Breaking news: Trump fires Bolton

[pknopp]

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

Sorry, what wars has Iran engaged in?

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Then you need to go back and read your former post, because I'm sure the question was
what wars has Iran been ENGAGED in.
You may not like that there was an answer other than 0....live with it, dude/dudette

Quote: and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME.

What wars?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Amazing, you fricken libs whine when Bolton comes in the door, then you whine again when going out the door...just fricken amazing.

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Horse feathers. Any government, large or small, with or without resources, that seeks to stand on their own, refuses US hegemony, or seeks another alignment must, in his eyes, be crushed.

You're just making stuff up to fit your emotions. There is absolutely no basis in fact of logic to support your post.

 

[pknopp]

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

Sorry, what wars has Iran engaged in?

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Iran is not fighting wars with countries, it is fighting wars to take over countries. Today, Iranian backed militias are so powerful in Iraq that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon. Iran is using its militias there to stock pile weapons the Iraqi government doesn't even know about.

Seems no one knows about them. But you.........

 

[pknopp]

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

It's also failed over and over since WWII.

Not completely, Japan, Germany and South Korea are US successes. After WWII we were carried by the euphoria of victory and what we thought were the imperatives of the Cold War, and while in most cases we believed we were fighting the good fight, the job was just too much for us. But the world would be a much better place today if we had won all of those fights: just look at the contrast between the two Koreas.

North Korea was a failure and Japan and Germany was WWII. I noted we failed everywhere after WWII. We didn't invade South Korea to enact regime change.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Amazing, you fricken libs whine when Bolton comes in the door, then you whine again when going out the door...just fricken amazing.

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Bowing and scraping to dictators? Trump and - Putin, SaudiArabia, Kim, al Sissi, Duterte....

6 Strongmen Trump Has Praised — And The Conflicts It Presents

Apparently you don't understand what bowing and scraping means. In all of his dealings with dictators, President Trump has held a hardline while trying to negotiate, but Obama completely collapsed and coneeded every point Rouhani demanded even while the Iranians were screaming death to America at him.

 

[pknopp]

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Bowing and scraping to dictators? Trump and - Putin, SaudiArabia, Kim, al Sissi, Duterte....

6 Strongmen Trump Has Praised — And The Conflicts It Presents

Apparently you don't understand what bowing and scraping means. In all of his dealings with dictators, President Trump has held a hardline while trying to negotiate, but Obama completely collapsed and coneeded every point Rouhani demanded even while the Iranians were screaming death to America at him.

Nothing has changed under Trump.

 

[JWBooth]

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

Sorry, what wars has Iran engaged in?

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Iran is not fighting wars with countries, it is fighting wars to take over countries. Today, Iranian backed militias are so powerful in Iraq that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon. Iran is using its militias there to stock pile weapons the Iraqi government doesn't even know about.

Here is one of the problems with regime change ...Iraq was a counter balance to the aspirations of Iran.

Oops.

Iran and the Saudi’s counter balence each other’s ambitions. Has anyone thought that through yet?

Shrub handed the greater part of Iraq over to Iran by crushing and ki

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Horse feathers. Any government, large or small, with or without resources, that seeks to stand on their own, refuses US hegemony, or seeks another alignment must, in his eyes, be crushed.

You're just making stuff up to fit your emotions. There is absolutely no basis in fact of logic to support your post.

Least emotional individual in this place

 

[Coyote]

Who is whining? I am glad to see him go. He was itching for war.

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Bowing and scraping to dictators? Trump and - Putin, SaudiArabia, Kim, al Sissi, Duterte....

6 Strongmen Trump Has Praised — And The Conflicts It Presents

Apparently you don't understand what bowing and scraping means. In all of his dealings with dictators, President Trump has held a hardline while trying to negotiate, but Obama completely collapsed and coneeded every point Rouhani demanded even while the Iranians were screaming death to America at him.

Did he? Seems like we got a lot in return,

On the other hand we have Trumps open fawning admiration of dictators, no deals wharsoever...and a reluctance to be tough on Russia.

 

[Slyhunter]

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Bowing and scraping to dictators? Trump and - Putin, SaudiArabia, Kim, al Sissi, Duterte....

6 Strongmen Trump Has Praised — And The Conflicts It Presents

Apparently you don't understand what bowing and scraping means. In all of his dealings with dictators, President Trump has held a hardline while trying to negotiate, but Obama completely collapsed and coneeded every point Rouhani demanded even while the Iranians were screaming death to America at him.

Did he? Seems like we got a lot in return,

On the other hand we have Trumps open fawning admiration of dictators, no deals wharsoever...and a reluctance to be tough on Russia.

Reluctants to be tough on China.
He's not stupid, doesn't play tough against foes we aren't going to get physical with.

 

[Thinker101]

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Bowing and scraping to dictators? Trump and - Putin, SaudiArabia, Kim, al Sissi, Duterte....

6 Strongmen Trump Has Praised — And The Conflicts It Presents

Apparently you don't understand what bowing and scraping means. In all of his dealings with dictators, President Trump has held a hardline while trying to negotiate, but Obama completely collapsed and coneeded every point Rouhani demanded even while the Iranians were screaming death to America at him.

Did he? Seems like we got a lot in return,

On the other hand we have Trumps open fawning admiration of dictators, no deals wharsoever...and a reluctance to be tough on Russia.

Yep, that's what happens when you get your news from CNN and Fakebook.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

I'm sure Russia and China are just gonna sit around and tolerate US military intervention in Iran. Heh heh. Get real.

Russia will be sharing space based intelligence with Iran and their ground forces, air defense and aerospace forces would be in northern Iran before you can blink. And their subs would be in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean just as quick. Notwithstanding the fact that these are the Persians we're talking about. They aren't going anywhere. They're among the oldest civilizations in the world and 80 million strong last I checked.

Russia is a poor country and could not sustain a lengthy conflict with the US and Iran is not all that important to Russia. Russia doesn't need Iran's oil but China does, so accommodations could be made to both countries that would satisfy their needs to an extent that conflict would not benefit them.

Still, while the US could quickly crush the Iranian military, regime change and nation building would be much more daunting, as it was in Iraq, and America is not up for that. If military force is used in Iran, it will be only to weaken the country in conjunction with crippling sanctions so that the government will have to come to the negotiating table to keep control of the country.

 

[skye]

Amazing, you fricken libs whine when Bolton comes in the door, then you whine again when going out the door...just fricken amazing.

Exactly right!

But then DemonRats all suffer from this disease call Trump Derangement Syndrome....they are basically all deranged!

Nothing that the President does will ever be good enough for them.

 

[skye]

I also agree with Rand Paul ...

he says:

" I commend @realDonaldTrump for this necessary action. The President has great instincts on foreign policy and ending our endless wars. He should be served by those who share those views,” Paul wrote on Twitter.

 

[Coyote]

I would have though we would have learned a lesson about regime change by now. No....Bolton prefers war to diplomacy. A hardliner.

Once again,he doesn't prefer war but like most of us believes regime change in Iran is not possible without at least a credible threat of military action. Keep in mind regime change has been part of US foreign policy since WWII, so he is not so much a hardliner as an old timer. President Trump recognizes that the world has changed too much to follow that policy and is setting the US on a new path, but without bowing and scrapping to dictators as Obama did.

Bowing and scraping to dictators? Trump and - Putin, SaudiArabia, Kim, al Sissi, Duterte....

6 Strongmen Trump Has Praised — And The Conflicts It Presents

Apparently you don't understand what bowing and scraping means. In all of his dealings with dictators, President Trump has held a hardline while trying to negotiate, but Obama completely collapsed and coneeded every point Rouhani demanded even while the Iranians were screaming death to America at him.

Did he? Seems like we got a lot in return,

On the other hand we have Trumps open fawning admiration of dictators, no deals wharsoever...and a reluctance to be tough on Russia.

Yep, that's what happens when you get your news from CNN and Fakebook.

Don’t get it from either.

Try again.

 

[JWBooth]

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

Sorry, what wars has Iran engaged in?

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Iran is not fighting wars with countries, it is fighting wars to take over countries. Today, Iranian backed militias are so powerful in Iraq that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon. Iran is using its militias there to stock pile weapons the Iraqi government doesn't even know about.

Here is one of the problems with regime change ...Iraq was a counter balance to the aspirations of Iran.

Oops.

Iran and the Saudi’s counter balence each other’s ambitions. Has anyone thought that through yet?

Shrub handed the greater part of Iraq over to Iranian influence by insisting on majority rule. Shia being the majority.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not itching for war, but wanting to see regime change in Iran, which most of us would agree would benefit the Iranian people, and believing military force might be necessary. However, the President's goal is not regime change but a credible end to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and an end to its imperialist wars throughout the ME. Agree with him or not, and in this instance I do not, I have always thought Bolton was a man of principle who continued to push for what he thought was right even when it was unpopular, as it is now. That's an admirable quality, much too rare in Washington.

Sorry, what wars has Iran engaged in?

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Iran is not fighting wars with countries, it is fighting wars to take over countries. Today, Iranian backed militias are so powerful in Iraq that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon. Iran is using its militias there to stock pile weapons the Iraqi government doesn't even know about.

Here is one of the problems with regime change ...Iraq was a counter balance to the aspirations of Iran.

Oops.

Iran and the Saudi’s counter balence each other’s ambitions. Has anyone thought that through yet?

Pretty much everyone has, and decent people have decided that if we allowed Sadam's depredations to continue because it served our political purposes, we would be complicit in his crimes. You are suggesting we should forget all our talk about human rights whenever it suits our political purposes.

In fact, we did that, and then Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states so that he was threatening to gain control of most of the ME's oil, and we had to intervene to protect the global economy but still we said, let him slaughter the Kurds and Shi'ites as long as our oil is safe, but Bush41 foolishly allowed the UN to take control of the truce with Iraq and then Saddam used his oil to bribe officials in Kofi Annan's office and to persuade Syria to open an outlawed pipeline while the UN had put Syria in charge of enforcing the very sanctions it was breaking.

The question was, should we allow Saddam to murder as many people as he wants to and to corrupt the UN or should we put a stop to it? Morally, the war was justified, but most of us today think the price was too high and we are applying that same thinking to Iran, but we should not pretend we have the high moral ground to stand on by making this decision. We are putting America first and saying to hell with the Iranians.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sorry, what wars has Iran engaged in?

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Iran is not fighting wars with countries, it is fighting wars to take over countries. Today, Iranian backed militias are so powerful in Iraq that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon. Iran is using its militias there to stock pile weapons the Iraqi government doesn't even know about.

Here is one of the problems with regime change ...Iraq was a counter balance to the aspirations of Iran.

Oops.

Iran and the Saudi’s counter balence each other’s ambitions. Has anyone thought that through yet?

Shrub handed the greater part of Iraq over to Iranian influence by insisting on majority rule. Shia being the majority.

In fact, while Bush was president, while the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite, the government and the military, including the officer corp were integrated with Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni are sharing in power. It was only after Obama withdrew our forces and cut off aid in order to improve his chances for a second term that the Shi'ites chased everyone else out of the government and the military and Iraq became divided between ISIS, which Obama had created, and Iran, which Obama was fawning over. Hundreds of thousands of people died and millions became homeless refugees in order to advance Obama's political career, one of the great crimes in history.

 

[Coyote]

.l,

Sorry, what wars has Iran engaged in?

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Iran is not fighting wars with countries, it is fighting wars to take over countries. Today, Iranian backed militias are so powerful in Iraq that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon. Iran is using its militias there to stock pile weapons the Iraqi government doesn't even know about.

Here is one of the problems with regime change ...Iraq was a counter balance to the aspirations of Iran.

Oops.

Iran and the Saudi’s counter balence each other’s ambitions. Has anyone thought that through yet?

Pretty much everyone has, and decent people have decided that if we allowed Sadam's depredations to continue because it served our political purposes, we would be complicit in his crimes. You are suggesting we should forget all our talk about human rights whenever it suits our political purposes.

If that mattered, why don’t we act on the human rights violations of Saudi Arabia? China? Myanmar? Egypt? That argument doesn’t fly.

We did not think it through at all, that was the tragedy. That was why Bush Sr. Stopped short of regime change.

In fact, we did that, and then Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states so that he was threatening to gain control of most of the ME's oil, and we had to intervene to protect the global economy but still we said, let him slaughter the Kurds and Shi'ites as long as our oil is safe, but Bush41 foolishly allowed the UN to take control of the truce with Iraq and then Saddam used his oil to bribe officials in Kofi Annan's office and to persuade Syria to open an outlawed pipeline while the UN had put Syria in charge of enforcing the very sanctions it was breaking.

Bush 41 was foolish? Looking at the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, do you really think so?

The question was, should we allow Saddam to murder as many people as he wants to and to corrupt the UN or should we put a stop to it? Morally, the war was justified, but most of us today think the price was too high and we are applying that same thinking to Iran, but we should not pretend we have the high moral ground to stand on by making this decision. We are putting America first and saying to hell with the Iranians.

I may be cynical but I don’t think the people who put together the argument for this war gave a damn about human rights abuses. Witness the curious indifference to it elsewhere in the world.

 

[ColonelAngus]

You guys, it’s the same shit over and over. The Who wrote about it in 1971. Tell me what has changed???


There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

 

[Coyote]

Iran-Iraq War | Causes, Summary, Casualties, & Facts

Iran was attacked by Iraq with our urging. So my question stands. What wars?

Iran is not fighting wars with countries, it is fighting wars to take over countries. Today, Iranian backed militias are so powerful in Iraq that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon. Iran is using its militias there to stock pile weapons the Iraqi government doesn't even know about.

Here is one of the problems with regime change ...Iraq was a counter balance to the aspirations of Iran.

Oops.

Iran and the Saudi’s counter balence each other’s ambitions. Has anyone thought that through yet?

Shrub handed the greater part of Iraq over to Iranian influence by insisting on majority rule. Shia being the majority.

In fact, while Bush was president, while the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite, the government and the military, including the officer corp were integrated with Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni are sharing in power. It was only after Obama withdrew our forces and cut off aid in order to improve his chances for a second term that the Shi'ites chased everyone else out of the government and the military and Iraq became divided between ISIS, which Obama had created, and Iran, which Obama was fawning over. Hundreds of thousands of people died and millions became homeless refugees in order to advance Obama's political career, one of the great crimes in history.

The agreement to withdraw was signed by Bush. The Iraqi government refused to guarantee protections for our forces and wanted us out. It was highly unpopular, corrupt, and discriminated against the Sunni minority, we were propping it. Why do you think it was so easy for ISIS to gain inroads? Regime change destabilized the entire Middle East, the first domino.