Thread: Fuck You, Dick Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027154
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So the Iraqi military, which the U.S. and its allies spent years training and equipping, disintegrated ARVN-style in the face of a determined onslaught by a terrorist organization/regional militia. For some reason a lot of media attention has been focused on asking the various architects and advocates of the last Iraq debacle what we should do about the current one.
I've been tempted to post on this before. When pundits like Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol were held up as wise sages whose opinions were worthy of publication I considered making this post. When decision-makers like Tony Blair and Paul Wolfowitz were held up as experts on how to successfully bring peace to Iraq I was even more tempted, but that wasn't enough to rouse my ire enough to post.
So what was it? What was the final straw that stirred me to compose this angry rant?
quote:
The Collapsing Obama Doctrine
Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.
By DICK CHENEY And Liz Cheney
Right. THAT guy. Dick Cheney was one of the biggest boosters (and biggest liars) during the selling of the last war in Iraq and he has the temerity to dust off his old "we can't let al Qæda get a foothold in Iraq" routine and hope nobody remembers what happened the last time we took his advice on that basis. And he's got the gall to blame the Obama administration for being "so wrong about so much at the expense of so many" without the slightest acknowledgement of his own role!
It seems like there is literally NOTHING you can do or say that will render you beyond the pale in the eyes of the media, provided you're advocating war. Dick Cheney should be keeping his head down so people don't remember he should be occupying a cell in Den Haag rather than calling for more bloodshed on the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Never has a name been more appropriate.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
It is a worrying development where ex-world leaders believe that they were right when in power, despite every evidence to the contrary. Including investigations and criminal proceedings.
the fact that they get media coverage is not surprising (the media and moral responsibility are still not making friends, or even really talking to each other).
Their arrogance that they cannot accept that they were wrong surprises me, despite the fact that it seems ot be part and parcel of the psychotic character required to be "successful" in politics.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is a worrying development where ex-world leaders believe that they were right when in power, despite every evidence to the contrary.
I believe Tony may be reconsidering his position...
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
In a just world they would be tried and convicted for war crimes. But it will never happen.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In a just world they would be tried and convicted for war crimes. But it will never happen.
no prophet, may I put this sharper point on your post?
Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Walker Bush ought to be indicted for war crimes.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Amen, Cro.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In a just world they would be tried and convicted for war crimes. But it will never happen.
no prophet, may I put this sharper point on your post?
Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Walker Bush ought to be indicted for war crimes.
A day in court would be rather enlightening. One would think.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
At the very least, when they appear on TV or in print, they should be prefixed by "War criminal". So the caption for Blair would be "War Criminal Tony Blair". It would give some context to the crap they are spouting.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
They must have known this was eventually going to happen. Maybe it was all part of the plan. War, after all, is good for business even at the cost of a little "collateral damage".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Madness...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I saw earlier that Boris Johnson wrote an excellent column in response to Tony Blair. The basic essence is: "I was stupid enough to believe you had a plan".
One of the most outrageously stupid things about the whole business at the time was that key leaders utilised the basic Western tendency of "Muslims: they all look alike to me" to paper over the fact that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda hated each other's guts with a passion. Iraq simply wasn't a haven for fundamentalist terrorism. It certainly had faults, but that wasn't one of them.
And yet that's the justification they picked, up until that justification completely fell apart, at which point suddenly it had been about the need for regime change all along.
It is, except perhaps for the Kurdish region, a complete disaster, and the destruction of a country, primarily driven by neo-cons being upset and pouty over George Bush Senior's decision that the first Gulf War was solely about the liberation of Kuwait, and should therefore stop at the Kuwait-Iraq border. The people he overruled were absolutely itching for an excuse to go invade Iraq. There is a documentary that includes eyewitness testimony from the White House bunker on 9/11, about how senior people including Cheney started talking about Iraq when there wasn't anything to indicate that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No rational expert on the Middle East would pick Iraq as a prime suspect.
But there were no rational experts on the Middle East in that bunker. Instead, there were a bunch of idiotic politicians who formed the conclusion first and the argument later, thus creating the next cycle in the destabilisation of western Asia which we have destabilised over and over again for at least the last 35 years, and keep being surprised when it comes back to BITE US IN THE ARSE! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
What is even more tragic is that the US did begin to show some tactical nous in Iraq, when it made links with the 'Awakening' groups, (or Sahwa in Arabic), who were mainly Sunni tribesmen, who wanted to fight Al-Quaeda.
And the Awakening groups got plenty of support in Sunni towns, who did not to be ruled by A-Q.
But now all that seems to have been lost, as ISIS seem to be gaining support in some towns, because of the great hatred for Maliki, who imprisoned thousands of Sunni Arabs, and is seen as a sectarian.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I can't help seeing this as all cliché, like a Joseph Campbell meets Sgt Rock and Archie comicbooks.
Blair appears to me to be trying to maintain himself as sincere idealist, whose intentions were woble although misguided. He's a cartoon figure. He speaks so sincerely and sweetly.
Bush is similar but he's also just folks and a well loved moron.
They both meant well, right?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Bush is similar but he's also just folks and a well loved moron.
Bush is an interesting case. He's spent most of his post-presidency keeping a low profile and taking up painting. He seems particularly drawn to painting himself bathing, as if he feels the subconscious need to remove some kind of stain or taint. That's about as clear as he could make it without literally wandering around muttering "out, damned spot!"
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I wonder if any of these guys might be targets, say for an activist Spanish judge?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
If Cheney was so concerned about al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in Iraq, why was he so hot to topple Saddam Hussein's secular and stable regime?
Do these people even listen to themselves? How the hell did he think Islamists *wouldn't* do their best to fill the power vacuum?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is a documentary that includes eyewitness testimony from the White House bunker on 9/11, about how senior people including Cheney started talking about Iraq when there wasn't anything to indicate that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No rational expert on the Middle East would pick Iraq as a prime suspect.
unless they couldn't spell Iran
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is a documentary that includes eyewitness testimony from the White House bunker on 9/11, about how senior people including Cheney started talking about Iraq when there wasn't anything to indicate that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No rational expert on the Middle East would pick Iraq as a prime suspect.
unless they couldn't spell Iran
The name begins with 'I'. If a country's name begins with I it is, in some way, troublesome.
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, Ireland, India, Italy, Iceland, Isle of Man.
(I suppose Iceland only gets in on the basis of one small, petulant pop star, but she's enough).
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I saw earlier that Boris Johnson wrote an excellent column in response to Tony Blair. The basic essence is: "I was stupid enough to believe you had a plan".
Yes: I read that and came over all peculiar because I found myself agreeing with Boris Johnson.
Blair's situation must be pretty desperate when he finds himself on the wrong side of an argument with Boris Johnson. It's a sure sign he needs to do some re-thinking, fast.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The name begins with 'I'. If a country's name begins with I it is, in some way, troublesome.
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, Ireland, India, Italy, Iceland, Isle of Man.
(I suppose Iceland only gets in on the basis of one small, petulant pop star, but she's enough).
And their belligerent fishermen, surely?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is a documentary that includes eyewitness testimony from the White House bunker on 9/11, about how senior people including Cheney started talking about Iraq when there wasn't anything to indicate that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No rational expert on the Middle East would pick Iraq as a prime suspect.
unless they couldn't spell Iran
The name begins with 'I'. If a country's name begins with I it is, in some way, troublesome.
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, Ireland, India, Italy, Iceland, Isle of Man.
(I suppose Iceland only gets in on the basis of one small, petulant pop star, but she's enough).
Cod Wars, shurely, you silly Bjork!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Blair's situation must be pretty desperate when he finds himself on the wrong side of an argument with Boris Johnson. It's a sure sign he needs to do some re-thinking, fast.
And, Boris didn't even need to point out the massive inconsistency in Bliar's TV interviews earlier this week. To paraphrase Tony "If we had intervened to aid rebels in Syria then ISIS wouldn't have been so bold in Iraq". The inconsistency being that a lot of the rebels in Syria are ISIS. I'm not sure how supporting an organisation intent on toppling a government in one country discourages them from attempting to topple a government in another country.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Tony Blair winds me up more than Dick Cheney, but that’s mostly because he’s Tony Blair. There is literally no one who makes me yell at the radio to quite the same extent. I want to smack him all the time, not just when he pops up to spout self-justifying nonsense about Iraq.
So, if I understand it, his argument is “no, we were completely right about bombing Iraq into the Stone Age. The problem is that we didn’t bomb Syria into the Stone Age as well.” (cue much inane grinning*) Now I think there was actually quite a good argument for military intervention in Syria but it isn’t remotely comparable with the ill-famed adventure in Iraq.
I suppose I should be quite grateful to Tone in one sense. Most of the time I have rather low blood pressure. The minute he appears on the radio it rises considerably.
*I didn’t see him on the TV, so I don’t know, but actually I suspect that this one was accompanied by less grinning and more of that blinky-blinky eye thing that he always does when he’s uncomfortable and/or lying.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
...and the way he prefaces every lie, sorry statement, with a "Look..."
The only 'look' he's going to get from me is a fucking dirty one!
[ETA - plus body language of "furrowed brow...insincere sweat stains"]
[ 20. June 2014, 10:10: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Blair's situation must be pretty desperate when he finds himself on the wrong side of an argument with Boris Johnson. It's a sure sign he needs to do some re-thinking, fast.
And, Boris didn't even need to point out the massive inconsistency in Bliar's TV interviews earlier this week. To paraphrase Tony "If we had intervened to aid rebels in Syria then ISIS wouldn't have been so bold in Iraq". The inconsistency being that a lot of the rebels in Syria are ISIS. I'm not sure how supporting an organisation intent on toppling a government in one country discourages them from attempting to topple a government in another country.
Again, the Western populace is not supposed to notice things like this. There's just supposed to be this undifferentiated mass of goodies and baddies, and if Assad is bad then we're supposed to cheer on anyone who is anti-Assad without thinking any harder about who they are.
We've basically taken this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset into everything in the region for decades. At least since the Iranian Revolution. Saddam Hussein was a good guy because he was anti-Iran, not because of who he was. Anyone in Afghanistan who was anti-Soviet was on our side... until we realised that some of them hated the West just as much.
Making these mistakes at first is one thing, but the fact that we seem to have no greater awareness amongst our politicians or their advisors after an entire generation's worth of lessons is mind-boggling and worrying.
We also don't seem to have grasped that sizable chunks of Iraq and Syria are intimately connected, culturally and politically, and so now everyone is tremendously surprised when an organisation ignores the line on a map that a bunch of Europeans drew when carving up the Ottoman empire after World War I.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
...and we're repeating the same mistake again by cosying up to the Iranians...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I couldn't help being amused when there was a shot of ISIS demolishing the Syria/Iraq border to shouts of 'Sykes-Picot is dead!', referring to the old drawing of the boundary.
A side-note - that ISIS are gaining support, partly because Maliki has neglected the 'Awakening' groups amongst Sunni tribesmen (who opposed Al-Quaeda), a fatal sectarian error.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Blair might have a point about the Syrian rebels, if he distinguishes the rebels at the beginning, who were supposed to be secular or at least, not Islamist. But they have been overtaken in strength apparently by ISIS and its affiliates, partly, according to Maliki, because the Saudis and Qatar have been pouring money and arms to them; I don't know if this is true, and the Saudis will now back-pedal furiously on this.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and we're repeating the same mistake again by cosying up to the Iranians...
A new shah and a new coup?
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The name begins with 'I'. If a country's name begins with I it is, in some way, troublesome.
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, Ireland, India, Italy, Iceland, Isle of Man.
(I suppose Iceland only gets in on the basis of one small, petulant pop star, but she's enough).
And their belligerent fishermen, surely?
Don't forget Eyjafjallajökull.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
That's easy for you to say...
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and we're repeating the same mistake again by cosying up to the Iranians...
A new shah and a new coup?
Is Kermit still around? Or maybe we could get another muppet...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Miss Piggy will kick some ISIS butt.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's easy for you to say...
I wouldn't even try.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
From Purgatory:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
We saw Cheney at the airport a few years ago. We didn't speak to him. He's a scary dude. The rentacar clerk said he was hell on wheels. What will it take to get him to shut his gob? Laryngitis? A stroke? Discuss.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Jesus you are bunch of whiners. Saddam Hussein is dead and thats worth the price alone. Go Bush!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Jesus you are bunch of whiners. Saddam Hussein is dead and thats worth the price alone. Go Bush!
A few million Iraqis are now very disappointed. The death of Saddam Hussein hasn't benefitted them at all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
What good has Saddam Hussein's death done for anyone? We see what the destabilization caused thereby is doing to the Middle East. Yes, he was a dictator. But he held the country together, and under him persecution of religious minorities was less than a tithe of what it has been since.
Rather than pontificating from a safe position in Christian Europe or its satellites, let's ask the Iraqis if his death was worth the price. I mean ordinary Iraqis, not the Muslim extremists who are the sole beneficiaries thereof.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
From an interview with a real, you know, Iraqi:
First let me say that this argument is fairly new to the history of this conflict. Earlier, the proponents of intervention in Iraq did not use Saddam Hussein and his atrocities as standards for what the US would bring to the country. They promised some utopian ideals of happiness and democracy and equality for all. So the mere fact that they are trying to defend their crimes by comparing them to someone else’s crimes is actually evidence of their failure.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What good has Saddam Hussein's death done for anyone? We see what the destabilization caused thereby is doing to the Middle East. Yes, he was a dictator. But he held the country together, and under him persecution of religious minorities was less than a tithe of what it has been since.
Rather than pontificating from a safe position in Christian Europe or its satellites, let's ask the Iraqis if his death was worth the price. I mean ordinary Iraqis, not the Muslim extremists who are the sole beneficiaries thereof.
I agree. Let's start the survey in Halabja though.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Halabja. Where were the US and UK when that happened? Where was the outrage?
No one denies Sadam was a bastard. The question is did we fuck Iraq even more. (Hint: the answer is yes)
ETA: and not even to our benefit. We gave another base of operation and recruitment to those we claimed to be trying to eliminate. [
[ 21. June 2014, 16:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Maybe we simply have to accept that large parts of the Middle East will be in a perpetual state of war right up to the day that the last freakin barrel of oil is sucked out of that darn place .
Then The West can forget all about it and it can return to being a peaceful region where contented sheep and goat farming Nomads all live together in religious harmony . You know, rather like that lovely depiction in the Old Testament .
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
300 years I think is the estimate, plus whatever time is added when they think up additional fracked up strategies to get the residual oil out, which is probably endless.
Probably not making friends with dictators and giving the weapons, chemicals and technology in the first place might help.
Is it true that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others are not travelling outside of their home country because they could / should be arrested?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Well, you certainly don't see the taking up those (doubtless plenteous) offers for honorary degrees and speaking engagements.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Saddam Hussein is dead and thats worth the price alone.
Tell that to all the other people who died.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I worked at the Pentagon Credit Union during the years Cheney was Secretary of Defense. He would come through in a big, snarly rush and make some young teller cry. I always wanted him to come into my cubicle and ask for a loan so I could make him cry.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Saddam Hussein is dead and thats worth the price alone.
Tell that to all the other people who died.
It's called standing at the back shouting 'forwards'.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Halabja. Where were the US and UK when that happened? Where was the outrage?
The U.S. expressed plenty of outrage at the time. Unfortunately it was outrage that Iran would do such a thing, despite knowing at the time this was a lie.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Saddam Hussein is dead and thats worth the price alone.
Tell that to all the other people who died.
It's called standing at the back shouting 'forwards'.
Out of interest, what should we say (if anything) to the people alive today who otherwise wouldn't have been?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, what should we say (if anything) to the people alive today who otherwise wouldn't have been?
Why do you think we should say something to them? What will you say to the families of the people who are dead today who wouldn't have been? We don't know what WOULD have happened. We do know what WE DID.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
I was just thinking out loud, really. Perhaps we should be silent on that point.
I presume there are such identifiable groups, if not identifiable individuals. (I was thinking of some Kurds, or children who might have otherwise died of malnutrition, and so forth.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Saddam Hussein is dead and thats worth the price alone.
Tell that to all the other people who died.
It's called standing at the back shouting 'forwards'.
Out of interest, what should we say (if anything) to the people alive today who otherwise wouldn't have been?
Best of luck.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Jesus you are bunch of whiners. Saddam Hussein is dead and thats worth the price alone. Go Bush!
If I ever needed proof you were a moral vacuum, devoid of understanding, compassion, and empathy you have just provided it.
Putting it bluntly Saddam Hussein was better for most of Iraq than what has been done since. Yes, the invasion was worse than Saddam Hussein.
And I do not understand how we voted Blair back into office in 2005. However much the current lot are people I'd take great pleasure pissing on if they were on fire, in 2005 and 2010 I had no choice other than to try to vote the bastards out. (Not that I'm voting Lib Dem again in a hurry).
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Putting it bluntly Saddam Hussein was better for most of Iraq than what has been done since. Yes, the invasion was worse than Saddam Hussein.
And I do not understand how we voted Blair back into office in 2005.
Because the Banker's Crash hadn't happened , and he stuck with the diana routine which allowed the benefit of the doubt over Iraq .
War is a peculiar animal, it's inclined to be shit or bust for those leading us at time critical time .
Thatch took a gamble on the Falklands War and came out of it empowered, and covered in glory . Blair gambled his reputation by siding with Bush to oust Saddam . Most of us know how that reputation has fared in light of the outcome .
The West might have gained access to Iraq's oil, it certainly put a stop to the antics of a tin-pot dictator, yet it's hard to see that history will ever view 03's military intervention as anything other than a colossal error of judgement.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The Collapsing Obama Doctrine
Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.
By DICK CHENEY And Liz Cheney
Amusingly--and, really, astonishingly--Fox's Megyn Kelly actually called him on this one in an interview.
Behold!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Yeah deano, like the Philippinos had to be liberated from themsleves. Well worth the three million.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0