I think we’ve “helped” them quite enough, thanks. My goodness Harley, what a short memory you have of the cocked up mess the US made of the entire Iraqi campaign. Not the military’s fault, by the way. They go in harms way when the pols and generals say so. Help them! Ha…Harley you always do provide a good chuckle.
Uh, huh. A stabilizing force for Iraq. Who gives a rats patootie about stability in Iraq. I mean, really. Yes under the doctrine of "you break it you own it, well, OK, we did break it more, though it was kind of broken before, too, we just had to “help out” right? Just what does “winning” get us? Honestly, I know you are desperately sincere, man, but truth lies in subtleties, and nothing is entirely black or white. That said, the notion that we can “help” Iraq rises to comedy—and not subtle comedy, either. More like mordant, despondent, cringeworthy comedy.
War as a stabling force is naught but an illusion.
Ambrose Bierce defined it as well as any:
WAR, n. A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. “In time of peace prepare for war” has a deeper meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end — that change is the one immutable and eternal law — but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had decreed his “stately pleasure dome” — when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in Xanadu — that he heard from afar Ancestral voices prophesying war.One of the greatest of poets, Coleridge was one of the wisest of men, and it was not for nothing that he read us this parable. Let us have a little less of “hands across the sea,” and a little more of that elemental distrust that is the security of nations. War loves to come like a thief in the night; professions of eternal amity provide the night.
OK, let me get this straight, because your last post was a bit incoherent. We invade Iraq, for some reason. Oh yeah, non-exitant WMD, right. Then Paul Bremer is assigned to toally screw things up by eradicating the Baath party, and going on to inciting sectarian violence between the Shi’a and the Sunni. With a massive ground forces, large civilian and US casualties (yes there were other nationalities, but we did the most) we “stabilized” the country. Then, since that wasn’t enough, we “surged” and claim this as a victory. And then that commie muslim apologist Obama ended all our fun by pulling out the troops so the Iraqis can live peacefully in their own country. Right. Got it. Oil, huh? You don’t think oil is essentially a global commodity and will find itsd way to market? Right. Gotcha. Germany, Japan and South Korea are probably still alright for US presence—their governments don’t mind, after all because they benefit from our massive military without having to fund their own. I’m on the fence with those three hot spots, but Korea is probably the most important. But the IS? Nope. We should butt the hell out. Otherwise we are falling into their trap. But my thoughts don’t really matter, Harley. Your ideas are ascendant, Americans love their violence. Yes we do.
“While we had boots on the ground we were the stabilizing force in the region.”1) Meaning we could never leave Iraq or it would destableize as it had.2) We wouldn’t have needed boots on the ground in the first place if they hadn’t deposed Saddam. You can “but but but buuuuush…” all you want. It doesn’t change history.
Funny, the Iraqis I worked with in baghdad disagree with your assessment. They were very happy to be free of Saddam. None to happy about how we handled the aftermath, but still feeling better off than they had been before.
SizeofaPea said, about 17 hours ago@ConserveGov“Hmmm……nice to know that you still think anything bad that happens anywhere in the world is the fault of our President.”——————————————————————————————————Please look up irony and then look at your 8 years of babble before Barry.
ConserveGov about 9 years ago
^ Nevermind 21 Egyptian Christians beheaded by the “JV” ISIS simply because they were Christian.Btw….Are we allowed to call them ISIS anymore?
Dtroutma about 9 years ago
Serb Christians, IRA, or maybe we just need to realize that it was Adam who failed to close the barn door on Cain.
larryrhoades about 9 years ago
AUMF = Authorization of Use of Military Force
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/02/six-questions-congress-should-ask-the-administration-about-its-isil-aumf/
Had to look it up.
twclix about 9 years ago
I think we’ve “helped” them quite enough, thanks. My goodness Harley, what a short memory you have of the cocked up mess the US made of the entire Iraqi campaign. Not the military’s fault, by the way. They go in harms way when the pols and generals say so. Help them! Ha…Harley you always do provide a good chuckle.
twclix about 9 years ago
Uh, huh. A stabilizing force for Iraq. Who gives a rats patootie about stability in Iraq. I mean, really. Yes under the doctrine of "you break it you own it, well, OK, we did break it more, though it was kind of broken before, too, we just had to “help out” right? Just what does “winning” get us? Honestly, I know you are desperately sincere, man, but truth lies in subtleties, and nothing is entirely black or white. That said, the notion that we can “help” Iraq rises to comedy—and not subtle comedy, either. More like mordant, despondent, cringeworthy comedy.
leweclectic about 9 years ago
War as a stabling force is naught but an illusion.
Ambrose Bierce defined it as well as any:
WAR, n. A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. “In time of peace prepare for war” has a deeper meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end — that change is the one immutable and eternal law — but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had decreed his “stately pleasure dome” — when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in Xanadu — that he heard from afar Ancestral voices prophesying war.One of the greatest of poets, Coleridge was one of the wisest of men, and it was not for nothing that he read us this parable. Let us have a little less of “hands across the sea,” and a little more of that elemental distrust that is the security of nations. War loves to come like a thief in the night; professions of eternal amity provide the night.
twclix about 9 years ago
OK, let me get this straight, because your last post was a bit incoherent. We invade Iraq, for some reason. Oh yeah, non-exitant WMD, right. Then Paul Bremer is assigned to toally screw things up by eradicating the Baath party, and going on to inciting sectarian violence between the Shi’a and the Sunni. With a massive ground forces, large civilian and US casualties (yes there were other nationalities, but we did the most) we “stabilized” the country. Then, since that wasn’t enough, we “surged” and claim this as a victory. And then that commie muslim apologist Obama ended all our fun by pulling out the troops so the Iraqis can live peacefully in their own country. Right. Got it. Oil, huh? You don’t think oil is essentially a global commodity and will find itsd way to market? Right. Gotcha. Germany, Japan and South Korea are probably still alright for US presence—their governments don’t mind, after all because they benefit from our massive military without having to fund their own. I’m on the fence with those three hot spots, but Korea is probably the most important. But the IS? Nope. We should butt the hell out. Otherwise we are falling into their trap. But my thoughts don’t really matter, Harley. Your ideas are ascendant, Americans love their violence. Yes we do.
Jason Allen about 9 years ago
“While we had boots on the ground we were the stabilizing force in the region.”1) Meaning we could never leave Iraq or it would destableize as it had.2) We wouldn’t have needed boots on the ground in the first place if they hadn’t deposed Saddam. You can “but but but buuuuush…” all you want. It doesn’t change history.
Anweir88 about 9 years ago
Funny, the Iraqis I worked with in baghdad disagree with your assessment. They were very happy to be free of Saddam. None to happy about how we handled the aftermath, but still feeling better off than they had been before.
ConserveGov about 9 years ago
SizeofaPea said, about 17 hours ago@ConserveGov“Hmmm……nice to know that you still think anything bad that happens anywhere in the world is the fault of our President.”——————————————————————————————————Please look up irony and then look at your 8 years of babble before Barry.