I told you so Iraq War a mistake

[Bottomfeeder 244]

This is the resultant of having a completely uneducated moron in the White House. One cannot educate away stupidity and ignorance. Business majors do not necessarily know history. This is now a MAJOR problem. It's not just an Iraqi government problem, it's a "regional problem" now. Bush doesn't know what he is doing, period. Thanks much, to all of you who voted for this clown, twice.

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80we...raq.320.240.mov

Chris Matthews, at the conclusion of his Sunday morning talk show explored the impact of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Matthews said that Iraq used to be “a country which has fought revolutionary Iran for eight years to a bloody stand still.” Now, it’s a “Shia dominated ally of Iran.” Matthews concluded: “Our brave soldiers have fought, died and been dismembered in Iraq only to connect the disparate pieces of Shia radicalism into a frankenstein monster that has come to life right there on our TV screens.”

Transcript:

MATTHEWS: Two years ago, King Abdullah of Jordan warned me of what was coming in the mideast. His prediction was dead on. He spoke of his fears and what the United States was doing in iraq, toppling one government, electing another, was creating what he called a shi’ia crescent, from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut that threatened to dominate the Arab world, challenging modern Sunni governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and others with an axis of Shia power based in Iran.

When I look at the map today, that Shia crescent the King foretold has come to light. It is hard for us westerners to understand the internal politics of another region when we can’t predict whether the Democrats will take congress from the Republicans three months from now, how could we see the Shi’ia grabbing the high ground from the Sunni in the mideast three years ago? That’s what happened. We converted Iraq from a country which has fought revolutionary Iran for eight years to a bloody stand still to a Shia dominated ally of Iran and created a boulevard of common religion and common regional politics.

Did you hear the new Iraqi leader take sides with Hezbollah in a struggle with Israel? This is the emerging threat, not just to the moderate Sunni countries including Egypt and Jordan who formed and honored treaties to Israel and us. Our brave soldiers have fought, died and been dismembered in Iraq only to connect the disparate pieces of Shi’ia radicalism into a frankenstein monster that has come to life right there on our TV screens and worse yet in the vicarious mideast where young arabs found a hero named Hezbollah.

Also listen to Matthews talk about the pencil neck foreign policy:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/0...licy/#more-9191

[otterinbham 0]

Actually, Bottomfeeder, you and I agree on this. But, sadly, we're there now, and retreat will actually be the worst possible thing now.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I agree, but I don't know how good we'll accomplish now that the region is under Shia (Shiite) control. Haven't we doen enough damage? A lot of money and lives are still at stake. Should we nuke Iran? What alternatives do we have, other than conventional warfare with Iran? If the region turn completely violent should we nuke 'em? Conventional warfare will be bloodier that WWII, Vietnam and Iraq War combined. Black ops needs to prepared to take out some leaders very, very soon.

Hornet's Nest!

Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the state of affairs in the Middle East, with majorities doubtful there will ever be peace between Israel and its neighbors, or that American troops will be able to leave Iraq anytime soon, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

A majority said the war between Israel and Hezbollah will lead to a wider war. And while almost half of those polled approved of President Bush’s handling of the crisis, a majority said they preferred the United States leave it to others to resolve.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/washingt...age&oref=slogin

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Iran/Iraq war: Iran once had a fairly decent military, Western in nature, in terms of organization and hardware. Once the Shah was overthrown, all that was Western, even the military, was scarpped. That would prove to be a major handicap for Iran in the coming war w/ Iraq. With Iraq getting the upper hand in the war, Iran unleashed its last wild card. 10's of 1000's of soldiers, crazed into a religious fervor, who would fight for Allah at an almost unconscious state. They swarmed the front and soon turned the tide of the war, leaving Saddam and his military leaders scrambling for a counter to this new threat. It was feared by the Iraqis ( and others) and hoped by the Iranians, that these crazed soldiers would sweep through Iraq and even into S. Arabia. Whether they would have been stopped or not may be up for debate, but one thing is certain, it was the use of WMD by Iraq that put an end to this 3rd world military assault.

Doing nothing would have led to the unacceptable and devestating consequences. Where the US had faced the bad scenario of the then Soviet Union working its way into Afghanistan and right next to the regions rich oil fields, a worse one could arise if Iran and its fundamental brand of Islam could control ALL the oil fields of the Mid East. Fresh from the Hostage crisis in Iran, it wasn't hard to take the side w/ Iraq , even if Saddam was a butcher and tryant in his own right. And we knew EXACTLY what Saddam was back in the 80's, make no mistake of that. But that's the world we were faced with back then, where no clear choices between good and evil , right or wrong.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

The Iran/Iraq war:  Iran once had a fairly decent military, Western in nature,  in terms of organization and hardware. Once the Shah was overthrown, all that was Western, even the military, was scarpped.  That would prove to be a major handicap for Iran in the coming war w/ Iraq. With Iraq getting the upper hand in the war, Iran unleashed its last wild card. 10's of 1000's of soldiers, crazed into a religious fervor, who would fight for Allah at an almost unconscious state.  They swarmed the front and soon turned the tide of the war, leaving Saddam and his military leaders scrambling for a counter to this new threat. It was feared by the Iraqis ( and others) and hoped by the Iranians, that these crazed soldiers would sweep through Iraq and even into S. Arabia. Whether they would have been stopped or not may be up for debate, but one thing is certain, it was the use of WMD by Iraq that put an end to this 3rd world military assault. 

Doing nothing would have led to the unacceptable and devestating consequences. Where the US had faced the bad scenario of the then Soviet Union working its way into Afghanistan and right next to the regions rich oil fields, a worse one could arise if Iran and its fundamental brand of Islam could control ALL the oil fields of the Mid East.  Fresh from the Hostage crisis in Iran, it wasn't hard to take the side w/ Iraq , even if Saddam was a butcher and tryant in his own right. And we knew EXACTLY what Saddam was back in the 80's, make no mistake of that. But that's the world we were faced with back then, where no clear choices between good and evil , right or wrong.

253655[/snapback]

You just made an argument for leaving Saddam in power as a counterweight to Iran.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You just made an argument for leaving Saddam in power as a counterweight to Iran

Easy to see why you were tops in your class. Yes indeedy!

See if you can follow along, k ?

"Doing nothing would have led to the unacceptable and devestating consequences. "

Which would you rather have had....help Saddam ( which we did ) OR allow Iran to sweep through the Middle East.

Both are bad choices, one bad, one worse. Which is which? And to complicate the whole mess, other nations have their own interests tied up into either Iraq or Iran. And those folks are who we do business with too. But what if Saddam starts throwing HIS weight around, and attacking his neighbors, ( Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel ) ?? Do we just do nothing THIS TIME ? ( Remember, doing nothing would lead to unacceptable and devestating consequnces ) Or do we step in and, w/ the world community, and put an end to the problem?

Bush chose to do something. I support that choice, even if I'm not thrilled at how he's going about it all.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

You just made an argument for leaving Saddam in power as a counterweight to Iran

Easy to see why you were tops in your class. Yes indeedy!

See if you can follow along, k ?

"Doing nothing would have led to the unacceptable and devestating consequences. "

Which would you rather have had....help Saddam ( which we did ) OR allow Iran to sweep through the Middle East.

Both are bad choices, one bad, one worse. Which is which? And to complicate the whole mess, other nations have their own interests tied up into either Iraq or Iran. And those folks are who we do business with too. But what if Saddam starts throwing HIS weight around, and attacking his neighbors, ( Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel ) ?? Do we just do nothing THIS TIME ? ( Remember, doing nothing would lead to unacceptable and devestating consequnces ) Or do we step in and, w/ the world community, and put an end to the problem?

Bush chose to do something. I support that choice, even if I'm not thrilled at how he's going about it all.

253668[/snapback]

You have absolutely no clue that you are making no sense, do you? Taking out Saddam paved the way for Iran and Syria.

[Tiger Al 0]

You just made an argument for leaving Saddam in power as a counterweight to Iran

Easy to see why you were tops in your class. Yes indeedy!

See if you can follow along, k ?

"Doing nothing would have led to the unacceptable and devestating consequences. "

Which would you rather have had....help Saddam ( which we did ) OR allow Iran to sweep through the Middle East.

Both are bad choices, one bad, one worse. Which is which? And to complicate the whole mess, other nations have their own interests tied up into either Iraq or Iran. And those folks are who we do business with too. But what if Saddam starts throwing HIS weight around, and attacking his neighbors, ( Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel ) ?? Do we just do nothing THIS TIME ? ( Remember, doing nothing would lead to unacceptable and devestating consequnces )

Bush chose to do something. I support that choice, even if I'm not thrilled at how he's going about it all.

253668[/snapback]

Who advocated doing NOTHING? Bush advocated war at any excuse, but, to disagree with that doesn't equate to doing NOTHING. What person in any area of national responsibility took the position that the US should do nothing and Iraq would take care of itself to the US' liking?

Or do we step in and, w/ the world community, and put an end to the problem?

What 'world community?' Compare the coalition in Desert Storm to that of OIF. Forget world community, you didn't even have a Middle Eastern community in 2003. Saudi Arabia grudgingly let us use an airstrip and Turkey wouldn't even let us fly through their airspace.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You have absolutely no clue that you are making no sense, do you? Taking out Saddam paved the way for Iran and Syria.

TT, don't blame other's for not making sensse because of your inability to comprehend simple concepts. Of course chocies have consequences. Even chosing to do nothing would have a consequence.