|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The only reason Trump questions whether the hacking was really from Russia is because he doesn't want his "win" to look in any way illegitimate. This is just personal ego. Hopefully this is not a preview of the extent to which he's willing to let his ego/temperament influence policy...
Donald Trump's top aides on Sunday said the president-elect isn't ready to accept the finding by intelligence officials that Moscow hacked Democratic emails in a bid to elevate Trump. Even if it's true, they said, Trump still won the White House fair and square.
...
"This whole thing is a spin job," said Trump's incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus. "And I think what the Democrats ought to do is look in the mirror and face the reality that they lost the election."
...
"Where's the evidence?" asked Kellyanne Conway, another close Trump adviser.
Asked about President Barack Obama's vow to retaliate against the Russians, Conway said: "It seems like the president is under pressure from Team Hillary, who can't accept the election results."
Yahoo
|
On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya?
The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction.
The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan.
Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support.
|
On December 19 2016 06:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya? The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction. The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan. Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support.
Your ignoring the guerilla war that happened after the invasion which was a major problem for the US and probably the main reason boots were a non-starter for Syria/Libya.
Just looking at the initial invasion is very short sighted since Iraq never stood a chance there and neither would Libya/Syria.
The US 'only' had several hundred times the military budget. Anything less then a 'fantastic showing' would be a complete embarrassment.
|
On December 19 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 06:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya? The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction. The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan. Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support. Your ignoring the guerilla war that happened after the invasion which was a major problem for the US and probably the main reason boots were a non-starter for Syria/Libya. Just looking at the initial invasion is very short sighted since Iraq never stood a chance there and neither would Libya/Syria. The US 'only' had several hundred times the military budget. Anything less then a 'fantastic showing' would be a complete embarrassment.
I did not ignore the guerilla war.
The initial reason for Iraq was to remove WMD's. They got to Iraq, got to the supposed locations of WMDs, and found jack shit. Next step of that plan is to leave. Invasion done, 3-8 weeks tops.
Instead we stayed. Since we stayed guerilla warfare could happen. They can't guerilla war us if our troops are back in american soil. But since we stayed and since we were trying to leave them with a stable system we ended up spending years and years sending troops to sit around and be shot at for months at a time.
|
On December 19 2016 07:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:On December 19 2016 06:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya? The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction. The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan. Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support. Your ignoring the guerilla war that happened after the invasion which was a major problem for the US and probably the main reason boots were a non-starter for Syria/Libya. Just looking at the initial invasion is very short sighted since Iraq never stood a chance there and neither would Libya/Syria. The US 'only' had several hundred times the military budget. Anything less then a 'fantastic showing' would be a complete embarrassment. I did not ignore the guerilla war. The initial reason for Iraq was to remove WMD's. They got to Iraq, got to the supposed locations of WMDs, and found jack shit. Next step of that plan is to leave. Invasion done, 3-8 weeks tops. Instead we stayed. Since we stayed guerilla warfare could happen. They can't guerilla war us if our troops are back in american soil. But since we stayed and since we were trying to leave them with a stable system we ended up spending years and years sending troops to sit around and be shot at for months at a time.
The question asked by LegalLord was about how the situation in Iraq was handled compared to Syria/Libya. Not some mythical scenario where the US went around creating power vacuums at random.
PS.
In your scenario ISIS would probably be a successfully established Kalifaat in Iraq, not at war in Syria and free to concentrate its resources on attacking the hated West. An actual downgrade to the current situation where their resources are tied up and being bled dry.
|
On December 19 2016 07:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:On December 19 2016 06:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya? The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction. The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan. Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support. Your ignoring the guerilla war that happened after the invasion which was a major problem for the US and probably the main reason boots were a non-starter for Syria/Libya. Just looking at the initial invasion is very short sighted since Iraq never stood a chance there and neither would Libya/Syria. The US 'only' had several hundred times the military budget. Anything less then a 'fantastic showing' would be a complete embarrassment. I did not ignore the guerilla war. The initial reason for Iraq was to remove WMD's. They got to Iraq, got to the supposed locations of WMDs, and found jack shit. Next step of that plan is to leave. Invasion done, 3-8 weeks tops. Instead we stayed. Since we stayed guerilla warfare could happen. They can't guerilla war us if our troops are back in american soil. But since we stayed and since we were trying to leave them with a stable system we ended up spending years and years sending troops to sit around and be shot at for months at a time.
You make it sound like anyone in the US leadership believed there were any WMD...
It was fully known that all the cited sources were fabricated.
|
On December 19 2016 07:15 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 07:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:On December 19 2016 06:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya? The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction. The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan. Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support. Your ignoring the guerilla war that happened after the invasion which was a major problem for the US and probably the main reason boots were a non-starter for Syria/Libya. Just looking at the initial invasion is very short sighted since Iraq never stood a chance there and neither would Libya/Syria. The US 'only' had several hundred times the military budget. Anything less then a 'fantastic showing' would be a complete embarrassment. I did not ignore the guerilla war. The initial reason for Iraq was to remove WMD's. They got to Iraq, got to the supposed locations of WMDs, and found jack shit. Next step of that plan is to leave. Invasion done, 3-8 weeks tops. Instead we stayed. Since we stayed guerilla warfare could happen. They can't guerilla war us if our troops are back in american soil. But since we stayed and since we were trying to leave them with a stable system we ended up spending years and years sending troops to sit around and be shot at for months at a time. You make it sound like anyone in the US leadership believed there were any WMD... It was fully known that all the cited sources were fabricated.
I disagree; I think some in the US leadership did believe there were WMDs.
|
On December 19 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 07:15 mahrgell wrote:On December 19 2016 07:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:On December 19 2016 06:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya? The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction. The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan. Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support. Your ignoring the guerilla war that happened after the invasion which was a major problem for the US and probably the main reason boots were a non-starter for Syria/Libya. Just looking at the initial invasion is very short sighted since Iraq never stood a chance there and neither would Libya/Syria. The US 'only' had several hundred times the military budget. Anything less then a 'fantastic showing' would be a complete embarrassment. I did not ignore the guerilla war. The initial reason for Iraq was to remove WMD's. They got to Iraq, got to the supposed locations of WMDs, and found jack shit. Next step of that plan is to leave. Invasion done, 3-8 weeks tops. Instead we stayed. Since we stayed guerilla warfare could happen. They can't guerilla war us if our troops are back in american soil. But since we stayed and since we were trying to leave them with a stable system we ended up spending years and years sending troops to sit around and be shot at for months at a time. You make it sound like anyone in the US leadership believed there were any WMD... It was fully known that all the cited sources were fabricated. I disagree; I think some in the US leadership did believe there were WMDs.
In pretty much all their presentations used stuff based on Curveball. A guy who was known to be a liar and wannabe, who made up all kind of shit to get asylum in Germany. Everything the guy had said was fabricated.
And this was known for months when the US presented exactly those sketches and quotes in the UN security council.
|
On December 19 2016 07:44 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:On December 19 2016 07:15 mahrgell wrote:On December 19 2016 07:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:On December 19 2016 06:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya? The invasion, neutering, and initial developments in Iraq was fantastic. About 1-2 weeks of combat followed by taking the capital, followed by now having full reign to search and remove the weapons of mass destruction. The shit show happened when (a) there were no weapons of mass destruction, (b) it turns out there were a shit tonne of people unable to defend themselves should the US leave, and (c) the inability for the white house to explain how this helped us in Afghanistan. Those people we found in Iraq would be helpless whether or not we went into Iraq, but out of sight out of mind--Bush and Obama could not turn their backs on them and so what was a 2 week battle turned into a multi-year occupation where the only real answer was to do a full annexation of Iraq and create a safe state for people with western leanings to retreat into, an option that no politician would be brave enough to propose and no civilian would be passionate enough to support. Your ignoring the guerilla war that happened after the invasion which was a major problem for the US and probably the main reason boots were a non-starter for Syria/Libya. Just looking at the initial invasion is very short sighted since Iraq never stood a chance there and neither would Libya/Syria. The US 'only' had several hundred times the military budget. Anything less then a 'fantastic showing' would be a complete embarrassment. I did not ignore the guerilla war. The initial reason for Iraq was to remove WMD's. They got to Iraq, got to the supposed locations of WMDs, and found jack shit. Next step of that plan is to leave. Invasion done, 3-8 weeks tops. Instead we stayed. Since we stayed guerilla warfare could happen. They can't guerilla war us if our troops are back in american soil. But since we stayed and since we were trying to leave them with a stable system we ended up spending years and years sending troops to sit around and be shot at for months at a time. You make it sound like anyone in the US leadership believed there were any WMD... It was fully known that all the cited sources were fabricated. I disagree; I think some in the US leadership did believe there were WMDs. In pretty much all their presentations used stuff based on Curveball. A guy who was known to be a liar and wannabe, who made up all kind of shit to get asylum in Germany. Everything the guy had said was fabricated. And this was known for months when the US presented exactly those sketches and quotes in the UN security council.
I'm not going to relitigate a matter that's been over several thousand times already. I'm merely stating my disagreement as I did above.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
What is the point of even disagreeing if you arent interested in discussing why?
Not that I don't understand why you wouldn't want to since it's like a 15 year old topic nearly.
|
On December 19 2016 08:19 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
What is the point of even disagreeing if you arent interested in discussing why?
Not that I don't understand why you wouldn't want to since it's like a 15 year old topic nearly.
because I found the claim somewhere in the questionable to absurd zone, and didn't want it to go uncontested.
Also, by now everyone has heard all the arguments and has generally made up their mind one way or the other. so relitigating it doesn't help, as all the points have already been made.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I believe some of the earlier Wikileaks leaks did suggest that there were concerns about WMDs. It doesn't seem that that was the case among the administration folk who pushed for the intervention; they essentially came to the conclusion well before the WMDs were even the issue. I'm sure it was a concern among the legislators who were needed to build consensus, which was needed to be able to say all around the country to all the critics, "well look at how overwhelming the consensus in Congress was" (I certainly felt constrained by how much I could criticize when given that line).
In all the cases (Iraq Afghanistan Libya Syria), it seems that the US thought that they could disrupt the precarious meta-stability of the situation, then come in and dictate their own terms for how the situation would play out. They also mistook easy, early success in relatively straightforward conventional conflict for the ability to stabilize the situation. The result in Iraq and Afghanistan was brutally expensive war, in Syria and Libya it was a descent into chaos whose consequences are still yet to be properly felt, though perhaps cheaper. But Trump was right: among strategic faults of the US policy in the Middle East, Iraq was something special. It's the biggest mindfuck of a poorly thought out war that we have in this millennia.
Long story short, there is a reason why Iraq is brought up as often as it is. It's a perfect example of a thorough fault in the American approach to Middle Eastern policy, and one that broke its credibility (and the credibility of its regional alliance) in the region.
|
I think it should also be mentioned that the guerilla war has basically just morphed into ISIS with the help of some other US allies and enemies (SA funding and Syrian defectors), as there are numerous Iraqi veterans from the invasion involved in that whole ISIS operation, are there not?
And you say that the guerilla war can't hit troops on American soil, but they can. And not only that, they can draw you out to go and fight them on THEIR soil when they do so, which is what got this whole Iraq thing started in the first place which in turn annoyed a whole lot of people who decided to do something about it the minute you guys left.
In the words of Putin at Sochi: Do you realize what you have done?
|
On December 19 2016 09:03 a_flayer wrote:
I think it should also be mentioned that the guerilla war has basically just morphed into ISIS with the help of some other US allies and enemies (SA funding and Syrian defectors), as there are numerous Iraqi veterans from the invasion involved in that whole ISIS operation, are there not?
And you say that the guerilla war can't hit troops on American soil, but they can. And not only that, they can draw you out to go and fight them on THEIR soil when they do so, which is what got this whole Iraq thing started in the first place which in turn annoyed a whole lot of people who decided to do something about it the minute you guys left.
In the words of Putin at Sochi: Do you realize what you have done?
If, after taking Baghdad, 100% of US troops just went back to the US, how do Iraqi rebels shoot them?
|
On December 19 2016 10:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 09:03 a_flayer wrote:
I think it should also be mentioned that the guerilla war has basically just morphed into ISIS with the help of some other US allies and enemies (SA funding and Syrian defectors), as there are numerous Iraqi veterans from the invasion involved in that whole ISIS operation, are there not?
And you say that the guerilla war can't hit troops on American soil, but they can. And not only that, they can draw you out to go and fight them on THEIR soil when they do so, which is what got this whole Iraq thing started in the first place which in turn annoyed a whole lot of people who decided to do something about it the minute you guys left.
In the words of Putin at Sochi: Do you realize what you have done? If, after taking Baghdad, 100% of US troops just went back to the US, how do Iraqi rebels shoot them?
By attempting to radicalise an entire generation of Muslim immigrants to their fundamentalist Wahhabi religion and hitting them (the US soldiers) where it hurts the most.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
US losses are probably better measured in money than casualties. 3000 dead really is not that many, but the costs of Iraq were significant.
|
On December 19 2016 10:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 09:03 a_flayer wrote:
I think it should also be mentioned that the guerilla war has basically just morphed into ISIS with the help of some other US allies and enemies (SA funding and Syrian defectors), as there are numerous Iraqi veterans from the invasion involved in that whole ISIS operation, are there not?
And you say that the guerilla war can't hit troops on American soil, but they can. And not only that, they can draw you out to go and fight them on THEIR soil when they do so, which is what got this whole Iraq thing started in the first place which in turn annoyed a whole lot of people who decided to do something about it the minute you guys left.
In the words of Putin at Sochi: Do you realize what you have done? If, after taking Baghdad, 100% of US troops just went back to the US, how do Iraqi rebels shoot them?
it would be better if you just abandoned this silly line of argument and said iraq was an unequivocal mistake with no chance of victory
|
from my understanding, part of ISIL's strength came from a lot of the saddam aligned folks (some of which werent even necessarily hardcore supporters) who were completely cut out by the al maliki government and decided to go extremist in response. if we hadnt propped up that dickhead, it's possible that sectarian/political/other tensions wouldn't have escalated so badly.
beyond that if things did go to crud, i think the US would have had a much better case for going back IN rather than having stayed put and getting bled by a thousand cuts. US might be more like "okay this is our mess and we need to own it" versus "god we dont want more of our boys getting shot up".
better that it never happened, but even if it did there were many ways it could have been less bad, at least.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
lol
President-elect Donald Trump could accomplish "something remarkable" in U.S. foreign policy, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says.
"Donald Trump is a phenomenon that foreign countries haven't seen. So, it is a shocking experience to them that he came into office. At the same time, extraordinary opportunity," Kissinger said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"And I believe he has the possibility of going down in history as a very considerable president."
The new Republican president's "unfamiliar questions" could fill a vacuum left by President Barack Obama, who "basically withdrew" America from international politics, said Kissinger, who served enormous roles under two Republican presidents, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
"Because of the combination of the partial vacuum and the new questions, one could imagine that something remarkable and new emerges out of it," Kissinger said. "I'm not saying it will. I'm saying it's an extraordinary opportunity."
Source
|
lots of the ISIS command structure is run by Baathist ex Saddam officers with extensive military experience. The Baathists were ironically a socialist secular group which was largely alienated by the Shiite government backed by the US.
When discussing the Iraq war, people should focus more on the political fallout and not just on the actual military conflict. The backing of a minority government was a large blunder on part of the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
