[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
C’mon Cush, you know he talks like that in real life.
How else would he attract Jen Psaki at a cocktail party??[/quote]
I do actually, but that’s beside the point. Your focus on my writing style in lieu of the substance of my arguments is indicative of your intellect, or more accurately, your lack thereof.
Bistro,
What do you want to be when you grow up?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
C’mon Cush, you know he talks like that in real life.
How else would he attract Jen Psaki at a cocktail party??[/quote]
I do actually, but that’s beside the point. Your focus on my writing style in lieu of the substance of my arguments is indicative of your intellect, or more accurately, your lack thereof.
[/quote]
Bistro, you are such a petty little boy. Do you have any idea how hard someone would smack you were you to talk like that to their face?
[/quote]
Ironic coming from the king of the ad hominem. I’m still waiting on a response to my argument Pushy.
How principled of you. Let’s return to the discussion at hand.
[quote]
Then realpolitik says Iraq had to be repulsed in 1991 and…10 years later. To do otherwise would have been folly. [/quote]
Realpolitik (don’t forget that nouns in German are capitalized) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises. International politics is a realm decidedly ruled by consequentialism.
The Gulf War is easily vindicated. No one is debating that, so I’m unsure why you continue to write as if it’s a point of contention.
The Iraq War, however, cost the U.S. dearly in blood and treasure. Nearly 5,000 American Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors have been killed in action and nearly 33,000 wounded, many grievously. Moderate analysis estimates that the war will ultimately cost in excess of $3,000,000,000,000. That’s over three trillion, or three million million dollars.
Then there are the more abstract costs to American grand strategy, which are numerous. The most egregious cost was that the invasion very likely lost the war in Afghanistan. You know, the place that actually had something to do with al-Qa’ida and the September 11th attacks.
How has U.S. power, both latent and material, been enhanced or even maintained by the war?
Would a weak and recalcitrant Iraq that had not been invaded have cost the U.S. so dearly materially, economically, or strategically?
The fact that you point to the violation of international law as a sufficient casus belli for the Iraq War is perplexing given your enmity toward the U.N. The Iraq war could be justified through ideological notions, or through moral or ethical premises, sure. But though calculating, hardheaded analysis? No way. The invasion was neither necessary, nor prudent, as Iraq was not an existential threat to American security or to its vital interests. The war was not preemptive in any sense of the word. In the end, justifications means nothing, only consequences. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Too bad we won the war but lost the peace. We had too many preconceived notions about how things were going to turn out that did not or could not be worked out in reality.
They thought by taking Saddam down, the Iraqi’s would love us, create a government just like ours, be our allies, and pay us back with oil contracts. Only problem was, Saddam was holding the country together with a reign of terror. Once we took him down the ones he was holding down rose up and had their own beefs with the US.
The other thing we didn’t count on was the influence of Iran which funneled weapons and funding to the rebels.
Another thing we didn’t take into consideration was that these were Muslims with thousands of years of problems and their own Islamic agenda. When Rumsfeld said the democracy in Iraq would not be a theocracy, I knew he was doomed to fail. Of course these people would want a Islamic form of government…they are Muslims for God’s sake!
I also could have predicted the secular war which was unleashed and the rise of al-Qaeda or Isis or any of their ilk, judging from other Muslim countries when they lost their strong man in charge. Same thing happened in Lebanon, Iran; we learned nothing from this.
(and Obama quadrupled the problem like a dumb ass by promoting the “Arab spring”. Now we got bigger problems in more and more countries because of his and his administration’s utter stupidity.)
And lastly, the fact that the Russians and French got the oil contracts they possessed before the war was another slap in the face.
They should have thought about these consequences before invading and had a dictator already to go. Almost too bad Chalabi didn’t work out, but he probably would have ended up a worthless tool like Karzai.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The other thing we didn’t count on was the influence of Iran which funneled weapons and funding to the rebels.
[/quote]
This is bullshit. Iran is a Shia state and the “rebels” aka ISIS are Sunni, who have Iran in their crosshairs as well. They also want to behead Putin.
Iran is part of the fight:
Ok, let me clarify, Iran funneled weapons to the anti-American Shia Madhi militia of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. Assad was letting the al-Qaeda rebels into Iraq through Syria.
As far as “ISIS are Sunni, who have Iran in their crosshairs as well.” You are correct. Now.
But when we were fighting them in Iraq there was no such thing as “ISIS” They were known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS means Islamic State in Syria. When the US left the battlefield, the alienated Sunni tribesmen and Baathists who made up Al-Qaeda in Iraq (which was decimated by US forces to that point btw) reconstituted itself. When the civil war broke out in Syria, the Iraq rebels turned on Assad, renamed itself ISIS, and then turned it’s attention back toward Iraq.
NOW they do not like Iran because they are intent on conquering the Iraqi Government which they view as Shia and an ally of Iran.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok, let me clarify, Iran funneled weapons to the anti-American Shia Madhi militia of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. Assad was letting the al-Qaeda rebels into Iraq through Syria.
As far as “ISIS are Sunni, who have Iran in their crosshairs as well.” You are correct. Now.
But when we were fighting them in Iraq there was no such thing as “ISIS” They were known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS means Islamic State in Syria. When the US left the battlefield, the alienated Sunni tribesmen and Baathists who made up Al-Qaeda in Iraq (which was decimated by US forces to that point btw) reconstituted itself. When the civil war broke out in Syria, the Iraq rebels turned on Assad, renamed itself ISIS, and then turned it’s attention back toward Iraq.
NOW they do not like Iran because they are intent on conquering the Iraqi Government which they view as Shia and an ally of Iran. [/quote]
Gotcha. I’m on board. I also think China ended up with a lot of the contracts as well.
IS equipped with MANPADS:
“The weapons were believed to have been supplied to Syrian rebels by Qatar…”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
IS equipped with MANPADS:
“The weapons were believed to have been supplied to Syrian rebels by Qatar…”[/quote]
Think they can shut down the Baghdad airport with those?
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
IS equipped with MANPADS:
“The weapons were believed to have been supplied to Syrian rebels by Qatar…”[/quote]
Think they can shut down the Baghdad airport with those? [/quote]
Yep.
http://www.2scottmontgomery.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/foxnewsairportmanpadsisis-bearing-down.html?m=1
And the State Department have been playing footsies with Qatar and selling them toys.
http://2scottmontgomery.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/foxnewsairportmanpadsisis-bearing-down.html?m=1
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/israel-and-the-obama-qatari-axis/
“The puzzling question is why Washington chose to align itself with the Sunni radical Muslim Brotherhood bloc (Qatar and Turkey), and not with the more moderate bloc led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia?”
Why indeed? It’s not as simple as the “Obama is a Muslim” crowd would have you believe. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the like are deeply entrenched in the same crazy geopolitics.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
IS equipped with MANPADS:
“The weapons were believed to have been supplied to Syrian rebels by Qatar…”[/quote]
I think that the West should be more concerned with the sweet Nike vests ISIS is providing its operatives. What a brilliant recruiting strategy!
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I think that the West should be more concerned with the sweet Nike vests ISIS is providing its operatives. What a brilliant recruiting strategy! [/quote]
Nike are very…accommodating to Muslim sensibilities.
This group issued a fatwa against Nike and declared Nike wear to be haram due to the fact that they’re named after the Athenian goddess of victory:
http://www.islamqa.info/en/114631
Gives you a bit of insight into the neuroses of the Islamic mind:
‘With regard to words written on garments, such as “I am a Christian” on a sweater, or “I am a Jew” or “Christian” or “sexual fluid” or “the gushing water of man” or writing the symbol for Venus, which is a symbol for immoral actions, and also writing “the ancient Greek god of love” or “alcoholic drink” or the name of a man and woman, or “Christmas” - all of these are unacceptable.’
‘…a Muslim boy or girl with the words “I am a Christian” or “I am a Jew” written on their clothes! Don’t we understand? Are we sheep?’
'…a boy may start accepting these words that say that he is a Jew or a Christian, when we know that the Jews and Christians have been our enemies since ancient times…
Even the names of singers and soccer (football) stars and others who are not Muslim - all of that is not permissible, because it will lead to the Muslim venerating these people, who are kaafirs…
Edited to fix quotes
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Bistro,
What do you want to be when you grow up?[/quote]
At this crucial junction, it should be abundantly obvious to all who claim to possess adequate intellect that, upon reaching more complete maturity, the party here concerned seeks to acquire competency in the ability to converse with other discussants in a less supercilious manner.
Ya dig? [/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
IS equipped with MANPADS:
“The weapons were believed to have been supplied to Syrian rebels by Qatar…”[/quote]
Oh goody. I think it’s safe to say that none of the countries in the ME are trust worthy. For all the turmoil wrought by IS in their own region they don’t seem all that put out by it. It also doesn’t seem that IS is keen on violating sovereign borders outside of Iraq and Syria and these jerkholes would probably end up cutting deals with IS, rather than fight them.
I wouldn’t hold my breath also the region getting together and dealing with IS they should. I think in the end, the ideology in the ME is not all that disagreeable to the Wahhabis and Sunni’s in these “peaceful” countries. IS seems to be looked at as more of a nuisance than a problem.