This message was self-deleted by its author

[EEO]

This message was self-deleted by its author (EEO) on Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:00 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Always Randy]

1. before, during and after the Sunni and the Shia will fight regardless of what we do-

this is a clip about the collapse of the Iraq Army in recent weeks

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/6/28/how-did-iraq-s-armycollapsesoquickly.html

[EEO]

2. Indeed....

The British and French invented Iraq by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. Unfortunately, I find a discussion about soccer to be more popular than one about American foreign policy. It's like the plebs at the Flavian Amphitheater.

[Cal33]

16. The Biblical name for present-day Iraq was "Mesopotamia." They were the first people

to invent the written language some 6,000 years ago. All the written
languages in the West are derived from the Mesopotamian. Some ten
centuries later the Egyptians developed their script, which wasn't very
efficient and died out. The Chinese developed their written language
at about the same time as the Egyptians did.

I wouldn't exactly say that the British and the French "invented Iraq."
Iraq (or Mesopotamia) was responsible for Western civilization, even
though it is one of the have-not nations today.

It seems quite clear that no nation in history has been Numero Uno
forever. Nations seem to reach the top by turns, and then fade. They
could rise again, of course.

[lunasun]

27. +1

[EEO]

32. Mesopotamia spread beyond Iraq. Anyway, I was making more the point that Iraq has several...

... different ethnic groups and many want their own autonomy. In recent history we've had two golden opportunities to either create news countries out of Iraq or at least grant some form of semi-autonomy to the conflicting groups within side it. We have failed in all accounts to recognize the ethnic diversity in the region, just as the British and French did.

[Cal33]

55. Until we learn that there is no ONE right way, that every road is just a different way,

and that we should let people choose and be as they wish, as long as they are not
harming anyone else -- there will be no peace. No one is infallible.

And a hearty Welcome to DU!

[RobertEarl]

3. No Pass here

We should sell the embassy to the highest bidder and drop only food bombs.

But i get what you are saying: Some people believe if Obama does it, it has to be okay. Has to!!

[EEO]

8. I think it's the trap of comparing just about everything Obama does to George W.Bush...

... which is a pretty low bar to set.

[MADem]

4. These "advisors" have a very specific skillset.

They're linguists; they are country-familiar, they understand the geopolitical nuances in ways that the average servicemember does not, AND they know to keep an eye out for odd and out of place occurrences.

Their charge is as much to assist the "government of Iraq" in their planning as to keep an eye on what in hell the Iranians and other regional actors are up to.

IMO, anyway.

I don't think we'll escalate. We learned that lesson a half century ago. The people who are there most assuredly thrive in that kind of environment. They're people who do better in wartime and are somewhat frustrated when they don't have that danger rush. It makes them really, really good at their jobs but rather unsuited to peacetime environments.

I don't think we'll get back into that boots on the ground game. If ordinary uniforms are assisting in this mess, it'll be from a trailer in the desert, thousands of miles away.

Look at the requested WH budget for DOD. It's way smaller than years past, and we're not even through the drawdown...yet.

[EEO]

15. When someone says IMO, I am pretty skeptical of the factual foundations of their argument.

I also don't believe one of the specific skill sets of the soldiers we are sending into Iraq is immunity from being targeted and killed. I am not questioning their combat skills, but am recognizing the dangerous environment we are sending them into.

Our soldiers will be in Baghdad and a number of regional headquarters where armed conflicts will not be even close to thousands of miles away. Additionally, the United States is a county that was tricked into two wars in Iraq. Your optimism that we have learned any lessons and are smart enough not to escalate things seems like blind optimism.

And we both know how fast and suddenly defense budgets can grow.

[MADem]

23. Well, when someone doesn't say IMO, I assume they're shooting their mouth off

and trying to pass off their halfassed opinions as fact.

You don't have "immunity" from being "targeted and killed" while crossing the street or going to your mailbox. Some asshole who wants your wallet and watch can take you out quick as a wink.

If you want to think that special forces personnel are just dumbass dolts who don't know how to make the best use of the extensive training they are given, who don't understand how to make and retain associations with local populations, who are motivated to stay alive and who know, through experience, how best to do that, and who haven't been using their talents and staying alive while so doing in the region all along, well, you go right on ahead and think that!

Defense budgets can't grow very fast when the White House puts forward a number, blesses that number, and the appropriating authority (and where do all monetary appropriations begin, class? Yes, that's right--in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES! Very good! And who controls the HOUSE? The GOP! Full marks, class~!) would have to be the ones to back the Commander in Chief should he suddenly decide to reverse a well-planned-out drawdown that is already in full swing.

Of course, miracles could happen--John Boehner and a few dozen of his closest buddies could slam through an appropriation that is forty or fifty billion in excess of the executive request, and then capture Obama, hold him hostage, and force him to sign the legislation--after they beat up or killed sufficient Democrats to take control of the Senate to get it passed in that chamber as well.

But ..... IMO .... I think that's kinda unlikely.

[EEO]

24. Are you going to be okay?

I am very amused by the exclamations. Boy, you told me and showed you were serious. And those exclamations just reinforced all your emotional arguments during the impromptu and laughable civics lesson you provided. And see how i don't have to add IMO so you know it is my opinion? Thank you for the entertainment.

[OilemFirchen]

29. Your honor,

the witness is badgering himself.

[MADem]

39. Wow--how very interesting.

You start making fun of me instead of refuting any of the points I make. You suggest, direly, that I am "emotional" (that's a cousin of "unhinged" doncha know). Then you make an absurd suggestion that I'm here to "entertain" you.

Never once do you--or can you--refute any of my points like an adult might.

Then you haul out the roly poly guy.

Thanks so much to YOU for that perspective.

You've done a great job of laying it all out for everyone to see.

A nice day...do have one.

[EEO]

41. If you had replied on the merits on my argument and not been a complete ass...

... maybe you would have received a reply to my arguments. Instead, you argued with yourself and yelled at yourself. Well done. Well done making your case, whatever that was.

On a side note, I find it interesting you think there is some kind of conspiracy and I hauled someone out. I have no idea who accused you of being a witness who is hostile to yourself, but that was pretty funny. You keep go ahead and keep thinking you're the victim. Humor and substance seem lost on you.

And whether you meant to amuse me or not, you certainly did. Good call dropping the exclamations this time. Have a swell day, guy.

[MADem]

42. There you go, talking about ME again.

You're the one behaving badly here.

You don't like the points people make, and you resort to personal insult.

You haven't been here very long (or if you have, you're here under a new banner) but eventually that kind of shit wears thin.

Keep getting personal and see where it gets you--I think you "out" yourself with every post you make.

[EEO]

43. There you go talking about ME again.

I love irony.

[MADem]

44. I will say something about you--you don't understand what irony is. nt

[EEO]

46. Maybe you can explain it to me.

You bitch about me talking about you and follow that up by referring to me in the following terms:

"You're..." (beginning of sentence)

"You..." (beginning of sentence)

"You.." (beginning of sentence)

Then you accuse me of "getting personal" (again referring me in response to referring to you). If that is not irony, I don't know what is. And neither do you.

[MADem]

47. Here's a YOU for YOU...

YOU have a nice day.

YOU enjoy your time here--because with that attitude, YOU aren't going to last very long.

And here's an emoticon for YOU:

[EEO]

48. Ugh. So you double down on focusing on me and not making any valid, intelligible points...

... and add a threat about how I will not be here long. Thanks Nostradamus. Go play with someone else now. The humor has transitioned to triteness, and the attitude comment is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Except the pot loves using exclamations and caps to show how serious it is. I used to do that - in elementary school.

[MADem]

56. I am just telling "you" how "I" (since you spent

so much of your time in this thread focusing on my personal traits) am perceiving your behavior.


How interesting that you regard my perceptions--that you invited with your poor conduct-- as some kind of "threat."

Again, by your words and behavior, we learn so much about you.

When you cannot argue a point on the merits, you go straight to personalities, and stay there, because that's all you've got.

[EEO]

59. That's right, continue making this about me. Add nothing substantive, as you have the entire thread.

You claim that I am shooting my mouth off and accuse me of passing off my "halfassed opinions as fact" and dare to call my conduct "poor" and question my perceptions of you. Let's recap how you have conducted yourself...

After I made it clear that I was "not questioning their combat skills" in regards to our military advisers, you replied:

If you want to think that special forces personnel are just dumbass dolts who don't know how to make the best use of the extensive training they are given, who don't understand how to make and retain associations with local populations, who are motivated to stay alive and who know, through experience, how best to do that, and who haven't been using their talents and staying alive while so doing in the region all along, well, you go right on ahead and think that!

Some would call that shooting your mouth off, presenting your halfassed opinions as fact, and creating a straw man by completely misrepresenting what I said. You made no mention of my concern about their safety in a war zone, which you callously throw to the side to defend what is clearly an escalation in our involvement in Iraq.

To add insult to injury you go on a tirade and assert that defense budgets are set in stone and are not at all changeable to whether or not we get involved in a new military conflict (like in Iraq, for example), because the White House can bless the numbers and the appropriating authority - which is Congress, and not just the House of Representatives as you claimed - can apparently do nothing. And the fact you cited the House of Representatives as a body that would be against reversing "a well-planned-out drawdown (sic)" ignores the very point you made - that it is controlled by the GOP - because the majority party in the House has criticized Obama for not doing enough militarily. Here is what you stated, somewhat unintelligibly:

Defense budgets can't grow very fast when the White House puts forward a number, blesses that number, and the appropriating authority (and where do all monetary appropriations begin, class? Yes, that's right--in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES! Very good! And who controls the HOUSE? The GOP! Full marks, class~!) would have to be the ones to back the Commander in Chief should he suddenly decide to reverse a well-planned-out drawdown that is already in full swing.

Finally, you continued by all but stating the current defense budget could only change in the event of a bloody coup in the United States. Here is what you stated:

Of course, miracles could happen--John Boehner and a few dozen of his closest buddies could slam through an appropriation that is forty or fifty billion in excess of the executive request, and then capture Obama, hold him hostage, and force him to sign the legislation--after they beat up or killed sufficient Democrats to take control of the Senate to get it passed in that chamber as well.

There are your "merits." I await your imminent reply and direct targeting of me.

[MADem]

70. You're having fun, apparently.

Goading, baiting...and missing the point. Inventing "coups" and twisting words. Using loaded language. Boasting, snarking, and being generally disruptive and rude.

Proud of yourself, aren't you!







I've seen you before. I'm sure I'll see you again, too...

[EEO]

71. I directly replied to your statements...

And that is your reply? And fun? No. Your act is obvious and old. Attack, but never be held accountable. Reply to my comments on your direct quotes or shut up already.

[MADem]

72. No, you didn't. You slung a lot of accusations and aspersions, though.

I see how you roll. The one with the "act" here is the newcomer to the DU stage.

You're not even doing a good job with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" routine. You should quit while you're behind.

Maybe spend some time reading the TOS because it's obvious you could use a refresher. You really shouldn't be telling people to "Shut up already." It's rude and uncivil.

[EEO]

75. You cannot even defend the statements you made on Iraq...

Or refuse to. Instead you ask me if I am having fun trying to debate someone who doesn't know how to do so. You claim you wanted me to reply to you arguments on the merits then don't directly reply to my retort. And then you say its my fault - you deflect. You don't understand the basic rules of debate. You have lost, because you conceded so many of your claims by not replying to my retorts. You should quit while you are behind, way behind. Go ahead, attack me and not my position in this debate - again.

If you reply, I will repost your direct comments on Iraq again and my point-by-point replies to them to give you a second chance to defend what you asserted. Or, just quit. That would be swell.

[MADem]

76. No--I can't talk to someone who isn't making any sense, who is being

bitter, angry, aggressive, rude and personally insulting, and who is working overtime to try to make DU suck for me!




Post away all you'd like--it's quite clear that it's "All about you" so knock yerself out!

[EEO]

79. Stop acting like a Republican in an election by only attacking and not replying to the issues.

Excerpts form your Sun Jun 29, 2014, 08:45 PM post along with my replies.
(I have already given you one opportunity to reply)

You claim that I am shooting my mouth off and accuse me of passing off my "halfassed opinions as fact" and dare to call my conduct "poor" and question my perceptions of you. Let's recap how you have conducted yourself...

After I made it clear that I was "not questioning their combat skills" in regards to our military advisers, you replied:

If you want to think that special forces personnel are just dumbass dolts who don't know how to make the best use of the extensive training they are given, who don't understand how to make and retain associations with local populations, who are motivated to stay alive and who know, through experience, how best to do that, and who haven't been using their talents and staying alive while so doing in the region all along, well, you go right on ahead and think that!

Some would call that shooting your mouth off, presenting your halfassed opinions as fact, and creating a straw man by completely misrepresenting what I said. You made no mention of my concern about their safety in a war zone, which you callously throw to the side to defend what is clearly an escalation in our involvement in Iraq.

To add insult to injury you go on a tirade and assert that defense budgets are set in stone and are not at all changeable to whether or not we get involved in a new military conflict (like in Iraq, for example), because the White House can bless the numbers and the appropriating authority - which is Congress, and not just the House of Representatives as you claimed - can apparently do nothing. And the fact you cited the House of Representatives as a body that would be against reversing "a well-planned-out drawdown (sic)" ignores the very point you made - that it is controlled by the GOP - because the majority party in the House has criticized Obama for not doing enough militarily. Here is what you stated, somewhat unintelligibly:

Defense budgets can't grow very fast when the White House puts forward a number, blesses that number, and the appropriating authority (and where do all monetary appropriations begin, class? Yes, that's right--in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES! Very good! And who controls the HOUSE? The GOP! Full marks, class~!) would have to be the ones to back the Commander in Chief should he suddenly decide to reverse a well-planned-out drawdown that is already in full swing.

Finally, you continued by all but stating the current defense budget could only change in the event of a bloody coup in the United States. Here is what you stated:

Of course, miracles could happen--John Boehner and a few dozen of his closest buddies could slam through an appropriation that is forty or fifty billion in excess of the executive request, and then capture Obama, hold him hostage, and force him to sign the legislation--after they beat up or killed sufficient Democrats to take control of the Senate to get it passed in that chamber as well.

It is you who are "bitter, angry, aggressive, rude and personally insulting, and who is working overtime to try to make DU suck for me." (I dropped the exclamation because it was rude.)

[MADem]

81. Stop telling me what to do. Stop calling me a Republican.

That's an incredibly nasty thing to say. I think you should apologize and retract that vicious insult. That's rude, disruptive, hurtful, Over-the-Top and it makes DU suck!





You do know that anyone can read this entire thread and see that you're misrepresenting the entire conversation, don't you? That this isn't a private communication between the two of us?

And do look up the meaning of "IMO" some time.

[jberryhill]

51. "I find it nearly impossible to start a dialogue on the situation in Iraq"

I can understand your OP much more clearly now.

[EEO]

60. The worst part is he keeps coming back and proving my point...

[jberryhill]

64. Do you hear a giant "whooshing" sound above you?

[EEO]

65. Does a fan make a "whooshing" sound?

[jberryhill]

67. There it goes again!

[EEO]

68. Oh good, passive-aggressiveness has been confirmed.

Just be direct next time.

[MADem]

69. Hee hee!!!!

Someone needs to look up...up...up!!!

[MADem]

82. You just need to quit with the personal insults.

I think you might want to re-read the TOS.

[ballyhoo]

5. I am thinking the same. We go back into

Iraq, forget both November and 2016. Also, Obama will own Iraq once the first bullet is fired, by drone, aircraft, or infantry.

[EEO]

50. He just sent in some more of those things yesterday.

[ballyhoo]

53. I know. The economy of war will not have the

same effect this time. Rather than increase GNP, it may well lead to the end of all life.

[Skittles]

6. there are some folk here who give Obama a pass no matter what he does

learn to put those idiots on IGNORE; they lack critical thinking skills and are a complete waste of time to converse with

[EEO]

10. I may just do that.

The Obama apologists here are no different than the George W. Bush apologists. The Emperor can do no wrong. Unfortunately, the emperor has no clothes and these people cannot see it.

[Skittles]

18. you are absolutely correct

they'll come to their senses when Obama is no longer president but they have forever lost the respect of much of DU

[ballyhoo]

54. Yes, and that has put us on our current

path to abject redundancy.

[Skittles]

57. absolutely right

(when it should be absolutely left)

[Sunlei]

7. don't think people give any President a pass. IMO,Pres. O is really carefull with these issues.

He listens to advice from a lot of people before he makes decisions. I think he very much prefers to take preventative actions, rather than wait to clean-up a mess. Some members of his admin and most of the republicans are still way to slow to react. I remember once BO called them sloths, or was it slugs? I agree with that.

I think he very much wished we along with many other countries didn't sloth around - wait/watch people like Assad poison and starve so many innocent people. Just stand there and watch armed people pour over the borders of Syria/Iraq and start pillaging & looting the small border towns. Just let Putin take over Crimea.

It's much harder to take actions once some invasion has already happened and invaders have taken over a part of a country. Citizens are already displaced from their homes, there is no place for the refugees to go back too or thousands are already dead.

[EEO]

9. Not one president has been given a pass by anyone? Ever? Really?

I learned a long time ago that absolutes are to be avoided.

Additionally, maybe we need to be a little more sloth and a little less rampaging bull trying to hit anything that catches our eye. I am tired of the pissing contests where we show the rest of the world how big we are and how far we can piss, despite the consequences to the country. We cannot police the world, as we have learned so many times in our past. Or at least, some of us have learned that lesson.

[Sunlei]

12. no we should not police the world. But no country should stand by and let people be slaughtered.

It's a good thing countries like France and the UK move faster & work ok with the USA.

[EEO]

13. If you think we are doing anything in Iraq because people are being slaughtered you are naive.

There are plenty of people being slaughtered throughout the world. They just have less natural resources.

[Sunlei]

17. It is hard to get your points across on a message board. I fully understand the Bushcheney gang got

us into the f-in mess that made America a target of world hate. That bush was nothing but an oilman and his son a useless sot born into wealth. And Cheney a greedy monster. But we're going to have to deal with this issue for quite a while. It doesn't help anything to insult your fellow Ds. You won't find another message board like DU, unfortunately in the USA there are not any others. You won't find another 'very young-country' like America either.

I'd like to take this opportunity to both thank and apologize to President Obama & VP Biden. I was pretty hard on you both over Salazar, but in the end he 'resigned'. VP Biden got the bill passed too! Made a lot of people very happy. Thank you both very much for always trying to do the right thing.

[EEO]

19. What you characterize as an "insult" I call greasing the wheels of a lively discussion.

Any democratic republic worth its salt needs spirited debate, ideally between informed people. This country sorely lacks such dialogues and the results are pretty devastating.

And for the record, I am an independent with Democratic voting tendencies who never tries to use a political affiliation for cover.

[Sunlei]

21. ok, have fun.

[OilemFirchen]

22. "I learned a long time ago that absolutes are to be avoided. "

"The Obama apologists here are no different than the George W. Bush apologists."

[EEO]

26. An apologist is an apologist.

[OilemFirchen]

28. A root vegetable is not a beet.

Fun!

[EEO]

33. Indeed. A root vegetable is a root vegetable.

[MADem]

40. Be careful--he resorts to personal insult when he

runs out of argument.

[OilemFirchen]

45. Well...

you know how testy those "moderate liberals" tend to get.

[lunatica]

11. Some people think we should just ignore ISIS

because, of course, they'll just go away if we do.

How long do you think it will take them to start attacking strategic targets in other countries in Europe and the US if we don't make some kind of effort to contain them to the Middle East.

Black and White thinking is what the Bush Administration did. World politics is firmly rooted in the area of dilemmas. There are no win-win strategies for anybody. Certainly not as long as groups of people base their politics and governments on Fundamental religions and feel it's their duty to destroy everything that doesn't reflect their beliefs. We aren't immune to that either.

[EEO]

14. I'm sure some people do think we should ignore ISIS.

But if you are saying that I believe that just because I oppose overtly putting U.S. soldiers on the ground then I think that you are displaying some faulty logic there. I am tired of this country beating its chest and shouting loudly to show everyone how tough it is.

Discretion is not our strong suit and we should work on that. And sending in targets for religious extremists in Iraq to attack is not so bright or discrete. You can continue speaking in generalities about black and white thinking, no win-win strategies, and religious fundamentalism abroad (and at home) all you like, but your reply offers very little substance in terms of a specific foreign policy opinion. I do find your mention of containment in a discussion about military advisers sadly ironic, though.

[Arkana]

20. The man somehow got us through Egypt, Syria, and Libya without putting troops in.

I think he's earned a little trust.

[Cosmocat]

31. Right

He is not perfect.

But, he has been really sharp on international affairs.

I don't understand it, but I wasn't in favor of doing ANYTHING with Syria and he squared that as best you can.

[EEO]

37. More troops deployed to Iraq...

New DU Latest Breaking News Thread: U.S. Sends 300 More Troops, Drones, Helicopters To Iraq

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. I would wager that most of us supporting PBO think that he is capable of making smart decisions

and, frankly, "not doing something" is not really an option given our (recent) past history in Iraq. Contrary to what the Bushco crowd thinks, we didn't leave Iraq a gleaming paradise at the end of 2011 (and probably could never have) and now, because of the current circumstances, they need our support and it's inevitable that we would be asked to help support them. Leaving Iraq at the mercy of ISIS isn't really smart from a strategic point of view but our role needs to be limited and I feel like PBO understands that as well and is trying to minimize our involvement as it is mostly an internal Iraqi security matter but we bear some responsibility for how things got to where they are. Just another awful legacy of the GWB (mis-)Administration that has been dumped in PBO's lap to deal with. The way some people are acting around here, it's as though he's planning another invasion/occupation of Iraq (and rubbing his hands gleefully at the prospect thereof). Is he perfect? No. Do I trust him more than I did Bush/Cheney not to screw things up? Hells yeah!!!

[EEO]

35. Escalation with Obama sending in 200 more troops...

How long did that take?

Iraq crisis: Fighting in Tikrit after 'caliphate' declared

US President Barack Obama has announced he is sending about another 200 troops to protect the US embassy in Baghdad.

This means nearly 800 US troops are in and around Iraq, but President Obama has ruled out sending combat troops to fight alongside the Iraqi army.

... so far...

I really want to be wrong about saying this will escalate into another full blown military redeployment... Really, I do. If you have read my comments I have not said this is Obama's master plan and I have also said that once American troops are killed it really doesn't matter what his plans were. The pressure to recommit will be intense. Can he resist the temptation to send more troops in (again)?

UPDATE: I just found this story...

U.S. sends 300 more troops to Iraq, narrows options for second operations center

"These forces are separate and apart from the up to 300 personnel the president authorized to establish two joint operations centers and conduct an assessment of how the U.S. can provide additional support to Iraq's security forces," Kirby said in a statement.

[Amonester]

30. Putin just sent 5 fighter jets to the Iraqi government.

Two days after their request!

Guess who's faster? Do you think Russia will send them more?

Do you think Russia is more concerned about ISISL than Obama is?

[SmittynMo]

34. I give him a pass

We are not the worlds police anymore. Not only can we not afford it, but it's not worth it. If we go back in, add on to the casualty list, then we'll be out in 10 years, leave, and it starts all over again. WTF!!!

There is really no rational reason for us to ever go into war again, unless we're attacked on our soil.

[EEO]

36. Obama just sent more troops in... 200 to 300 depending on what source you read...

Iraq crisis: Fighting in Tikrit after 'caliphate' declared

U.S. sends 300 more troops to Iraq, narrows options for second operations center

Already.

[SmittynMo]

38. If we're going there to

stabilize the area, it may work. Other than that, this will be a total waste.

[bemildred]

49. Politics is an ugly business, we really ought to do away with it. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

52. "Maybe I'm In The Wrong Place"

Do you mean - at DU? Or the board (Politics 2014) within DU?

[EEO]

61. I was referring to DU, specifically on the topic of the recent events in Iraq and our involvement.

I find good debate to be lacking (though some have provided it) and far too often see people go into "Defend Obama" while adding little substance to a foreign policy debate.

[JustAnotherGen]

63. You've only been here a few weeks

Right now the wars at home are taking a lot of time from people. Case in point - my husband and me are brainstorming a way to turn the Hobby Lobby Case into a PAC for our House Candidate this evening. The SCOTUS stepping into marriages is very disheartening to the millionaire I married.

As well, with the midterms coming up you are going to start to see a lock step goose step to smash the Republicans. Hang in there - it gets better.

[EEO]

66. Ironically, I am more concerned about domestic issues like the ones you have cited...

... but my concern about this Iraq thing has me seeking the views of others to weigh them against my own. I appreciate your reply of optimism, though.

[JustAnotherGen]

74. It's hard for me to have

A discussion on it.

I never believed there were WMD's. And my father was one of the first Green Berets in America. He was still alive when we went into Iraq and

1. He never believed there were WMDs - and he influenced my belief. He knew that the leadership makes stuff up with the help of intelligence to find reasons to inflict pain on others for the financial benefit of the few.

And

2. I feel very smug and vindicated.

Told ya so! Tod ya there was gonna be a civil war. Told ya there was no end in sight!

We can talk "if only" all we want. If only the SCOTUS had not appointed Bush. But from that day forward there was an effort to inflict pain and misery in their modern crusades.

[Bill USA]

58. it's a very tricky difficult situation EEO. I don't think there is anybody who is 'gung ho' even

about sending in advisors - for the very reason you have stated. on the other hand if these ISIL characters - who are too extreme FOR Al Kaida (!?) take over Iraq, there is real cause for concern in that they will have a training ground for more terrorists - to come at us here at home.

I don't think anybody likes this situation, but it seems to be a choice between less bad options.

I do think there would be very strong push back if Obama later started talking about U.S. soldiers going in. But, for my part I think he is smart enough to not go there.

__ Yes, I guess I'm trusting him to not be stupid.

[EEO]

62. I agree. It is a very difficult situation and I am very concerned about putting more boots on...

... the ground to handle it. I started this discussion to read what other people think and hopefully gain a better perspective of all the issues, because I know this is not an easy problem to tackle.

[polynomial]

73. A surge for a surge

America has been screwing around in Iraq and Iran for the past half century. The war games played are within a basic Constitutional conflict that is basic to grade school logic we know. To place blame strictly on President Obama is insane.

This Islamic government is spawned and based on religion laws interpreted by men. With severe retribution for people who denounce Islam. Basically, the indigenous population accepted Islamic tyranny centuries ago as their basic culture.

The argument could be made that Islam is in their blood, the DNA structure may very well define the nature in the difference of liberty freedom or a willingness to be guided by a fundamental religious principal.

American basic law in the first amendment separates religion and state, given the new American experiment an approach that has wide open religion believes. An argument can be made that this new freedom in religious consciousness by Americans is just another form of tyranny. Where Islam see American corrupt Democracy is lopsided for the rich capitalist anyway.

Until America reforms Its capitalist system into a fair social economic distribution Islam will continue to be successful.

Bush and Cheney did do an important thing for history and society. They flushed out the secret greed of capitalism given to gluttony in war profiteering, leading to social inequities or crimes that embrace the very enemy America is fighting.

Bush is and has been close business friends with the very al Qaeda America is fighting. Which is suppressed by the media for decades. Bush should be banished from politics let alone run the country.

Americans even see this gluttony of tyranny in decisions by the Republican Party GOP which from my opinion is nothing more than a crime syndicate which should be treated as such. Shutting the government down is a prime example. Lies about war is a real failure in an ironic jingle of “too big to fail”.

Yet our political people promote a surge in troops and possibly some know there will be a counter surge. Or they already know there will be another 911, but when. Bush and Cheney need to keep the cash cow in war profiteering going, to promote Bin Laden's perfect experiment to destroy the American dream.

[valerief]

77. What is a moderate liberal? I mean, other than an oxymoron.

[RKP5637]

78. I think there is a strong potential for it to morph into something larger. Generally,

that seems to be what happens.