Politics Thread

XU 87 · 04-06-2017, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by X-man

Then why didn't we just go after Bin Laden rather than letting him go and pivoting into Iraq? That pivot not only let Bin Laden escape (temporarily, thank God), but also stirred up the hornets' nest called the Middle East. Who knows whether ISIL would have gotten any traction had we not gone into Iraq after the Sunnis.

I agree about the "who knows" comment. However, we do know a few things with more certainty. First, the majority of democratic senators voted to go to war against Iraq. This would include Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Kerry. We also know with some certainty that had we not left Iraq for political reasons, there would be no ISIS.

**GoMuskies** · 04-06-2017, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

Then why didn't he decide to remove the leaders of Saudi Arabia? They had a closer connection to that event than anyone in Iraq.

In any event, that's all water under the bridge for now. The only thing I think you can do is try to help/support the places in the region that have moved/are trying to move in the right direction (UAE, Qatar to some extent, Saudia Arabia inching very slowly). And don't insist on them being perfect right away. If they suck on women's rights and gay rights and other similar issues (and they do), that ain't great, but if you can get them moving in a progressive direction (for lack of a better term), no need to beat them up too badly over their failings. Beats a blank.

Caf · 04-06-2017, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by XU 87

I agree about the "who knows" comment. However, we do know a few things with more certainty. First, the majority of democratic senators voted to go to war against Iraq. This would include Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Kerry. We also know with some certainty that had we not left Iraq for political reasons, there would be no ISIS.

This is a confounding post. It was bad that democratic Senators voted to go to Iraq and it was also bad that President Obama wanted to leave Iraq? How do you reconcile these views? Withdrawal from Iraq is what people wanted. Obama campaigned very hard on that. Now, equipped with hindsight, people wanted the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq at the right time, in the right way. Withdrawal from the Middle East is never ever going to happen as planned. A western power is never going to be able to build a stable state in the Middle East. You can't have your influence in the Middle East and leave it too.

XU 87 · 04-06-2017, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Caf

This is a confounding post. It was bad that democratic Senators voted to go to Iraq and it was also bad that President Obama wanted to leave Iraq? How do you reconcile these views? Withdrawal from Iraq is what people wanted. Obama campaigned very hard on that. Now, equipped with hindsight, people wanted the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq at the right time, in the right way. Withdrawal from the Middle East is never ever going to happen as planned. A western power is never going to be able to build a stable state in the Middle East. You can't have your influence in the Middle East and leave it too.

1) I mention the fact that so many democrats voted to go to war to simply the hypocrisy and disingenuous of the democratic party, who after the war became unpopular ran for the hills and blamed it all on Bush.

2) I don't care if Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. It was a stupid move and he was told that when he did it. You don't make strategic military decisions based on "what the people want" at that given time. If you do, you are then turning a military decision into a political decision, which is what Obama did.

ChicagoX · 04-06-2017, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by XU 87

1) I mention the fact that so many democrats voted to go to war to simply the hypocrisy and disingenuous of the democratic party, who after the war became unpopular ran for the hills and blamed it all on Bush.

2) I don't care if Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. It was a stupid move and he was told that when he did it. You don't make strategic military decisions based on "what the people want" at that given time. If you do, you are then turning a military decision into a political decision, which is what Obama did.

1) The war never would have happened had the Bush administration not led the charge and cherry-picked the evidence that supported their narrative that Iraq had WMDs that they didn't actually have. The day after 9/11, the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq. The fact that some Democrats made the poor decision to vote for the war doesn't change the fact that invading Iraq was, is, and always will be Bush's and the Republican's baby. Had Gore won in 2000, I can guarantee you that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The war hawks in the GOP made this happen from the get-go.

2) Only a permanent occupation of Iraq would have prevented the rise of ISIS, which isn't a viable strategy. I'm glad we got out when we did, because this was going to happen no matter what as soon as we left. The cost both monetarily and the loss of American lives wasn't worth it.

Caf · 04-06-2017, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by XU 87

1) I mention the fact that so many democrats voted to go to war to simply the hypocrisy and disingenuous of the democratic party, who after the war became unpopular ran for the hills and blamed it all on Bush.

2) I don't care if Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. It was a stupid move and he was told that when he did it. You don't make strategic military decisions based on "what the people want" at that given time. If you do, you are then turning a military decision into a political decision, which is what Obama did.

I'm not interested in playing another round of "Oh yeah, well your party did this!"

My point is, we will never be able to cleanly leave the Middle East without consequence. There will never be a good time to leave. The way I see it, the only good time to stop meddling in the Middle East was yesterday. If we're ever going to escape this vicious cycle we have to accept the fact that bad things will happen there as a result of us leaving.

**X-man** · 04-06-2017, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by XU 87

I agree about the "who knows" comment. However, we do know a few things with more certainty. First, the majority of democratic senators voted to go to war against Iraq. This would include Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Kerry. We also know with some certainty that had we not left Iraq for political reasons, there would be no ISIS.

Explain your intel on this please. This makes as much sense as if I had said that "we know with certainty that had Bush not had us invade Iraq and knock off Saddam, that ISIL would never have been formed". I would never say that, and I am amazed that you make such an inane statement.

**paulxu** · 04-06-2017, 01:53 PM

A large part of the reason we left Iraq is because an agreement had been reached with the new government that they got to be, well...their own country.
That agreement was signed long before Obama took office. Under that agreement the country asked us to withdraw as agreed.
And we did. To do otherwise would have signaled that we were truly colonial occupiers.

**X-man** · 04-06-2017, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by paulxu

A large part of the reason we left Iraq is because an agreement had been reached with the new government that they got to be, well...their own country.
That agreement was signed long before Obama took office. Under that agreement the country asked us to withdraw as agreed.
And we did. To do otherwise would have signaled that we were truly colonial occupiers.

Paul Wolfowicz, to my mind the real criminal mind behind the actual rationale for going into Iraq, really was a colonial occupier in the sense that we were supposed to create through the invasion a model West-oriented state that would be a model for all the other broken states in the Middle East. That is the essence of colonial thinking, demonstrating a level of hubris common among West nation-builders.