Paris attacks

[tar]

Overtone,

But didn't we vote Bush out and Obama in to make the situation better? If the problems were too severe to correct, then Obama was wrong in suggesting he could do better. And you are completely ignoring any role the U.S. and the U.S. state department had in fostering the Arab Spring, and in seeking regime change in Syria. A state department NOT lead by Bush and Cheney. If the U.S. had a plan against international terrorism that took us to Syria and Libya and other countries in Africa and the middle east, after Iraq and Iran, the motive force behind the instability is not Bush's desire to defeat them on foreign soil, the motive force is the international terrorism itself that seeks to defeat the great Satan (the U.S.) If the rise of ISIS is not good for our way of life, and not good for our friends in the areas of the world that ISIS would control, then characterizing the problem as caused by Bush, is incomplete. International terrorism is what we are fighting, even still, without Bush at the helm.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited January 15, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

The best plan against terrorists is to not be terrified.

[tar]

How exactly does that get the world trade center back or regenerate the lives lost in the Paris theatre?

Ignoring the threat of ISIS for instance and thinking of them as the J.V. team, not to be terrified by, and easily defeated, did not stem global terrorism.​

[dimreepr]

It doesn't, what's done is done.

 

However ignoring the threat is exactly what they don't want, imagine if a shark attack was intended to keep people out of the ocean and the film "Jaws" was their propaganda, the stats are similar and so was the effect.

When will you understand that revenge won't rebuild the world trade center or regenerate lives lost in Paris; all revenge can do is create more suffering.

Edited January 15, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

Dimreepr,

 

I was not considering that revenge was inorder. I was considering that defeating ISIS was in order.

 

That is, track down the killer shark and kill it, before it struck again.

 

We had a fatal black bear attack in West Milford. The first in recorded history in New Jersey. The police approaching the scene tried to get the bear to leave the area but it kept circling the dead partially eaten body, so they had to shoot it. Not for revenge, but because the bear had tasted human flesh and would not leave the body alone.

 

We had our annual bear hunt before Christmas and many bears were killed. To reduce the population and stem the increase in people bear run ins.

 

Black bear are seen around my house, even after that bear was killed. Which of "my bear" that are not around come the spring, remains to be seen. I am not terrified of the bear. But I am in favor of the hunt.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Edited January 15, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

The fatal flaw of living in the most powerful nation on Earth is the conceit that all, before, is defeat-able.

[tar]

Hitler and Imperial Japan were defeatable. Saddam was defeatable. ISIS, just the J.V. team is defeatable. We have defeated enemies far more powerful than ISIS.

[dimreepr]

How do you defeat imagination or an idea?

[tar]

ISIS as an idea is not sustainable to live in concert with the ideas of France and the U.S. constitution. You defeat the idea by not letting it win and by not letting your own ideas fail. You make your idea work, and make the ideas of your enemies not work.

[overtone]

 

 

But didn't we vote Bush out and Obama in to make the situation better? If the problems were too severe to correct, then Obama was wrong in suggesting he could do better.

The problems created by W were much too severe to "correct", at least in one lifetime, and Obama turned out to be right in saying he could do better - he did.

 

Not that "do better than W" was a high bar to clear - all Obama had to do for that criterion was not use the US military to create horrible new disasters all over the planet, and put them on the US credit card.

 

 

And you are completely ignoring any role the U.S. and the U.S. state department had in fostering the Arab Spring, and in seeking regime change in Syria.

It goes back to before the Iraq invasion, when the US was not seeking regime change in Syria, and it's been muddled since. The US has never known what to do about this Arab Spring business, in large part because its leaders and motivators regard the US as an enemy or obstacle - and they are right. In Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, even Egypt, basically anywhere except maybe Libya, the US has not been a friend to the Arab Spring.

 

So whatever the role the US played in encouraging opposition to Assad in Syria, recently, our major influence was to destroy the government of Iraq, abet the Sunni Islamic jihadist revolt that morphed into ISIL on Syria's border, and seed Syria with a million or more Islamic refugees and all the disorder of war on the eve of a major drought.

[tar]

In this case the idea of ISIS is that the West is the Great Satan. The idea of the West is that international terrorism is the greatest evil we have to face down.

 

Not being afraid is not the solution. Being afraid to win however, could be really bad for the West.

Overtone,

 

Hum. I seem to remember the U.S. being on the side of the moderate Rebels in Syria, and in favor of regime change.

 

And Iraq was more stable after we defeated Saddam, than it is now.

 

Regards, TAR

And I don't think Bush caused the drought.

[dimreepr]

Be afraid if you want but Iraq was more stable before we/you defeated Saddam, than it is now.

Time to grow up and face the music 'tar' not forever hiding behind the school yard bully...

Edited January 15, 2016 by dimreepr

[overtone]

Hum. I seem to remember the U.S. being on the side of the moderate Rebels in Syria, and in favor of regime change.

Oh, it went farther and got uglier than that.

 

http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

A December 13, 2006 cable, "Influencing the SARG [syrian government] in the End of 2006,"1 indicates that, as far back as 2006 - five years before "Arab Spring" protests in Syria - destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy. The author of the cable was William Roebuck, at the time chargé d'affaires at the US embassy in Damascus. The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government. In his summary of the cable, Roebuck wrote:

 

We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response to Seymour Hersh’s piece in The New Yorker to two key points this week, reporting the Pentagon’s established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran, that this is coming as the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia are pumping money for covert operations into many areas of the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, in an effort to strengthen Saudi-supported Sunni Islam groups and weaken Iranian-backed Shias — some of the covert money has been given to jihadist groups in Lebanon with ties to al-Qaeda — fighting the Shias by funding with Prince Bandar and then with US money not approved by Congress, funding the Sunnis connected to al-Qaeda.

 

 

In other words, W&Co were encouraging - via the Saudis and Egypt as well as more directly - Sunni extremist forces in Syria and conflict between Sunni and Shia (Saudi and Iranian backed) sects in Syria. They were doing that in hopes of bringing down the Syrian government.

 

And Iraq was more stable after we defeated Saddam, than it is now.

No, it was not. It was in sectarian civil war, with ethnic cleansing in all regions and no functioning government. There were bodies being left in the streets of the capital city killed by having holes drilled in their heads. The Kurdish region was raising its own army and flying its own flag and making oil deals without even consulting Baghdad.

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

Ten Oz,

 

OK I am trying to have Kerry, Obama, and Clinton take some responsibility as my Secretaries of State and President for the last 7 years. They are still my president and Secretaries of State, and I take responsibility for their actions and non-actions, as an American. My spreading of the blame, is between Bush and Obama and the one is not evil and the other angelic. We did not make the right decision, in retrospect, to encourage the Arab Spring and the rebellion against Assad. It has resulting in destabilizing Syria, the deaths of a quarter million people, giving ISIS a capital city in Raqqa, a humanitarian crisis, millions of refugees, increased influence of Russia and Iran in the area and perception of American weakness, by drawing a red line in the sand and letting people walk right across it.

 

Regards, TAR

Tar, I'll use an analogy. Bush lit a forest fire that burned out of control. It was getting worse when he handed over the reigns. Obama tried using controlled burns to slow down the fire. Seven years later it's still out of control. You are asking Obama to take responsibility for the fire. Pandora's box is open. How do we close it?

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I have my feelings about WikiLeaks and Snowden, and secret stuff is secret for a reason. Our enemies do not need to know our capabilities and intentions. Anytime, for any reason.

 

But thank you for that link with Wesley Clark, talking about the U.S. desire to take down 7 countries in 5 years. Some of that plan is still in the works.

 

The wiki article on the Syrian civil war, has it starting in earnest in 2011. Whether the Obama administration was trying to engage Assad or remove Assad, by overt action or secret funding is not as important as that U.S. actions in regards to Assad and in regards to funding opposition indicate that the U.S. is still interested in regime change in Syria and the way we have gone about it, in the last 6 years has not had good outcome. 250 thousand deaths, millions of refugees and the rise of ISIS does not point to us having handled fighting the fire in the most effective way. Regardless of who set the course, regardless of who we view as friends and who we view as enemies the proxy war aspect of the situation, does not make either the U.S. or any one of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia or Iraq innocent of fanning the flames.

 

 

Willie71,

 

My suggestion is to admit we screwed up and help Assad regain control of his country and oust ISIS, regardless of ISIS being funded by friends and Hezbolah being funded by enemies. Continue to stand with our allies, and not let the Kurds or any opposition groups get decimated by Assad.

 

Or carry out the 7 country in 5 years plan.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, I think we should admit we screwed up where it is ovious that we did. Iraq was a huge error. Afghanistan was mismanaged too. We allowed for massive opium production, flubbed meeting our objectives in Tora Bora, and lot track of billions of dollars. It seems it that in order to admit to those mistakes by a republican administration you need some type of bipartisan agreement that democrats admit to something as well. In my opinion that is silly and defeats the purpose of being accountable.

 

Has the Obama administration screwed up? Was it a mistake to not stop the Arab Spring? I say stop because that was the only real choice we had. Obama did not create it. The choice was to acknowledge or prevent. With that is mind I am not sure what may have happened if we sought to prevent. What would that have looked like; boots on the ground in Libya and Egyt? Perhaps we made a mistake but I think it isn't clear yet honestly. Certianly not as crystal clear as Iraq. As for Assad I think, again, it is too early to say. You are attempting to monday morning quarterback on sunday afternoon. The game is still on, still early, and we don't know how it plays out yet.

[tar]

.Ten Oz,

 

I am not ​​accepting that Iraq was a mistake, nor that removing Saddam caused ISIS. If failure to pursue the 7 country in 5 years plan resulted in years of civil war in Syria and the destabilization of the area, then the mistake was not pursuing the

7 country in 5 years plan.

 

And I don't have the links, but my "feeling" during the Arab Spring, was that our state department and Hilary were instigators. If this is true, then what we could have done to stop the Arab Spring, would have been to not cheer lead for it.

 

It is difficult to be conflicted as a country and be strong allies with countries who's human rights and women rights track record is lousy.

 

When a country's youth take over though, everything established, whether corrupt or not, is forfeit. You don't have the corrupt inspectors anymore, but you don't have the garbage collection either.

 

As in the WikiLeaks link we have played various forces against each other to forward our agenda. We are not the only clever people on the planet however and such is done by the Russians and the Iranians and the Saudis and the Jews and the Palestinians as well. Part of this whole mess is the politics and the spins and the propaganda, and the mischaracterizations of your enemy's intentions and actions. I did not, at the time for instance think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. I was quite for it. And I did not, at the time think it was a bad idea to foster the Arab Spring, I was quite for it. Being that we are still living in the wake of these decisions, and the game is still on, I am loathe to call the U.S. the bad guy in either situation. I still see things from the perspective of my way of life being preferable over the way of life of ISIS. And whatever our mistakes, it was never a mistake to stand with our friends against our enemies, nor to side with the Shia against Saddam, nor to have earlier sided with a more secular Saddam against a more Sectarian Iran.

 

Regards, TAR

And the poppy being the cash crop of Afghanistan is not something we have a lot of control over.

in any case American culture art sports medicine and technology has infected many cultures and represents outshoots of my way of life

 

I am in no way apologizing for our way of life. I think it fine and workable, and applicable to anybody and everybody that wants to live a good life. Western civilization was a good idea. It is not a mistake to toe the line, and fight for its continuance.

Edited January 16, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

.Ten Oz,

 

I am not ​​accepting that Iraq was a mistake, nor that removing Saddam caused ISIS. If failure to pursue the 7 country in 5 years plan resulted in years of civil war in Syria and the destabilization of the area, then the mistake was not pursuing the

7 country in 5 years plan.

At this point calling Iraq a huge mistake is not even a partisan statement. Trump, Cruz, Carson, Paul, and etc have all stepped forward and said as much. Only Republican presidential candidate still will to defend Iraq happens to have the last name Bush. Bothsides agree that Iraq was a mistake. That goes for the whole coalition of willing. Ask Tony Blair how feels about it today or the British people.

 

Iraq did not create ISISor the Civil War directly but it did add fuel to the fire by destabilizing the region in pushing into the border regions. Iraq made Syria worse. I think bothsides agree about that too. The partisan divide is on what should be done. Everyone understand how we got here.

 

 

And I don't have the links, but my "feeling" during the Arab Spring, was that our state department and Hilary were instigators. If this is true, then what we could have done to stop the Arab Spring, would have been to not cheer lead for it.

Right, the choice was to stop it or embrace it. Whether or not Obama was the President it would have started. The same can not be said for Iraq. The Bush Adminstration created that mess. The Arab Spring is a mess that Obama is force to deal with. Big difference. As like previously stated I am not sure there was a way to have stopped it. We could have fought against it but that would have probably lead to the more radical violence in it calling for attacks against the U.S.. Then we have them plus ISIS plus Al Quada to deal with.

 

 

It is difficult to be conflicted as a country and be strong allies with countries who's human rights and women rights track record is lousy.

 

When a country's youth take over though, everything established, whether corrupt or not, is forfeit. You don't have the corrupt inspectors anymore, but you don't have the garbage collection either.

 

As in the WikiLeaks link we have played various forces against each other to forward our agenda. We are not the only clever people on the planet however and such is done by the Russians and the Iranians and the Saudis and the Jews and the Palestinians as well. Part of this whole mess is the politics and the spins and the propaganda, and the mischaracterizations of your enemy's intentions and actions. I did not, at the time for instance think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. I was quite for it. And I did not, at the time think it was a bad idea to foster the Arab Spring, I was quite for it. Being that we are still living in the wake of these decisions, and the game is still on, I am loathe to call the U.S. the bad guy in either situation. I still see things from the perspective of my way of life being preferable over the way of life of ISIS. And whatever our mistakes, it was never a mistake to stand with our friends against our enemies, nor to side with the Shia against Saddam, nor to have earlier sided with a more secular Saddam against a more Sectarian Iran.

Are we the world's police? Is everything that happens a result of us not doing enough to stop it? There are things we should not attempt to control in sovereign nations. We should not inject our wants and values in to everything everywhere if we feel it isn't happening on our terms. The collateral effects tend to not workout if our favor.

 

 

Regards, TAR

And the poppy being the cash crop of Afghanistan is not something we have a lot of control over.

in any case American culture art sports medicine and technology has infected many cultures and represents outshoots of my way of life

 

I am in no way apologizing for our way of life. I think it fine and workable, and applicable to anybody and everybody that wants to live a good life. Western civilization was a good idea. It is not a mistake to toe the line, and fight for its continuance.

We allowed the poppy grows to do business because A - they were feeding us intel (at least we thought) and B - we thought it helped keep the peace. Production doubled under US control.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

We can not be the world's policeman, but we have relations with just about everybody and do business with just about everybody and support humanitarian efforts just about in all the third world countries and basically can be counted on in most U.N, efforts.

 

The U,N, sticks its nose in sovereign country's affairs, as in Iraq and Iran and Syria, and our nose is usually firmly attached to the business end of that particular nose. Some times we go unilateral or with a coalition of the willing, but the effort to rid Saddam of WMDs was international.as is the effort to keep Iran without weapon grade Uranium.

 

The big intrusions into Afghanistan and into Iraq came after 9/11. We had not had our nation attacked in such a way, since Pearl Harbor, and we went all in to interfere with Japan's internal affairs. After 9/11 we did not know who was our enemy as Bin Laden did not have a state. We went after the Taliban, who was protecting him. Our enemy was global terrorism, stateless terrorism and it took us to the 7 country in 5 years plan. We were and are allies of Israel and people that would bomb Israel were our enemies as surely as people that would bomb us, were our enemies. Saddam had the largest army in the area and Bush's father had already fought him out of Kuwait. He had already lit the wells on fire, we had already bombed his guard on the road out of Kuwait. We already had Saddam and the guard as our enemy and we did not trust he had not hidden WMDs, we had no fly zones and had sanctions against him as the Western World, long before we went in after him. Every step of the way, I thought we were acting appropriately. I do not think of it as a big mistake, to give Iraq the chance to be a secular, democratic nation, ruled by Sunni and Shia and Kurd. And the war against global terrorism is not yet won. If it takes us into Syria and Libya and Somalia and a couple other African nations, I would not be surprised. Iran has the choice to continue to fund our and Israel's enemies. The Saudis have the choice to fund ISIS and Al Queda or not.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

I have my feelings about WikiLeaks and Snowden, and secret stuff is secret for a reason. Our enemies do not need to know our capabilities and intentions. Anytime, for any reason.

But in a democracy, the citizens need to know what's going on.

 

So the question is one of fact: was that stuff secret for a good reason, or a bad reason?

 

 

 

The wiki article on the Syrian civil war, has it starting in earnest in 2011.

It has the US setting it in motion in 2006, as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion.

 

 

I did not, at the time for instance think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. I was quite for it. And I did not, at the time think it was a bad idea to foster the Arab Spring, I was quite for it. Being that we are still living in the wake of these decisions, and the game is still on, I am loathe to call the U.S. the bad guy in either situation.

This is where the ignorant dupe part comes in. Millions of your countrymen were trying to stop the Iraq invasion, and they had good reason - you blew them off. Now you are looking at that horrible mess - millions dead, millions refugee, the rise of Islamic jihad and empowerment of factions like ISIL, the destruction of the most secular country in the Muslim world and its replacement by theocracy and sectarian violence and exported terrorism, all for lies and bad reasons, and not seeing it.

 

The Arab Spring was being "fostered" by the US as of 2005, if not earlier, but without success - it eventually launched in Tunisia, without US permission or guidance, and has been from its outset opposed by the US almost everywhere it took hold.

 

You know, many people regard the resistance to the US attempted imposition of client government in Iraq, the rebellion against the prospect of another rightwing strongman and the insistence on democratic elections, as an early success of the Arab Spring.

Edited January 17, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, everything you are saying Saddam did basically happened before the first Gulf War. When Saddam invaded Kuwait we responded correctly and pushed him out. Post 9/11 there was no reason to turn our attention toward Saddam based of stuff that happen prior to the last military campaign against him. The most all the 9/11 perpetrators we from Saudi Arbia including Osama Bin Landen. Yes the Taliban was protecting Al Quada. We (USA), had armed, trained, and protected then for a time as well. That was the gov't we helped establish. More over if we had to go after those who were haboring terrorists why did we ignore Pakistan in favor of Iraq? Isn't that the border Al Quada hiked across to flee? Isn't that were Osama Bin Laden was living (next to a Pakistani military Academy) when we finally caught up with him? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

There were many pacifists in the U.S. that did not want to go to war in Iraq. At the time though, there was also tremendous anti Zionist propaganda in circulation. America as the great Satan, It was difficult then and it is difficult now to discern between someone anti American, and someone opposed to presidential policy. Someone wanting to see the U.S. hurt, and someone wanting to solve issues peacefully rather than with bombs..

 

I still believe we had good reason to go after Saddam's WMD and when we attacked we attacked with gas masks and nerve agent antidotes because we knew he had the capability to use such weapons against us. I wonder why nobody but me considers why Saddam dug a trench around Baghdad and filled it with oil and lit it on fire. My theory is that he destroyed the evidence of WMD like a druggy flushing the stash down the toilet as the police were breaking down the door. And now the civil liberties of the druggy have been breached, because he was innocent, and no drugs were found. I also felt that some things might well have been buried in the sands of Eastern Syria, outside the prevue of U.N. inspectors and coalition military. And while you can characterize the situation as if the world now knows that the invasion was inappropriate, I still feel it was appropriate, and just did not turn out the way I was hoping. The guard was not defeated, and still lives as ISIL.

 

Ten Oz,

 

We did not know then and still do not know now, who is going to try and hurt a Western interest, by blowing themselves up in a square. Desiring to take away the training grounds and the funding for people that want to hurt us, could take us into any country that does not remove the threat on their own, with their own law enforcement, and military.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

Secrets we need to know we already know. Secrets that we don't need to know, should not be made public so that our enemies know.

 

The way you trust your financial advisor with your social security is the way we need to trust our law enforcement and state department with the security of the nation. Classified stuff is classified for a reason and can not be put out in public.

 

You have to trust the people that are on your side, and keep secrets from those who would use the information against you.

 

What possible good can you imagine would come from Putin knowing our secrets?

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

 

Ten Oz,

 

We did not know then and still do not know now, who is going to try and hurt a Western interest, by blowing themselves up in a square. Desiring to take away the training grounds and the funding for people that want to hurt us, could take us into any country that does not remove the threat on their own, with their own law enforcement, and military.

 

Regards, TAR

We know Al Quada was in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know Osama was either in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We knew that is where their training ground were. We knew Al Quada had no useful relationship with Saddam. We knew terrorist training camps were niot in Iraq. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It exploits those who died on Sept.11th 2001 to pretend we invaded Iraq for them. It is incredibly desrespectful to their memories and the intellegence of this thread to say you still believe in 2016 the Iraq invasion was about 9/11, it wasn't. It is well documented that the Bush administration was looking for a way into Iraq prior to 9/11.

 

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

 

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

 

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

 

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I didn't mean to disrespect 9/11 victims. I did not mean to insinuate that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. I did however mean to say that Saddam was a threat to our allies in the area, had a strong military, and was an enemy that we were safer to remove, than to allow to stay in power. In retrospect, our siding with the Shia and the Kurds to the hurt of the Sunni helped to build the Al Queda in Iraq and the threat of ISIS that we see today. My link to 9/11 was my awareness of global terrorism and the continuing fact that we are not safe from global terrorism. Maliki had just as much to do with the sectarian violence in Iraq that helped establish Al Queda in Iraq as the U.S. did. And it appears the Saudis may have funded some operations. My thinking about Saddam was not related directly to thinking he was involved in 9/11, my thinking was involved in not knowing who to fight in a situation where a stateless organization like Al Queda, was our enemy. It did not matter if Saddam was involved with Al Queda, he was an enemy in his own right. Even if he had nothing to do with Al Queda. And now there is no doubt that his guard is still our enemy, and probably some of the driving force behind the caliph.

 

I am not sure what good it does to blame us for creating a political vacuum for bringing down Saddam, when the world was closely involved in the elections and the nation building that occurred after the invasion. Maliki and Assad and ISIS had problems with each other that we did not create alone. The Saudis and Iran and Russia and the U.N. all have had their hands in the situation.

 

My statement meant no disrespect to 9/11 victims. I am merely noting that the fight against global terrorism did not end when we got Bin Laden, and currently we are in Iraq, might need to go into Syria, Libya, and Somalia and the list of 7 countries in 5 years might still be places that should be on our radar, to finish the fight against global terrorism, that we owe to the victims of 9/11 and Paris and Mali...

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

It was difficult then and it is difficult now to discern between someone anti American, and someone opposed to presidential policy.

I had no problem making that distinction. Neither did tens of millions of other people. Why would that be confusing to anyone?

 

My theory is that he destroyed the evidence of WMD like a druggy flushing the stash down the toilet as the police were breaking down the door. And now the civil liberties of the druggy have been breached, because he was innocent, and no drugs were found. I also felt that some things might well have been buried in the sands of Eastern Syria, outside the prevue of U.N. inspectors and coalition military.

Nonsense. This is where the "ignorant" comes into the term "ignorant dupe".

 

And while you can characterize the situation as if the world now knows that the invasion was inappropriate, I still feel it was appropriate, and just did not turn out the way I was hoping.

The world, and millions of people in the US, knew then that the invasion was "inappropriate". Back then, not now. We knew there were no WMDs (such as were described) then, not now. We knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, that there was a lot of tension between Shiite and Sunni communities in Iraq, that Iran was the likely beneficiary of Saddam's removal, then - not now. This isn't hindsight, this is what I and millions of people like me knew going in.

 

I'm telling you that I and millions of other Americans - and these are even people in the American news bubble - knew that the invasion was almost certain to be a disaster, a quagmire that would burden the US for decades to come. Well known American pundits and intellectuals referred to the future of W's Folly as "the peace from hell". That was before, not after, W launched it. This horrible mess was in general predicted, foreseen. So why are you blowing those people off even now?

 

 

Secrets we need to know we already know.

No, we don't. That has been proved over and over - from the Pentagon Papers to Wikileaks, every time we get one of these "security breaches" we find out, yet again, that we the citizens were being lied to and misled and deliberately deceived about matters well known to our enemies, that reflected badly on our government.

 

 

Secrets that we don't need to know, should not be made public so that our enemies know.

The biggest single security breach of that kind - stuff our enemies don't know, that damages America or Americans - I've seen in my lifetime was the outing of Valerie Plame by the W administration. The reasons for that outing were disgraceful: domestic political self-interest. You voted for that administration after it did that. So your concerns for secrecy and security breaches seem either late or shallow, frankly.

Edited January 18, 2016 by overtone