Some people warned of this "mess"...

[kentuck]

...but no! You just wouldn't friggin' listen!

Now you want to call in to C-SPAN and open your big pie holes about how Obama has made a "mess" of this world. Just wake the fuck up!

Millions of people around the world told you not to invade Iraq. They warned of the future consequences when governments fell apart and violence would spread throughout the Middle East.

But you had to follow the pollyannish Republicans that were going to spread democracy over the entire region. Now do you see what you have spread? Don't point your finger at Obama.

Instead, point your finger at the chicken hawks that still want to invade and bomb every country in the world. These are the chicken shits that try to compensate for their own cowardice by sending others to die for their hare-brained, greedy ideas. And if you voted for these assholes, just look in the mirror. Because you helped make this mess.

[spanone]

1. i suspect this will be the neocon bullshit all over the sunday morning snooze shows

[onecaliberal]

2. You won't have to wait until Sunday to hear

The corporate media blame Obama for the mess created by the bush administration and their illegal war for oil.

[sabrina 1]

63. If he had prosecuted them instead of actually thinking that 'moving forward' would bring

more peace and harmony to the country, their pie holes would be shut right now as anything they said could be taken down and held against them.

[Louisiana1976]

77. And that's the truth.

[grahamhgreen]

52. My guess is they will support the air strikes but say it's too little too late, we need more.

[another_liberal]

61. Is there a good reason why we don't just get our people out of Irbil, if they're so endangered?

Does the State Department want them to be attacked in order to justify this third war on the people of Iraq.

To hell with propping-up Maliki's dictatorial government. We are not the ones who can fix Iraq, even though we did surly break the living crap out of it.

[grahamhgreen]

70. What I'd like to see is a map of refugees, force structures, air strikes and oil fields.

[another_liberal]

73. This might interest you . . .

If you play with the options a bit, it takes you to some additional maps.

http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/7/map-where-is-islamicstateoperating.html

[CJCRANE]

3. It's a bipartisan mess

caused by those who supported the Iraq invasion and those who supported the Syrian rebels.

[politicman]

4. i find it hard to argue with conservatives after Obamas latest moves..

I am as liberal as they come, YET I sometimes find myself asking why Obama with the troops on the ground and the intelligence that boots on the ground provided, didn't see this coming and ignore the Iraqi government when they asked to have American troops leave?

In the end it comes down to 2 scenarios, either the U.S troops stay there and maintain some sort of control (even if they lose sunni towns periodically while putting American soldiers lives at risk) or American troops leave and let the Iraqi's sort out their own problems without any help from the U.S anymore.

Obama said that it was up to the Iraqi's to sort out their own problems, and now he is using military intervention to help them sort out those problems, so the question is valid, why not disregard what the Iraqi government wanted and leave the troops there so that a group like ISIS couldn't over run a weak and unstable Iraqi government?

[CJCRANE]

5. I still think that's framing it in the Bush vs Obama way:

I.e. Bush made the mistake of invading, Obama of leaving, when in fact it's a bipartisan continuum that starts with doing regime change in Iraq and continues with encouraging regime change in Syria.

It's all part of the same continuous policy.

[cstanleytech]

58. No, if it was the same policy we would have invaded Iran by now. nt

[kentuck]

6. "...why not disregard what the Iraqi government wanted"..?

Indeed. Since Maliki had already been elected and had already formed a close alliance with the Iranian government, why not spend another trillion dollars and lose untold numbers of American lives?

Why not just stay there forever to try to correct the mistake that was made with the invasion of Iraq?

I do not dispute that it is a mess but it is not a mess of Obama's making. Unfortunately, it is a mess he is incapable of cleaning up.

[politicman]

11. its a legitimate question they ask that needs to have a proper answer..

What I am asking is a legitimate question that I haven't yet picked a stance on.

Your argument is a valid one to support your view.

But playing devils advocate, there is also an opposite view, that if Obama had of not listened to the Iraqi government and left troops in Iraq, then ISIS most likely would not have captured half the country and be threatening the Kurds.

Either ISIS is such a bad group that it requires U.S intervention again, OR ISIS is not so bad that we can sit on the sidelines and let the Iraqi's battle it out on there own.

If ISIS is such a bad group that military intervention is needed to stop their advance and weaken them, THEN naturally the argument follows as to why did Obama remove troops and allow ISIS to over run the Iraqi military in the north and fill a power vacuum?

Conservatives argue that Obama should not have listened to the Iraqi government and instead used intelligence to know that there was an incapable Iraqi army and a power vacuum that could be filled by a very unsavoury group, and left troops in Iraq.

Can anyone honestly arhue against their point of view when Obama intervenes militarily again after pulling troops out?

[kentuck]

13. "should not have listened to the Iraqi government.."

And then, when 20 GIs were killed by a suicide bomber and countless others killed by roadside bombs and the elected government did not want you there, who would be blamed?

Really, it's not a legitimate question. We do not have the political standing to stay in any country when the elected government asks us to leave.

[ljm2002]

16. Your analysis is flawed...

...either we recognize a government or we don't. If we do, then we also recognize their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The duly-elected government of Iraq told us we had to respect the withdrawal date (a date that was set by the Bush administration BTW) and withdraw our troops. One big reason for that is we would not agree to have our soldiers and contractors bound by any Iraqi authority -- which was unacceptable to them after some of the shit pulled by BlackWater mercenaries.

So now the neocons want to blame Obama for doing what Bush's crew had agreed to. And they also want to blame him for doing something about this current problem. Furthermore, they would blame him for NOT doing something in the current situation. That is why what the neocons think of Obama's actions are 100% irrelevant: they will blame him for ANYTHING he does, or does not do.

As pointed out above, had Obama decided to stay in Iraq against that government's wishes, all hell would have broken loose here at home for that decision, especially when some of the occupying US soldiers were inevitably killed.

There are no easy answers here, but one thing is certain: even at this late date, this tragic "mess" belongs SQUARELY to the Bush/Cheney administration. THEY broke it and they did so carelessly and recklessly and they ought to be tried and convicted for war crimes. Which of course will never happen but hey, a girl can dream.

Yes, anyone can honestly argue against the conservatives who say that "Obama should not have listened to the Iraqi government". What a twisted position that is.

[politicman]

41. I am not arguing that Obama deserves initial blame for this mess, I am arguing that by Obama..

returning to the country with military intervention, that he has now put himself in a position where he will be to blame for using American power to support a government that wanted U.S troops to leave even after they died and kept dying to keep that government in power.

Look, either Obama ignores the agreement and keeps troops in the country, OR Obama respects the choice of the Iraqi government and takes troops out AND tells the Iraqi government to go to hell when they come asking for help later on.

The Iraqi government CHOSE not to allow any troops to stay on Iraqi soil after the only reason that that particular government was in power was because of the stupid invasion.
Without Bush's disastrous invasion, Maliki and his 'democratically elected' Shia government would never see an ounce of power in that country, YET they refused to even allow the country that lost 5,000 soldiers in the process of giving them that power, to leave troops behind without having to answer to government that the troops died to bring about.

Heck, even before Obama brought the troops home, Maliki and his cabal were still relying on American forces to maintain their power in the country, YET they still maintained their insistence on the troops leaving.

Even worse, since the U.S left, Maliki and his cabal have been closer to Iran than to the country that lost 5000 soldiers for Maliki and his cabal to be able to have that power, something Saddam would never have let them see.

And for Obama to return with military intervention to support this Iraqi government a measly couple of years later is not on in my books.

So for me its either Obama should have ignored Iraqi government and left troops in the country, OR refuse to provide military intervention for situations like this where the Iraqi government is not capable of maintaining its power on its own country.

I personally don't believe that Obama should have ignored the Iraqi government and left troops there, what I believe is military intervention should never happen to support a government that refused to allow soldiers that were dying to protect it, to stay on its soil.

[kentuck]

42. Your assumption seems to be that this is all being done for Maliki and the Baghdad government?

When, in reality, it may be done "because" of Maliki and his ties to Iran, and by default, Russia. To balance the new "reality" of the region, America may be more interested in the rich oil fields of Kurdistan, ie, Mosul and Erbil. Since ISIS seems to now control the western provinces of Iraq and Maliki government controls Baghdad, the area in dispute is the rich northern area of the Kurds.

I suspect there is a great deal more geopolitical warfare going on than we presently know about.

[politicman]

48. you said it yoruself..

You said it yourself, since Maliki had already been elected and had already formed a close alliance with Iran, why even consider (let alone use) American power again to help such a government especially since America lost 5000 soldiers in the process of giving Maliki the opportunity to ever have power in that country.

[shraby]

8. Bush had made the deal with the Iraqi government to leave.

[politicman]

12. still doesnt change the valiidity of their question after Obamas latest moves..

What ever, Bush made it, Obama made it, doesn't matter who made it.

What matters is that America pretty much controlled Iraq when Obama pulled the troops out (even if there was an agreement), so the question becomes, should Obama have for seen an ineffectual Iraqi government and army that would leave a power vacuum that could be filled by some really extremist group?

Its an extremely difficult thing to for see, but when conservatives point out that Obama should have for seen it, frankly is extremely difficult to argue their point with Obama intervening militarily again.

In a way, Obama using force again bolsters their argument that U.S troops needed to stay their with or without the agreement of Iraqi government because a power vacuum still existed due to the ineffectuality of the Iraqi government and army.

[truebluegreen]

32. It matters very much "who made it"--

the responsibility for this debacle lies squarely in the neocon camp.

That said, you sound like you think our government is the only one that gets to make choices here, that we operate in a vacuum, that we get to arrange the world according to our own desires.

A sovereign nation told us to leave; you think we had the authority, the right to stay regardless? What gives us that right?

[lunatica]

43. Your criticism is missing a few facts. He's not using troops to sort out any Iraqi problems

He's protecting Kudish civilians who are forced to flea to avoid being murdered by ISIS. He's also sending them food and water so they can survive.

[politicman]

46. it always starts like that, doesnt it?

In time, when limited air strikes become an all out air campaign, and then military advisors become thousands of boots on the ground and we have Iraq War III, I want you to come back here and still defend this military intervention.

We all know that history shows that once military intervention starts, the facts on the ground dictate future military policy and things can spiral out of control at a very quick rate.

Take this simple scenario as an example, U.S carries out limited air strikes to protect and help certain factions and minorities on the ground, ISIS then manages to get a suicide bomber near U.S personnel in Iraq and Obama is faced with pressure from war hawks in the U.S that argue that he needs boots on the ground to protect U.S military personnel and installations. Over time things deteriorate even more until you have thousands and thousands of troops back in that country.


Always remember that there are war hawks both in the military and in Congress who will take advantage of any small incident to persistently whisper in Obama's ear that more 'intervention' is needed, these war hawks want nothing more than to have boots back on the ground and they will exploit any situation that they can.

[lunatica]

64. It's never simple. Never

I am not defending anything. I'm simply interjecting facts, which, even though they are facts don't help to make things as simple as we'd like them to be. Not everyone is radicalized into being polarized all the time. Sometimes it actually helps to know as many facts as possible to help do something progressive about crises. The more facts we know about the strategy behind military activities the more we can do to stop them. Anyone who prefers to think in terms of 'good' and 'bad' about every single action is forgetting that where we are now historically is entirely because of past actions, dots can be connected all the way back to the Sumerians who were the first recognized civilization of the Cradle of Civilization.

This humanitarian action is very much like all other actions. I think of it as triage. First you stop the bleeding just to keep the patient alive so you can stop the onset of death. To do nothing because sometime in the past triage led to some untimely death for some of the people you were trying to save is not necessarily a good option.

The situation with all the refugees in the world, due to horrific persecution and military atrocities includes the South American children coming to the US. Any decent medical personnel would be deep in triage decisions in any and all of these crises. Is Obama doing the right thing? Who knows. But doing nothing, especially given the very strong possibility that ISIS will do their best to commit terrorist activity against all the countries, including us who they have sworn to destroy is not a real option. In a way it doesn't matter what we do because ISIS will gladly come after us anyway, so why not try to contain them through humanitarian military activity. ISIS will try their best, and maybe succeed in terrorizing every country they deem deserves their wrath. That's another fact that should be given weight while riding the horns of this dilemma. There is no good answer. There are only choices on what to do or not do and hopefully with the knowledge that this will be one more of those historical dots.

[tavalon]

68. Is there any way to do this triage with the United Nations running it?

We allowed the destruction of Iraq, it seems rather awful that we go back in and do more of the same.

[lunatica]

72. To change the course of historical dots created by war

will take the actively conscious combined and committed efforts of all the countries in the world. The basic concept of the United Nations is a good one, although I have issues with the Security Council and giving any country veto power.

The United Nations should have triage done to itself. By discussions and debates and actions approved by all the countries and not just five. And especially not have everything subjected to and entirely dependent on the veto power of just a single country. Maybe that was a good idea after WWII. but the world has changed considerably many times since then. I have no idea if it would or could work. But we do know that the United Nations as it exists is only good for those who control it in the Security Council.

and my answer to those who say I'm deluded and too idealistic is that if our Founding Fathers could come up with our Constitution, which still works even in the most contentious of times and the vast societal changes that have happened since the Founders lived. The Constitution itself is what allows for the debate and evolutionary changes we've experienced throughout our history as a Nation. And it should be noted that the Constitution is not written to limit the powers that be to only a few States or any one branch. It was deliberately designed to spread the power around. I believe that in time, and during the changes of times the United Nations could be re-designed to reflect world changes. anything with a foundation of absolutism will eventually, and sooner than later destroy itself.

[tavalon]

84. We are in a time where a goodly portion of our constitution

has been gutted and gnarled into a form unrecognizable. As an example, Citizen's United, an Orwellian term if ever there was one.

And yes, the United Nations is fucked up as well, and I think we need to fund this problem but let them handle the peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. Do I think we will? Nope.

[Louisiana1976]

78. Agree wholeheartedly.

[trumad]

54. Anytime someone starts with a I'm as _________ as they come...

I expect the opposite.

[mark67]

56. I tend to think the O Administration is playing this one right.

ISIS would never stand up to the US military in a conventional "fair" fight. If we injected 50k troops now, after an initial confrontation with us blowing up one of the capture M1 tanks with a hellfire missle (which would be played repeatedly on CNN for several days) they would melt away into the population and start a wide spread campaign of civilian killings, terroristic bombings, etc...i.e. it would be 2005 all over again.

Not to mention it would be a great recruiting campaign for ISIS...go to Iraq to fight the western "infidels"; since Iraq apparently has no control of their borders.


The White House has the phraseology on this one correct...we will not be sucked (suckered) into another "war."

FM 3-24 (COIN) "Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction."

[Baitball Blogger]

7. I still remember when the Bush-bots kept repeating that they had the moral

authority to attack unilaterally.

And when they realized it wasn't a quick and easy, they wondered where our allies were? Why aren't they doing their part?

Fucking idiots.

[Boom Sound 416]

9. Shouldn't have been there. And shouldn't have left

[truebluegreen]

33. So we should stay forever?

Because no matter when we left, this would have happened. To mix a few metaphors, it was baked into the cake as soon as Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall.

[Boom Sound 416]

35. Drama much

And no.

[truebluegreen]

37. How long then?

The two main factions have hated each other for more than a thousand years. How long should we have stayed, at what cost in American lives and $$$? And how would you have convinced the American people to do it?

Pray tell.

And then of course there is the problem that a sovereign nation told us to leave. Do you think we had the right to stay regardless?

[trumad]

55. He won't answer....

[truebluegreen]

60. Yeah, I know...since he can't.

[Boom Sound 416]

81. Believe it or not

My life is bigger than DU

[Boom Sound 416]

82. A sovereign nation?

Hardly.

Two points.

One. I don't know how long we should have stayed. But I know we only left because of an election promise and NOTHING else.

And B - let me analogize it this way: it's like writing. You never really know when you're finished, but you do know when you're not.

[truebluegreen]

83. Silly.

Last edited Sun Aug 10, 2014, 09:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Don't know how you define a sovereign nation, but yes, Iraq is one. With an elected government, empowered to make agreements with other sovereign nations.

Just like the one they negotiated with the United States, which was signed by Preznit George W. Bush: a Status of Forces Agreement that called for the departure of all US troops by the end of 2011. President Obama's campaign promise was pretty much immaterial given that agreement and the Iraqis' refusal to renegotiate.

So that takes care of Point One. As for Point B, it is as nonsensical as the rest of your posts.

[Boom Sound 416]

85. Yes

I know of the Status Agreement, as well as, something called the FARC or some such agreement. one was signed the day before the election if I remember correctly.

Iraq's government is in its infancy. Not the people and their culture or struggle. But, the government. And like an infant, it must be protected from itself. Confidence through stability will allow the US to let go and withdraw. Until then we are the parent, sheriff, whatever.

Its sucks. Don't get me wrong. It was a terrible, worthless war, but their is no changing the past. So lets not make it worse. Lets Do It Right!

Maybe even build something. Start and Iraqi labor union. I don't know, but not just leave.



"As for Point B, it is as nonsensical as the rest of your posts" - The creatives might understand.

[truebluegreen]

86. Um, no.

We already made it worse. We already tried building something. We don't have the right, the inclination, the money or the will to stay until the result meets our standards for a real country. The Iraqis, and other nations in the region, have to solve these problems for themselves.

[Boom Sound 416]

87. Yes, let someone else do it.

Perfect.

[truebluegreen]

88. "Let someone else do it who CAN."

We have already proved that we cannot.

You seem to be unaware that A) some things are beyond our abilities and 2) going back into Iraq would be the definition of insanity. Educate yourself.

[Boom Sound 416]

90. You mean like now

[kentuck]

10. ...

[littlemissmartypants]

24. "Distorted Reality. "

They live in a f*cking distorted reality. NOT in my world. And why didn't he use the word "lied" because that is what they did. Distorted and reality are sixth grade spelling words. Thirty percent of the USA can't read and then not past this level. And who has time to read working two jobs to make ends meet while taking care of the babies? SMH.

I agree with the statement. I am just still so angry about the invasion of Mesopotamia I fight tears every time I think about it.

Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight. Lmsp

[Enthusiast]

65. We knew.

We weren't supposed to say it. We said it anyway.

Senator Sanders is the best.

[Iggo]

14. The United States has made and is making a mess of this world.

If you think that means I'm blaming Obama, I can't help you with that.

[zeemike]

15. But remember we are not to look back.

That is off the table.
So now having established the principle of not looking back this administration owns the war.
That is what we are told...and we fell for it.

[Brigid]

17. Yep, we told you so.

That is all.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. The Right doesn't understand what went wrong....

They have a long history of overthrowing popular leaders and installing puppets that sell out their people and rubber stamp our corporate contracts. It's worked in Central and South America for generations. They did it in Africa too and even in Italy. Why not the Middle East where all the oil is at? They figure all they have to do is hook up with a guy willing to murder a tenth or so of the population and reduce the rest to poverty and become rich in the process. Then have that guy declare other political parties illegal and rig elections to get 100% of the vote forever and provide cover by claiming they are not only wildly popular but a direct decedent of someone in history the people like.

It should work. The people over there are a bunch of primitive savages who yearn to be led by a guy they can respect for his toughness. You know, like a warrior king or something. Right?

......sheeze.....

[kairos12]

22. Spot on analysis.

[littlemissmartypants]

25. Agree. nt

[Enthusiast]

66. That is the formula.

[Botany]

19. bingo

Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2014, 05:43 PM - Edit history (2)

Yup! In February of 2003 I was driving my F-150 and I heard Joe wilson say on NPR,
"Iraq has 105 different sides and the one thing they have in common is that they all
hate each other. Yes, we can be in Baghdad in under 1 week but that is when the trouble
will start." VERY ROUGH QUOTE

W didn't know about the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims, Wolfowitz said the
war would pay for it's self, Kristol said that sectarian strife wouldn't be a problem in Iraq, Rummy
promised the whole thing would be over in 6 months, and Cheney said this in August of 2002,
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Meanwhile someplace in Texas another dogie picture is being painted as the Izidis are going
through a living hell in their own homeland.



BTW This mess is in thanx to Justices O'Conner, Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, and Rehnquist for their
bush v Gore ruling that stopped the counting of legitimate votes in Florida in 2000 because a President
Gore would have done something after he was told bin laden wanted to attack Washington D.C. and NYC
using hijacked planes.

[kairos12]

23. +1000

[PowerToThePeople]

20. No accountability. I can point my finger at Obama for that. n/t

[bonniebgood]

21. No accountability but he does not respond by calling out the BS. nt

[littlemissmartypants]

26. You are so right. I truly wish he would chew them out.

Sometimes he is just too nice. I would really like to see him get mean one time. Just one. I bet you we would not forget it.

[RKP5637]

28. I agree so much! Often, I wish he would get angry it tell them all to F off. It's

great to be Mr. Cool, but sometimes that approach absolutely does not work for all situations. They see it as a weakness and exploit it IMO!

[littlemissmartypants]

30. Sweet Madonna of Jesus...

Every mama has a mama bear inside. Every woman has The Look that instills fear and can make a mischievous chap stop evil doing... with a Look. I'm sorry but lately I have been feeling like My President is just schlepping along with the short timers disease. I want to see him get in touch with his Mama Bear.

Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight. Lmsp

[RKP5637]

31. He also might be fed up with the job! ... schlepping along with the short timers disease.

"Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight."

[littlemissmartypants]

34. Thank you. nt

[RKP5637]

27. The gifts from Bush, that just keep giving ... and the MIC is licking its

chops for another go around of obscene profits from death and destruction!

[Fred Sanders]

69. The MIC and MSM are fucking evil....they invite the same bastards on for free air time constantly.

[RKP5637]

71. Yep, they roll them out on MSM, all in the cue and ready to go. An advertisement,

they are, for death and destruction, brought to you by your friendly MIC and MSM for their diabolical and greedy profits. Death and destruction makes big bucks for these fuckers. No wonder much of the world really hates the good old USA.

[Louisiana1976]

80. Exactly.

[grahamhgreen]

74. Notice how Cheney & co. Came out of the woodwork to insist we help ISIS in Syria? Now we know why.

[RKP5637]

76. Halliburton would like another helping of $$$$$. n/t

[cantbeserious]

29. Yep - Don't Expect The ChickenHawks To Acknowledge The Fact

eom

[madokie]

36. Spot on

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thanks

[lordsummerisle]

38. Thanks Kentuck k&r n/t

[riseabove]

39. While it is Bush's fault, Obama left a power vacuum when he pulled all the troops out...

I wanted out of Iraq as much as anyone, but Bush made a mess, collectively as a country we broke Iraq. I saw this coming when Obama pulled everyone out and Iraq was obviously still not ready to stand up on it's own two legs.

Flame away. But just saying, you can't appease eveyone for the sake of appeasing them. He should have relayed the fact that Bush screwed us in Iraq, and now we have to stay until we are sure they won't fall and have a power vacuum like we do now.

[Botany]

40. Troll much?

The troops were pulled out under an agreement and time table that was
put together by the bush administration and President Obama would not
keep any US Troops in Iraq w/out a status of forces agreement* w/the
Iraqi government which Maliki would not give them.

Iraqi was broken the minute w & Cheney started their unneeded war
and they unleashed the winds of hell ..... Saddam was an evil man but
you know what he used to do w/al Qaeda types? He would shoot them.

* if US troops were under fire they could shoot back without being put
under the penalty of Iraqi law.

[FSogol]

45. Ohhhh, power vacuum! We pulled out troops out in 2011.

Guess it is a really slow vacuum.

[cstanleytech]

59. No he didnt leave any vacuum but the ones that were left in power handled in a hamfisted manner

which made things worse.

[TheKentuckian]

62. There is no foreseeable such time, this was automatic when way more than will admit it now

supported the dry drunk cowboy's invasion.

Didn't want this? Shouldn't have bought the bullshit.

Stay we should have left years earlier, all we had been doing for years is pissing money into the sand, stocking up folks with more weaponry, and generating radicals.

I have come to the conclusion that the majority of Americans are sheepishly stupid, dangerously ignorant, magical thinking, delusional, no memory having, arrogant, empty heads that are easily herded via emotion and ever surprised of the most obvious of out comes.

In this region, we officially don't get it and that is the full political spectrum not only the TeaPubliKlans who are even more assertive in their foolishness but us as well, particularly the "centrist" who cannot escape the neocon gravity but also including the most left end who insist on projecting better angels onto folks who don't always share them, ever thinking that we are some appeasement away from the age of Aquarius.

We full spectrum cannot cope, we are out of our fucking element in full.

[grahamhgreen]

75. And who would pay for the endless occupation, do tell?

[Cleita]

44. Jon Stewart got it right when he labeled it

Mess O'Potamia back then and the mess just keeps on getting messier and messier. In the meantime the neo-cons who brought us this are living the good life with the millions of dollars they have made off of it.

[Phlem]

47. Amen Brother!!!

K&R!!

[Historic NY]

49. Problem is we broke shit and now we either fix it or buy it..

thanks W

[indepat]

50. Bravo, kentuck, for telling it like it is

[humbled_opinion]

51. Killing people is never the answer...

If it were that simple we ought to just take the position to nuke the enitre Middle East and have done with it....

[cntrygrl]

53. Very well put! n/t

[kelliekat44]

57. Chicken hawks: old men who send young men and women off to fight in wars to protect their corporate

holdings, their power, and their privileges. And this is in every country, every religion, every ethnicity. The people need to rise up against them everywhere but most don't even recognize what is going on. They are too busy trying to live life, and provide for their families.

[tavalon]

67. Yes, we knew. And no one of any account listened

Now, my question is, what would DU do at this point? I mean if we were in power instead of the Hawks, who are still in power even if softened a bit by Obama. I was watching CNN at work and the propaganda was flying, which is why I came here this morning, to see if the bullshit meter that was going off in my head was calibrated correctly.

Basically, I think what I'm getting is that most of the horrific stories are true and yet, we, the rapists, probably ought not to be the ones going in there to help the raped. And yet, someone has to. We broke it, we bought it? I dunno. I'm horrified if even half of what corporate news network was saying is true and yet, we call CNN that for a reason, don't we?

So, for the next few days, I'm getting my news from here, and Al Jezerra, maybe some from England but I don't trust our "news" and I don't have a clue what we should actually be doing. It's really great that we all here knew this was going to happen. We shouted it from the rooftops and no one listened, so now what?

[Octafish]

79. ''Money trumps peace.'' -- George W Bush, White House press conference, 14 Feb 2007

"The sinews of war are endless profits." -- - Cicero, Orationes Philippicæ, v (c. 60 B.C.)

[calimary]

89. AMEN.

We tried like hell to warn everybody.