-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Nobel Winner v. The Cowboy
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
In The Light, thanks for the kind words! cmg
Not at all.
He should have given the military what they asked for in Afghanistan or pulled out completely at the time. By giving them troops at all, he made the war his own. By authorizing less than half what they asked for, he doomed the effort from the get go.
Fighting a war on the cheap doesn't work well. Bush found that out and authorized the troops needed to turn Iraq around.
Obama wasn't paying attention to anyone at all, least of all his military leaders.
You must be talking about G. Bush, he is the one who basically abandoned Afghanistan when he started his misadventure in Iraq.
And left a mess in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His administration made terrible mistakes in both countries.
The way you just described that is what we call a no-win scenario. Which is Afghanstan and Iraq in a nutshell. We didn't turn around a thing in Iraq which is all too evident now despite the Bush surges. Obama simply pulled the plug on an ill-advised occupation.
Bush also predicted that what is happening would happen if the plug were pulled. Clinton and the other Democrats called for war, voted for it, and then did an about-face and demonized Bush.
So what, we stay there forever? I don't care what Clinton called for, he was just a talking head at that point. Occupying Iraq was stupid and it created an unsolvable mess.
Clinton called for regime change when he was President, although that does not refute your point that Clinton as President was just a talking head at that point.
It was not the occupation of Iraq that caused the current unsolvable mess. It was 0bam@ walking away from Iraq. Now that we are not only bombing Iraq but also Syria, what is the reason for all of this? Could it be the elections this November? It certainly isn't for oil, which was the excuse given by Democrats for 8 years.
It was not the occupation of Iraq that caused the current unsolvable mess. It was 0bam@ walking away from Iraq. Now that we are not only bombing Iraq but also Syria, what is the reason for all of this? Could it be the elections this November? It certainly isn't for oil, which was the excuse given by Democrats for 8 years.
poncho
Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
I keep telling CMG there is no such thing as a "democrat foreign policy" or "republican foreign policy" there is only a multinational corporate sponsored foreign policy. I'm afraid he's gone to far a field in the false left vs right paradigm to comprehend the obvious.
For those interested here's the corporate playbook to subdue the middle east.
"Which Path to Persia?" was written in 2009 by the Brookings Institution as a blueprint for confronting Iran. Within the opening pages of the report, acknowledgments are given to the Smith Richardson Foundation, upon which Zbigniew Brzezinski sits as an acting governor.
The Smith Richardson Foundation funds a bizarre myriad of globalist pet projects including studies on geoengineering, nation building, meddling in the Caucasus region, and even studies, as of 2009, to develop methods to support "indigenous democratic political movements and transitions" in Poland, Egypt, Cuba, Nepal, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Burma. Also acknowledged by the report is the Crown Family Foundation out of Chicago.
The Brookings Institution itself is a creation of the notorious globalist funding arms including the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, all who recently had been involved in the fake "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. Today, Brookings boasts a full complement of support and funding from America's biggest corporations. Upon the Brookings Institution's board of trustees one will find a collection of corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, the insurance industry, Pepsi (CFR), Alcoa (CFR), and various CFR affiliated consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.
Full details can be found within the pages of their 2010 annual report here.
To say Brookings is of big-business, by big-business and for big-business is a serious understatement. This is crucial to keep in mind as we examine their designs toward Iran and consider the terrible cost every single option they are considering has towards everyone but, unsurprisingly, their own bottom-lines.
Read More At: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html
Before that was Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" another playbook of securing a corporate global hegemony using America's blood and treasure.
I keep telling CMG there is no such thing as a "democrat foreign policy" or "republican foreign policy" there is only a multinational corporate sponsored foreign policy. I'm afraid he's gone to far a field in the false left vs right paradigm to comprehend the obvious.
For those interested here's the corporate playbook to subdue the middle east.
"Which Path to Persia?" was written in 2009 by the Brookings Institution as a blueprint for confronting Iran. Within the opening pages of the report, acknowledgments are given to the Smith Richardson Foundation, upon which Zbigniew Brzezinski sits as an acting governor.
The Smith Richardson Foundation funds a bizarre myriad of globalist pet projects including studies on geoengineering, nation building, meddling in the Caucasus region, and even studies, as of 2009, to develop methods to support "indigenous democratic political movements and transitions" in Poland, Egypt, Cuba, Nepal, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Burma. Also acknowledged by the report is the Crown Family Foundation out of Chicago.
The Brookings Institution itself is a creation of the notorious globalist funding arms including the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, all who recently had been involved in the fake "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. Today, Brookings boasts a full complement of support and funding from America's biggest corporations. Upon the Brookings Institution's board of trustees one will find a collection of corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, the insurance industry, Pepsi (CFR), Alcoa (CFR), and various CFR affiliated consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.
Full details can be found within the pages of their 2010 annual report here.
To say Brookings is of big-business, by big-business and for big-business is a serious understatement. This is crucial to keep in mind as we examine their designs toward Iran and consider the terrible cost every single option they are considering has towards everyone but, unsurprisingly, their own bottom-lines.
Read More At: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html
Before that was Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" another playbook of securing a corporate global hegemony using America's blood and treasure.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Of course that all ties in with this . . . http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=95668
Denial is a good thing, if you can pull it off. I hope you're successful, but it doesn't change history or the facts.
A security force would hardly have been an "occupation" and no different than what we have done successfully in other places in the past. But Obama had to play politics, not president. The idiot still doesn't recognize who the enemy is.
Lack of the negotiated and promised security force put us where we are now, Obama's ISIS.
So you are saying Iraq was successful up until we left? Denial indeed. We paved the way for ISIS the day Saddam's statue hit the ground.
poncho
Well-Known Member
I believe he's still relying on the word of the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" who gave us minute by minute updates about the success of the Iraq invasion during the Bush/Cheney neocon administration.
Many of the analysts were also lobbyists for defense contractors, and boasted of their Pentagon access to potential clients. This financial conflict discouraged the analysts from questioning or criticizing the Pentagon's claims. [1]
Timur J. Eads, a Fox analyst, program participant and lobbyist for military contractor Blackbird Technologies "said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that 'some four-star could call up and say, "Kill that contract."' For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. 'I know a snow job when I see one,' he said. He did not share this on TV." [1]
At least two analysts -- Robert S. Bevelacqua and Robert L. Maginnis -- doubted the Administration's case for war with Iraq, but kept their reservations to themselves. Both had attended "a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons." Maginnis "concluded that the analysts were being 'manipulated' to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public." [1]
The analysts were also reluctant to be critical, fearing they would lose their high-level Pentagon access. The Pentagon tracked what the analysts said, via a six-figure contract with Omnitec Solutions. As William V. Cowan learned, there were repercussions for analysts who didn't follow the Pentagon's suggested talking points. He was fired from the Pentagon analysts group after saying on Fox News that the United States was "not on a good glide path right now" in Iraq. [1]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pentagon_military_analyst_program
He repeated what these guys said on tv practically word for word in those days. :smilewinkgrin:
Many of the analysts were also lobbyists for defense contractors, and boasted of their Pentagon access to potential clients. This financial conflict discouraged the analysts from questioning or criticizing the Pentagon's claims. [1]
Timur J. Eads, a Fox analyst, program participant and lobbyist for military contractor Blackbird Technologies "said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that 'some four-star could call up and say, "Kill that contract."' For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. 'I know a snow job when I see one,' he said. He did not share this on TV." [1]
At least two analysts -- Robert S. Bevelacqua and Robert L. Maginnis -- doubted the Administration's case for war with Iraq, but kept their reservations to themselves. Both had attended "a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons." Maginnis "concluded that the analysts were being 'manipulated' to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public." [1]
The analysts were also reluctant to be critical, fearing they would lose their high-level Pentagon access. The Pentagon tracked what the analysts said, via a six-figure contract with Omnitec Solutions. As William V. Cowan learned, there were repercussions for analysts who didn't follow the Pentagon's suggested talking points. He was fired from the Pentagon analysts group after saying on Fox News that the United States was "not on a good glide path right now" in Iraq. [1]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pentagon_military_analyst_program
He repeated what these guys said on tv practically word for word in those days. :smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
If you say so. I've always been under the impression that it was common knowledge from both Conservatives and Liberals that Iraq was a massive failure. We certainly didn't "win" anything.
Yes. And you're saying it wasn't. Denial indeed.
Either way, Obama owns the "JV terrorist" organization known as ISIS. He helped create it and arm it. They wouldn't own Mosul if he hadn't been playing politics by removing all troops, in violation of the agreement that was in place.
Let's face it, when it comes to military matters and foreign affairs , in general, Obama is captain of the real JV. It starts with his absolute refusal to recognize the nature of the real enemy. Until he does, he will continue to flail around, arming one group , giving rise to another, and then trying to kill the monster he helps to create...never acknowledging the elephant in the room.
You honestly think Iraq was a success? Wow.
Absolutely. Mission accomplished.
We gave the Iraqis a chance. With Obama's help, they are blowing it. But they had a chance to run their own country for the first time ever.
I have no words.
poncho
Well-Known Member
I think the reality here is that the blame lies with Washington's "foreign policy" of regime change and supporting "friendly" dictators who will serve the global elite's purposes against the will of the people they rule over.
It's interesting to listen to both sides in this argument fight over who's fault it is and make it into a Bush vs Obama thing when it's so obvious both of them serve the global elite's interests over American's interests.
Sure they all say they're protecting us from "bad guys" but when we look at the long history of "regime change" Washington has engaged in it was usually Washington that empowered these "bad guys" in the first place.
In other words it's not a matter of Bush vs Obama. It's a matter of a sane foreign policy that serves the interest and well being of American citizens vs an insane foreign policy that serves the interest of a handful of global elite who couldn't give a rat's furry butt what happens to American citizens as a result of their own greed and lust for power.
We need to get out of the false left vs right paradigm and focus on cause and effect. In most cases Washington's "regime change" policy has been the cause of our troubles and Washington's only "solution" seems to be doubling down and doing more of what caused our problems.
It's interesting to listen to both sides in this argument fight over who's fault it is and make it into a Bush vs Obama thing when it's so obvious both of them serve the global elite's interests over American's interests.
Sure they all say they're protecting us from "bad guys" but when we look at the long history of "regime change" Washington has engaged in it was usually Washington that empowered these "bad guys" in the first place.
In other words it's not a matter of Bush vs Obama. It's a matter of a sane foreign policy that serves the interest and well being of American citizens vs an insane foreign policy that serves the interest of a handful of global elite who couldn't give a rat's furry butt what happens to American citizens as a result of their own greed and lust for power.
We need to get out of the false left vs right paradigm and focus on cause and effect. In most cases Washington's "regime change" policy has been the cause of our troubles and Washington's only "solution" seems to be doubling down and doing more of what caused our problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dumbstruck. I like that. :thumbs:
If you want to take another win away from our troops, you'll have to do it when I'm not around. I've seen it done before.
Their mission was an unqualified success. Saddam is gone. The insurgency was quelled. Al Qaeda was routed.
There is no failure there at all, except on the part of the Iraqis to carry the ball.
It may be true that muslim nations are incapable of self rule, But Iraq had it's chance.