Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
We'll see how that works out. Obama doesn't really believe in the mission himselfIf Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
That has to be the lamest of apologies coming out the DNC I have ever heard. Saddam was so 10 years ago. ISIS didn't form in Iraq. Saddam was a sadistic dictator with sadistic sons. The one thing he may have done is use WMD against ISIS which he did against the Kurds. Maybe that behavior is what the liberals want. But a world without the butcher of Baghdan is a better world. Now all we need do is for a real coalition and destroy ISIS. I think it is good they formed up, better target.
But one thing we don't need is trying to raise Saddam to anything more then the sadistic killer he was. We have business to take care of we don't need excuses.
We are not going to get it with Obama as president. He cant be trusted. So why would any country risk allying themselves with such a person?
For one reason, even though Obama has tried his hardest we are still the big dog. May not last for long but until the destruction Obama and the democrats have brought to America takes full effect we still are the number 1 power in the world. I rather join with the world against evil then to do what the liberals are doing and raising Saddam to hero status.
ISIS is in Syria and the US has been covertly supporting Assad's demise for over a year. Get your facts straight.We haven't intervened in Syria because because it's a big stew of crazy muslims who hate each other, and we'll just maybe have to sort out anyone's who's left. Had ISIS stayed is Syria, nobody would have given a fuck, but the US has a moral obligation now towards Iraq, you know, after invading and destroying it for no fucking reason.To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.
Actually, Obama isn't targetting Assad. He's targetting ISIS in Syria. And defeating them, Assad would presumably regain control.
OH!!! WAIT!!! Nevermind 
Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start
What does Bernie have to say about Operation Cyclone and its relations to 911 and all the acts of terror that followed?Or maybe because after the US had maimed, murdered, incarcerated, and displaced millions of Iraqi civilians an overwhelming majority of survivors wanted to end the illegal US invasion/occupation ASAP.Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.
You decide why.
...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?
That was his grand scheme?
Do you people EVER think before you post?
Obama, boths Bushes, and Clintons are simply following a plan set in motion before most of them were born:
"The Red Line Agreement had been 'part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies ... could control oil prices on world markets'.
"[6] The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades.
"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:
"Persian oil ... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.[7]
United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Perhaps you'd enjoy a glimpse at actual history?
1. Modernization: This was undertaken not by imperialists, for the most part, but by Middle Eastern rulers who had become painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world. These rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize. Their intentions were good, but the consequences were often disastrous. What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination.
In the traditional society there were established orders-the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on. These were powerful groups in society, whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but arose from within the groups. And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society. This is not democracy as we currently use that word, but it is certainly limited, responsible government. And the system worked. Modernization ended that.
2. In the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis and formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy. The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: To stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London. The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria-Lebanon—a French-mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East—was now wide open to the Nazis. The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party.
A few after the war, the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries, and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy, requiring only a few minor adjustments.
3. Two other factors added to the mix produce the picture we see today.
a. The first of these—founded by a theologian called Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who lived in a remote area of Najd in desert Arabia—is known as Wahhabi. Its argument is that the root of Arab-Islamic troubles lies in following the ways of the infidel.
b. The other important thing that happened—also in the mid-20s—was the discovery of oil. With that, this extremist sect found itself not only in possession of Mecca and Medina, but also of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. As a result, what would otherwise have been a lunatic fringe in a marginal country became a major force in the world of Islam. Now, its influence spreads far beyond the region.
The above is from a speech by Bernard Lewis.
Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University.
Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start
All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.
I already said in another post that the CIA had likely been helping the Arab springs all along. And like I just said, if ISIS stays in Syria, nobody really cares, until at least a whole bunch more muslims kill each other.ISIS is in Syria and the US has been covertly supporting Assad's demise for over a year. Get your facts straight.We haven't intervened in Syria because because it's a big stew of crazy muslims who hate each other, and we'll just maybe have to sort out anyone's who's left. Had ISIS stayed is Syria, nobody would have given a fuck, but the US has a moral obligation now towards Iraq, you know, after invading and destroying it for no fucking reason.To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.
Actually, Obama isn't targetting Assad. He's targetting ISIS in Syria. And defeating them, Assad would presumably regain control.
You're ignoring the will of a majority of surviving Iraqis after the US had maimed, murdered, and displaced millions of their countrymen, women, and children over a time period of 104 months; why would you imagine the opinions of rich US generals trump those of their innocent Muslim victims?Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.
You're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.
Iraqi Parliament? who cares? We could and should have stayed without any approval from the "Iraqi Parliament" We fought and died there, we stay there to support the Iraqi military with an airbase and logistics until the Generals it's ok to leave, not some political hack like Obama, who left for purely political reasons. I'll bet the so-called Iraqi Parliament wishes we were still there since half the country has now been taken overrun by the islamonazis
The question I'd like answered is: When the US army pulled out of Iraq, why were the Iraqis such a pile of useless skin and couldn't even form an army to protect themselves? Like, if they don't even care about their own country, why the fuck should we?Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start
All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.
That fits in pretty well with your "Everything good is Obama's doing."
Obama pulled the troops out, just like he promised, and Iraq went to crap, just like the military said it would. Is that Obama's fault for not listening to his military experts? No, in your inane mind, it is obviously Bush's fault for going into Iraq in the first place. Or, it is Bush's fault for not negotiating a deal that prevented Obama from pulling the troops out.
Ok, now that you have your fresh bone to chew, go in the corner and chew on it quietly.You're post erroneously claimed that the US had not intervened in Syria. That's untrue. In addition to training and supporting rebels to overthrow Assad Obama threatened to bomb him if he didn't follow Putin's plan to get rid of his chemical weapons.
Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.
You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....
But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....
Who says so?
General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:
"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.
LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.
BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.
BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.
BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.
BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?
BARBERO: I don't think so.
BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.
BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.
BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.
BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.
BARBERO: Right. No, and -
BLITZER: Was - is that true?
BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.
You decide why.
True. How many BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER $$$'s did we spend only to have them drop their weapons & run? dillo wants to "double-down" on that strategy it would appear or fight for them which makes even less sense seeing as we have plenty of probs that we could spend that money on here.The question I'd like answered is: When the US army pulled out of Iraq, why were the Iraqis such a pile of useless skin and couldn't even form an army to protect themselves? Like, if they don't even care about their own country, why the fuck should we?Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start
All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.
That fits in pretty well with your "Everything good is Obama's doing."
Obama pulled the troops out, just like he promised, and Iraq went to crap, just like the military said it would. Is that Obama's fault for not listening to his military experts? No, in your inane mind, it is obviously Bush's fault for going into Iraq in the first place. Or, it is Bush's fault for not negotiating a deal that prevented Obama from pulling the troops out.
Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.
You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....
But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....
Who says so?
General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:
"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.
LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.
BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.
BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.
BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.
BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?
BARBERO: I don't think so.
BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.
BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.
BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.
BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.
BARBERO: Right. No, and -
BLITZER: Was - is that true?
BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.
You decide why.
The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.
Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.
You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....
But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....
Who says so?
General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:
"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.
LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.
BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.
BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.
BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.
BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?
BARBERO: I don't think so.
BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.
BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.
BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.
BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.
BARBERO: Right. No, and -
BLITZER: Was - is that true?
BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.
You decide why.
The all-powerful Obama created the schism which divides Islam and exacerbated the hate for the West of Muslims when he divided the Middle East after the first World War. Shame on him, shame shame.
Ok, now that you have your fresh bone to chew, go in the corner and chew on it quietly.You're post erroneously claimed that the US had not intervened in Syria. That's untrue. In addition to training and supporting rebels to overthrow Assad Obama threatened to bomb him if he didn't follow Putin's plan to get rid of his chemical weapons.
True. How many BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER $$$'s did we spend only to have them drop their weapons & run? dillo wants to "double-down" on that strategy it would appear or fight for them which makes even less sense seeing as we have plenty of probs that we could spend that money on here.The question I'd like answered is: When the US army pulled out of Iraq, why were the Iraqis such a pile of useless skin and couldn't even form an army to protect themselves? Like, if they don't even care about their own country, why the fuck should we?Good thing OP placed this thread in the Rubber Room from the start
All of these sorts of threads should be consolidated into one entitled 'Everything bad is Obama's fault'.
That fits in pretty well with your "Everything good is Obama's doing."
Obama pulled the troops out, just like he promised, and Iraq went to crap, just like the military said it would. Is that Obama's fault for not listening to his military experts? No, in your inane mind, it is obviously Bush's fault for going into Iraq in the first place. Or, it is Bush's fault for not negotiating a deal that prevented Obama from pulling the troops out.
