Obama Bombs Iraq: Do you Support It?...

[pvsi]

So Obama has begun bombing Iraq. How do you feel about it? Do you support it?

There comes a time when all the RINOS show their true colors, just like communists/cold war "staunch enemies" who were fighting on the same front with USA against the "Nazis" during the actual WAR, just like Hillary Clinton and the DINOS who authorized "Bush's" war in the first place:

Do you support Obama in bombing Iraq: YES: 1776, 80zephyr, AvgGuyIA, BlindBoo, BluesMistress, BobPlumb, Claudette, deltex1, depotoo, francoHFW, Grampa Murked U, healthmyths, Interpol, JimH52, JQPublic1, Jroc, kiwiman127, Kondor3, longknife, Lovebears65, Luddly Neddite, mamooth, Meathead, Missourian, Moonglow, nitroz, NoTeaPartyPleez, NotfooledbyW, OldUSAFSniper, Peach, peach174, RetiredGySgt, RoadVirus, Sallow, saveliberty, SillyWabbit, skye, U2Edge

FRAUD EXPOSED. good post paulitician.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The fact that ISIS is strolling around Iraq at their leisure is a perfect reminder of the short-sighted stupidity of Bush's war there. They would not be able to act with such impunity if Saddam were still there.

Of course, neither would Iran. What a coincidence, huh?

We just seem to keep fucking things up with our bullets and bombs.

And all we had to do to learn this lesson was waste a trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand American soldiers.

What a deal!

.

Well if Saddam were still there, then you could have Saddam invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, launching Ballistic Missiles at other countries, seizing the worlds primary sources of energy and causing a worldwide economic depression as well as continuing work on developing nuclear weapons, and once again producing and using Sarin Gas on a massive scale to kill tens of thousands of people along with the 1.7 million people he murdered during his first stent as leader of Iraq.

The problem is that too many people are either ignorant or have forgotten who Saddam was, what he did, and how he threatened the natural resources of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which are vital to the survival of the industrialized World.

ISIS is indeed a threat, and needs to be destroyed, but its silly to suggest that it would have been worth it to keep Saddam in power to prevent the rise of ISIS in Iraq, even if you believe that the two are connected.

It wasn't our responsibility to "keep" Saddam in power. It's not our country. And yes, he was one nasty bastard. But those of us who argued against this saw that we could easily be creating all new problems by trying to solve that one. And we were right. We were absolutely right. At horrific cost.

We somehow think it's okay for us to run around the Middle East, blowing shit up, killing thousands of innocents, acting like it's our sand, playing Whack-A-Mole™ with everyone we don't like that day, arming people we DO like that day, only to blow the shit out of them too at some point.

Well, now we're looking at the results.

.

 

[paulitician]

This latest chaos over there definitely began when our Government decided to fund & arm rebel groups in Syria. ISIL grew out of that American support. Obama committed a huge blunder. Assad is the safer bet. He shouldn't have involved us in the Syrian War. We're suffering the Blow Back on that now.

You could not back up this claim of yours before. Why do you keep preaching it now? You have not demonstrated that US funding of rebel groups that fight ISIS and Assad actually ended up funding ISIS.

The Saudis are suspected of funding ISIL in the past but have since stopped since the firing of Prince Bandar from the top intelligence post of the Saudi Kingdom.

ISIL grew out of American support for Syrian rebels. It was a direct result of our meddling there. They now control large areas of both Syria and Iraq. Syria, Russia, and Iran have been opposing them all along. We should have just stayed out of the Syrian War. Time to move on past the arrogant ignorant 'Regime Change' mentality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Saddam's Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union and apart of Soviet strategy in the Middle East.

Iraq was non-aligned in the 1980's and not a client state of the Soviets according to this:

Soviet Union Table of Contents

Soviet Union Iran and Iraq

During the 1970s, the Soviet Union attempted to consolidate a closer relationship with Iraq while also maintaining normal relations with Iran. Soviet arms transfers to Iraq started in 1959 when, after Colonel Abd al Karim Qasim overthrew the pro-Western monarchy, Iraq withdrew from the Baghdad Pact.

These arms transfers continued during the 1960s and increased after the signing of the Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1972.

The Soviet Union increased arms shipments to support Iraq's counterinsurgency efforts against the Kurds (whom the Soviets had earlier supported).

Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union became strained in the late 1970s after discovery of an Iraqi communist party plot to overthrow the leadership and because the Soviet Union was backing Ethiopian attempts to suppress the Iraqi-supported Eritrean insurgency.

Nevertheless, the Iraqi policy of acquiring Soviet arms and military equipment in exchange for oil was continued by Saddam Husayn, who succeeded to the presidency of Iraq iin 1979.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, however, Saddam's government condemned the invasion, and Iraqi-Soviet relations deteriorated further.

When Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980, the Soviet Union halted arms shipments to Iraq, which drove Iraq to make desperate purchases in the private arms market.

Relations thus became particularly strained between the Soviet Union and Iraq.

Although normal relations between the two countries were resumed after 1982 when the arms shipments were renewed, Soviet efforts to draw Iraq into its political sphere of influence were not successful during the 1980s, and Iraq remained nonaligned.

SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, Iraq 1973?1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This latest chaos over there definitely began when our Government decided to fund & arm rebel groups in Syria. ISIL grew out of that American support. Obama committed a huge blunder. Assad is the safer bet. He shouldn't have involved us in the Syrian War. We're suffering the Blow Back on that now.

You could not back up this claim of yours before. Why do you keep preaching it now? You have not demonstrated that US funding of rebel groups that fight ISIS and Assad actually ended up funding ISIS.

The Saudis are suspected of funding ISIL in the past but have since stopped since the firing of Prince Bandar from the top intelligence post of the Saudi Kingdom.

ISIL grew out of American support for Syrian rebels. It was a direct result of our meddling there. They now control large areas of both Syria and Iraq. Syria, Russia, and Iran have been opposing them all along. We should have just stayed out of the Syrian War. Time to move on past the arrogant ignorant 'Regime Change' mentality.

You still cannot backup your claim. Your argument should be ignored.

We did get Syria's CW arsenal removed and destroyed. Staying out of it wouid not have accomplished that.

Could you imsgine IS terrorists with CW and artillery to fire it?

 

[Darkwind]

This is what happens you you pull out prematurely. However, yes I support the President in this. Those people need to be protected and this radical group needs to be exterminated.

I'll wager he'll [Obama] go halfway....as he usually does.

 

[Lakhota]

Iraq is a clusterfuck created by the Bush family:

Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the "green light" via April Glaspie.

It is now more than fifteen years since that fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a green light from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.

TRANSCRIPT: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?​

Bush 43 conjured up lies to invade Iraq a 2nd time.

The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?​

That's a crock of shit. Are you also going to claim the Bush family also got SADDAM to ANNEX Kuwait and wipe it off the map forever a few days after Saddam invaded it 24 years ago. Did April Glaspie in any way shape or form allow, demand, suggest that Saddam annex a sovereign member of the United Nations?

Saddam had legitimate grievances againist Kuwait. Did you read the entire transcript?

 

[Katzndogz]

What's the obum's plan? If he's just going to drop a few bombs and go home, that's not much of a plan. If he's going to drop aid to the people hiding in the mountains is he going to do it forever?

He hasn't named the mission. That's come under a lot of criticism because it implies that there is no mission. There's no goal, no plan, nothing. There is no direction. Which means that no matter what is done, will be done with the default end goal of failing.

 

[Peach]

This is what happens you you pull out prematurely. However, yes I support the President in this. Those people need to be protected and this radical group needs to be exterminated.

I'll wager he'll [Obama] go halfway....as he usually does.

He needs to step up, and continue action, agreed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Well if Saddam were still there, then you could have Saddam invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, launching Ballistic Missiles at other countries, seizing the worlds primary sources of energy and causing a worldwide economic depression as well as continuing work on developing nuclear weapons, and once again producing and using Sarin Gas on a massive scale to kill tens of thousands of people along with the 1.7 million people he murdered during his first stent as leader of Iraq.

The problem is that too many people are either ignorant or have forgotten who Saddam was, what he did, and how he threatened the natural resources of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which are vital to the survival of the industrialized World.

ISIS is indeed a threat, and needs to be destroyed, but its silly to suggest that it would have been worth it to keep Saddam in power to prevent the rise of ISIS in Iraq, even if you believe that the two are connected.

No you have been classically fooled by Dubya. According to Condi Rice and Colin Powell in 2000 and prior to September 2001 with regard to conventional weapons, the Baathist government was contained and not a threat to go invade his neighbors.

With regard to chemical weapons, up until December 2002 there was some concern that CW could fall into the hands of terrorists somehow because Iraq refused to let the inspectors in
Since 1998. But in December 2002 Saddam let the inspectors in and offered Bush to send the CIA etc into Iraq to confirm the WMD stockpiles were not there.

The inspectors were about ninety days away from completing the peaceful disarming process and setting up long term monitoring in Iraq when Bush decided to end that peaceful process and start the way and engage US troops in the quagmire of absolute stupidity.

Nice try buy making Saddam's army some kind of regional threat in 2003 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground there is convoluted nonsense

 

[AceRothstein]

.

The fact that ISIS is strolling around Iraq at their leisure is a perfect reminder of the short-sighted stupidity of Bush's war there. They would not be able to act with such impunity if Saddam were still there.

Of course, neither would Iran. What a coincidence, huh?

We just seem to keep fucking things up with our bullets and bombs.

And all we had to do to learn this lesson was waste a trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand American soldiers.

What a deal!

.

Well if Saddam were still there, then you could have Saddam invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, launching Ballistic Missiles at other countries, seizing the worlds primary sources of energy and causing a worldwide economic depression as well as continuing work on developing nuclear weapons, and once again producing and using Sarin Gas on a massive scale to kill tens of thousands of people along with the 1.7 million people he murdered during his first stent as leader of Iraq.

The problem is that too many people are either ignorant or have forgotten who Saddam was, what he did, and how he threatened the natural resources of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which are vital to the survival of the industrialized World.

ISIS is indeed a threat, and needs to be destroyed, but its silly to suggest that it would have been worth it to keep Saddam in power to prevent the rise of ISIS in Iraq, even if you believe that the two are connected.

Saddam was neutered after the Gulf War. He posed no threat to Iraq's neighbors in 2003.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'll wager he'll [Obama] go halfway....as he usually does.

What are the two extremes of your 'half way' prediction? Is it dropping nuclear bombs on the sands of Iraq and Syria turning it all into glass, on one hand?

On the other is it surrendering Texas and some other Red State in exchange for a promise from IS terrorists to not invade California Illinois and New York and specifically not invade the White House at least until 2017?

 

[dilloduck]

His goal is to contain them but not destroy them. I'd call that halfway.

http://siouxcityjournal.com/ap/wash...cle_41c55a98-9980-5c58-a06f-642e40d58c8d.html

 

[dannyboys]

What's the obum's plan? If he's just going to drop a few bombs and go home, that's not much of a plan. If he's going to drop aid to the people hiding in the mountains is he going to do it forever?

He hasn't named the mission. That's come under a lot of criticism because it implies that there is no mission. There's no goal, no plan, nothing. There is no direction. Which means that no matter what is done, will be done with the default end goal of failing.

BOBO will not give the 'mission' a name b/c that would mean he would have to define it.
With BOBO it's call Valerie first. Let her decide what to do.
She is actually the most powerful influential person in the administration.
The people on the mountain will be given safe passage into the North where their people are.
This will require close air support but it will happen.
The 'Westerners' in Irbil will be evacuated just before ISIS overruns the city. BOBO will basically declare the genocide threat resolved and he'll leave ISIS to take over the rest of Iraq. Then ISIS is Egypt and Jordan and Syria and KSA's problem. BOBO can return to the 'links' for a well deserved rest.
Then my friends we will get to sit back and watch on our big-screens how the KSA takes care of sub-humans.
One thousand US dollar bounty for every ISIS head. What many do not understand is ISIS is no different than the Nazis. A: They are either 100% exterminated or B: They will take over the entire world. There is no 'C'.

 

[jon_berzerk]

better yet halfassed

 

[Darkwind]

I'll wager he'll [Obama] go halfway....as he usually does.

What are the two extremes of your 'half way' prediction? Is it dropping nuclear bombs on the sands of Iraq and Syria turning it all into glass, on one hand?

On the other is it surrendering Texas and some other Red State in exchange for a promise from IS terrorists to not invade California Illinois and New York and specifically not invade the White House at least until 2017?

The only extreme here would be you using your grey matter for the first time.

 

[dilloduck]

What's the obum's plan? If he's just going to drop a few bombs and go home, that's not much of a plan. If he's going to drop aid to the people hiding in the mountains is he going to do it forever?

He hasn't named the mission. That's come under a lot of criticism because it implies that there is no mission. There's no goal, no plan, nothing. There is no direction. Which means that no matter what is done, will be done with the default end goal of failing.

Obama's Iraq aim: contain, not destroy, extremists - US News

 

[saveliberty]

MSM does seem to be emphasizing that we are back in the Iraqi fight. Could it be they are tired of defending this failed adminstration?

 

[Kondor3]

This is what happens you you pull out prematurely. However, yes I support the President in this. Those people need to be protected and this radical group needs to be exterminated...

True.

...I'll wager he'll [Obama] go halfway....as he usually does.

Seconded.

The odds seem heavily stacked in favor of a half-assed outcome.

Hope that's wrong, but, somehow, I doubt it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

This is what happens you you pull out prematurely. However, yes I support the President in this. Those people need to be protected and this radical group needs to be exterminated...

True.

...I'll wager he'll [Obama] go halfway....as he usually does.

Seconded.

The odds seem heavily stacked in favor of a half-assed outcome.

Hope that's wrong, but, somehow, I doubt it.

so far it is a day late and a dollar short

the prezbo hoping it wouldnt come to this passed

along time ago