- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Of course I am being literal. Words have meanings and muddled words make for muddled thinking. We must do our best to clarify what the facts are and what they mean.Grant, You're purposely being too literal here.
I can only guess that that statement is what she means. How I can interpret otherwise? But the stubborn fact remains that when Barrack Obama decided, as a Presidential candidate and quite probably unaware of the consequences, he chose to remove the troops from Iraq. All of this was against the advice of the military, who were in a much better position to understand the consequences than Barrack Obama. Nonetheless, as has been shown repeatedly, BHO said "we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq". This was certainly the greatest military blunder, and lie really, of this young century.You know exactly what solletica means when she asks "who gave them [ISIS/ISIL and even Al-Qaeda in Iraq] the power" to rise up and become such a menacing terrorist group in the ME?
Iraq was not "broken" when Bush left office. It was as Barrack Obama described. It is BHO himself who 'owns' Iraq, given that it was he who removed the troops. How can George Bush possibly be blamed for whats going on in the Mid East now when it was Barrack Obama, against all advice, who ordered the retreat? That makes no sense whatsoever.The sources she links to (see post #224 and 225) along with the Bush Doctrine itself makes this very clear. More to the point, even GWB's former Secretary of Defense, Gen. Collin Powell said it plainly when he stated, "If you break it, you guy it," referring to if you tear down the only stable government Iraq has by removing Saddam Hussein from power without putting a new stable government in its place, you effective own the problem you create in the aftermath of leaving a power vacuum behind. And that's exactly what's happened in Iraq and the region today.
And who really believes that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was 'stable'? Has the mass graves, the rape rooms, the genocide, all been forgotten in a contemporary rewrite of history?
Be suspicious of any article which uses the term 'neo-con, or 'seemingly'. If you want to discuss the Bush Doctrine, using the words of George Bush, let's do it.The alarm bells were ringing loudly before the War in Iraq even commence. From a summary study of the Bush Doctrine:
Certainly. Barrack Obama left the field open for the return of the terrorists when he removed the troops. Now, of course, no foreign leaders trust him because he is way out of his depth.It's very clear who gave them the power.
Again, "we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq". What does that mean to you? That terrorism is on the rise?think a more apt question, however, would be "under what circumstances did ISIL/ISIS eventually rise to power?" You could argue that not leaving a residual force in Iraq (Obama Administration) led to it, but there is sufficient evidence to show that radical elements were already on the rise in Iraq as early as 2001 but didn't really go into high gear until (2004-)2006 (GWB Administration) and was formally established in 2013 (Obama Administration). (See article w/timeline here.)
The "reigning government" was a diabolical dictatorship intent on doing harm to its neighbors and in violation of the restrictions laid down following Desert Storm. How can a murderous megalomaniac ever be used in the same sentence as 'stable'? And his successor government could not have ordered the retreat of the American forces. Certainly a SOFA could have been reached but Obama had made a campaign promise and had an ideology that we see in full play since his re-election. There are over 80 SOFAs in place around the world.Who's more at fault? GW Bush because his decision to forge a pre-emptive strike against Iraq under false pretenses left a power vacuum in the country that gave rise to terrorist extremism outside of Afghanistan where it could have been contained. Not leaving a residual force added fuel to the fire, but when the reigning sovereign government tells you they don't want your assistance and to leave under established agreement, you have no choice but to leave least you be viewed as an occupying force.
With the removal of Saddam Hussein and 40,000 troops remaining, as advised, many thousands of lives would have been saved and the world a more peaceful place. As is is Barrack Obama has made the world a far more dangerous place for political purposes, catering to a hopelessly naive electorate.
Last edited: