Obama just landed in Baghdad...

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Look it, I supported 100% going in and getting it over with. Our founders warned of foreign entanglements and their wisdom over mine proved out and you can look at our involvement, time and time again, from WWI to WWII to Korea and Vietnam and now the Gulf and there is much argument that we, as Americans, made a mistake each and every time not listening to the wisdom of earlier ages.

I would argue W would have done fine had he gotten on with it and had realistic, attainable goals like his old man did. However, that is water under the bridge at this point.

At the end of the day, I think we are far better off having nothing to do with the Middle East. If they wanna sell us their oil, they will do it with us as the customer who will simply say 'screw you' if they don't treat us fairly. Our involvement over the years has us supporting monarchs and dictators and overthrowing free and fair elections. Something is terribly wrong about all this.

We declare their oil OUR national interest and use that excuse as the pretext for everything we do, all while NOT securing our own energy independence.

Hinton Helper was a proud Southerner who hated slavery because of the dependence it created in the South. It was the easy way out. Use cheap labor to buy stuff from the North. It made it difficult for industry to flourish in the South. They ended up losing everything. That is us today. Are we truly acting in our national interest in the Middle East?

I say no.

We are there Larry. There is no escaping this unfortunate fact. We can argue founders and what-ifs, but when we're done with that, we are still right back where we left off. We are there. The damage is done. Do we just abandon this and let it fall apart? We are already blamed for breaking; do we also get blamed for not fixing what we broke?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

We are there Larry. There is no escaping this unfortunate fact. We can argue founders and what-ifs, but when we're done with that, we are still right back where we left off. We are there. The damage is done. Do we just abandon this and let it fall apart? We are already blamed for breaking; do we also get blamed for not fixing what we broke?

Let me ask you this; You say we must stay and fix it because we broke it.
Where does the belief come from that we can fix it?

Consider; the person who wanted this is the one who messed it up AND he is gone. The person who is supposed to fix it was not and is not a supporter of the mission in the first place. This is where Vietnam comes into play; when it's not your war, you inherit it and it's a mess, where's your motivation?

Where is the logic stream that any good, any 'fix' comes from just staying? Our mere presence is the key to a good result?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

How many brigades did the media place in the way, zero? Bush had the initiative and lost it. You blame the media. I blame Bush. Everyone was all for this thing once we got going and it was Bush that is responsible for disbanding their army instead of putting them to work, supplying the opposition with broke men with nothing better to do. It is Bush that is responsible for the de Baathification program that gave all the movers and shakers a choice; lose everything or fight. It is Bush that is responsible for allowing Sadr and others to set up their own shops.

He committed those fatal errors when he, Bush, was master of the situation.

All the media did was report on the mess we made, the mess those decisions guaranteed.

I blame Bush for doing this in the first place. I blame Bush for committing us but not fully committing us. I blame the media for using this failure as a means to promote a political agenda to exploit every little negative thing our troops did to promote this war as a failure. The negative sentiment this created in the minds of Americans (just like VN) shaped war policy. War policy should NEVER be shaped around what the people think. The terrorists and insurgents watched our news and capitalized on this. They were brilliant in using our own media against us. They knew the more chaos they created the more it would be reported the more it would be sour in the bellies of Americans. If there were no media there to report all of this, the insurgency would have been marginalized . Finally Bush got it a decided to go against the sentiments of Americans and the leftwing propaganda to demand we leave Iraq and surge. But the damage was already done.

There is plenty of blame. If Bush had been smart he would have ignored all the negative hype, leveled the place, and dealt with the consequences later. Far less than what we are dealing with now. But, I equally feel the media has a responsibility to support our causes and not destroy them for political reasons. The media, from that standpoint, became our enemy.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I
There is plenty of blame. If Bush had been smart he would have ignored all the negative hype, leveled the place, and dealt with the consequences later. Far less than what we are dealing with now. But, I equally feel the media has a responsibility to support our causes and not destroy them for political reasons. The media, from that standpoint, became our enemy.

Anytime you want an argument from me, just argue that this is the media's fault.

It's like blaming the weather as far as I am concerned.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Let me ask you this; You say we must stay and fix it because we broke it.
Where does the belief come from that we can fix it?

Consider; the person who wanted this is the one who messed it up AND he is gone. The person who is supposed to fix it was not and is not a supporter of the mission in the first place. This is where Vietnam comes into play; when it's not your war, you inherit it and it's a mess, where's your motivation?

Where is the logic stream that any good, any 'fix' comes from just staying? Our mere presence is the key to a good result?

Quite honestly Larry, I don't know if this can be fixed. If we leave it definitely wont. If Obama decides to pull us out of there and the place break out in chaotic violence then it's Obama's mess to fix. OR, he can get his brains together and come up with a solution to clean it up. He can become the hero. He fixed what the inept GOP couldn't. If he does this I might be inclined to vote for him next time around.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Anytime you want an argument from me, just argue that this is the media's fault.

It's like blaming the weather as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, the weather has a conscious agenda to ruin our lives.

Of course Bush as already been blamed for using the weather to ruin our lives. So.....

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Quite honestly Larry, I don't know if this can be fixed. If we leave it definitely wont. If Obama decides to pull us out of there and the place break out in chaotic violence then it's Obama's mess to fix. OR, he can get his brains together and come up with a solution to clean it up. He can become the hero. He fixed what the inept GOP couldn't. If he does this I might be inclined to vote for him next time around.

Define 'fixed'.

Bush, clearly, had in mind a Jeffersonian democracy. However, one of the key features of our nation is that WE built it. No one imposed it on us.

Saudi is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. Syria are Baaths and a mix of the others. Turkey is Sunni with a large Kurd minority. Was Iraq ever gonna not be a mess?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Yeah, the weather has a conscious agenda to ruin our lives.

Of course Bush as already been blamed for using the weather to ruin our lives. So.....

Bush "Hey, if we invade Iraq, do you think the media will help out or work against us?"

Aide "Well, they'll be 100% as long as the fighting is moving and exciting and going good. If things bog down and get messy and confused, people will start to wonder what the hell is going on and the media WILL start taking an adversarial role."

Bush "Nah! They'd never do that!"

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Define 'fixed'.

Bush, clearly, had in mind a Jeffersonian democracy. However, one of the key features of our nation is that WE built it. No one imposed it on us.

Saudi is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. Syria are Baaths and a mix of the others. Turkey is Sunni with a large Kurd minority. Was Iraq ever gonna not be a mess?

Depends on your definition of the word "is" is...

Come on Larry, I'm not talking about some democracy at this point. I'm talking about a stable country that can stand on its own and defend itself from Iran. I don't have the first clue what the future holds for Iraq. But leaving now only results in a definite escalation of chaos. This creates all sorts of national security issue for us.

Now, I've made the correlation too many times, but why was Germany so important that we spend the trillions in Americans dollars and thousands of American lives that we provide 50 years of stability so they country wouldn't fall to communism? What was our real national interest there? Or was it a responsibility we had to "fix" what we broke? Why is Iraq any less important either on the national interest side or responsibility side; despite our mistakes?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Bush "Hey, if we invade Iraq, do you think the media will help out or work against us?"

Aide "Well, they'll be 100% as long as the fighting is moving and exciting and going good. If things bog down and get messy and confused, people will start to wonder what the hell is going on and the media WILL start taking an adversarial role."

Bush "Nah! They'd never do that!"

So, you're denying that the media had an agenda to cast this was 1) a lie and 2) an utter failure?