Should Obama Get Involved In Iraq?

bush_cheney2004 · June 23, 2014

The Balkanizing of Iraq has long been a desired possibility, but there was no "peaceful" way of doing it. Domestic oil revenue interests, external players like Iran, Turkey & Syria, Saddam's issues, etc., etc. Iraq has been a dysfunctional nation of forced "unity" since the British mandate created it. The Kurds seem to know what to do and how to do it, but Turkey wants no part of that.

Edited June 23, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

PIK · June 23, 2014

But he was elected. Kind of undemocratic for the US to oust a democratically elected leader.

With promises to bring in the others into government and military leadership posts.

GostHacked · June 23, 2014

With promises to bring in the others into government and military leadership posts.

An elected official fails on a campaign promise? Say it ain't so.

Here is something interesting. Cheney is saying another 9/11 attack on the US may happen, but worse. IF another one does happen, will that be enough to get back into Iraq and abroad in the M.E. ??

This guy is getting his ugly mug plastered all over the news as of late. Why? His new attempt at some American Leadership think tank is part of it. I would even suggest this is similar to the Neo-Cons Project for A New American Century. I'd be keeping a close eye on this war criminal. A crap storm follows him everywhere he goes.

Big Guy · June 23, 2014

...

This guy is getting his ugly mug plastered all over the news as of late. Why? His new attempt at some American Leadership think tank is part of it. I would even suggest this is similar to the Neo-Cons Project for A New American Century. I'd be keeping a close eye on this war criminal. A crap storm follows him everywhere he goes.

I think it has a lot to do with the political ambitions of his daughter, Liz Cheney. Liz tried to strong arm herself into a challenge for the senate job representing Wyoming but party officials "advised" that she not challenge the Republican candidate and she stepped down. I think Dick is sending a message to the party that he is still around and be careful when you go after his daughter.

It has also been a recent phenomena where political figures try to get out front to create their own "legacy" by staying active and quickly getting out their autobiographies before history has a chance to provide the real story. Already, rightly or wrongly, Dick Cheney has been labelled with the fault of creating this current debacle in Iraq. I believe that the Republican party is quite happy to let Dick take the blame personally and try to separate the party from the fiasco. No one in the party is speaking up for him (except for his daughter on political shows) so Dick is trying to protect his own back.

Unfortunately for Dick, time and historians have a way to eventually get to the facts and the truth.

waldo · June 23, 2014

I think it has a lot to do with the political ambitions of his daughter, Liz Cheney. Liz tried to strong arm herself into a challenge for the senate job representing Wyoming but party officials "advised" that she not challenge the Republican candidate and she stepped down. I think Dick is sending a message to the party that he is still around and be careful when you go after his daughter.

Cheney's now regularly ~~pimping out~~ shopping around his daughter... playing up their new ~~"Alliance for a Strong America"~~ Neo-Con II project.

GostHacked · June 23, 2014

Also when Cheney is warning about a new 9/11 attack, I think we should listen. Maybe they need another 'Pearl Harbour' in order to maybe beef up things like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA.

Michael Hardner · June 23, 2014

Maybe they need another 'Pearl Harbour' in order to maybe beef up things like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA.

They didn't need one for the first Iraq war, nor for other actions. I don't think there's much interest in going back to Iraq though.

GostHacked · June 23, 2014

They didn't need one for the first Iraq war, nor for other actions. I don't think there's much interest in going back to Iraq though.

Do you think the US could have gone into Iraq without an incident like 9/11?

Michael Hardner · June 23, 2014

Do you think the US could have gone into Iraq without an incident like 9/11?

? Did you read my post ?

bush_cheney2004 · June 23, 2014

They didn't need one for the first Iraq war, nor for other actions. I don't think there's much interest in going back to Iraq though.

Agreed...the U.S. was militarily engaged with Iraq long before 2003, along with the U.K. Clinton and Blair didn't need no 'steenkin 9/11 to bomb Iraq.

GostHacked · June 23, 2014

? Did you read my post ?

Yes, and that did not answer my question.

monty16 · June 23, 2014

And you believe you know what those Saudi hijackers where thinking how again? The only thing I see ridiculous here are your comments.

If your knowledge of the issue goes no deeper than your not understanding that Osama was not working on behalf of the Saudi monarchy then there's no purpose of me even trying to discuss it with you. At least some facts have been established since 9/11 because Osama never did keep it a secret. However, I recognize the fact that some could never come to terms with admitting Osama's agenda was not in cooperating with his family's alignment with evil.

In fact, I think you do understand but have now gotten yourself so immersed in the negativity you're feeling that you aren't going to be rational for a while. I'll know when you come back so you don't have to let us know.

monty16 · June 23, 2014

I have a post that I feel is appropriate in this and another thread. I shall repeat it here;

More and more it appears that Iraq will end up partitioned based on religion. The Kurds hold the far North, the Sunni are in control of the North West and the Shia hold and will defend the South and Southeast.

It is ironic that in 2006, then Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, declared a possible, solution to the (impending at the time) escalating violence in Iraq;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html

Looks like the end solution, if it is political, will result in what Biden proposed.

Who wooda thought!?!

Yeah, that's the solution for sure. The only trouble is, nobody asked Iraqis.

monty16 · June 23, 2014

They didn't need one for the first Iraq war, nor for other actions. I don't think there's much interest in going back to Iraq though.

They needed to fabricate a reason for the the Gulf war in Iraq. We should all know now that Kuwait had little to do with it and the reason for the first one was the same as the second one.

Those who are aware of what the US has been involved in should get great pleasure in reading the April Glaspie story or the story of the fake buildup of Iraqi troops and artillery alonb the Saudi border in preparation for war. They never were there of course but the pretence was clearly to enlist Saudi support.

The American people aren't stupid, they've just been brainwashed into not wanting to know the truth. Some even think Blair and Clinton planned it all! LOL

bush_cheney2004 · June 23, 2014

The U.S. should do whatever is in America's interests. If that means more intervention in Iraq, then so be it. To quote Sec'y Medeleine Albright (to Gen. Colin Powell, JCS):

"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

On Guard for Thee · June 23, 2014

That's ridiculous. The reason why the US hasn't attacked the Saudis is because the 911 freedom fighters weren't working on behalf of their country. They were actually working against their evil monarchy that was being propped up by the US. Again, a point that both of us are fully aware of. Why would you try to turn it into something else?

However, if you don't understand that the Saudi monarchy are the good guys then we'll start at the beginning. Be attentive, there will be a test!

Dawwwwwgggg, you'd think that Saudi still celebrates Osama's birthday!

I wonder why they didn't fly the planes into the "evil monarchy" then.

Big Guy · June 23, 2014

The U.S. should do whatever is in America's interests. If that means more intervention in Iraq, then so be it. To quote Sec'y Medeleine Albright (to Gen. Colin Powell, JCS):

"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

The scary part is that there is another country with a war hardened armed force that is led by a right wing majority leader - Harper.

We also have a hardened and experienced crew without (but not looking for I hope) a war.

monty16 · June 23, 2014

The U.S. should do whatever is in America's interests. If that means more intervention in Iraq, then so be it. To quote Sec'y Medeleine Albright (to Gen. Colin Powell, JCS):

"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

And no concern whatsoever with the lives of the people in the country's where the US goes to pursue it's interests.

Thanks for the honesty from the indoctrinated! I only wonder now whether or not your reputation on this forum is going to cause people to take you seriously. I sure hope so because nothing I've saic could be so direct and to the point.

bush_cheney2004 · June 23, 2014

The scary part is that there is another country with a war hardened armed force that is led by a right wing majority leader - Harper.

We also have a hardened and experienced crew without (but not looking for I hope) a war.

Meh...Canada's foreign policy is also motivated by self interest, including the well cultivated excuse to bomb people for "human rights" (i.e. "Responsibility to Protect" and other such nonsense).

bush_cheney2004 · June 23, 2014

And no concern whatsoever with the lives of the people in the country's where the US goes to pursue it's interests.

No, not as a primary or even secondary concern. That their lives can be made better or worse depends on the circumstances and counter interests / players.

Thanks for the honesty from the indoctrinated! I only wonder now whether or not your reputation on this forum is going to cause people to take you seriously. I sure hope so because nothing I've saic could be so direct and to the point.

Again, it doesn't mater what I say. My point of view represents American policies...past, present, and future...without apologies...to anybody.

The guilt you feel is your own...born of complicity in such matters, but no courage to admit and embrace it.

Edited June 23, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

monty16 · June 23, 2014

Meh...Canada's foreign policy is also motivated by self interest, including the well cultivated excuse to bomb people for "human rights" (i.e. "Responsibility to Protect" and other such nonsense).

And again you shoot your own foot off by referring to the humanitarian aid as nonsense. Your defence of the US by comparing to Canada just won't work for you. You have to understand that honest Canadians are not going to pretend that we are guilt free. So it's always going to be a mutual condemnation of the US. The only honest and reasonable argument we Canadians can advance is to say that the US far exceeds Canada in evil on all fronts. There's something for you to challenge.

bush_cheney2004 · June 23, 2014

... The only honest and reasonable argument we Canadians can advance is to say that the US far exceeds Canada in evil on all fronts. There's something for you to challenge.

I don't care what Canadians say....I am more interested in what they do and have done. Dead people don't care if the bombs were from Canada or the U.S.A. Hell, even Canada's bombs come from the U.S.A, and the means to deliver them.

PIK · June 23, 2014

An elected official fails on a campaign promise? Say it ain't so.

Here is something interesting. Cheney is saying another 9/11 attack on the US may happen, but worse. IF another one does happen, will that be enough to get back into Iraq and abroad in the M.E. ??

This guy is getting his ugly mug plastered all over the news as of late. Why? His new attempt at some American Leadership think tank is part of it. I would even suggest this is similar to the Neo-Cons Project for A New American Century. I'd be keeping a close eye on this war criminal. A crap storm follows him everywhere he goes.

I have notice him in the news lately,what is he up to.

PIK · June 23, 2014

Meh...Canada's foreign policy is also motivated by self interest, including the well cultivated excuse to bomb people for "human rights" (i.e. "Responsibility to Protect" and other such nonsense).

Never self interest, we are always there for the people.