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

[Ibentoken]

Thank god Obama isn't pouring water up their nose.

 

[Truthseeker420]

What objective would that achieve? We can't bomb everyone we disagree with?

 

[Kosh]

What objective would that achieve? We can't bomb everyone we disagree with?

Obama can and do it without giving them due process, but the far left is clearly ok with that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We can't bomb everyone we disagree with?

Well, we can try. And it certainly seems that we have at times. Just imagine what would happen if we spent this kind of time and energy here instead of trying to arrange the world for our own benefit...

 

[U2Edge]

.

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.

.

I never said the United States should "KEEP" Saddam in power. Thank God the United States removed that terrible threat from power. The United States and the world Depends on the oil and natural gas from the region and this must stay secure and allowed to flow freely without disruption from the likes of SADDAM. SADDAM posed the greatest threat to those vital energy resources that the world has ever seen in history.

Yes, there are new problems, but had Obama properly managed the good situation he was handed by Bush in Iraq, this current crises would not be happening. The United States has a responsibility to protect its national security where ever it is threatened around the world. The United States learned this the hard way in World War I and World War II.

Unless you live like the Amish in southeastern Pennsylvania, then you are daily consumer or user of oil in some form from the Persian Gulf. Or if not a user, you are indeed impacted by the price of oil. All that food that you shove in your mouth every day has to get to the supermarket or restaurant by a truck that uses gas which is refined from oil. A lot of that food is put in packaging for preservation that is made from REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS like plastic!

 

[Truthseeker420]

What objective would that achieve? We can't bomb everyone we disagree with?

Obama can and do it without giving them due process, but the far left is clearly ok with that.

I'm not okay with it( I are assuming you are talking about the killing of Americans who were supposedly fighting for the Taliban) but Romney would be no different.

 

[Kosh]

What objective would that achieve? We can't bomb everyone we disagree with?

Obama can and do it without giving them due process, but the far left is clearly ok with that.

I'm not okay with it( I are assuming you are talking about the killing of Americans who were supposedly fighting for the Taliban) but Romney would be no different.

Romney did not sign the Executive Order doing away with Due Process. Nice deflection.

Yet you still defend Obama and are OK with his illegal airstrikes in Iraq.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Obama can and do it without giving them due process, but the far left is clearly ok with that.

I'm not okay with it( I are assuming you are talking about the killing of Americans who were supposedly fighting for the Taliban) but Romney would be no different.

Romney did not sign the Executive Order doing away with Due Process. Nice deflection.

Yet you still defend Obama and are OK with his illegal airstrikes in Iraq.

Eighth time, where is the "illegal" part?

 

[Ibentoken]

I'm not okay with it( I are assuming you are talking about the killing of Americans who were supposedly fighting for the Taliban) but Romney would be no different.

Romney did not sign the Executive Order doing away with Due Process. Nice deflection.

Yet you still defend Obama and are OK with his illegal airstrikes in Iraq.

Eighth time, where is the "illegal" part?

Aren't you afraid that bombing the terrorists will only make Muslims angrier and lead the more recruitment?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Romney did not sign the Executive Order doing away with Due Process. Nice deflection.

Yet you still defend Obama and are OK with his illegal airstrikes in Iraq.

Eighth time, where is the "illegal" part?

Aren't you afraid that bombing the terrorists will only make Muslims angrier and lead the more recruitment?

Killing innocents leads to that. Fucking with their nations leads to that. Disrespecting their faith leads to that. Propping up puppet leaders so we can control their natural resources leads to that. Ignoring the illegal activities of Israel leads to that. Fighting unnecessary wars leads to that, and "afraid" is not a word I would use since this is cause and effect.

 

[Kosh]

Romney did not sign the Executive Order doing away with Due Process. Nice deflection.

Yet you still defend Obama and are OK with his illegal airstrikes in Iraq.

Eighth time, where is the "illegal" part?

Aren't you afraid that bombing the terrorists will only make Muslims angrier and lead the more recruitment?

Well if he keeps asking he obviously missed the explanation on another thread. That is on him and he will need to search for it.

Thus the far left will do everything they can to back Obama's illegal air strikes in Iraq.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Eighth time, where is the "illegal" part?

Aren't you afraid that bombing the terrorists will only make Muslims angrier and lead the more recruitment?

Well if he keeps asking he obviously missed the explanation on another thread. That is on him and he will need to search for it.

Thus the far left will do everything they can to back Obama's illegal air strikes in Iraq.

You didn't explain how it was illegal, because it isn't illegal, but feel free to continue to lie.

 

[Machaut]

There are multiple references to his actions since 2009. Here's a couple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/opinion/prime-minister-maliki-and-the-sunnis.html

In Iraq, a Sunni revolt raises specter of civil war - The Washington Post

Thank you. While I am not a fan of al-Maliki, I am a fan of the truth, and it appears that your links undermine your claims rather than supporting them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/opinion/prime-minister-maliki-and-the-sunnis.html


He arrested members of the banned Baath Party. The Baath Party's current leader, Ibrahim al-Nouri (who was Saddam's Vice President), declared war on ISIS recently due to their inhumane treatment of Christians. Additionally, ISIS is a Sunni extremist organization. Arresting members of the party that went on to fight a Sunni extremist organization hardly seems like it would damaging al-Maliki's street cred.

In Iraq, a Sunni revolt raises specter of civil war - The Washington Post

In the western Iraqi province of Anbar, Sunnis are in open revolt against the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Militants affiliated with al-Qaeda have taken advantage of the turmoil to raise their flag over areas from which they had been driven out by American troops, including the powerfully symbolic city of Fallujah, where U.S. forces fought their bloodiest battle since the Vietnam War.

On Monday, Maliki urged the people of Fallujah to expel al-Qaeda-*affiliated militants to avert a full-on attack, echoing calls made by U.S. forces a decade ago when they warned residents to leave the city or suffer the consequences.

Here, al-Maliki fights the Sunni organization al-Qaeda, or a splinter group affiliated with them.


I just don't see how these articles prove that al-Maliki is guilty of "persecution of the Sunnis since our troops left."

I never said it was proof. You asked for reference material. Those were articles about specific events and they did offer some historical perspective on how the Sunnis felt betrayed. Enough for you to begin your own search for the truth.

The PBS special "Losing Iraq" seems pretty good too.

I asked for you to "provide me with a link...that you believe adequately represents" the claim that al-Maliki persecuted Sunnis. What you gave me was one showing how al-Maliki was fighting al-Qaeda, and another of him siding with ISIS, an organization reaching out to Sunnis. I don't see how either of those support your position that al-Maliki persecuted Sunnis. I am unsure of how fighting al-Qaeda makes Sunnis feel "betrayed," and see no reason to do my own research into your claim at this point, since it appears to be rather unsubstantiated.

 

[DriftingSand]

Why you talking about John McCain and Lindsey Graham that way? They haven't met a war yet that they didn't like.

Yup ... or Hillary, Obama, Bush, Slick Willie, Carter, Nixon, the other Bush, etc., etc., etc. They've all sent troops, bombs, drones, or ships somewhere to fight someone. We're the globe's "Big Brother" Police State. It's what we do and it's become who we are. All the while our own nation is going to hell in a handbasket.

Was the cost 4 Trillion $? I know you have 43 million on food stamps now, what was the number before the war.

Unaffordable in any event.

 

[DriftingSand]

Arm all sides of every sectarian group in the Middle East. Keep arming them over, and over again until the last one has been 'neutralized".

I always find it amusing when "dove" liberals start sounding like "hawks."

 

[DriftingSand]

Evil, warmonger Bush has miraculously morphed into righteous, warmonger Obama. Penn and Teller couldn't-a done it better.

 

[Kondor3]

Evil, warmonger Bush has miraculously morphed into righteous, warmonger Obama. Penn and Teller couldn't-a done it better...

"Buddha make a miracle"

( from 'The King and I', the chldren's stage-play of 'Uncle Toms' Cabin )

 

[TooTall]

I was convinced by these two leading Democrats. They disagreed with you as well.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

I am not fooled by your lie by ommission. Do you see those three dots (...) at the end of the Kerry statement you are half citing:

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."


Why did you quote Kerry only on half of his statement?

So post the rest of what Kerry said after those three dots and then tell me you agree with him.

Will you do that or run?


Also Sen Clinton was correct in October 2002 to vote yes to authorize force if necessary because at that time there were no UN inspectors in Iraq and Saddam Hussein was openly in violation of international law.

I agree with her vote and speech in October 2002 and condemn Bush's March 2003 decision to force an end to those succeeding inspections and start a war.

I got the quotes from Snopes. If you want to see what else Kerry said, merely type or copy this sentence "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ..." into your search engine and read to your hearts content.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Aren't you afraid that bombing the terrorists will only make Muslims angrier and lead the more recruitment?

Well if he keeps asking he obviously missed the explanation on another thread. That is on him and he will need to search for it.

Thus the far left will do everything they can to back Obama's illegal air strikes in Iraq.

You didn't explain how it was illegal, because it isn't illegal, but feel free to continue to lie.

He doesn't need to explain! He's a Party member and is from the Ministry of Truth!

Remember the Party Slogans: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength!

He's watching!

 

[RandallFlagg]

[/B]

...

Hmmm...I'm not exactly sure who the dipshit is that doesn't know how to use the quote function, so if it wasn't you - I apologize in advance. If, on the other hand, I will tell you this - Kiss my Black ass.

I don't give a fuck for your opinion and it means less than nothing to me. Now, as to the gentleman in the photo - that was my Father (then A Lt Col) who went on to become a Brigadier.

YOU a "combat" Veteran? Where and When? Me? 25th Infantry, January 1967 through November 1968 - Ashau Valley, Quan Tri and Le Won. 11B, 97B. Retired form the Army in 1986 as a CW4. Fuck you very much Rambo.

My Brother? US Marines - 3 tours Retired in 1987 as a Master Gunnery Sergeant.



You don't like my views - again - Kiss my Black ass.


Oh, and I just told you that you don't care Rambo. Don't like it? Tough shit .....You're are as full of shit as the other REMFs that inhabit this board.

Either you made a typo or your shit ain't flying too damn straight...23 straight months in country? You a REMF in civvies, Ramboette? Or the real deal? If you're the real deal, Kiss My White Ass and Welcome Home Brother!

I don't need to present my bona fides to you on your fucking demand asshole! I'm not a professional veteran like some folk! I got out of the Navy in Jul '68 after my 4 years were done with bits and pieces of a B40 still in my body from a little incident on the Perfume River west of Hue in '67. VA has me at 100% P&T for that and other shit linked to AO. I've made several pilgrimages to The Wall to see two good friends that never made it back to the World. 'Nuff said, shit for brains!

So for your sorry ass to presume to tell me that their sacrifice doesn't mean anything to me, you did, indeed, let your ass overload your mouth you fucking prick! Yet you just fucking ASSUME that since you're the only one with Red, White and Blue blood flowing in your veins, you are the only one with an emotional attachment to the fallen. What an ego-centric asshole you truly are!

Tough shit if you don't like the way I respond to your idiotic ranting. Sometimes I like to use colored text directly below the quote to save data bits. Don't like it, pound fucking sand soldier!

BTW, your Dad was a handsome man in that photo. No disrespect at all was directed toward him. My Dad was career AF also. WWII & Korea vet, SAC from 1948 on to 1965 with 28 at retirement as a CM/Sgt. One thing we can agree on I think is that we are both proud of our fathers. Let's leave it at that, for now, eh?

Yes. November 67. My bad. I'm 70 years old and occasionally make a typo. I'll be watching for yours to correct you. And, Yes, you do need to present your "bona fides" if you're going to challenge me, ass wipe. My Dad doesn't need your bullshit respect. He died 20 years ago.

You seem upset that someone would challenge you? Tough Shit. This conversation was about NOW - not 40 years ago, dumbass. I don't give a hoot in hell what you did or didn't do. This is about NOW and the FUTURE - got it? The VC pose no threat to the US. The terrorist Army ISIS DOES. You'd better learn how to deal with that.