Michael Yon: Iraq war over and we won

[DarrinS]

Before you write this guy off as some kind of administration shill, you should know that he is a former green beret, is one of the reporters who has been embedded longer than anyone, and was very critical of the war's execution in the first couple of years. In fact, his candor and honesty got him kicked out of Iraq TWICE by the US military.


From http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1690:success-in-iraq&catid=34:dispatches&Itemid=55#yvComment


14 July 2008

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

I wish I could say the same for Afghanistan. But that war we clearly are losing: I am preparing to go there and see the situation for myself. My friends and contacts who have a good understanding of Afghanistan are, to a man, pessimistic about the current situation. Interestingly, however, every one of them believes that Afghanistan can be turned into a success. They all say we need to change our approach, but in the long-term Afghanistan can stand on its own. The sources range from four-stars to civilians from the United States, Great Britain and other places. A couple years ago, some of these sources believed that defeat was imminent in Iraq. They were nearly right about Iraq, although some of them knew far less about Iraq than they do about Afghanistan. But it's clear that hard days are ahead in Afghanistan. We just lost nine of our soldiers in a single firefight, where the enemy entered a base and nearly overran it.

The news from Afghanistan is reason for pessimism. For some more optimistic news, please look at these statistics from Iraq (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=7&Itemid=), and remember that if we could turn things around in that country, we might be able to do the same in Afghanistan.


--------


There's even good news for liberals (in bold). See, there's something for everyone.

[2centsworth]

what to do about Pakistan?

[whottt]

It's funny how everyone assumes China doesn't pay any attention to Afghanistan and is ambivalent about a US presence there....

[DarrinS]

It's funny how everyone assumes China doesn't pay any attention to Afghanistan and is ambivalent about a US presence there....


Could they really afford not to have a good trade relationship with the US? Who else is gonna supply us with all that plastic crap in our Happy Meals?

[boutons_]

Here's another guy declaring that the Iraq war was won in 2003:

We Won in Iraq -- A Long Time Ago (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-winer/we-won-in-iraq-a-long-tim_b_114295.html)


"I know this goes without saying, but it keeps coming up.

Remember when our troops marched into Baghdad, took the place over, drove Saddam into a hole and arrested or killed the government. Then we disbanded their army.

When you go to war that's what victory looks like.
http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2008/07/22/tilted.jpgThen came the occupation. There is no such thing as winning an occupation. You either continue to occupy or withdraw. It's semantic nonsense to apply the verb "win" to the noun "occupation."

Winning in war or sport is not vague or ill-defined. When the clock runs out in football the team that's ahead wins. When two runners are in a race the first to cross the finish line wins. When you fight a war, when you take the other guys' capital and disband their government and army, that's winning.

As I said it goes without saying, but it keeps coming up in the news, this weird idea that there is such a thing as winning an occupation, when there isn't."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-winer/we-won-in-iraq-a-long-tim_b_114295.html?view=print

===============

So yes, the Iraq war is over and dubya won. hip hip hooray.

So how's that open-ended occupation going?

Any specific benchmarks when the US military can leave?

"conditions on the ground" is intentionally super vague.

When will the Iraqi oil start flowing to US oilcos?

[whottt]

Could they really afford not to have a good trade relationship with the US?

International relations are a complex creature...


A better question is...do they really want a bunch of US military bases in a bordering country?

Do they really want another Democracy on their border...to go along with India and South Korea? Taiwan?

If so why?

We have trade relations with China...we also have some issues with them.


Taiwan, we've always been on their ass for Democratic reform...they need Oil too. They've made friendly overtures with Iran, they're friendly with North Korea, they were making deals with Saddam Hussein and opposed the Iraq War...



Who else is gonna supply us with all that plastic crap in our Happy Meals?

Mexico...and with the decline of the dollar that trade connection isn't what it used to be. If anything we're turning into an economic competitor as much as a trade partner.

China backed the North Koreans in the Korean War, they backed the Vietnamese in the Vietnam War...they don't particularly like India.


They are a communist country with no free press, no free speech, no right to bear arms, virtually no citizenship rights, government controlled Universities, media, Internet....

They still have political prisoners, mass executions and a questionable legal system.

They'd probably much rather have a weakened dysfunctional Afghanistan more than a strong US allied Democracy...


It's a mistake to confuse business with friendship.


And if there's anything more corrupt than plain old communism, it's state capitalism.....


I can't think of a single reason why they would a strong US allied Democratic Afghanistan with US military bases on it.


I don't think Russia wants that either...I don't think Iran wants it, I don't think Pakistan wants it...



Afghanistan is going to be a tough road to hoe as they have virtually no economic infrastructure, no industry, outside of opium...


You are never going to get the money back you put into establishing anything there, they will always likely be a debtor nation or a dependent.

You can't blow the shit out of that country because the shit has already been blown out of it...it's landlocked so they are always in a weak bargaining position in dealing with any of their neighbors.


Afghanistan has a much greater potential of turning into a second Vietnam than Iraq did. It was the Russian Vietnam....I'd say it was the British Vietnam as well. And I'd say fucking around in Afghanistan was what lead to decline of both of those empires.

[PEP]

Michael Yon is the best reporter there is period. He is not biased at all and reported about 2 years ago that the war in Afghanistan was going to take a turn for the worse and it has. I always check out his site for new information.

What the Soviets and the British did wrong in Afghanistan was by trying to subdue the civilian population. The US is trying to help the people and that is how the war will be won in Afghanistan, there are some that dont like us but when they notice that the Taliban/Al Qaeda kill them for smoking or drinking and they see that the US is constantly providing medical care and construction their minds will change just like they did in Iraq. It will take years and it will take a new generation of children to get away from the hatred that the Islamic Sheiks spout about the western lifestyle.

[whottt]

I don't think it's going to be that easy as those people are just attempting to survive...Democracy is a luxury there, survival comes first...and Iran and China definitely have some funds/food! to pump into there...not to mention some wealthy Saudis will funnel funds/food! into there covertly because they do want it to be an Islamic state...


Those peoples priority is food...


The reason Afhganistan went to the Taliban so easily is because of the money being given to them to feed the people and indoctrinate them into the ways of Rad Islam. You feed someone who is starving you are going to get some loyalty out of them when you start talking about a better way of life if they'll just see things your way.


Food talks there....you feed them, you are going to have their ear. That's where their loyalty will lie....and those other countries are going to be feeding them as well.



The average life span there is like 47 years, men outlive the women, the average woman there has six kids, I think the literacy rate is about 30-40%, the forests and have been destroyed long ago, the farm land is used to grow opium....becuase no one has any money to give the farmers for food.

It's just not going to be that easy as freedom has no value to them....hell they are actually pretty free if you think about it as many areas of the country are completely lawless still...and have been for decades.


The offer of Democracy doesn't mean anything to them...and I don't blame them.


It's like giving water to a drowning man........

[whottt]

Not only do we have the homeless human waste of Afghanistan itself to worry about...but also those in Pakistan, and there are millions of them...and plenty of Saudis as well.

These guys are born into poverty thrown out on the streets as children, they cannot read, they have no education, no means of supporting themselves, they sell themselves as slaves for what purpose people will use them for, sometimes male sex slaves...sometimes even worse...


So some Mullah comes along and gives you food and says...Allah gave this food to you, you suffer this way because of Great Satan the United States...Allah will release you from this hell if you die in his name, fighting the United States, and you will find paradise in death.


What would you do?


What do you have to live for?


That's what we are fighting there...that's also the problem with Pakistan. As they have shit for an economy but at least Pakistan has ports and can extort money by threatening to sell their nuclear tech...but even if you get the Democracy in there it's going to be corrupt as shit.


Honestly...you know what would be best for Afghanistan, in our eyes? If China was to take them over. Cold war is over now.

[PixelPusher]

I thought we went into Afghanistan to get this guy:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1171512.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F106754E23F70C526C80 5A5397277B4DC33E

[whottt]

I thought we went into Afghanistan to get this guy:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1171512.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F106754E23F70C526C80 5A5397277B4DC33E

Oh we'll probably get him...if we haven't already. But that's not going to solve the problems of Pakistan and Afghanistan...

They're still going to be producing an inordinate amount of throw away human beings...and those governments are still going to figure out something to do with them...

It's different than the ME...the ME has resources and was only fucked up because of Europe carving them up....more or less.


Afghanistan and Pakistan are different problems...the problem with terrorism...

Right now the only birth control in the ME and South Asia is the United States Military...and while it no doubt has alleviated the problem somewhat...they are still producing more people than the land and economiies can support.

They need birth control...and they need industry.


Could make Afghanistan then designated Opium and Marijuana Fields for the Medical World...because they can grow some potent shit..I think there are plans to run a pipeline from Iran through there to China...that'll do somnething, and that'll be better than they have now...which is selling rugs...but they still need birth control.



Muslims like birth control even less than Extreme Right Wing Christians do...plus they like to have multiple wives.


So they are going to keep producing more people than can adequately survive, and they are going to keep having to figure out something to do with them....our military has wiped out a bunch but...sooner or later something is going to have to change.


Thing is....it's easy to for China and Iran to just keep pumping stuff into there and keep this thing going for ever, unless the US starts conducting some mass extermination policies, something that would be monstrous...so that's why I say we'd be better off if China just took htem over...but China doesn't want them.


The entire world is going to have to pitch in to support them economically if you really want to fix their problems...and they've got to start using birth control. The population of Afghanistan shouldn't be more than about 10 million people based on the resources they have.

[ggoose25]

Don't forgot the poppy seed business that is growing exponentially every year.

We are going to have to find a way to persuade these people that they are able to support their families AND have protection from Muslim extremists without growing opium.

I see that as a tough sell.

[whottt]

Well one thing they've got is rich soil...they don't have a lot of it, but what they've got is good. Really with some modernization they could be able to be the major food producer for many Mid Eastern countries and even Russia......but that would only put about 3% of the population to work if they went completely modern but they could produce enough to be a major food producer in the region with the right equipment and maybe they could start developing some industry or something.

Who knows, maybe that is the plan...being the world's top producer of food has worked out pretty well for the US.

[boutons_]

"rich soil."

any water?

http://www.fao.org/world/afghanistan/prof_water_en.htm

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=20150

[Oh, Gee!!]

so let's leave already

[Supergirl]

Sort of a meaningless soundbyte kind of thing to say.

What does it mean to "win" a war? What were the objectives? Can you "win" a war and still be engaged in combat?

Bush et al have said that the war we are in is a "stateless war on terror", and this is true. The problem is, this war will never be won by military action, because this only creates more poverty, more desperation, and fuels religious/political hatred. Iraq was not a hotbed of al Qaida before we went in and demolished Saddam's regime - now it is. We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan but didn't actually do anything to address the underlying appeal of terrorist organizations, so lo and behold, here we have Taliban-like religious fundamentalists rising to power again.

The only way to even HOPE for winning the "war on terror" is to begin to understand the reasons why people choose to blow themselves up and why they hate America. That can only happen through education and diplomacy and economic sanctions. Also, we have to be willing to not be imperial power financially and politically, because if we are not then people will always have a reason to hate us.

[whottt]

"rich soil."

any water?

http://www.fao.org/world/afghanistan/prof_water_en.htm

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=20150



Like I said...they need some modernization before it would work.

[whottt]

so let's leave already


Yeah...what could a bunch of dumbass fantatical muslims siitting in a POS country like Afghanistan ever do to the United States? They could never get to us in a million years.......


You're an idiot.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yeah...what could a bunch of dumbass fantatical muslims siitting in a POS country like Afghanistan ever do to the United States? They could never get to us in a million years.......


You're an idiot.

the OP was talking about Iraq and so was I. Way to read, smart guy.

[whottt]

Sort of a meaningless soundbyte kind of thing to say.

What does it mean to "win" a war? What were the objectives? Can you "win" a war and still be engaged in combat?

Bush et al have said that the war we are in is a "stateless war on terror", and this is true. The problem is, this war will never be won by military action, because this only creates more poverty, more desperation, and fuels religious/political hatred. Iraq was not a hotbed of al Qaida before we went in and demolished Saddam's regime - now it is. We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan but didn't actually do anything to address the underlying appeal of terrorist organizations, so lo and behold, here we have Taliban-like religious fundamentalists rising to power again.

The only way to even HOPE for winning the "war on terror" is to begin to understand the reasons why people choose to blow themselves up and why they hate America. That can only happen through education and diplomacy and economic sanctions. Also, we have to be willing to not be imperial power financially and politically, because if we are not then people will always have a reason to hate us.


Um, they don't have a valid reason to hate us, and we aren't the ones that create them....it's Islamic States that creates these individuals, it's Islamic states that point them in our direction...


You know why they do that? So those individuals do not overthrow them...




So it's not like we can do something by being nice to them...


You cannot give them money for education or food ait because all the leaders do is sit on it, they don't tell what does get through to them that it comes from us...


Get rid of the Islamic States and monarchies and install representative government...that's how you get rid of a lot of them.


And I disagree...America can kill all the terrorists, and you can brutalize them into submission, as that is what Pakistan, Saudia Arabia and Syria do...but you have to be brutal to do it.

Do you see any terrorism frequntly in those countries?



Stop acting like we create them...we don't create them. The leaders of their countries create them and will continue to do so, and throwing money at them is only going to encourage those leaders to do it more...becuase they make money off of it.


The simple truth of the matter is that these Islamic states suck ass and are opressive backwards humanitarian shitholes that produce an inordinate amount of pissed off people...and these leaders are masters of manipulating that anger in our direction and away from themselves....you can do shit like that when you have a 40% literacy rate and state controlled press.




That's why I have always advocated threatening the leaders of those countries...and in fact, removing Saddam from power did just that.


I say you make it clear that if any form of nuclear terrorism occurrs in the United States, on the part of any Muslims...that Mecca is going to be a glass shitstain for the next 3000 years. Period.

[DarrinS]

Whott made some great posts in this thread.

If you think about it, what does the Arab world produce, other than oil and terrrorism?

Despite having the absolute dumb luck of living on top of all those oil reserves, the collective GDP of the Arab world is about the same as the GDP of Spain.

[Nbadan]

Do you see any terrorism frequntly in those countries?

:lol

Your an idiot if you think there isn't terra-ism in Pakistan....

[Supergirl]

Whott made some great posts in this thread.

If you think about it, what does the Arab world produce, other than oil and terrrorism?

Despite having the absolute dumb luck of living on top of all those oil reserves, the collective GDP of the Arab world is about the same as the GDP of Spain.

the "arab world" is quite diverse and widespread. so actually, historically, there have been many great things to come out of "the arab world."

also, i think it is important people not conflate "arab" with "muslim", as the popular media often does.

Arab nationalism is one thing, and produces one form of terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is another, and produces another. But there are also more moderate Arab states (Egypt, Jordan) and moderate Islamic states (Turkey, Pakistan). All those states have issues with independent terrorist organizations operating within their borders, like the US, Spain, Britain, France, etc do. But not all Arabs are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Arab.

[Supergirl]

Um, they don't have a valid reason to hate us, and we aren't the ones that create them....it's Islamic States that creates these individuals, it's Islamic states that point them in our direction...


You know why they do that? So those individuals do not overthrow them...




So it's not like we can do something by being nice to them...


You cannot give them money for education or food ait because all the leaders do is sit on it, they don't tell what does get through to them that it comes from us...


Get rid of the Islamic States and monarchies and install representative government...that's how you get rid of a lot of them.


And I disagree...America can kill all the terrorists, and you can brutalize them into submission, as that is what Pakistan, Saudia Arabia and Syria do...but you have to be brutal to do it.

Do you see any terrorism frequntly in those countries?



Stop acting like we create them...we don't create them. The leaders of their countries create them and will continue to do so, and throwing money at them is only going to encourage those leaders to do it more...becuase they make money off of it.


The simple truth of the matter is that these Islamic states suck ass and are opressive backwards humanitarian shitholes that produce an inordinate amount of pissed off people...and these leaders are masters of manipulating that anger in our direction and away from themselves....you can do shit like that when you have a 40% literacy rate and state controlled press.




That's why I have always advocated threatening the leaders of those countries...and in fact, removing Saddam from power did just that.


I say you make it clear that if any form of nuclear terrorism occurrs in the United States, on the part of any Muslims...that Mecca is going to be a glass shitstain for the next 3000 years. Period.

If you brutalize a brute into submission, you have become the very thing you are trying to destroy. We could combat terrorists with suicide bombings of our own, but that would simply replace one terrorist with another.

[Nbadan]

The real surge....it's not men....it's money and weapons....


The American forces responsible for overseeing "volunteer" militias like Osama's have no illusions about their loyalty. "The only reason anything works or anybody deals with us is because we give them money," says a young Army intelligence officer. The 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, which patrols Osama's territory, is handing out $32 million to Iraqis in the district, including $6 million to build the towering walls that, in the words of one U.S. officer, serve only to "make Iraqis more divided than they already are." In districts like Dora, the strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight. All told, the U.S. is now backing more than 600,000 Iraqi men in the security sector — more than half the number Saddam had at the height of his power. With the ISVs in place, the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war. "Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems," as U.S. strategists like to say. David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus, calls it "balancing competing armed interest groups."

Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge)

What happens when we stop paying these militias to not fight each other?

[Nbadan]

Shortly before he passed away in April 2008 Gen. William Odom, former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, wrote,....


"Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.

Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq."

"As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran."

"Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.

This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications."

"The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.

No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.

Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.

A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t make sense..."

Link (http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2008/hrg080402a.html)

[boutons_]

Old McFlop, befuddled simpleton extraordinaire, thinks the lack of violence is simply, exclusively due to the surge.

[Nbadan]

Old McFlop, befuddled simpleton extraordinaire, thinks the lack of violence is simply, exclusively due to the surge.

It's politically convenient just like his spin that Dubya's signing statement allowing offshore drilling is the cause for a slip in the PPB of oil....anyone with any horse sense knows that it was the slip in U.S. consumer confidence and the U.S. slipping into a deeper recession with sharp job cuts....

[MannyIsGod]

K, so since we won we can withdrawl now, right?

[2centsworth]

K, so since we won we can withdrawl now, right?

seems like that's what the Iraqi people are asking for, so I would say absolutely.

[MannyIsGod]

Good enough for me as long as they go back and finish Afghanistan.

[whottt]

:lol

Your an idiot if you think there isn't terra-ism in Pakistan....


Compared to where, Afghanistan? The occupied territories? I think not....


There are more terrorists in Pakistan than anywhere else...that is where the most Radical Islamacists are being produced, that is where the most devout ones are being producedm that is where the most radical Mullah's are. And when you take that into account it's a walk in the park relatively speaking.

That Musharraf hasn't been assasinated yet is incredible....and what does he have going for him? A military and police force that beat the living shit out of the radicals, including their leaders...so it does work.


You don't understand how unpopular these leaders are...the SaudieFamily, Mubarek, Musharraf...uh uh...they keep a cap on their terrorists extremely effectively. Those fundamentalists want those guys out of power big freaking time...but they can't do anything about it because those guys will have them exterminated...the Syrian guy too.

Instead they go and do it in Afghanistan and Iraq...where things are 10 times more watched and locked down...

The difference? They know the US won't exterminate them........I don't mean the terrorists...I mean the middle men Mullah's. The ones who don't blow themselves up...that just send others to do it. They also know the leaders of their countries aren't going to exterminate them as long as their attacks are aimed at the US and Israel...the threats to the leaders despotic rule.

[whottt]

If you brutalize a brute into submission, you have become the very thing you are trying to destroy. We could combat terrorists with suicide bombings of our own, but that would simply replace one terrorist with another.


Trust me...they know what an eye for an eye means, they know that very well as it is a creed they live by....the nuke threat would work. It won't work with Obama in the whitehouse...but it would with just about anyone else. Unfortunately the only two guys that would actually make that threat, Clark and Guilianni, couldn't get the nominations.

[Winehole23]

US Army: Iran won the war.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/01/18/armys-long-awaited-iraq-war-study-finds-iran-was-the-only-winner-in-a-conflict-that-holds-many-lessons-for-future-wars/

http://publications.armywarcollege.edu/

[boutons_deux]

US Army: Iran won the war.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/01/18/armys-long-awaited-iraq-war-study-finds-iran-was-the-only-winner-in-a-conflict-that-holds-many-lessons-for-future-wars/

http://publications.armywarcollege.edu/

USA paid $Ts for Iran to win, and that bill will keep running up for decades, America is LESS safe,

we have American war criminals retired in luxury,

Ms of USA soldiers, non-combattants, dead, injured in body and/or mind, and

20+ military suicides PER DAY.

And then there is the destruction of Iraq, and Ms of M/E refugees flooding into Europe, with Europeans reacting by electing authoritarian govts.

America is such a shit hole of a BigCorp Empire.

[Winehole23]

18 years later, we're still there.

Invading Iraq was a crime of world historical dimensions that Iraq is still paying the price for.

[boutons_deux]

18 years later, we're still there.

Invading Iraq was a crime of world historical dimensions that Iraq is still paying the price for.

dubya, dickhead, and the rest of their war criminal gang are wealthily retired or otherwise paying no price for their crimes against humanity.

[Frenchfred]

18 years later, we're still there.

Invading Iraq was a crime of world historical dimensions that Iraq is still paying the price for.

another mess created by the republicans

[Winehole23]

another mess created by the republicansThere was more continuity than change when Obama took over.

[Winehole23]

1373723038500331520

[Spurtacular]

More winning on the way.