Why is obama continuing Bush's Iraq war debacle? I voted for him to end that war. He lied.

[grahamhgreen]

I'm just completely disgusted.

This war is un-winnable and immoral, in my view.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I don't get it either.

And I'm certain that no real reasons will be forthcoming.

It's disgusting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. He found his "comfortable walking shoes..er...boots".

[Vattel]

4. Obama is hopelessly conventional. He can't think outside of the box.

[nichomachus]

7. I'd settle for him thinking inside the box

[Nay]

38. You know, that is the most apt description of Obama that I have ever read.

"Hopelessly conventional."

That's one reason I like Bernie -- you can't say that about him.

[cwydro]

5. I gave up on Obama being any different

years ago.

Such a shame.

[rock]

47. I never really chose him as the candidate to support

But unfortunately he was the Democrat on the ballet when the general election rolled around and so I voted for him. The first few years I thought he did really good.

[cui bono]

60. I did not know he was a ballet dancer.

Did you vote for him on Dancing with the Politicians?







Sorry... couldn't help it. And now I can't help picturing him in a leotard.

[rock]

75. LOL.

I have real horrors picturing just about any other top level politician in leotards! thanks

[NCTraveler]

6. People here said upon entry into Iraq that it would destabilize the region for decades.

Obama seems to be doing his best to fix something that I think many of us feel is unfixable by the US. Fact is, we broke it beyond the broken state it was in and have responsibilities. Just over three thousand military personnel on the ground is not the continuation of a war. Do I think these troops will provide any positive results? Not enough to outweigh the negative. We seem to be back to simply and desperately picking sides of a war that is now out of our hands with respect to any kind of quick peace. Most knew that wouldn't happen in the first place. He is increasing personnel by around 15%. Somewhere just over three thousand. Please look at the trend line of troops in Iraq since Bush left office. It is clear. This is not a continuation of Bushs war. It is an attempt to help the region stabilize. An attempt that will not work.

[NCTraveler]

10. I don't think he is misunderstood.

I think he is wrong. He thinks he is helping to do what is necessary to stabilize the region. What he is doing will not do that. All of us understand those are his thoughts. That is why he is not misunderstood, he is just wrong. We saw this coming. It was discussed on du years and years ago.

[davekriss]

76. Read Bertram Gross, Friendly Fascism

Written around 1980, it basically says if the will of the oligarchs was ever overridden and a true progressive get elected, the powers that be will cut that POTUS off at the knees, render him or her ineffectual and provide their side with fodder to further their propaganda for years to come.

'Nuff said.



Now, having said that Political Compasd had both Hillary Clinton and Obama right of center. But these days that counts as "progressive". The PTB have been waging and winning a war on the people now for more than a generation.

[mindem]

84. Yea, what ever.

He is really growing to be tiresome and disappointing.

[tiredtoo]

91. You, my friend, are obviously too young

to remember Viet Nam.

[Octafish]

8. Money. It trumps peace.

Otherwise, the traitors who lied America into war would be in prison instead of on speaking tours.

[onecaliberal]

58. ^^^THAT^^^

[Octafish]

92. ''Money trumps peace.'' -- pretzeldent George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007

Uttered at a press conference in which not a single of the callow, cowed press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up. And then he laughs.

Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention. Few others, if anyone, saw fit to comment.

Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, the United States of America may be in for good times, especially for those perched atop the socio-economic pyramid scheme, should war break out.

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

[font color="purple"]Dr. Cowen, from what I've read, is a fine person and not one to promulgate war. He's just sayin'.

He has commented on other Big Ticket economic themes impacting us today: "Inequality," for another instance. [/font color]

Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.

SNIP...

Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse

For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously, thanks to austerity or the sequester or the divided government, but certainly not the trillions spent on wars for profit.



As for where American's entrepreneurial spirit of war came from: Poppy: Bush Sr told the FBI he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

[onecaliberal]

93. Oy! Sucks to be us. We're about to elect another corporatist.

[Backwoodsrider]

11. he found being president is is complicated

Sure he made some promises like closing Gitmo and getting out of Iraq maybe he even thought he could but there is a lot more to those issues than just pleasing us Progressives.

He has to deal with the people really in power and folks it aint us. He needed to find places for the Gitmo prisoners but the people in power are perfectly happy keeping them in Cuba so that's where they will stay. And getting out of the Middle East? Not going to happen, the people in charge have too many economic irons in the fire with planned pipelines and the Saudi royal family and big money has brainwashed the tv watchers into being afraid ISIS will take over the world if we don't keep after them.

If Hillary gets elected will she be any better? I hope so she is much stronger than Obama but she is in deep with big money too, she had to be if she wants them to let her get elected. Yes she does know how this game is played.

I take everything I hear on the news with a grain salt and don't expect much from our national leaders because I know they are on big moneys side or they would not be there.

[jeff47]

14. Reports about Clinton point to a far more aggressive military policy.

A bunch-o-media have reported that she pushed for more intervention in Libya and pushed for bombing Syria.

[Cal Carpenter]

12. It's not really about Obama, or even Bush for that matter

Not to let them off the hook in any moralistic sense, but that's beside the point anyway.

I think the better question is why would anyone expect that one president would or could change the trajectory of decades of US foreign policy?

The continuation of the interests of the US (economic and geopolitical interests which go hand-in-hand) will happen under either/both party, at a rate perhaps slightly more slow or fast depending on the details and who is in power, but it ain't just gonna stop. That would take a massive independent (eg nonpartisan, non-election based) movement and require much greater systemic changes, so that the interests of the US become the interests of most of the actual people here rather than the interests of the economically powerful.

[jeff47]

13. He was handed an unwinnable situation by the morons who started it.

If the US pulls out, ISIS gets a chunk of Iraq and what used to be Syria. Turkey is pissed because they have a huge problem when Kurdistan is formed from other parts of Iraq and Kurds in Turkey want to secede. And Iran either gets Southeastern Iraq or it becomes an Iranian client state.

If the US stays, we disrupt ISIS and the hope was some other Sunni group would get its shit together enough to displace ISIS with something less barbaric. And maybe Iraq could be turned into some sort of loosely-coupled grouping of autonomous states.

Obviously, the second one is not happening - the other Sunni groups fought each other as much as ISIS, so no less-barbaric group could take power. And Turkey is fucking over our efforts to enlist the help of the Kurds in order to keep Turkish Kurds in line. And the Iraqi Shia are not at all interested in working with Iraqi Sunnis, so that pseudo-state isn't gonna happen either.

It is probably time to give up. We're going to be stuck with the first scenario, and there will be domestic political fallout. Better for Obama to be hit with it than his successor.

[grahamhgreen]

15. From what I've read, ISIS is a coalition of the Baathists and Islamic radicals. They are not

leaving and have the will to fight for another 1,000 years.

Nothing but a full scale military invasion would subdue them, and then, it would only subdue them.

They would melt into the country and wait - 6 months -10 -20 - 30 years, until the time is right for them.

This is empire, pure and simple, in my view.

[jeff47]

16. The hope was a new Sunni group would dry up their support

There's not a whole lot of people willing to die for ISIS if something else offers a better choice. Problem is there's nothing else because the other Sunni groups won't agree on who will be in charge.

Yes, there would still be ISIS and they would still cause problems in Iraq and Syria. But they wouldn't own territory so they'd be more like Boko Haram - huge problem locally, but not strong enough to be an international problem.

[grahamhgreen]

25. I've read that ISIS is a combination of Extemists and Baathists. What I see, if we leave, is that

the Baathists will eradicate the extremist elements and go back to the old Iraq, minus Sadaam, at least it's one possibility.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. So if you understand all of this, why are you blaming and condemning Obama?

[Unknown Beatle]

43. Because Obama promised to end the war in Iraq

and pull the troops out. But Obama still has troops there and is using drones to wipe people out.

That's not ending the war.

[kairos12]

31. Iraq is a quagmire of flypaper.

[hifiguy]

17. Read Micheal Glennon's "NAtional Security and Double Government"

A slim book that will scare you into next Tuesday.

Presidents do not run foreign policy and wars, the Permanent Government does. And the incentives are such that no president ever has any real ability to stand up to the institutional permanence of the Military-Intelligence Complex. Presidents come and go, but those people are there for decades at a time.

A sobering and profoundly distressing read.

[rurallib]

21. I think he got a little talking to right before he was sworn in.

[hifiguy]

24. Democratic presidents always get "The Talk" after they win an election

and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it includes some footage from Dealey Plaza.

[zeemike]

46. Or even before he was elected.

No sense even letting anyone getting close to power before you know they are on board.

[grahamhgreen]

95. I remember the very night he was sworn in he did a drone strike...always

Thought that was a little odd...

[TwilightGardener]

18. There's no way we were going to watch all of Iraq fall to ISIS without at least trying to

fight back--we have a history and some responsibility for their security after our wrecking-crew years there. I don't see this as the same war we fought in 2003. We're not invading Iraq to topple its leaders. They want us there to help this time. That said, Obama seems unsure and half-hearted about the whole thing lately.

[stevenleser]

19. Yep. I agree. Nt

[rurallib]

22. got to think if they had no oil we'd be out of there in a heartbeat.

[TwilightGardener]

23. I honestly don't think that's it (this time). We actually have plenty of oil now, anyway.

[zeemike]

48. Who is we...that is the question.

The we no longer is just the people of the US...we are global now...there is no difference between our interests and that of the corporations who are global...like BP.
We are an empire now.

[cui bono]

61. It's not even 'we' now. It's 'they', the transnational corporations.

And that is why there is a TPP that 'we' need not concern ourselves with.

[zeemike]

70. Or an it.

Because the transnational corporation is not a living thing...despite the SCOTS treating them like they are.

[grahamhgreen]

27. It's not really falling to ISIS, this group is the old Iraq military mixed with Sunni extremists, so

it's there country and they ain't leaving. Or giving up. That's how I see it anyway.

[JI7]

30. the country is made up of more than Saddam's military and Sunni extremists

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. The US does not need to fight this war

They are there in order to be able to keep their claim on resources they pillaged from the Iraq war once all the fighting is (somewhat) over. If they allowed other nations, to fight and win, there may be less influence, (less open-eared leadership to bribe).

This is really a tribal fight between Muslims. And it could be over fairly quickly if so-called "moderate" Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia actually wanted to win it faster. SA has 500,000 soldiers. ISIS has 20,000. Even Iran, under its more moderate President, is on the side of the coalition to fight ISIS, and they also have a formidable armed forces. Then there is Egypt, now a fierce anti-extremist military regime who could also send troops. Turkey could send more. ISIS could be overwhelmed fairly quickly by strictly Muslim countries.

I fear there must be a reason why powers that be want it to drag out. It supports the MIC, and it galvanizes allyship (?) with SA as a moderate state in comparison. It creates an "other" enemy to focus on to distract citizens from things like the TPP.

[morningfog]

20. He isn't continuing it. Obama has started a new Iraw war debacle.

Obama withdrew ALL US troops from Iraq. Bush's Iraq War ended.

Obama has joined a new Iraq War. This is all Obama's. And Obama's Iraq War is just as unwinnable.

[grahamhgreen]

26. It's the same in that we are still fighting the Baathists, who have been rebranded by the media as

ISIS.

Now, the baathists are allied with the Sunni extremists, but the military know-how behind the group is all ex-Iraq military, I believe.

But yes, Obama owns this one!

[giftedgirl77]

29. You are completely wrong. Bush signed the piece of

shit SOFA in 2008 which stated all troops had to go per the Iraqi government. For those of us that were there at the time we knew it was a terrible idea & that Iraq was going to go to shit. We never should have pulled everyone out, it should have been set up like Kuwait or Korea with bases located throughout the country to ensure stability.

We all knew this was going to happen & we fucked up.

[morningfog]

37. I am not wrong. All troops were removed as of Nov. 2011.

Obama sent them back, totaling 3550 now.

[giftedgirl77]

62. Yes & that is because of the piece of shit SOFA that

was signed in 2008 as stated in my first reply. We never should have left.

[bvar22]

102. We should never have gone in the first place.

What do you expect going back in will help except put more of our children in the line of fire,
and re-stir the hornet's nest?

There was no plan for victory, or an exit strategy the first time.
There is STILL no plan for "winning", no point at which we will know if we have "won",
and still no exit strategy.

Our military breaks things and kills people. That is what they are trained and paid to do.

[giftedgirl77]

103. As I said in my first reply, we never should have gone.

I'm not going to repeat myself bc you can't follow a thread.

[bvar22]

104. Oh, I follow your pedestrian thinking easily.

You don't believe we should have pulled out in 2008?
Do you want to stay there forever?
What do YOU believe would be a good Exit Plan?

What do we have to do before we can call it a "WIN"?

If you believe the troops should not have come home in 2008,
when DO you think they should come home . Its clear you haven't a husband of son fighting over there.

So, how many years should we stay in Iraq?
Until they stop fighting each other?
They have been doing that for a thousand years, and have the patience to wait How ever long it takes for us to leave before doing exactly what they are doing now.
WE created the Failed State.... not the Iraqis.

The longer we stay, the more radicalized the Middle East has become...and will become.
Dropping Bombs and Drone Killing civilians is NOT the way to Peace.

[OnyxCollie]

40. Obama tried to keep US forces in Iraq after the SOFA.

However, he was unable to get immunity for US troops because that meddling Chelsea Manning released all those State Department cables which revealed US war crimes in Iraq.

[MFrohike]

65. I'm curious

How exactly would you have persuaded the Iraqis to give up on their demand that US soldiers who committed crimes in Iraq be tried according to their laws and in their courts? I do believe that was the major sticking point.

[giftedgirl77]

87. It would've never happened, not with their current court system.

That doesn't change the facts that we all had to be out. They should've allowed us to try our own crimes just like we did the whole time we were there.

[MFrohike]

112. Right

I wonder why they had a problem with that.

[treestar]

89. which was used to give Bush credit for ending the war

by the resident ODSers.

[giftedgirl77]

90. We always knew we would be back in there...

You can't completely destabilize a region then just say dueces. I didn't agree with us invading in the first place & certainly hated being there but it's not the Iraqis fault nor is it Obama's for getting stuck with the aftermath.

[BainsBane]

66. Does that mean you don't think ISIS should be stopped?

as it continues to conquer wide area of territory and crosses national boundaries in constructing a Sunni Caliphate?

[morningfog]

80. Obama's had us back in Iraq, with operations in Syria for a year, yet here we are escalating.

We haven't stopped ISIS, we aren't stopping ISIS. We aren't making the situation better.

[BainsBane]

81. True

It continues to be a catastrophe, and it is only getting worse.

[TheKentuckian]

85. Knock yourself out and don't forget to pay for it.

[Scootaloo]

79. He's taking a lot of flack for "not having a strategy"

But you know what? I'd rather no strategy than BAD strategy.

There is a way to win - with "winning" defined here as "disempowering Daesh." The problem is that it flies in the face of the conventions of US statecraft and our approach to foreign affairs.

[AtomicKitten]

28. He should have finished it by the end of his first term.

This is one promise broken that really pisses me off. Now if either Hillary or the GOP wins the White House, we are looking at a future of perpetual war.

Bernie is the ONLY politician I trust to end this mess.

[hifiguy]

33. + a brazilian. nt

[G_j]

34. word..

[BainsBane]

67. He finished it soon upon taking office

Completely ended it, withdrew all troops and turned his back on it. ISIS emerged after that.
You need to inform yourself.

You will turn against Sanders as well, should he be elected. I'll bet any amount of money you had the same attitude toward Obama eight years ago. The President is a constitutionally limited office. They aren't omnipotent and can't control international events, and they obviously certainly can't force you to keep up on the issues you claim to care about.

[AtomicKitten]

69. Baloney. Leaving thousands of troops behind is not "ending it."

My suggestion for you is less rah-rah of propaganda and more facts.

[BainsBane]

72. Let's hear your facts

because you know nothing about the situation, as your claim that he "lied" demonstrates. You don't even know this isn't the same conflict. And I'm supposed to take you as some authority on politics?
Rail away. Clearly that is more important to you than what actually happens in the world. I thought my knowledge of the situation was minimal, but man, this thread is just embarrassing.

[BainsBane]

73. Here are some facts for you

In November 2011, the U.S. Senate voted down a resolution to formally end the war by bringing its authorization by Congress to an end.[290]


U.S. and Kuwaiti troops closing the gate between Kuwait and Iraq on 18 December 2011.
The last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq on 18 December, although the US embassy and consulates continue to maintain a staff of more than 20,000 including US Marine Embassy Guards and between 4,000 and 5,000 private military contractors.[291][292] The next day, Iraqi officials issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice-President Tareq Al-Hashemi. He has been accused of involvement in assassinations and fled to the Kurdish part of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2011:_U.S._withdrawal

The remaining forces guard the embassy.

The arrest of Al-Hashemi was a major step in the purges of Sunnis from government and the armed forces. Malaki expelled them all, including Saddam's Ba'athist generals who had military abilities. He completely undid the alliances forged during the Sunni awakening. Malaki then allowed massacres in Sunni villages. ISIS arose out of that repression. They are so powerful because they have well trained military units, not only those who fought the US occupation but Ba'athist generals and soldiers.

Now, no doubt you think Wikipedia and every foreign policy publication in the world is propaganda and that only you--entirely making shit up off the top of your head--is the only truth. So be it. The people who think global warming is a hoax take the same attitude.

[rhett o rick]

35. It was necessary for candidate Obama to distance himself from the hawkist Clinton.

Once President, he became is normal self.

There really only two possibilities. 1) He listens to the Neocons, or 2) He is powerless to stop the continuous war. Don't underestimate the power of the NSA/CIA/Defense Dept.

[Phlem]

36. This isn't his first lie.

Because he's running a transparent leadership, so you can trust him on the TPP and........oh wait.

What did you expect from a "New Democrat". An actual Democrat? Hint: it's not the 1st, or 2nd way but the "------" Way status quo.

[BeanMusical]

39. "He lied."

No way! That man is a saint and would never tell a lie. And you never liked him anyway.

[Plucketeer]

41. Are you talkin' about....

Single payer Obama?

Comfortable shoes Obama?

I'll END these illegal wars Obama?

Drone-o-matic Obama?

Reign in Wall St. Obama?

None of those Obamas would do such a thing!

Which one are you thinkin' of???

[jalan48]

44. I don't think Obama, or any President for that matter has a choice.

The Military/Industrial/Security State is really running the show.

[grahamhgreen]

45. He's the commander in chief, he can order the troops to come home.

Is he afraid that would put his life in danger? He orders others to risk theirs for this foolishness every day.

[Doctor_J]

49. Same reason we have Heritage Care, fracking, offshore drilling, charter schools, attacks on teachers

and labor, "all of the above" energy, NAFTA on steroids, Gitmo, Don Siegelman in jail, and Bush walking free.

The president is a Republican, and won't admit it.

[raouldukelives]

50. Because he is free from having to run again and can let his let shine. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

51. The MIC has no morals and EVERY war is a win for them .

[Smarmie Doofus]

52. He CAN'T end the war. No one can.

No US President, anyway.

It seems he's trying to avoid fallout for "losing" Iraq.

Just as LBJ was worried about fallout for losing VN.

Just as HST was worried about fallout for losing Korea.

You are correct that it is immoral and un-winnable.... but it will take a MUCH more secure Prez. to "end" the war in Iraq.

(Alas.... I suspect it will have to be a republican.)

[olddots]

53. how large is the whole world's military industrial complex ?

WE GOT A GREAT BIG PROBLEM . if we don't fix it there won't be a future .

[Hulk]

54. Yes...he's omnipotent, and he should do what a true god would do!

I don't really give a rat's ass what comments the trolls are going to post after they read this, but keep in mind, the President is ONE branch of government. Keep in mind that the presidency is NOT a dictatorship, and that a cabinet offers advice and wisdom to an otherwise ignorant puppet we have elected. Keep in mind that the neocons, military complex and Obama haters are kicking and screaming that he is ALONE responsible for the ISIS debacle in the Middle East today.

Yeah...makes sense; he should just up and pull out, close his door, don't answer the phone, bet that his party of politicians are going to be able to do the same and the whole thing will just go away. He did pull combat troops out of Iraq, and we no longer get death lists to "be silent" over each night. The drone thing still goes on....and innocent people are getting blown to smithereens along with the bad guys. We are starting to put American advisors on the ground in Iraq again, and the next President is probably going to escalate that, especially should the neocon repuKKKes gain control of the White House and hold on to Congress. Even if they don't, it's very probable we are going to get sucked into a bigger role in Iraq.

But I'm pretty sure that if one of the complainers on this thread was in his place, they'd know how to disengage from the shit hole WE created in that part of the world. I'm sure they'd know how to deal with the military complex, the neocon drum-pounders, the media critics and be able to make it all smooth and rosey.

Sometimes there isn't a good choice. Maybe we should all vote for rand paul, and we'll believe the bull shit that he's going to simply pull everything out of the Middle East and stick our head in the sand. Great solution.

[grahamhgreen]

59. Great reasons for peoples sons and daughters to die.

[underthematrix]

78. When I see posts like this one it makes glad again

that I African American. In the real world nothing is that simple. ISIS is comprised of the Republican Guard that Bush's man in Iraq FIRED en masse following the invasion. When I first read what Bush's team did, I said what the phuck. But it actually makes sense when your goal is to destablize a resource rich region of the world for the next 50 years. I wish people would read a history book. So much of what President Obama is dealing with started in the seventies which Reagan multiplied in the most negative way when he took office.

[Maedhros]

86. Jingoistic nonsense.

Best ignored.

[Joe Turner]

55. Because he is owned by the military industrial complex

and they like eternal wars because it's good business.

[cantbeserious]

56. Hope And Change - A Marvelous Thing - Sometimes

eom

[PowerToThePeople]

57. Yes, he swindled us all. N/t

[JoePhilly]

63. Its OPs like this that make the left appear rather stupid on narional security issues.

[BainsBane]

68. Not the left

Du isn't representative of the left. Please don't say that. But yes, the lack of basic knowledge truly is stunning, particularly over an issue they claim to care about.

[JoePhilly]

105. That's fair ...

... at one time DU was the place I'd come to because the folks on DU did seem to get complexity.

Now ... DU's knee-jerk common wisdom sees sending 400 advisers to Iraq as being the same as sending 150,000 ground troops for 10 years.

[BainsBane]

106. That isn't the worst of it

They claim Obama never ended the Iraq war and imagine US forces have been fighting continuously since the Bush invasion.

[JoePhilly]

109. And they think as a candidate, he said he'd pull troops out of Afganistan, when ...

... he actually said he was going to send MORE troops into Afghanistan.

I've come to expect the RW to have no idea that Iraq and Afghanistan are different countries ... or that shock and awe, and individual drone strikes, are not the same thing.

But here on DU ... any use of the military is equal to a full scale invasion.

[BainsBane]

111. "But here on DU ... any use of the military is equal to a full scale invasion."

Unless it's by Russia, then it is bestowing peace and rainbows (among some posters, not all).

[uponit7771]

107. I don't think this is the left, the OP's title is chunk full of sophistry

[BainsBane]

64. He did end it. Essentially decided Iraq was done

paid little attention to it. Then Malaki purged the Sunnis, ordered massacres of them, and ISIS was born. ISIS, way worse than Saddam, Al Qaeda and all of them put together. They are rapidly taking over vast areas of land and do not recognize international boundaries. In a way, this is a new war, but of course it came about due to the instability of the last one.

These documentaries provide some of the info.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/

[freshwest]

74. Psst! Don't tell anyone! It'll stifle the outrage, DU's primary fuel source. n/t

[uponit7771]

108. Facts suck!!! /sarcasm <--- cause this is needed around here

[Fla_Democrat]

71. Clearly, you don't understand 12th dimensional chess.

[guillaumeb]

77. And the number of "trainers" is misleading.

There are still many thousands of military contractors in Iraq, but they are not counted either. "Trainers" were first sent to Vietnam to stabilize the South Vietnamese army. How did THAT work out?

[grahamhgreen]

97. In Vietnam, after we were withdrew, the country stabilized and now is

a place we ship our jobs too.

[guillaumeb]

98. True, And all the stories about "dominoes"

and a rising tide of Chinese backed Communism overwhelming Asia turned out to be just that, stories. Plus China is a huge trading partner. Amazing what people will believe when the US media unquestioningly supports the agenda of the US Government/Big Business partnership.

And here comes the TPP to cap off the Obama legacy.

[grahamhgreen]

99. I can only imagine a similar fate awaits Iraq one we withdraw.

[Puzzledtraveller]

83. Partisanship.

As in, if it's our team doing it we give a pass, that's how this damn TPP even has a chance. They know they can count on a vast majority of people being so driven by just hating the other party that whatever we do or want is okay. The whole thing has been engineered this way, culture wars giving the cover and impression of actual change. What does it matter if republicans are onone side, and Democrats on the other if eventually they succumb to and do the bidding of the corporate oligarchs who put all this into play anyway. This is why I personally like Bernie Sanders.

[treestar]

88. I thought we were responsible for the mess there?

I thought I heard on DU we broke it and must fix it.

Thanks Bush.

Why aren't you blaming Bush? That's what a Democrat would normally do. And Republicans would cry about how we blame Bush for everything. I think there is a reason why. Because Bush is at fault.

[randome]

94. I can't believe the amount of self-loathing I see in this thread.

'Self' as in bashing our own party for an atrocity caused by Republicans.

It boggles the mind sometimes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[grahamhgreen]

96. I loathe wars for profit. If the goal is to "degrade and destroy ISIL", as the president has said;

and ISIL is ex-Saddam military using US weaponry they themselves abandoned to ISIL, then I don't see how this war is winnable.

How can we win it? What does a win look like? How does it benefit the American People? How much will it cost on blood and treasure? How long does it last?

[randome]

100. I, for one, don't give a shit about 'winning'.

But keeping ISIL from beheading and enslaving more strangers? That's a worthwhile effort.

Your saying that this is solely for profit is your opinion only.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[grahamhgreen]

110. Should we be at war with Saudi Arabia to prevent

their beheading and enslavement?

[Thinkingabout]

101. The cart was run into the ditch by Bush, and Bush was unable to secure the agreement needed

to protect our troops planned to leave behind. ISIS is a new development and has arrived in Iraq some years after the troops had left. Actually Iraq was not the first place ISIS appeared, even if Obama said he was going to end the war in Iraq, he did this, ending the war at the time is not a warranty wars would never happen again.