Situation in Iraq Deteriorates

[alexava 6,974]

Thanks strychnine. I didn't want to input all that from a phone. I will add Japan and Germany were allies, the same side with the goal of ruling the world. The Taliban were harboring al qaida and Iraq wanted nothing to do with either of them. Poor analysis Japan.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

You cannot be serious. Again, even I don't believe, that you really believe, any of that.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ICHY is really getting good. Now he knows what we believe and don't believe.

Oh well, everybody needs to do nothing but yada, yada every now and then. But I'm getting outta here and headed to Auburn is a little bit.

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

[TheBlueVue 177]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

[TheBlueVue 177]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Beats me but I was under the impression the guys running the country were supposed to be the smart people. You know , the ones who are supposedly on top of the thing and prosecuting it in a fashion that best serves American interests. Sadly, thas has not been the case as they seem caught off guard every week by another development they should have seen coming. Please don't lecture me on this because. The US has the most expansive ie. biggest and best intelligence gathering network in the world and this administration's ineptitude in dealing with the middle east has been unbelievable.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Beats me but I was under the impression the guys running the country were supposed to be the smart people. You know , the ones who are supposedly on top of the thing and prosecuting it in a fashion that best serves American interests. Sadly, thas has not been the case as they seem caught off guard every week by another development they should have seen coming. Please don't lecture me on this because. The US has the most expansive ie. biggest and best intelligence gathering network in the world and this administration's ineptitude in dealing with the middle east has been unbelievable.

Whoa, slow down a little. You said "we" never tried to win there, not just Obama "never tried to win" (which is true enough).

So let's start with Bush and the original plan and consider the next 5 years. Why do you think Bush never tried to win especially since he was the one who wanted the war?

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\

[TheBlueVue 177]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\

Well lets see. American troops have been in placed strategically around the world for decades. Not surprisingly the peace has been maintained in ALL those places.I understand that peace through strength is not a concept the left embraces nor even understands and, it shows everyday.

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\

Well lets see. American troops have been in placed strategically around the world for decades. Not surprisingly the peace has been maintained in ALL those places.I understand that peace through strength is not a concept the left embraces nor even understands and, it shows everyday.

There you go. The solution to the ME is lots more American troops and decades.

Surely you are not trying to equate Europe, Korea and Japan with the Middle East?

[TheBlueVue 177]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\

Well lets see. American troops have been in placed strategically around the world for decades. Not surprisingly the peace has been maintained in ALL those places.I understand that peace through strength is not a concept the left embraces nor even understands and, it shows everyday.

There you go. The solution to the ME is lots more American troops and decades.

Surely you are not trying to equate Europe, Korea and Japan with the Middle East?

Nope, what I am saying and have said ALL ALONG is the situation we're in now could have and should have been avoided. Global security has always depended on deterrence through Americas strength. America is now seen as week and in retreat and I really dont see how you can argue that but Im betting you'll counter with something. Barry simply pulled the plug there with insufficient aforethought or is simply too arrogant to listen to those who told him this was going to happen if the middle east was left on its own with no status of forces agreement

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\

Well lets see. American troops have been in placed strategically around the world for decades. Not surprisingly the peace has been maintained in ALL those places.I understand that peace through strength is not a concept the left embraces nor even understands and, it shows everyday.

There you go. The solution to the ME is lots more American troops and decades.

Surely you are not trying to equate Europe, Korea and Japan with the Middle East?

Nope, what I am saying and have said ALL ALONG is the situation we're in now could have and should have been avoided. Global security has always depended on deterrence through Americas strength. America is now seen as week and in retreat and I really dont see how you can argue that but Im betting you'll counter with something. Barry simply pulled the plug there with insufficient aforethought or is simply too arrogant to listen to those who told him this was going to happen if the middle east was left on its own with no status of forces agreement

It maybe could have been avoided had we not invaded in the first place.

And if you will notice, America usually recoils a little bit after a major error (see Vietnam). But don't worry, we seem to have very short memories. :-\

(And I don't understand your last sentence. You think we should have left troops there under Iraqi jurisdiction?)

[TheBlueVue 177]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\

Well lets see. American troops have been in placed strategically around the world for decades. Not surprisingly the peace has been maintained in ALL those places.I understand that peace through strength is not a concept the left embraces nor even understands and, it shows everyday.

There you go. The solution to the ME is lots more American troops and decades.

Surely you are not trying to equate Europe, Korea and Japan with the Middle East?

Nope, what I am saying and have said ALL ALONG is the situation we're in now could have and should have been avoided. Global security has always depended on deterrence through Americas strength. America is now seen as week and in retreat and I really dont see how you can argue that but Im betting you'll counter with something. Barry simply pulled the plug there with insufficient aforethought or is simply too arrogant to listen to those who told him this was going to happen if the middle east was left on its own with no status of forces agreement

It maybe could have been avoided had we not invaded in the first place.

And if you will notice, America usually recoils a little bit after a major error (see Vietnam). But don't worry, we seem to have very short memories. :-\

(And I don't understand your last sentence. You think we should have left troops there under Iraqi jurisdiction?)

So, as is the case in every issue it all boils down to being Bush's fault...LOL, gotcha There should have been a status of forces agreement reached with immunity for our troops. The diplomatic core of our State Dept headed by Kerry is as weak as it has ever been. Its hard to imagine it being any less effective than when Hillary but its certainly no better.

[Martinisat5 5]

We lost the war before the first Americans landed. First the 4th I.D. was denied an invasion route in the north by Turkey. Then Rumsfield was trying to win on the cheap. We never had enough infantry and marines to take and hold the area given them. At the same time many of those who voted for the war decided to change their minds. A divided congress never had the will to win. It became a partisan war. No politician wanted more than to disagree with the other party. There were exceptions .Mcclain wanted a surge long before it happened. Senator Bayh never backed off his support. At the end , when Iraq was beginning to settle down we left. Whether Obama could not or would not negotiate keeping a status of force is a large part of the ongoing fight. As long as our two parties would rather fight for the party instead of the country we cannot win any war.

[japantiger 4,104]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

You guys kill me...so fighting a few Al Quada guys in a defined geographic area is a bigger strategic challenge than concluding WW2 and shaping the known world in it's aftermath...got it...oh yeah, Obama really had the bigger problem to deal with. I have to hear more on this...please provide any meaningful input that a thinking person would accept as justification for that comment.

[Weegle777 78]

A war already won...for the most part? Do you guys know how many lives were lost in WW2? Most of the greatest men this country had were lost. Do you think that the world just snapped back into shape overnight? The world was decimated. What obama inherited was no cakewalk, but you can't compare that situation to WW2.

[alexava 6,974]

WWII the enemy was clear. Military vs military. Insurgency had not been invented yet. In Iraq you can't separate the enemy from the people you are trying to liberate. You can not win in Iraq. I hate this more for the people of Iraq than our military who signed up. My thoughts were formed from conversation with veterans of this Iraq mess.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\/>

Well lets see. American troops have been in placed strategically around the world for decades. Not surprisingly the peace has been maintained in ALL those places.I understand that peace through strength is not a concept the left embraces nor even understands and, it shows everyday.

There you go. The solution to the ME is lots more American troops and decades.

Surely you are not trying to equate Europe, Korea and Japan with the Middle East?

Nope, what I am saying and have said ALL ALONG is the situation we're in now could have and should have been avoided. Global security has always depended on deterrence through Americas strength. America is now seen as week and in retreat and I really dont see how you can argue that but Im betting you'll counter with something. Barry simply pulled the plug there with insufficient aforethought or is simply too arrogant to listen to those who told him this was going to happen if the middle east was left on its own with no status of forces agreement

So you would have left American troops there without immunity and subject to the Iraqi justice system?

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

This is an easy assessment to make once the plug has been pulled. American soldiers were incumbered with stifling rules of engagement. We never really tried to win there and, in effect, turn it around. I agree the religious zealots will not all just relent and walk away. They have been at this for thousands of years.

All this could have been avoided had a status of forces agreement been struck. Instead, American soldiers were essentially ordered to stand down and walk away. That strategy has created a bigger problem for barry than what he inherited, like it or not. Now we're looking at a jihadist organization becoming a nation for the 1st time in history.

Why do you suppose that is? and 2) What would a serious effort consist of?

Conquer Iraq? Install a Military governor? Build a major military base and hold the country as a territory?

...in which civil war would be either intermittent or constant for the next few hundred years. :-\

Well lets see. American troops have been in placed strategically around the world for decades. Not surprisingly the peace has been maintained in ALL those places.I understand that peace through strength is not a concept the left embraces nor even understands and, it shows everyday.

There you go. The solution to the ME is lots more American troops and decades.

Surely you are not trying to equate Europe, Korea and Japan with the Middle East?

Nope, what I am saying and have said ALL ALONG is the situation we're in now could have and should have been avoided. Global security has always depended on deterrence through Americas strength. America is now seen as week and in retreat and I really dont see how you can argue that but Im betting you'll counter with something. Barry simply pulled the plug there with insufficient aforethought or is simply too arrogant to listen to those who told him this was going to happen if the middle east was left on its own with no status of forces agreement

It maybe could have been avoided had we not invaded in the first place.

And if you will notice, America usually recoils a little bit after a major error (see Vietnam). But don't worry, we seem to have very short memories. :-\

(And I don't understand your last sentence. You think we should have left troops there under Iraqi jurisdiction?)

So, as is the case in every issue it all boils down to being Bush's fault...LOL, gotcha There should have been a status of forces agreement reached with immunity for our troops. The diplomatic core of our State Dept headed by Kerry is as weak as it has ever been. Its hard to imagine it being any less effective than when Hillary but its certainly no better.

No it's OUR fault. We just let Bush convince us it was a good idea.

And you can't reach a status of forces agreement if the other side insists on maintaining legal jurisdiction.

And (LOL) you are trying to make Obama responsible for not doubling down on the original mistake.

[homersapien 12,172]

ICHY.......I think jt does believe that but if he doesn't I do.

Then both of you are hopelessly lost in the world of rhetoric and, have abandoned reality. Any comparison to WWII is absurd. Refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake of invading Iraq (and the long-term implications and complications) can only be based in partisan politics. The rest is just more of the, "Oblammer sux, that there keynan commie moslim terrist done wrecked our great country", mentality.

Have you considered the possibility that you can drop a bomb and create more terrorist than you kill? Have you done any real cost/benefit analysis? Do you really believe that there is a quick fix? Are you prepared to invest the money and lives required to effectively police the region indefinitely?

Invading Iraq has left us in one hell of a mess. We have gained nothing and, borrowed money, increased our energy costs, lost lives, compromised our relationships with allies, destabilized the region. You cannot simply ignore the facts and, lay this all at Obama's feet. In the world of partisan politics, it may be desirable. In the world of reality, it is deception. Perhaps doing nothing is a viable alternative to doing something that has already been done and, proven to be a disaster.

It is a fact of circumstance. He wanted the office; he said he had a solution for this and just about every ailment that has ever faced mankind. Really doesn't matter who started it; just matters how he deals with it.

As for the WW2 analogy; it's actually a pretty good one. We were attacked by forces from Afghanistan (Japan). As a result, we attacked Iraq that we had an old grudge with and felt was a bigger danger (hhmmm sort of like Germany) ... we had a transition of leadership in the middle of the war. The leader (Truman) who succeeded the guy (FDR) who started war with a country

(Germany) other than the one we were attacked (Japan) by reacts how? In 1945; Truman had one hell of a mess on his hand...a much bigger mess than Obama...and what did he do...he owned it, said the buck stops here and prosecuted the war to a conclusion and dealt with the aftermath; as ugly it was. He never blamed FDR for anything...he just did the duty to which he aspired. In 2008, well, we have a leadership transition and we are reaping the results of the transition....Instead of inspired leadership and accountability; we get feckless leadership, aimless policy, golfing in the face of crisis...

Nonsense. Truman's problem was bigger in scale only, not in strategic outcome. Truman inherited a war already won for the most part. Obama inherited a strategic mistake that he - nor anyone else - could possibly turn around. No matter how much R&R they skipped.

You guys kill me...so fighting a few Al Quada guys in a defined geographic area is a bigger strategic challenge than concluding WW2 and shaping the known world in it's aftermath...got it...oh yeah, Obama really had the bigger problem to deal with. I have to hear more on this...please provide any meaningful input that a thinking person would accept as justification for that comment.

If you will go back and look at when Roosevelt died the conclusion of the war was not in doubt. Obama was presented with an occupation for which there was no route to "victory", at least as victory was defined in WWII.

[homersapien 12,172]

A war already won...for the most part? Do you guys know how many lives were lost in WW2? Most of the greatest men this country had were lost. Do you think that the world just snapped back into shape overnight? The world was decimated. What obama inherited was no cakewalk, but you can't compare that situation to WW2.

I didn't say the dying was over. But the final outcome of the war was not in doubt. There is a difference.

But I do agree with the last sentence. (But then it was Japan making that comparison, not I)

[Strychnine 1,808]

You guys kill me...so fighting a few Al Quada guys in a defined geographic area is a bigger strategic challenge than concluding WW2 and shaping the known world in it's aftermath...got it...oh yeah, Obama really had the bigger problem to deal with. I have to hear more on this...please provide any meaningful input that a thinking person would accept as justification for that comment.

Was WWII massive in scale? Absolutely. Was it tremendously costly in lives and materiel? Absolutely. However, that is not the point, as WWII in comparison to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is apples and oranges. Concluding WWII involved defeating the military forces of developed modern nations with plenty of strategic infrastructure and personnel for one to attack. There was no difficulty in finding places in which to strike the enemy, and there was little concern if they happened to be mixed in among civilians. In the aftermath, the defeated people were more interested in rebuilding their country and getting on with their lives. We did not have to concern ourselves with a north and south Germany vying to usurp power to themselves and oppress the other. We did not have to concern ourselves with a penchant for sectarian violence and hatred between Shinto and Buddhists in Japan. Immediately after WWII, the Western concern shifted to strategies for containing the Soviet Union, which was another developed modern nation.

Conventional military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq were rather simple, as they both had little conventional resistance to offer in comparison to our capabilities. The post-war occupation of both countries was not at all simple. The politics and motives of all players in the region are complicated, not always known, and certainly not clearly defined. This makes planning quite difficult, as it's almost impossible to conjure up a desirable win-win solution. When you do have a plan, it makes execution even more difficult as insurgent groups are moving around.

WWII is what militaries are good at. Iraq with its post-war occupation insurgency, complicated regional politics, and general hostility is not.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It is very difficult to fight terrorists with conventional military tactics. They use a lot of guerilla warfare and are much more patient than we are As we now see in Iraq, we want to have a war, win it, and leave. The terrorists jus sit back train, wait for us to leave and come back. If we ever get involved in another war in the middle east, we should be prepared to stay long after the war is "over."