Politics

[Wild Bill]

Afghanistan and Iraq - lots of people you can't call a "neo-con" supported the war in Iraq. A coalition of liberal countries also supported that war. Laying it on McCain like it's something uniquely endorsed by him is silly, and we've already been over this.

There's a common thread between the left, both in America and other western nations and the neocons when it comes to middle east military intervention.

It's foolish to believe McCain is solely to blame for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's equally foolish to believe some no name, one term congressman who voted to intervene is equally as culpable. McCain played a prominent role in "shilling" the wars. He (and his donors) used his position and power in the Senate to influence the party and pushed them towards neocon policies and teamed up with the media to exploit the emotional state of the American public.

How you can possibly try to in hindsight be against invading Afghanistan to go after the Taliban/Bin Laden is preposterous. That military action had damn near universal support, period.

Rather than attacking and destabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps we should have reviewed and revised our own immigration policies. The attack on 9.11 was only possible b/c we didn't protect our own borders. These countries don't have the capacity to attack US soil and are unable threaten the safety of Americans without entering our borders first. Maybe that was difficult for your average voter to understand but guys like McCain absolutely knew invading these nations would not make the nation or it's citizens safer. Despite these facts, McCain fully subscribed to the brilliant "invade them, invite them strategy".

Syria - so you're pro-Assad? Interesting.

Libya - so you're pro-Gaddafi? Interesting. And Libya -- a NATO action that happens with or without John McCain -- has turned into a disaster because of a power vacuum not because a dictator was deposed. The same way Bush disbanding the Iraqi Republican Guard lead directly to ISIS.

This is exactly the type of false dichotomy neocons relied on to combat reasonable dissent. I don't have to love Assad or Gaddafi to oppose their removal with military force.

Iran - ... nothing has happened here?

Thankfully. McCain worked tirelessly to convince the nation it was in our best interest to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", though.

This is the biggest issue with McCain. He's signed off on disaster after disaster - either he never learned from his mistakes or knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway. I'll go with latter.

Bosnia and Kosovo - What a load of bullshit. Again, NATO intervention in Kosovo was supported by everyone with a brain on both sides of the aisle across the world. You would've just turned a blind eye to the genocide of Albanians? And there were ZERO American combat casualties in the intervention.

NATO intervention wasn't supported by everyone. NATO mercilessly bombed the Serbs and targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was not just or moral. It was an absolute disgrace. There were no American casualties, in large part, b/c Clinton dismissed McCain's resolution to "use all necessary force and other means" including ground troops.

 

[ickythump1225]

Great reply Wild Bill, I have nothing much to add to that, I agree almost 100% with it.

Obviously McCain is not solely to blame for our foreign policy over the past 20 years, but as a "statesman" and senior senator with considerable clout and power he had quite a big hand in crafting it.

As for being "pro-Assad" or "pro-Gaddafi" that is quite neocon of you to force a completely false dialectic to make me support never ending warfare. I don't need to be pro-Saddam or Gaddafi to understand the Middle East would be a more stable region and the world in a better place if we didn't take them out with no real plan in filling the chaotic vacuum that came afterwards. Syria would have been just as unstable and chaotic without Assad. Keep in mind Assad is pro-Christian and some of the oldest living Christian communities in existence stay alive because he has looked out for them. McCain and his neocon and neoliberal warhawk allies would have seen the flame of Christianity completely extinguished in the Levant if they had their way.

Really the only time one of McCain's shilling campaigns didn't end in scores of Americans crippled, wounded, or dead is when he didn't get his way. There are guys (husbands, fathers, and sons) who are never coming home or coming home forever altered due to our insane foreign policy since the fall of Berlin Wall in which John McCain had an outsized influence on. For what? So that defense contractors and MIC types could continue to line their pockets after our built in boogeyman collapsed nearly 30 years ago.

I don't care that 50 years ago John McCain was a mediocre Naval aviator who got shot down and captured. That doesn't outweigh all of the evil he contributed to over the past 30-40 years. The world is a better place now than 2 days ago. I only hope that his sad, slow decline gave him an opportunity for introspection and the ability to beg for mercy for his eternal soul before he departed to the hereafter.

 

[ickythump1225]

So to add everything up, the only military conflicts in that long list of bullshit that lead to so-called "all of my fellow Marines who died on foreign sand fighting in wars that McCain shilled for endlessly" are the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you don't think there should've been military action in Afghanistan, then you believe someone should be able to murder thousands of Americans without consequence. And Iraq -- generally regarded by everyone as a huge mistake -- wasn't just shilled for by McCain but politicians on both sides of the aisle throughout the west because of bad intelligence presented by the Bush administration. Where's the story here? Where's the blood on his proverbial hands?

Afghanistan could have been handled differently. I was actually a fan of the letters of marque and reprisal that Ron Paul talked about. But like Wild Bill said, that should have been a moment of reflection for us to look at our foreign policy and our immigration policy. Instead we doubled down and entered into a long drawn out occupation in a nation that is noted for being a graveyard of empires.

McCain wasn't just some schmuck, he was a very powerful and influential senator. No he wasn't the only one who shilled for Iraq, but he was one of the only unrepentant ones. He learned nothing from Iraq. Probably because those who buttered his bread were getting fat off of our hyper aggressive nonstop warfare foreign policy.

 

[IrishLax]

There's a common thread between the left, both in America and other western nations and the neocons when it comes to middle east military intervention.

It's foolish to believe McCain is solely to blame for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's equally foolish to believe some no name, one term congressman who voted to intervene is equally as culpable. McCain played a prominent role in "shilling" the wars. He (and his donors) used his position and power in the Senate to influence the party and pushed them towards neocon policies and teamed up with the media to exploit the emotional state of the American public.

Rather than attacking and destabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps we should have reviewed and revised our own immigration policies. The attack on 9.11 was only possible b/c we didn't protect our own borders. These countries don't have the capacity to attack US soil and are unable threaten the safety of Americans without entering our borders first. Maybe that was difficult for your average voter to understand but guys like McCain absolutely knew invading these nations would not make the nation or it's citizens safer. Despite these facts, McCain fully subscribed to the brilliant "invade them, invite them strategy".

First of all, Afghanistan being destabilized is largely irrelevant. The point of going in was to get Bin Laden and depose the Taliban.

Second, Iraq was destabilized because Bush, et. al. disbanded the Republican Guard and generally fucked everything up.

This is exactly the type of false dichotomy neocons relied on to combat reasonable dissent. I don't have to love Assad or Gaddafi to oppose their removal with military force.

Thankfully. McCain worked tirelessly to convince the nation it was in our best interest to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", though.

This is the biggest issue with McCain. He's signed off on disaster after disaster - either he never learned from his mistakes or knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway. I'll go with latter.

This is the point we've gotten to... taking literal satire at face value as foreign policy.

Again, of the list, there is one disaster -- Iraq -- and that's it. And that one can hardly be laid at his feet. Everything else is conjecture and bullshit. It's a hilarious cherry picking stuff that is -- at worst -- aggressive posturing and acting like he's green lighting military operations in Iran, etc.

For a parallel and an example, Trump said "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen." Is that Trump "signing off" on war with North Korea? Or is it posturing? There's an obvious answer, and let's not have an intellectually dishonest double standard here.

NATO intervention wasn't supported by everyone. NATO mercilessly bombed the Serbs and targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was not just or moral. It was an absolute disgrace. There were no American casualties, in large part, b/c Clinton dismissed McCain's resolution to "use all necessary force and other means" including ground troops.

Yeah, we also mercilessly bombed the Germans in WWII. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Maybe Milosevic should've thought twice before going the genocide route... dude was charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. and was being supported by Russia -- who NATO was specifically formed to protect against -- but you think NATO shouldn't have intervened? Really?

 

[Wild Bill]

First of all, Afghanistan being destabilized is largely irrelevant. The point of going in was to get Bin Laden and depose the Taliban.

Second, Iraq was destabilized because Bush, et. al. disbanded the Republican Guard and generally fucked everything up.

We're still in Afghanistan so I find it hard to believe that was the real reason we went. Probably the good reason, not the real reason.

This is the point we've gotten to... taking literal satire at face value as foreign policy.

The comment perfectly encapsulates his policy on both Iran and haphazardly bombing sovereign nations.

We can set aside that one comment and it doesn't change anything regarding his well known position on Iran.

Again, of the list, there is one disaster -- Iraq -- and that's it. And that one can hardly be laid at his feet. Everything else is conjecture and bullshit. It's a hilarious cherry picking stuff that is -- at worst -- aggressive posturing and acting like he's green lighting military operations in Iran, etc.

For a parallel and an example, Trump said "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen." Is that Trump "signing off" on war with North Korea? Or is it posturing? There's an obvious answer, and let's not have an intellectually dishonest double standard here.

I'm not laying the blame solely at his feet. I'm giving him the credit he deserves and criticize Trump for peddling neoconservative horseshit, like the all caps Iran tweet.

Yeah, we also mercilessly bombed the Germans in WWII. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Maybe Milosevic should've thought twice before going the genocide route... dude was charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. and was being supported by Russia -- who NATO was specifically formed to protect against -- but you think NATO shouldn't have intervened? Really?

No amount of WW2 propoganda will ever make me believe it was moral and just to bomb Dresden into rubble and let the Communist savages rape and kill as they pleased. It's disgusting and it's well documented that many of our own soldiers felt the same.

The bombing had nothing to do with crimes against humanity and everything to do with stripping Serbia of territory they have controlled for seven centuries. Was NATO created to strip land away from sovereign nations or was it created to prevent Soviet expansion?

Milosevic sent troops into Kosovo to protect the Serbian minority and their property as it became increasingly clear police were no longer able to stop the Albanian majority. Yes, the Albanians are an overwhelming majority in Kosovo, in part bc they never got their "prize" for playing their "games" during WW2. The Waffen SS Skanderbeg did good work to displace the serbs within Kosovo and NATO put the final nails into the coffin.

We can disagree on whether or not we should have conducted the "humanitarian" bombing but there's no defending the targeting of civilians. I guess might makes right for some.

Interesting how McCain and OTHER WORLD LEADERS WHO ARE TO BLAME AS WELL cheerleaded using force to strip land away from the serbs are now the same people bitching that Russia annexed Crimea with 90% approval from those who occupy the territory and without any military intervention.

 

[Bluto]

Rather than attacking and destabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps we should have reviewed and revised our own immigration policies. The attack on 9.11 was only possible b/c we didn't protect our own borders. These countries don't have the capacity to attack US soil and are unable threaten the safety of Americans without entering our borders first. Maybe that was difficult for your average voter to understand but guys like McCain absolutely knew invading these nations would not make the nation or it's citizens safer. Despite these facts, McCain fully subscribed to the brilliant "invade them, invite them strategy".

At least you’re consistent. The CIA had been tracking and were aware of a couple of the high jackers and failed to inform the FBI when they entered the US. That was the most critical breakdown.The rest were Saudi nationals on student, business and tourist visas. The Saudis are our friends right? Anyhow, seeing as none of the highjackers were “immigrants” what does 911 have to do with immigration policy?

 

[Wild Bill]

At least you’re consistent. The CIA had been tracking and were aware of a couple of the high jackers and failed to inform the FBI when they entered the US. That was the most critical breakdown.The rest were Saudi nationals on student visas. The Saudis are our friends right?

Yes, great friends. Absolutely love the relationship Saudi Arabia has with DC. Israel too. These two are absolutely our greatest allies in the middle east, if not the world. I can't thank them enough for all their help. Without their guidance, there's no way we'd have such great policies in the ME that are absolutely in the best interest of America and keeps Americans safe from terror.

 

[ickythump1225]

We're still in Afghanistan so I find it hard to believe that was the real reason we went. Probably the good reason, not the real reason.



The comment perfectly encapsulates his policy on both Iran and haphazardly bombing sovereign nations.

We can set aside that one comment and it doesn't change anything regarding his well known position on Iran.



I'm not laying the blame solely at his feet. I'm giving him the credit he deserves and criticize Trump for peddling neoconservative horseshit, like the all caps Iran tweet.



No amount of WW2 propoganda will ever make me believe it was moral and just to bomb Dresden into rubble and let the Communist savages rape and kill as they pleased. It's disgusting and it's well documented that many of our own soldiers felt the same.

The bombing had nothing to do with crimes against humanity and everything to do with stripping Serbia of territory they have controlled for seven centuries. Was NATO created to strip land away from sovereign nations or was it created to prevent Soviet expansion?

Milosevic sent troops into Kosovo to protect the Serbian minority and their property as it became increasingly clear police were no longer able to stop the Albanian majority. Yes, the Albanians are an overwhelming majority in Kosovo, in part bc they never got their "prize" for playing their "games" during WW2. The Waffen SS Skanderbeg did good work to displace the serbs within Kosovo and NATO put the final nails into the coffin.

We can disagree on whether or not we should have conducted the "humanitarian" bombing but there's no defending the targeting of civilians. I guess might makes right for some.

Interesting how McCain and OTHER WORLD LEADERS WHO ARE TO BLAME AS WELL cheerleaded using force to strip land away from the serbs are now the same people bitching that Russia annexed Crimea with 90% approval from those who occupy the territory and without any military intervention.

 

[ickythump1225]

First of all, Afghanistan being destabilized is largely irrelevant. The point of going in was to get Bin Laden and depose the Taliban.

If that was the point, why are we still there 17 years later?

Second, Iraq was destabilized because Bush, et. al. disbanded the Republican Guard and generally fucked everything up.

That war was never going to end well. But then again, I'm jaded enough about our foreign policy that I think that very well may have been one of the goals, a completely chaotic and destabilized Iraq.

This is the point we've gotten to... taking literal satire at face value as foreign policy.

Well when the "satire" is completely in line with the rest of career...

Again, of the list, there is one disaster -- Iraq -- and that's it. And that one can hardly be laid at his feet. Everything else is conjecture and bullshit. It's a hilarious cherry picking stuff that is -- at worst -- aggressive posturing and acting like he's green lighting military operations in Iran, etc.

Not solely his fault but he wanted and to his dying day defended the decision. He doesn't get to LARP as some great statesman and be lauded as an American hero and icon and then have all of his bad decisions just poo-poo'd away as "well he was merely a senator, one voice among many. He was more than just a random senator, he was a hugely influential senator and the defacto leader of the GOP from 2008-2012.

He isn't solely to blame, but he is part of the blame.

For a parallel and an example, Trump said "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen." Is that Trump "signing off" on war with North Korea? Or is it posturing? There's an obvious answer, and let's not have an intellectually dishonest double standard here.

I don't post a lot on here but I criticize Trump for saber rattling and I was very pissed with his bombing of Syria. The one thing Trump could do to forever lose my support would be a full scale land invasion of a country like Iran, Syria, etc.

I guess if there was a difference between the two it would be that McCain had a long and documented history of the being one of the most hyper-aggressive warhawks in D.C. Trump talks a lot of shit, but so far there has been no real action. It would be easier to chalk up Trump's talk as posturing.

Yeah, we also mercilessly bombed the Germans in WWII. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Maybe Milosevic should've thought twice before going the genocide route... dude was charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. and was being supported by Russia -- who NATO was specifically formed to protect against -- but you think NATO shouldn't have intervened? Really?

"Yeah sorry all of your women and children got raped and your civilian men got slaughtered by the Soviets (some of them were raped too) but your leadership was awful. Remember, it's only evil if the side doing it isn't approved by the current neoliberal establishment or if their country's values are not in line with modern day standards of morality."

 

[ickythump1225]

No amount of WW2 propoganda will ever make me believe it was moral and just to bomb Dresden into rubble and let the Communist savages rape and kill as they pleased. It's disgusting and it's well documented that many of our own soldiers felt the same.

Yeah but the "Good Guys" did it so it's not evil bro, it's just a stupid prize for playing stupid games. If you so much as live in a country that goes against the current world order your life is trivial and merely a pawn on the chessboard to be swept aside when we decide it's time for some "freedom and democracy" in your country. I mean after all it's their fault for not abandoning their home nation for the Magic Soil of North America where upon arrival they instantly become liberal democratic Americans. It's magic!

The bombing had nothing to do with crimes against humanity and everything to do with stripping Serbia of territory they have controlled for seven centuries. Was NATO created to strip land away from sovereign nations or was it created to prevent Soviet expansion?

Milosevic sent troops into Kosovo to protect the Serbian minority and their property as it became increasingly clear police were no longer able to stop the Albanian majority. Yes, the Albanians are an overwhelming majority in Kosovo, in part bc they never got their "prize" for playing their "games" during WW2. The Waffen SS Skanderbeg did good work to displace the serbs within Kosovo and NATO put the final nails into the coffin.

Yeah but if someone is an Evil Dictator™ then everything they do must be viewed in that light. It is impossible that Milsoevic ever even thought a good thought. Whatever motivations he had for going into Kosovo are irrelevant as he had fallen out of favor with the official Good Guys™. Don't question the narrative bro, are some sort of pro-Evil Dictator™ fascist? Just cheer on the bombings.

We can disagree on whether or not we should have conducted the "humanitarian" bombing but there's no defending the targeting of civilians. I guess might makes right for some.

Yes but they lived under an Evil Dictator™ so really they deserve it. Besides, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs amirite?

Interesting how McCain and OTHER WORLD LEADERS WHO ARE TO BLAME AS WELL cheerleaded using force to strip land away from the serbs are now the same people bitching that Russia annexed Crimea with 90% approval from those who occupy the territory and without any military intervention.

Yes when the Good Guys™ strip away land it is different and better than when Evil Dictators™ do it. Just like when Israel wants to deport non-Israelis and form an enthostate, it is good because they are Our Greatest Ally™ so obviously it is good to do that. But when Evil Dictator™ Vladimir Putin and Russia want to annex a region that is almost entirely ethnically and culturally Russian it is bad, very bad.

 

[Bluto]

Yeah but the "Good Guys" did it so it's not evil bro, it's just a stupid prize for playing stupid games. If you so much as live in a country that goes against the current world order your life is trivial and merely a pawn on the chessboard to be swept aside when we decide it's time for some "freedom and democracy" in your country. I mean after all it's their fault for not abandoning their home nation for the Magic Soil of North America where upon arrival they instantly become liberal democratic Americans. It's magic!


Yeah but if someone is an Evil Dictator™ then everything they do must be viewed in that light. It is impossible that Milsoevic ever even thought a good thought. Whatever motivations he had for going into Kosovo are irrelevant as he had fallen out of favor with the official Good Guys™. Don't question the narrative bro, are some sort of pro-Evil Dictator™ fascist? Just cheer on the bombings.


Yes but they lived under an Evil Dictator™ so really they deserve it. Besides, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs amirite?


Yes when the Good Guys™ strip away land it is different and better than when Evil Dictators™ do it. Just like when Israel wants to deport non-Israelis and form an enthostate, it is good because they are Our Greatest Ally™ so obviously it is good to do that. But when Evil Dictator™ Vladimir Putin and Russia want to annex a region that is almost entirely ethnically and culturally Russian it is bad, very bad.

The criticisms you are leveling can be applied to the entire western expansion of the US and US foreign policy in regards to Central and South America dating back to the Monroe Doctrine.

 

[ACamp1900]

The criticisms you are leveling can be applied to the entire western expansion of the US and US foreign policy in regards to Central and South America dating back to the Monroe Doctrine.

Don't get me started on that POS Monroe..........

 

[Irish YJ]

I posted the below in the Media Matters thread, but the show explored the bullshit surrounding some of the US wars... so dropping it here as well.

For all CNN and/or MSNBC lovers, or defenders of the media in general..... take some time and watch the below.
On Demand if you have Starz

All Governments Lie: Truth, Deception, and the Spirit of I.F. Stone
https://allgovernmentslie.com/

If you like I.F. (Izzy) Stone, or a fan of true journalism, it's a great watch. It's an obvious indictment of the gov, but also does it's share of criticizing today's media. While there's obviously a lot of Left ideology, the writers had no problem going after Left politicians and media. Clapper was also in the opening rundown of biggest whoppers lol (for those who think Clapper is saint).

 

[ickythump1225]

The criticisms you are leveling can be applied to the entire western expansion of the US and US foreign policy in regards to Central and South America dating back to the Monroe Doctrine.

I'm not seeing the connection between westward expansion and opposing unwinnable Middle Eastern adventures to topple "dictators" and spread "freedom & democracy" and causing regional instability and chaos that only benefits Our Greatest Ally™.

 

[Bluto]

I'm not seeing the connection between westward expansion and opposing unwinnable Middle Eastern adventures to topple "dictators" and spread "freedom & democracy" and causing regional instability and chaos that only benefits Our Greatest Ally™.

"Yes when the Good Guys™ strip away land it is different and better than when Evil Dictators™ do it".

The "stripping away of land" was par for the course during western expansion. Two clear examples being the violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty when gold was "discovered" in the Black Hills and the numerous violations of the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo which in theory was supposed to allow the land owners in what was formerly Mexico (California, New Mexico, ect...) to retain ownership of their land holdings. Then there is the case of the Philippine-American War.

The point being that the US Military has been used as a blunt force instrument for enacting foreign policy (remember Native Americans are a sovereign people) that has stripped away land from various ethnic groups pretty consistently since the end of the Civil War.

 

[ACamp1900]

Then there is the case of the Philippine-American War.

Some noble patriots among us are fighting this one to this very day......

 

[Bluto]

Some noble patriots among us are fighting this one to this very day......

Steve Perry and I salute you.

 

[ACamp1900]

Steve Perry and I salute you.

LOL... Lil dude sounds just like him though...

 

[Bluto]

LOL... Lil dude sounds just like him though...

Yeah, that guy can sing that’s for sure.

 

[IrishLax]

We're still in Afghanistan so I find it hard to believe that was the real reason we went. Probably the good reason, not the real reason.

You don't think we went to Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and get Bin Laden???????

I'm done.

 

[IrishLax]

"Yeah sorry all of your women and children got raped and your civilian men got slaughtered by the Soviets (some of them were raped too) but your leadership was awful. Remember, it's only evil if the side doing it isn't approved by the current neoliberal establishment or if their country's values are not in line with modern day standards of morality."

So now John McCain is responsible for the conduct of Russians.

Remember, we were talking about specific criticism of John McCain and all of this alleged death and destruction he is personally responsible for.

 

[wizards8507]

John McCain and Larry Fitzgerald were friends, I guess?

 

[SonofOahu]

I wonder what our political environment would be, now, had Kerry selected McCain to be his running-mate in 2000 rather than that snake, Lieberman.

 

[ulukinatme]

I wonder what our political environment would be, now, had Kerry selected McCain to be his running-mate in 2000 rather than that snake, Lieberman.

Are you talking about Gore?

Either way, I'm guessing we would have had more attacks on US soil following 9/11 had Bush not been President.

 

[pkt77242]

Are you talking about Gore?

Either way, I'm guessing we would have had more attacks on US soil following 9/11 had Bush not been President.

How do you figure that?

 

[ulukinatme]

How do you figure that?

Simply because Bush adopted an aggressive policy of taking the fight to the Taliban and keeping the terrorists on their heels. We've seen Kerry's foreign policy while he was Secretary of State and other than a tough stance on Syria (Which people on both sides were generally in favor of), he was more apt to stay back and rely on diplomacy even when it wasn't the answer.

 

[pkt77242]

Simply because Bush adopted an aggressive policy of taking the fight to the Taliban and keeping the terrorists on their heels. We've seen Kerry's foreign policy while he was Secretary of State and other than a tough stance on Syria (Which people on both sides were generally in favor of), he was more apt to stay back and rely on diplomacy even when it wasn't the answer.

Don’t you think that we might have had more resources to fight the Taliban if we didn’t invade Iraq and cause a cluster fuck? We pretty much abandoned Afghanistan after invading Iraq. Also we might not have had to deal with ISIS if it wasn’t for Iraq. I think that your logic on this topic is seriously flawed.

 

[SonofOahu]

Are you talking about Gore?

Either way, I'm guessing we would have had more attacks on US soil following 9/11 had Bush not been President.

No, Kerry. 2004; my bad.

 

[ulukinatme]

Don’t you think that we might have had more resources to fight the Taliban if we didn’t invade Iraq and cause a cluster fuck? We pretty much abandoned Afghanistan after invading Iraq. Also we might not have had to deal with ISIS if it wasn’t for Iraq. I think that your logic on this topic is seriously flawed.

I didn't say anything about Iraq, but the fact Obama pulled out of Iraq before it was stable is one of the main reasons we ended up having to go back and take care of Isis to begin with. Once we were in we should have finished the job at least and left a decent force there to assist in stabilizing the area. Whether we should have gone there to begin with is an entirely other story, but you'll have to talk to Intelligence about that. I can tell you that there's no guarantee that toppling Saddam caused the rise of Isis, it very well could have happened regardless if you look at the history of radical Islam...and given their power and what they accomplished at one time I think it's safe to say Saddam wouldn't have been enough to stop them.

 

[SonofOahu]

I didn't say anything about Iraq, but the fact Obama pulled out of Iraq before it was stable is one of the main reasons we ended up having to go back and take care of Isis to begin with. Once we were in we should have finished the job at least and left a decent force there to assist in stabilizing the area. Whether we should have gone there to begin with is an entirely other story, but you'll have to talk to Intelligence about that. I can tell you that there's no guarantee that toppling Saddam caused the rise of Isis, it very well could have happened regardless if you look at the history of radical Islam...and given their power and what they accomplished at one time I think it's safe to say Saddam wouldn't have been enough to stop them.

Bush had already committed to pulling the US out of Iraq. Honestly can't blame him for that, the American population had gotten sick of the war by that time. Obama was operating under the agreements that Bush already had in place.

The problem with Iraq is that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted a war on the cheap. They weren't interested in hearing the truth about what the cost of capital (both blood and actual dollars) was going to be. They shitted on General Eric Shinseki for his testimony on the number of soldiers it would take. Shinseki was right:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html

But, yeah, let's totally keep blaming Obama for Bush's fuck ups.