How a Leader Responds to Americans Threatened

[toomuchtime_]

Just what do you imagine US interests in Iraq to be?

We don't have interests in Iraq; we never did, after Kuwait was dealt with by George H.W. Bush pere.

And THAT is the problem. No interests, don't need the oil, get OUT.

Not quite. It's a small world today and what affects the ME affects our economy. While we are oil independent many of our trading partners are not. Moreover, there is a clear danger of a nuclear arms race in the ME and that could directly endanger us. Our interests are no longer narrow US interests but the interests of the whole world. The Europeans are useless and Russia under Putin is eager to fight above its weight and is behaving irresponsible, so if not for the US who is left to maintain some semblance of order in the world's hot spots? China? The UN. We would all like see our soldiers come home, but if they leave and it precipitates a nuclear arms race, what would they be coming home to?

We aren't going to stop Iran from getting nukes. If needed China and Russia will supply them.

lol You have a very rich fantasy life. No one, not Russia or China or even the useless Europeans wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nor does Saudi Arabia or Egypt of any of the Sunni countries and Israel is prepared to go to any lengths necessary to prevent it. If the US finds it necessary to use military force to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, neither Russia or China will have any interest in going to war with the US to prevent it. Iran will never have nuclear weapons, the only question is, how badly damaged will Iran have to be before it accepts that fact.

 

[Jitss617]

Iraqis are not interested in dying for our cause. They never have been.

Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in Mosul - CNN

Are you a complete moron? Your link is about Iraqi soldiers fleeing from ISIS. It has nothing to do with the US.

He’s a moron

19 years.......billions of lost dollars. Dead Americans. What have we gained by all of this?

How many blacks were shot this week in towns run by democrats

No idea. Do you feel a need to bring your racist views into every thread?

If you weren’t the racist you would know

 

[toomuchtime_]

We also saved them from Saddam and from ISIS. Just what do you imagine US interests in Iraq to be?

We have been there 19 years and as of yet no one has been able to explain that. Can you?

They are also not better off now than they were under Saddam.

Absolutely they are better off. Iraq is now a functioning democracy, the Kurds are no longer being gassed and killed or locked up in concentration camps as they were under Saddam and the Shi'ites are not being publicly executed for protesting government actions and Shi'ite villages are not having their water supply destroy. The Sunni were better off under Saddam but the rest of the country were not.

We have killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. Iraq was a fairly modern country. Now it's third world. Saddam was bad. We have been no better.

If you were a Sunni, about 30% of the population, life was better under Saddam, but if you were in the the other 70% if Iraqis life was much worse. If not for Obama's premature withdrawal, there would have been no ISIS to contend with and Iraq would be in much better shape today than it is. With Saddam gone and with democratic institutions in place,there is hope for tomorrow, but if Saddam and his sons had remained in power there would be no hope for tomorrow.

No it was not much worse. We had an agreement with Iraq that we would leave that was made by Bush. Obama honored that agreement. In the end your argument is that we can never leave. Leave then, leave two years later, leave whenever nothing changes.

We have to spend billions forever to protect an embassy? 19 years........when do you suppose we will see this hope?

Once again you are woefully misinformed. The Status of Forces agreement stated that if the Iraqi PM said the time was not yet safe for the US to leave, US forces could remain. Maliki agreed to have our forces remain, and if Obama had honored the agreement, we would not have left, ISIS would not have ever been created, hundreds of thousands of people who died during the conflict with ISIS would have lived and millions of people who became homeless refugees would still be living in their home, but Obama ignored the agreement and said he would only stay if the Iraqi parliament, which was then under the control of Iran, asked him to stay because Obama believed that if he did not keep his promise leave Iraq before the 2012 election, he would lose, so in effect he said, to hell with the rest of the world, I want to win.

 

[pknopp]

Just what do you imagine US interests in Iraq to be?

We don't have interests in Iraq; we never did, after Kuwait was dealt with by George H.W. Bush pere.

And THAT is the problem. No interests, don't need the oil, get OUT.

Not quite. It's a small world today and what affects the ME affects our economy. While we are oil independent many of our trading partners are not. Moreover, there is a clear danger of a nuclear arms race in the ME and that could directly endanger us. Our interests are no longer narrow US interests but the interests of the whole world. The Europeans are useless and Russia under Putin is eager to fight above its weight and is behaving irresponsible, so if not for the US who is left to maintain some semblance of order in the world's hot spots? China? The UN. We would all like see our soldiers come home, but if they leave and it precipitates a nuclear arms race, what would they be coming home to?

We aren't going to stop Iran from getting nukes. If needed China and Russia will supply them.

lol You have a very rich fantasy life. No one, not Russia or China or even the useless Europeans wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.

China and Russia is not going to allow anything to get between Iran and their oil trade.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

They have made that clear. They are going to do nothing to stop Iran from furthering their program.

Nor does Saudi Arabia or Egypt of any of the Sunni countries and Israel is prepared to go to any lengths necessary to prevent it. If the US finds it necessary to use military force to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, neither Russia or China will have any interest in going to war with the US to prevent it. Iran will never have nuclear weapons, the only question is, how badly damaged will Iran have to be before it accepts that fact.

Israel can act any time they want. They don't want to, they want us to. Israel isn't interested in the retaliation from China and Russia.

Iran will have nukes.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Just what do you imagine US interests in Iraq to be?

We don't have interests in Iraq; we never did, after Kuwait was dealt with by George H.W. Bush pere.

And THAT is the problem. No interests, don't need the oil, get OUT.

Not quite. It's a small world today and what affects the ME affects our economy. While we are oil independent many of our trading partners are not. Moreover, there is a clear danger of a nuclear arms race in the ME and that could directly endanger us. Our interests are no longer narrow US interests but the interests of the whole world. The Europeans are useless and Russia under Putin is eager to fight above its weight and is behaving irresponsible, so if not for the US who is left to maintain some semblance of order in the world's hot spots? China? The UN. We would all like see our soldiers come home, but if they leave and it precipitates a nuclear arms race, what would they be coming home to?

We aren't going to stop Iran from getting nukes. If needed China and Russia will supply them.

lol You have a very rich fantasy life. No one, not Russia or China or even the useless Europeans wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.

China and Russia is not going to allow anything to get between Iran and their oil trade.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

They have made that clear. They are going to do nothing to stop Iran from furthering their program.

Nor does Saudi Arabia or Egypt of any of the Sunni countries and Israel is prepared to go to any lengths necessary to prevent it. If the US finds it necessary to use military force to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, neither Russia or China will have any interest in going to war with the US to prevent it. Iran will never have nuclear weapons, the only question is, how badly damaged will Iran have to be before it accepts that fact.

Israel can act any time they want. They don't want to, they want us to. Israel isn't interested in the retaliation from China and Russia.

Iran will have nukes.

China and Russia may violate US sanctions and whatever company, stateo owned or not, that violates them will lose access to US markets and financial systems and that will cost them more than they would lose by abandoning Iran. In any case, neither country will risk war with the US over Iran. It simply isn't that important to them.

Israel has never asked the Us to fight any war for it, and it was ready to go in 2010, but hesitate for fear of putting its relations with the US in jeopardy. Israel is ready to go now, but is deferring to Trump's maximum pressure strategy, but a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and Israel will do whatever is necessary to prevent it.

 

[White 6]

We have killed their sons, daughters, wives and friends. Why would they be interested in protecting our interests?

We also saved them from Saddam and from ISIS. Just what do you imagine US interests in Iraq to be?

We have been there 19 years and as of yet no one has been able to explain that. Can you?

They are also not better off now than they were under Saddam.

Absolutely they are better off. Iraq is now a functioning democracy, the Kurds are no longer being gassed and killed or locked up in concentration camps as they were under Saddam and the Shi'ites are not being publicly executed for protesting government actions and Shi'ite villages are not having their water supply destroy. The Sunni were better off under Saddam but the rest of the country were not.

We have killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. Iraq was a fairly modern country. Now it's third world. Saddam was bad. We have been no better.

If you were a Sunni, about 30% of the population, life was better under Saddam, but if you were in the the other 70% if Iraqis life was much worse. If not for Obama's premature withdrawal, there would have been no ISIS to contend with and Iraq would be in much better shape today than it is. With Saddam gone and with democratic institutions in place,there is hope for tomorrow, but if Saddam and his sons had remained in power there would be no hope for tomorrow.

I am glad you think the American lives and money was well spent and are happy with new middle east 19 year quagmire. I do not! I lost friends over there. We did not owe the Iraqis, rescuing them from their dictator, and we are the worst nation builders on earth, (it ain't taught in the books. Believe me, I read them.) and look at the entire middle east now. We should have never gone in there. It was sold to the American public on patriotism and false need. It was not worth it. The entire middle east is worse off for it. The idiots we have in charge now will never be able to fix it. We're there because even that dumb ass Rummy said "if we break it, we bought it". So, we did. We never, ever had a plan for what to do with it. God, I wish we could unload it!

 

[Zorro!]

HARSH, BUT FAIR:

 

[toomuchtime_]

We also saved them from Saddam and from ISIS. Just what do you imagine US interests in Iraq to be?

We have been there 19 years and as of yet no one has been able to explain that. Can you?

They are also not better off now than they were under Saddam.

Absolutely they are better off. Iraq is now a functioning democracy, the Kurds are no longer being gassed and killed or locked up in concentration camps as they were under Saddam and the Shi'ites are not being publicly executed for protesting government actions and Shi'ite villages are not having their water supply destroy. The Sunni were better off under Saddam but the rest of the country were not.

We have killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. Iraq was a fairly modern country. Now it's third world. Saddam was bad. We have been no better.

If you were a Sunni, about 30% of the population, life was better under Saddam, but if you were in the the other 70% if Iraqis life was much worse. If not for Obama's premature withdrawal, there would have been no ISIS to contend with and Iraq would be in much better shape today than it is. With Saddam gone and with democratic institutions in place,there is hope for tomorrow, but if Saddam and his sons had remained in power there would be no hope for tomorrow.

I am glad you think the American lives and money was well spent and are happy with new middle east 19 year quagmire. I do not! I lost friends over there. We did not owe the Iraqis, rescuing them from their dictator, and we are the worst nation builders on earth, (it ain't taught in the books. Believe me, I read them.) and look at the entire middle east now. We should have never gone in there. It was sold to the American public on patriotism and false need. It was not worth it. The entire middle east is worse off for it. The idiots we have in charge now will never be able to fix it. We're there because even that dumb ass Rummy said "if we break it, we bought it". So, we did. We never, ever had a plan for what to do with it. God, I wish we could unload it!

Was it a mistake to go in? I'm not sure. At the time it did not seem like a sustainable situation to me, and I tend to think we would have to eventually go in and reform the country. Saddam was already bribing people working in Kofi Anan's office with oil contracts, quite illegal but ignored by the UN, and Syria was put in charge of enforcing Iraq sanctions at the same time it was illegally helping Saddam sell illegal oil. And Saddam's brutality to the Kurds and Shi'ites seemed to continue to grow.

The war, as predicted, was over quickly, and while the nation building did seem to take forever, we went in in March 2003 and by 2007, there was relative peace, Iraqis held their first honest elections -remember all the smiling faces and purple thumbs - US forces were no longer fighting and were merely supply logistical services and training for Iraqi forces. So in four years with no blueprint to work from the US had transformed Iraq from the horror show it had been under Saddam to a functioning, relatively peaceful country now focusing on developing its resources to raise its standard of living. Quit an impressive accomplishment, something no one had thought possible. Should the US have gone in? I'm not sure, but having gone it and after making some initial errors, in four years we completely transformed the country from a brutal dictatorship into a functioning democracy which even had its own bill of rights.

Even Obama said so, when he was telling the American people why he wanted to withdraw. He told the American people that Iraq had made such spectacular progress that it no longer needed American help and so he was withdrawing our troops. He was right about the progress the Iraqis had made, but of course he was lying about Iraq no longer needing us. The Pentagon had been telling him all year that disaster would follow a withdrawal - and it did, ISIS was created in the vacuum the US had left and it proceeded to capture half of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and making millions of them homeless refugees - but Obama believed he might lose the 2012 election if he did not keep his 2008 promise to withdraw, so he decided the devastation he was creating was a small price to pay for his electoral success, so we withdrew. Had we stayed - not fighting but with the thirty thousand soldiers the Pentagon had asked for to function in support and training positions, much as we have been doing in Korea for the last 70 years -the progress that had been made through Obama's first term would have continued, Iran would have been contained, the civil war in Syria would have been much smaller, Iran's support to Hezbollah would have been more limited so Lebanon might have been able to reestablish itself as a sovereign nation and generally the ME would have been a more peaceful place. In addition, of course, the EU would not have been flooded by ME refugees leading to Brexit, but that's another issue.

Should we have gone in? Maybe things in the ME would have resolved themselves in another way if we hadn't, although I doubt it, but having gone in we should have seen the whole project through and not have pulled out against all advice simply because an anxious ambitious politician was worried about his next election.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

MAGA.

Too bad the previous POS Obama and Hillary clown show went to bed instead.

We have soldiers overseas? What happened to trump promising to being soldiers out of harm ways ?

When Trump tried to pull troops out of Syria you bipolar lunatics went postal.

 

[pknopp]

We don't have interests in Iraq; we never did, after Kuwait was dealt with by George H.W. Bush pere.

And THAT is the problem. No interests, don't need the oil, get OUT.

Not quite. It's a small world today and what affects the ME affects our economy. While we are oil independent many of our trading partners are not. Moreover, there is a clear danger of a nuclear arms race in the ME and that could directly endanger us. Our interests are no longer narrow US interests but the interests of the whole world. The Europeans are useless and Russia under Putin is eager to fight above its weight and is behaving irresponsible, so if not for the US who is left to maintain some semblance of order in the world's hot spots? China? The UN. We would all like see our soldiers come home, but if they leave and it precipitates a nuclear arms race, what would they be coming home to?

We aren't going to stop Iran from getting nukes. If needed China and Russia will supply them.

lol You have a very rich fantasy life. No one, not Russia or China or even the useless Europeans wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.

China and Russia is not going to allow anything to get between Iran and their oil trade.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

They have made that clear. They are going to do nothing to stop Iran from furthering their program.

Nor does Saudi Arabia or Egypt of any of the Sunni countries and Israel is prepared to go to any lengths necessary to prevent it. If the US finds it necessary to use military force to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, neither Russia or China will have any interest in going to war with the US to prevent it. Iran will never have nuclear weapons, the only question is, how badly damaged will Iran have to be before it accepts that fact.

Israel can act any time they want. They don't want to, they want us to. Israel isn't interested in the retaliation from China and Russia.

Iran will have nukes.

China and Russia may violate US sanctions and whatever company, stateo owned or not, that violates them will lose access to US markets and financial systems and that will cost them more than they would lose by abandoning Iran. In any case, neither country will risk war with the US over Iran. It simply isn't that important to them.

Israel has never asked the Us to fight any war for it, and it was ready to go in 2010, but hesitate for fear of putting its relations with the US in jeopardy. Israel is ready to go now, but is deferring to Trump's maximum pressure strategy, but a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and Israel will do whatever is necessary to prevent it.

That's up to them and I do not care what they do as long as they do not drag us into it.

 

[pknopp]

We have been there 19 years and as of yet no one has been able to explain that. Can you?

They are also not better off now than they were under Saddam.

Absolutely they are better off. Iraq is now a functioning democracy, the Kurds are no longer being gassed and killed or locked up in concentration camps as they were under Saddam and the Shi'ites are not being publicly executed for protesting government actions and Shi'ite villages are not having their water supply destroy. The Sunni were better off under Saddam but the rest of the country were not.

We have killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. Iraq was a fairly modern country. Now it's third world. Saddam was bad. We have been no better.

If you were a Sunni, about 30% of the population, life was better under Saddam, but if you were in the the other 70% if Iraqis life was much worse. If not for Obama's premature withdrawal, there would have been no ISIS to contend with and Iraq would be in much better shape today than it is. With Saddam gone and with democratic institutions in place,there is hope for tomorrow, but if Saddam and his sons had remained in power there would be no hope for tomorrow.

I am glad you think the American lives and money was well spent and are happy with new middle east 19 year quagmire. I do not! I lost friends over there. We did not owe the Iraqis, rescuing them from their dictator, and we are the worst nation builders on earth, (it ain't taught in the books. Believe me, I read them.) and look at the entire middle east now. We should have never gone in there. It was sold to the American public on patriotism and false need. It was not worth it. The entire middle east is worse off for it. The idiots we have in charge now will never be able to fix it. We're there because even that dumb ass Rummy said "if we break it, we bought it". So, we did. We never, ever had a plan for what to do with it. God, I wish we could unload it!

Was it a mistake to go in? I'm not sure. At the time it did not seem like a sustainable situation to me, and I tend to think we would have to eventually go in and reform the country. Saddam was already bribing people working in Kofi Anan's office with oil contracts, quite illegal but ignored by the UN, and Syria was put in charge of enforcing Iraq sanctions at the same time it was illegally helping Saddam sell illegal oil. And Saddam's brutality to the Kurds and Shi'ites seemed to continue to grow.

The war, as predicted, was over quickly, and while the nation building did seem to take forever, we went in in March 2003 and by 2007, there was relative peace, Iraqis held their first honest elections -remember all the smiling faces and purple thumbs - US forces were no longer fighting and were merely supply logistical services and training for Iraqi forces. So in four years with no blueprint to work from the US had transformed Iraq from the horror show it had been under Saddam to a functioning, relatively peaceful country now focusing on developing its resources to raise its standard of living. Quit an impressive accomplishment, something no one had thought possible. Should the US have gone in? I'm not sure, but having gone it and after making some initial errors, in four years we completely transformed the country from a brutal dictatorship into a functioning democracy which even had its own bill of rights.

Even Obama said so, when he was telling the American people why he wanted to withdraw. He told the American people that Iraq had made such spectacular progress that it no longer needed American help and so he was withdrawing our troops. He was right about the progress the Iraqis had made, but of course he was lying about Iraq no longer needing us. The Pentagon had been telling him all year that disaster would follow a withdrawal - and it did, ISIS was created in the vacuum the US had left and it proceeded to capture half of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and making millions of them homeless refugees - but Obama believed he might lose the 2012 election if he did not keep his 2008 promise to withdraw, so he decided the devastation he was creating was a small price to pay for his electoral success, so we withdrew. Had we stayed - not fighting but with the thirty thousand soldiers the Pentagon had asked for to function in support and training positions, much as we have been doing in Korea for the last 70 years -the progress that had been made through Obama's first term would have continued, Iran would have been contained, the civil war in Syria would have been much smaller, Iran's support to Hezbollah would have been more limited so Lebanon might have been able to reestablish itself as a sovereign nation and generally the ME would have been a more peaceful place. In addition, of course, the EU would not have been flooded by ME refugees leading to Brexit, but that's another issue.

Should we have gone in? Maybe things in the ME would have resolved themselves in another way if we hadn't, although I doubt it, but having gone in we should have seen the whole project through and not have pulled out against all advice simply because an anxious ambitious politician was worried about his next election.

He was honoring the agreements of his predecessor. Obama failed at being a president but it's interesting how you (and most people) want to ignore this. Obama was simply honoring the promises made by Bush.

Leave then, leave 2 years from then, leave whenever the result is the same. We can not come out ahead there. We made a mess more of a mess and now have no idea what to do and unfortunately we will not allow that lesson from trying again.

 

[Bush92]

MAGA.

Too bad the previous POS Obama and Hillary clown show went to bed instead.

Semp-Fi

 

[White 6]

We have been there 19 years and as of yet no one has been able to explain that. Can you?

They are also not better off now than they were under Saddam.

Absolutely they are better off. Iraq is now a functioning democracy, the Kurds are no longer being gassed and killed or locked up in concentration camps as they were under Saddam and the Shi'ites are not being publicly executed for protesting government actions and Shi'ite villages are not having their water supply destroy. The Sunni were better off under Saddam but the rest of the country were not.

We have killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. Iraq was a fairly modern country. Now it's third world. Saddam was bad. We have been no better.

If you were a Sunni, about 30% of the population, life was better under Saddam, but if you were in the the other 70% if Iraqis life was much worse. If not for Obama's premature withdrawal, there would have been no ISIS to contend with and Iraq would be in much better shape today than it is. With Saddam gone and with democratic institutions in place,there is hope for tomorrow, but if Saddam and his sons had remained in power there would be no hope for tomorrow.

I am glad you think the American lives and money was well spent and are happy with new middle east 19 year quagmire. I do not! I lost friends over there. We did not owe the Iraqis, rescuing them from their dictator, and we are the worst nation builders on earth, (it ain't taught in the books. Believe me, I read them.) and look at the entire middle east now. We should have never gone in there. It was sold to the American public on patriotism and false need. It was not worth it. The entire middle east is worse off for it. The idiots we have in charge now will never be able to fix it. We're there because even that dumb ass Rummy said "if we break it, we bought it". So, we did. We never, ever had a plan for what to do with it. God, I wish we could unload it!

Was it a mistake to go in? I'm not sure. At the time it did not seem like a sustainable situation to me, and I tend to think we would have to eventually go in and reform the country. Saddam was already bribing people working in Kofi Anan's office with oil contracts, quite illegal but ignored by the UN, and Syria was put in charge of enforcing Iraq sanctions at the same time it was illegally helping Saddam sell illegal oil. And Saddam's brutality to the Kurds and Shi'ites seemed to continue to grow.

The war, as predicted, was over quickly, and while the nation building did seem to take forever, we went in in March 2003 and by 2007, there was relative peace, Iraqis held their first honest elections -remember all the smiling faces and purple thumbs - US forces were no longer fighting and were merely supply logistical services and training for Iraqi forces. So in four years with no blueprint to work from the US had transformed Iraq from the horror show it had been under Saddam to a functioning, relatively peaceful country now focusing on developing its resources to raise its standard of living. Quit an impressive accomplishment, something no one had thought possible. Should the US have gone in? I'm not sure, but having gone it and after making some initial errors, in four years we completely transformed the country from a brutal dictatorship into a functioning democracy which even had its own bill of rights.

Even Obama said so, when he was telling the American people why he wanted to withdraw. He told the American people that Iraq had made such spectacular progress that it no longer needed American help and so he was withdrawing our troops. He was right about the progress the Iraqis had made, but of course he was lying about Iraq no longer needing us. The Pentagon had been telling him all year that disaster would follow a withdrawal - and it did, ISIS was created in the vacuum the US had left and it proceeded to capture half of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and making millions of them homeless refugees - but Obama believed he might lose the 2012 election if he did not keep his 2008 promise to withdraw, so he decided the devastation he was creating was a small price to pay for his electoral success, so we withdrew. Had we stayed - not fighting but with the thirty thousand soldiers the Pentagon had asked for to function in support and training positions, much as we have been doing in Korea for the last 70 years -the progress that had been made through Obama's first term would have continued, Iran would have been contained, the civil war in Syria would have been much smaller, Iran's support to Hezbollah would have been more limited so Lebanon might have been able to reestablish itself as a sovereign nation and generally the ME would have been a more peaceful place. In addition, of course, the EU would not have been flooded by ME refugees leading to Brexit, but that's another issue.

Should we have gone in? Maybe things in the ME would have resolved themselves in another way if we hadn't, although I doubt it, but having gone in we should have seen the whole project through and not have pulled out against all advice simply because an anxious ambitious politician was worried about his next election.

Thinking we could just go into a country and "fix" a government, much less replace it is the ultimate conceit of an imperialist mentality. Governments are not plug-and-play friendly. It is not just defeating the military and taking over. There are too many moving parts (called people) with history, beliefs, religion, and culture, as a whole interacting in the world and directly with the governments of the countries around them. It is not a static environment within the country. Other actors, other countries ally and enemy alike have their own plans and desires, all moving and communicating at the speed of modern communications. Once you identify the enemy, they get a vote. Hell, they get a vote even if you fail to identify. George Bush Jr. was a fool. He is far better off sitting at his easel painting, and should have taken it 19 years ago before he he allowed right wing actors in this country to influence him to start down this disastrous path. Now the middle east in total is more screwed up than ever before in the history of man.

 

[mudwhistle]

I was never threatened. The only threat to me is the idea that we still have a reason to be in Iraq.

Iraq is a perfect strategic location to operate in the ME.
That's why Iran wants us out of there.
That's why Obama got us out of there....at the behest of his Iranian advisers.

 

[pknopp]

I was never threatened. The only threat to me is the idea that we still have a reason to be in Iraq.

Iraq is a perfect strategic location to operate in the ME.
That's why Iran wants us out of there.
That's why Obama got us out of there....at the behest of his Iranian advisers.

He never got us out.........unfortunately.

 

[Meathead]

MAGA.

Too bad the previous POS Obama and Hillary clown show went to bed instead.

We have soldiers overseas? What happened to trump promising to being soldiers out of harm ways ?

We have Marines at every embassy in the world...idiot.

 

[mudwhistle]

I was never threatened. The only threat to me is the idea that we still have a reason to be in Iraq.

Iraq is a perfect strategic location to operate in the ME.
That's why Iran wants us out of there.
That's why Obama got us out of there....at the behest of his Iranian advisers.

He never got us out.........unfortunately.

Nonsense. Once we left Iraq....Obama got busy arming and training ISIS fighters....which were basically old Republican Guard members that were pushed out of the country by US military during the Gulf War. Obama helped get rid of Mubarak in Egypt....he was essential in getting rid of Qaddafi in Libya, and he meant to do the same to Assad in Syria....but the Russians helped put a stop to it. The whole mess was designed to cause conflict all over the ME and the resulting refugees that flooded Europe and the US spreading Islamitization all over the Western World.

 

[pknopp]

I was never threatened. The only threat to me is the idea that we still have a reason to be in Iraq.

Iraq is a perfect strategic location to operate in the ME.
That's why Iran wants us out of there.
That's why Obama got us out of there....at the behest of his Iranian advisers.

He never got us out.........unfortunately.

Nonsense. Once we left Iraq....

We drew down the troops but we never got out. What happened was going to happen at some point no matter when we did that. Go ahead, have your candidate run on us wasting billions in Iraq for ever.

 

[mudwhistle]

I was never threatened. The only threat to me is the idea that we still have a reason to be in Iraq.

Iraq is a perfect strategic location to operate in the ME.
That's why Iran wants us out of there.
That's why Obama got us out of there....at the behest of his Iranian advisers.

He never got us out.........unfortunately.

Nonsense. Once we left Iraq....

We drew down the troops but we never got out. What happened was going to happen at some point no matter when we did that. Go ahead, have your candidate run on us wasting billions in Iraq for ever.

Obama got all of our combat troops out...then the Shiites started killing Christians and Sunnis. He left behind a few embassy personnel and guards....not enough to intervene. The only reason we know about THIS embassy attack is because the media hopes it will be Trump's Benghazi.

 

[pknopp]

I was never threatened. The only threat to me is the idea that we still have a reason to be in Iraq.

Iraq is a perfect strategic location to operate in the ME.
That's why Iran wants us out of there.
That's why Obama got us out of there....at the behest of his Iranian advisers.

He never got us out.........unfortunately.

Nonsense. Once we left Iraq....

We drew down the troops but we never got out. What happened was going to happen at some point no matter when we did that. Go ahead, have your candidate run on us wasting billions in Iraq for ever.

Obama got all of our combat troops out...then the Shiites started killing Christians and Sunnis. Left behind a few embassy personnel and guards....not enough to intervene. The only reason we know about this embassy attack is because the media hopes it will be Trump's Benghazi.

No, we left troops. We simply called them something else. The only issue I have with what happened at the embassy is the idea that we are even there at all..

They don't want us there. We can't explain why we are there so we shouldn't be there.