GG

Or you can continue to be intellectually obtuse. Show me where I have said that Middle East is a different beast and whose people can't manage a modern form of government. If I spent the last year arguing that the main failure in Iraq was the untimely and hasty exit, when the US was on the precipice of gaining lasting change in Iraq and continue building the foundation for stability, what would a reasonable person conclude about my views? You continue to tie my views to a miserably failed foreign policy since 2008, and try to attribute it to a neocon philosophy, when it's been a polar opposite of everything that I've been talking about. That is the reason you keep harping on me not answering the question. I've given you a consistent answer over and over, and you continue to ask for an answer because it's not the answer you're looking for. So once again, for the simple minded in the crowd - Obama's policy was a polar opposite of a neocon strategy. The timing of his administration and policies being put in motion when the job wasn't finished does not equate to the failed execution of the original policy. And by my count, intellectual cowards are the ones who continually change the questions and add qualifiers to the original questions when they don't get the answers they want.

And why do you insist on qualifying your answer to Mid East countries? Are they too stupid? And BTW, promoting regime change isn't limited to going to war to achieve it.

Ah, late teen years punctuated by seeing the Urban Assault Vehicle parked in a driveway on Colvin by Deerhurst

Not like you haven't been warned. But, OTOH, with a stroke of a pen a lot of regulatory overhang is now gone and Gorsuch is in. Get tax reform done and it's a home run.

Just because you're putting your hands over your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA as loud as you can, doesn't mean my response wasn't clear.

That has to be the most retarded interpretation of what I wrote

For the newbs, Paul was a frequent contributor here who had a lot of insight into the deliberations that were going on and a lot of inside the tent discussions. Sadly he had a personal tragedy that totally sapped his will, and in the end he couldn't overcome the grief, despite all the help that Tom and KRC tried to provide. In one of his deepest moments, he asked SDS that all his posts be deleted, which destroyed great insights & conversations.

Sadly, his contributions are still missed. Coming up on the anniversary BTW. Hey Tom, is it 11 or 12 years now?

In retrospect, especially with current divisions clearly not. But looking at it historically and understanding that all major military campaigns over the past century took decades to complete, and that US has over one hundred thousand troops stationed overseas, you can see why the decision could be made. The predictable answer of course is that the majority of the US troops are in stable civilized countries, and you shouldn't expect US troops to be of any help to a bunch of Arabs.

Correct, and that's why it was a monumental mistake by Obama and we're seeing the results, which Greggy thinks is all due to neocon's desire of regime change. Obama pulled a Kyle Shanahan in the 4th quarter, thinking the win was in the bag and nothing would go wrong, because at worst he was dealing with the JV team in the area.

Again, it's a matter of perception and because it doesn't fall within Greggy's POV he ignores it. Nobody batted an eye that US had 100,000 personnel in a true quagmire in Afghanistan in 2010 (which Obama increased by 30K), but everybody was up in arms over 10,000 troops in a stabilizing Iraq. I also think that much more progress would have been made within 10 years, much shorter than 25.

This is indeed interesting, and I recall at this time Dwight Adams was livid that his duties were curtailed and he had almost no input into collegiate scouting. And then he was gone.

Oh, I know he was going to get to this point eventually, but I addressed the fundamental question first - could US help turn a regime change into a stable country. The right question is not whether it would be a model western democracy - but a groundwork for a functionally stable government? - To me, the answer is an unequivocal YES, which started to happen in Iraq by about 2010 and probably needed another decade of US presence. The second part of the question is purely political and media driven, that wasn't aligned with the situation on the ground. I like using that term, because Obama used it constantly on the campaign trail, and of course once he was in the White House he did everything but listen to his generals on the ground. It's also why I laugh at Greggy for slamming the gullible media in the run up to the Iraq War (there's valid criticism of that), but few are criticizing the distorted coverage that things were still a huge mess in 2011. The fawning press aligned with Obama's campaign premise that Iraq was a quagmire and that Afghanistan was the "good war," when in fact it was totally opposite. The Iraqi surge worked and by 2011, casualties significantly dropped. The US won the goodwill of many tribal chiefs in Anbar, the tide was turning but by no means was victory secured. Too bad that's not how it was reported, and Iraq was always cast as the perpetual quagmire, contrary to what was actually happening.

Nobody is discussing that this state handout further entrenches the bad spending habits in academia. College costs are increasing at the same rates as healthcare, but without the demographic trends that drive healthcare increases. Giving out more free money to the state system will not solve the runaway costs.

China - Not currency manipulator NAFTA - Just some changes around the edges needed Russia - Global aggressor Yellen - Hey, those low interest rates sure do help a Presidency

Putting aside your view that Arabs, Persians, Kurds, etc aren't evolved enough to support a stable government, US was well on the way to stabilizing Iraq by 2012 and the ongoing US involvement was not going to stress resources nor lead to a catastrophic outcome that we're witnessing now. There was very little rationale for leaving in 2012 because the insurgence was tamped down and casualties dropped to single digits (probably to the same casualty levels on US soil). And every serious foreign policy expert warned that an early exit would leave a vacuum for the insurgents to return, or worse, allow an open zone for a worse regime to take hold. Yet, the President took the first opportunity to run and conveniently blame the Iraqis for kicking the US out. Obama's decision to cut and run is emblematic of his penchance to always take the easy way out of a situation, long term consequences be damned. It was the same in his foreign policy, domestic policy, relationships with Congress and pretty much anything his administration touched. And it's amazing how somehow you spin Obama's mistakes as being part of a neocon doctrine, when they opposed every single one of his moves, and have been proven right in warning about the Sally Field foreign policy. Still have no idea where you're pulling out your factoid of "history proving otherwise," because history is fairly well-documented that the horrible outcomes result when the US LEAVES not when it stays.

Not if you believe that Marrone was livid over the Sammy trade and that Whaley left him high & dry without a QB

We're back to this I see. How's this, since we have a lot of newbs on the site, why don't you ask the question again, and see if I don't answer it.

Are you saying that ME people are somehow inferior to Germans Japanese and Koreans?

What is this history of failure are you referring to? Japan, Korea and Germany where US stayed, or Vietnam Cambodia and Iraq where the US left

If anyone is doubting that you're off the rails, the suggestion that US is going to overthrow Putin as part of a neocon plot proves it. And the shocking Wesley Clark admission is nothing but posturing from a failed presidential candidate and nothing new to anyone who's been listening to Dick Cheney since 1992. And exactly how are the neocons wrong in saying that the remnants of the Soviet patronage are the main reason for the filth in the Mid East? As for the willingness to remain in Iraq, I certainly don't recall massive opposition to maintaining the 2012 troop levels

And you keep hammering the square peg into the round hole despite zero evidence that the primary objectives of neocons is regime change, and continue to tie US actions during the Obama administration as directed by a neocon philosophy. Name one neocon who thought that leaving Iraq was a good idea. Name one who thought that the way Mubarak was deposed was a good idea. Name one who was cheering the way the Lybian coup went. Name one person who advocated a leading from behind and abdicating world leadership to a vacuum was a sound foreign policy idea. I'll be around for awhile while you dig these up. Meanwhile you can't even use consistent arguments in that you slam the gullible western media for buying the rationale of the Iraq invasion, but don't say a word when that media wasn't sceptical enough about the dangers of an early US exit from Iraq. You know who was screaming the loudest about an early exit? Neocons, because they understood that they broke it and needed to fix it. And the cost of staying in Iraq wasn't huge, because it was on its way to stabilization. And since that cowardly exit, hundreds of thousands died or were displaced. But your priority is with the lives of 70 executioners. I'm guessing that this guy's editorial is directed at people like you It's blindness to reality that conspiracy nuts like you can't separate strategic objectives from tactical ones. That's why the ignorant believe the line about Afghanistan being the "good war" even though that surgical strike shouldn't have lasted more than two months, and the involvement in Iraq was worth a much greater investment, especially once it started bearing positive results. And here were are six years later, and in your mind, it's the imperialist US that's the problem with the world and not the tyrannical despots who kill people for sport.

Anejos are a bit hard in the mornings for me. Blanco & Reposado all day. In your price range, try Corazon. Hussong is my favorite sipping, but it's not available everywhere (Premier Liquor carries it if you're in WNY) Can't go wrong with Tres Generations, Centenario, etc. Second on the Fortaleza, but give Tequila Ocho a try too Tequila prices have skyrocketed with the designer brands, but there's a lot of value to be had out there on a pedestrian budget. Experiment with a favorite Sangrita recipe as the shot chaser, it's how it's drunk in Mexico City. Once you're fully into the tequila, then expand your horizons to mezcal, sotol & raicilla. Much better sipping options

I wonder what Greggy would say if someone's news source was a US government press release.

Speaking of someone who's jumping to conclusions, how many times does it need to be pointed out that fully pulling out of Iraq in 2012 was as big of a mistake as going in. But I'm sure your Russian news sources will never address that topic, just like they won't cover the behind the scenes maneuvering they did to position Chirac's & Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq invasion. BTW, maybe you can remind me where Schroeder ended up when his political career was toasted? And you need to be very specific about which war mongering foreign policy you're referring to. Personally, my favorite is Monroe's. But you can tell me better which one I prefer.