Sweet Angle Smile
Montreal Escorts

The Coming Bloodbath in Bagdad

May 28, 2012
397
0
0
So Potus wasn't able to clean Georgie's mess?

Six years in and the libs are STILL BLAMING EVERYTHING ON BUSH. Pretty much goes with the total lack of responsibility shown by the rest of Obama's miscreants.

So was Nixon cleaning up Kenedy's/Johnson's mess when he pulled out of Saigon? Inquiring minds want to know how you'll spin the "Killing Fields".
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
20,370
3,268
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Saddam should have been left in power. He kept all the nutcase Islamists under control!

The devil we knew was better than the unknown devils that were unleashed! That is devils with an s! The USA has a partisan history of getting rid of tyrants and replacing them with worse !!!!!!!!!
 
May 28, 2012
397
0
0
Agreed EB. But the POTUS inherited a more stable Mid-East than today.
 

Mike Mercury

Member
Sep 10, 2005
863
1
18
W was told over and over to leave Iraq alone. But he had to listen to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz. So yeah. After six years Iraq is W's mess and if you don't know so you are a good piece of GOP.
 

anon_vlad

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2004
1,551
526
113
Visit site
So was Nixon cleaning up Kenedy's/Johnson's mess when he pulled out of Saigon?

Yes, it was one of Nixon's many achievements.

Nixon made some serious mistakes, but he wasn't stupid and/or senile like Ronnie and George W. The fact that he was a Republican and Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats doesn't prevent me from opining that he was a far greater president than either of them.
 

centaurus

Member
May 7, 2006
169
0
16

hungry101

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2007
5,838
546
113
Obama inherited something he didn't like. I understand this. It was wholesale stupid to pull troops out Iraq prematurely.
 

TheDon

New Member
Jun 21, 2003
1,233
4
0
Montreal
Visit site
Agree with EB, the US destablized the whole region. As much as the US wants to get out of this mess they can't.

Agree with Patron, you cannot create democracy overnight. If the country is not ready for it.....it will fail.
 

blkone

Member
Sep 24, 2009
469
10
18
Saddam should have been left in power. He kept all the nutcase Islamists under control!

The devil we knew was better than the unknown devils that were unleashed! That is devils with an s! The USA has a partisan history of getting rid of tyrants and replacing them with worse !!!!!!!!!

:thumb: Agreed. Was Saddam a dictator? Yes. Did Iraq need that sort of strong leadership at the time? Yes. We heard for years that Saddam "killed his own people", which was true, he jailed and executed the people that now make up the ranks of Idiot-shitstains Inc. (IS).

Another thing I find ridiculous is that at the same time our Government and that of the United States are going on and on and on about Idiot-Shitstains they, at the same time, support the ruling Dawa party whose very platform is to "create an Islamic state in Iraq." :crazy:

The prime directive, that's what we need.
 

blkone

Member
Sep 24, 2009
469
10
18
Agree with EB, the US destablized the whole region. As much as the US wants to get out of this mess they can't.

Agree with Patron, you cannot create democracy overnight. If the country is not ready for it.....it will fail.

Screw Democracy. Honestly. I don't know why people worship Democracy like some sort of religious deity. Democracy is a joke.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
20,370
3,268
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Agreed EB. But the POTUS inherited a more stable Mid-East than today.

It was a false sense of stability based on the premise that the implanted government would be able to contain festering extremism. It was pretty clear from day one that they were never going to able to do this. The destruction of the Iraqi military under Bush led to a migration to ISIS that started immediately and built slowly over time.
 
May 28, 2012
397
0
0
It was a false sense of stability based on the premise that the implanted government would be able to contain festering extremism. It was pretty clear from day one that they were never going to able to do this. The destruction of the Iraqi military under Bush led to a migration to ISIS that started immediately and built slowly over time.

Agreed, what is going to be most fascinating is the Egypt, Israeli, Jordan, Saudi political alliance block that's likely to emerge.
 
May 28, 2012
397
0
0
The reality is that this entire mess can be traced back to a Liberal Icon, Woodrow Wilson. He and his liberal cohorts carved up the Middle East as victor gets the spoils ignoring the petitions of the tribesmen of the time. The British made the one promise, the French another and Wilson was too much of a pussy to do anything but attempt to push his BS League of Nations. Thus we ended up fighting WWII and Roosevelt/Truman (again a liberal) didn't improve the situation and arguably worsened it. Thus we'll probably have WWIII in the near future because of LIBERAL MEDALLING in the Middle East. So yes, let's look back by all means.....LOL
 

anon_vlad

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2004
1,551
526
113
Visit site
The reality is that this entire mess can be traced back to a Liberal Icon, Woodrow Wilson.

So Obama should have cleaned up Georgie W's mess in 6 years, but Georgie W. is excused from creating the mess in the first place due to events which occurred almost a hundred years ago.

By the way, a prominent Republican, George Bush Sr., warned against invading Iraq:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html

Given their disagreement, which of the Bushes is an idiot?
 

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,111
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
Hey CS,

The reality is that this entire mess can be traced back to a Liberal Icon, Woodrow Wilson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement - Treaty of Middle East Divisions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...resentatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/

So Wilson who had nothing to do with this is to blame even though the Republicans ran the House of Representatives by a 48 seat margin from 1919 to 1921 and kept an edge until 1933, and the Republicans controlled the Senate by 51% to 70% between 1915 to 1933 and wanted to go back into isolation and blocked anything he did? Wilson is to blame for what the French and British forced the Middle East into though the Republicans were in control of U.S. treaty verification? Nice trick with him dead by 1921.

Talk about revisionism. peeeeeuuuuu.

You CS need to check the facts before you go on and on repeating Limbaugh all the time.

Cheers,

Merlot
 

Kasey Jones

Banned
Mar 24, 2008
428
0
16
Obama inherited something he didn't like. I understand this. It was wholesale stupid to pull troops out Iraq prematurely.

It was stupid of Obama to respect the status of forces agreement signed by Bush and the Iraqi government? He wanted to leave a residual force but was told no thanks by the democratically elected Iraqi government who wanted US troops out...

If you want to blame Obama for stuff, the least you could do is blame him for stuff he is responsible for...
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,560
28
48
49
Where I belong.
One of the miracles of the internet is watching an American come to a Canadian Escort review board to rail against the American president only to be taken to school by a bunch of Canadians. Love it.
 
May 28, 2012
397
0
0
So Obama should have cleaned up Georgie W's mess in 6 years, but Georgie W. is excused from creating the mess in the first place due to events which occurred almost a hundred years ago.

By the way, a prominent Republican, George Bush Sr., warned against invading Iraq:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html

Given their disagreement, which of the Bushes is an idiot?

No, this is when the West began carving up the Middle East portion of the Ottoman Empire. This occurred at the end of WWI. The Ottoman Empire was dissolved and defeated as a consequence of WWI. So as the old saying goes, "to the victor goes the spoils".

Here's a excerpt from Wikipedia on the origins of modern day Iraq:
"During World War I, the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. In the Mesopotamian campaign against the Central Powers, British forces invaded the country and initially suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (1915–1916). However, subsequent to this the British began to gain the upper hand, and were further aided by the support of local Arabs and Assyrians. In 1916, the British and French made a plan for the post-war division of Western Asia under the Sykes-Picot Agreement.[31] British forces regrouped and captured Baghdad in 1917, and defeated the Ottomans. An armistice was signed in 1918.

During World War I the Ottomans were defeated and driven from much of the area by the United Kingdom during the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The British lost 92,000 soldiers in the Mesopotamian campaign. Ottoman losses are unknown but the British captured a total of 45,000 prisoners of war. By the end of 1918 the British had deployed 410,000 men in the area, of which 112,000 were combat troops.

This is when the French & the British began setting up things the way they "thought" they should be, granting rights to some and taking away other's land and rights. Bottom line is that much of what is a disaster today occurred as a result of WWI.
 
Toronto Escorts