Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:
When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades

What specifically was the lie?

Seaward wrote:
I'm even more committed to ignoring those who claim after the fact they knew it all beforehand with little evidence to prop up such claims.

It was quite obvious at the time that invading Iraq was a bad idea and that the claims of it having weapons of mass destruction were not at all supported by inspections. I don't think anyone predicted the rise of a militant caliphate because that was kind of a far-out dream for even the most intense of jihadists but plenty of people held that the invasion was a very vicious thing to do. Bush and Blair were widely called out for their bullshitting even then.

Rosebuddy wrote:
It was quite obvious at the time that invading Iraq was a bad idea and that the claims of it having weapons of mass destruction were not at all supported by inspections. I don't think anyone predicted the rise of a militant caliphate because that was kind of a far-out dream for even the most intense of jihadists but plenty of people held that the invasion was a very vicious thing to do. Bush and Blair were widely called out for their bullshitting even then.

American and British intelligence agencies weren't the only ones of the opinion that Saddam's regime was working on a WMD program. Whether or not that justifies an invasion is a more debatable point, but I'm of the opinion that even the many, many games he played with the inspectors was enough to warrant one.

But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.

Seaward wrote:
You seem to be implying that because we toppled Saddam, we now have to legitimize Iran. Is that correct?

I think the US and Israel legitimized the current Iranian government sometime around Iran-Contra.

Seaward wrote:

American and British intelligence agencies weren't the only ones of the opinion that Saddam's regime was working on a WMD program. Whether or not that justifies an invasion is a more debatable point, but I'm of the opinion that even the many, many games he played with the inspectors was enough to warrant one.

Why even have that hair trigger? It just seems foolish to launch an invasion on the basis of a 4.5 year old resolution.

 Ouze wrote:

Seaward wrote:
When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades

What specifically was the lie?

I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?

Because, I could have sworn five other major powers were involved...

Seaward wrote:

But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.

Perhaps not exactly ISIS, but I think it's safe to say that by the time Obama was elected and the big pullout was extremely near, we knew that there was something worse waiting to fill the power vacuum we had created.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Seaward wrote:
When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades

What specifically was the lie?

I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?

Because, I could have sworn five other major powers were involved...

Obama was certainly taking credit for it here up until ISIS started it's campaign. Suddenly, he started saying it wasn't his idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It was quite obvious at the time that invading Iraq was a bad idea and that the claims of it having weapons of mass destruction were not at all supported by inspections. I don't think anyone predicted the rise of a militant caliphate because that was kind of a far-out dream for even the most intense of jihadists but plenty of people held that the invasion was a very vicious thing to do. Bush and Blair were widely called out for their bullshitting even then.

American and British intelligence agencies weren't the only ones of the opinion that Saddam's regime was working on a WMD program. Whether or not that justifies an invasion is a more debatable point, but I'm of the opinion that even the many, many games he played with the inspectors was enough to warrant one.

But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.

Add into that mix that Saddam was nerve gassing entire villages, making it very easy to believe he had these weapons and the will to use them.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Seaward wrote:

But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.

Perhaps not exactly ISIS, but I think it's safe to say that by the time Obama was elected and the big pullout was extremely near, we knew that there was something worse waiting to fill the power vacuum we had created.

"Years after the war had begun" is not the same as "before the war began," though, in terms of claiming to have foreseen it all.

There's absolutely no question the pullout was a mistake, as evidenced by the fact that we're slowly building force back up in the country. Obama's genius is in doing it quietly, and in somehow keeping the metric fuckton of ordnance we're dropping on both Iraq and Syria a subject that nobody really wants to write about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Why even have that hair trigger? It just seems foolish to launch an invasion on the basis of a 4.5 year old resolution.

Because keeping Iraq from developing nukes was vital to our interests. If Iraq had successfully done it, Iran would've had to successfully do it, too.

Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?

 d-usa wrote:
Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?

Anybody? No.

Mostly everybody? Yeah.

Last time I heard anything about it, the chemical and biological weapons Iraq did have were sold by the US and thus already known. They had also already been destroyed along with the facilities to produce them under the supervision of the UN.

Anyone "playing games" doesn't really matter when you know that they've already destroyed at least 90% of everything they ever had in the way of WMDs and their production. Suggestions that Iraq was producing chemical or nuclear weaponry were never credible and were solidly debunked once UN inspectors returned after the invasion.

 d-usa wrote:
Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?

People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."

But yes, few in Congress at the time voted against the invasion of Iraq and subsequent regime change.

Relapse wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Seaward wrote:
When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades

What specifically was the lie?

I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?

Because, I could have sworn five other major powers were involved...

Obama was certainly taking credit for it here up until ISIS started it's campaign. Suddenly, he started saying it wasn't his idea.

Which takes us back to the "I'm shocked, shocked" that politicians spin the truth, if not outright lie at times. When things go good, politicians take the credit; when things go bad, they find someone else to blame (even if that someone else is God, see Rubio's statement that his path to the White House wasn't in God's Plan).

Seaward wrote:

If Iraq had successfully done it, Iran would've had to successfully do it, too.

I'm fairly certain the Iranian push for nuclear development is grounded in Western hostility to the present regime, hostility which was affirmed by the invasion of Iraq.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?

People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."

Don't forget all the bleeding hearts in the CIA that warned about the sectarian divisions and increased terrorism that would likely follow.

Liberals! shakes fist


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Seaward wrote:
When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades

What specifically was the lie?

I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?

Because, I could have sworn five other major powers were involved...

Obama was certainly taking credit for it here up until ISIS started it's campaign. Suddenly, he started saying it wasn't his idea.

What does the ISIL campaign have to do with the Iran deal?

Again, these arguments are almost totally incoherent at this point.

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?

People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."

Don't forget all the bleeding hearts in the CIA that warned about the sectarian divisions and increased terrorism that would likely follow.

Liberals! shakes fist

Were those warnings public? No? Did their warnings affect Senate votes? No? Did they help shape public opinion? No? Before you strain your arm find me some actual liberals who, prior to the invasion, were sounding the clarion call that it would "likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region."

I vaguely remember Bill Clinton voicing concern that there would be unexpected consequences back then, but not extensively and never specifically what those consequences would be. I do remember concern about Iraq's stability eventually becoming the central topic when we started to form the new government over there with people like al-Zarqawi constantly making us look like a bunch of tools, but not so much prior to that. In fact, I don't remember many people questioning Bush's approach until al-Zarqawi and his ilk began appearing untouchable and Bush unwilling to engage. That was when comparisons to our failed strategies in Viet Nam and South Korea started - or at least became popular discussions on television. That was about the time when people seriously started questioning the war fighting strategy and wanting to know the exit strategy.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?

People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."

Don't forget all the bleeding hearts in the CIA that warned about the sectarian divisions and increased terrorism that would likely follow.

Liberals! shakes fist

Were those warnings public? No? Did their warnings affect Senate votes? No? Did they help shape public opinion? No? Before you strain your arm find me some actual liberals who, prior to the invasion, were sounding the clarion call that it would "likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region."

I vaguely remember Bill Clinton voicing concern that there would be unexpected consequences back then, but not extensively and never specifically what those consequences would be. I do remember concern about Iraq's stability eventually becoming the central topic when we started to form the new government over there with people like al-Zarqawi constantly making us look like a bunch of tools, but not so much prior to that. In fact, I don't remember many people questioning Bush's approach until al-Zarqawi and his ilk began appearing untouchable and Bush unwilling to engage. That was when comparisons to our failed strategies in Viet Nam and South Korea started - or at least became popular discussions on television. That was about the time when people seriously started questioning the war fighting strategy and wanting to know the exit strategy.

I'm sure if I spent 30 seconds on youtube, I could find a video of a Bernie Sanders speech from the Senate floor

Just to make sure I'm keeping up, we've gone from "no one thought invading Iraq was a bad idea" to "well, no one knew specifically why" to "well, the senate by and large didn't know specifically why" - is that where we are now? Or are you asking me to prove that a large percentage of the American public, who in January 2003 were majority against the invasion, knew exactly why the invasion was a bad idea? If it's the latter, you win this round, since at that time the majority of the public also thought that Iraq was behind 9/11. So, I guess that's sort of a victory, once you reframe it enough.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?

People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."

Don't forget all the bleeding hearts in the CIA that warned about the sectarian divisions and increased terrorism that would likely follow.

Liberals! shakes fist

Were those warnings public? No? Did their warnings affect Senate votes? No? Did they help shape public opinion? No? Before you strain your arm find me some actual liberals who, prior to the invasion, were sounding the clarion call that it would "likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region."

I vaguely remember Bill Clinton voicing concern that there would be unexpected consequences back then, but not extensively and never specifically what those consequences would be. I do remember concern about Iraq's stability eventually becoming the central topic when we started to form the new government over there with people like al-Zarqawi constantly making us look like a bunch of tools, but not so much prior to that. In fact, I don't remember many people questioning Bush's approach until al-Zarqawi and his ilk began appearing untouchable and Bush unwilling to engage. That was when comparisons to our failed strategies in Viet Nam and South Korea started - or at least became popular discussions on television. That was about the time when people seriously started questioning the war fighting strategy and wanting to know the exit strategy.

I'm sure if I spent 30 seconds on youtube, I could find a video of a Bernie Sanders speech from the Senate floor

I saw a video of Bernie speaking out against the invasion. He cited lack of imminent threat against the US as a country, as well as the potential threat of Saddam using chem weapons against our troops if he were to be boxed in. He then shifted to how Bush was ignoring the US economy and so on.

 Ouze wrote:
Just to make sure I'm keeping up, we've gone from "no one thought invading Iraq was a bad idea" to "well, no one knew specifically why" to "well, the senate by and large didn't know specifically why" - is that where we are now? Or are you asking me to prove that a large percentage of the American public, who in January 2003 were majority against the invasion, knew exactly why the invasion was a bad idea? If it's the latter, you win this round, since at that time the majority of the public also thought that Iraq was behind 9/11. So, I guess that's sort of a victory, once you reframe it enough.

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't join discussions with the hopes of "winning" or score keeping or giving someone a good drubbing. I post because I like to discuss certain topics, add commentary, and argue for/against things that interest me and that's about as far as it goes.

As to where we've gone during my part of this discussion, you'll remember that I joined in when you were questioning the idea of the nation being 100% behind the invasion and whether anyone predicted destabilization. I interpreted your use of the nation to mean the general public and news media. I interpreted opposition to invasion as the public/vocal anti-war campaign that was happening at the time, not a few CIA analysts producing classified reports or back room discussions between President Bush and foreign governments. I do not remember the anti-war position having a "it will destabilize the region" message. They were pretty much married to the "no blood for oil" and "it will just make the terrorists mad" tropes.

If I have misinterpreted your statement, I'm hardly infallible, please clarify and we can approach this from a fresh perspective.

@Breotan... I was being fairly tongue in cheek, as it's been something of a theme during this political campaign season.

I remember talking heads on the television making comments about Iraq turning into another Vietnam even before we invaded.

So Ryan is not playing nice with Trump, so Palin announced that she will make sure he is defeated in his primary.

 d-usa wrote:
So Ryan is not playing nice with Trump, so Palin announced that she will make sure he is defeated in his primary.

Well... he neither stated that he'd support nor reject Trump.

The Trumpkins are being very sore winners here...

 Ouze wrote:


What does the ISIL campaign have to do with the Iran deal?

Again, these arguments are almost totally incoherent at this point.

My bad, I copied the wrong post.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Ryan is not playing nice with Trump, so Palin announced that she will make sure he is defeated in his primary.

Well... he neither stated that he'd support nor reject Trump.

The Trumpkins are being very sore winners here...

It shows why Palin was McCain's biggest mistake, too. So frequently the Tea Party people are their own worst enemies.

EDIT: I just saw a news clip where Palin says she doesn't want to be VP choice because she doesn't want to be a burden on the Trump campaign effort. Of course her position was couched between coy statements that she'd gladly accept if asked. I thought nobody could be more destructive to conservative ideology than Ann Coulter. Way to prove me wrong, Sarah.

The way Sarah Palin turned out makes me legitimately feel bad for John McCain.

To be up front and honest, I believe that invading Iraq was a waste, intelligence was faulty, and it was a huge mistake. It was Bush's folly.

That being said, I'm not exactly thrilled with Hillary Clinton disavowing her participation in it. She was nearly as gun-ho about it as Bush, despite her denials today.

In fact, back in the Clinton Presidency, between 1995 and 1999 between Bill and Hillary they publically proclaimed to the press about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. They didn't do this just once, it was at least 24 times, and videos of it exist. They claimed they had evidence that Iraq had WMD, the ability to make more, reliable delivery systems, and the willingness to use them.

Despite video records to the contrary Hillary denies ever having believed it.

 Breotan wrote:
I do not remember the anti-war position having a "it will destabilize the region" message. They were pretty much married to the "no blood for oil" and "it will just make the terrorists mad" tropes.

The argument "It will make the terrorists mad." is a conservative redraft of the argument "It will destabilize the region."

 whembly wrote:

The Trumpkins are being very sore winners here...

So what does that mean the Cruz Missiles are doing?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/08/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton

On this weekend's episode of the NPR game show Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!, humorist P.J. O'Rourke—usually classified as either a conservative-leaning libertarian or a libertarian-leaning conservative—announced that he's voting for Hillary Clinton. Clinton, he declared, was "the second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she's way behind in second place, you know? She's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!"

Of Donald Trump, he warned: "They've got this button, you know? It's in a briefcase. He's gonna find it."

..blimey eh ?


how does the song go again ?

The Economist -- not exactly reckoned a nest of seething left-wingism -- dislikes Trump so much they say just his selection as a candidate is a serious socio-political disaster for the USA.