[quote]
On the flip side I think talking with Iran is a terrible idea.[/quote]
I tend to agree. And if we do talk with Iran, hopefully we can get our drone back.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Is anyone really surprised? I mean, when we pulled our troops out what did people THINK would happen? The Iraqi people hated us and wanted us to go. Let them enjoy their sharia law for a while.
The only “solution” (if you can call it that) is to retake the country, occupy it, and use their oil money to pay us to help them build their country. The only way I’d support us going back is if they gave us rights to their oil. The fringe benefit is that we could then strategically place a shit ton of forces on the Iran border for the upcoming war with them - then eventually we could have TWO oil producing countries and we could use those profits to pay off our debt, strengthen our military that Obama cut and support the welfare state. That would enable us to lower taxes and fund a better infrastructure in our country. It would be a nice shot in the arm for the economy. Other than that, we should stay the fuck out and let them handle their own problems.
Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down
-USMC
Fuck 'em[/quote]
I take It you’ve never studied COIN doctrine. Yes, because explicit neo-imperialism would work out so much better than than Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Subsequently invade Iran? Are you serious? They wouldn’t hesitate to actualize their existing breakout capacity and become a nuclear weapons state in six weeks at the latest. They wouldn’t hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons against US forces. Iran’s military is also much more robust than Iraq’s circa 2003.
In conclusion, what you are advocating is not only illegal and unethical, but beyond foolish.
[/quote]
As usual, you missed the point. I said we should stay the fuck out and let them sort it out themselves. The ONLY way I would advocate going in is IF we taxpayers weren’t footing the bill. Again.
And the US has no problem doing things that are illegal or unethical - get off your high horse. Illegal and unethical is why are are in this fucking mess to begin with (Lying about WMD’s).
And why is imperialism so bad? It’s worked throughout history pretty well. Some people can’t handle democracy - particularly uneducated, religious fanatics. They need to be told what to do or else they start killing each other over the “right” way to worship the same god. Why on earth people don’t see this is beyond me. The US is BARELY able to handle democracy because the majority of our population is stupid and we keep electing fucking idiots.
And before you start lecturing me, I do know the difference between democracy and a democratic republic, I am speaking generally. But when the “popular” politicians are former tribal/religious leaders/thugs, it kinda defeats the purpose.
I personally think we should STAY OUT. But IF WE DID go in, they should fucking pay for it. If you want to call that imperialism, whatever. And if we did go to war with Iran, and if they did use tactical nukes, then we’d be fully justified in turning that piece of shit country into a sheet of glass which would significantly solve a lot of problems. Not saying it wouldn’t cause new ones, but it MIGHT make a few other countries think twice.
Am I being too immoral or illegal for suggesting that IF they used it against us FIRST we should retaliate in kind? Or are you going to build more strawmen?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Is anyone really surprised? I mean, when we pulled our troops out what did people THINK would happen? The Iraqi people hated us and wanted us to go. Let them enjoy their sharia law for a while.
The only “solution” (if you can call it that) is to retake the country, occupy it, and use their oil money to pay us to help them build their country. The only way I’d support us going back is if they gave us rights to their oil. The fringe benefit is that we could then strategically place a shit ton of forces on the Iran border for the upcoming war with them - then eventually we could have TWO oil producing countries and we could use those profits to pay off our debt, strengthen our military that Obama cut and support the welfare state. That would enable us to lower taxes and fund a better infrastructure in our country. It would be a nice shot in the arm for the economy. Other than that, we should stay the fuck out and let them handle their own problems.
Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down
-USMC
Fuck 'em[/quote]
I take It you’ve never studied COIN doctrine. Yes, because explicit neo-imperialism would work out so much better than than Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Subsequently invade Iran? Are you serious? They wouldn’t hesitate to actualize their existing breakout capacity and become a nuclear weapons state in six weeks at the latest. They wouldn’t hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons against US forces. Iran’s military is also much more robust than Iraq’s circa 2003.
In conclusion, what you are advocating is not only illegal and unethical, but beyond foolish.
[/quote]
Interesting. You say the Iranians wouldn’t hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons against US forces in THIS thread, yet in the Ukrainian thread, you don’t think Russia, a country which has thousands of nukes and has recently said they would use them in a first strike capacity , would not use them against the NATO forces which you have said are currently more powerful an alliance than any of Russia’s current military alliances (even a potential alliance with China??). I’d be more afraid of the threat of Russia using a nuke than Iran actually using one. As Chicken said, if Iran uses a nuke it’d be suicide.
I also find it funny Iran views ISIS as a threat. Why is their Islamic Revolution ok, but not these people’s? It’s the same thing that was going on in Iran almost 40 years ago. I say stay out of it, and let Iran get what’s coming to it.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Is anyone really surprised? I mean, when we pulled our troops out what did people THINK would happen? The Iraqi people hated us and wanted us to go. Let them enjoy their sharia law for a while.
The only “solution” (if you can call it that) is to retake the country, occupy it, and use their oil money to pay us to help them build their country. The only way I’d support us going back is if they gave us rights to their oil. The fringe benefit is that we could then strategically place a shit ton of forces on the Iran border for the upcoming war with them - then eventually we could have TWO oil producing countries and we could use those profits to pay off our debt, strengthen our military that Obama cut and support the welfare state. That would enable us to lower taxes and fund a better infrastructure in our country. It would be a nice shot in the arm for the economy. Other than that, we should stay the fuck out and let them handle their own problems.
Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down
-USMC
Fuck 'em[/quote]
I take It you’ve never studied COIN doctrine. Yes, because explicit neo-imperialism would work out so much better than than Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Subsequently invade Iran? Are you serious? They wouldn’t hesitate to actualize their existing breakout capacity and become a nuclear weapons state in six weeks at the latest. They wouldn’t hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons against US forces. Iran’s military is also much more robust than Iraq’s circa 2003.
In conclusion, what you are advocating is not only illegal and unethical, but beyond foolish.
[/quote]
Interesting. You say the Iranians wouldn’t hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons against US forces in THIS thread, yet in the Ukrainian thread, you don’t think Russia, a country which has thousands of nukes and has recently said they would use them in a first strike capacity , would not use them against the NATO forces which you have said are currently more powerful an alliance than any of Russia’s current military alliances (even a potential alliance with China??). I’d be more afraid of the threat of Russia using a nuke than Iran actually using one. As Chicken said, if Iran uses a nuke it’d be suicide.
I also find it funny Iran views ISIS as a threat. Why is their Islamic Revolution ok, but not these people’s? It’s the same thing that was going on in Iran almost 40 years ago. I say stay out of it, and let Iran get what’s coming to it.
[/quote]
Any notion of ‘working’ with Iran on any level in anyway needs to be quashed immediately. The very idea deserves no consideration what so ever, it can and will be a fail in every possible way. The fact that this administration would even entertain such stupidity is symbolic of it’s ineptness. We don’t need them, nothing good can come from it.
There were many of us when obama set a pull out date when Iraq was clear no where near stable enough to stand on its own, and it was evident said that this exact scenario was going to play out almost exactly like it has. We said that Iraq was going to destabilize, become a hot bed of terrorism and all the hard fought victories and objectives we achieved would be lost and we would end up having to go back in. We said leaving Iraq when we did in the way we did would come at the price of more American lives. It’s happened, big time.
Sure, we were called names, bullshit was called, etc. The fact is, we told you so and so it is. I think those of us who discussed both sides of the issue remember the conversations from 2010 and 2011 know this to be true. So we were right and the others were wrong. Seldom does it happen that you get to see played out so vividly, where what you thought would happen, happens almost exactly like you said it would.
In short, we told you so. Yes, we told you this exact thing would happen and so it has.
Welcome to the reckoning.
There is no band-aid job coming. There is no minor adjustment to the strategy to set this back on it’s course. This thing started to unravel the moment the last boot left. Don’t fool yourself, we are going back to Iraq. We are going to war in Iraq, once again. We don’t really have a choice. This won’t be a matter of a few bombing strikes. The enemy is well funded, well trained, well armed and ready for the long haul. This is going to take war to remedy. Boots will hit the ground and American lives will be lost.
The only way to avoid American casualties is if we decide not to care about collateral damage, a.k.a. innocent civilian lives being lost. We can just bomb with impunity and level the occupied towns. We’re not wired that way. We’re not going to ‘ok’ a carpet bombing of these towns. We don’t have the stomach for it. The other side of the coin is that the only way to avoid that as much as possible, is to put in troops.
It doesn’t much matter if you agreed with the war originally or not. Iraq cannot just be handed over to the terrorists and we hope they won’t do anything to us. History has already taught us that lesson.
So it’s a matter of time, really. The war has already begun. Once the first bomb hits, we are in for a long ride and it is going to suck, perhaps worse than the other to engagements.
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face.
The pullout was a result of Americans weary of war; seeing loved ones being brought home dead or wounded; and watching billions of American dollars go down a sinkhole of Iraqi corruption.
The “fuck up” was by Iraqi’s unwilling…or unable…to practice even a semblance of democracy by having all parties involved in governance…or have the willingness to lay down centuries of hatreds for a better good.
We were never going to “fix” Iraq until they were willing to fix themselves.
Mufasa
I think this is the best possible time to begin developing some sort of diplomatic relationship with Iran. The fact is that we’re better off with Iran on our side than against us. Less enemies is better than more enemies. Now, is this a feasible possibility? Probably not, but we should explore the possibility nonetheless.
People seem to forget that most of Iran doesn’t hate America or Americans. They are craving a more westernized, democratic society, and they are already far more westernized than most Americans realize. They have as moderate a PM as we could hope for, they are in a geographically strategic location, they are sitting on a fuckton of oil, and most Iranians are actually on our side. They fucking hated Ahmadinejad, and when the current Ayatollah dies, we could see a real shit show of a power vacuum that we could easily fill with friendlies if we already had a much stronger diplomatic relationship with Iran.
Those screaming fucking towelheads who we seem to think are wholly representative of the country in general aren’t popular in Iran either. But it’s always the crazies who are willing to cut people’s heads off who get all the press. This is an opportunity. We should take it.
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
^ I haven’t been following the thread so I apologize if that point has already been made or debated.
We were always going to withdraw.
If we are going to second-guess the number of troops who stayed behind, then we are also going to second-guess the decision to stick our cock in the hornet’s nest in the first place.
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement[/quote]
I can’t wait to hear how this one gets spun.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”[/quote]
Barack Hussein Al-Amriki circa 2007:
“Now is the time to start bringing our troops out of Iraq – immediately. That’s why I have a plan to remove one or two combat brigades a month so that we get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months…”
2011:
“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”[/quote]
Barack Hussein Al-Amriki circa 2007:
“Now is the time to start bringing our troops out of Iraq – immediately. That’s why I have a plan to remove one or two combat brigades a month so that we get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months…”
2011:
“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people.”
[/quote]
Alters nothing about the facts.
The withdrawal dates were set by what agreement, and on what date, and signed by whom?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement[/quote]
I can’t wait to hear how this one gets spun.[/quote]
By pulling up soundbites that have nothing to do with the simple fact that the SOFA was signed by Bush II, apparently.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”[/quote]
Barack Hussein Al-Amriki circa 2007:
“Now is the time to start bringing our troops out of Iraq – immediately. That’s why I have a plan to remove one or two combat brigades a month so that we get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months…”
2011:
“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people.”
[/quote]
It’s still not as bad as declaring victory aboard an aircraft carrier and then forgetting that, oh yeah, we have to actually clean up this mess, too.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people.”
[/quote]
I guess presidents have a problem with sunny optimism.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”[/quote]
Barack Hussein Al-Amriki circa 2007:
“Now is the time to start bringing our troops out of Iraq – immediately. That’s why I have a plan to remove one or two combat brigades a month so that we get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months…”
2011:
“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people.”
[/quote]
Alters nothing about the facts.
The withdrawal dates were set by what agreement, and on what date, and signed by whom?[/quote]
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama. The defeatists then elected Obama whose foreign policy platform was “ending the war” via unilateral disengagement - also known as “surrendering.” Don’t try to twist it or tell me otherwise because I watched it all play out and knew what the results would be.
Because I anticipate a Herculean onslaught of equivocation, selective evidence, stretching, waffling, and thought-terminating cliche [not necessarily from Pat], I’m going to make my point very clear:
This
[quote]pat wrote:
There were many of us when obama set a pull out date […]
Obama really, seriously fucked up this time. The pull out was his idea and it has blown up in his face. [/quote]
…and this…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement[/quote]
…are mutually incompatible narratives, and only one of them is remotely accurate.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]
Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.
So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The only thing that would trouble me more than thinking about those soldiers who gave time and even lives for this, is thinking about those who would have to continue to give their time and lives in an attempt to maintain a facade of stability and peace amongst a people that reject and/or are unwilling to fight for it themselves in great enough number.[/quote]
Sloth nailed it in the fourth post. The time spent and lives lost are a sunk cost. There’s really three choices: We stay indefinitely and continue to lose US soldiers in a country that almost certainly will never stabilize; we do something as absurd as Angry Chickens suggestion; or we cut our losses and go home.