Posted on 10/25/2011 10:40:26 AM PDT by Hojczyk
POTUS Obama throws out a gesture to his partisans by announcing the withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq by year's end.
The Kurds will dig in and do fine.
Baghdad is now under the boot of Tehran. POTUS aims to get the US troops out of Afghanistan also, but 2014 if he is still in office. The US exit from the Middle East creates the vacuum that Riyadh will battle Tehran to fill.
Reports arrive that Maliki blocked a transitionary force, because he bows to the Tehran stooge Sadr.
The battle lines in the ummah are drawn sharply. Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut will fight to the death with Cairo-Riyadh-Amman-Ankara.
The Neo-Ottomans arise with Europe at their right hand and Tehran at their left. The US is out of the region as a power.
Russia can and will fill the vacuum. For the moment, Baghdad falls again, this time to the Shi'a confederation. Mission accomplished for Tehran. The Sunni confederation fights back at Syria.
The US is not consulted.
I know it’s just a prediction (albeit a very reasonable one...) but if it comes to pass, what the heck did we spend eight years in Iraq for? And at what cost in lives and treasure?
I know it’s just a prediction (albeit a very reasonable one...) but if it comes to pass, what the heck did we spend eight years in Iraq for? And at what cost in lives and treasure?
The GOP has no leg to stand on here and need to STFU.
1. Bush went after Iraq, not Iran. *cough* MORON *cough*
2. Iraq is majority Shi’a. Nothing else matters. Not governments, not us, not anything else.
3. The third fitna is already upon us. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been engaged in an islamic civil war for at least a year now, some would say several years.
Iraq and Iran will always be tied together for better or worse. Blame the British and the French.
To Democrats, that was a “Republican” war, so what do they care?
Best show on radio by far.
Go to DU if you want to Bash Bush...you will be more welcome there..or why don’t you just call the Dems and help them out?
bush wasn’t alone in going to Iraq, worldwide consensus and Dem agreement...so why don’t you re-read history instead of re writing it?
Put the blame where it belongs: Obama.
we could have negotiated a strategic connection and base from which to operate AND put a defense against Iran in the region. Listen to Gen Keane...you might learn something.
Yeah the mideast is a mess, but that is no reason not to make gains whenever possible instead of doing a vietnam Redux.
First of all, I am one of the firmest supporters of Bush that I know. Voted for him twice, no regrets.
That said, it was the wrong decision. We should have gone for Iran. Any student of history and the past 30 years (and post WW1) would have been able to call it easily.
These terms were originally set by...Bush. Any failure to negotiate lay in the hands of Obama, that much is true but it really is time to get the heck out of there. Enough is enough.
And Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud is Dead
The world-wide Caliphate is re-forming.It's headquarters was in Bagdad.
Uh...that is NOT an opinion that belongs on DU...it belongs right HERE on FR buddy...and an opinion shared by MANY Freepers if you care to actually read what was written instead of getting defensive. Do we need to quote the speech W made after 9-11 about terrorists and terrorist states? Just in case you forgot...here it is:
"WE will Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account....We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. "
OK. So tell me. Who deserved the wrath of the US more...keeping in line with the Bush Doctrine (which is the poster's point): Hussein or Iran?
Any moron can answer the question...and I think YOU are missing the point and being defensive. The point is...the Bush doctrine BY ITS NATURE states IRAN should have been the #1 target after Afghanistan...NOT Iraq.
The poster did not say ANYWHERE that Iraq was not a legitimate target...which is what you claimed...but that it should not be the number one target...Iran should have been.
Anyone who thinks differently is frankly...an idiot...and since I was there on "A" day...when it all started...I am allowed my personal opinion of the matter.
As far as putting the blame on Obama? They are BOTH to blame. The end of 2011 is Bush's timeline.
As far as "earning something"...you might want to take notes yourself. Attacking Iraq got us tossed out of Saudi where we had some great FOB's and PSAB. We would have been better off NOT going after Iraq first but keeping him contained from those bases...and using them to, instead, attack Iran. You wouldn't need a defense against them if we ahd taken them out first.
Bachelor’s show ...”Best show on radio by far” ...I agree... until I disagree.
Hopefully that will prevent a repeat of helicopters on the U.S. Embassy roof.
I have screamed that at the top of my lungs on FR for years. It's only been in the last couple of years that people have actually agreed. Back in 2004/2005 people would tell you to go to DU (and they still are...I guess they can't handle a mature arguement without pulling the "DU" card).
It's really VERY simple. Bush laid out the doctrine...that I agree with. WHOLEHEARTILY! When he gave that speech...I was cheering. FINALLY! I said. We will go after IRAN and SYRIA.
After all...isn't that what "WE WILL MAKE NO DISTINCTION" means? And yet...all these years later there are STILL Freepers who defend going into Iraq BEFORE going after Iran and Syria.
And just to make the point CLEAR again...so I don't get told to go to DU...no one is saying Iraq wasn't a legitimate target...but in the grand scheme of GLOBAL terrorism and threat to the HOMELAND of the US and its allies...it was not even CLOSE to the threat Iran and Syria pose. So...if you are the president...to me you knock off the terrorist nations in order of the threat the represent. Afghanistan (Taliban and Al Qaeda)...Iran...Syria...Lebanon/Gaza (Hamas/Hez Bollah)...Pakistan....Iraq.
Going after Iraq instead of Iran and Syria is like taking and hydrocodone for a brain tumor. Yeah...you treat the symptome of your headache but the thing that will kill you is still out there.
Ping for your take on the matter.
I've said all along that giving the enemy a timeline was not a good idea, but that's what we've done here. (Thanks, stupid Democrats.)
The media is acting like this December 2011 withdrawal date is something new, but it was outlined in the SOFA in December 2008.
All logistics and associated efforts since early '09 have focused on this being the date US forces were going to leave.
The Iraqis would like to see a contingent remain of course, because anyone with a handful of working brain cells knows that Iran is rubbing its evil hands together, just waiting to pounce and impose its Islamofacist garbage on Iraq. They've been infiltrating Iraq all along.
Unfortunately, Iraq wanted our forces to stay on Iraq's terms and I fully support the US in refusing that.
I would not be surprised to see the GoI ask the US back sometime in 2012, but unless it's on terms that will protect our troops, it shouldn't happen. I hope Iraq will come to its senses on this. The US has invested too much over the past several years to just hand the country to Iran.
I am sorry if I went over the top in my post to you in a snarky manner.
At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Bush had the support and rationale—at the time- to go into Iraq THEN.
There was no consensus or support for invading Iran. It may have been logistically a good idea in terms of overall danger to the world by their proxy attacks in Iraq, against Israel and in afghanistan and Iran’s behaviors and threats rhetorically for the last 30 years to be done with Iran under Bush.
However..and this is the determining HOWEVER.....his attack on Iran would have been seen as ‘coming out of left field “ by our “allies’ as well as at home. Never would have happened.
The terms for Iraq withdrawal were set by Bush with the determinant of Negotiations on leaving and our presence in Iraq in some way as a “base” or at least much stronger and clearer than we have now. So the caveat for a 2011 withdrawal was a Negotiated withdrawal.
time to get out of there...yes.... “enough” of what?
We have strong bases in japan, Korea, Germany, etc etc...Guess we don’t think pulling those is a good idea cause its “enough’ after 60 years or so.
“Just get the heck out of there” is an emotional reaction to the pain and cost of our involvement...NOT a cogent argument for ‘splitting”..Actually it was the same rationale for “getting the heck out of Vietnam” used by the administration and our disgusted citizens at the time ( of course, while being lied to by the MSM).
Please see my post #18.
Bush never could have gone into Iran at the time he went to Iraq. No support for that at home or abroad.
The intel we used at the time ( we and the whole world) was that Saddam was more of an “imminent” Weapons of Mass destruction threat at the time.
My main argument is that leaving Iraq the way we are is a grave, fatal error...no I wasn’t there, but Gen Keane has been..on that I defer to him.
Thanks for the reply. Will many of the contractors be leaving with the troops?
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.