Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bush predicted rise of ISIS and warned us not to prematurely pull out of Iraq (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 17 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  15  16  17   
Author Topic: Bush predicted rise of ISIS and warned us not to prematurely pull out of Iraq
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dick Cheney should have listened to himself, Kate.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
We should have listened to Dick Cheney. In 1991.
quote:
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Or 1994.


quote:
Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you’ve got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.”


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, instead of picking on midgets like Chris Matthews, tell us what you think of Bush's SOFA that I excerpted above?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dick Cheney should have listened to himself,
He did, and pulled down money hand over fist in the process. What changed wasn't the evaluation of what would happen, but how much he stood to profit from it happening.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Baalim, you are bloody minded, Kate.

For the tenth time, I am calling for the us to precision bomb the ARTILLERY, and Isis positions and supply lines ONLY to the extent that this can be done without collateral damage.


I've also said we should arm the Kurds.
Since Mosul is a Kurdish city, I'd presume that the men and women of the Kurdish peshmerga would avoid wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Please stop projecting your sadistic fantasies on me. Dresden involved intentional targeting of unarmed civilians for slaughter. I've only at skating attacking my sis where it is exposed and not anywhere near civilians

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, Isis does not have hundreds of thousands of members. And am not sure that any of its members are female.

Most current Isis groupies came in because of Isis' string of rapid victories. A few humiliations and most will fall away. Especially if we don't give them us boots on the ground. Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women.

What are you going to do about Mosul? An ancient city of about 2 million people and currently a ISIL stronghold, should we just, as Seneca suggests, "nuke it into glass"? Dresden, perhaps?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, take it down a notch. She's just batting ideas around like everybody else.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, please note that you are not the only person on this forum. I am addressing Seneca's posts and Rafi's more than yours.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And what was the precondition I listed for using that level of force?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Time and again you have advocated along the lines of destroying them all. Eliminating the enemy. What does that mean other than killing people?

What do you think we should do regarding Mosul?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you want to answer the question or continue to change the context and meaning of my statements? When have I ever called for the deaths of anyone without cause or condition? Either produce that statement I made, clarify your own or retract it.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, you proposed "destroying them" and eliminating their ability to perpetuate themselves.

What do you mean by this? What does it look like?

I think you're going to need to answer that question if you want people to understand how your position differs from "nuke them all".

(You have to realize that simply going in and killing as many combatants or extremists as we can identify doesn't, at least in the view of your interlocutors, eliminate their ability to perpetuate themselves, since such actions feed hatred of the US and perpetuate the problem.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're playing this silly game to I see.

Want to go for a bonus round? If you managed to hunt down and chop up those statements I made, can you now go back and fill in the complete statements I made regarding this as well as additional ones from the same Web page that give context and show preconditions for military action from us?

Of course, fully fleshed context isn't as grabby or as easy to manipulate but I'm sure that wasn't your intent right? [Smile]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
You have to realize that simply going in and killing as many combatants or extremists as we can identify doesn't, at least in the view of your interlocutors, eliminate their ability to perpetuate themselves, since such actions feed hatred of the US and perpetuate the problem.

This is an important aspect of the problem that a lot of Westerners seem to miss. When we kill someone in the effort to kill a terrorist, we turn their family and friends against us. How many of a man's children do we have to maim or kill before he is willing to take up arms against us? How many parents do we have to maim or kill before their children are willing to take up arms against us?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
You have to realize that simply going in and killing as many combatants or extremists as we can identify doesn't, at least in the view of your interlocutors, eliminate their ability to perpetuate themselves, since such actions feed hatred of the US and perpetuate the problem.

This is an important aspect of the problem that a lot of Westerners seem to miss. When we kill someone in the effort to kill a terrorist, we turn their family and friends against us. How many of a man's children do we have to maim or kill before he is willing to take up arms against us? How many parents do we have to maim or kill before their children are willing to take up arms against us?
So take this cycle of violence out to its logical conclusion. How does it end?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not trying to play a silly game, Seneca. I am just pointing out that you haven't yet articulated what we should do to prevent the worst case scenario. (I just re-read to ensure that I didn't miss something.)

Understood that your position is not preemptive nuclear devastation: so what do you propose to do to destroy them all? Or are you saying there is nothing left to do but wait for the worst case scenario to play out?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We could implement the 9-11 commission's recommendations which I've highlighted several times here and that might do the trick, but if that doesn't work there are no further steps we could take short of ceasing to be a free society and/or surrendering to Sharia Law.

In the end our lack of will to fight this evil may force us to wait until the worst case scenario plays out, then we end it permanently.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
End it permanently how?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we are nuked or hit with a chemical or bioagent bomb FIRST then we wipe out the areas where ISIS exists as a RESPONSE.

M.A.D. only works if everyone who uses it follows through with it if they are attacked. If we are hit with a WMD and DON'T respond accordingly then we are advertising to Russia and China that in the future they can win a nuclear war against us.

[ September 12, 2014, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it bizarre to consider MAD "working" in any sense except to keep people from using nukes in the first place. If we are mutually destroyed, it hasn't worked at all.

So your cheerleading for destroying the enemy is only if they attack at a certain level? What level?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am very curious, myself, to know how many Americans Seneca would need to die before we should "wipe out the areas where ISIS exists."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We wouldn't be mutually destroyed. ISIS couldn't get that much firepower. We'd still have an existence to protect post-ISIS attack.

Cheerleading? That's a nasty characterization and completely ignorant of the obvious restraint I've advocated for.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Restraint? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So saying that we should wait until we are attacked to respond with a major counterattack is not showing restraint?

Yeah sure. And up is down and black is white.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, next time you address g4 and Seneca, why don't you say rafi and Seneca, rather than quoting me and saying my name. If you yell my name in the middle of the night, your partner's bound to be annoyed; if you address your ornery comments to G4 in my name, it's going to annoy me.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, please note that you are not the only person on this forum. I am addressing Seneca's posts and Rafi's more than yours.

I'm the only person on the forum named Pete at Home, and that's the name that you assessed your remarks to.

If you start asking "you" questions to someone other than the one whose name you cited, then state the name of the addressee, as I do here:

Al, get off my leg. You wouldn't like it if I quoted you then asked direct questions "then how would YOU..." which were a dressed to g4 and Seneca.

[ September 12, 2014, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, next time you address g4 and Seneca, why don't you say rafi and Seneca, rather than quoting me and saying my name. If you yell my name in the middle of the night, your partner's bound to be annoyed; if you address your ornery comments to G4 in my name, it's going to annoy me.

Must you always get so creepy?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if you yelled my name out in the middle of the night, you'd merely confuse your partner. Or convince your partner that you're a huge Kansas fan. [Smile]

[ September 12, 2014, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Throwing the hardest hits we can is not restraint. Restraint means there's something more that you're choosing not to do. Since there's nowhere to go from nukes but down, nukes are not restraint.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Throwing the hardest hits we can is not restraint. Restraint means there's something more that you're choosing not to do. Since there's nowhere to go from nukes but down, nukes are not restraint.

What is the reason you refuse to address what I suggested prior to using nukes?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because using nukes is not restraint unless they are they only way to prevent more nukes from being used. So unless you're suggesting ISIS is going to gain rubble-bouncing capability, nuking them back is not restraint, regardless of what they do.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
3rd time you're willfully ignoring my comments about the 9-11 commission.

As for restraint. Waiting to be nuked before using nukes absolutely IS restraint.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not willfully ignoring it, it just has nothing to with restraint.

Are you seriously suggesting you should get credit for suggesting that we only commit mass murder because they did it first?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
3rd time you're willfully ignoring my comments about the 9-11 commission.
Could you remind us of the specific recommendations that the 9-11 commission made that you are referring to? Or are you advocating all of them?

[ September 12, 2014, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I'm not willfully ignoring it, it just has nothing to with restraint.

Are you seriously suggesting you should get credit for suggesting that we only commit mass murder because they did it first?

If we don't respond that way then we are telling all other terrorists rogue states and China and Russia that they can nuke us and we won't respond. We all die at that point. Is that what you want?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you really think Russia and China will neglect any relevant differences between themselves and a terrorist group? How stupid do you think they are?

Do you believe that the only way we can encourager les autres is nuclear weapons? What are conventional forces for then?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You really don't know?

Conventional forces are only to fight non - nuclear powers. Nuclear powers never fight each other due to the risk of escalation. If and when ISIS gets its hands on WMDs and sets them off they have demonstrated they are a nuclear power and if they strike anyone then they are asking to die.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was a rhetorical question.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good to see someone is learning manners.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We could implement the 9-11 commission's recommendations which I've highlighted several times here and that might do the trick, but if that doesn't work there are no further steps we could take short of ceasing to be a free society and/or surrendering to Sharia Law.

In the end our lack of will to fight this evil may force us to wait until the worst case scenario plays out, then we end it permanently.

Seneca, you've made many observations and strong recommendations about preventing terrorism from occurring US soil. I'll try to summarize them.

* A US-Mexico wall will stop terrorists from entering the country.

* The rise of extremism and the occurrence of terrorism in the Mideast is preventable through HUMINT.

* ISIS can be destroyed through an extensive bombing campaign

* We should occupy the entire region with a massive military for the foreseeable future to prevent any new extremism or terrorism

* We shouldn't glass over the whole region unless ISIS steals a nuclear weapon and hits us first.

If I may ask (for the umpteenth time),

* How much are you really willing to spend (either in $$ or %GDP) to implement all of your recommendations?

* Do you really think you can stop foreign-based terrorism in this country?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Nuclear powers never fight each other due to the risk of escalation.

Except of course India and Pakistan, who had a conventional war in 1999 a year after they had both declared themselves as nuclear powers .

(Both had had nuclear weapons in everything but name since the late 1970s, but India openly conducted nuclear tests in 1998 and Paksitan responded with its own tests almost immediately; much like Israel is, they were effectively nuclear powers long before their 1998 tests).

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. Seneca, really, this is the second time recently you've used the word "never" about things that have already happened. Iran never supporting infidels against Muslims (which they already did with Armenia against Azerbaijan) and now this.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 17 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  15  16  17   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1