Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: Wasn't the power vacuum actually accomplished when we topped and executed a strong, stable, brutal dictator who was successfully oppressing substantial religious and ethnic minorities... and replaced him with a weak, ineffective, puppet democratic regime without the balls to do what it would take to hold together a country with completely nonsensical borders?

A small residual force of say 6,000 US troops could have held that thing together for decades if need be.

clacy wrote: A small residual force of say 6,000 US troops could have held that thing together for decades if need be.

You really think so? How do you figure?

Also, didn't the Iraqi government want us out?

We did not press Iraq hard enough for a status of forces deal. Even Leon Pannetta says Obama blew it when he abandoned Iraq for political expediency. He says flat out that Obama would never listen to his advisors.

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote: A small residual force of say 6,000 US troops could have held that thing together for decades if need be.

You really think so? How do you figure?

Also, didn't the Iraqi government want us out?

Because basically all the senior foreign policy officials (not the children that are currently advising the Pres, but Panetta and such) said as much.

clacy wrote: Because basically all the senior foreign policy officials (not the children that are currently advising the Pres, but Panetta and such) said as much.

Aren't those the guys who got us into that mess to begin with?

Personally, the GOP and war hawk establishments are gonna have to do a LOT of work before I feel like I'll ever trust them with military matters again.

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote: Because basically all the senior foreign policy officials (not the children that are currently advising the Pres, but Panetta and such) said as much.

Aren't those the guys who got us into that mess to begin with?

Personally, the GOP and war hawk establishments are gonna have to do a LOT of work before I feel like I'll ever trust them with military matters again.

Panetta is not a Relublican nor a war hawk. I'm talking about Obama's own advisors before they all abandoned him because he can't lead.

Pointedstick wrote: Personally, the GOP and war hawk establishments are gonna have to do a LOT of work before I feel like I'll ever trust them with military matters again.

Since Sam Nunn and democrats like him, do not exist any more (best I know), the only alternative is people who's attitude/competency toward defense is like the guy in the white house. 

Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, and generates the exact results of its actual intent.

This is where I differ from most of you on your views of liberalism and I could very well be wrong. I don't think liberalism has an actual intent. I think it's just people trying to get fantasy to conform to reality and failing much more often than they succeed due to the nature of the world they live in which they will not admit.

TennPaGa wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote: A small residual force of say 6,000 US troops could have held that thing together for decades if need be.

You really think so? How do you figure?

Also, didn't the Iraqi government want us out?

Yep. 

Another key point that is rarely brought up by the pro-war Republicans is that U.S. generals have been touting the readiness of the Iraqi army since at least 2008/2009.

The Iraqi Army Never Was

That's because you have to tell the CIC what he wants to hear.  This Presidency has politicized ALL governmental institutions.  IRS, NASA (stating outreach to Muslim world was among it's chief missions), Armed Forces, EPA, FCC, Secret Service.

Obama's own people are leaking every day now that behind closed doors, they advised him to stay in Iraq.  It was like pulling teeth to get him to give the go ahead to take Bin Ladin, etc.

Certainly the Republican hawks like buffoons too, but there's not getting around Obama's idiocy on leaving a residual force in. 

PP4me2 wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, and generates the exact results of its actual intent.

This is where I differ from most of you on your views of liberalism and I could very well be wrong. I don't think liberalism has an actual intent. I think it's just people trying to get fantasy to conform to reality and failing much more often than they succeed due to the nature of the world they live in which they will not admit.

That's very generous of you. As for me, after 100 years or so of results contrary to a movement's stated goals, I tend to be sort of cynical about whether those are really their goals.

Mr. Moderator, did you vote for Obama?

Reub wrote: Mr. Moderator, did you vote for Obama?

I am not seeing the relevance of that question with respect to the points being made.

Mr. moderator will you answer the question?

Reub wrote: Mr. moderator will you answer the question?

I for one would discourage him from doing so. The question has no relationship to the points being made, it's being asked in a provocative manner, and frankly, it's none of your business.

I'm just curious.  I didn't vote for Obama,  btw.

Reub wrote: I'm just curious.  I didn't vote for Obama,  btw.

You could have knocked me down with a wrecking ball when I read that.