# There are no solutions for Iraq.  Not anymore.



## rdean (Aug 7, 2014)

To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.

Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.

The most obvious is that Republicans and Bush had no idea there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite.  All they saw were "Muslims".  By not knowing the religions or the people, there was no understanding of what "not to do".  So Republicans blundered into doing everything wrong they could possibly imagine.

Iraq had an active duty military of 250,000 and an inactive reserve of 500,000 making it one of the largest armies in the world.  Bush and the Republicans fired them.  Just let 250,000 armed and trained men go.  Suddenly they had no jobs and no money for their families.  But they still had their weapons and a new found hatred of the US.

If Bush and the GOP knew anything about the Iraqis, they never would have put Shiites into power thereby creating a sister state with Iran.

Republicans helped those Shiites author a right wing, extreme Islamic Constitution:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution


----------



## Samson (Aug 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.



Not really.

I understand that Obama has been president for the past 6 years, but was never qualified for the job, and has completely screwed up Iraq during this period.


----------



## rdean (Aug 7, 2014)

Samson said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> ...



No he didn't.  Bush and the Republicans totally screwed over Iraq before Obama was even inaugurated.  It didn't matter who was president.  The GOP's damage was already done.

You didn't address a single issue I brought up.  Only "It's Obama's fault" and he wasn't even president when the damage occurred.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



If Obama can't resolve this it's impossible ???? BULLSHIT.
Have him step aside then and give an optimist a shot at it . Fuck this loser attitude.


----------



## Samson (Aug 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Blah, Blah BLAH.......


*Amazing how Obama can blame everything on History, even though 6 years of it has been HIS HISTORY!!!*

Consequently his will be a legacy of failure.


----------



## Zander (Aug 7, 2014)

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!!

Bubububububububububoooooooooooosh!!!!!


----------



## Samson (Aug 7, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



He plans to have discussions with the U.N.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 7, 2014)

The man love some of these creeps have for Obama is noted. The Failure Nation

-Geaux


----------



## rdean (Aug 7, 2014)

These right wingers have no solution either.  There isn't any.  The GOP damage has been done.  About the only thing we can do is try to protect the Kurds and the few Christians that are left after the GOP did nothing to protect them.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 7, 2014)

Obama's bombs will be seen as "Liberator, not Conqueror Bombs".


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> These right wingers have no solution either.  There isn't any.  The GOP damage has been done.  About the only thing we can do is try to protect the Kurds and the few Christians that are left after the GOP did nothing to protect them.



Yo negative Nancy----take your boy and run. Let some people who know what they are doing handle this.


----------



## Samson (Aug 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> These right wingers have no solution either.  There isn't any.  The GOP damage has been done.  About the only thing we can do is try to protect the Kurds and the few Christians that are left after the GOP did nothing to protect them.



The "right wingers" solution was to invade Iraq, depose an insane dictator, and help democracy grow.

They never anticipated Barak Hussein Obama's leadership being so astonishingly incompetent, that the entire scope of years of toil, thousands on American lives, and American treasure would be frittered away.

The fall of Iraq will always be something to decorate the Obama Presidential Library.


----------



## Blackrook (Aug 7, 2014)

If McCain had been elected in 2008, this would not be happening.

If Romney had been elected in 2012, this would not be happening.


----------



## Samson (Aug 7, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > These right wingers have no solution either.  There isn't any.  The GOP damage has been done.  About the only thing we can do is try to protect the Kurds and the few Christians that are left after the GOP did nothing to protect them.
> ...




You mean the U.N.........?

_Were also consulting with other countries -- and the United Nations _​
President Obama Makes a Statement on the Crisis in Iraq | The White House


----------



## skye (Aug 7, 2014)

Whatever  Islamic fanatics savages   touch  turn to hell..... they want their caliphate.... doesn't matter how many million beheadings of infidels  will take.

Shia, sunnis its all the same....  medieval monsters of evil who  will take us all to a  very dangerous   worldwide conflict!


----------



## whitehall (Aug 7, 2014)

The US lost 50,000 American Troops in three years as a result of a democrat president ordering the US Military to Korea on an "executive order". The mission was so poorly run that we traded a victory for a truce  still have Troops along the 38th parallel to this day. The Iraq adventure by President Bush was doomed even though he had permission from a reluctant 36% of congressional democrats because the media was united with the democrat party to undermine the mission.


----------



## Slag (Aug 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> Article 2:
> 
> First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
> 
> ...



This will always be at the bottom of the problem with them and anyone who deals with them.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 7, 2014)

Democrats can't comprehend the concept of Military victory and they will never allow the United States to achieve victory in Iraq or anywhere else even if the power vacuum destabilizes the region. John Kerry was the perfect choice by Obama to run foreign policy. The egocentric traitor will fuck it up so bad that the US will be nothing but a 3rd world country in a couple of years.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 7, 2014)

What is happening currently in Iraq has nothing to do with Bush. Give it up rdean. ISIS was nothing but a two bit wannabe jihadist organization until the conflict in Syria. 

Obama owns ISIS. Period full stop. 

So do other western leaders including my very own conservative PM Harper who were so bloody invested in trying to depose Assad they turned a blind eye to Baghdadi and his ISIS as they became the most powerful and wealthy terror army this world has ever seen.

All the blood that ISIS sheds is on their hands.


----------



## rdean (Aug 7, 2014)

Samson said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > These right wingers have no solution either.  There isn't any.  The GOP damage has been done.  About the only thing we can do is try to protect the Kurds and the few Christians that are left after the GOP did nothing to protect them.
> ...



You're insane.  

American casualties grew every year under Bush.  Then he had the "surge" because he had completely lost control.  Only heavy, brute force from the US kind of limited violence for awhile.  But once that was gone it rushed back.  It was always going to.

Just your statement proves you know nothing.

iCasualties | OIF | Iraq | Fatalities By Year


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> 
> Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.
> 
> ...



There are always solutions, only pathetic losers think that problems are insolvable.


----------



## rdean (Aug 7, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> What is happening currently in Iraq has nothing to do with Bush. Give it up rdean. ISIS was nothing but a two bit wannabe jihadist organization until the conflict in Syria.
> 
> Obama owns ISIS. Period full stop.
> 
> ...



Parts of ISIS is made up of the Sunni's that Bush and the Republicans disenfranchised.  

What is wrong with you people?  You can't be this ignorant.  You just can't be.  It must be drugs, booze or stupid.  What is it?

Iraqs Sunnis Will Kick Out ISIS After Dumping Maliki: Ex-CIA Official

Let Sunnis Defeat Iraqs Militants

The groups ideology is a perversion of Islam and an affront to our culture. Yet the group gets local support. The Sunni tribes defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq, its predecessor, less than a decade ago. Today, they cooperate with ISIS (which now calls itself the Islamic State)  not as fanatics, but because they see it as the lesser of two evils, compared with Mr. Maliki.

Meanwhile, the government murders Sunni detainees and bombs civilian areas. The killing of Sunnis by Iranian-backed Shiite militias and the presence of Iranian military advisers on the ground deepen suspicion that Iraqs government serves Iran, not Iraqis. This pushes more Sunnis toward ISIS, increasing the threat it poses to Iraqs people and neighbors.

-----------------------------------------------

If USMB Republicans don't understand that Republicans created a "sister state" for Iran, then how can they discuss anything and make sense?  Their lack of knowing anything of value blows my mind.


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> ...



Not voting Republicans into office can certainly throw a wrench into the GOP's plan to finish what they started under Bush.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Not being a partisan hack would solve even more problems than you know exist.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> 
> *Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.*
> 
> ...



Correct. 

And now we're forced to deal with the consequences of a failed, illegal war.


----------



## AntiParty (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> ...



^The type of bias that disgraces America. 


So we saw Big Oil Bush go to war with Iraq and we saw them burn the Oil Fields. Did we see WMD's?......

Your entire perspective is DECADES old and you still refuse to learn anything....

The only reason we have stayed in Iraq was because VP Cheney was a head member of Halliburton, a Construction Corporation that is also a head of the Federal Reserve. We have been rebuilding Iraq because of our "oops" and here is the debt clock
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2014/06/20/cost-war-iraq/?gclid=COaF19f5gsACFaVZ7AodOHEA9Q

Don't get me wrong, Obama prey's on profits too. Lot's come from the same sources. But to ignore the Bush/Iraq ignorance is ignorance of politics in general. Obama could have pulled out years ago, but same puppet master.


----------



## CaféAuLait (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> 
> Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.
> 
> ...



Sorry dude. 

Obama has stated 32 times Al-Qaeda was decimated, the path to defeat or running scared. 

ISIS is part of Al-Qaeda and Obama did not even recognize their resurgence and tried to convince the world terrorists were no longer a threat. 




> Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.




He has had his own head so far up his own ass, his administration did not even think they were reorganizing and coming back stronger than before. 

After all, how does the saying go? 

_You cut the head off a snake, it grows another one. You cut that one off, you find another..._


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 8, 2014)

Obama OKs air strikes, U.S. starts humanitarian Iraq aid | Detroit Free Press | freep.com


You're a pathetic hack who thought you could get out in front of this story where your boy is invading and attacking Iraq.. You know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who clusterfucked Iraq and made the death of US service members in vain..  now he's having to go back in like the fuck up he is and you toadies are eating his asshole .. DESPICABLE AND TRANSPARENT.. so just STFU already.


----------



## asterism (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> 
> Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.
> 
> ...



Iraqis certainly did ask for US assistance.

The Kurds' Story | The Survival Of Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS


----------



## francoHFW (Aug 8, 2014)

Thanks for the stupidest war EVER, hater dupes, AND a world depression- and for producing a new class of Jihadists....stupid a-holes lol...


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > What is happening currently in Iraq has nothing to do with Bush. Give it up rdean. ISIS was nothing but a two bit wannabe jihadist organization until the conflict in Syria.
> ...



Fool. This is not about "Sunnis feeling disenfranchised". Not at all. 

And ISIS will tell you their movement is not about hurt feelings. Or being sad that they don't have a bigger role in government. Or treated better at a ballot box.

That's western propaganda. Complete and utter bullshit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> ...



 Can you actually explain how you think Obama has completely screwed up
Iraq using facts as the basis for your evaluation? Or is all you can do is generalized right-winger cliche's and ignorance based slurs?


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Obama is responsible for Iraq crisis

WASHINGTON  Yes, it is true that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq when George W. Bush took office. But it is equally true that there was essentially no al-Qaida in Iraq remaining when Barack Obama took office.

Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but what is not debatable is Obama's responsibility for the return of the Islamist insurgency that had been routed by the time he became president.

By 2009, al-Qaida in Iraq had not just been decimated but humiliated by the American surge and the Anbar Awakening. Here were aggrieved Sunnis, having ferociously fought the Americans who had overthrown 80 years of Sunni hegemony, now reversing allegiance and joining the infidel invader in crushing, indeed extirpating from Iraq, their fellow Sunnis of al-Qaida.

At the same time, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turned the Iraqi army against radical Shiite militias from Basra all the way north to Baghdad.

The result? "A sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq." That's not Bush congratulating himself. That's Obama in December 2011 describing the Iraq we were leaving behind. He called it "an extraordinary achievement."

Which Obama proceeded to throw away. David Petraeus had won the war. Obama's one task was to conclude a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to solidify the gains. By Obama's own admission  in the case he's now making for a status-of-forces agreement with Afghanistan  such agreements are necessary "because after all the sacrifices we've made, we want to preserve the gains" achieved by war.

Which is what made his failure to do so in Iraq so disastrous. His excuse was his inability to get immunity for U.S. soldiers. Nonsense. Bush had worked out a compromise in his 2008 SOFA, as we have done with allies everywhere. The real problem was Obama's reluctance to maintain any significant presence in Iraq.

The result was predictable. And predicted. Overnight, Iran and its promotion of Shiite supremacy became the dominant influence in Iraq. The day after the U.S. departure, Maliki ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice president. He cut off funding for the Sons of Iraq, the Sunnis who had fought with us against al-Qaida. And subsequently so persecuted and alienated Sunnis that they were ready to welcome back al-Qaida in Iraq  rebranded in its Syrian refuge as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria  as the lesser of two evils. Hence the stunningly swift ISIS capture of so much of Iraq.

But the jihadist revival is the result of a double Obama abdication: creating a vacuum not just in Iraq but in Syria.

Faced with a de facto jihadi state spanning both countries, a surprised Obama now has little choice but to try to re-create overnight, from scratch and in miniature, the kind of U.S. presence  providing intelligence, tactical advice and perhaps even air support  he abjured three years ago

His announcement that he is sending 300 military advisers is a pale substitute but the only option Obama has left himself. The leverage he forfeited will be hard to reclaim. But it's our only chance to keep Iraq out of the hands of the Sunni jihadists of ISIS and the Shiite jihadists of Tehran.

Obama is responsible for Iraq crisis


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> This is not about "Sunnis feeling disenfranchised". Not at all.
> 
> And ISIS will tell you their movement is not about hurt feelings. Or being sad that they don't have a bigger role in government. Or treated better at a ballot box.




Iraq's  Sunnis are not at all aligned with the IS terrorist ideology. That is why Sunnis destroyed al Qaeda in Iraq in 2006 and 2007 in what was called the Anbar awakening. Sunnis will do it again if Maliki steps down and a more inclusive government is formed. Obama see Maliki as the enabling reason IS terrorists have invaded do Obama will not put US fighters in the sky to be seen as the US being Maliki's Air Force. The Commander In Chief explained it quite well again last night. But those who hate the man don't listen directly to him. They prefer his words be filtered thorough a Radio news entertainment jockey spinning it all for their pleasure of hating.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 8, 2014)

We invaded Iraq, destabilized the country, got tens of thousands of Americans and countless innocent other people maimed or killed and then we left without cleaning up our mess.

And please let's not forget that democrats voted to invade as well as republicans.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> By 2009, al-Qaida in Iraq had not just been decimated but humiliated by the American surge and the Anbar Awakening. Here were aggrieved Sunnis, having ferociously fought the Americans who had overthrown 80 years of Sunni hegemony, now reversing allegiance and joining the infidel invader in crushing, indeed extirpating from Iraq, their fellow Sunnis of al-Qaida.
> 
> At the same time, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turned the Iraqi army against radical Shiite militias from Basra all the way north to Baghdad.
> 
> ...




We know where Charles Krauthammer is coming from don't we?  He can be proven wrong as he was in 2003 by refuting his bulkshit lie that Obama had the chance to get immunity for troops to stay in Iraq that would be approved by Iraq's parliament. Bush negotiated with a weak not sovereign government in 2008 and barely got the sOFA passed. In 2010 the Maliki government was stronger, a million man army and he headed a sovereign nation for two years. 

No way was there going to be an extension of the SOFA without overthrowing the government again. No way. 

The current events are on the sovereign government of Iraq and no one else. 

Bush is responsible for creating the entire mess overall and putting the Maliki
Government in place. 

It was Msliki that demanded the UN authorization for US troops be ended in 2009. Bush failed to get Maliki to abandon that since Maliki Could not be trusted to continue and hold the gains made by the start of 2009.


Krauthammer can be refuted several more ways and I will
so over time. So try not to run away.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > By 2009, al-Qaida in Iraq had not just been decimated but humiliated by the American surge and the Anbar Awakening. Here were aggrieved Sunnis, having ferociously fought the Americans who had overthrown 80 years of Sunni hegemony, now reversing allegiance and joining the infidel invader in crushing, indeed extirpating from Iraq, their fellow Sunnis of al-Qaida.
> ...



You state there was no way for an extension of SoFA except you forgot to add factual information to back your claim. Additionally, since you are stating baseless facts, so to did Obama so he didn't try? Nice

It's Obama's mess plain and simple. But they, if it makes you sleep at night and perhaps brings you handouts, then I completely understand where you're coming from

-Geaux


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> BULLSHIT. Have him step aside then and give an optimist a shot at it . Fuck this loser attitude.




Obama is not the President of Iraq, so him stepping down has nothing to do with it. I disagree with the premise of the OP that there are no solutions. There is one great solution. Maliki steps down and the US assists a genuine inclusive government with air strikes..... and more military aid.... than currently receiving....  If Maliki steps down as Sistani and even Iran wants him to do. 

There's a solution... and hopefully it comes soon. 


But there is no American military solution by us if Maliki stays in and refuses to form an inclusive government. 

We can't be seen as Maliki's air force bailing him out.  It just won't work.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> You state there was no way for an extension of SoFA except you forgot to add factual information to back your claim.




Was the SOFA extended beyond 2010?  No, That is my fact. You and Krauthammer think it could have been extended but you have no facts to back it up. And you never will find a fact that supports your outlandish claim. 

My original fact that you are ignoring was that Iraq was a two year old totally sovereign state by the end of 2011. Obama had no cards or incentives to convince the people of Iraq that the fucked up job that Bush did in Iraq should be continued by the presence of combat troops and or trainers with immunity from Iraqi law.


----------



## Samson (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Obama had no cards or incentives to convince the people of Iraq that the fucked up job that Bush did in Iraq should be continued by the presence of combat troops and or trainers with immunity from Iraqi law.



Obama had no "cards or incentives"

 

Interesting.

So Obama becomes leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and it suddenly become impotent.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > You state there was no way for an extension of SoFA except you forgot to add factual information to back your claim.
> ...



Do the current 300 advisers have SOFA status?

I can wait

-Geaux


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> And please let's not forget that democrats voted to invade as well as republicans.



That vote was correct and it was in October 2002 when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq. It was fair to assume Iraq had WMD. The vote was use fore 'if necessary' if diplomatic means could not resolve it. Diplomatic means was UN Inspections. 

The inspectors returned in December 2002.

By late February no WMD were found and Iraq's cooperation was said to be proactive. 

March 8 Bush and Blair sent a draft Resolution to the UNSC that Saddam Hussein could remain in power after ten days if the UN Inspectors declared Iraq free of WMD.  Note that Bush could not make that offer if he had solid intelligence on March 8 that Iraq was hiding WMD. Bush would have had to share that intelligence to comply with UN Res 1441.


Nine days later there was not a single Democrat standing on the podium with Bush telling the world that he had intelligence that 'left no doubt' that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors.  That was a lie. No Democrat participated in that lie. That is all on the Decider who decided to LIE and start a war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Do the current 300 advisers have SOFA status?
> 
> I can wait




Had ISIS done their invasion in 2010 that would have changed the Iraqi Mindset too. 

You don't do well with changed conditions on a timeline do you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> 
> Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.
> 
> ...









^ Iraq after Bush Left






^ Iraq under Obama


----------



## Peach (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> ...



It was screwed up, Bush had not the capacity either. But, it remains Obama's job now, no one "forced" him into office.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> ...



Welcome to the board, Mr. Cheney.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Obama had no "cards or incentives"  So Obama becomes leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and it suddenly become impotent.
> ...


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 8, 2014)

Now is when shit happens. We can't be saddled by what happened in the past. If Obama isn't going to seek solutions to this situation and implement them then he needs to resign and let someone else to do. The excuse shit doesn't cut it in any world.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> . But it's our only chance to keep Iraq out of the hands of the Sunni jihadists of ISIS and the Shiite jihadists of Tehran.
> 
> Obama is responsible for Iraq crisis




Who and where are the Shiite jihadists that Obama is supposed to keep from getting control of Iraq? 

Your argument and case gets more bizarre with every post.


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 8, 2014)

If you haven't figured it out after all these years, the problem transcends Iraq...the sooner we accept that fact we can then proceed to the "final solution".


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



An opinion piece from Charles Krauthammer'?  That's it?  That's your "evidence"?

You've got to do better than that.


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> We invaded Iraq, destabilized the country, got tens of thousands of Americans and countless innocent other people maimed or killed and then we left without cleaning up our mess.
> 
> And please let's not forget that democrats voted to invade as well as republicans.



Not all democrats voted and when you have the president presenting evidence and saying you are with us or with the terrorists, there isn't any pressure.  Oh wait.......

No one wants to be with the terrorists.  Besides, who would have thought the president would lie us into a false war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> No one wants to be with the terrorists.  Besides, who would have thought the president would lie us into a false war?




The argument at the time of the vote was valid that Iraq could have WMD and cou&#322;d possibly end up in the hands of terrorists. That only in the context of the aftermath of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. 

That vote was not to authorize war directly. It was to give Bush the best way of convincing Iraq and the UNSC to get inspections restarted and avoid war.

It worked. There was nothing shameful about Dems that gave Bush the authority to make a rather simple decision. If inspections resumed as they did war would not be necessary,

What was shameful and ignorant was Bush's lone decision to put an end to inspections so he could launch an invasion and occupy Iraq to find the WMD better than the inspectors.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Now is when shit happens. We can't be saddled by what happened in the past. If Obama isn't going to seek solutions to this situation and implement them then he needs to resign and let someone else to do. The excuse shit doesn't cut it in any world.



Who says Obama is not seeking solutions? What are your solutions.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> ...



Invading Iraq is what screwed it up.

You folks were warned.

Well, what you were warned about?

Is here.


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Even the pope warned Bush.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yes, but you would ignore them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > By 2009, al-Qaida in Iraq had not just been decimated but humiliated by the American surge and the Anbar Awakening. Here were aggrieved Sunnis, having ferociously fought the Americans who had overthrown 80 years of Sunni hegemony, now reversing allegiance and joining the infidel invader in crushing, indeed extirpating from Iraq, their fellow Sunnis of al-Qaida.
> ...



Thanks for proving me right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > You state there was no way for an extension of SoFA except you forgot to add factual information to back your claim.
> ...



Facts are things you ignore.

How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > You state there was no way for an extension of SoFA except you forgot to add factual information to back your claim.
> ...



Obama insisted that immunity pass the council of representatives, which everyone told him would not happen.

As for cards, he could have added every soldier to the staff of the US Embassy, which would have automatically given them immunity from Iraqi laws. Would you like me to lay out some examples of incentives, like extra aid, he had the ability to offer? Or are you simply going to insist that Obama is a incompetent idiot?


----------



## Samson (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Before Obama = No ISIS

After Obama = ISIS

Any more idiotic questions?


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> 
> Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.
> 
> ...



George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR. 

Iraq invaded Kuwait and then several days after that annexed the country. This happened 24 years ago this week and has brought us to today. Kuwait its oil and the rest of the oil in Saudi Arabia and throughout the region are vital to the global economy. Its been in the United States National Security interest to defend the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be US policy in the early 1940s. 

The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President. Unfortunately, President Obama abandoned the rebuilding of the Iraqi military and government when he withdrew the United States in 2011. Without the United States to be a middle man working between the various factions in the government, sectarianism returned and the growth in capability of the Iraqi military stagnated and reversed as leaders were promoted for political loyalty rather than military competence and knowledge. 

Shia Arabs are 60% of Iraq
Kurds are 15% of Iraq
Sunni Arabs 20% of Iraq
Yezedi's, Christians, Turks and others are 5%. 

           The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights. 

            The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 8, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 8, 2014)

Obama: It Wasnt My Decision to Pull Troops Out of Iraq

[youtube]uS__hLWBc-8[/youtube]​


Asked if he had any regrets about not leaving a residual force in Iraq, Obama advised reporters to Keep in mind, that wasnt a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.


Obama: It Wasn?t My Decision to Pull Troops Out of Iraq | Washington Free Beacon


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.



Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens. 

Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.



> The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President.



All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.

If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.



> Unfortunately, President Obama abandoned the rebuilding of the Iraqi military and government when he withdrew the United States in 2011. Without the United States to be a middle man working between the various factions in the government, sectarianism returned and the growth in capability of the Iraqi military stagnated and reversed as leaders were promoted for *political loyalty* rather than military competence and knowledge.



Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances.  The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members.  If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.



> The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and* it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.*



You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.

Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?

Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?  



> The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.



What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."


----------



## Samson (Aug 8, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.
> ...



So a "functioning society" is when citizens are terrorized........



Brilliant.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



A police state doesn't preclude the business of life continuing, even continuing in an orderly manner. Citizens of a police state simply learn how to go about their lives without drawing the attention of the State.  The rules are understood. I suppose the Prime Directive for Iraq was "Don't Challenge Saddam."  You didn't have to fear a Sunni putting a car-bomb outside the shop owned by a Shia, etc.


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> These right wingers have no solution either.  There isn't any.  *The GOP damage has been done.  About the only thing we can do is try to protect the Kurds and the few Christians that are left after the GOP did nothing to protect them*.



And that's exactly what Obama is doing and Republicans failed to do.

This is becoming a theme.

GOP fails and leaves a mess for Obama.

Obama works to clean it up as the GOP tries to stop him.

He still succeeds and they call him a failure anyway.

"Obama Derangement Syndrome" is the GOP's "Ebola".


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

Samson said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Republicans terrorized America and we still more or less "functioned".  Their "terror alerts" devolved into "jokes".











Remember when Republicans were saying Obama will let terrorists from Gitmo go into your back yards?

Fox News pushes GOP horror story of Obama setting Gitmo terrorists loose in U.S. | Research

When Republicans do these things, they are purposely terrorizing the people of the United States.  That is true "terrorism".


----------



## asterism (Aug 8, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.
> ...



As long as you excuse a little genocide here and there, Saddam was a good guy right?


----------



## asterism (Aug 8, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...



The rules were understood by the Kurds too... "don't exist."

You idiots on the left sure love your dictators.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 8, 2014)

asterism said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Dude, I'm more Right Wing than you.


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

asterism said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Huh?


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

asterism said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



No one said that idiot moron.  What is wrong with you?


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.
> ...



That was a really well worded and thought out post.  And still, these guys come up with "you must love ruthless dictators".  What were they reading?  Were they deluded?  Stupid?  Indoctrinated?  Did they even bother to read it? 

If they didn't like it or disagreed, why not explain why? 

We know why.  They couldn't.  Agreeing or disagreeing with well thought out discourse is beyond their meager abilities.  They aren't even trying to understand your point.  It's a race to the bottom to figure out some tiny thing they can put down thinking they are making some clever comment.  Only, it's not clever, it's pathetic.


----------



## asterism (Aug 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I've responded to plenty of your posts saying that it was wrong to remove Saddam and all I got was "Republicans bad derp derp derp."


But once again, I'll articulate my point:

1.  Saddam was a genocidal maniac.  His and the Baath Party's efforts to eradicate the entire Kurdish population goes back to the 1970s.
2.  Saddam was bribing France and Russia to get the sanctions lifted.  This corrupted the process of the UN Security Council.
3.  Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terror.  He harbored Abu Nidal, rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and allowed Zarqawi to set up a base in Northern Iraq.
4.  Saddam broke the cease-fire with the US many times and the perception of the US as a "paper tiger" was undermining the purpose of any cease-fire agreement.
5.  Saddam was either going to be Al Qaeda's most ardent supporter or he was going to be ousted and the resources at his disposal were going to be in control of someone worse.


----------



## asterism (Aug 8, 2014)

Even the hero of the left President Bill Clinton thought Saddam had to go:


----------



## asterism (Aug 8, 2014)

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." 
  Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 
  Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." 
  Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." 
  Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." 
  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 
  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." 
  Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." 
  Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force &mdash; if necessary &mdash; to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." 
  Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." 
  Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." 
  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... 
  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 8, 2014)

asterism said:


> But once again, I'll articulate my point:
> 
> 1.  Saddam was a genocidal maniac.  His and the Baath Party's efforts to eradicate the entire Kurdish population goes back to the 1970s.
> 2.  Saddam was bribing France and Russia to get the sanctions lifted.  This corrupted the process of the UN Security Council.
> ...



The traditional American approach has been to depose the "out of control bastard" and install another bastard who understand that we hold the whip.

The effort to turn Iraq into the Shining Democracy on the Hill was so damn asinine that it looks like a policy devised by drugged out peaceniks congregated together at a dorm room bull session.

What's so hard to understand about the fact that identification of a problem is DIFFERENT than a solution to the problem. All you're doing is identifying the problem and resting on your laurels. EVERYONE understood that Saddam was a problem, so don't go patting yourself on the back for being able to see that he was a problem. 

The hard part here is to devise the best solution to that problem. Invading and then nation-building in order to create a western-modeled outpost in the Middle East was sheer lunacy.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 9, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Obama: It Wasnt My Decision to Pull Troops Out of Iraq
> 
> [youtube]uS__hLWBc-8[/youtube]​
> 
> ...



It was Obama that insisted that the Iraqi parliament vote on whether to approve an extended stay of US forces in Iraq. Maliki alone had already approved a US extension, but then Obama made him put the issue before the parliament which was a first for a US SOFA agreement. The parliament came up a few votes short in approving it. So in a sense, it was Obama's decision, because he submitted the stationing of US troops to a parliament vote that was unnecessary.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 9, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > But once again, I'll articulate my point:
> ...



Iraq was invaded and removed from power to remove a threat to United States and global interest in protecting and securing the vital natural resources of the region that were often threaten by Saddam's behavior. 

     In removing Saddam, the United States had no choice by to choose another form of government. It would have been foolish for the United States to invade Iraq and ignore its own democratic principles of government as well as the wishes of the Iraqi people and install a new dictatorship. Doing so would have created a far worse insurgency than the United States faced in the early days of occupation.


----------



## Samson (Aug 9, 2014)

rdean said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...



While I suppose "terrorism" could be defined very subjectively (I'm certain you'd be terrorized by Ronald McDonald), I'm pretty sure having your balls electrocuted for jay- walking in Bagdad is a little more serious.

Poor Stupidly Partisan dream.


----------



## Samson (Aug 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Which is all well and good but the PRESENT debate has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam, Bush, Cheny, Haliburton, or any of the issues associated with Iraq prior to Obama. 

While we may certainly appreciate Ozombies desire to deflect the present into the distant path, what is going in the ME TODAY and for the past 6 years has been a result of Obamas inability to lead.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 9, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.
> ...



       What you fail to understand is that the decision to remove Saddam FIRST and formost was about Saddam's impact on the region outside of Iraq. Saddam's threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf. The United States and the rest of the world depends on the natural resources that come from this region and Saddam's wars against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and his refusal to comply with international resolutions passed against his country after the end of fighting created difficult conditions in Iraq throughout the 1990s.

       The United States used sanctions, a weapons embargo, military air strikes and other means to try and contain Saddam from 1991 to 2003. But unfortunately, the Iraq's neighbors in many in the international community FAILED to continue to apply the sanctions and embargo against Iraq for their own financial gain and other reasons. The essential end of the sanctions and weapons embargo against Iraq meant that the only option for dealing with Saddam was regime change. 

        The decision to remove Saddam was about US national security interest in the region NOT the actual conditions in Iraq, regardless if you think Saddam was good or bad for those conditions inside Iraq. SADDAM had to go because of his past wars and continued threat to natural resources in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as the failure of the US containment strategy in the 1990s. Regime change was the only option left, since everything else had been tried and failed. 

         Its also interesting to note that it first became the policy of the United States to find a way to remove Saddam from power under the Clinton administration. Ultimately Bush took the only action capable of achieving that objective. 

*So to put it bluntly, you are missing the main reasons for US involvement in the region which involve the international lawlessness practiced by Saddam involving attacking and invading four different countries and annexing Kuwait wiping it off the map. The TYPE of government Iraq should be ruled by or country a or b should be ruled by is a distant secondary issue.*





> > The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



             The Bush administration understood the issues, but they made mistakes which made the occupation more difficult than it had to be. *It usually takes several decades for a country that has always been ruled by a dictatorship to develop a fully functioning, successful democracy. Yes, the past tribal culture makes it more difficult but evolving from that tribal past to a more modern one is very common and something that has happened all over the world at some point. Iraq's tribal past does not make it immune to globalilization or democratic governance. *

            More importantly, despite the problems, the Iraqi democratic systems has actually had many success's. It has held multiple elections and help to increase oil production and distribute the profits all across Iraq which is vital to people standards of living. So far all its problems, the Iraqi government has had some successes. Unfortunately, Obama abandoned the nation building project long before it was complete. This abandonment weakened the Iraqi government, weakened Iraqi democracy, and weakened the Iraqi military over the past two years which heavily contributed to the problems we see in 2014. 





> > The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and* it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



     Jokes and gross anti-Bush rhetoric are no substitutes for sound objective commentary and advise on issues of international relations. 

       Imposing a dictatorship on Iraq would not have worked better than the formation of a democratic government. Once Saddam's was removed, the United States needed to set up a new government to help create a stable environment. That's not wishful thinking, that's just a simple reality, a necessity for stability! You can criticize how that was done, but the need to do that is not debatable. Once Saddam's regime was gone, Iraq needed a new government. Imposing a new dictatorship would have caused far more problems than helping set up a democratic one.




> The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




First you need to understand some historical facts that you seem to be ignorant of:

1. The United States successfully invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power
2. The United States successfully set up a new Iraqi government and military.
3. The new Iraqi government has successfully held 3 democratic Presidential elections and 3 state an local provincial elections over the past 8 years!
4. The United States successfully brought violence down with the Surge of US troops in 2007 and 2008. 
5. By 2009, the Iraqi military was starting to take over security responsibilities from US troops and were succeeding in that role. 
6. When Obama prematurely withdrew US forces in 2011, the Iraqi military was in charge of all security throughout the county was getting better at that role.
7. When Obama prematurely withdrew US forces in 2011, the Iraqi political factions were still cooperating with each other and sectarianism was being held down or non-existent. 


           So what you have here is an invasion, occupation and nation building project that was on the road to success, but one that Obama abandoned pre-maturely. The project started crumble when Obama abandoned it. That is what has led to the current crises. The solution to the current crises is to help the Iraqi government and military defeat the terrorist IS and re-establish control and stability in areas that have been lost to IS. The Iraqi military and government have taken a sharp blow and have been weakened by two years of Obama's disengagement from the region. But the United States does have the ability to reverse this set back and put Iraq back on he right course provided it is willing to use the right military resources to do so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Do the current 300 advisers have SOFA status?
> 
> I can wait
> 
> -Geaux



Wait for what? Did you have a point? Maliki is out. See what happens now before assigning blame without any cause for everything on Obama.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 23, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Do the current 300 advisers have SOFA status?
> ...



See what happens now? What more do you need to see? More decapitations?

-Geaux


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> What you fail to understand is that the decision to remove Saddam FIRST and formost was about Saddam's impact on the region outside of Iraq.



That is not true, your entire pro-invasion whitewashing screed is in error.

You ignore critical realities regarding the internationaly lawless and amoral decision by Bush to invade Iraq in March 2003 in midst of the legitimate UN inspection process that was recognized by the majority of the worlds nations to be the way to maintain peace and stability in the region with regard to the Baathist regime in Iraq.

The decision to invade Iraq was explained very clearly FIRST and foremost by Bush on March 17, 2003. He told it was because Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors at that moment in time.

If true that would be the only justification for the US to have invaded Iraq in March 2003. As we all know it was not true. The FACT that Bush's reasons to invade Iraq was not true leaves the accountability for that decision, whether it was the case that Bush lied about that last few days of intelligence or not, directly upon Bush's shoulders.

Iraq was the least threat or potetional threat to the region for decades in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground there verifying Iraq's weapons status. There was no threat to anything external or internal to Irag in March 2003.

No intelligently informed world citizen thinks it is ok for one nation to invade another nation based upon historical past. There has to be an existential current and verifiable threat to justify use if military force against another country.

You entire screed contains no reference to Iraq's 2003 actions that could be defined in any way as an existential threat to anyone or anything.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> See what happens now? What more do you need to see? More decapitations?
> 
> -Geaux




Is your point that the 2014 decapitation that happened in Syria is directly related to SOFA negotiations in Iraq in 2011? 

Is there any rhyme or reason to your thoughts on all this.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2014)

Samson said:


> Before Obama = No ISIS
> 
> After Obama = ISIS
> 
> Any more idiotic questions?




What an idiotic form of reasoning,

Only an idiot could conclude:

Before Eve = no sin.

After Eve = Sin.

Or :

Before Reagan = No al Qaeda
After Reagan = al Qaeda


So if you wish to apply this logic to the current situation you must apply actual cause and effect to you equations.

Here is in reality based factor that you did not consider.

Al Qaeda is on offshoot of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that were praised and supported by the US under Reagan to drive the anti-Islamist Soviet Army out of Afghanistan.

Cause = Cold War between US and USSR

Effect = Taliban and al Qaeada established.  Two decades later 9/11/01.

Cause = US invasion of Iraq March 2003 - no AlQaeda in Iraq.

Effect = AQI (al Qaeada in Iraq) established. al Baghdadi joins AQI.

Cause = Anbar awakening in '06 - '07

Effect = Baghdadi and AQI base driven out of Iraq / many to Syria.

Cause = Syria civil war

effect = AQI splits from AQ and named ISIL


So ISIL can be traced to Reagan an Bush through its foundational roots and ties going through the Mujahadern and AQ and AQI.

Changing names does not change the terrorists that drive these organizations.

Its the same scum running them no matter what they call it.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 23, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Before Obama = No ISIS
> ...


----------



## Samson (Aug 23, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Before Obama = No ISIS
> ...




You cannot comprehend = Idiotic


----------



## Richard-H (Aug 23, 2014)

Speaking of which President is to blame for catastrophes, I've always been amazed that all discussions of the Vietnam war only encompass the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Presidencies.

In fact, it was Eisenhower that screwed the pooch in Vietnam. It was he that decided to recognize the illegal creation of the Republic of South Vietnam, to support the brutal Diem regime ad to send about 1000 U.S. advisors there. Yes, it was SAINT Eisenhower that caused the Vietnam war debacle.

Speaking of which, an awful lot of the problems that the U.S. is currently having can be traced back to a tradition of American imperialist policies that were initiated by SAINT Eisenhower.

Eisenhower supported the overthrow of the Democratic Iranian government, installed the Shah, who in turn was overthrown by Shiite extremists - the beginning of problems in that region.

The CIA later support Saddam Hussein, used him as a puppet, then decided to destroy him when he got to independent. We would have no war in Iraq if the U.S. had supported the legitimately elected government of Iraq.

Yes, most of our problems in the 'third world' today are rooted in American imperialist policies that destroyed democracy in those countries and then completely backfired on us.

Notice how the U.S. won the wars in Central America back in the 1980s and now the extreme poverty caused by U.S. policies are why Central Americans are sending their children to the U.S. - an act of utter desperation.

Notice how there aren't any children arriving from Nicaragua? Gee, I wonder why that is.....


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 23, 2014)




----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


>




Can you explain how or why?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2014)

Samson said:


> You cannot comprehend = Idiotic



What in my response do you believe lacks comprehension of what Geaux4IT simple-mindedly wrote?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Apr 26, 2015)

Samson 9587969 





Samson said:


> The fall of Iraq will always be something to decorate the Obama Presidential Library. #12



How does the 'fall of Iraq' decorate the Obama Presidential Library when there has been no "fall of Iraq" and there is not about to be a 'fall of Iraq'?  Are right wingers going to build an Obama Presidential Library to commemorated all the right wing delusions, mythis and distortions about the Obama Presidency?


----------



## deltex1 (Apr 26, 2015)

The obabble library will be called the "Hall of Falls".  The fall of:

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Yemen
Ukraine
Iran sanctions
Russian relations
Israeli relations
The job market
Border security
Trust in government
Energy independence
Constitutional integrity


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Apr 26, 2015)

DT 11270984 





deltex1 said:


> The obabble library will be called the "Hall of Falls". The fall of:




Only by hate mongering idiots who were headed in that direction the first time RW white people feared a black man just might become President.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Apr 26, 2015)

DT 11270984. 





deltex1 said:


> Iraq



Iraq did not fall. Bush surrendered Iraq to the the King of Clubs. Iraq is now finally putting together a real fighting force that is and will defeat ISIS in Iraq without the Bush method of American troops doing the fighting and dying. There's 4484 reasons why this is the better way.



> .
> *'King of Clubs' deputy Izzat al-Douri reportedly killed in Iraq*
> The Telegraph - Telegraph online Daily Telegraph Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph › News › World News › Middle East › Iraq Apr 17, 2015 - The body of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, who spent 24 years as Saddam's ... was discovered on a battlefield after he was killed by Iraqi soldiers and ...




Bush didn't kill or capture "Izzat" just like he didn't kill or capture OBL.  Obama gets to put those two on the wall as dead terrorists in his library.
And thats along with hundreds of other terrorist leaders just like them but not as high on the list.

And another reminder Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri did not become a terrorist or sympathize with Al Qaeda until Bush knocked off Saddam Hussein getting 4474 American troops killed in that dumb assed ground invasion.


----------



## deltex1 (Apr 26, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> DT 11270984
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not "a" black man, Foo......"that" black man.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Apr 26, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> Not "a" black man, Foo......"that" black man.




No difference. I recall early in 2009 when you and your buddies suddenly became surrender monkeys on Afghanistan because a black man became  commander in chief. Obama tripled the number of US troops in Afghanistan his first year compared to what white Bush sent in there and all we got was RW hater whine. 

Bush in Iraq had just given Iraq's Shiite Government's enemies the fixed date for USTroop withdrawal from cities and from Iraq entirely and for a white president to do that it was fine.  When Obama committed to a second surge in troops the black president was cursed to high heaven for demanding and announcing the date that surge forces needed to start coming home in July 2011. It was nothing similar to the fixed date that Bush agreed to his last month in office. 

The difference in color of the two Presidents skin is the only difference in announcing a date on US troop combat commitments on foreign soil. There is no other explanation for that.


----------



## deltex1 (Apr 26, 2015)

The dipshit put troops in and in the same breath announced when they would leave.  It's THAT black man....the inexperienced moron....we loathe.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Apr 30, 2015)

DT 11271983 





deltex1 said:


> The dipshit put troops in and in the same breath announced when they would leave.  It's THAT black man....the inexperienced moron....we loathe.



And it worked. Obama assigned the military to achieve certain goals with respect to securing Afghsn territory and  leaving it in the hands of the Iraqis. 

Obama ended 'endless drift' (what Admiral Mullen called the Bush years) by letting the Afghan's know that US troops would not be staying forever to do the fighting for them. He ended the Bush way. The Black President is ten times smarter than the dumb assed white President that abandoned Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq.


Intelligent Americans understand this.


 This writer in the Atlantic Monthly wrote:



> .
> Step by step through 2002 America's war on terror became little more than its preparation for war in Iraq.
> 
> Because of that shift, the United States succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein, but at this cost: The first front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, was left to fester, as attention and money were drained toward Iraq. This in turn left more havens in Afghanistan in which terrorist groups could reconstitute themselves; a resurgent opium-poppy economy to finance them; and more of the disorder and brutality the United States had hoped to eliminate. Whether or not the strong international alliance that began the assault on the Taliban might have brought real order to Afghanistan is impossible to say. It never had the chance, because America's premature withdrawal soon fractured the alliance and curtailed postwar reconstruction. Indeed, the campaign in Afghanistan was warped and limited from the start, by a pre-existing desire to save troops for Iraq.



I'll provide the link if I have time. Flight is getting ready to take off,


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Apr 30, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I'll provide the link if I have time. Flight is getting ready to take off,




The flight has been delayed. Here's that link You need to read it Delbert.

Bush s Lost Year - The Atlantic


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2015)

Ran away Old Deltex did.


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 1, 2015)

He died of boredom,Foo.  Currently partying in Mosul wid da homies.....


How's the coalition doing?


----------



## tinydancer (Jun 1, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> DT 11271983
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lying bitch. Bush never deserted Afghanistan. And Afghanistan was never deserted you piece of shit.

The other members of NATO freaking kept a lid on the Taliban.


----------



## tinydancer (Jun 1, 2015)

Well until Obama started negotiating with them out of Qatar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> How's the coalition doing?



Killed 6,000 Daesh without a U.S. Loss of life. Drove 'em out of 30% of territory Daesh held in Iraq? Do you have a problem with the coalition?


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 1, 2015)

Here's another number for your file, Foo.


Iraqi civilian death toll passes 5 500 in wake of Isis offensive World news The Guardian


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2015)

TD 11513955 





tinydancer said:


> Lying bitch. Bush never deserted Afghanistan. And Afghanistan was never deserted you piece of shit. The other members of NATO freaking kept a lid on the Taliban.



Bush deserted Afghanistan to the point that Admiral Mullen called Bush policy in Afghanistan "endless drift" - by 2009 the Brits had lost control of Kandahar City which is the spiritual Capitol of the Taliban. 

The Canadians did not hold the City. Read to be informed page 42:

*THE Collapse Of SECURITY IN KANDAHAR: 2008-2009 *

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/The_Talibans_Campaign_For_Kandahar.pdf

You think 250,000 US and UK invasion troops into the dumb war in Iraq was not the desertion of the mission in Afghanistan shows you are a first class  Know  Nothing - and hence the foul mouthed response.

Why did Obama have to insert 20,000 troops one month after his first inauguration if NATO had a lid kept on the Taliban?  The Joint Chiefs were asking Bush for troops for months before idiot Bush's term finally ended.


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 1, 2015)

Isis just killed 41 of Foo's soldiers...using one of the 2000 Humvees thay captured from Foo' soldiers.  They fill them with explosives and drive them onto Foo's soldier's bases and blow them up.  Foo's soldiers don't have weapons to stop the Humvees...Foo's commander forgot to send adequate arms to the unprecedented coalition.  Fucked up, I would say...


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 1, 2015)

When the hell will tiny penis brainwashed ignoramus Ugly American RWers learn to stay out of other people's countries?


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 1, 2015)

Heil Hitler, you moron.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 1, 2015)

Hitler's your RW boy...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> Here's another number for your file, Foo.
> 
> 
> Iraqi civilian death toll passes 5 500 in wake of Isis offensive World news The Guardian




What do you want to do about it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2015)

DT 11514681 





deltex1 said:


> Isis just killed 41 of Foo's soldiers...using one of the 2000 Humvees thay captured from Foo' soldiers. They fill them with explosives and drive them onto Foo's soldier's bases and blow them up. Foo's soldiers don't have weapons to stop the Humvees...Foo's commander forgot to send adequate arms to the unprecedented coalition. Fucked up, I would say...



They are not my soldiers. I'm an American. My soldiers are Americans. Those soldiers are Iraq's soldiers. What do you want to do about it? 
.


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 1, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> DT 11514681
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I want to see your prediction that obams plan of strategic patience will defeat Isis ....doesn't look good at this juncture.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

DT 11515824 





deltex1 said:


> I want to see your prediction that obams plan of strategic patience will defeat Isis ....doesn't look good at this juncture.



It isn't patience. You were dead wrong about Kobani. Air Strikes are strategic aggression. The patience is in getting locals to fight on the ground for their own security and safety. So you have no alternative plan to defeat Daesh terrorist scum. If you want to commit ground troops in a combat role to fight when some Iraqis won't just say so. If not you should just shut the condemnations of our side and glorification of the scum we are constantly killing with our superior air power.


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 3, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> DT 11515824
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isis has no air power Foo....yet they took Ramadi...50 miles from Baghdad.  Obama's strategy is to slow roll the situation so he can blame the next administration for the mess he created, just as he blames the last for his current failures.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> Isis has no air power Foo....yet they took Ramadi...50 miles from Baghdad.



Cheer the terrorists on Hoo! They are invincible in your hate-filled head. Quite the terrorist recruiting tool fool you are. They lost Tikrit and that's closer to Bagdad. They lost their big fight for Kobani. They took Ramada under cover of a sandstorm when the Iraq Army didn't fight. 

So what was Obama supposed to do to save Ramadi, you have no clue do you. The Shiites and Sunnis who reject Daesh will take Ramadi back in due time. Tell me you want Americans to start dying in Iraq like they did when Bush was President. Tell me any kind of better plan.


----------



## chikenwing (Jun 3, 2015)

rdean said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Yep every dem just left DC the whole time,not one dem voted for Iraq not one
What a simplton you are,you like being used like you are?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

Chickenwing 11526874 





chikenwing said:


> Yep every dem just left DC the whole time,not one dem voted for Iraq not one.    What a simplton you are,you like being used like you are?



Dems were correct in October 2002 give Bush the authority to use military force if Iraq did not let the UN inspectors back in. Iraq did let the inspectors in. It was not one single Dem in March 2003 that decided to kick the inspectors out and invade Iraq. Bush was going to invade Iraq anyway whether there was a specific authorization or not. The only potentual way prior to renewed inspections to avoid Bush's dumb invasion was to convince Saddam Hussein that if he did not let inspectors in he was going to be attacked because he saw the US Congress give Bush the authority to do it if inspection did not resume.

So SH let them in, but the "Decider" alone decided to kick them out. He consulted no Dems on my that horrendous decision.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 30, 2015)

Of course there is. It's the same solution for every Muslim country.

NUKE EM!!!


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 30, 2015)

There are 3 solutions. One is, Iraqis decides to have a democratic country where religion is separated from state, OR they get a strong dictator like Saddam lol, or do like Biden, (the RW "idiot")actually a very smart guy and foreign policy expert, and divide the way the ME should have been in the 20's....


----------



## shadow355 (Sep 3, 2015)

rdean said:


> To understand why there are no solutions, you have to understand what Bush and the Republicans did to Iraq to put that country in such a terrible position.
> 
> Of course, the invasion was the first problem.  Iraq never attacked the United States.  They didn't ask to be "freed".  The saw us from the first as invaders, not liberators.
> 
> ...


 
 The solution, which would take time, is to teach, train and advise a ground force. BUT, since they have the revenue - WE LET THEM pay for the training, uniforms, equipment and weapons.

 But as with most all foreign armies - to include Vietnamese, Koreans, Czeckslovakia and others.....you have a security problem.

 American commitment, long lasting in that particular region, well not set well for long with the voters....let alone the politicians and the media.

 Iraq, Iran and others do have a fighting force, but that is for conventional ground fighting and not anti-terrorism. Anti-terrorism......for the most part is a science and a long drawn out process as described by David Kilcullen in a book he wrote ( I read it - got it from Military Book club ).

 The book - "The Accidental Guerilla : Fighting small wars in the midst of a big one" ; details counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism and as I will describe the "pain in the Azz" it is to weed out terrorist and hidden adversaries. But in lesson; the host country has to have a foundation, the will to fight, and a willingness to listen and take advice.

 There is a long list of items that has to be completed......to remove or eliminate an adversary.

 There is a solution to the Middle East. But the proper solutions have to be mentioned.....and our politicians have to be willing to commit to those solutions. 

 Where I work, my department has a Safety responsibility, a Medical responsibility ( EMT's and Paramedics ), a Fire suppression responsibility ( we are Firemen also ), a Security responsibility ( entry and exit gates - sign in and sign out visitors - scale in semi tractor and trailers ). 3 entry and exit gates we cover, and we have 4 workers and a supervisor on shift. That does not even cover suppression duty where we have to do standby if one of our metal mills is down and we have to stay with the mill to do standby.

 If we have an ambulance run - two leave the site to go to the hospital and that leaves only a skeleton crew onsite if another ambulance run occurs, or if a fire occurs. We use to have 5 subordinate ( blue shirts ) and a foreman on shift ; but we were reduced to 4 blue shirts and a foreman.....as we were told there was not enough money to put 5 + 1 ( foreman ) back on a shift. But our tasks, responsibilities and requirements grow, and if something goes wrong.......the blame comes to our department......even if we did not do it.

 I understand......being understaffed.


 Shadow 355


----------



## Zander (Sep 3, 2015)

The true "solution" is to stay out of foreign entanglements.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 4, 2015)

The US wants to control OPEC, and this will cause no end of problems.

In fact I think the right want the problems, it allows them to be tough and to call Democrats weak.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 4, 2015)

The US wants to control OPEC, and this will cause no end of problems.

In fact I think the right want the problems, it allows them to be tough and to call Democrats weak.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 8, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > DT 11515824
> ...



Funny that in your sig you have "pull back from foreign entanglements" yet you don't like Obama's strategy. Really funny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> There are 3 solutions. One is, Iraqis decides to have a democratic country where religion is separated from state, OR they get a strong dictator like Saddam lol, or do like Biden, (the RW "idiot")actually a very smart guy and foreign policy expert, and divide the way the ME should have been in the 20's....



Who controls the oil in the 3 state solution?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2015)

Sallow said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



Hey WB!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 8, 2015)

DT 11523064 





deltex1 said:


> Isis has no air power Foo....yet they took Ramadi...50 miles from Baghdad. Obama's strategy is to slow roll the situation so he can blame the next administration for the mess he created, just as he blames the last for his current failures.



They won't hold any place they take because they have no air power or air defense. Obama has no current failures. Bush agreed that all combat troops would be out by 2011 when he surrendered to Sadr and Maliki at the end of 2008.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > There are 3 solutions. One is, Iraqis decides to have a democratic country where religion is separated from state, OR they get a strong dictator like Saddam lol, or do like Biden, (the RW "idiot")actually a very smart guy and foreign policy expert, and divide the way the ME should have been in the 20's....
> ...


 I'd say divide it according to the population of each state.


----------



## deltex1 (Sep 8, 2015)

The second step is to warn them we are unentangled but we remain lethal to their survival if they work against our interests.  We won't breast feed them...but we will abort them.


----------



## deltex1 (Sep 8, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


The first thing the three states will do is go to war with each other over religious beliefs.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 13, 2015)

DT 12263094 





deltex1 said:


> The second step is to warn them we are unentangled but we remain lethal to their survival if they work against our interests.  We won't breast feed them...but we will abort them.



Still the uneducated buffoon on Iraq you are I see.



> .
> (IraqiNews.com) The commander of the ninth brigade of the Peshmerga, Brigadier General Araz Abdel Qader, said on Saturday, that the Peshmerga forces had managed to secure the international road which links between Baghdad and Kirkuk provinces.
> 
> Abdul Qader said in an interview for IraqiNews.com, “The Peshmerga forces broke the aura around the ISIS organization in the operations to liberate the surroundings of Daquq District (40 km south of Kirkuk),” noting that “The operation resulted in the liberation of 10 villages.”
> ...



Peshmerga forces secure international road between Baghdad and Kirkuk - Iraqi News


You ISIS cheerleaders will lose Mosul once it is liberated from your precious Daesh terrorist scum.



> .
> *Liberation of Mosul will be within months, says U.S. envoy John Allen*
> By Amre Sarhan -
> 
> Sep 13, 2015



Put the two together Delbert and think about what happens to your Party's  number one clown when Obama gets to announce the liberation of Mosul at the start of the 2016 presidential election year.

Trump's on record saying ISIS took over Iraq's oil fields. What an idiot.




> .
> Washington (CNN)Donald Trump touted his foreign policy chops Wednesday, saying even as the "most militaristic" person in the world, he had the "vision" to oppose the war in Iraq.
> 
> "Unlike Jeb Bush, unlike the brother ... who you know got us into the whole war, I was totally opposed to the war," Trump told Jake Tapper on CNN's "The Lead" on Wednesday.
> ...



http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/politics/donald-trump-most-militaristic- -war/

How could an idiot who claims in August 2015 to have predicted in 2003 "*l*_*ots of bad people, like ISIS, will take over the oil, and that's exactly what happened."*_ while we know the Fox News uneducated all probably believe ISIS did take over Iraq's oil.

Trump is dumber than Sarah Palin on Iraq:

(*Donald Trump's plan to bomb Iraq's oil fields not a good ... - CNN.com*
www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/.../donald-*trump*-fact-check-bomb-*oil*-fields-*ira*...
Jul 10, 2015 - Donald Trump wants to "bomb the hell" out of Iraq's oil fields in order to ... Bombing Iraq's oil fields would hurt Iraq more than ISIS, says military experts. ISIS does control some oil fields, but they are located in Syria, not Iraq.)

Military experts told Trump in July *"ISIS does control some oil fields, but they are located in Syria, not Iraq".* So Republican zanies pull the Trump doll string and he still says ISIS controls Iraq's oil in August.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

Trump will send Obama to Iraq telling him, "you broke it, you bought it and don't think of coming back until its as stable as the Iraq you inherited"


----------



## rdean (Sep 13, 2015)

Wow, looking at this thread from 2009 and seeing how right I was and how ignorant these right wingers still are is amazing.  

Why is it so impossible for them to learn?  I don't get it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 13, 2015)

DT 12263108 





deltex1 said:


> The first thing the three states will do is go to war with each other over religious beliefs.



Why didn't you Dubya Wolfowitz Rummy Condit and Dick figure that out in February 2003 before getting 4484 U.S. Troops killed in the middle of your 'religious civil war' that Bush's invasion ignited?  Didn't any of you know that we would not be greeted as liberators except by the Kurds who were already autonomous and no invasion was needed to liberate them?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 13, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Trump will send Obama to Iraq telling him, "you broke it, you bought it and don't think of coming back until its as stable as the Iraq you inherited"




That's dumber than trump wanting to bomb Iraq's oil fields that are not controlled by ISIS to cut off ISIS revenue that ISIS is not getting. 

You avoid responding to what an idiot like Trump is going to run on when Obama announces the liberation of Mosul at the start of next year.


----------



## rdean (Sep 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> DT 12263108
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Republicans don't understand that there are different sects of Muslims.  Just like you have normal Christians and crazy and delusional and dangerous Taliban like Right Wing Republican Christians.


----------

