Thousands killed... tens of thousands maimed.... and for what?
We had opportunity after opportunity to bring stability to a region vital to our interests.
And we did nothing.
Brought to you by the Anti-American, Empty-Suited Racist Bigot in the White House who gave Egypt to those muslim terrorists, we have, once again, failed to understand that both nature and politics abhor a vacuum... and that we are completing the transition of Iraq into an Iranian Client State. (Think Manchukoko (Manchuria) to Japan before and during World War 2.)
I still remember the massive and essentially endless Iran-Iraq wars of the 80's. Ultimately, Iran will achieve all of its aims through diplomacy (or the lack thereof) instead of through confrontation, since they have the same brand of shia islam (there are a variety of the brand) that the majority in Iraq have... and political nationalism plays a distant second to religious nationalism, particularly when the goal is a sharia state with sharia law being abused as the foundation for governance.
The result?
Now the shias will be freed up to go slaughter the Kurds, who are caught between the Turks and the rest of Iraq...both the Turks and the shias want Kurdish oil, you understand, so expect a "peace in our time" kind of deal where the Kurds become a more modern day version of Czechoslovakia... and the iranians will view the Straights of Hormuz, our oil jugular, as their Lake Washington.
I would rate the certainty that we will have to redeploy large amounts of combat troops to Iraq and probably Iran at 95%... and if the Iranian people don't get rid of their regime ala Libya, Egypt and Syria, then I rate it at 100% certainty.
It will be infinitely more difficult, costly, and bloody to go in and re-establish stability then it would have been if we had just stayed put.
But then, when your president despised the military badly enough to never consider serving in it, I suppose this is to be expected.
And the worst insult of all?
When we whimpered out of Iraq... no one from the Iraq government showed up:
Strains on Display: No Iraqi Leaders Attend U.S. End-of-War Ceremony in Baghdad
Fox News Correspondent Jennifer Griffin reports that only a handful of Iraqis were on hand Thursday as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and U.S. military leaders formally ended the Iraq war with a subdued ceremony in Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not attend the ceremony at which the flag of U.S. Forces-Iraq was officially retired.
"You will leave with great pride -- lasting pride -- secure in knowing that your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people to cast tyranny aside and to offer hope for prosperity and peace to this country's future generations," Panetta told U.S. troops. But even as a U.S. military band played a medley of patriotic American tunes, the ceremony -- televised live in the 5 a.m. EST hour -- seemed one-sided without Iraqi participation or even a thank-you.
Almost nine years of fighting in Iraq leaves 4,500 Americans dead and 32,000 wounded, according to the Associated Press tally. The cost to the U.S. -- more than $800 billion. But it was worth it, Panetta says:
"We spilled a lot of blood there," the defense secretary said earlier this week. "But all of that has not been in vain. It's been to achieve a mission making that country sovereign and independent and able to govern and secure itself."
More:The BBC reported that in the city of Falluja on Wednesday, Iraqis burned U.S. flags to celebrate the war's end. Some Iraqis say the U.S. did not live up to its promise to leave behind a secure and stable Iraq.
Well, I can't really blame them, I suppose. They're sitting at home like the South Vietnamese, waiting for the terrorists to come in and chat about their support of the Americans. You know, before they rape their women and children in front of them, decapitate those same women and children with dull knives and then shoot them.
Our worthless president and Secretary of State will get in front of the cameras and say "Tut, tut.... mustn't do that!" as we sell them out as much as Bush 1 sold out the Kurds before Saddam slaughtered them with nerve gas... and other interesting methods.
Meanwhile, the Iranians will own both sides of the Straights like they bought them through Century 21.
So, Mr. President, I will tell you what that group of sock puppets you've arrayed around yourself apparently lack the guts to tell you:
Be careful what you wish for.
You just might get it.
Is it any wonder that the Klingon Princess couldn't take him anymore and ditched him in DC so she could waste hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars to jet off to Hawaii? What do you wanna bet she's gonna eat a lot more then the carrot sticks she wants the rest of us to subsist on?
I suppose not.
What do you wanna bet she's gonna eat a lot more than the carrot sticks she wants the rest of us to subsist on?
7 comments:
Here's your quote that says it all for me:
"Thousands killed... tens of thousands maimed.... and for what?"
For you, you think there was actually something to be gained from that debacle. For me, the results are EXACTLY what I would have predicted.
Thank god it’s over!
"Thank god[sic] it's over!"
John Hash
November 12, 1918.
So... How'd that work out for him?
The problem, of course, is that it's not close to BEING "over."
This situation and "over" aren't even in the same time-space continuum.
As I have pointed out many, many, many times before, politics and nature both abhor a vacuum... politics, perhaps, having the upper hand even over Nature.
So, Martin... you've got it all figured out.... do tell.... what happens now?
I already know, of course, since I'm not one of those "doomed to repeat it" kind of guys.
We have learned precisely dick. We have accomplished even less because we achieved none of our goals, and the rest of the world sees us as rightfully lacking the will do to what has to be done.
So tell me, Martin: does our failure to secure the area... to stabilize it... to neutralize Iran... to open up more oil fields domestically... to secure our borders... to strengthen the most important parts of the military.... tell me:
Do these failures make war LESS likely?
Or MORE likely?
Soon, if not today, Iran will be in a position to strangle us and the entire West economically.
We, conversely, will be in a position to make speeches.
When his teleprompter works, Obama's really good at that.
When Iran and the other terrorists begin to "re-educate" those who helped us while we there because they were stupid enough to believe our promises... when the oceans of blood start running because we tucked tail and ran... oceans that, relatively speaking, make what's happened to date look like a few puddles in comparison.... what are we going to do about it?
The same thing we did in SE Asia; the same thing we did when Saddam started slaughtering the Kurds and the others who believed us when we told them to rise up.
Nothing.
All of which begs the question: the next time this country promises something.... who is going to believe us?
We needed a Tim Tebow. He had the open receivers, and he could have nailed down the win.
Instead... we got Rick Mirer... who couldn't hit the ground if he DROPPED the ball.
It's NOT over. And we will HAVE to go back.
And what's happened so far will look like a fender-bender in comparison.
And what do we do then?
The more you rail about the futility of that "war," the more I agree with you. The reason we couldn't achieve anything is because there was nothing to achieve - no WMD, no spread of democracy, no oil, no thanks, and NO NEED!
We've done just fine enforcing America's best interests from 30,000 feet, and if Iran needs a nuking then I'm all for it. BUT - trivial taunts, playground antics, and bizarre behavior do not a case for blood & gold make.
"BUT - trivial taunts, playground antics, and bizarre behavior do not a case for blood & gold make."
Ever hear of Adolf Hitler? What if we had taken him seriously?
And Martin, I'm still waiting: I asked you: what do YOU think is going to happen?
Can you foresee any circumstance where we will have to return?
Imagine how much different the world could be today if Hitler's
trivial taunts, playground antics, and bizarre behavior had been taken seriously?
First and foremost, if a country knew that even threatening the United States or our interests would result in immediate military strikes.... how many of these countries would be doing this?
There's a great many people out there... historians and so forth... who have asked the question: why didn't we take Hitler/Mussolini et al, seriously?
Frankly, Martin, I don't relish the idea of having this conversation with you after Iran goes through with any one of their threats... including closing the Straights of Hormuz... and asking:
Why didn't we take them seriously?
At this point, it seems that you ascribe to the concept that we should ignore history.
I disagree.
And if we ignore this history with the nutjobs in charge over there, we will pay for it for generations to come.
And I still want to know what you believe is going to happen over there in the short term with our departure.
I’m a subscriber of the “speak softy and carry a big stick“ strategy of enforcing America’s interests. That’s a euphuism for massive retaliation – which is the opposite of tit-for-tat, punitive foreign policy the U.S. often engages in. It all boils down to numbers – if we’re going to sacrifice 10,000 soldiers & $10 billion then the other side better lose 100,000 and $1 trillion. So, if we’re basically going to decimate everyone in a city and drive a whole country back to the Stone Age, then it better damn sure be worth it.
I‘ll never support pre-emptive war for something that MIGHT happen, but when punishing Iran is worth 10,000 soldiers dead then it’s the Stone Age for them.
As for Iraq - good luck to the new guy.
Huh? Did you post this stupid comment before or after you died?
Had we not respected the decision of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of the country we were bringing democracy to, our troops would have died for nothing. Sad that your hyper-partisanship has blinded you so.
Martin, I appreciate your position.
History might suggest that holding your nose in front of someone's fist when you know they're going to punch you just leads to you getting a bloody nose.
Did you ever see the Kirk Douglas movie,"The Final Countdown?"
Interesting premise. A US Supercarrier (Enterprise or some such) goes through some sort of time warp off the coast of Hawaii and winds up steaming in that location back on December 6, 1941.
Takes them a while to figure out what happens, but here you have a fully armed, with jet fighters no less, US carrier that knows what's going to happen, when and where.
The captain, Douglas, has a bit of angst over what he should do.
I would have no such problem. I would have destroyed the entire Japanese Fleet, saving Pearl Harbor from attack.
I'd have done it without a second thought. See, while you're one for retailiation, I'm one for pre-emption.
We followed your way back in World War 2. The Soviet Union... Red China... Japan... Cambodia... Rwanda... we stood by when we knew what was going to happen and did nothing.
If you, for example, were to follow me around and threaten to harm me or my family, I would likely act directly to eliminate the threat.
Waiting until I or a loved one is laying there bleeding?
That's too late.
Ultimately, when the US or our interests are threatened, those threats are an instrument of foreign policy attempting to change an outcome to the threatener's advantage.
If our history was one of eliminating the threat, imagine how much different our world would be now... and how many fewer threats would be issued.
Even now, Iran is killing Americans. They've been doing it for years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. How much more of that do they need to do before we act? What kind of message does it send that we don't retaliate to put an end to it?
I agree with retaliation as a policy if we're caught by surprise somehow. But to know these people want to destroy us and to know that they're working towards weaponry to accomplish that aim while we sit idly by and do nothing? To know they intend to, at a minimum, disrtupt our economy and impoverish a great many people (not that you'd have to worry about that) and sit by and do nothing about it?
That's insane. And waiting until after they accomplish their goal to respond may be too late... if we have nothing or next to nothing to retaliate WITH.
"I‘ll never support pre-emptive war for something that MIGHT happen, but when punishing Iran is worth 10,000 soldiers dead then it’s the Stone Age for them."
The problem with that is this is 2011, not 1811. And we may never again have the luxury avaiable of allowing those who wish our destruction, particularly when they're of the martyrdom ilk, to get their shots in first. See, they don't seem to give a damn that we would retaliate. Their vicotry would be in our destruction, retaliation be damned.
Those of us who have served in Combat Arms don't wait to be attacked when the threat exists. We remove the threat, and continue the mission.
An ROE requiring the other side to shoot FIRST, before we fire upon them, because they might NOT fire?
Insanity.
And this, is that, just on a larger scale.
If we would stand up for what we believe in. if we would keep our word JUST ONCE.... then it would make a difference. Otherwise?
Post a Comment