A warning against A New American Attack On Iraq

[Oldgamer]

On her Thursday show, Rachel Maddow cautioned against any renewed American military action in Iraq, warning that the people who "most aggressively argued that we ought to start the Iraq War in 2003" should not be trusted when calling for intervention now.

Pressure is building on the Obama administration to back the Iraqi government with airstrikes to fight against militants who are capturing great swaths of the country.

Maddow noted that people like John McCain and Kenneth Pollack, the "liberal hawk" who wrote an infamous book backing the 2003 invasion, have popped up again to call for a new military commitment to Iraq. But she pointed to the Vietnam War as proof that such open-ended commitments usually fail:

"Right now the people who thought it would be easy and a great idea and cheap to invade Iraq under George W. Bush, they want us to restart that war again. Frankly, if you press them, they'll tell you they wish it had never ended in the first place....we have been here before as a country in a big way and we know how this goes."

Link to Video here

Americans should have learned by now not to trust or listen to people that handled the whole Iraq war, since we were in fact lied to, and lied into the war there.

 

[Newell Steamer]

There was a massive public outcry against intervention in Syria. I doubt we'll see anything like that again.

 

[ivwshane]

If mitt and McCain are for it then you know it's a bad idea!

 

[Kadarin]

McCain needs to just stop.

 

[Jhhnn]

Iraq- the stupidest military adventure since Vietnam. The pooch was screwed long before Obama took office. Neocon arrogance & ineptitude made it that way, unleashing forces they couldn't predict or control, and neither can the Obama Admin. We didn't minimize their differences- we intensified them by destroying their society & govt, replacing it with chaos. That's what we accomplished. We sure as Hell can't undo that, and I doubt that we can do any better, either.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Iraq- the stupidest military adventure since Vietnam. The pooch was screwed long before Obama took office. Neocon arrogance & ineptitude made it that way, unleashing forces they couldn't predict or control, and neither can the Obama Admin. We didn't minimize their differences- we intensified them by destroying their society & govt, replacing it with chaos. That's what we accomplished. We sure as Hell can't undo that, and I doubt that we can do any better, either.

So are you against Obama's administration new desire to intervene considering today's situation ?

Yes or No?

 

[gevorg]

leaving Iraq in chaos is double fail

 

[Jhhnn]

So are you against Obama's administration new desire to intervene considering today's situation ?

Yes or No?

I oppose direct intervention. You fail to document any desire on the part of the Obama Admin to do so.

 

[Jhhnn]

leaving Iraq in chaos is double fail

Past efforts have only made it worse, not better. More of the same will only beget more of the same.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I oppose direct intervention. You fail to document any desire on the part of the Obama Admin to do so.

So you are okay with indirect intervention via, i.e. bombing, drone strikes and providing military aid?

Edit: The Obama administration has a desire to do something militarily in regards to Iraq even though they have ruled out ground troops.

 

[WTSherman]

The rest of the world sees our weakness, as projected by Obama. Make no mistake, when our enemies smell fear they will take advantage.

It began with Syria, we should have put down the gauntlet here.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you are okay with indirect intervention via, i.e. bombing, drone strikes and providing military aid?

Military aid is not direct intervention. Bombing and drone strikes are direct intervention.

 

[Jhhnn]

The rest of the world sees our weakness, as projected by Obama. Make no mistake, when our enemies smell fear they will take advantage.

It began with Syria, we should have put down the gauntlet here.

WTF do you think you're talking about? Are the forces attacking the Iraqi govt not allied with or the same as we support in Syria?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Military aid is not direct intervention. Bombing and drone strikes are direct intervention.

That is a matter of political prospective but in the end it is all some form of intervention period. Thus this administration will have intervened in some manner no matter how much you want to walk the tight rope.

 

[Engineer]

So are you against Obama's administration new desire to intervene considering today's situation ?

Yes or No?

Yes. Fuck the middle east. Let them take care of it themselves.

 

[WTSherman]

I'm talking about Obama's initial showdown with Assad, this was the time to assert US authority. Since then its been one disgrace after another. I have news, our enemies don't care about our liberal fruits in CA.

 

[Kadarin]

So you are okay with indirect intervention via, i.e. bombing, drone strikes and providing military aid?

What good is military aid if the Iraqis who would actually do the fighting set down their weapons, take off their uniforms, and run away?

 

[cyclohexane]

The rest of the world sees our weakness, as projected by Obama. Make no mistake, when our enemies smell fear they will take advantage.

It began with Syria, we should have put down the gauntlet here.

What a hero. Please volunteer yourself with a ticket to Iraq and fight for what you believe in.

 

[Oldgamer]

What good is military aid if the Iraqis who would actually do the fighting set down their weapons, take off their uniforms, and run away?

Exactly, and they didn't want us there, and wanted us to get our soldiers out as fast as we could.. many wanted to handle their country on their own. Then we went to the expense and time to train them, and some just decided to do their own thing, and others just tucked tail and ran.

We need to stay out of it, and stop trying to be the "Parent" of the world. Let the other countries deal with this shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

That is a matter of political prospective but in the end it is all some form of intervention period. Thus this administration will have intervened in some manner no matter how much you want to walk the tight rope.

It's not a matter of political perspective at all but rather one of correct definition. Yes, military aid is intervention. It is not direct intervention, regardless of attempted rhetorical contrivance to the contrary.

In destroying the Baathist govt of Iraq, we opened them up to intervention by all sorts of forces- The Saudis, The Turks, The Iranians, The Israelis and their own bomb throwers as well, supplied by outside parties. We created a power vacuum that we could not fill, and obviously cannot fill today, either. That's as obvious as the nose on your face.

We destabilized Syria in the process, as well, with millions of Iraqis seeking safety there.

No matter what was intended, what's happening is balkanization & the formation of weak states whose power is extremely limited. When we destroyed the Baathist govts of Iraq & Syria, some of the few modern govts in the region, we destroyed any chance for pan-arab unity & their ability to have any power in the world at all.

 

[senseamp]

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's not a matter of political perspective at all but rather one of correct definition. Yes, military aid is intervention. It is not direct intervention, regardless of attempted rhetorical contrivance to the contrary.

In destroying the Baathist govt of Iraq, we opened them up to intervention by all sorts of forces- The Saudis, The Turks, The Iranians, The Israelis and their own bomb throwers as well, supplied by outside parties. We created a power vacuum that we could not fill, and obviously cannot fill today, either. That's as obvious as the nose on your face.

We destabilized Syria in the process, as well, with millions of Iraqis seeking safety there.

No matter what was intended, what's happening is balkanization & the formation of weak states whose power is extremely limited. When we destroyed the Baathist govts of Iraq & Syria, some of the few modern govts in the region, we destroyed any chance for pan-arab unity & their ability to have any power in the world at all.

Spilled milk and all, you are in favor of continued intervention period. Don't be shy of it, certainly this administration will not be shy in their actions either when they decide on what the military response will be to the ongoing situation in Iraq.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm talking about Obama's initial showdown with Assad, this was the time to assert US authority. Since then its been one disgrace after another. I have news, our enemies don't care about our liberal fruits in CA.

Oh, please. Our much criticized UN authorized intervention in Libya had just finished when the Syrian conflict began, and no UN authorization for military action there was forthcoming. Nor was it supported by many blaming Obama for "weakness" today. Even the invasion of Iraq was cloaked in UN resolutions.

Had we figured out how to intervene in Syria, the people filling the power vacuum would likely have been the same people filling the power vacuum in Iraq, today- the radicals.

 

[Jhhnn]

Spilled milk and all, you are in favor of continued intervention period. Don't be shy of it, certainly this administration will not be shy in their actions either when they decide on what the military response will be to the ongoing situation in Iraq.

Pure projection on your part. I will not support direct military action in Iraq. Right, wrong, or indifferent, our obligations to the current Iraqi govt certainly involve material support, and we need to honor those obligations.

 

[Zorkorist]

Reminder to America.

Al Qaeda, Extremist Muslims, attacked us, first.

-John