Didn't you learn already from the idiot before you? It's not our Country, it's not our business. Sure, The USA F'd up that Country enough with Bush's insane Policies, and you took too long to get out, but you DID get out, and you aren't responsible for the ClusterF before you. Now stay out. We cannot continue to pay for it years after we got out. We can't be responsible for that shithole forever, like insane McCain and his minions desire. Don't get into a Dumb war. Don't let the hawks calling for action infect you. You were right about this a decade ago. Continue to be.
Not this again. Obama Got us out. Not soon enough.
But let's play your game. IF Bush got us in, AND got us out, then ANYTHING that is happening In Iraq now has nothing to do with Obama, correct? So how is it that anyone on your side of the fence can blame him for what's going on now?
IF he sends plane one there, he will be TOTALLY to blame for re-engaging in a war that we have no business in.
I'd have no problem with the bolded scenario. As long as the US isn't doing anything unilaterally. So far, so good with Obama's (lack of)response, but consider this as a preemptive warning that he better keep to this, and not let the War Mongers drum beating influence him, like it did with Syria.
Bush ended the combat operation, the surge that libtards like Obama opposed made it possible. The truth is Bush mismanaged the war and should of had a surge since day one. The combat operation would have ended by 2005, maybe 2006. Although, as with everything in life, the liars for life rewrite history. They're enabled to do so by a media that's in bed with them and an incredibly ignorant and low information base (thread being a case in point)
Bush believed we should retain a security presence in Iraq (remember liberals would argue we were being imperialistic?), as did Obama. But when Obama couldn't negotiate favorable terms with the Iraqi government (another fail), the least prepared man in the room took his ball and went home. The result? modern day Iraq.
The Iraqi people cooperated with us and worked to retain a peaceful society as long as they felt secure, and our presence made that happen. Today, everything is unraveling because that sense of security is once again gone, and people are back into hiding for fear of getting killed. Security is unraveling
The least prepared man in the room couldn't even learn from recent history, he's that fucking stupid.
I don't think we can put boots back on the ground, I don't think our nation can swallow that pill again on so many levels. But we need to do something to stop the onslaught.
As predicted at the beginning of Obama's disastrous presidency, he has emboldened our enemies
Bush believed we should retain a security presence in Iraq (remember liberals would argue we were being imperialistic?), as did Obama. But when Obama couldn't negotiate favorable terms with the Iraqi government (another fail), the least prepared man in the room took his ball and went home. The result? modern day Iraq.
The Iraqi people cooperated with us and worked to retain a peaceful society as long as they felt secure, and our presence made that happen. Today, everything is unraveling because that sense of security is once again gone, and people are back into hiding for fear of getting killed. Security is unraveling
The least prepared man in the room couldn't even learn from recent history, he's that fucking stupid.
I don't think we can put boots back on the ground, I don't think our nation can swallow that pill again on so many levels. But we need to do something to stop the onslaught.
As predicted at the beginning of Obama's disastrous presidency, he has emboldened our enemies
I didn't say YOU blamed Obama for it, but you don't seem to object in any way to those that do. Yet you do object to my statement that Obama withdrew the troops???
Read this Hellhole, and the usual low information, brain dead partisan hacks that ARE blaming him for the current situation. Read the idiot above you. He's actually stupid enough to think the surge worked
, and an earlier surge would have worked even better, and yet he's blaming Obama for the current situation, and throws in his usual libtard nonsense for good measure.
Yep.
He, and he alone, owns this.
Instead of listening to competent military advisers, the Stuttering Cluskerfuck chose his radical ideology:
"A responsible plan to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan" face)(*^%
Iraq is lost and you know Afghanistan will be next.
Obama’s Criminal Negligence in Iraq
The president didn’t end the Iraq war. He restarted it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380344/obamas-criminal-negligence-iraq-mario-loyola
So all of a sudden after all these centuries of war amongst their own people and war against their own countries someone has a plan to end all of that? Have you even studied the history of these countries?
They will always be at war with another country sue to their beliefs and when they aren't doing that they are fighting each other for their beliefs and power. The only way to completely stop it would to drop every nuke in our arsenal on them and make sure there wasn't 1 living soil left standing.
Their beliefs go back for so many generations it's ingrained and can never be changed no matter what military action was taken, and they will always be fighting each other for power.
It is a never ending cycle there that will continue to go on even when you and I are dead and our children are gone.
Might as well blame me for what going on cause I have as much control over it as does anyone in Washington
[h=1]Former soldiers warn against U.S. involvement in Iraq[/h] Updated: Fri 12:23 AM, Jun 13, 2014
By: Tricia Harte - Email
Rebels from an al Qaeda splinter group have taken over numerous cities in Iraq and threaten to continue escalating the violence.
The militants are from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, also referred to as ISIL or ISIS. This week they’ve overrun Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, and chased government forces out of Tikrit.
Iraqi officials have called upon the United States for assistance military to quell the insurgence and temper the violence. President Barack Obama said Thursday that he is looking at “all options” in dealing with the insurgency but didn’t go into detail as to what he is considering.
Meanwhile, veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom look at the videos and reports of the violence in Iraq and fear that any type of U.S. intervention or assistance could lead to entangling of troops down the line.
“The military's job isn't to police other countries. Our job is to protect our borders; our job is to protect the constitution and our citizens,” said former U.S. Army Sgt. Kacey Schlundt.
Schlundt enlisted in the military after 9/11 and served in Iraq between 2006 and 2008.
“Having been there, we should never have been there in the first place,” Schlundt added. At first he was put on a multi-international tactical training unity (MITT) tasked with training Iraqi army.
His faith in the dedication and character of some of the Iraqi soldiers he worked with diminished over the course of his tour.
“They’re running and hiding and basically taking their uniforms off and not having anything to do with it,” Schlundt explained. If Iraqi soldiers and police aren’t willing to fight and die for their country, Schlundt said he thinks it’s irrational to send American troops to fight and die for Iraq.
His fear, like many other veterans is that sending boots on the ground in Iraq would lead to further resentment among Iraqi insurgents and a higher death toll of soldiers.
In the end, Schlundt medically retired from the Army. Leaving with the feeling that the majority of Iraqis didn’t want U.S. troops around and that they weren’t effective in creating a stable environment.
“We wasted a lot of lives and it was for nothing,” said Schlundt.
Veterans are split in their support of U.S. involvement in Iraq but Schlundt said the men and women he served with believe it was a lost cause. As did former U.S. Army Sgt. John Motyl.
“As soon as we left in 2011, it started crumbling,” Motyl left Iraq in 2011. He carries the scars of war with him and is adamant that the U.S. has no business getting involved militarily in Iraq.
“We've already had troops over there; we've already done this mission. Is it worth sending more troops over there? I don't think so,” said Motyl.
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-Mich) released a statement this week saying: “We got into Iraq without adequate consideration for the consequences. What is required now is thoughtful consideration of our options, none of which, typically for the Middle East, is obvious or easy. It’s important to keep in mind that a major source of Iraq’s problems has been the refusal of the Maliki government, despite persistent U.S. encouragement, to reach out to its Sunni citizens to forge a unified and inclusive Iraq. No action on our part can resolve that disunity. It’s unclear how air strikes on our part can succeed unless the Iraqi army is willing to fight, and that’s uncertain given the fact that several Iraqi army divisions have melted away. While all options should be considered, the problem in Iraq has not been so much a lack of direct U.S. military involvement, but a lack of reconciliation on the part of Iraqi leaders.”
By: Tricia Harte - Email
- / Article
Rebels from an al Qaeda splinter group have taken over numerous cities in Iraq and threaten to continue escalating the violence.
The militants are from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, also referred to as ISIL or ISIS. This week they’ve overrun Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, and chased government forces out of Tikrit.
Iraqi officials have called upon the United States for assistance military to quell the insurgence and temper the violence. President Barack Obama said Thursday that he is looking at “all options” in dealing with the insurgency but didn’t go into detail as to what he is considering.
Meanwhile, veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom look at the videos and reports of the violence in Iraq and fear that any type of U.S. intervention or assistance could lead to entangling of troops down the line.
“The military's job isn't to police other countries. Our job is to protect our borders; our job is to protect the constitution and our citizens,” said former U.S. Army Sgt. Kacey Schlundt.
Schlundt enlisted in the military after 9/11 and served in Iraq between 2006 and 2008.
“Having been there, we should never have been there in the first place,” Schlundt added. At first he was put on a multi-international tactical training unity (MITT) tasked with training Iraqi army.
His faith in the dedication and character of some of the Iraqi soldiers he worked with diminished over the course of his tour.
“They’re running and hiding and basically taking their uniforms off and not having anything to do with it,” Schlundt explained. If Iraqi soldiers and police aren’t willing to fight and die for their country, Schlundt said he thinks it’s irrational to send American troops to fight and die for Iraq.
His fear, like many other veterans is that sending boots on the ground in Iraq would lead to further resentment among Iraqi insurgents and a higher death toll of soldiers.
In the end, Schlundt medically retired from the Army. Leaving with the feeling that the majority of Iraqis didn’t want U.S. troops around and that they weren’t effective in creating a stable environment.
“We wasted a lot of lives and it was for nothing,” said Schlundt.
Veterans are split in their support of U.S. involvement in Iraq but Schlundt said the men and women he served with believe it was a lost cause. As did former U.S. Army Sgt. John Motyl.
“As soon as we left in 2011, it started crumbling,” Motyl left Iraq in 2011. He carries the scars of war with him and is adamant that the U.S. has no business getting involved militarily in Iraq.
“We've already had troops over there; we've already done this mission. Is it worth sending more troops over there? I don't think so,” said Motyl.
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-Mich) released a statement this week saying: “We got into Iraq without adequate consideration for the consequences. What is required now is thoughtful consideration of our options, none of which, typically for the Middle East, is obvious or easy. It’s important to keep in mind that a major source of Iraq’s problems has been the refusal of the Maliki government, despite persistent U.S. encouragement, to reach out to its Sunni citizens to forge a unified and inclusive Iraq. No action on our part can resolve that disunity. It’s unclear how air strikes on our part can succeed unless the Iraqi army is willing to fight, and that’s uncertain given the fact that several Iraqi army divisions have melted away. While all options should be considered, the problem in Iraq has not been so much a lack of direct U.S. military involvement, but a lack of reconciliation on the part of Iraqi leaders.”
I'd have no problem with the bolded scenario. As long as the US isn't doing anything unilaterally. So far, so good with Obama's (lack of)response, but consider this as a preemptive warning that he better keep to this, and not let the War Mongers drum beating influence him, like it did with Syria.
Earlier in this thread you said if he sends one plane he'd be responsible for re-engaging a war the US has no business in? Which is it? Airstrike =good or airstrike = bad?
