Talk-Polywell.org

William you would likewise do well to get some facts by watching the vid above. I am not suggesting Bush II knew what he was doing when he went into Iraq, but I would note to you that he was fighting 2 wars at once, and that a fantastically high percent of the American people as well as Congress, were behind the decision to go in. It wasn't until we had no instant success that people started to blame and claim they were not supporters, and had never been.

And suppose all the intel reports had been right, and Iraq did have WMD's. What is they're still buried in the sand like all those fighters we found? Then who are you going to say was right?

What we can say without any qualifications is, that more than 20 million women were liberated and can now take place in their own nation's business, politics, educational system, etc. The Iraqi's have what they need to be successful, except for one thing--continuing support. Fact is, without continuing support, all that we have accomplished in Iraq will be undone, and that's what POTUS made sure will happen. It's on him.

williatw wrote:

djolds1 wrote:As to blame for Iraq... it is debatable. As much blame can be placed on the surge itself as on the pullout, but the pullout is later on the timeline, and so will probably take the lion's share of the blame.

I Know the neo-cons prefer to think of the Iraq War as starting with the surge; but why don't we start with Oh I don't know maybe the start of the Iraq War. An inadequate sized force around 160K to conquer(liberate) Iraq and nation-build to a democracy, all with a force a fraction of the size used by Bush Senior (500K with foreign monetary aid to help pay for it) merely to push Sadamm out of Kuwait back into Iraq during the Gulf War a decade or so before. 500K basically to reset things to status quo vs 160K for fundamental change in the region (while we were fighting another war in Afghanistan at the same time). Deluding themselves (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) that this far more ambitious mission could be accomplished faster and with less cost and effort than the Gulf War (they will greet us with rose petals). The Surge was after all a last ditch desperate ploy to try to save ourselves from what was rapidly looking like a humiliating defeat that looked eminent; hardly military genius at work.

The first thing destroyed in war is the war plan. But the surge did rectify the immediate problem.

FFF Articles

TGIF: We Were Warned about the Rise of Empire
by Sheldon Richman June 13, 2014

American critics of U.S. foreign policy (as well as some neoconservative supporters) often refer to the United States as an empire. This is not an emotional outburst but a substantive description of the national government’s role in the world. But what exactly is an empire? This question is all the more relevant today with Iraq is being consumed by sectarian violence and calls for renewed U.S. intervention here are increasingly louder

We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night; the precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say: “You now are entering Imperium.” Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: “Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.” And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: “No U-turns.”

If you say there were no frightening omens, that is true. The political foundations did not quake, the graves of the fathers did not fly open, the Constitution did not tear itself up. If you say people did not will it, that also is true. But if you say therefore it has not happened, then you have been so long bemused by words that your mind does not believe what the eye can see, even as in the jungle the terrified primitive, on meeting the lion, importunes magic by saying to himself, “He is not there.”

Republics, he said, can make war, conquer territory, and even acquire colonies, depending on how one defines the term, so “let us regard the things that belong only to empire, and set them down. Then we shall see.”

He came up with five traits:


(1) Rise of the executive principle of government to a position of dominant power,

(2) Accommodation of domestic policy to foreign policy,

(3) Ascendancy of the military mind,

(4) A system of satellite nations for a purpose called collective security, and,

(5) An emotional complex of vaunting and fear.

It’s easy to see how closely this fits the United States today. For a long time, the executive branch has been the dominant branch of government. For example, as Garrett noted, the war power has moved entirely into the hands of the president, despite the Constitution’s language and Congress’s half-hearted attempt to hold on to some power with the War Powers Resolution. Since the Korean War, it’s the president who decides when the country goes to war. (Even when Barack Obama tossed the question of bombing Syria to Congress last year, he and others maintained that he had the unilateral power to act if he wanted to.) During the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, lawyers inside and outside the government spun broad theories of autocratic executive authority over national security based entirely on the apparently thin Article II of the Constitution.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/ ... of-empire/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u- ... in-jordan/

It's about keeping Iraqi oil in the ground and out of the market, keeping the price at the pump on the up. That's the real reason for the invasion under Bush. That's the reason ISIS is on the march right now. Look at those photos of terrorist convoys on the Iraq highways, think a few A10's could put a stop to the whole charade. You have drones blasting people throughout the middle east except Iraq, Kerry is talking how the biggest threat is climate change harming the worlds oceans, POTUS is playing golf.

That and they can sell a whole $hitload of weapons to both sides in the coming Sunni/Shia tilt they've started. I repeat, the U.N. embargo on Iraq was coming to an end when Bush launched his attack, it's about keeping the price of oil through the roof.

GIThruster wrote:What we can say without any qualifications is, that more than 20 million women were liberated and can now take place in their own nation's business, politics, educational system, etc. The Iraqi's have what they need to be successful, except for one thing--continuing support. Fact is, without continuing support, all that we have accomplished in Iraq will be undone, and that's what POTUS made sure will happen. It's on him
.

Oh it's on Obama is it?
How about it's on Iraq:

Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq's second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting.

Hamad al-Mutlaq, a member of the Iraqi parliament's defence committee, said: "I'm convinced that what happened in Mosul is deliberate negligence or there is an agreement between the parties because it's impossible for an army to be unable to stand up to a group made up of hundreds of men."

"Isis can't have had more than a few thousand men versus two divisions made up of 30,000 Iraqi soldiers. This signifies that the army has been built on weak foundations. The Iraqi government is the one to blame and should be held responsible for this failure; it has been unable to build a healthy state and unable to defend it."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... CMP=twt_gu

There being beaten handily by an army a fraction of their size after years of training and treasure from us. This sorry lot of cowards isn't worth another American life or American dollar. Maybe Iran will help their Shiite brethren maybe not..far as I am concerned a pox on both their houses.

The American taxpayer is already paying money into this conflict, as in, they fully fund ISIS. The terrorists have the very best intelligence the American taxpayer can provide, probably paid to arrange for those two divisions folding. Woe to the Iraqis if the U.S. does start helping militarily, guaranteed 'friendly fire' debacles and 'intercepted' signals.

Seriously, drones can't be diverted to kill a few head hunting terrorists?

choff wrote:The American taxpayer is already paying money into this conflict, as in, they fully fund ISIS. The terrorists have the very best intelligence the American taxpayer can provide, probably paid to arrange for those two divisions folding. Woe to the Iraqis if the U.S. does start helping militarily, guaranteed 'friendly fire' debacles and 'intercepted' signals.

Wow! Conspiracy theorist much? So when Bush invaded Iraq against all indications that there were WMDs (as stated by the rest of the world), it was not a conspiracy and now it is...
Lets blame the fireman and not the one who started the fire in the first place, eh?

as stated by the rest of the world

Skip, you should stop saying this. It is not true.

Taking the time to read the Congressional Report on the Iraq WMD intelligence issue would be your best route to becoming somewhat informed on this topic. It is publically available and will give you some real insight into how the determinations were made. And recall, as you read it, it was a hostile Congress that generated it. That should give you pause, as it details that the process was flawed for analysis, not the information being reveiwed. The main theme is process failures to prevent circular reporting(since fixed) as well as source correllation methodolgies.

I can tell you have not read it based on your comments.

And for the record, Iraq had one of the largest WMD arsenals around. In fact there is still some there that has not yet been recovered and destroyed.
WMD program elements were continually found during the war and long after.
The iraqi nuclear scientists themselves admitted that they and the program were 'in stasis' and awaiting Saddam's order to fully spin up and that Saddam (Also in his own words during debreifs) was trying to convince everyone had had more than he did after the 1991 fight and sanctions. More specifically, he was trying to convince Iran on his Nuclear WMD component.

The media is the one that focused on the nuclear bit of Iraq WMD. The intelligence was reporting on all facets of Iraq WMD, which was the fuill scope of CBR capabilities. The conflict brought to light full vindication of Chem and Bio assessments and the Congressional Report addresses this, it also brought to light that Saddam went to great lengths (too well in fact) to deceive on the fact that his Radiological component was 'in stasis' vice active. Saddam had every intent to push the Go Button again once he got the UN and international community far enough off his back. This was his goal in everything he did; Get clear of scrutiny, and get back to business as before.

Your myopic view of this topic is driven more or less by leftist media propanganda. Dig deeper, find source material, evaluate it independently.

Skipjack wrote:

choff wrote:So when Bush invaded Iraq against all indications that there were WMDs (as stated by the rest of the world). . .

What ridiculous bullshit!!! All the major intelligence sources in the world said Saddam had WMD's! He had used them on his own people! You don't recall those days where we were concerned of Scuds dropping on our people with VX gas in them? Just because it never happened doesn't mean it couldn't have, and pretending after the fact no one thought it could or would happen is just leftist bullshit politicizing. Shame on you! Anyone can get the list of those intelligence sources around the world that thought Saddam had WMD's.

Skipjack wrote:So when Bush invaded Iraq against all indications that there were WMDs (as stated by the rest of the world). . .

What ridiculous bullshit!!! All the major intelligence sources in the world said Saddam had WMD's! He had used them on his own people! You don't recall those days where we were concerned of Scuds dropping on our people with VX gas in them? Just because it never happened doesn't mean it couldn't have, and pretending after the fact no one thought it could or would happen is just leftist bullshit politicizing. Shame on you! Anyone can get the list of those intelligence sources around the world that thought Saddam had WMD's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Of course the west knew Saddam had WMD's, who do you think he purchased them from, irrelevant to why the invasion took place except as a useful pretext. I will repeat, this is about the price of a barrel of oil, always has been, the banksters like the price to be high, the consumer would like it to be low. If both Iraqi and Iranian oil was never impeded by conflict and embargo take a guess what the current price would look like. POTUS and Kerry aren't concerned because everything is going according to plan.

Well, pretty sure he got the gas from the same place as the shells used to deliver it, and his tanks, etc. The Soviets. So we really don't know what sort of gas it was. Just that it was the weapon of choice for the largest chemical weapons slaughter in human history.

Good old Rummy!

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/9707

That is very sad if true. How much do you trust this source?

I know in the 80's, we were really still at the extreme end of pissed at Iran, so it is more understandable we'd give Saddam these sorts of things, but it is still hard to believe. Would need some reasons to trust this source.

choff, how do "banksters" benefit from a high oil price?