was NOT NOT NOT sunni secular Iraqi ba'athists. The war in Iraq has only served to make us poorer, fewer, more despised and less safe than we we were before we invaded... and in this post-9/11 world, I think that such a monumental waste of time and resources with such a negative outcome is nothing less than a criminal undertaking on the part of the Bush administration....and if I were a rock ribbed Maine republican - instead of an Illinois raised midwestern Adlai Stevenson democrat, I would feel exactly the same.... and many rock ribbed Maine republicans who I work with and worship with DO share those exact sentiments.

[Missileman]

Gunny: here's the deal. I think the Iraq war is the most counterproductive, boneheaded foreign policy move my country has made in my lifetime. I am 100% FOR getting the bad guys in this world.... I am ESPECIALLY 100% behind getting the guys who had anything to do with the planes flying into the buildings that I have seen and seen and seen over and over and over again in my dreams nearly every single night since 9/11/01. I have been retired since 09/93, but I wrote the SecNav on 9/12/01 and volunteered to go back on active duty and do whatever I could to get the bastards that did that to us. They wrote back and said thank you but old grey haired commanders like me needed to let younger folks do it from now on. I am anything BUT a petty fuck.

The war in Iraq was dumb. It enflamed the arab world. It pissed off our allies. It turned the heat up on sunni-shi'ite hatred and resentment in Iraq. It gave those very guys who we ought to have been seeking and destroying a rallying cry to further their agenda. It emboldened Iran who now is seen as an heroic state by the Islamic world. All of those ancillary reasons you throw up to justify this boneheaded war don't cut it. They didn't cut it BEFORE 9/11 and they CERTAINLY don't cut it afterwards. We had -and have - an enemy...and it was NOT NOT NOT sunni secular Iraqi ba'athists. The war in Iraq has only served to make us poorer, fewer, more despised and less safe than we we were before we invaded... and in this post-9/11 world, I think that such a monumental waste of time and resources with such a negative outcome is nothing less than a criminal undertaking on the part of the Bush administration....and if I were a rock ribbed Maine republican - instead of an Illinois raised midwestern Adlai Stevenson democrat, I would feel exactly the same.... and many rock ribbed Maine republicans who I work with and worship with DO share those exact sentiments.

I think the jury is still out on whether the Iraq War has been folly. But folly or not, we are at the point now where anything less than success there will be catastrophic to our credibility in handling Iran, North Korea, etc. If we ever hope to prevent the "Axis of Evil" from becoming strong enough to pose a devastating threat to the U.S. we need to have that credibility.

[Gunny]

Gunny: here's the deal. I think the Iraq war is the most counterproductive, boneheaded foreign policy move my country has made in my lifetime. I am 100% FOR getting the bad guys in this world.... I am ESPECIALLY 100% behind getting the guys who had anything to do with the planes flying into the buildings that I have seen and seen and seen over and over and over again in my dreams nearly every single night since 9/11/01. I have been retired since 09/93, but I wrote the SecNav on 9/12/01 and volunteered to go back on active duty and do whatever I could to get the bastards that did that to us. They wrote back and said thank you but old grey haired commanders like me needed to let younger folks do it from now on. I am anything BUT a petty fuck.

The war in Iraq was dumb. It enflamed the arab world. It pissed off our allies. It turned the heat up on sunni-shi'ite hatred and resentment in Iraq. It gave those very guys who we ought to have been seeking and destroying a rallying cry to further their agenda. It emboldened Iran who now is seen as an heroic state by the Islamic world. All of those ancillary reasons you throw up to justify this boneheaded war don't cut it. They didn't cut it BEFORE 9/11 and they CERTAINLY don't cut it afterwards. We had -and have - an enemy...and it was NOT NOT NOT sunni secular Iraqi ba'athists. The war in Iraq has only served to make us poorer, fewer, more despised and less safe than we we were before we invaded... and in this post-9/11 world, I think that such a monumental waste of time and resources with such a negative outcome is nothing less than a criminal undertaking on the part of the Bush administration....and if I were a rock ribbed Maine republican - instead of an Illinois raised midwestern Adlai Stevenson democrat, I would feel exactly the same.... and many rock ribbed Maine republicans who I work with and worship with DO share those exact sentiments.

And I will again disagree in regard to the justification for invading Iraq.

I will again say that had it been my decision, I would not have invaded Iraq at the point in time we did. We were already engaged on the ground in Afhganistan, and I would not have divided the focus of my forces unnecessarily. Saddam had been on the back burner for 13 years, he could have stayed there for the time being.

It was not my decision and the invasion was carried out. Had I carried out the invasion, it would have included keeping the religious fundamentalists isolated as they already were in the "No Fly Zones," and not let them mix themselves with the general population. I'd have left them there for the IRai government to deal with after we left.

I also would not have telegraphed my blow for 3 months in the media, and I would have deployed enough forces to seal the borders.

I am not a politician and don't have to play by their rules. The government does, and has for the past 50+ years, both Democrats and Republicans alike.

I don't know that I am for or against the additional troops. Without a change in tactics, it doesn't matter how many troops we send. So, I am more interested in seeing this "new" strategy and tactics than I am how many more people get sent over or brought home.

Whether or not I agreed with the invasion at the time, the fact is, we're there, and I propose that rather than cutting and running and leaving who knows how many Iraqis we promised democracy to at the mercy of fanatical religious fundamentalists that we do something that will give them at least that opportunity.

We do however need to stress Iraqi involvement. At some point, we have to draw the line as far as us carrying them goes. It's their liberty and they need to defend it. But drawing an arbitrary line in the sand as Democrats want to do is just giving the fundamentalists a timeline.

As far as the War on Terror goes, it encompasses the whole Middle East, not separate countries, and trying to fight it as if it is contained by national boundaries is just a waste of time.

[Gaffer]

As far as iraq goes, we're there, its on, now we deal with it on a daily basis. Instead of harping about how we got there how about what to do next? besides cut and run. That's not an option. I have never heard any dem put forth a plan of action other than to run away. It's pretty much a wait and see now with the new strategy going into effect.

I have a hunch Bush gave maliki a time line though it won't be made public. He either acts or gets beheaded by the fundimentalists when we leave.

[avatar4321]

He looks forty years older than he did when he got elected.

Considering the weight of the world is upon his shoulders almost half the country spitting upon everything he does, is it any wonder its aged him?

[avatar4321]

the fact remains: invading Iraq was not in OUR national interest.

The fact remains: As much of an asshole as Saddam was, he did three things better than we have been able to do them. 1. Keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse....2. Keep radical wahabbist (AQ) Islamic extremists from using Iraq as an area of operation...and 3. Keep Iranian regional influence from growing

Simply asserting that it wasn't in our best interest to remove a regime that supported terrorism and try to help establish a free ally in the middle east isnt in our national interest doesn't make it so.

Tell me, where exactly have the sunnis and shiites been slaughtering one another in mass? Since when weren't there radical Islamic extremists in Irarq. and since when did Saddam have anything to do with keeping Iranian influence from growing?

[retiredman]

Simply asserting that it wasn't in our best interest to remove a regime that supported terrorism and try to help establish a free ally in the middle east isnt in our national interest doesn't make it so.

Tell me, where exactly have the sunnis and shiites been slaughtering one another in mass? Since when weren't there radical Islamic extremists in Irarq. and since when did Saddam have anything to do with keeping Iranian influence from growing?

there are terrorists all over the world. Irishmen in Boston have supported terrorists for decades.... every time they had a bingo night with the proceeds headed to the IRA....

After 9/11, we needed to make sure that we were after the terrorist who were after us. The terrorist groups supported by the Saddam regime were exclusively arab nationalist organizations, not - absolutely NOT - wahabbist, islamic extremist organizations like the ones who attacked us. Saddam had every reason to distrust wahabbism given the fact that the dissolution of his regime and every other secular regime in the region was the primary mission of that philosophical movement.

regarding your question about sunnis and shiites,the following link is germane:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/m...n_Iraq_in_2006

from that article: Latest figures from the UN in Iraq show a total of 34,452 civilians were killed in the country last year and 36,685 wounded as a result of sectarian violence and unrest.

That is in a country with a total population of 27M. Let's extrapolate, shall we? If blacks and whites, let's say, were killing each other in America, and the annual death toll from the carnage was 350THOUSAND dead Americans and 400THOUSAND wounded Americans, are you suggesting that saying that the killing was en masse would be an INACCURATE assessment???? How many dead Iraqis do you need to have dumped on your front lawn before it becomes a bloodbath for you?

Regarding Saddam and Iran.... many scholars have written about the fact that Saddam's control and subjegation over Iraq's shiite majority prevented Iranian influence from spreading westward from Iran. Clearly, sunni ba'athist panarabism was standing between Iran and its goal of expanding its influence in shiite communities in Iraq and Lebanon. The emboldened Hezbollah attacks on Israel are as a direct result of the increased Iranian influence in the region in the wake of Saddam.

I hope I have answered your questions.

[retiredman]

Simply asserting that it wasn't in our best interest to ... try to help establish a free ally in the middle east isnt in our national interest doesn't make it so.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of fostering democracy anywhere...and the more allies we have, the better, obviously.

I am asserting that it was not in our best interest to invade, conquer and occupy an oil rich arab country with a largely christian army of inadaquate size to keep the historic enmity between sunnis and shiites (that had been held in check by the previous government) from going crazy. I AM asserting that it was not in our best interest to take our eye off the ball and forget who our enemy was - and it was NOT secular baathists in Iraq...it was wahabbist islamic extremists who were NOT in Iraq when we foolishly invaded.

[Gaffer]

The constant arguement is that saddam was a blocking force to iran. Well the last two years have shown that would not have been the case. Shea iran is good buddies with baathist syria. As they have the same goal. Iran is good buddies with hugho chevez and other communist dictators in the region. As they have the same goal. Iran is cuddling up to anyone that is anti-US. They are buds with NK as well.

So to say taking out saddam was a mistake is wrong as it is more than likely saddam and iran would have become buds too. Because they had the same goals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here. After they take us down they will turn on each other.

By the way hassan abbasi, the head of iran's revolutionary guard and top terrorist leader was captured in northern iraq. Iran is throwing a hissy fit and the US has a great source of information. It's the equilalent of capturing the secretary of state in a hostile country. Something really big must have been in the works.

[retiredman]

shia persian Iran is not good buddies with sunni baathist syria.... it is a relationship of convenience only.

Have you read Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem"? I highly recommend it. If you do, take particular note of the chapter entitled "Hama Rules" You will find it very enlightening in understanding the realpolitik philosophy of the Assad regime in Syria.

Neocons really need to understand that the middle east is a byzantine network more complex than then can grasp and that their simple on-off, black-white, good-evil paradigm fails them when they attempt to apply it there.

[Gaffer]

shia persian Iran is not good buddies with sunni baathist syria.... it is a relationship of convenience only.

Have you read Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem"? I highly recommend it. If you do, take particular note of the chapter entitled "Hama Rules" You will find it very enlightening in understanding the realpolitik philosophy of the Assad regime in Syria.

Neocons really need to understand that the middle east is a byzantine network more complex than then can grasp and that their simple on-off, black-white, good-evil paradigm fails them when they attempt to apply it there.

They aren't buddies? They meet and pledge to defend one another, they both supply hizbollah and hamas. They both have a mutual goal to wipe out Israel and the US. And they are both looking to use each other to their individual benefits. This isn't a simple black and white paradigm. Two enemies are joining together to fight their mutual enemies. Its been done in the past. What does an alliance with hugho chavez gain them or him? He's not even muslim. Do you think it could be for influence in this hemesphere? Do you think if they won against the US that they would tolerate chevez for more than a day?

I haven't read friedman's book. But recommended by you it must be a dhimmi islamic appologist read. But I will look into it.

[retiredman]

Syria does not have a goal to wipe out the US.....

just read up on the subject - and Tom Friedman is as knowlegeable a journalist about the issues of the middle east as anyone - and then get back to me. Until you know a little more about what you are talking about, our discussions will only result in anxiety and feelings of futility and I, frankly, don't have the time.