|
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. |
On December 20 2016 00:40 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 23:52 Danglars wrote:On December 19 2016 17:16 Furikawari wrote:
We find out they dont have WMD??? Funny. You already knew before going in the first place. You wouldn't be the first to make that contention, but it's still a very questionable assertion. Far more likely is that people like Tenet ("slam dunk" Iraq had WMDs) in the intelligence communities advised Congress and the president, as the 9/11 commission concluded, poorly and they acted in good faith based on expert opinion. What you're doing now would be no different than later discovering the Russian connection didn't exist, then claim everybody already knew it wasn't the Russians that hacked the DNC. The Iraq intelligence was made to fit the agenda. The neocons wanted to go to Iraq regardless of 9/11. This was not merely acting on expert opinion regarding WMD - they had a whole host of rationales for invading. And who in the hell would buy the notion that if he had WMD, Saddam wouldn't use them in the case of a US invasion? The war was a catastrophe from its inception.
Hindsight is a hell of a drug.
After getting coalition support and the support of congress; the Iraq war was started on the premise of disarming Iraq. No matter what you believe the underlying agenda was, that was the argument presented, which means that there was a clear target goal and a clear victory condition.
Disdain and hate for the war and the sense of carnage of the war did not occur until those victory conditions were changed.
Now, if you believe in conspiracy theories, then yes it's possible that Iraq was purely a money grab. I suspect it was. But it's not like we have proof of that that isn't purely speculative. Conclusions should come after evidence, not the other way around.
|
Oh boy, Russia's ambassador to Turkey was just assassinated by someone shouting "allahu Akbar."
|
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters.
|
On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters.
I don't know if the war was "well conceived" at any point in its process.
Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress.
As to the soundness of the plan, I think most people were in a "this sounds dangerous, I am trusting the white house and the intelligence community on this, but this sounds super sketch."
|
There's a reason why Hillary's support of the Iraq war was one of the most damning things about her. Her only defense of it to trump amounted to "you supported it too! Once, on a radio show, when you weren't a senator, you said you maybe thought it was a good idea. That's totally the same as voting for it on the floor of the senate" and her defense of it to Sanders was basically "but henry kissinger likes me and not you"
|
Spain17989 Posts
On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. I don't know if the war was "well conceived" at any point in its process. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. As to the soundness of the plan, I think most people were in a "this sounds dangerous, I am trusting the white house and the intelligence community on this, but this sounds super sketch."
Not on this side of the pond. The vast majority were "umm, show us your evidence". And then there was a blurry photo of a truck driving out of a warehouse and Colin Powell saying "there are WMDs on that truck". And everybody looked at that and said "huh?"... and then our governments went to war.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 02:04 xDaunt wrote:
Oh boy, Russia's ambassador to Turkey was just assassinated by someone shouting "allahu Akbar."
Wounded and in critical condition. Not dead yet though.
Fantastic. We all need Turkey trying to prove that I was wrong about SA being the worst of the four regional powers right now. I still stand by my earlier statement but it edged slightly in favor of Turkey right now.
EDIT: Dead. In the commentary wars, the obvious parallels to Benghazi abound.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. I don't know if the war was "well conceived" at any point in its process. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. As to the soundness of the plan, I think most people were in a "this sounds dangerous, I am trusting the white house and the intelligence community on this, but this sounds super sketch."
And that's not happening again for the foreseeable future.
Coming from a decidedly different intelligence culture, my first thoughts about how the "intelligence community" was acting was, "are these people pretend stupid or actual stupid?" In the years since then, in the many failures I have seen from the "intelligence community" I have leaned towards the latter more often than not when in doubt.
|
On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress.
Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s.
Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating.
|
On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating.
I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one.
|
this could be the least surprising story I've read in a while
"This is not one of those situations where it's just smoke. There is in fact fire," said Alabama's new state superintendent of education, Michael Sentance.
The fire: Sentance revealed earlier this month that high schools there have "misstated student records ... resulting in diplomas that were not honestly earned." At a recent meeting of the state school board, he also admitted that Alabama's education department had not provided enough oversight.
"This is a black eye for the department," Sentance said, "and it makes the education system here look bad, and in some ways undeservedly so."
The revelations come as high school graduation rates have been rising across the country, nowhere more than in Alabama. Its rate, now at 89 percent, has risen 17 points since 2011. The average state increase was barely four points.
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/12/19/505729524/alabama-admits-its-high-school-graduation-rate-was-inflated
|
On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one.
The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria.
Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq).
|
On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq).
After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success.
|
On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success.
As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.
Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be.
|
On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be.
Yes, occupation is more expensive than not occupying. And being that the argument presented for the Iraq War was not an occupation but simply a disarming of the people in power, it did in 2 weeks what the intended plan was for Libya failed to do in the span of 4 years.
And, just like I said, it wasn't until the goal posts started getting shoved further and further as the plan got changed further and further that Iraq became a quagmire. Had the US simply showed up in Libya, spent 2 weeks retaking the capital, and then give the land to the rebel forces after they decimated the Libyan army, then Libya would have been where it is now but 4 years sooner and for a LOT LOT cheaper. But instead we simply spent years throwing random rockets and random targets with the hopes that the rebel forces would get their act together. End result was thousands dying for no reason and both sides of the conflicting at war for 4 years what should have been lasting a month.
EDIT
Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was shit, I think the whole thing was shit, I think that people were presented with a scary enough threat that many felt forced to do something about it. A kind of "ignorance is bliss but now that I know how I can I not do something" hero complex.
The two options for why it got extended are both awful. Either we got into a quagmire that was too horrible to leave because too many people would die (and die they did when we left) or some homicidal elites in our leadership decided they enjoyed having children bleed on foreign soil. It really doesn't matter to me which one of those two bullshit possibilities dragged Iraq longer than the month needed to realize they either couldn't find WMDs or couldn't find proof of WMDs.
|
Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil and Donald Trump's nominee to be secretary of state, was the director of a U.S.-Russia oil firm based in the Bahamas, The Guardian reported on Sunday, citing documents leaked to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.
He led the Russian subsidiary of Exxon, Exxon Neftegas, starting in 1998, according to the documents. Exxon said he left his role as director in 2006 when he took over as CEO of Exxon, according to The Guardian.
Exxon said it incorporated some subsidiaries in the Bahamas for "simplicity and predictability," according to The Guardian.
“It is not done to reduce tax in the country where the company operates,” Exxon said, per The Guardian. “Incorporation of a company in the Bahamas does not decrease ExxonMobil’s tax liability in the country where the entity generates its income.”
Some members of the Senate have expressed skepticism about Tillerson's nomination to lead the State Department due to his ties to Russia. He led Exxon to strike a deal with Russia in 2011 to explore oil resources in the Arctic, after which he received the Order of Friendship honor from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Source
|
Lifting the sanctions from Russia right now, which is what Trump and Tillerson want to do, amounts to backing down from Russia. I don't know why they're so eager to send a signal of cowardice. There's a nice little correlation though involving the sanctions and their financial interests  .
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be.
I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount (alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS.
Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down.
|
On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down.
I think its more that the US leadership don't have an actual plan of an endgame in the middle east. They are busy putting out fires when they should decide what they actually want from the region.
|
Assad is not the winner in any scenario one can think of, he no longer has an army just two private armies sitting in his country which is now ashes and rubble. Meanwhile Lebanon, Iran, and Russia are going to expect payments in some form one way or another. Millions are displaced, wounded, and hundreds of thousands are dead just on his side alone which means taking care of those that fought fore him and their families and if he can't provide that basic service, guess what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
