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.
I choose not to let the islamonazis take over the middle east. Conservatives cant stand Putin, why would they he's a tyrant and a dictator, communist thug. We should have taken action against iSIS when they were small, before they became what they are. We take care of them now, or we take care of them later.China, the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war, had no interest in sending troops to Iraq then and they have no interest now. Russia, the land of every republican's favorite person Putin, had no interest in doing anything in Iraq then and they have no interest now. Our European allies sent in some troops to Iraq as part of our coalition, but they were only a tiny fraction of the forces there. They get a star for participation. Notice how they have no interest in going in now.What powers? Obama inherited Afghanistan the rest was his doingObama inherited a disaster. Now, the middle east is no longer our problem. Are you surprised none of the other powers in the world are interested in making it their problem?Maybe, they are on the verge of ousting Assad in Syria. Saddam would have had to deal with the same thing. Now if we'd had still been in Iraq and American military base was there no it wouldn't be happening. A president inherits what he inherits Obama fucked it all upWould this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
The U.S. lost many lives and many were maimed taking Iraq. And for what? Meanwhile the entire world turned against us, and the Iraqi's did everything they could to get us out.
Let the people there deal with ISIS. Give them their right to self determination.
Why us? Nobody else cares after all. And we're on the other side of the planet. And ISIS opponents in the middle east have far more numbers. We should help them with funds and arms if they ask, but no soldiers. Hell Iraq specifically said that we shouldn't send soldiers.I choose not to let the islamonazi take over the middle east conservatives cant stand Putin why would they he's a tyrant and a dictator communist thug. We should have taken action against iSIS when thy were small before they became what they are. we take care of them now or we take care of them laterChina, the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war, had no interest in sending troops to Iraq then and they have no interest now. Russia, the land of every republican's favorite person Putin, had no interest in doing anything in Iraq then and they have no interest now. Our European allies sent in some troops to Iraq as part of our coalition, but they were only a tiny fraction of the forces there. They get a star for participation. Notice how they have no interest in going in now.What powers? Obama inherited Afghanistan the rest was his doingObama inherited a disaster. Now, the middle east is no longer our problem. Are you surprised none of the other powers in the world are interested in making it their problem?Maybe, they are on the verge of ousting Assad in Syria. Saddam would have had to deal with the same thing. Now if we'd had still been in Iraq and American military base was there no it wouldn't be happening. A president inherits what he inherits Obama fucked it all upWould this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
The U.S. lost many lives and many were maimed taking Iraq. And for what? Meanwhile the entire world turned against us, and the Iraqi's did everything they could to get us out.
Let the people there deal with ISIS. Give them their right to self determination.
Why us? Nobody else cares after all. And we're on the other side of the planet. And ISIS opponents in the middle east have far more numbers. We should help them with funds and arms if they ask, but no soldiers. Hell Iraq specifically said that we shouldn't send soldiers.I choose not to let the islamonazi take over the middle east conservatives cant stand Putin why would they he's a tyrant and a dictator communist thug. We should have taken action against iSIS when thy were small before they became what they are. we take care of them now or we take care of them laterChina, the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war, had no interest in sending troops to Iraq then and they have no interest now. Russia, the land of every republican's favorite person Putin, had no interest in doing anything in Iraq then and they have no interest now. Our European allies sent in some troops to Iraq as part of our coalition, but they were only a tiny fraction of the forces there. They get a star for participation. Notice how they have no interest in going in now.What powers? Obama inherited Afghanistan the rest was his doingObama inherited a disaster. Now, the middle east is no longer our problem. Are you surprised none of the other powers in the world are interested in making it their problem?Maybe, they are on the verge of ousting Assad in Syria. Saddam would have had to deal with the same thing. Now if we'd had still been in Iraq and American military base was there no it wouldn't be happening. A president inherits what he inherits Obama fucked it all up
The U.S. lost many lives and many were maimed taking Iraq. And for what? Meanwhile the entire world turned against us, and the Iraqi's did everything they could to get us out.
Let the people there deal with ISIS. Give them their right to self determination.
Would this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
Iraq was stable until Obama fucked it up...and we win a war we keep a base there, that's how its done. Screw Maliki was an Iranian puppet anyway.Would this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
Bingo!
Of course not.
The reason George HW didn't go to Baghdad and rid the world of Saddam, was the fear of a civil war between the Shiite and the Sunni. George W was also warned prior to the invasion. After the invasion despite US troops, Iraq did have a civil war between the two groups. Maliki came to power and harassed and marginalize the Sunni and this was despite warnings from both W and O. Thus the civil war exploded and the creation of ISIS evolved.
Obama isn't exactly innocent either, he didn't take the ISIS too seriously at all. He acted like a spectator. What was he thinking? I guess he just plain didn't think at all.
In my mind we can blame three leaders, George W and Obama for their shortsightedness and lack of understanding the old wounds between the two, it was too big of a picture for those two presidential disasters.
As far as the withdrawal of the troops, Iraq wanted us out. It's that plain and simple. But once the ISIS started taking Iraqi land, well then things changed. Man, did they want us back then. They even agreed to immunity for our US troops for any crimes committed. That was a big turn-around.
But I think Maliki did the most to contribute to the creation of the ISIS by ignoring the very recent history of civil war. So why he stirred things up between the Sunni and Shiites, he must of thought that the Sunni were going to sit on their hands and take it?
Plus he was drunk with power. When he lost his re-election for Prime Minister, they had to pry his hands away from his title as Prime Minister.
Everybody is just loving pointing the fingers. I suggest both sides look within their own party and leaders.
Why is that partisans don't have the balls to look critically at their own ideology? Neither side is perfect, actually both are quite imperfect and make mistake after mistake.
Iraq was stable until Obama fucked it up...
Iraq was stable until Obama fucked it up...and we win a war we keep a base there, that's how its done. Screw Maliki was an Iranian puppet anyway.Would this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
Bingo!
Of course not.
The reason George HW didn't go to Baghdad and rid the world of Saddam, was the fear of a civil war between the Shiite and the Sunni. George W was also warned prior to the invasion. After the invasion despite US troops, Iraq did have a civil war between the two groups. Maliki came to power and harassed and marginalize the Sunni and this was despite warnings from both W and O. Thus the civil war exploded and the creation of ISIS evolved.
Obama isn't exactly innocent either, he didn't take the ISIS too seriously at all. He acted like a spectator. What was he thinking? I guess he just plain didn't think at all.
In my mind we can blame three leaders, George W and Obama for their shortsightedness and lack of understanding the old wounds between the two, it was too big of a picture for those two presidential disasters.
As far as the withdrawal of the troops, Iraq wanted us out. It's that plain and simple. But once the ISIS started taking Iraqi land, well then things changed. Man, did they want us back then. They even agreed to immunity for our US troops for any crimes committed. That was a big turn-around.
But I think Maliki did the most to contribute to the creation of the ISIS by ignoring the very recent history of civil war. So why he stirred things up between the Sunni and Shiites, he must of thought that the Sunni were going to sit on their hands and take it?
Plus he was drunk with power. When he lost his re-election for Prime Minister, they had to pry his hands away from his title as Prime Minister.
Everybody is just loving pointing the fingers. I suggest both sides look within their own party and leaders.
Why is that partisans don't have the balls to look critically at their own ideology? Neither side is perfect, actually both are quite imperfect and make mistake after mistake.
Everything we fought for given up by the scum Obama
Iraq was stable until Obama fucked it up...and we win a war we keep a base there, that's how its done. Screw Maliki was an Iranian puppet anyway.Would this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
Bingo!
Of course not.
The reason George HW didn't go to Baghdad and rid the world of Saddam, was the fear of a civil war between the Shiite and the Sunni. George W was also warned prior to the invasion. After the invasion despite US troops, Iraq did have a civil war between the two groups. Maliki came to power and harassed and marginalize the Sunni and this was despite warnings from both W and O. Thus the civil war exploded and the creation of ISIS evolved.
Obama isn't exactly innocent either, he didn't take the ISIS too seriously at all. He acted like a spectator. What was he thinking? I guess he just plain didn't think at all.
In my mind we can blame three leaders, George W and Obama for their shortsightedness and lack of understanding the old wounds between the two, it was too big of a picture for those two presidential disasters.
As far as the withdrawal of the troops, Iraq wanted us out. It's that plain and simple. But once the ISIS started taking Iraqi land, well then things changed. Man, did they want us back then. They even agreed to immunity for our US troops for any crimes committed. That was a big turn-around.
But I think Maliki did the most to contribute to the creation of the ISIS by ignoring the very recent history of civil war. So why he stirred things up between the Sunni and Shiites, he must of thought that the Sunni were going to sit on their hands and take it?
Plus he was drunk with power. When he lost his re-election for Prime Minister, they had to pry his hands away from his title as Prime Minister.
Everybody is just loving pointing the fingers. I suggest both sides look within their own party and leaders.
Why is that partisans don't have the balls to look critically at their own ideology? Neither side is perfect, actually both are quite imperfect and make mistake after mistake.
First of all, we left Iraq by following George W Bush's signed agreement.
I remember quite clearly that when the troops withdrawal was complete and Obama took credit, the right got all pissed off st Obama because it was Bush's time table not Obama's. Obama was wrong to take credit, I agreed with the right. Here's an article by Red State, this article echoed what was being said on USMB by posters from the right.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState
Then there's the body count of Iraqis killed by violence:
2003-12,125
2004-11,659
2005-16,402
2006-29,439
2007-26,022
2008-10,268
2009-5,309
2010-4,117
2011-4,153
2012-4,622
2013-9,841
2014-17,073
Iraq Body Count
Now, whether this count is 100% accurate, who knows. I do however, remember there were car bombs almost daily from Day 1 and continued, troops or no troops. I'm sure you can't disagree with me on that.
In the end, Iraq did slow down in violence and it continued until the ISIS started taking hold. As I stated in my earlier post, I put much of the violence on the shoulders of Maliki. He was even more ignorant and incompetent than W or O.
Turn on the news, knuckleheads! The Obama-led US military kicked some fine ISIS ass this morning.
U.S. Special Ops forces kill ISIS commander in Syria raid - CNN.com
Iraq was stable until Obama fucked it up...and we win a war we keep a base there, that's how its done. Screw Maliki was an Iranian puppet anyway.Would this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
Bingo!
Of course not.
The reason George HW didn't go to Baghdad and rid the world of Saddam, was the fear of a civil war between the Shiite and the Sunni. George W was also warned prior to the invasion. After the invasion despite US troops, Iraq did have a civil war between the two groups. Maliki came to power and harassed and marginalize the Sunni and this was despite warnings from both W and O. Thus the civil war exploded and the creation of ISIS evolved.
Obama isn't exactly innocent either, he didn't take the ISIS too seriously at all. He acted like a spectator. What was he thinking? I guess he just plain didn't think at all.
In my mind we can blame three leaders, George W and Obama for their shortsightedness and lack of understanding the old wounds between the two, it was too big of a picture for those two presidential disasters.
As far as the withdrawal of the troops, Iraq wanted us out. It's that plain and simple. But once the ISIS started taking Iraqi land, well then things changed. Man, did they want us back then. They even agreed to immunity for our US troops for any crimes committed. That was a big turn-around.
But I think Maliki did the most to contribute to the creation of the ISIS by ignoring the very recent history of civil war. So why he stirred things up between the Sunni and Shiites, he must of thought that the Sunni were going to sit on their hands and take it?
Plus he was drunk with power. When he lost his re-election for Prime Minister, they had to pry his hands away from his title as Prime Minister.
Everybody is just loving pointing the fingers. I suggest both sides look within their own party and leaders.
Why is that partisans don't have the balls to look critically at their own ideology? Neither side is perfect, actually both are quite imperfect and make mistake after mistake.
First of all, we left Iraq by following George W Bush's signed agreement.
I remember quite clearly that when the troops withdrawal was complete and Obama took credit, the right got all pissed off st Obama because it was Bush's time table not Obama's. Obama was wrong to take credit, I agreed with the right. Here's an article by Red State, this article echoed what was being said on USMB by posters from the right.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState
Then there's the body count of Iraqis killed by violence:
2003-12,125
2004-11,659
2005-16,402
2006-29,439
2007-26,022
2008-10,268
2009-5,309
2010-4,117
2011-4,153
2012-4,622
2013-9,841
2014-17,073
Iraq Body Count
Now, whether this count is 100% accurate, who knows. I do however, remember there were car bombs almost daily from Day 1 and continued, troops or no troops. I'm sure you can't disagree with me on that.
In the end, Iraq did slow down in violence and it continued until the ISIS started taking hold. As I stated in my earlier post, I put much of the violence on the shoulders of Maliki. He was even more ignorant and incompetent than W or O.
Obama was supposed to negotiate a status of forces agreement. He did want it, he never wanted it. He wanted out, now look what happened. Obama couldn't negotiate himself out of a paper bag and the world knows he'a a joke. Now he's "negotiating" with Iran. Yeah Iraq "one of Obama's greatest successes alright"
Iraq was stable until Obama fucked it up...and we win a war we keep a base there, that's how its done. Screw Maliki was an Iranian puppet anyway.Would this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
Bingo!
Of course not.
The reason George HW didn't go to Baghdad and rid the world of Saddam, was the fear of a civil war between the Shiite and the Sunni. George W was also warned prior to the invasion. After the invasion despite US troops, Iraq did have a civil war between the two groups. Maliki came to power and harassed and marginalize the Sunni and this was despite warnings from both W and O. Thus the civil war exploded and the creation of ISIS evolved.
Obama isn't exactly innocent either, he didn't take the ISIS too seriously at all. He acted like a spectator. What was he thinking? I guess he just plain didn't think at all.
In my mind we can blame three leaders, George W and Obama for their shortsightedness and lack of understanding the old wounds between the two, it was too big of a picture for those two presidential disasters.
As far as the withdrawal of the troops, Iraq wanted us out. It's that plain and simple. But once the ISIS started taking Iraqi land, well then things changed. Man, did they want us back then. They even agreed to immunity for our US troops for any crimes committed. That was a big turn-around.
But I think Maliki did the most to contribute to the creation of the ISIS by ignoring the very recent history of civil war. So why he stirred things up between the Sunni and Shiites, he must of thought that the Sunni were going to sit on their hands and take it?
Plus he was drunk with power. When he lost his re-election for Prime Minister, they had to pry his hands away from his title as Prime Minister.
Everybody is just loving pointing the fingers. I suggest both sides look within their own party and leaders.
Why is that partisans don't have the balls to look critically at their own ideology? Neither side is perfect, actually both are quite imperfect and make mistake after mistake.
First of all, we left Iraq by following George W Bush's signed agreement.
I remember quite clearly that when the troops withdrawal was complete and Obama took credit, the right got all pissed off st Obama because it was Bush's time table not Obama's. Obama was wrong to take credit, I agreed with the right. Here's an article by Red State, this article echoed what was being said on USMB by posters from the right.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState
Then there's the body count of Iraqis killed by violence:
2003-12,125
2004-11,659
2005-16,402
2006-29,439
2007-26,022
2008-10,268
2009-5,309
2010-4,117
2011-4,153
2012-4,622
2013-9,841
2014-17,073
Iraq Body Count
Now, whether this count is 100% accurate, who knows. I do however, remember there were car bombs almost daily from Day 1 and continued, troops or no troops. I'm sure you can't disagree with me on that.
In the end, Iraq did slow down in violence and it continued until the ISIS started taking hold. As I stated in my earlier post, I put much of the violence on the shoulders of Maliki. He was even more ignorant and incompetent than W or O.
Obama was supposed to negotiate a status of forces agreement. He did want it, he never wanted it. He wanted out, now look what happened. Obama couldn't negotiate himself out of a paper bag and the world knows he'a a joke. Now he's "negotiating" with Iran. Yeah Iraq "one of Obama's greatest successes alright"
Iraq was stable until Obama fucked it up...and we win a war we keep a base there, that's how its done. Screw Maliki was an Iranian puppet anyway.Would this be happening had we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
Bingo!
Of course not.
The reason George HW didn't go to Baghdad and rid the world of Saddam, was the fear of a civil war between the Shiite and the Sunni. George W was also warned prior to the invasion. After the invasion despite US troops, Iraq did have a civil war between the two groups. Maliki came to power and harassed and marginalize the Sunni and this was despite warnings from both W and O. Thus the civil war exploded and the creation of ISIS evolved.
Obama isn't exactly innocent either, he didn't take the ISIS too seriously at all. He acted like a spectator. What was he thinking? I guess he just plain didn't think at all.
In my mind we can blame three leaders, George W and Obama for their shortsightedness and lack of understanding the old wounds between the two, it was too big of a picture for those two presidential disasters.
As far as the withdrawal of the troops, Iraq wanted us out. It's that plain and simple. But once the ISIS started taking Iraqi land, well then things changed. Man, did they want us back then. They even agreed to immunity for our US troops for any crimes committed. That was a big turn-around.
But I think Maliki did the most to contribute to the creation of the ISIS by ignoring the very recent history of civil war. So why he stirred things up between the Sunni and Shiites, he must of thought that the Sunni were going to sit on their hands and take it?
Plus he was drunk with power. When he lost his re-election for Prime Minister, they had to pry his hands away from his title as Prime Minister.
Everybody is just loving pointing the fingers. I suggest both sides look within their own party and leaders.
Why is that partisans don't have the balls to look critically at their own ideology? Neither side is perfect, actually both are quite imperfect and make mistake after mistake.
First of all, we left Iraq by following George W Bush's signed agreement.
I remember quite clearly that when the troops withdrawal was complete and Obama took credit, the right got all pissed off st Obama because it was Bush's time table not Obama's. Obama was wrong to take credit, I agreed with the right. Here's an article by Red State, this article echoed what was being said on USMB by posters from the right.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState
Then there's the body count of Iraqis killed by violence:
2003-12,125
2004-11,659
2005-16,402
2006-29,439
2007-26,022
2008-10,268
2009-5,309
2010-4,117
2011-4,153
2012-4,622
2013-9,841
2014-17,073
Iraq Body Count
Now, whether this count is 100% accurate, who knows. I do however, remember there were car bombs almost daily from Day 1 and continued, troops or no troops. I'm sure you can't disagree with me on that.
In the end, Iraq did slow down in violence and it continued until the ISIS started taking hold. As I stated in my earlier post, I put much of the violence on the shoulders of Maliki. He was even more ignorant and incompetent than W or O.
Obama was supposed to negotiate a status of forces agreement. He did want it, he never wanted it. He wanted out, now look what happened. Obama couldn't negotiate himself out of a paper bag and the world knows he'a a joke. Now he's "negotiating" with Iran. Yeah Iraq "one of Obama's greatest successes alright"
Obama followed the withdrawal the Bush-Maliki agreement and then took credit for the troops leaving Iraq, the right lost it when Obama made that claim. The right got really pissed of that he did make that claim as the linked article by Red State demonstrates. USMB was filled with threads pissing and moaning about Obama's claim, everybody thought (including myself) that Bush deserved the credit.
But when things went south in Iraq, those on the right acted and still act like it was Obama's fault. You folks sure changed your tune in a hurry, all of a sudden it was all Obama's fault, it's like Bush never involved with the troop withdrawal.
Why can't you folks man up and deal with reality and look at your own party/ideology for it's errors? This is a perfect example that partisans of all colors are so manipulated that they ignore the reality of their own ideologies/parties' mistakes. Ideologues are like little children, it's always somebody else's fault.
You will note that I don't put the blame on just one leader, Obama, Bush and Maliki all deserve to be blamed because facts say so.
