View Story | 143 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
now the DEMOCRATIC President who follows him will be stuck with getting us out of this mess.
by Nadnerb in NC on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:10:05 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
think. But I really don't want to go into it here. Rather like a good Obama cultist, I'll send my ideas of to the Obama campaign so they can laugh at it, roll their eyes, and ignore thereafter. :P
The surge worked huh? Really? Are the American soldiers out of Iraq? Then the surge FAILED!
by RElland on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:17:00 AM PDT
you mean "Civil War".
This is now nothing short of a "divide and conquer" move straight out of the Warlord difficulty level in Civiliazation III. Equip both sides of a civil war, wait until one side wins, decimate the winner, take over the resources.
The only difference is that when I do this, I shut off my computer at the end of the night and no one actually dies.
by Tremolo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:22:54 AM PDT
When I divide and conquer in civ 3, I revert 300 years at least a dozen times so I can time my attack "just right," and have to play "just one more turn." Eventually I drag myself away at 6:00 am pale, shaking, and sleep deprived because I really have to go to work. But none of that is too bad. It's the constant sniper fire that really gets to me.
by AndersOSU on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:34:21 AM PDT
that in the stories about six troops who died put together by the NY Times one of them referenced that he didn't hold his miserable situation against Bush who was trying to deal with the mess Clinton had left him.
You may think that the troops have been brain-washed, but I think that a case could be made that had Clinton not dallied with his bimbos and paid closer attention to Iraq, what the US was demanding might have received more serious consideration. Which is not to say that I agree that the US should have a permanent presence in Iraq. I don't. But it is to say that more serious attention should have been paid and that the embargo and periodic bombing of Iraqi infrastructure was not an appropriate agenda.
How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.
by hannah on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:33:36 AM PDT
This war is the responsibility of the Bush Administration, aided and abetted by Tony Blair's government.
Nothing else is the truth when it comes to the issue of responsibility for this war.
That is ALL I have to say about that subject. (Complicity is a whole other subject.)
No chicken should follow John McCain across that bloody road!
by MT Spaces on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:44:57 AM PDT
We were not at war.
Clinton had inherited George Bush Sr.'s (and Cheney's) ceasefire with Iraq. Iraq did not attack us. W attacked them.
Don't spout rightwing bullshit and expect it to stand. Bill has plenty of faults, but don't try to put Iraq on his shoulders. Jeeze.
In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane
by TampaCPA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:46:58 AM PDT
I know the Clinton's are annoying now, but why do these people think they can start blaming them pre-GWB again for everything that wasn't their problem? Sheesh.
"Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper
by Skid on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM PDT
maintaining the embargo and the no-fly zones very wearing and were looking for some finality. Since the original goal had been to establish land bases in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia wasn't working out, the Pentagon was looking for a decision to either fish or cut bait. Where GHWB had given consideration to Somalia for the Central Command, Clinton had beaten a hasty retreat. If you read the Air Force action reports closely, you'll see that the theater of operations is referred to as southwest Asia and North Africa. That's the focus of interest.
by hannah on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:40:38 AM PDT
was regime change.
Maybe there could have been a coup and some reasonably brutal general could have taken over (and such things were tried throughout the 90s), but weakening the Saddam regime just made room for Iran's influence. Thus the hesitation on the part of the realists to do much beyond contain Saddam. It took the freedom-agenda fantasists to cut the Gordian knot, invade and drop this brutal mess on the American taxpayers.
The mess Clinton made? How about the military aid Reagan gave him throughout the 80s? How about the real politick decision that Bush Sr. made to betray the Shhite uprisings in `91. Clinton's policy was essentially Bush Sr. policy until his last days in office. What about the decades-long move to create lily pad bases in the Middle East to replicate the hegemonic position the US enjoys in Europe and East Asia? There are times when there is no happy and bloodless solution to a balance of power crisis. Sorry, but one soldier barfing up a Fox News talking point doesn't actually mean anything. It's just fucking sad.
irony is the glory of slaves - Czeslaw Milosz
by lumpenprole on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:52:28 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 143 comments