ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

[Grand Vol]

You said the military (DOD) is not suited for nation building.

They are not. We have a military of destruction, not one of rebuilding no matter what is said.

But on the same token, the State Department doesn't exactly "nation build" that well either. So what TRUT says is true.

 

[KentheOrange]

Does anyone here read anything but the US media? I haven't seen any reference in any US media to the recent elections in Iraq and that the newly elected people took office over the weekend and that parliament is now in the process of forming the new government.

I suppose no one notices how strange it is that Parliament didn't declare a state of emergency which would have made Maliki a dictator for the duration of the emergency.

I believe you will see a miraculous recovery from the reported violence in the next week or two.

 

[FLVOL_79]

They certainly were. The major mistake made by the WH was handing over a great deal of strategic control to the State Department, however, and to giving in to the De-Baathification requests from prominent Shia individuals that made promises that they could govern the country and keep it in line. Bremer was ultimately afraid of losing the support of the Shia population, which comprises the majority of the population south of Mosul. Bremer should have said 'no', left the Sunni officers in charge until all elections could be had. He didn't.

^this :good!:.

 

[Gramps]

Yes, but the obvious point is that W had nothing to do with the signage, and he never once alluded to any type of grand mission accomplishment in his speech that day.

Are you 100% certain the Bush White House had nothing to do with that sign ?

Do you think for one minute no one in the administration did not know that sign was up before landed on the ship?

If the WH did not order or agree with the sign, they could have very easily ordered it to be taken down before Bush stood in front of it and gave his speech .

Make any excuses you wish, it was George W Bush's choice to stand in front of that sign and gave his speech for the world to see. It could have easily been taken down, it was a banner.

Is there a reason that you are cutting out most of the speech?
Major combat operations had ended, and in the battle against the Iraqi military, we had prevailed. W rightly acknowledges both of those points, then goes on to say that there is a long, tough, and dangerous road ahead in Iraq, as security and stabilization operations would continue for some time.

The overwhelming majority of patrols in Iraq after that speech were not traditional combat patrols. They were not FM 7-8 type tactical operations (i.e., they were not attacks, movement to contact, ambushes, etc.) They were, by and large, police-type operations. Aside from Fallujah, the vast majority of the operations after that speech that involved combat which one could say was initiated by US forces were cordon-and-search/knock and raids aimed at specific individuals. After that speech, we were no longer dropping JDAMs all over the place in Iraq, although some were still called for and dropped due to specific, exigent circumstances.

At the end of the day, W never made any claims that the mission was accomplished in Iraq nor that our work was done or it would be easy and non-dangerous from there on out. To state otherwise is simply to get caught up in the picture and miss the point of the speech.

I quote the first few lines of his speech, I saw no need to post anymore. Bush declared major combat was over in the first few lines, in which you agreed earlier it was not.

His next line was "Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free"

Was Iraq free when he made that speech ?

Has it been free since that day?

After all these years is Iraq in better shape than it was the day Bush gave that speech?


here is a link to his entire unedited speech, enjoy.

Transcript of President George W. Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech | PIX 11

 

[Grand Vol]

Are you 100% certain the Bush White House had nothing to do with that sign ?

Do you think for one minute no one in the administration did not know that sign was up before landed on the ship?

If the WH did not order or agree with the sign, they could have very easily ordered it to be taken down before Bush stood in front of it and gave his speech .

Make any excuses you wish, it was George W Bush's choice to stand in front of that sign and gave his speech for the world to see. It could have easily been taken down, it was a banner.



I quote the first few lines of his speech, I saw no need to post anymore. Bush declared major combat was over in the first few lines, in which you agreed earlier it was not.

His next line was "Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free"

Was Iraq free when he made that speech ?

Has it been free since that day?

After all these years is Iraq in better shape than it was the day Bush gave that speech?


here is a link to his entire unedited speech, enjoy.

Transcript of President George W. Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech | PIX 11

I love seeing people take things completely out of context. Just like we were talking the other day about the "binders full of women" this speech was, has been and will continue to be taken completely out of context.

Good job Gramps. You've fallen right in lockstep with the liberal agenda.

 

[Gramps]

I love seeing people take things completely out of context. Just like we were talking the other day about the "binders full of women" this speech was, has been and will continue to be taken completely out of context.

Good job Gramps. You've fallen right in lockstep with the liberal agenda.

What specifically did I take out of context ?

 

[therealUT]

You said the military (DOD) is not suited for nation building.

It is not. But, State still used the military but, on top of that, they had about the worst strategy conceivable.

 

[Grand Vol]

What specifically did I take out of context ?

Do you really want me to explain it or are you just being dense?

 

[FLVOL69]

Do you really want me to explain it or are you just being dense?

Good to see nothing has changed.

 

[therealUT]

Are you 100% certain the Bush White House had nothing to do with that sign ?

Do you think for one minute no one in the administration did not know that sign was up before landed on the ship?

The Admin knew about the sign, but the request for the sign was made by the fleet captain to commemorate the end of their deployment, which was one of the longest in history.

If the WH did not order or agree with the sign, they could have very easily ordered it to be taken down before Bush stood in front of it and gave his speech .

I guess they just assumed, falsely, that the American people were not idiots wholly swayed by a sign and not by the actual words of the speech.

Make any excuses you wish, it was George W Bush's choice to stand in front of that sign and gave his speech for the world to see. It could have easily been taken down, it was a banner.

Yes, Naval Officers requested that he stand in front of that sign so that their families could see it. Sure, W could have refused.

I quote the first few lines of his speech, I saw no need to post anymore. Bush declared major combat was over in the first few lines, in which you agreed earlier it was not.

Major combat operations were over.

His next line was "Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free"

Was Iraq free when he made that speech ?

Relatively, yes. Is the US free? Relatively, yes.

Has it been free since that day?

Major parts of Iraq were very free and stayed relatively free from the summer of 2003 onward. Kirkuk, Basra (two major cities) were. Baghdad was at the time, but devolved due to unforeseen sectarian violence. Tikrit was never really free, as the Sunni's living in the Sunni triangle never really bought in.

After all these years is Iraq in better shape than it was the day Bush gave that speech?

Yes. Even with the brutal sectarian violence, and the fight for power between competing interests, Iraq is in a better position than it was in the summer of 2003. The Iraqi people will struggle for some time, but they are no longer living under the grip of Saddam. Which, for the Shia and Kurdish residents, was pretty ****ing awful.

here is a link to his entire unedited speech, enjoy.

Transcript of President George W. Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech | PIX 11

I've read it.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Are you 100% certain the Bush White House had nothing to do with that sign ?

Do you think for one minute no one in the administration did not know that sign was up before landed on the ship?

If the WH did not order or agree with the sign, they could have very easily ordered it to be taken down before Bush stood in front of it and gave his speech .

Make any excuses you wish, it was George W Bush's choice to stand in front of that sign and gave his speech for the world to see. It could have easily been taken down, it was a banner.



I quote the first few lines of his speech, I saw no need to post anymore. Bush declared major combat was over in the first few lines, in which you agreed earlier it was not.

His next line was "Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free"

Was Iraq free when he made that speech ?

Has it been free since that day?

After all these years is Iraq in better shape than it was the day Bush gave that speech?


here is a link to his entire unedited speech, enjoy.

Transcript of President George W. Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech | PIX 11

I chalk that up to some Rear Admiral brown nosing for a cushy cabinet post after his retirement.

 

[Grand Vol]

Good to see nothing has changed.

Me being a Richard or Gramps being dense?

 

[FLVOL69]

Me being a Richard or Gramps being dense?

Gramps likes being an instigator, you're still owning peeps in threads.

 

[Grand Vol]

Gramps likes being an instigator, you're still owning peeps in threads.

Nah, Gramps is typically one of the more logical and rational posters except when it comes to Chris Christie

The whole "Mission Accomplished" things just got blown way out of proportion. And it irks me that it was taken completely out of context.

 

[FLVOL69]

Nah, Gramps is typically one of the more logical and rational posters except when it comes to Chris Christie

The whole "Mission Accomplished" things just got blown way out of proportion. And it irks me that it was taken completely out of context.

Totally agree, I actually like gramps. Keep up the good work in regards to LG, nobody does it better..

 

[Gramps]

Do you really want me to explain it or are you just being dense?

Are you saying it was not W's choice to stand in front of that mission accomplished banner and give his victory speech to the world?

Are you saying Bush did not say "major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."?

What did Iraq have to do with the war on terror?

 

[Velo Vol]

I guess they just assumed, falsely, that the American people were not idiots wholly swayed by a sign and not by the actual words of the speech.

Come on. In the grand scheme of things this is almost a footnote now, ten years hence. But the White House has a whole team of people devoted to optics and stagecraft. They knew the message it would convey and were apparently fine with it.

One of many mistakes made regarding that campaign during this period. Fortunately this one didn't get people killed.

 

[Grand Vol]

Are you saying it was not W's choice to stand in front of that mission accomplished banner and give his victory speech to the world?

Are you saying Bush did not say "major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."?

What did Iraq have to do with the war on terror?

What I am saying is President Bush gave a speech to returning service members, specifically the Navy, that had fought during OIF. And furthermore, at the time, yes major "combat" operations had ceased and we were turning into the counter insurgency portion. Now yes, that's "combat" but NOT what he was referring to in his speech and mission accomplished note. And I doubt very seriously in 2003 anyone knew how big and quickly that insurgency was going to grow.

So you and the rest of the morons like to parade that speech out over ten years later as Bush being out of touch and like he was declaring everything in Iraq to be done and over with. Which was clearly not the case. He was stating the invasion, the COMBAT PORTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE INVASION WERE OVER WITH, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED WE GOT SADDAM OUT OF POWER LIKE WE WANTED AND DEFEATED THE IRAQI ARMY, GREAT JOB, WELCOME HOME! Which was the intent of that speech which you and again the remainder of the morons that take it totally out of context cannot wrap your heads around.

So please stop taking that speech out of context. It's really bothersome to see someone that's typically as rational as you are to not look at this objectively. I expect it from LG, but not from people like you.

 

[Gramps]

I chalk that up to some Rear Admiral brown nosing for a cushy cabinet post after his retirement.

Chalk it up to whatever you choose. The fact is Bush could have had that sign taken down before he stood before the world and declared victory.

That was a screw up by Bush and his administration.

Here is a good sign of W that I will never forget. This was W at his best, imo.

 

[Gramps]

What I am saying is President Bush gave a speech to returning service members, specifically the Navy, that had fought during OIF. And furthermore, at the time, yes major "combat" operations had ceased and we were turning into the counter insurgency portion. Now yes, that's "combat" but NOT what he was referring to in his speech and mission accomplished note. And I doubt very seriously in 2003 anyone knew how big and quickly that insurgency was going to grow.
So you and the rest of the morons like to parade that speech out over ten years later as Bush being out of touch and like he was declaring everything in Iraq to be done and over with. Which was clearly not the case. He was stating the invasion, the COMBAT PORTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE INVASION WERE OVER WITH, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED WE GOT SADDAM OUT OF POWER LIKE WE WANTED AND DEFEATED THE IRAQI ARMY, GREAT JOB, WELCOME HOME! Which was the intent of that speech which you and again the remainder of the morons that take it totally out of context cannot wrap your heads around.

So please stop taking that speech out of context. It's really bothersome to see someone that's typically as rational as you are to not look at this objectively. I expect it from LG, but not from people like you.

Gen. Eric Shinseki would disagree with the bold. He told Congress in Feb 2003 "several hundred thousand troops" will be needed to occupy Iraq. The Gen gets fired.

We are totally hijacking this thread. If you want to start another thread concerning how we got to Iraq and discuss the Iraq war, I will be happy to discuss it . This thread is about ISIS. A little hijacking is okay but this could take the thread completely over.

 

[Grand Vol]

Gen. Eric Shinseki would disagree with the bold. He told Congress in Feb 2003 "several hundred thousand troops" will be needed to occupy Iraq. The Gen gets fired.

The same Shinseki that had applied for retirement nearly a year before those comments were made was "fired?"

And the same Shinseki that publicly clashed with the SecDef over the issue? Something to be said about that chain of command thing.

We are totally hijacking this thread. If you want to start another thread concerning how we got to Iraq and discuss the Iraq war, I will be happy to discuss it . This thread is about ISIS. A little hijacking is okay but this could take the thread completely over.

I've you've missed the past hundred or so posts, this thread is a train wreck as it is.

And you avoided a response to my post.

 

[rjd970]

Gen. Eric Shinseki would disagree with the bold. He told Congress in Feb 2003 "several hundred thousand troops" will be needed to occupy Iraq. The Gen gets fired.

We are totally hijacking this thread. If you want to start another thread concerning how we got to Iraq and discuss the Iraq war, I will be happy to discuss it . This thread is about ISIS. A little hijacking is okay but this could take the thread completely over.

Yep. This literally took about 10 seconds to google, I'm sure I could find more.

USATODAY.com - Prewar intelligence predicted Iraqi insurgency

Military and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks.

The war plan put together by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks discounted these warnings. Rumsfeld and Franks anticipated surrender by Iraqi ground forces and a warm welcome from civilians.

The intelligence warnings of guerrilla war in Iraq came as a result of questions being raised by analysts at the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Army and National Ground Intelligence Center, according to Army documents and a senior U.S. intelligence official with access to the prewar warnings. The official declined to speak publicly because he was discussing classified material.

Two reports by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior analysts that pools assessments from across the nation's intelligence community, warned Bush in January 2003, two months before the invasion, that the conflict could spark factional violence and an anti-U.S. insurgency, the official said. One of the reports said the U.S.-led occupation could "increase popular sympathy for terrorist objectives." Similarly sober warnings by the CIA went to senior administration officials and Congress as part of daily intelligence summaries, the intelligence official said.

and the counter side from the Pentagon:

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita called the criticism "cover-your-backside revisionism." He said prewar assessments warned of potential dangers ranging from massive oil fires to debilitating refugee flows, many of which did not occur. "For someone to extract, with the sensibility of October 2004, that we should have listened to their warnings when the warnings covered an expanse of things that could happen, many of which did not ... I just think it's tiresome," he said.

Written in 2004 BTW. Regardless, saying nobody anticipated this is some serious revisionism.

Cue in Grand Vol arrogant diatribe about being smarter than everybody else on this, referencing information he can't share and regressing that nonsense out to everybody else is blissfully ignorant, or some such absurdity.

 

[Grand Vol]

Yep. This literally took about 10 seconds to google, I'm sure I could find more.

USATODAY.com - Prewar intelligence predicted Iraqi insurgency

Written in 2004 BTW. Regardless, saying nobody anticipated this is some serious revisionism.

Guess you've never heard of "best case" and "worst case" scenarios have you?

Wait...doesn't...compute...in...my...outrage...

Yes, there was intelligence in advance that this was a possibility. There was intelligence in advance that Iraq was going to use chemical weapons. Both in 1991 and 2003. There was intelligence in advance of the 1991 war that proclaimed the only way we could win was by using tactical nuclear weapons to break up the Iraqi Army formations.

So you fault the Secretary of Defense for putting the best case forward?

Cue in Grand Vol arrogant diatribe about being smarter than everybody else on this, referencing information he can't share and regressing that nonsense out to everybody else is blissfully ignorant, or some such absurdity.

Nailed it. And you are blissfully ignorant if you think any of this mess wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been involved. Your head is stuck in the clouds or in selected parts of your anatomy if you don't think this is going down exactly how someone wants it to. This isn't by chance. Someone is pulling the strings.

 

[Gramps]

Yep. This literally took about 10 seconds to google, I'm sure I could find more.

USATODAY.com - Prewar intelligence predicted Iraqi insurgency

and the counter side from the Pentagon:

Written in 2004 BTW. Regardless, saying nobody anticipated this is some serious revisionism.

Cue in Grand Vol arrogant diatribe about being smarter than everybody else on this, referencing information he can't share and regressing that nonsense out to everybody else is blissfully ignorant, or some such absurdity.

Yeah, the information was definitely reported on.

 

[lawgator1]

Chalk it up to whatever you choose. The fact is Bush could have had that sign taken down before he stood before the world and declared victory.

That was a screw up by Bush and his administration.

Here is a good sign of W that I will never forget. This was W at his best, imo.

That was far and away his best moment as president. Unfortunately the next seven years totally sucked moose dlck.