Sign in to follow this  
Battlecheese

Iraq Invasion: Worst decision in US History

Recommended Posts

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-15/trump-calls-nato-obsolete-and-dismisses-eu-in-german-interview

 


Other Trump comments, according to Bild:

The Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq may have been the worst in U.S. history

Not "it went wrong after Obama fucked it up".

Not "Yeah, it was a pity we disbanded the army".

Not "well, they LOOKED like wmd".

 

Twist away boys....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article reveals Trumps ignorance of events in Europe. Angela Merkel has been a firm guiding hand in the most powerful country in Europe, her moderating influence and rational decisions have played a very important role in the relative stability of Europe during difficult times. By decrying Germany's decision to allow 1 million "illegals" into Germany, Trump is just projecting his nationalist views of the American immigration issues. The influx of refugees in Germany hasn't had such a terrible impact, they are being absorbed and integrated into German society. Germany has had a history of taking in immigrants since the end of WWII, in response to the abhorrent actions of the Nazi regime and the need to replenish a decimated manpower pool after the war. Many Turkish immigrants as well as others have been assimilated in Germany long before the EU time with few ill effects and contribute to a positively vibrant multicultural environment as well as a strong economy. Most Europeans have no problems being part of the EU, free trade flourishes, easy cross border travel and the ability to freely work in other EU countries are some of the very positive aspects of the EU. Having a common currency also facilitates easier business transactions and the German economy has absorbed the economic burden of being the economic engine for the euro, taking up the slack from countries such as Spain and Greece. There isn't any loss of national identity as a result of the EU, the individual countries are for the most part as unique as they ever were in this increasingly multicultural world. Recent genetic studies have proven that almost every natural born citizen in European countries share the blood of most of the other European citizens. National identity is a human construct not a biological entity. Particularly in the border areas it is difficult to identify a German from a Dutch person, A Pole from a Ukrainian, An Italian from a Slovenian, etc. The national borders of most European countries have been in flux ever since the first humans have appeared there and modern day Germany and Italy didn't even appear in their present form until the late 19th century. Even then, after both World Wars some of the boundaries changed in both of those and other European countries, significantly in the case of Germany, and particularly in Eastern Europe, both post both World Wars and post Cold War. Poland didn't exist for 125 years and didn't come back into being until the end of WWI. Any loss of national identity is mainly due to the easy access for world travelers and the worldwide spread of multi national companies. I don't see the EU disappearing anytime soon, there are too many benefits that have been gained, especially for the weaker members. The EU is a logical structure in the same way that the United States is a collection of very different cultures and people united in a common cause. Immigration is not only inevitable but a necessary function to keep a country from becoming stagnant and rigid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article reveals Trumps ignorance of events in Europe.

 

Trump is also responsible for Libya, Yemen, and Syria etc. etc. etc... Just when Obama/Killery/Kerry finally get things under control Trump comes along and ruins everything. boo-fucking-hoo...

 

 

200.gif#52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it was a very bad decision, but I don't know if I would call it the worst. There were some pretty bad decisions surrounding Vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it was a very bad decision, but I don't know if I would call it the worst. There were some pretty bad decisions surrounding Vietnam.

That's a bit of what I was thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invading North Korea didn't go so well.

Grenada!!!! That Reagan guy sure knew how to pick places to over run

 

Look for Gropenfuhrer to invade the Victoria's Secret Annual show dressing room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invading North Korea didn't go so well.

Grenada!!!! That Reagan guy sure knew how to pick places to over run

 

Kicked Grenada's ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invading Iraq was the worst decision in U.S. history

 

NAFTA was the worst deal in U.S. history.

 

Man, those past Republican governments sure had some big time fuck ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invading Iraq was the worst decision in U.S. history

 

NAFTA was the worst deal in U.S. history.

 

Man, those past Republican governments sure had some big time fuck ups.

 

 

 

Partisan dupe much? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Invading North Korea didn't go so well.

Grenada!!!! That Reagan guy sure knew how to pick places to over run

 

Kicked Grenada's ass!

 

 

Oh, I'm so impressed!

 

 

You can think of another war USG won since WW2 when they handed Poland over to the Soviets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

Lincoln?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

Take it up with gropenfuhrer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has to confuse the GOFUCK infested PA posters. Gropenfuhrer has called some R decisions "worst in history."

How can He Who Is Perfect criticize They Who Are Perfect???

 

Meltdown!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Invading Iraq was the worst decision in U.S. history

 

NAFTA was the worst deal in U.S. history.

 

Man, those past Republican governments sure had some big time fuck ups.

 

 

 

Partisan dupe much? :rolleyes:

 

 

Ignorant, semi-literate moron much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

Lincoln?

 

 

You get stupider with every post.

 

Should be down to gurgling in a few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has to confuse the GOFUCK infested PA posters. Gropenfuhrer has called some R decisions "worst in history."

How can He Who Is Perfect criticize They Who Are Perfect???

 

Meltdown!!!!!

 

Those weren't R decisions, they were D decisions.

 

Don't you know anything?

 

Liberal dupe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

I think that was the decision in the south after importing slaves was outlawed in the early 19th century and it was the Confederate States of America to start the Civil War.

 

Firstly, slaves were brought to the colonies beginning in 1619, There was no United states. In fact, they were if I'm not mistaken, were imported by a Dutch ship.

 

 

Sandy, you do recall there was also slavery in the Northern Colonies as well? Which continued well after we declared ourselves a "United States".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it was a very bad decision, but I don't know if I would call it the worst. There were some pretty bad decisions surrounding Vietnam.

 

But there was at least some kind of rationale behind that, namely the Domino Theory. It was part of something bigger (not necessarily better) that had some kind of strategy. Iraq was a sham based on cooked up intelligence, to redistribute borrowed money to a favored group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

 

 

You should study the Middle Passage. It was a 3 way trade deal and Americans didn't go to Africa, capture foreign people, etc. More than 1/2 of the slaves went to South America or the Caribbean. Still a disgrace for humanity but it wasn't a purely "American thing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

 

 

That wasn't government policy, that was unfettered free market capitalism at its finest.

 

Uncle Milty would have been proud of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think history will record that the worst decision made by America wasn't slavery or to invade Iraq. It was to vote for a morally and many times financially bankrupt, bullying, women hating reality TV show host with ridiculous hair and tiny hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will almost certainly have the biggest repercussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

 

 

You should study the Middle Passage. It was a 3 way trade deal and Americans didn't go to Africa, capture foreign people, etc. More than 1/2 of the slaves went to South America or the Caribbean. Still a disgrace for humanity but it wasn't a purely "American thing."

 

 

They didn't have much choice. Right from the get-go, Chris Columbus discovered the natives made terrible slaves because they died like flies within a few months of exposure to Euro microbes. The tales of colonies flat disappearing quickly got around and you couldn't get white slaves in any meaningful numbers...not even as temporarily enslaved indentured servants...not that they did much better than the natives when exposed to warm climate microbes. Heat tolerance, tropical disease tolerance...the ability to run the football and jump higher than a NYC phone book all in one package? Only one place to go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

 

 

 

The government allowed slavery stateside within our borders and jurisdiction. I don't remember our government making trips to Africa. I thought that was private sector scumbags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

Uh dude, the American Civil war killed between 640-700,000 people. Total. The social effects are still being felt but the Civil War was't as brutal as people think compared to many other conflicts across the world. The problem is, Americans don't have much experience with total war on its own land, so 700,00 deaths sounds horrible to them. Compared to 21-25 million military deaths and 30 million civilian deaths in all of WWII, 700,000 doesn't sound so bad. Oh yeah, there were also 19-28 million additional civilian deaths in WWII due to disease and famine directly related to the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think history will record that the worst decision made by America wasn't slavery or to invade Iraq. It was to vote for a morally and many times financially bankrupt, bullying, women hating reality TV show host with ridiculous hair and tiny hands.

 

 

Yeah, but it's early yet. Let it play out.

 

 

Hey look, Capitalism!

P0009_image0004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness...we must bear in mind that they were fully aware of the risk...they viewed their slaves naked...but in fact there were very very very few white women on this continent for about a century and they didn't plan to hang around. Most of those guys just planned to make the big bucks here and move back to spend them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invading North Korea didn't go so well.

Grenada!!!! That Reagan guy sure knew how to pick places to over run

 

Look for Gropenfuhrer to invade the Victoria's Secret Annual show dressing room

Gouv, North Korea invaded South Korea first in 1950 and pushed the small US force, Task Force Smith, almost off of the peninsula but they held their ground at Pusan. The war was fought by the US and United Nations forces which had pledged to support South Korea. MacArthur staged the bold amphibious landing in Inchon and the US/UN forces quickly kicked the North Korean's asses all the way to the Chinese border on the Yalu river. China didn't much liked that and had warned the US not to get near the Yalu. A few hundred thousand Chinese forces were hiding on the Korean side of the Yalu and proceeded to kick the US/UN forces back down the peninsula, the famous battle on the Chosin reservoir was part of that action. Then the fighting seesawed back and forth across the 38th parallel, the demarcation line. Seoul, not far from the line changed hands 4 times. Finally a stalemate occurred with neither side gaining an edge and an armistice was signed in 1953. The armistice is still in effect, a peace treaty was never ratified. South Korea has largely prospered as a democratic country although the South Korean did control the country for a few years. North Kore of course has suffered under the totalitarian Kim family, All in all, as far as failed wars go, the outcome in Korea wasn't too terrible.

 

I went on a tour of the DMZ in 1997 and got to stand in the building where the armistice was signed. You can cross the 38th parallel there which equally bisects the building, and actually stand in North Korea. That was pretty cool. I worked and lived very close to the spot where TF Smith had its first engagement with the North Korean forces. I also met COL Lewis Millet who was a captain in the US Army, and shook his hand on the actual site of the battle where he was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading the his infantry company which had run out of ammunition, in the last organized bayonet charge in US Army history and repelled the attack of a superior North Korean force thereby keeping the hilltop in US hands. That was extremely cool, not too many people have a chance to meet a Medal of Honor awardee on the very site where the action occurred. That night on the same day, I saw COL Millet, who was in his early 70s at the time, in one of the many bars outside of an American military base in the area, enjoying the local night life. COL Millet was an Army Ranger and a Veteran of WWII, Korean and the Viet Nam wars. One tough guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv, North Korea invaded South Korea first in 1950 and pushed the small US force, Task Force Smith, almost off of the peninsula but they held their ground at Pusan. The war was fought by the US and United Nations forces which had pledged to support South Korea.

Yes, the nasty little dictatorship we had installed in the south was eventually re-imposed. At huge cost to the regular Koreans who viewed the northern government as the legitimate one.

 

Yet another time when staying the fuck out would have been a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article reveals Trumps ignorance of events in Europe. Angela Merkel has been a firm guiding hand in the most powerful country in Europe, her moderating influence and rational decisions have played a very important role in the relative stability of Europe during difficult times. By decrying Germany's decision to allow 1 million "illegals" into Germany, Trump is just projecting his nationalist views of the American immigration issues. The influx of refugees in Germany hasn't had such a terrible impact, they are being absorbed and integrated into German society. Germany has had a history of taking in immigrants since the end of WWII, in response to the abhorrent actions of the Nazi regime and the need to replenish a decimated manpower pool after the war. Many Turkish immigrants as well as others have been assimilated in Germany long before the EU time with few ill effects and contribute to a positively vibrant multicultural environment as well as a strong economy. Most Europeans have no problems being part of the EU, free trade flourishes, easy cross border travel and the ability to freely work in other EU countries are some of the very positive aspects of the EU. Having a common currency also facilitates easier business transactions and the German economy has absorbed the economic burden of being the economic engine for the euro, taking up the slack from countries such as Spain and Greece. There isn't any loss of national identity as a result of the EU, the individual countries are for the most part as unique as they ever were in this increasingly multicultural world. Recent genetic studies have proven that almost every natural born citizen in European countries share the blood of most of the other European citizens. National identity is a human construct not a biological entity. Particularly in the border areas it is difficult to identify a German from a Dutch person, A Pole from a Ukrainian, An Italian from a Slovenian, etc. The national borders of most European countries have been in flux ever since the first humans have appeared there and modern day Germany and Italy didn't even appear in their present form until the late 19th century. Even then, after both World Wars some of the boundaries changed in both of those and other European countries, significantly in the case of Germany, and particularly in Eastern Europe, both post both World Wars and post Cold War. Poland didn't exist for 125 years and didn't come back into being until the end of WWI. Any loss of national identity is mainly due to the easy access for world travelers and the worldwide spread of multi national companies. I don't see the EU disappearing anytime soon, there are too many benefits that have been gained, especially for the weaker members. The EU is a logical structure in the same way that the United States is a collection of very different cultures and people united in a common cause. Immigration is not only inevitable but a necessary function to keep a country from becoming stagnant and rigid.

Well said Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst? No.

 

There most likely would have never even been a dictator-driven Iraq to invade if not for Operation Ajax, and possibly not even the rise of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

And there probably wouldn't have been an Operation Ajax if not for the appointment of the Dulles Brothers.

 

So, I'll vote the appointment of the Dulles Brothers as the worst decision in US history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

Lincoln?

You'd better use a question mark mentioning Lincoln here because you're knowledge of history isn't very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Lincoln also carry on war against the Indians?

"All have sinned, and fallen short.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iraqi people were ready for us to take Saddam out. It's too bad Bush 1 did not have the balls to do in Desert Storm 90/91. That would have saved many many lives.

 

The bad decision was to disband the Military and all the Police Forces.

Cheney and Rumsfeld made this decision (Bush 2 was not smart enough to think of it) so a complete and total state of chaos existed.
This was an invitation for all the terrorists to come to Iraq. Then we could fight them in one place....over there.

Cheney and Rumsfeld should be on trial for war crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iraqi people were ready for us to take Saddam out. It's too bad Bush 1 did not have the balls to do in Desert Storm 90/91. That would have saved many many lives.

 

The bad decision was to disband the Military and all the Police Forces.

Cheney and Rumsfeld made this decision (Bush 2 was not smart enough to think of it) so a complete and total state of chaos existed.

This was an invitation for all the terrorists to come to Iraq. Then we could fight them in one place....over there.

Cheney and Rumsfeld should be on trial for war crimes.

 

Bush 1 ran his war at a profit since so many nations contributed. The consequence is we had to listen to their concerns and wisdom. Bush 2 will be paying interest on his loss for a century. He didn't listen to the wisdom of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst? No.

 

There most likely would have never even been a dictator-driven Iraq to invade if not for Operation Ajax, and possibly not even the rise of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

And there probably wouldn't have been an Operation Ajax if not for the appointment of the Dulles Brothers.

 

So, I'll vote the appointment of the Dulles Brothers as the worst decision in US history.

 

They certainly are on the short list if nothing else.

 

Appointing McNamara as SOD ranks right up there as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iraqi people were ready for us to take Saddam out. It's too bad Bush 1 did not have the balls to do in Desert Storm 90/91. That would have saved many many lives.

 

The bad decision was to disband the Military and all the Police Forces.

Cheney and Rumsfeld made this decision (Bush 2 was not smart enough to think of it) so a complete and total state of chaos existed.

This was an invitation for all the terrorists to come to Iraq. Then we could fight them in one place....over there.

 

Cheney and Rumsfeld should be on trial for war crimes.

 

Re: the highlight, your knowledge of history is lacking.

 

Read up on the reasons for stopping when they did. GHW really didn't have a choice in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gouv, North Korea invaded South Korea first in 1950 and pushed the small US force, Task Force Smith, almost off of the peninsula but they held their ground at Pusan. The war was fought by the US and United Nations forces which had pledged to support South Korea.

Yes, the nasty little dictatorship we had installed in the south was eventually re-imposed. At huge cost to the regular Koreans who viewed the northern government as the legitimate one.

 

Yet another time when staying the fuck out would have been a good idea.

 

Um yeah, the North Korean government is real legitimate and they are doing so well there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst? No.

 

There most likely would have never even been a dictator-driven Iraq to invade if not for Operation Ajax, and possibly not even the rise of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

And there probably wouldn't have been an Operation Ajax if not for the appointment of the Dulles Brothers.

 

So, I'll vote the appointment of the Dulles Brothers as the worst decision in US history.

 

The upside of that was the critical role Iran played during the oil embargo of the 70's. We had blocks long lines for gas and if it wasn't for Iranian oil they would have been much longer.

 

If we wish to play counterfactual history we must consider what the ultimate result of a truly desperate and pissed off US can be...and what the USSR might have done in response. It was in their most powerful phase, and they were no joke. Check out the situation in the Med during the Yom Kipper war...the Soviets had several hundred warships ready to go and we had about 75, according to Admiral Zumwalt. It was nip and tuck and Nixon was deep in his bottle in Florida due to Watergate and Henry Kissinger was running the country.

 

It is not impossible that if it wasn't for the government we put in Iran we would be conducting this conversation in smoke signals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gouv, North Korea invaded South Korea first in 1950 and pushed the small US force, Task Force Smith, almost off of the peninsula but they held their ground at Pusan. The war was fought by the US and United Nations forces which had pledged to support South Korea.

Yes, the nasty little dictatorship we had installed in the south was eventually re-imposed. At huge cost to the regular Koreans who viewed the northern government as the legitimate one.

 

Yet another time when staying the fuck out would have been a good idea.

 

Um yeah, the North Korean government is real legitimate and they are doing so well there.

 

Well, it's the people on teh ground who determine that. And the people on the ground did not resist the invasion. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Gouv, North Korea invaded South Korea first in 1950 and pushed the small US force, Task Force Smith, almost off of the peninsula but they held their ground at Pusan. The war was fought by the US and United Nations forces which had pledged to support South Korea.

Yes, the nasty little dictatorship we had installed in the south was eventually re-imposed. At huge cost to the regular Koreans who viewed the northern government as the legitimate one.

 

Yet another time when staying the fuck out would have been a good idea.

 

Um yeah, the North Korean government is real legitimate and they are doing so well there.

 

 

You can always count on cheese and randumb for a dose of revisionist history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Worst? No.

 

There most likely would have never even been a dictator-driven Iraq to invade if not for Operation Ajax, and possibly not even the rise of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

And there probably wouldn't have been an Operation Ajax if not for the appointment of the Dulles Brothers.

 

So, I'll vote the appointment of the Dulles Brothers as the worst decision in US history.

The upside of that was the critical role Iran played during the oil embargo of the 70's. We had blocks long lines for gas and if it wasn't for Iranian oil they would have been much longer.

 

If we wish to play counterfactual history we must consider what the ultimate result of a truly desperate and pissed off US can be...and what the USSR might have done in response. It was in their most powerful phase, and they were no joke. Check out the situation in the Med during the Yom Kipper war...the Soviets had several hundred warships ready to go and we had about 75, according to Admiral Zumwalt. It was nip and tuck and Nixon was deep in his bottle in Florida due to Watergate and Henry Kissinger was running the country.

 

It is not impossible that if it wasn't for the government we put in Iran we would be conducting this conversation in smoke signals.

Woah. Deep. But ...

 

Why would a democratically-elected Mosadeq-lineage government not sell us oil? They hated the Brits, but they liked us just fine, and they were no friend of the Arab States in OPEC, it seems unlikely they would have joined the embargo. Like Turkey, secular states seem to have been fine with Israel.

 

And as long as we're going there, with two massive secular, democratic economies in the Middle East, would Syria and/or Egypt have been forced into free elections to compete, negating much of the need for the Yom Kippur War in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always count on cheese and randumb for a dose of revisionist history.

People who publicly promote conspiracy theories about Iraqi WMD getting shipped to Syria have already surrendered all their credibility in discussions of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

That wasn't government policy, that was unfettered free market capitalism at its finest.

 

Uncle Milty would have been proud of it.

Free Markets, Free Peop.... Uh.... Never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

That wasn't government policy, that was unfettered free market capitalism at its finest.

 

Uncle Milty would have been proud of it.

Free Markets, Free Peop.... Uh.... Never mind.

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can always count on cheese and randumb for a dose of revisionist history.

People who publicly promote conspiracy theories about Iraqi WMD getting shipped to Syria have already surrendered all their credibility in discussions of history.

 

 

From everything I've ever read on the topic, there WERE WMDs in Iraq and some WERE shipped to Syria (that were later destroyed). The problem with any discussion though is definition and intent. There were containers of chemicals in Iraq. Is THAT a WMD? There were warheads. Is THAT? There were rockets. What about those? Most of the components were still in their original crates, often in separate locations, including some sent by US subsidiaries. Many components were in bad shape - some were leaking - which actually exposed US servicemen to danger. Rust, sand, and corrosion had taken it's toll. None of the WMDs were 'launch ready' and it was clear that a significant fraction - maybe even most - would NEVER be launch ready. Hussein himself propagated the myth of WMDs to cow his opponents. But EVERY strongman does that so even in that regard he wasn't interesting. Hussein was not an imminent threat and had little to do with 9/11. The Bush administration essentially took the harshest interpretation of every intelligence report and compiled a 'dead red' threat assessment where frankly, it wasn't clear there was much, if any, imminent threat.

 

I don't know if this constitutes publicly promoting a conspiracy theory and, if I have therefore lost any credibility I might have had, but that's my personal assessment. I believe that Dick Cheney and the other Neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to establish a permanent military presence within quick strike range of anything in the Middle East and used the 'fog of intelligence reporting' to support a black-and-white view of the world and marched forward accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Seriously though, back the question about whether the Iraq invasion in 2003 (as opposed the one in 1991) is the worst decision EVER in US history..... I wouldn't even necessarily put in in the top 5. It regrettably lead to the death of US 4000 servicemen and we have the rise of ISIS. But the reality is even ISIS is not the existential threat to the US as many try to make it out to be.

 

Presumably, the criteria for judging it the "Worst decision in US History" is the cost to the US as a nation in terms of human life, financial loss, territorial loss, loss of power and/or prestige in the world and potential long term harm to the nation as a result of the decision.

 

And are we talking Foreign Policy decisions only or domestic decisions as well? The OP is mute on that even though the example was a FP one. But the thread title doesn't say "Worst US foreign policy decision".

So here is my list of worst US decisions well above the Iraq invasion (not necessarily in any order):

 

  • Slavery and Segregation. While Slavery was not a US gov't action to go bring slaves over, they absolutely condoned it by allowing its practice for almost 100 years. It should have been abolished at the writing of the constitution. Think what a different nation we would be without the introduction of slavery into the colonies. Segregation is self-explanatory.
  • War on Drugs: That is both a domestic and a FP nightmare and its on-going. The economic, social, and human costs have been devastating.
  • US entry into WWI: That was not our fight and Wilson lied, cheated and stole his way into that conflict. In addition to the 54K US servicemen who died in combat in 1.5 years, We got the 1918 flu pandemic that was brought over from Europe that killed 600K+ people in the US. But worst of all - WWI and the fucked up armistice led to the rise of the Nazis and tens of millions of deaths in WWII.
  • Vietnam: We were brought into Vietnam under as many lies and false pretenses to get us into a war as most accuse Bush of doing to invade Iraq.
  • The 17th Amendment
  • Obama's statement that "Assad must go"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I believe that Dick Cheney and the other Neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to establish a permanent military presence within quick strike range of anything in the Middle East and used the 'fog of intelligence reporting' to support a black-and-white view of the world and marched forward accordingly.

 

 

I agree with that assessment. I also think they looked at Iraq as an opportunity to sow the seeds of what later became the arab spring. I think the neocons knew they could not defeat radical islamism through bombs & bullets alone, and thought if only they could give the people something different - like a jeffersonian democracy - all would be well. Of course with 20/20 hindsight it looks ridiculous now. But at the time, there were some very smart people grasping at straws as to how to deal with this rise in ME islamic fundamentalism and on the surface it seemed like a good idea.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that Dick Cheney and the other Neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to establish a permanent military presence within quick strike range of anything in the Middle East and used the 'fog of intelligence reporting' to support a black-and-white view of the world and marched forward accordingly.

 

 

I agree with that assessment. I also think they looked at Iraq as an opportunity to sow the seeds of what later became the arab spring. I think the neocons knew they could not defeat radical islamism through bombs & bullets alone, and thought if only they could give the people something different - like a jeffersonian democracy - all would be well. Of course with 20/20 hindsight it looks ridiculous now. But at the time, there were some very smart people grasping at straws as to how to deal with this rise in ME islamic fundamentalism and on the surface it seemed like a good idea.

 

 

 

Welcome to reality boys. I called this back when you knob gobblers were banging the war drum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

I believe that Dick Cheney and the other Neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to establish a permanent military presence within quick strike range of anything in the Middle East and used the 'fog of intelligence reporting' to support a black-and-white view of the world and marched forward accordingly.

 

 

I agree with that assessment. I also think they looked at Iraq as an opportunity to sow the seeds of what later became the arab spring. I think the neocons knew they could not defeat radical islamism through bombs & bullets alone, and thought if only they could give the people something different - like a jeffersonian democracy - all would be well. Of course with 20/20 hindsight it looks ridiculous now. But at the time, there were some very smart people grasping at straws as to how to deal with this rise in ME islamic fundamentalism and on the surface it seemed like a good idea.

 

 

 

Welcome to reality boys. I called this back when you knob gobblers were banging the war drum.

 

 

And thing was, it might have actually worked too if Bremer hadn't fucked it up by the numbers and disbanded the Iraqi army and the Baath party and sent a couple of hundred thousand heavily armed, very pissed off people with no paycheck out into the wilderness. Yeah, that was a brilliant move, Paul you dickhead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

 

Seriously though, back the question about whether the Iraq invasion in 2003 (as opposed the one in 1991) is the worst decision EVER in US history..... I wouldn't even necessarily put in in the top 5. It regrettably lead to the death of US 4000 servicemen and we have the rise of ISIS. But the reality is even ISIS is not the existential threat to the US as many try to make it out to be.

 

Presumably, the criteria for judging it the "Worst decision in US History" is the cost to the US as a nation in terms of human life, financial loss, territorial loss, loss of power and/or prestige in the world and potential long term harm to the nation as a result of the decision.

 

And are we talking Foreign Policy decisions only or domestic decisions as well? The OP is mute on that even though the example was a FP one. But the thread title doesn't say "Worst US foreign policy decision".

So here is my list of worst US decisions well above the Iraq invasion (not necessarily in any order):

 

  • Slavery and Segregation. While Slavery was not a US gov't action to go bring slaves over, they absolutely condoned it by allowing its practice for almost 100 years. It should have been abolished at the writing of the constitution. Think what a different nation we would be without the introduction of slavery into the colonies. Segregation is self-explanatory.
  • War on Drugs: That is both a domestic and a FP nightmare and its on-going. The economic, social, and human costs have been devastating.
  • US entry into WWI: That was not our fight and Wilson lied, cheated and stole his way into that conflict. In addition to the 54K US servicemen who died in combat in 1.5 years, We got the 1918 flu pandemic that was brought over from Europe that killed 600K+ people in the US. But worst of all - WWI and the fucked up armistice led to the rise of the Nazis and tens of millions of deaths in WWII.
  • Vietnam: We were brought into Vietnam under as many lies and false pretenses to get us into a war as most accuse Bush of doing to invade Iraq.
  • The 17th Amendment
  • Obama's statement that "Assad must go"

You might not, but Twitler did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about:

 

Bill Clinton convincing Trump to run for president.

That would be #1 with a bullet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I believe that Dick Cheney and the other Neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to establish a permanent military presence within quick strike range of anything in the Middle East and used the 'fog of intelligence reporting' to support a black-and-white view of the world and marched forward accordingly.

 

 

I agree with that assessment. I also think they looked at Iraq as an opportunity to sow the seeds of what later became the arab spring. I think the neocons knew they could not defeat radical islamism through bombs & bullets alone, and thought if only they could give the people something different - like a jeffersonian democracy - all would be well. Of course with 20/20 hindsight it looks ridiculous now. But at the time, there were some very smart people grasping at straws as to how to deal with this rise in ME islamic fundamentalism and on the surface it seemed like a good idea.

 

 

 

Welcome to reality boys. I called this back when you knob gobblers were banging the war drum.

 

 

And thing was, it might have actually worked too if Bremer hadn't fucked it up by the numbers and disbanded the Iraqi army and the Baath party and sent a couple of hundred thousand heavily armed, very pissed off people with no paycheck out into the wilderness. Yeah, that was a brilliant move, Paul you dickhead!

 

No it still would not have worked - the smart guys state we would have needed 10xs the number of boots on the ground to keep Iraq from blowing itself up. Not dismantling the government and the military would have helped and could well have mitigated some of the disaster still not enough. The comparisons by some to our occupation of Japan, Germany or S. Korea aren't valid as those were homogeneous peoples not a fractured state artificially combining 3 major groups that didn't like each other.

 

Unlike most of the others the Iraq Invasion was a single decision by a small group of people - they broke it, unfortunately we all own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No it still would not have worked - the smart guys state we would have needed 10xs the number of boots on the ground to keep Iraq from blowing itself up. Not dismantling the government and the military would have helped and could well have mitigated some of the disaster still not enough. The comparisons by some to our occupation of Japan, Germany or S. Korea aren't valid as those were homogeneous peoples not a fractured state artificially combining 3 major groups that didn't like each other.

 

Unlike most of the others the Iraq Invasion was a single decision by a small group of people - they broke it, unfortunately we all own it.

There are countries with disparate ethic groups that manage to get along. A key mistake with Iraq was letting Cheney skirt the ethics issues of running money through Halliburton.

 

When it came time to rebuild that country, there was no good reason to run that money through US contractors. Iraqis built their cell phone networks, grid, roads and airports, they could have fixed them. Our tax dollars were essentially laundered through Cheney's program.

 

George Marshall was undoubtedly rolling over in his grave over that. Rather than help them rebuild their economy so that those three ethnic groups were making money, playing X-Box, and tuning Japanese hot rods with their paychecks, they were largely sitting on ass blaming each other.

 

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop. And Cheney's greed idled a lot of hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

 

I already beat you to that in post #58. But you are correct about the divvying up of the Ottoman empire. good call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

I already beat you to that in post #58. But you are correct about the divvying up of the Ottoman empire. good call.

Damn, did not see yours. But, yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

 

You can essentially blame that on the French as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those examples seem to be part of something bigger. Iraq was a stand alone fuckup of monumental proportion. It was the equivalent of walking to the neighbor's house down the street, breaking the door down, saying "I'm here to really help you clean the place up!" and proceeding to drop trou, squat down, and pinch off a steamer in the center of his living room. He just kinda sits there stunned, the flies start going crazy, his wife starts screaming, the kids want to play in the shit, and you just ease out the door to leave it all behind. The next thing you know, the whole neighborhood is screwed up, with bad actors pinching loaves on each others' floors up and down the block.

 

Iraq was a stand-alone pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

 

You can essentially blame that on the French as well.

 

 

 

I spent some time in college walking through that process. Basically, pre-WWI countries would get reparations from those they beat - to feather the checkbooks. But war, while awful, spared civilian infrastructure to a large part. So the costs were relatively small. Sunken ships, dead folks, etc. Mechanized war changed that up by creating massive amounts of collateral damage - so the French - using the old model - said "Pay for my costs"

 

It couldn't be done. So yes, the French were short-sighted. But it was consistent with former practices. Basically, because the seeds were sown due to the treaty, WWII was just an the second act of WWI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

 

You can essentially blame that on the French as well.

 

 

 

I spent some time in college walking through that process. Basically, pre-WWI countries would get reparations from those they beat - to feather the checkbooks. But war, while awful, spared civilian infrastructure to a large part. So the costs were relatively small. Sunken ships, dead folks, etc. Mechanized war changed that up by creating massive amounts of collateral damage - so the French - using the old model - said "Pay for my costs"

 

It couldn't be done. So yes, the French were short-sighted. But it was consistent with former practices. Basically, because the seeds were sown due to the treaty, WWII was just an the second act of WWI.

 

Totally agree. With the haze (or maybe clarity) of time I would not be surprised if World War 1 and 2 end up being studied as a single war with a little break in the middle. Similar to the Hundred Years War. At the time nobody thought of it as such but years later 6 or 7 different wars were realized to be all be intertwined pieces of a larger conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

 

You can essentially blame that on the French as well.

 

 

 

I spent some time in college walking through that process. Basically, pre-WWI countries would get reparations from those they beat - to feather the checkbooks. But war, while awful, spared civilian infrastructure to a large part. So the costs were relatively small. Sunken ships, dead folks, etc. Mechanized war changed that up by creating massive amounts of collateral damage - so the French - using the old model - said "Pay for my costs"

 

It couldn't be done. So yes, the French were short-sighted. But it was consistent with former practices. Basically, because the seeds were sown due to the treaty, WWII was just an the second act of WWI.

 

Totally agree. With the haze (or maybe clarity) of time I would not be surprised if World War 1 and 2 end up being studied as a single war with a little break in the middle. Similar to the Hundred Years War. At the time nobody thought of it as such but years later 6 or 7 different wars were realized to be all be intertwined pieces of a larger conflict.

 

 

that's how they treated it in my history class - way back in the early 80s....

 

So academically, it's likely already thought of that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that Dick Cheney and the other Neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to establish a permanent military presence within quick strike range of anything in the Middle East and used the 'fog of intelligence reporting' to support a black-and-white view of the world and marched forward accordingly.

 

 

I agree with that assessment. I also think they looked at Iraq as an opportunity to sow the seeds of what later became the arab spring. I think the neocons knew they could not defeat radical islamism through bombs & bullets alone, and thought if only they could give the people something different - like a jeffersonian democracy - all would be well. Of course with 20/20 hindsight it looks ridiculous now. But at the time, there were some very smart people grasping at straws as to how to deal with this rise in ME islamic fundamentalism and on the surface it seemed like a good idea.

 

 

 

 

Yeah...that is plausible and maybe even accurate...but the shallow the "surface" enough and damn near everything can appear to be a good idea. The people who had spent lifetimes studying the region were deliberately gotten rid of or ignored to shallow it to the level needed, and Cheney pressured the IC to put credence on a lot of curve balls. Hell..even the study of history has been shallowed to the degree where people are utterly convinced even now that democracies are inherently less violent than other forms of government...and that is a delusion which remains widely shared even now.

 

I personally believe it was ultimately due to a desire to make the ME safer for Israel. It was championed initially and strongly supported all the way through by Bibi and the Isreali firsters. Want to see the tape of Bibi saying that there is one thing he is sure of...that as you invade more and more countries the easier it gets....to the Senate FR committee again?

 

The Likud believes that of the rest of the region is reduced to nomads again they will be safe. This is probably also a delusion but one which appears we may see played out. Iran only became the biggest danger to world peace when Iraq had been destroyed in their PR stuff. Bear in mind the days when Iraq was the "biggest danger" and the Izzies had a lot of friends in Iran...which is why North had to run the arms sales to that nation through Israel. Also bear in mind their ability to maintain as unquestioned truth that Iran is the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism right through the days of DAESH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You can always count on cheese and randumb for a dose of revisionist history.

People who publicly promote conspiracy theories about Iraqi WMD getting shipped to Syria have already surrendered all their credibility in discussions of history.

 

From everything I've ever read on the topic, there WERE WMDs in Iraq and some WERE shipped to Syria (that were later destroyed). The problem with any discussion though is definition and intent.

 

It seems you've read the wrong stuff. I suggest you have a look at the CIA report which was eventually pried out into the open, which concluded that Iraq destroyed all of their WMDs in 1995.

And no, a bunch of empty shell casings which were washed out carelessly and then dumped in a field for 10 years are not WMD.

There were containers of chemicals in Iraq. Is THAT a WMD? There were warheads. Is THAT? There were rockets. What about those? Most of the components were still in their original crates, often in separate locations, including some sent by US subsidiaries. Many components were in bad shape - some were leaking - which actually exposed US servicemen to danger. Rust, sand, and corrosion had taken it's toll. None of the WMDs were 'launch ready' and it was clear that a significant fraction - maybe even most - would NEVER be launch ready.

There were some nasty toxic sites in Iraq. The UN seals were broken by US soldiers, and then they were left unguarded for looters. Top effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

 

You can essentially blame that on the French as well.

 

 

 

I spent some time in college walking through that process. Basically, pre-WWI countries would get reparations from those they beat - to feather the checkbooks. But war, while awful, spared civilian infrastructure to a large part. So the costs were relatively small. Sunken ships, dead folks, etc. Mechanized war changed that up by creating massive amounts of collateral damage - so the French - using the old model - said "Pay for my costs"

 

It couldn't be done. So yes, the French were short-sighted. But it was consistent with former practices. Basically, because the seeds were sown due to the treaty, WWII was just an the second act of WWI.

 

Totally agree. With the haze (or maybe clarity) of time I would not be surprised if World War 1 and 2 end up being studied as a single war with a little break in the middle. Similar to the Hundred Years War. At the time nobody thought of it as such but years later 6 or 7 different wars were realized to be all be intertwined pieces of a larger conflict.

 

 

that's how they treated it in my history class - way back in the early 80s....

 

So academically, it's likely already thought of that way.

 

I am 2slow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those examples seem to be part of something bigger. Iraq was a stand alone fuckup of monumental proportion. It was the equivalent of walking to the neighbor's house down the street, breaking the door down, saying "I'm here to really help you clean the place up!" and proceeding to drop trou, squat down, and pinch off a steamer in the center of his living room. He just kinda sits there stunned, the flies start going crazy, his wife starts screaming, the kids want to play in the shit, and you just ease out the door to leave it all behind. The next thing you know, the whole neighborhood is screwed up, with bad actors pinching loaves on each others' floors up and down the block.

 

Iraq was a stand-alone pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some regular posters in this forum who left to search the Syrian desert and/or translate the million pages of Saddams documents. They have yet to reappear. But don't despair, keep the faith they could still surface and give us the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI, no one from the USA was capturing anyone in Africa. The slaves were captured by other local tribes and sold ;)

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some regular posters in this forum who left to search the Syrian desert and/or translate the million pages of Saddams documents. They have yet to reappear. But don't despair, keep the faith they could still surface and give us the truth.

 

I look forward to some more Good News From Michael Yon. I miss his dispatches that Dog brought us. It's going to be nice to get good news from Dog for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least with "Remember the Maine" we got a handful of third world shit holes and the Philippines. With Gulf War 2 we got an on-going bag of dicks to suck. Hard to picture anything more ridiculous than our carving Iran's new BFF out of their greatest foe and then declaring war on Iran, but that is indeed what is desired by many even now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just FYI, no one from the USA was capturing anyone in Africa. The slaves were captured by other local tribes and sold ;)

 

 

 

What is there to twist? It was, in my estimation, the worst decision ever in foreign policy.

 

Even worse than the decision to go capture, transport and enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans that resulted in a civil war that killed Millions of Americans in the 1800s and still present major social issues to this day?

 

 

 

I would put that under domestic policy. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Seems like it might fall under FP when you go to a foreign land, capture foreign people, and transport those captive slaves across an ocean to a land foreign to them. Just sayin.....

 

 

 

Actually Arabs were big time slave catchers - they loaded the boats.

 

For that reason I've always found it ironic when black people convert to Islam as a rejection of their Christian oppressors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Treaty of Versailles could rank up there. If they had done a better job ending WW1 and divvying up the Ottoman Empire WW2 could have been avoided as well the subsequent Middle East wars right up to today.

 

You can essentially blame that on the French as well.

 

 

 

I spent some time in college walking through that process. Basically, pre-WWI countries would get reparations from those they beat - to feather the checkbooks. But war, while awful, spared civilian infrastructure to a large part. So the costs were relatively small. Sunken ships, dead folks, etc. Mechanized war changed that up by creating massive amounts of collateral damage - so the French - using the old model - said "Pay for my costs"

 

It couldn't be done. So yes, the French were short-sighted. But it was consistent with former practices. Basically, because the seeds were sown due to the treaty, WWII was just an the second act of WWI.

 

Totally agree. With the haze (or maybe clarity) of time I would not be surprised if World War 1 and 2 end up being studied as a single war with a little break in the middle. Similar to the Hundred Years War. At the time nobody thought of it as such but years later 6 or 7 different wars were realized to be all be intertwined pieces of a larger conflict.

 

 

that's how they treated it in my history class - way back in the early 80s....

 

So academically, it's likely already thought of that way.

 

Europe was pretty much constantly at war until May, 1945 for most of its history. One sometimes slips into idealism and thinks they have finally gotten over that but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can always count on cheese and randumb for a dose of revisionist history.

People who publicly promote conspiracy theories about Iraqi WMD getting shipped to Syria have already surrendered all their credibility in discussions of history.

 

From everything I've ever read on the topic, there WERE WMDs in Iraq and some WERE shipped to Syria (that were later destroyed). The problem with any discussion though is definition and intent.

 

It seems you've read the wrong stuff. I suggest you have a look at the CIA report which was eventually pried out into the open, which concluded that Iraq destroyed all of their WMDs in 1995.

And no, a bunch of empty shell casings which were washed out carelessly and then dumped in a field for 10 years are not WMD.

There were containers of chemicals in Iraq. Is THAT a WMD? There were warheads. Is THAT? There were rockets. What about those? Most of the components were still in their original crates, often in separate locations, including some sent by US subsidiaries. Many components were in bad shape - some were leaking - which actually exposed US servicemen to danger. Rust, sand, and corrosion had taken it's toll. None of the WMDs were 'launch ready' and it was clear that a significant fraction - maybe even most - would NEVER be launch ready.

There were some nasty toxic sites in Iraq. The UN seals were broken by US soldiers, and then they were left unguarded for looters. Top effort.

 

Our head ammo QA guy went down to Iraq after the shooting stopped to help oversee the disposition of the vast stockpiles Saddam had of conventional munitions. 105 mm, 155 mm etc., much of it supplied by the US when Saddam was fighting Iran. At one of the largest storage sites, several kilometers on a side, he observed Iraqi looters going in and out with trucks on a regular basis. He called all over trying to get the place secured. He was told there just weren't enough soldiers available to pull security, they had higher priorities. Those shells, among others, were the basis for IEDs that killed American soldiers for years after the war was over. There's some irony for you. American shells killing American soldiers because Rumsfeld et al knew better than the military folks. There are stories from that war that will never be told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There were some nasty toxic sites in Iraq. The UN seals were broken by US soldiers, and then they were left unguarded for looters. Top effort.

 

Our head ammo QA guy went down to Iraq after the shooting stopped to help oversee the disposition of the vast stockpiles Saddam had of conventional munitions. 105 mm, 155 mm etc., much of it supplied by the US when Saddam was fighting Iran. At one of the largest storage sites, several kilometers on a side, he observed Iraqi looters going in and out with trucks on a regular basis. He called all over trying to get the place secured. He was told there just weren't enough soldiers available to pull security, they had higher priorities. Those shells, among others, were the basis for IEDs that killed American soldiers for years after the war was over. There's some irony for you. American shells killing American soldiers because Rumsfeld et al knew better than the military folks. There are stories from that war that will never be told.

 

 

To me, the astronomical miscalculation of what Iraq 'after Sadaam' would be is a generationally defining error in judgment. I'm not sure it was 'worst ever' but it's pretty awful. At the time, I had thought Rumsfeld a decent Secretary of Defense but in retrospect, he was was as much a relic of the cold war as the statues of Stalin. He was absolutely the wrong guy at the wrong time, a facilitator for Cheney's totally wacked out vision of power and how to wield it. The lessons Cheney and Rumsfeld took from Nixon were 180 degrees wrong.

 

The US had an absolutely naive and amateurish understanding of Iraq DURING Sadaam's rule and were tragically unprepared for life after his removal from power. Ironically, I think we STILL could have salvaged things but it would have required going back to the American people and effectively RE-invading, deposing the government WE installed and starting over, this time as a true "country builder". Instead, the Arab Spring happened. In another time, that event might have been spectacular! But coming at the end of 7 years of occupation, I think Obama was looking for ANY silver lining and used its as an excuse to disengage, fulfill his campaign promises, shift to Afghanistan, whatever, all the while hoping that democratic forces could, and would step up. Unfortunately, Iraq was weak and fragmented, ripe for occupation by strongmen - ANY strongmen - that could provide stability. And here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites