But to suggest that 1991 then mandated 2003 is BS.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
by old salt
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:44 pm
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
You can’t change centuries of Arab behavior
The time to think of that was before we went ashore in '91.
Everything since has been dealing with the unforeseen consequences which followed.
We went all in, & still are. That's why it's in our interests to arm the Saudis,
so we don't have to defend them again.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
You can’t change centuries of Arab behavior
The time to think of that was before we went ashore in '91.
Everything since has been dealing with the unforeseen consequences which followed.
We went all in, & still are. That's why it's in our interests to arm the Saudis,
so we don't have to defend them again.
You just mentioned you can’t change their behavior 15 minutes ago sport.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.In hindsight I would agree....W got better as time went on, not as evil and certainly not as convicted.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
He had everyone on 9-12. Iraq, in hindsight was an epic failure and arguably made things way worse..certainly for the US balance sheet.
They made (up) their case and sold it to the rest of us...I believed Powell at the UN.
I used to be glad it was W and Co vs Gore Inc.....not so sure any more.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
You can’t change centuries of Arab behavior
The time to think of that was before we went ashore in '91.
Everything since has been dealing with the unforeseen consequences which followed.
We went all in, & still are. That's why it's in our interests to arm the Saudis,
so we don't have to defend them again.
You just mentioned you can’t change their behavior 15 minutes ago sport.
That's my point. The Saudis need to fight their own battles, rather than relying on us.
We can sell them arms (compatible with ours) & maintain some control & influence,
or watch them buy them from the Russians & EUros, like Saddam did.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
He had everyone on 9-12. Iraq, in hindsight was an epic failure and arguably made things way worse..certainly for the US balance sheet.
They made (up) their case and sold it to the rest of us...I believed Powell at the UN.
I used to be glad it was W and Co vs Gore Inc.....not so sure any more.
Agree. But something had to change. By 2003 the status quo re. Iraq couldn't hold. Regime change had become US policy in '98.
After 9-11, Qaddafi disarmed, welcomed inspectors, gave us intel & survived.
Saddam did the opposite. 9-11 gave Bush a window of opportunity in public support. He seized it.
We made the mistake of believing the Iraq expats who assured us that Iraq was a secular society with Shia & Sunni intermarrying & sharing neighborhoods. They weren't all charlatans like Chalibi & Curveball. Some actually lived it.
We made the same mistake we made in 91 in Kuwait, 01 in Afghanistan, 03 in Iraq & '12 in Libya.
Quick shock & awe victory with no workable plan for the aftermath.
We've finally learned that invasion for regime change does not work unless we're willing to stay, occupy & develop for decades.
After 7 decades & the Marshall Plan, we still have forces based in Germany, Italy, Japan & S Korea.
Our military has learned, restructured & deployed accordingly.
So has Trump. That's what he means when he vows no more stupid wars.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
You can’t change centuries of Arab behavior
The time to think of that was before we went ashore in '91.
Everything since has been dealing with the unforeseen consequences which followed.
We went all in, & still are. That's why it's in our interests to arm the Saudis,
so we don't have to defend them again.
You just mentioned you can’t change their behavior 15 minutes ago sport.
That's my point. The Saudis need to fight their own battles, rather than relying on us.
We can sell them arms (compatible with ours) & maintain some control & influence,
or watch them buy them from the Russians & EUros, like Saddam did.
Control and influence what? you said we can’t change centuries of Arab and Russian behavior. A lot of flowery words and nomenclature but it’s BS. Like VDH ....because it’s uttered, it doesn’t make it meaningful.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:48 pm
by old salt
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:06 pm
Control and influence what? you said we can’t change centuries of Arab and Russian behavior. A lot of flowery words and nomenclature but it’s BS. Like VDH ....because it’s uttered, it doesn’t make it meaningful.
You're a liar. Here's what I said.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:39 pm
I lost enough friends during the Cold War & in Iraq to not want a do over.
If that means tolerating some things we can't change, which do not threaten us, then so be it.
I do not hold the fantasy that we can change centuries of Russian or Arab society,
& it's arrogant to think that we can.
There's a huge difference between thinking we can change Saudi society,
as compared to influencing their military actions by controlling their arms supply.
I don't care if they let women drive or not. I do care what they do with the weapons we sell them.
If we don't approve, we can cut off the spare parts. munitions supply chain & contractor maint support.
...like the Senate is trying to do now. MBS can't put Khashoggi back together again. (Arab rules)
Smart bombs will cause fewer civilian casualties in Yemen.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
He had everyone on 9-12. Iraq, in hindsight was an epic failure and arguably made things way worse..certainly for the US balance sheet.
They made (up) their case and sold it to the rest of us...I believed Powell at the UN.
I used to be glad it was W and Co vs Gore Inc.....not so sure any more.
Agree. But something had to change. By 2003 the status quo re. Iraq couldn't hold. Regime change had become US policy in '98.
After 9-11, Qaddafi disarmed, welcomed inspectors, gave us intel & survived.
Saddam did the opposite. 9-11 gave Bush a window of opportunity in public support. He seized it.
We made the mistake of believing the Iraq expats who assured us that Iraq was a secular society with Shia & Sunni intermarrying & sharing neighborhoods. They weren't all charlatans like Chalibi & Curveball. Some actually lived it.
We made the same mistake we made in 91 in Kuwait, 01 in Afghanistan, 03 in Iraq & '12 in Libya.
Quick shock & awe victory with no workable plan for the aftermath.
We've finally learned that invasion for regime change does not work unless we're willing to stay, occupy & develop for decades.
After 7 decades & the Marshall Plan, we still have forces based in Germany, Italy, Japan & S Korea.
Our military has learned, restructured & deployed accordingly.
So has Trump. That's what he means when he vows no more stupid wars.
This is where you start getting snickers from pretty much everyone. Trump doesn't understand anything you have written, he has no idea what is truly going on or its significance.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:48 am
by old salt
So 2 years in, how many wars has he gotten us into ?
It's not a complicated thought process.
Remember when Bolton was marching us to war in Venezuela ? ...or was it Iran ?
How 'bout Fire & Fury & the panic when the MSM lost track of our aircraft carrier in W Pac ?
You don't understand that our military is structured & deployed differently now ? OK
How are the Syrian Kurds doing since Trump supposedly abandonded them ?
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:06 pm
Control and influence what? you said we can’t change centuries of Arab and Russian behavior. A lot of flowery words and nomenclature but it’s BS. Like VDH ....because it’s uttered, it doesn’t make it meaningful.
You're a liar. Here's what I said.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:39 pm
I lost enough friends during the Cold War & in Iraq to not want a do over.
If that means tolerating some things we can't change, which do not threaten us, then so be it.
I do not hold the fantasy that we can change centuries of Russian or Arab society,
& it's arrogant to think that we can.
There's a huge difference between thinking we can change Saudi society,
as compared to influencing their military actions by controlling their arms supply.
I don't care if they let women drive or not. I do care what they do with the weapons we sell them.
If we don't approve, we can cut off the spare parts. munitions supply chain & contractor maint support.
...like the Senate is trying to do now. MBS can't put Khashoggi back together again. (Arab rules)
Smart bombs will cause fewer civilian casualties in Yemen.
Meaningless. “It’s arrogant to think we can change centuries of Arab Society”
Aren’t those your words Sailor. Cut out the BS. If it can’t be changed, why are we involved at all. You and your hero VDH, are cut from the same cloth. BS artists.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:54 am
by foreverlax
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:48 am
So 2 years in, how many wars has he gotten us into ?
It's not a complicated thought process.
Remember when Bolton was marching us to war in Venezuela ? ...or was it Iran ?
How 'bout Fire & Fury & the panic when the MSM lost track of our aircraft carrier in W Pac ?
You don't understand that our military is structured & deployed differently now ? OK
How are the Syrian Kurds doing since Trump supposedly abandonded them ?
Over 8 years, how many did BHO start...I lost track.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:07 am
by OCanada
Iraq has been neutered before 9/11.
His army was a paper tiger. His country was badly and not a solid base of support and no one liked or respected him. He no longer had an effective Air Force or weapons os mass destruction.
Were it not for getting what he assumed was permission from a USA Ambassador for Kuwait a lot of things probably never happen.
His army proved how ineffective it was. It did make ISIS more effective when our occupation decided to wing it rather than use an occupation plan from State
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm
Just like WW I & the Treaty of Versailles didn't mandate WW II.
But they were contributing factors. Unfinished business. Nothing's inevitable.
ok, so "mandated" does not equal "flowed from"...you're just saying they were "contributing factors".
But, of course, like usual, you employ a false historical analogy. Hitler's rise indeed "flowed from", in part, the crushing reparations debt of Germany post the Great War, the war to end all wars.
But, Hitler's rise and aggression was real, whereas Saddam had been largely neutered post Desert Storm.
2003 did not "flow from" GW's decision to not obliterate Iraq and demand regime change.
We had no "unfinished business", just a total miscalculation of the dynamics of the region, along with the ascendance of the hawks in the wake of 9-11 impatient to change the paradigm.
Unlike some, I don't think the Cheney's etc were evil, just grossly arrogant. Wrong.
So did you favor invading Iraq in 2003 ? If not, how would you have proceeded, with sanctions expiring, Saddam rearming, & increasingly shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. Would you have pulled out of the ME, come home, watched Saddam rearm & leave the Marsh Arabs & Kurds to the tender mercies of Saddam & Sons ?
I favored the action, believing that what we, the public, were being told about WMD must be true, else we wouldn't be getting told that way.
It's far easier now, in retrospect, to recognize that the fundamental assumptions were badly flawed and, moreover, our planning for the entire action rather than just the initial military 'shock and awe' was abysmal.
We did not need to take the action when we did, we could have waited and gathered consensus, and we should have thoroughly planned for the ramifications of military action.
Huge mistake.
Re: Orange Duce
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:09 am
by Typical Lax Dad
Wasn’t part of the reason we were there was Cheney’s interest in changing centuries of Arab society?
