Al Qaeda confirms bin Laden death

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

We have been steadily getting out of Iraq since Obama took office. Having already entered Afghanistan we needed to continue, and while Obama did increase our forces there he did so logically, for better or worse setting a public timetable on the buildup and planned withdrawal. Obama has also taken the fight into Pakistan, where both AQ and the Taliban fled. All to the good since no President has magical powers allowing the reversal of time.

Why didn't we "need to continue" when Bush was President.

If the Dems simply cut off funds for the war, like they tried to do over and over when Bush was President, it would be done by now. Why did that stop? Why wasn't Pelosi shutting off war funds after Obama was elected?

I love it. Funny.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why didn't we "need to continue" when Bush was President.

If the Dems simply cut off funds for the war, like they tried to do over and over when Bush was President, it would be done by now. Why did that stop? Why wasn't Pelosi shutting off war funds after Obama was elected?

I love it. Funny.

You did need to continue when bush was president. The arguments against Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan were over setting in motion a chain of events (for reasons that were clear only to the administration) that would be extremely costly and from which would not be easy to get out of. Once the US toppled the governments there they were obliged to ensure the transition to a new one. Once you break it, you bought it - at least morally.

Of course had the bush administration had some idea of what to do post invasion, rather than appearing to do nothing at all (for three years) they might have been better regarded than they are.

Edited May 8, 2011 by fishdude

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Why didn't we "need to continue" when Bush was President.

If the Dems simply cut off funds for the war, like they tried to do over and over when Bush was President, it would be done by now. Why did that stop? Why wasn't Pelosi shutting off war funds after Obama was elected?

I love it. Funny.

We did need to, and we did continue under Bush. I am not arguing the case for getting into Afghanistan (we probably did need to go, Bush let it flounder and fester though) and Iraq (hindsight being 20/20 we probably shouldn't have gone but in for a penny in for a pound.) my comment was directed at Why-me's constant but erroneous assertion Obama stepped up troop levels in Iraq, when the reality is the opposite. And his equally incorrect assertion that Obama's increase in troops in Afghanistan is permanent, it is part of an organized strategy which appears to be working effectively and headed towards the goal of getting out instead of just floundering as it was under Bush.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

We did need to, and we did continue under Bush. I am not arguing the case for getting into Afghanistan (we probably did need to go, Bush let it flounder and fester though) and Iraq (hindsight being 20/20 we probably shouldn't have gone but in for a penny in for a pound.) my comment was directed at Why-me's constant but erroneous assertion Obama stepped up troop levels in Iraq, when the reality is the opposite. And his equally incorrect assertion that Obama's increase in troops in Afghanistan is permanent, it is part of an organized strategy which appears to be working effectively and headed towards the goal of getting out instead of just floundering as it was under Bush.

"and Iraq (hindsight being 20/20 we probably shouldn't have gone but in for a penny in for a pound."

The same was said about Vietnam. Try this one...unless the US was to exterminated every living Iraqi that war cannot be won. Read up on the history there...it's a winnable war. As soon as the US pulls out all h*ll is going to break loose. When Saddam was pushed out a vacuum was created that won't be fixed in any of our lifetimes. It's called "reality".

As far as Obama getting us out...you either ####### or get off the pot. Pulling out slowly...just like we did in Vietnam. A smaller circle that got smaller and smaller while the shells rained in.

You can't win them all, and some of them shouldn't have been started in the first place.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"and Iraq (hindsight being 20/20 we probably shouldn't have gone but in for a penny in for a pound."

The same was said about Vietnam. Try this one...unless the US was to exterminated every living Iraqi that war cannot be won. Read up on the history there...it's a winnable war. As soon as the US pulls out all h*ll is going to break loose. When Saddam was pushed out a vacuum was created that won't be fixed in any of our lifetimes. It's called "reality".

As far as Obama getting us out...you either ####### or get off the pot. Pulling out slowly...just like we did in Vietnam. A smaller circle that got smaller and smaller while the shells rained in.

You can't win them all, and some of them shouldn't have been started in the first place.

You didn't need hindsight to see that Iraq would be a clusterfuck, it was bloody obvious from the outset!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You didn't need hindsight to see that Iraq would be a clusterfuck, it was bloody obvious from the outset!

To those of us who have read up on the history of that area...yes. But to the average American who's main concern is when does the latest iphone get released, or who's going to win the NASCAR championship...that's a no.

Wave the flag and watch the sheep follow.

But on another note...Europe is receiving oil and gas from northern Iraq via Turkey...so maybe there was a plan after all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To those of us who have read up on the history of that area...yes. But to the average American who's main concern is when does the latest iphone get released, or who's going to win the NASCAR championship...that's a no.

Wave the flag and watch the sheep follow.

But on another note...Europe is receiving oil and gas from northern Iraq via Turkey...so maybe there was a plan after all.

What does the history of the area have to do with the Bush administration's push for war?

George Bush Sr was advised specifically not to topple Saddam, because it would result in a power vaccuum that would keep the US in the country for years. Yet Bush Jr ignored that - because he thought 9/11 gave him a golden ticket to radically reshape the middle east.

As we know - the Bush administration bungled Iraq at every leverl. They used less troops than were required, they disbanded the Iraqi army (2 factors that lead to the insurgency there). They had no plan for reconstructing Iraq. In fact, all the US has gotten out of that war is the several billion $ worth of private no-bid contracts that GWB awarded to companies like Halliburton - the private interests of his father and his father's friends.

But on another note...Europe is receiving oil and gas from northern Iraq via Turkey...so maybe there was a plan after all.

BP operates there. Who knew.

At least we're getting something out of it. Who owns the rest of Iraq's oilfields? Might it be China?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

What does the history of the area have to do with the Bush administration's push for war?

George Bush Sr was advised specifically not to topple Saddam, because it would result in a power vaccuum that would keep the US in the country for years. Yet Bush Jr ignored that - because he thought 9/11 gave him a golden ticket to radically reshape the middle east.

As we know - the Bush administration bungled Iraq at every leverl. They used less troops than were required, they disbanded the Iraqi army (2 factors that lead to the insurgency there). They had no plan for reconstructing Iraq. In fact, all the US has gotten out of that war is the several billion $ worth of private no-bid contracts that GWB awarded to companies like Halliburton - the private interests of his father and his father's friends.

BP operates there. Who knew.

At least we're getting something out of it. Who owns the rest of Iraq's oilfields? Might it be China?

You must have misunderstood my post. History has a lot do to with decisions. Like knowing that the middle east including Iraq is a basket case ever since the Brits decided to make borders there without considering the ethnic and religious back ground of the peoples who inhabit said area.

And do you think Bush Jr. went into Iraq without his daddy's approval? lol...not hardly. Bush Jr. had all his daddy's crony's advising him.

As far as the oil fields go... ENI from Italy, BP, and a Spanish oil company are the three biggest players there atm. China has made a presence but not much of one. All the oil support work is done by US company's such as Haliburton and it's subsidiary Browne & Roote.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Like knowing that the middle east including Iraq is a basket case ever since the Brits decided to make borders there without considering the ethnic and religious back ground of the peoples who inhabit said area.

Amen to that.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You must have misunderstood my post. History has a lot do to with decisions. Like knowing that the middle east including Iraq is a basket case ever since the Brits decided to make borders there without considering the ethnic and religious back ground of the peoples who inhabit said area.

And do you think Bush Jr. went into Iraq without his daddy's approval? lol...not hardly. Bush Jr. had all his daddy's crony's advising him.

As far as the oil fields go... ENI from Italy, BP, and a Spanish oil company are the three biggest players there atm. China has made a presence but not much of one. All the oil support work is done by US company's such as Haliburton and it's subsidiary Browne & Roote.

If you want to talk history - the middle east was a "basket case" as you put it, long before the British got involved. In point of fact, that place has been a mess ever since the Mongols conquered it half a millennia before.

"Without Daddy's approval?" Where did you read that? Bush Sr. WAS advised that toppling Saddam would commit the US in Iraq for years (decades was the suggestion at the time) and the US government at the time didn't do it precisely for that reason. Bush Jr. and his administration decided that they could use 9/11 to finish their unfinished business (and make a good deal of money for themselves in the process)

[Vi-Jay 218]

Wiki;

In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, ####### Cheney, made the same point:

I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[77]

– ####### Cheney

Instead of a greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.

On 10 March 1991, 540,000 American troops began to move out of the Persian Gulf.

These damn politicians. Can any of 'em ever be trusted?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Wiki;

In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, ####### Cheney, made the same point:

I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[77]

– ####### Cheney

Instead of a greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.

On 10 March 1991, 540,000 American troops began to move out of the Persian Gulf.

These damn politicians. Can any of 'em ever be trusted?

It wasn't until 1995 that Cheney took over as chairman and CEO of Halliburton. He seemed to change his tune after that.

[Vi-Jay 218]

It wasn't until 1995 that Cheney took over as chairman and CEO of Halliburton. He seemed to change his tune after that.

What a surprise huh?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

We have been getting out of Iraq since Obama took office. Unquestionable, verifiable fact. Look it up Why-me.

We added troops in Afghanistan, moved a significant portion of the fight into Pakistan where AQ and the Taliban fled under Bush's watch. We still have fewer troops deployed in both theatres combined. Again look that fact up. Until you do your continued false assertions make you appear silly.

[Ban Hammer 13,490]