Should the US support Sunnis or Shias in Iraq?

Iraq is a mess, ever since it was invented by colonial powers after WWI.

Bush ignored sectarian hatred that has kept Sunnis and Shias at war with each other for more than 1,000 years. When Bush took out the Sunni dictator, it unleased the rage of the repressed Shia majority.

Today I saw 2003 film clips of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other Neo-cons spouting off their opinions of how the Iraq War would go. It would only last a few weeks or maybe months, but not years. It would only cost the US about $60 billion dollars (it’s over a trillion now and counting). They said there were active weapons of mass destruction and there was a connection to al-Qaeda. They said there were no sectarian problems in Iraq. I could go on and on, but the Christian Science Monitor did an in-depth review of the war – the claims and outcome:

The Bush team blundered into the biggest foreign policy and military disaster since Vietnam. The only choice now is to just stand back and watch the two sides fight it out. To send in more military to support Iraq is madness, and like the disaster of Vietnam – the only thing left is to evacuate the US Embassy. The Iraq War, like the Vietnam War, was a total waste of American blood and treasure.

My heart goes out to the troops and families who sacrificed so much, for Bush’s lies.

Jon Monday

51 Responses to "Should the US support Sunnis or Shias in Iraq?"

  1. DR DR   June 27, 2014 at 8:35 am

    No – let them fight it out themselves. Been there, done that… and here it goes again…

    spend the U.S. money on our own defense of our own country, upcoming attacks on our own land.

  2. Really?   June 27, 2014 at 9:01 am

    Poor Jon, you just do not understand. Obama foreign policy is determined by sycophant focus groups. Jon is mired in old fashioned and old thinking focused upon the national interest. Foreign policy is all about Obama interest. Jon lives in the arcane world where foreign policy advisers examine issues from many perspectives and provide the leader with sufficient data for a national interest decision. Obama’s world is Valarie Jarrett, and David Axelrod and political advisers seeking the political interest of Obama. Get with the program Jon!

  3. Margie   June 27, 2014 at 9:42 am

    The Iraq War, like the Vietnam War, was a total waste of American blood and treasure
    If your heart truly went out to the troops and families who have
    sacrified so much, you would not put forth your opinion on people who are grieving. No one has the right to tell anyone that
    their sacrifice was a waste. The only people that have that right
    are the military families and the troops themselves. It seems that tolerance, kindness, and peace do not apply when some people make their judgements known. If you want to debate the war itself, then have a debate. But do not add to someone’s sorrow and pain by expressing your views on their sacrifice.

  4. Jon Monday   June 27, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Hi Margie,

    While I appreciate your statement, in terms of not adding to the misery and pain suffered by those who have born the brunt of the US blunders, the point of talking about it now is that we don’t want more families and troops to be sacrificed in a blunder – as is being called for by those same people who put us there in the first place.

    Like the Vietnam vets, eventually you have to face that it was for nothing – and then proceed to support policies that avoid making the same mistake again.

    San Diego Veterans for Peace is doing a great job of reaching out to homeless and drug addicted vets, helping them through the night with sleeping bags and clothes, and supporting groups who operate as halfway houses to re-integrate vets into society.

    Margie – this isn’t about a history lesson. Every Sunday political talk show has on Cheney, McCain. Lindsey, and other neocons who are pushing to get the US combat troops involved in virtually every dispute. That’s happening right now – and the most important voice in the push back, has to come from the families and troops who will be paying the price for their follies.

  5. Jon Monday   June 27, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Hi Really?,

    You seem to assume facts not in evidence.

    I do not agree with Obama – I wouldn’t have sent any troops – even as advisers.

    I would recommend to Obama that he order the evacuation of our embassy, unless and untill there is a replacement unity government (which has already been dismissed by the Iraqi government).

    This is a Sunni-Shia fight. Why do neocons feel a need to get involved?

  6. Redneck Bill   June 27, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    Hi Margie,

    I understand your point of view, and I share your concern for the welfare of our troops. It seems too many Americans simply don’t grasp the nature and scope of the sacrifices our troops and their families make.

    However I have another perspective, and since I am part of a military family and have a son on active duty, I hope that validates my point of view with you.

    I am in total and complete awe of a young man or woman who is willing to make the sacrifices they do to be in our military. There has to be some innate goodness within these young people to answer what they perceive to be their call to duty. Especially when so many of their peers seem to be concerned solely with their personal well-being. And then to understand that during a time of war they may be in great peril or even be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. These young men and women are my heroes. Nothing can take away from that.

    However, there is a difference between the way our military members conduct themselves in battle, and the worthiness of the battle they are sent into. And thus the importance of everyday Americans making their views known about when and where we send our troops.

    There is no number of troops to send to Iraq to alter the eventual outcome there, and so risking one more US service member makes no sense to me.

  7. Government idiots   June 28, 2014 at 8:34 am

    If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

    If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt, you live in a country run by idiots.

    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.

    If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work, you live in a country run by idiots.

    If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more " safe" according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

  8. Jon Monday   June 28, 2014 at 9:17 am

    To "Government idiots",

    Since we live in a democracy, the government reflects the voter’s will.

    What has kept the government from changing, is the unwillingness of voters to get together and vote for real change.

    So, Government idiots is created by voter idiots.

    If left and right could agree on issues where we have common ground, then it would be a force that the political parties could not ignore. But, each side would have to be willing to compromise for the common good.

  9. Really?   June 30, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    "Since we live in a democracy, the government reflects the voter’s will."

    -We live in a democratic Republic, not a democracy. Learn the difference.

    " the government reflects the voter’s will."

    – Absolutely right, so glad to see YOU acknowledge the Republican run congress was installed by the voters will to check this clown car administration. The Senate is going to flip Republican in Novemember to thwart any further damage done by Obama.

    "But, each side would have to be willing to compromise for the common good."

    -Well, as anyone who has raised a 3-year-old knows, when you are dealing with someone without experience, forethought, or humility – you have to say"no" a lot. Compromise is when you stand in the middle of the road and get hit from both sides

  10. Jon Monday   June 30, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    To Really?,

    I know the difference, as does anyone who had eighth grade civics.

    My point being, we elect our representatives and they vote (hopefully), in line with the platform they ran on. If not, they can be tossed in the next election.

    Other than the fact that the Republicans Gerrymandered congressional districts to suit their short-term goals, I have no objection to the idiots the Tea Party being elected – it makes it easier to pick off the undecided and moderates.

    What happened in Ohio is instructive. The delegation has a total of 16 members, with 12 Republicans (including current Speaker of the House, John Boehner), and 4 Democrats. But, Democrats got many more votes than Republicans, because of Gerrymandering. The Dems should have gotten at least 8 seats, if our democracy were not corrupted.

    It’s only a very short-term gain, as the demographics of the US are moving in favor of being a modern civilization, not a 18th Century model of Ayn Rand’s dream.

    The "No Comprise" stand in Congress is what earned them the all-time lowest rating – 7%. Obama’s personal job approval rating stands at 41%.

    in a new Gallup Poll, 80% of liberals have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party, along with 54% of Moderates. And only 48% of Conservatives view the Tea Party favorably.

    Just because of the do-nothing Congress, the Republican Party is about to fracture. They can never win the White House again, with the Tea Party running the Republican Primaries.

    Watch out for some changes in the Primary rules to address this.

  11. Terry Leather   June 30, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    A video caused the Benghazi attack

  12. Jon Monday   July 1, 2014 at 9:33 am

    To Terry,

    Off topic. Nothing to say about Iraq?

  13. Really?   July 2, 2014 at 5:52 am

    Recommendation Monday: Look up the Carter Doctrine and Reagan corollary to the Carter Doctrine. Then read the UNMOVIC reports, & the UNSC resolution.
    You routinely demonstrate your lack of depth when it comes to issues, and to save yourself further embarresment, I recommend you stay in the shallow end of the talking points pool.

    You know nothing about Iraq, other than your Cindy Sheehan talking points.

  14. Jon Monday   July 2, 2014 at 10:25 am

    To Really?,

    Well, from what I see, both the Reagan and Carter doctrines had to do with the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. Both are out of date.

    BTW – did you know that Reagan almost was impeached (and would have been by a bi-partisan conviction) had he not agreed to fire his inner circle, as a result of the illegal actions he took with Iran and the Contra death squads. Not to mention that Reagan’s policies would have prevented him from being nominated in today’s hyper conservative primaries.

    The UN reports had no indications that Iraq was a threat to the US, and Bush forced the inspectors to evacuate for his exciting "Shock and Awe" campaign.

    The Bush sent in a special team who "knew" where to look for the WMDs that the UN had missed. After several months, they admitted that there were none, and that the intelligence was cooked (thank you Cheney).

    I don’t happen to like Cindy, although loosing a son for no good reason would put anyone over the edge.

    I don’t want to see another life wasted for a sectarian squabble that’s been going on for over a 1,000 years. We should evacuate the embassy and tell any remaining US citizens to get out ASAP.

    It’s a mess created by the neo-cons and needs to be repudiated by everyone – left and right.


  15. Redneck Bill   July 2, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Recommendation Really.

    Look up the difference between knowledge and self serving, unmitigated arrogance. You’re going to wear the skin off ’em dragging them on the ground as you do.

    You beclown (why is there a red line under that word) yourself when you dismiss anyone with whom you disagree. Your one dimensional, militant view reminds me of Muslim extremists. They believe their world view is correct, and so they can dismiss, disparage and even kill those who disagree with them.

    I know enough about Iraq to know how this will end. But you go ahead and hang on to your notion that brawn beats out brains. Someday you may even connect the difficulty you’ve had in life with your insistence upon being so rude, self-righteous and inflammatory.

  16. Really?   July 3, 2014 at 6:40 am

    Well RB, I see your psychological projection is up, remnants of the victim status you "endured" as a blondy blue eyed boy in the barrio. Here is the deal. It’s not a matter of disagreement, it is a matter of uninformed people- Like you, and Monday sputtering nonsense about something you and Monday know nothing about. In order to elevate your view of Operation Iraqi Freedom from simpleton propaganda to thoughtful criticism, and convey a fair criticism of America’s decision on Iraq, you must place yourself in the contemporary context of the Executives at the decision point. Criticizing President Bush based on misunderstanding and hindsight while ignoring the set of choices we actually faced on Iraq is just parroting propaganda. Some of us are not going to be lectured by folks who know zilch about what happened, how it happened and then claim facts like "Bush Lied". Americans, especially those who served, lost loved ones, and deal with what happened to this day deserve to know that. So, contrary to Mr. Mondays false narrative that claims otherwise, and your puffed up silly notion of defending someone you feel is being cyber bullied, your fellow citizens selfless service in Operation Iraqi Freedom was for a justified, honorable mission.

    Go back three paces, get smarter, learns some basic history. Read the UNMOVIC reports. Read the Duelfer report. Don’t play with the big boys until you do. Good luck with your studies.

  17. Bill Leach   July 3, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    Jon Monday, haven’t seen you on here in a few months..
    What were you at your summer home in the Hamptons? I hate to bust your theory here but didn’t ISIS just overrun one of Saddams chemical weapon factories? WMD there right? Conversation over.

    Do you dispute that during Saddam’s rule he used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds?

    Did you forget that he was attempting to produce nuclear weapons before the Israelis bombed his operation?

    Bush is no conservative but he was a markedly better President than Obama.

  18. Paul   July 4, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Good points Bill. Liberals hate inconvenient truths though, Jon will probably reply with 30 paragraphs of gobbledegook that no one can read or understand.

  19. Mike W   July 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    War is when the government tells you who the enemy is and revolution is when we decide that for ourselves

    We are constantly reminded of our enemies, most of them fabricated and periodically switched or changed to suit the moment. It mostly has to do with countries without a central a bank who are responsible to no one, like our own Federal Reserve. Those last few countries unwilling bend over for the WTO or to accept loans from the IMF and World Bank, along with their usual list of austerity measures, and privatizations of their resources, those unwilling to forever wear the yoke of debt slavery, those who simply want to do

  20. Jon Monday   July 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Too Bill Leach,

    Glad you stayed on topic. We were told:

    Saddam had chemical weapons, ready to deploy within 20 minutes.
    Saddam had an active chemical and nuclear weapon programs.
    The war would cost the US $60 to $80 billion, and then it would pay for itself from Iraqi oil revenues.
    We would be greeted as liborators.
    Saddam had active ties to bin Laden.
    The war would last weeks, possibly months, but not years.

    All lies – not mistakes.

    To directly answer your two questions:

    Yes, yes. Everyone knew Saddam gassed the Kurds – but did you know it was Reagan (blessed be his name) was president and did noothing to stop him. 5,000 to 10,000 Kurds died from 1987 and 1988.

    Daddy Bush left Saddam in power, which turns out to have been a sensible decision. As Cheney said at the time:

  21. Mike W   July 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    Sorry for the error, Donald Rumsfeld did serve, I was thinking of Chaney and Wolfowitz. Hard to tell these days, after all there so many unknown unknowns out there ~

  22. Really?   July 8, 2014 at 6:13 am

    President Bush inherited the intractable Iraq problem from Clinton. We were entangled with Saddam in a toxic status quo. The US was entangled with Saddam and the US status quo with Iraq was toxic before 9/11. Our Iraq problem was serious and needed to be resolved, with or without 9/11. 9/11 just made resolution of our Iraq problem more urgently needed

    There was no easy way out of it for us, except for Saddam to comply. Saddam’s noncompliance with the 1991 Cease Fire was true.

    I take it then that you’re not against the Iraq mission itself, just how Bush made his case to the public?

  23. Jon Monday   July 8, 2014 at 8:56 am

    To Really,

    Afghanistan was maybe worth sending in teams of special forces to get bin Laden, other than that, boots on the ground in the region is predestine to failure.

    The Iraq War was a total waste – launched on lies.

    Everyone, including Cheney, knew the intelligence was fake (Cheney fabricated it), and they knew there was no reason to take Saddam out (see Cheney’s statement above about why we left Saddam in power after the first Gulf War).

    Saddam was keeping Syria and Iran apart – now we’re seeing why that was a good thing for us, and the region.

    Get US personnel out of Iraq now – before any more American lives are wasted.

    Support our Veterans – that’s the best thing to do about Iraq and its aftermath. And don’t send out forces, unprepared, into a war that has no security interest for the US.

  24. Really?   July 8, 2014 at 10:06 am

    "The Iraq War was a total waste – launched on lies. "

    O.K. armchair Clauswitcz, I’m glad that we now exist in a world of your undeniable absolutes and awesome geopolitical Tactical thinking. Newsflash Monday, that’s just, like, your uninformed opinion.

    I tried to engage you reasonably with my question. I.e. you’re not against the Iraq mission itself, just how Bush made his case to the public. I guess your DNC talking points do not allow you to go past the…"But… but… Bush lied!!"

    President Clinton, in this July 22, 2003 interview on CNN, cited his presidential experience with Iraq to justify President Bush

  25. Jon Monday   July 8, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    I was an am of the opinion that the Iraq War was and is a total waste of time, money, and lives.

    And, Bush lied.

    The UN inspectors went in after Clinton and found nothing, and were about to report that there was nothing, when Cheney and Bush decided to launch an unnecessary, and frankly foolish, war with an unprepared military and no real allies in the war.

    After the war, Cheney and Bush hand-picked Pentagon and military specialists to find the WMDs they "knew" were there. They reported that nothing was found but old munitions from the Iraq/Iran War, that had totally deteriorated.

    Does that make it clear?

  26. 2/6 Ramadi   July 8, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    You don’t know jack- Do us who were there a favor and just shut it.

  27. Really? (the real one)   July 9, 2014 at 7:33 am

    My dreams are of a field afar
    And blood and smoke and shot.
    There in their graves my comrades are,
    In my grave I am not.
    I too was taught the trade of man
    And spelt the lesson plain;
    But they, when I forgot and RAN,
    Remembered and remain.


  28. Redneck Bill   July 9, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    So if this Really, #27 is the real one, that must mean the other Reallys are unreal Reallys, which would make perfect sense. Since Really buys all the neo-con stuff hook, line and sinker, it’s kind of like Rumsfeld’s known knowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns and similar attempts to explain the truth away.

    Good job real Rally. I’m beginning to understand how you think.

  29. Really? (the Real One)   July 9, 2014 at 8:59 pm

    RB, I really enjoyed your JV incoherent "Lee like" rambling….. thought it was interesting., not so much. I hope you enjoy the attention you so desperately crave, Lol….squids.

  30. Redneck Bill   July 10, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Actually the incoherent stuff is pretty much word for word from Rumsfeld, but I’m glad you enjoyed it. I also enjoy your ramblings, your inability to have a civil discussion, and your preoccupation with size.

    With your great depth of understanding of all things but particularly psychology, you no doubt realize that people who constantly mention things such as playing with the big boys or JV (not Varsity like you) are saddled with a certain insecurity.

    But it’s OK. There is help out there. Just don’t be like the lawyer who defends himself. Find a psychologist other than yourself for treatment.

  31. Mike W   July 10, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    That’s a really low blow, even for you Really ..

    Comment # 27, maybe # 26 .. Not everybody who has served thinks the way you do, in fact, most veterans don’t think like you at all. That is why the US is making moves towards privatizing the military, mercenaries have no illusions about what they are doing and why, it

  32. Really? (the Real One)   July 11, 2014 at 7:13 am

    Oh bless your little heart Popeye, someone

  33. Dan Barks   July 11, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Do you understand the perception of duplicity in your statement comment #31 regarding A.E. Housman’s poem? The poem is about the cowardly nature of one soldier and the affect of it on himself and his comrades. The narrator is haunted by the guilt of deserting his comrades in battle. Housman authored dozens of poems about war. Get a clue.

  34. Mike W   July 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Comment #33 "Get a clue" ?

    My dreams are of a field afar
    1st person point of view
    Dreams- implies fantasy
    Field- sets the scene of a battlefield
    Afar- direct emphasis the poets friends are far from him since they died
    ( narratored by a survivor of the battlefield)

    Housman would not be referring to "himself personally" as he himself was never IN a war
    And, Poems, songs etc are rarely interpreted as the authors intended..

  35. Jon Monday   July 12, 2014 at 10:30 am

    I’ve detailed where Bush/Cheney lied in the lead up to the war, and how the war turned out completely different than they predicted (but was predicted by liberals), and no one pushes back with facts.

    Just opinions and poems.

    My point in bringing up this topic to so we don’t step in the same cow patty – again. We had no business going in, we have no business being there, and we should agree that doubling down on a very bad bet is just stupid.

    Tell me (and especially all those who sacrificed so much) why we went to war in Iraq.
    Why was it a good idea?
    What was the expected outcome vs. the actual outcome?
    Why should we put more troops in harms way there?

  36. Redneck Bill   July 13, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    Hey Really Real,

    I apologize up front for not having written this in time for your perusal first thing in the morning when you get to work. You must have a very understanding boss. You’re not a civil servant are you?

    Anyway, it’s clear you prefer the personal attacks to discussion, but if I may, I’d like to return to the topic: the Iraq War. I attended a family reunion over the July 4th weekend. This side of the family is very conservative. Two members are Texans, one 4th or 5th generation, but there are also Carolinians, Ohioans and Pennsylvanians. During the course of the weekend the discussion turned to the turmoil in Iraq. Without exception, each and every person decried the fact that we ever went there and were very opposed to sending any troops back.

    Now I realize that your position on any matter is the correct one, but it’s telling to me that many folks who were so eager to invade Iraq have now realized what a terrible mistake it was.

    As for the names–Popeye, squid etc.–they don’t bother me. In fact Popeye is my hero. "I yam what I yam." And surely you recall what Popeye does to the bully Brutus. Do you see yourself as Brutus Really?

    I must have not been paying close enough attention, because all along you’ve been calling my buddies Socialists. Now suddenly they’re Marxists? How does that work? You do realize there’s a difference between the two, yes?

    So now I’m a golden retriever. Why pray tell do you keep throwing the ball if you think it’s so creepy? This isn’t connected to any of your other insecurities is it?

  37. Really?   July 14, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Nice try at revionist histroy. Welcome to the lonely funeral of the liberal mantra,

  38. Jon Monday   July 15, 2014 at 10:15 am

    To Really?,

    You can quote all the people in the world who were wrong about Iraq, but it doesn’t make it an less of a total waste.

    The only group who gained from the Iraq War is the war profiteers, like Haliburton and Black Water.

    I keep pounding on this point, because if we don’t recognize that Iraq was a waste and bad policy, we will be in the same situation again.

  39. Really?   July 15, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    "You can quote all the people in the world who were wrong about Iraq, but it doesn’t make it an less of a total waste."

    Nice backpeddling, delusional liberal. We might take you seriously once you admit your original article is intellectually dishonest, and intentionally misleading by weakly attempting to portray President Bush, & Republicans as the ONLY ones who supported the invasion of Iraq. Go peddle your shinola to somebody stupid enough to buy it.

    Democrats, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Byrd, Kennedy, Fienstein, etc, and more in the house ALSO voted with Republicans to authorize the war in Iraq. Your screwy dancing isn’t going to make this simple bit of reality go away…period.

    "The only group who gained from the Iraq War is the war profiteers, like Haliburton and Black Water"

    You conveniently forgot one….Perini (controlled by financier Richard Blum) That

  40. Jon Monday   July 16, 2014 at 9:58 am

    To Really,

    What’s your point? Do you think the war was a good thing because everyone except me was for it?

    It was Bush’s war, and it was a failure. Period.

    Bush and Cheney made up fake intelligence to justify the war, but no matter how it was justified, the war itself was a failure. A failure in planning, logistics, execution, and a failure of foreseeing the inevitable results – which is what we have now.

    That was and is my point – and I’m making it here to hopefully rally people to be against future dumb wars.

    If you had to do it all over again, would you spend $3 trillion, lose 4,000 American soldiers, to accomplish what Iraq is today?

    I don’t think so.

  41. Mike W   July 16, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    I think it’s becoming obvious "Really the real" is here to disrupt discussion on the "real" issues and keep the infighting going between the R against L, which does little more than to keep us from looking to the real problems and causes like what is really happening in the Ukraine, Iraq and Iran and Israel. He doesn’t give his stand on any issues other than bashing all things liberal. He says the president is bad but won’t consider that in this day and age U.S. Presidents are temporary salesman for policies made and executed by others the general public knows nothing about. You will not hear him discussing Iran, Iraq and Sudan in any truthful context, nor that they are major targets of American military ambitions, not because of any humanitarian or anti-terrorism concerns (although that is the propaganda espoused most often), but because of the significant resources and strategic relevance of these nations.
    You will never here Really discuss the fact that Neoliberalism is a system including free trade agreements, austerity programs and other measures that assure profitability is treasured above any other social value, and in the developing countries of the US Empire, it is backed up by the US military and its allies while being the principle cause for the massive immigration problems worldwide, not just here in the US. The nastiest of names and labels are instantly vomited out over those who feel that much of the the history we were taught in school was heavily revised to favor our own nation

  42. Really?   July 16, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    What’s my point?


  43. Paul   July 16, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    Liberals are being hoist by their own petard.

  44. Juan Sunday   July 17, 2014 at 5:56 am

    "you want to know war, buddy?….Do Ya?"

    *downs beer*

    "I fought on the front lines of the FBVN opinion sections for 10 years against the Neocons!"

  45. Jon Monday   July 17, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    To Really,

    I think Mike is right – you have no position on anything, except anti-Obama and anti-liberal.

    The war was and is a failure – that is the only topic here – and my purpose in the post was to, hopefully, get agreement from those on the left and right that these kinds of "World Police" policies are dangerous to our nation, and we need to call out our failures, just as much as we celebrate our outstanding achievements.

    All of the claims I made are fact and accurate. You pushed back with name calling and drivel, but you do not contest my assertions with facts. Facts like:

    Bush’s Iraq War was, and is, a total failure. No good came of it – and no good will come of it. History will judge it very harshly, as we have the video of Bush and Cheney saying that there was evidence of the WMD – and the report from the Bush White House search team that there were none, there was connection to al Qeada, and there was no threat to American Security.

    Bush and Cheney made up fake intelligence to justify the war, but no matter how it was justified, the war itself was a failure. A failure in planning, logistics, execution, and a failure of foreseeing the inevitable results – which is what we have now.

    It is well documented that Cheney set up his own intelligence operation and demanded that all reports go through. Both the CIA and the NSA warned that the intelligence sources were not reliable.

    I was involved in the antiwar movement and listened to both right and left commentators correctly predict exactly how things would turn out. They knew the prediction made by the administration were false:

    – War would last weeks or months, but not years.

    – The War would cost $60 – $80 billion, and after that, the war would pay for itself from oil revenue.

    – We would be welcomed as liberators.

    – There were ties to al Qeada

    – There was an active WMD program

    – Saddam had stockpiles of nerve gas that could be made operational in 20 or 40 minutes

    – There would be little loss of American lives

    – The war would bring peace to the region

    Like a drunk trying to get help at AA – rightwing supporters of Bush and the Iraq War first have to admit the truth of the war, then we can work on preventing future waste of American lives and fortune.

  46. really?   July 18, 2014 at 10:37 am
  47. Redneck Bill   July 18, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    Either there are 2 reallys, or really is beginning to lighten up a bit.

    "In my opinion"? Are you kidding me? The really I know and love doesn’t opine. He KNOWS. He was the head man of a 2 man team and his geopolitical knowledge and expertise are beyond reproach. (As well as every conceivable discipline.)

    You feeling OK buddy?

  48. Jon Monday   July 18, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    To Really?,

    I’ll just address one short statement from your post:

    You say, "A simpleton vitriol view through the prism that treats all U.S. foreign policy as merely fallout of the Iraq war. In you and your ilk

  49. Terry Leather   July 21, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Hmmmm…..All I know is the Bush administration is doing a terrible job of handling Iraq in his fourth term as president……oh wait.

  50. VDH   July 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Regarding the SOFA talks, it is the White House itself that would only consent to no more than 5,000 troops. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him for the Political heat he would take. The Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn’t serious about a continued commitment for >5000k Troops, Obama wanted such a small force so that he could proclaim he "Bush’s" war. Iraqi parlimental leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. In other words, it

  51. Jon Monday   July 24, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    You leave out the part about the US (Obama) rightly insisted that the government be more representative, and not just another US supported dictatorship.

    We would be seen by most of the population as fighting for the minority Sunnis against the majority Shia.

    We have not been seen as liberators, but as invaders choosing sides in an old inter-sect war.

    We needed to just get out ASAP – like Vietnam, there was no path that led to a US victory. Best case, get out with the least casualties.


Leave a Reply