Fallujah falls to Al Qaeda

[Jaskalas]

Not our problem. Thanks, Obama.

Thanks, Bush. For opening Iraq up to terrorism in the first place.

The Middle East is given a simple choice. Iron Fisted Dictators, or Fundamentalist Mullahs. We tipped the scales, perhaps in the wrong direction.

 

[yllus]

Iraqis, aided by Iran or whomever they decide to partner with, aren't going to just cede territory to Al Qaeda, much less a major and historical city.

This could even be a good thing in the sense that the Iraqi people and armed forces are probably going to get pissed off, storm in there and make an example of anyone they catch.

 

[Lash444]

Thanks, Bush. For opening Iraq up to terrorism in the first place.

The Middle East is given a simple choice. Iron Fisted Dictators, or Fundamentalist Mullahs. We tipped the scales, perhaps in the wrong direction.

I think he wasn't being sarcastic, honestly.

The real comedy in this thread is Chucky's posts. Evidently Bush made all of the hard decisions, and Obama just has the easy road.

Sorry, but the easy road has and always will be starting unnecessary wars. How many conflicts have we been in where we retreat without accomplishing our tasks? How many times have we retreated leaving the area in a BETTER condition than when we started? Starting a war is the easy part. Getting out and leaving the area in a better position (especially in the Middle East) is far more difficult.

Blaming Obama is pretty silly. Its hard to imagine that ANYONE in that position could have possibly withdrawn troops in the foreseeable future without creating a power vaccuum. That is why it is laughable that you make a post about how "Easy" Obama had it in comparison to Bush. Spending money is the easy part. Getting out of a war without makign things 10x worse, is far far more difficult. Wouldnt you agree?

 

[chucky2]

It was a pointless waste. We destabilized Iraq and sacrificed our efforts in the only legitimate area of operation, Afghanistan. I'm no Obama fan, but the damage he may have done is trivial compared to Bush, who sent us backwards in so many ways that only decades passing will undo the harm. The sheer waste of it all is repulsive.

That's what I mean by Bush being a horrible manager of his managers. The US military, the one we pay for every year, is large enough to fight both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time - if Politicians have the will to do what is necessary. Bush had the will, he just didn't set the expectation with his direct reports, and most importantly, provide the oversight on them to ensure they were doing his will, that the Afghanistan mission would not be sacrificed for the Iraq mission. Bush badly failed there. That's on him.

Obama didn't do so much damage as the Dems did...but Obama was/is POTUS, and he is the leader of the Dem party. His failure to ensure the joke that is Pelosi and Reid got us UHC easily, easily, eclipses Bush's mistakes. Other than the after the fact costs of our military having PTSD and injury care etc., Iraq is done. The failure of the Dems not passing UHC will be giving to the entire US for decades to come. It's epic in its failure level. Worse, they almost entirely own it. Sorry, Bush may have sucked managing his direct reports and thereby extension got a suck result out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but that pales in comparison to the lost opportunity the Dems had with UHC. I don't even know what level of F up could be compared to that...perhaps Hitlers meddling in WWII, thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

 

[chucky2]

The dissonance...it is cognitive...

Mmmm...whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[chucky2]

I think he wasn't being sarcastic, honestly.

The real comedy in this thread is Chucky's posts. Evidently Bush made all of the hard decisions, and Obama just has the easy road.

Sorry, but the easy road has and always will be starting unnecessary wars. How many conflicts have we been in where we retreat without accomplishing our tasks? How many times have we retreated leaving the area in a BETTER condition than when we started? Starting a war is the easy part. Getting out and leaving the area in a better position (especially in the Middle East) is far more difficult.

Blaming Obama is pretty silly. Its hard to imagine that ANYONE in that position could have possibly withdrawn troops in the foreseeable future without creating a power vaccuum. That is why it is laughable that you make a post about how "Easy" Obama had it in comparison to Bush. Spending money is the easy part. Getting out of a war without makign things 10x worse, is far far more difficult. Wouldnt you agree?

I think you should go re-read my posts because you really came to a completely different understanding than what I posted.

 

[shortylickens]

Not our problem. Thanks, Obama.
Not stopping you from buying a gun and going to Falluja to fight Al Qaeda, if you so desire.

this.

I am so sick of our trillion dollar military being used as a half-assed police force for the world. Its especially bad when the bosses dont have a clear plan or goal.

I often wonder how different things would be in Washington if a senate seat required some active duty time.

 

[feralkid]

That's what I mean by Bush being a horrible manager of his managers. The US military, the one we pay for every year, is large enough to fight both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time - if Politicians have the will to do what is necessary. Bush had the will, he just didn't set the expectation with his direct reports, and most importantly, provide the oversight on them to ensure they were doing his will, that the Afghanistan mission would not be sacrificed for the Iraq mission. Bush badly failed there. That's on him.

Obama didn't do so much damage as the Dems did...but Obama was/is POTUS, and he is the leader of the Dem party. His failure to ensure the joke that is Pelosi and Reid got us UHC easily, easily, eclipses Bush's mistakes. Other than the after the fact costs of our military having PTSD and injury care etc., Iraq is done. The failure of the Dems not passing UHC will be giving to the entire US for decades to come. It's epic in its failure level. Worse, they almost entirely own it. Sorry, Bush may have sucked managing his direct reports and thereby extension got a suck result out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but that pales in comparison to the lost opportunity the Dems had with UHC. I don't even know what level of F up could be compared to that...perhaps Hitlers meddling in WWII, thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

Wow, that is one huge incoherent cluster-fuck of a post.

 

[chucky2]

Wow, that is one huge incoherent cluster-fuck of a post.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts... :'(

 

[Lash444]

Look up incoherent in the dictionary. He didnt say anything about the truthiness of your post.

Regardless of whether your posts contain merit, they are organized and presented so poorly that I am sure a lot of people simply skip over it after your first couple fragmented thoughts.

Like you said earlier: "I think you should go re-read my posts because you really came to a completely different understanding than what I posted" You are probably right. I am sure I am not alone. You convey things very poorly.

I dont honestly think you believe that "Iraq is done." Really? Then what was the purpose of this thread? Are we done with Korea? What makes you think that anything in the Middle East is "done". This thread proves that when it comes to the Middle East and Iraq, all we have seen is tip of the iceberg. We pulled out of Iraq for the time being. Yeah, how long will that last? How long will we feel the ripple effects of our choices in Iraq? "Done" you say.

 

[ElFenix]

Iraqis, aided by Iran or whomever they decide to partner with, aren't going to just cede territory to Al Qaeda, much less a major and historical city.

This could even be a good thing in the sense that the Iraqi people and armed forces are probably going to get pissed off, storm in there and make an example of anyone they catch.

and that's the type of thing that actually builds nations.

 

[Lash444]

We are as "done" with Iraq, as the world was "done" with Germany after signing the Treaty of Versailles.

Somehow you are so omniscient that you know we are done with Iraq, and that the ACA will be the downfall of the U.S. Thank you, Nostradamus.

 

[blankslate]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eda-related-takeover-fallujah-call-situation/



Looks like we didn't leave properly. Another Obama failure?

It is a failure of foreign policy... going into Iraq in the first place when Hussein and Bin Laden didn't like each other and didn't even bother working together.

The U.S. should have let the Special Forces Team(s) in the Tora Bora area carry out one of the two plans they floated up the chain of command for taking out Bin Laden then have been done with the area.

*edite 2 add*

Our meddling in that area beginning perhaps with FDR's meeting with the House of Saud (which was not recorded and for which there are no known transcripts) have mostly produced blowback against the U.S. from those countries and it wouldn't be too surprising historians could find the motives in terrorists attacks against the west rooted in that meddling.

It seems like Western interests in that region began with resources and continues to this day to be resources which some of people from that region find motive (directly or indirectly from that interest) to commit terrorism.

We are as "done" with Iraq, as the world was "done" with Germany after signing the Treaty of Versailles.

As for Germany it is a "western" country in terms of the (broadly defined) general values of the populace and economic alliances and political leanings.

Also the lesson about punitively pushing a country into poverty after a war and opening them up to welcoming an evil dictator vs. helping them rebuild and ensuring that they could rejoin the world as a productive country was learned after WWII

We haven't learned much about how meddling in the Middle East is (for the west) an exercise in the law of unintended consequences.



=====

 

[Lithium381]

Or as the military's need to find more work and get more tax dollars progresses?

A very plausible if not probable explanation.

 

[Lithium381]

Sounds like a great opportunity for neocons to exercise their right to bear arms, form a well regulated militia, and ship off to Fallujah. If Al Qaeda can do it, so can you.

Werent militia forces typically deployed for the safety and protection if your own region? Not to conquest like a standing army...

 

[blankslate]

No troll intended....

Sorry but if I put up some link and wrote as the last line

Another Bush failure?

I'd get some interesting responses. Just the way it is.

Because I'm sure President Obama made the decision to get involved in Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan during those years in the first place...




===

 

[blankslate]

I often wonder how different things would be in Washington if a senate seat required some active duty time.

I agree that in general it would be better if politicians did spend time in the military. Particularly for politicians who deal directly with foreign policy decisions such as the President.

During the run up to the 2000 elections my circumstances made me particularly excited at the possibility of a Gen. Collin Powell nomination as the Republican Presidential candidate.

If he was running against VP Gore during 2000 then I'd have been in the position of the swing voter undecided until the campaign was almost over.

It's a good possibility that he would have won by a large enough margin in the popular vote that the SCOTUS wouldn't have been involved at all

Too bad he didn't run....

 

[chucky2]

Look up incoherent in the dictionary. He didnt say anything about the truthiness of your post.

Ok, just did. Nothing was incoherent in my post.

Regardless of whether your posts contain merit, they are organized and presented so poorly that I am sure a lot of people simply skip over it after your first couple fragmented thoughts.

Ahh the diminish tactic. Do I need to use bullet points or are you not capable of reading lines of text?

Like you said earlier: "I think you should go re-read my posts because you really came to a completely different understanding than what I posted" You are probably right. I am sure I am not alone. You convey things very poorly.

I'm sure you believe this. I don't. Even if my post wasn't perfectly organized, it was organized and worded clearly enough to be no where close to "poorly". What is it with people who fail having to resort to picking on 'poorly worded' tactics. You aren't related to Nick are you?

I dont honestly think you believe that "Iraq is done." Really?

From the US perspective of having troops in country and spending massive sums of money, Iraq is done. Where Iraq goes from when we pulled out, and even before that, is Iraq's problem, not ours. We gave them opportunity, they and their brothers blew it. Now they'll have to slog forward for another few hundred years to maybe reach the point they could have reached in 20-40 with us being there under better circumstances.

Then what was the purpose of this thread?

I'm not the OP. Perhaps your confusion on my poorly worded post extends to who started the thread?

Are we done with Korea?

Are we still in Iraq like we are in Korea? Did the Korean conflict end? Are the South Koreans far better off with US as an ally than they would have been going the route the North took? It seems your confusion extends to Korea and Iraq comparisons as well...

What makes you think that anything in the Middle East is "done". This thread proves that when it comes to the Middle East and Iraq, all we have seen is tip of the iceberg. We pulled out of Iraq for the time being. Yeah, how long will that last? How long will we feel the ripple effects of our choices in Iraq? "Done" you say.

I never said the ME was done, so good strawman there. The ME has been the ME for a couple of thousand years at least, so I'm quite sure it will continue to be the ME long after the US is out of the picture. The ME isn't the tip of the iceberg, it's sailing along the coast of the artic and realizing you're simply sailing through an entire sea of icebergs - they are never ending.

How long will we feel the ripple effects of out choices in Iraq? Who knows. Depends on way too many variables for anyone to know. Our major involvement is Done. We're not going into Falluja. We're not going into any of their cities/provinces/whatever, except in the off chance we'd undertake some direct action mission. So, Yes, we're Done.

Chuck

 

[Agent11]

The problem Bush made was not calling a draft and and using historically proven numbers of infantry to population for a successful occupation.

 

[chucky2]

The problem Bush made was not calling a draft and and using historically proven numbers of infantry to population for a successful occupation.

Correct. But this is where the US Public fails. The US Public wants our military to go into these conflicts with the absolute minimum troop levels, spend as little as possible, have zero casualties (ours and civilian), and be done in Starbucks waiting time periods. Basically, the US Public fucks us. They cannot understand that if you're going to go into an Afghanistan or Iraq (or any other modern conflict), you're going to be there 20-30 years. It's going to take that long to un-mind f*ck enough of the population to re-indoctrinate them to - at some level - our way of thinking.

So what do the Politicians, who control the military, and of course, want to be re-elected/have a legacy, do? Why, instead of telling the public we need 600k for Afghanistan and then another 500k for Iraq, something the public with their unreasonable expectations just will not accept, they instead come up with numbers that make it all but impossible for the military to long term win. That's to say nothing of the other BS we expect the military to adhere to while fighting a war.

The military can't fight the Politicians, the media, the public, plus the country they're going over to defeat and change. It's an impossible task, which is why we've sucked at the past few conflicts we've been in.

Chuck

 

[Jhhnn]

The military can't fight the Politicians, the media, the public, plus the country they're going over to defeat and change. It's an impossible task, which is why we've sucked at the past few conflicts we've been in.

Which is why the Neocon vision is, was, and will remain folly. They invaded both Afghanistan & Iraq with no intention of following the advice of their best commanders.

Remember this guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/

If the American People have no stomach for the kind of wars you describe, then the American Govt shouldn't engage in them. One could argue self defense/ retribution in the invasion of Afghanistan, in a weird way, but not for the atrocious conduct of the occupation that never ends. One can't make any such claims wrt Iraq, which was purely voluntary on our part.

 

[Lash444]

Which is why the Neocon vision is, was, and will remain folly. They invaded both Afghanistan & Iraq with no intention of following the advice of their best commanders.

Remember this guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/

If the American People have no stomach for the kind of wars you describe, then the American Govt shouldn't engage in them. One could argue self defense/ retribution in the invasion of Afghanistan, in a weird way, but not for the atrocious conduct of the occupation that never ends. One can't make any such claims wrt Iraq, which was purely voluntary on our part.

Couple questions Chucky

1.) Do you agree with Jhnnn?
2.) Were you, or are you in the military?

 

[xj0hnx]

Iraq had one of the best economies in the middle east before Desert Storm 1. After that it was placed under UN embargo for a decade which sunk the economy. Then after Desert Storm 2, the US tried to turn Iraq into a free market experiment which made the economy worse.

Had, the key word is ...had.

I take it quite well. Your overflow of anger I take better..
\it really doesn't have to be this way, y'know..

There's not anger, it just disgust. It isn't surprising that you didn't get that, your projection gets you all mixed up and confused. /pats sad little UberNeuman's head

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Which is why the Neocon vision is, was, and will remain folly. They invaded both Afghanistan & Iraq with no intention of following the advice of their best commanders.

Remember this guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/

If the American People have no stomach for the kind of wars you describe, then the American Govt shouldn't engage in them. One could argue self defense/ retribution in the invasion of Afghanistan, in a weird way, but not for the atrocious conduct of the occupation that never ends. One can't make any such claims wrt Iraq, which was purely voluntary on our part.

Nope. But I remember Democrats and Republicans voting overwhelming for both wars though.

 

[compuwiz1]

Nope. But I remember Democrats and Republicans voting overwhelming for both wars though.

Were we to be attacked by terrorists again on our soil, I guarantee the people would come together and vote for taking the same action. I'm not into boots on the ground, but I do like the idea of good bombings for fucks like that.