Iraq..., How'd That Democracy Thing Work Out for You NeoCons?

2 bits - 4 bits - 6 bits a dollar all for Joe stand up and holler.

 

You have to just love the mental image that brings to mind.

 

"From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have."

~Glenn Beck

 

Glenn Beck is a putz - always has been.

May 2003

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA TODAY concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

 

Of course Americans were for it in large numbers. They were lied to at every turn. Not just speculation, but provably lied to. The poll might as well conclude that people believed the lies they were told by the Bush/Cheney cabal. The fact that people supported the war doesn't prove anything other than they are gullible. What is your actual point? The media failed to call them out on the lies and as a result we went to an unnecessary war for reasons that changed like the wind.

The current situation in Iraq is getting more scrutiny by the reputable news sources. The same cheerleaders for the first Iraq war are out there again spinning their BS to work on Iraq War 2.0
The provably false liars that were thoroughly discredited last time are now at it again. Fortunately the reputable media organizations is actually calling them out this time. Tune into FOX to see who is supporting the provably false liars. Although CNN, several other media outlets and even MSNBC have given some of these idiots a microphone as well.

 

When you go in and completely gut the political infrastructure, hand it over to contractor while you put people in place who were never capable of making an impact in their own country, what do you expect. This is what is outlined in the "Prince" as the colonial approach, and requires you to be there for at least 4 generations before you can even think about walking away. Why we didn't keep the main portion of the Baath party in play, lay down a few new rules about not killing people and allowing a small minority voice in the public affairs is beyond me. It worked in Germany and worked in Japan.

 

We're still in Germany and Japan. Are you suggesting endless occupation? Who do you think would go for that?
Middle Eastern conflict is part and parcel of living in the Middle East. They are Theocracies and behave like God has their backs. If we actually wanted to solve the problems in the Middle East, there are only 2 solutions. Neither are in line with our democratic values. We could commit total genocide and eliminate the populations of all Middle Eastern countries (Unlikely to happen) or we could build a giant wall around the entire Middle East and let them continue to kill each other as they wish (the wall is probably unbuildable the parameter unmanageable anyway). Aren't theocracies special? And the Christians in this country would likely be just as bloodthirsty if they ever gained power.

 

It really comes down to the fact that the neo-conservatives whose machinations led to the Iraq war were conned (because they wanted to be) by Ahmad Chalabi. Chalabi was a crook long before the neo-cons got in bed with him, but they didn't care about that because he said the things that agreed with their scheme to invade Iraq.

Once the US was in Iraq, he's the one who initially pushed for the de-Ba'athification policy, rather than a less draconian approach in which only the very upper ranks, and those accused of crimes were removed from power. The neo-cons' idiotic reliance on a known swindler to shape policy in Iraq is one of the main contributing factors behind the wretched situation unfolding in Iraq right now.

 

I think the prolonged occupation of Germany and Japan had more to do with the cold war and making the world safe for the military industrial complex than it had to do with the stabilization of those countries. In Germany they had a De-nazification Program and Japan kept their Emperor. Like it or not, the Baath Party kept out Islamist and kept Iraq stable. The problem was in the excesses and the fact that Saddam's favorite game was brinkmanship, which he was lousy at. The Bush administration operated off a bias. I don't think they were lying but it was more of a case of being prestigious and stupid. In Woodard's "Bush on War" Rumsfeld and half the cabinet were blaming the attacks of 911 on Iraq before the second plane hit the tower.

Edit for clarification: My understanding of the De-nazification Program it was to retain the lower ranks of the civil service who were Nazis but they had to renounce their former allegiance. Not like the De-ba'athification as mentioned by Recusant.

 

Lied to or not once the first action was taken the war became necessary and the reasons there after remained unchanged.

 

In what universe?

 

Ask Hillary. She voted for the war in Iraq and also wanted to keep troops there when Obama wanted to pull them out.

Hillary Clinton Pushed Obama to Keep Troops in Iraq

June 18, 2014

Hillary Clinton today portrays her stance on Iraq as being the same as President Obama’s. But when she was Secretary of State, she pushed hard for keeping troops in Iraq—despite the fact that the White House was looking to bring all the troops home.

“Hillary Clinton was a lion for keeping troops there,” James Jeffrey, who was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2011, told The Daily Beast in an interview. “She was a strong advocate for keeping troops there past 2011,” when American forces eventually withdrew.

At a CNN Town Hall on Tuesday, Clinton unveiled what is now her official accounting of what happened in 2011, when the Obama administration was negotiating to keep troops in Iraq with the government of Nouri al-Maliki. Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the negotiations on Maliki. She said the administration had offered him a Status of Forces Agreement with American troops attached, but he didn’t accept.

“I was involved in a lot of the efforts to come up with what our offer would be,” she said, pointing to the need to have immunity for any remaining U.S. troops. “We didn’t get that done. And I think, in retrospect, that was a mistake by the Iraqi government.”

But at the time of the negotiations, Clinton’s State Department and the Obama White House were not on the same page. The vast majority of the senior White House national security team, including Obama himself, saw ending the Iraq war as a key campaign promise, a way to right a Bush administration wrong, and as a bow to the will of the American people.

For Clinton, her State Department senior staff—as well as for top officials at the time, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and CIA Director David Petraeus—there was a national security interest in keeping thousands of troops in Iraq. There were limited, but important, missions to be done: countering terrorists, advising the Iraqi armed forces, and protecting U.S. personnel. Clinton was particularly aggressive in pushing for a long-term troop presence, officials involved in the negotiations say.

Of course, Clinton has always been more hawkish on Iraq than Obama. She voted to authorize the war, only later to say she believed that vote was made based on bad intelligence. In his recent autobiography, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed that Clinton admitted to opposing the 2007 surge in Iraq against her beliefs because she was preparing to run in a presidential primary against Obama.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...nton-pushed-obama-to-keep-troops-in-iraq.html

 

Hillary voted for the same lies as almost everyone else. That's been pointed out.

 

Oh, c'mon...give her more credit than that. She was a passionate supporter of war in Iraq based on what she knew/saw/heard from her time in the WH with Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend.

 

Hey Kimosabe do you know why they called it the trail of tears being that you are so in with the Native American crowd and all? It was actually because the final destination was Oklahoma. Who the hell would wanna live there? You know what Kentucky's State motto is? Came for the crack, sold my car to by more crack.

 

I don't believe the Native Americans who were forced from their lands by that damned Democrat Andrew Jackson necessarily "wanted" to live in Oklahoma. I doubt many of them wanted to die on the Trail of Tears either. But, they really had no choice in the matter, did they? But once in Oklahoma, they eventually prospered despite being treated so inhumanely and helped to make Oklahoma a wonderful place to live despite Jackson's ethnic cleansing tactics.

It wouldn't be for another one hundred years or so that another Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, would treat a group of America's populace in such a heartless fashion by interning them in concentration camps.

In the not-too-distant future, the one-hundred-year anniversary of Roosevelt's action will arrive. If history is any indication, whatever Democrat may happen to be in power at the time will probably subject our citizens to another round of harsh treatment and disregard of their civil rights. Obama made sure that it will be legal by signing the NDAA into law.

Democrats have a history of treating our people unfairly, you know...

​

 

838. Iraq crisis (6/14/2014)

All of a sudden, Iraq is in crisis. The second biggest city is fallen. Baghdad is threatened.

Iraqi security forces, trained by Pentagon for years and well equipped with helicopters, tanks and armoured cars, vastly outnumber the jihadists, suddenly melted down in the face of ISIL rebels.

Consider Al Qaeda jihadists are created and supported by the US to deal with its dislikes (such like Libya’s Gaddafi and Syria’s Assad) and the current Iraq government is a puppet set up by US in Iraq war, both sides are US’ assets. I think it’s a drama conducted by the US. You can see the leadership of Iraqi troops gave up the city without any fight.

US inside group used to create a case, with which to ask for more power and money. E.g. the 911 attack has been created to get Patriot Act and two wars in Mid-East. What is it now for this Iraq crisis?

839. Iraqi crisis created to save dollar (6/18/2014)

In early June, Russia switches the oil payment from dollars to Euros.

This is very important news. If people starting to abandon the dollar, US will be hurt seriously in economy. Yet the news was little reported by the mainstream media. Several days later, the ISIL rebel in Iraq activates an offensive. The puppet Iraqi government retreats without any resistance. As a result, the oil price goes up.

Since the money used in most oil trading is dollar, the higher oil price will force the buyer to keep more dollar in bank as purchasing power. It’s a big amount if future option is included. Manipulating oil price becomes a strategy to save the dollar. Iraq is a big country of oil production and exportation. Its political stability has huge influence to oil price. US has turned it into a switch to adjust the oil price.

 

840. US keeps Iraq a battle field to adjust oil price (6/25/2014)
Since the recent Iraq crisis created by the US is to save dollar, US will maintain the current situation unchanged. A US craft carrier has been deployed in Mid-East, no air attack has done so far.

Three hundred US military advisors were sent to Iraq. Their role likely is to instruct Iraqi troops to retreat from cities or oil fields when they want the oil price to go up. Or vice versa.
The US will turn Iraq into another battle field. Let Arabs fight Arabs. Decades ago, it was Saddam's Iraq vs. Iran. Now it will be Sunni's Iraq, Saudi, Qarda vs. Shiiti Iraq, Iran.
That's a strategy it used to play, just like it manipulates Democrats and Republicans in domestic politics.

 

Conservatives, time to own this. Man up and admit Iraq was a mistake of epic consequences. War machine profit. Period.
Yeah, its been ficked up since by amatures, but it was wrong from the start.

 

Jack, I know you find this hard to believe......BUT....I sometimes love your Liberal side.