Posted on 06/13/2019 1:58:17 AM PDT by G-Pol
Sounds like they are coordinating with the dimoKKKRAT party. I wonder who they have been talking with.
+.
Yep. Killed lots and lots of moslems. and set the whole area into a chaos from which they may never escape. Keeps the whackos over there if we can just get our domestic enemies (democrats) to stop importing them to here.
The whole class of politicians who did that, Blair, Bush Jr, Cheney, Bolton etc are part of the swamp serving the interests of a corporate global elite rather than ordinary folks of any national stripe, especially not the 100,000s of civilians who have died directly or indirectly as a result of their hard on for expeditionary warfare.
I just don't see how the deaths of 100,000s of (mostly moslems) is a bad thing?
We are at war and will remain at war until every last moslem is dead, or until every last non-moslem is dead, or until Jesus comes back. The sooner we wake up and start prosecuting that war the better off we and our children will be
(and yes I would gladly neutron bomb the entire middle east (except for Israel). We'll have to eradicate the plague eventually, may as well get it over with quickly)
“Anyone who still thinks the invasion of Iraq was a good idea shouldn’t even be allowed to clean the toilets in the White House.”
The mistake wasn’t the initial invasion, it was the failure to crush the enemy quickly and then get out. The fake news and the Democrat party aided and abetted the enemy from day one, gladly serving as conduits for spreading enemy propaganda.
Was Bush and his administration at fault? Sure, the buck stops there. But his mistake was failing to recognize that in the post Vietnam era, you have only a couple months to win a war militarily, before anti-American Left mobilizes their propaganda machine, draining in the will of the the people, and congress.
Unlike his father in the Persian Gulf War, Junior didn’t get it done fast enough and was soon overwhelmed by leftist propaganda: “Bush is only in it for the oil.” “Bush is carrying out a personal vendetta because his father did not get Saddam Hussain.” “Our troops are committing atrocities.” “Dick Cheney is a bloodthirsty maniac.” “Dick Cheney is making money off the war and Bush is just his puppet.” “ Bush is a puppet of Israel.” And finally the one that stuck - “Bush lied about WMD to get us into the war.”
Once the anti-war propaganda took hold, the war effort was hobbled by nonsensical rules of engagement and lack of support in Congress. The anti American MSM reinforced enemy narratives 24/7 that our military was targeting schools and hospitals.
I think George Bush Senior had it right - use air strikes and if a war isn’t won in a couple months, just quit and declare total victory.
Look, I’m sure there exist neocons and globalists who like to get us into protracted wars in order to profit from the global “military-industrial complex” - but not every hawkish conservative deserves to be lumped together with them.
Don't take my word for it:
"There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off." -- Dick Cheney, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, 4/15/1994 ... explaining why it was a bad idea to invade and occupy Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm.
I look at the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the context of that quote, and I see Dick Cheney as a modern Republican version of that @sshole John McNamara in his execution of the Vietnam War. The similarities between the two of them are startling ... including the fact that they both oversaw their disgraceful military ventures while working for U.S. presidents who were retarded baboons from Texas.
Wow! You are Way deep into the code-pink/Left koolade to say that Desert Storm was because of corporate profits and not because of a serious threat in the Gulf which Seriously affects the national interest.
(Paying attention today? Is Iranian aggression a threat to the national interest or would getting involved be only about money?)
But you are correct about globalist scum.
Alberta’s Child’s military analysis is way off the mark and as far wrong as enumerated’s is right. That it wasn’t possible to crush the enemy quickly and get out are the same talking points of the revisionist Left.
Take Saddam out, leave the remains of the Iraqi Army in charge with the serious warning, “If you eff this up, we’ll be back and you REALLY won’t like it next time.” It absolutely would have worked.
Cheney and McNamara are not exactly the word on military matters, and enumerated’s point about protracted conflicts giving the enemies of America, the Left/Socialist/media ample time and opportunity to successfully subvert the goals of the United States is spot on. Militarily the Viet Cong and NVA forces were crushed at TET ‘68. This was admitted by the North overall commander Gen. Giap. But he also stated that he knew that if he could hold on long enough political forces (allies) in the U.S. would cause a withdrawal.
The US seems to have schizophrenia between wanting to be isolationist and being the world’s policeman.
The whole purpose of the invasion was to occupy the country for decades -- or even forever. That's why the U.S. constructed the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. Construction on that complex began even while the U.S. was still engaged in a major military campaign there.
The invasion of Iraq was nothing more than a globalist venture carried out by people in government who really didn't give a sh!t about what it cost Americans in terms of lives and money.
“Dick Cheney, .....explaining why it was a bad idea to invade and occupy Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm.”
That’s right. “Invade and occupy” is EXACTLY what they should have avoided back then in Vietnam, the Middle East and elsewhere, and should avoid now.
I’m in favor of peace through strength, which means maintaining the strongest military in the world, and occasionally demonstrating that we are willing and able to use it.
When we do flex our muscles, do so only when there is broad support both at home abroad - usually following some atrocity or provocation that sparks international public outrage that demands a response.
Set tangible and well-defined military goals such as the destruction of particular enemy capabilities and resources to be achieved by fixed dates. Do not set vague political goals, such as region stability, or training and fortification of rebel forces to defend themselves. Use air strikes and special ops - not ground troops.
There is a window of only several months before the anti-American Leftist propaganda machine kicks into high gear, and any meaningful support for a war effort is withdrawn.
By the time that happens, we should already be out, regardless of what has or has not been accomplished. Let the fake news and DNC try to spin it as a failure... that’s OK.
As far as I’m concerned, the purpose should be a show of our military strength and our willingness to use it.
Nope, still wrong.
“The U.S. didn’t fight that war to “crush the enemy quickly and get out.” That is true, but it should have! and it would have worked. This idea that no war is winnable is a relatively new construct and totally false.
As for what is revisionist and retroactive, you are projecting. Recall there was almost unanimous Congressional AND international support for the war in Iraq. The failure to quickly destroy Hussein and then leave, easily gave way to the new narrative nonsense that you are spouting: “The whole purpose of the invasion was to occupy the country for decades—or even forever.” Really?!! The U.S. public would be OK with that ?! Tin foil.
I have no doubt that there is a globalist conspiracy, but:
1.How did they maneuver Hussein into SUICIDALLY invading Kuwait, threatening the entire Persian gulf and world oil supplies? and
2.Why would the globalists allow this point in their agenda to fail ?
(agree the Bushes and many, many others in USG are globalists with divided loyalty, at best)
Actually, I never said this war was "not winnable."
What I said was that the U.S. had no intention of fighting a real war over there. You act as if you're living in a sovereign nation with a constitutional government that might be forced on occasion to engage in a major military conflict to protect itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are living in a global empire now, which means "warfare" as we used to know it is completely counterproductive -- because the purpose of a war of imperialism is to occupy a foreign nation, not destroy it.
"The whole purpose of the invasion was to occupy the country for decades—or even forever." Really?!! The U.S. public would be OK with that ?! Tin foil.
Tin foil? You mean the U.S. isn't still occupying Japan, Germany and South Korea -- or even a primitive sh!t-hole like AFGHANTISTAN? When did the U.S. public vote for that? LOL.
It sounds like CNN and virtually every other media, which has been reporting on internal dysfunction within the White House for quite some time. Even the pro-Trump media is reporting it. This isn’t fake news..
While CNN WANTS Trump to fail and are using these stories to mock him, the pro-Trump media are rightfully concerned about the Deep State destroying this administration from within. And Bolton has decided to attack ALL of us and call ALL of us liars for even bringing it up. Spoken like a true elitist.
THIS.
I also remember seeing on another (older) comment thread that basically stated that there was a time in the mid-2000s when ANYONE who opposed the neocons was driven off this site and into exile. And that if something like that happens again this site will collapse.
I totally agree with whoever made that statement. Although I can’t remember who it was. :(
Welcome to FR.
Better get your asbestos flame suit on.
***************************
He won’t need it....already been VAPORIZED.
“You mean the U.S. isn’t still occupying Japan, Germany and South Korea ...?”
Sorry to witness you so strongly confirm your wrongheaded geopolitical confusion. The U.S. occupies none of those countries. It has forces there in mutual defense alliances. In no way are they occupying. Yes, Afghanistan is afu leftover from Bush/Obama; you want to foolishly claim that it is U.S. occupation? Does the U.S. control Afg at all? Does the U.S. profit from Afg at all? total foolishness.
“...the purpose of a war of imperialism .. “
Well you’ve just gone full blown Marxist/Communist now.
I am very sorry, my Really bad. at 73
Should have been just (imo) : That is full blown Marxist/Communist think.
Cheers!
AC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.