Trump Threatens To Sanction Iraq -- Why The F'k Are We Still There??

[pknopp]

No we don't. Our job is to protect our own. We've been dicking around in the ME for over half a century and gained nothing but enemies and flagged draped caskets. Enough.

OK, so you are saying you don't care what happens to our economy or if nuclear armed missiles in the ME are targeting our cities. Bold statements.

We are an oil exporter, we have no need for ME oil. Nuclear missiles that are aimed at us only become a problem if they are fired. Russia has had nukes pointed at us for 70 goddamn years, and we at them. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction and has been a successful deterrent for the duration. The ME, given their track record, is far more likely to nuke themselves anyways.

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

If Iran needs nukes, Russia will supply them. Your ship has sailed.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

We are an oil exporter, we have no need for ME oil. Nuclear missiles that are aimed at us only become a problem if they are fired. Russia has had nukes pointed at us for 70 goddamn years, and we at them. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction and has been a successful deterrent for the duration. The ME, given their track record, is far more likely to nuke themselves anyways.

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

So we should have invaded the Soviet Union too??

BAwahhahahaha….


Morons

I know all this is confusing to you, but we haven't invaded Iran and don't plan to.

No pussy...

You said invading Iraq was a great idea

and according to yo goofy ass -- we should have invaded the Soviet Union....

So yea, you want us to invade Iran too.....stand on that dumb shit you were just saying, don't pussy out now

 

[toomuchtime_]

OK, so you are saying you don't care what happens to our economy or if nuclear armed missiles in the ME are targeting our cities. Bold statements.

We are an oil exporter, we have no need for ME oil. Nuclear missiles that are aimed at us only become a problem if they are fired. Russia has had nukes pointed at us for 70 goddamn years, and we at them. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction and has been a successful deterrent for the duration. The ME, given their track record, is far more likely to nuke themselves anyways.

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

 

[satrebil]

OK, so you are saying you don't care what happens to our economy or if nuclear armed missiles in the ME are targeting our cities. Bold statements.

We are an oil exporter, we have no need for ME oil. Nuclear missiles that are aimed at us only become a problem if they are fired. Russia has had nukes pointed at us for 70 goddamn years, and we at them. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction and has been a successful deterrent for the duration. The ME, given their track record, is far more likely to nuke themselves anyways.

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

If Iran needs nukes, Russia will supply them. Your ship has sailed.

Or North Korea. But it's really a moot point.

What "toomuch" is really trying to argue/fight against is knowledge. If you have the necessary material, the creation of nuclear weapons is just a matter of will and experimentation. Short of wiping out the populace you're not going to stop it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

So we should have invaded the Soviet Union too??

BAwahhahahaha….


Morons

I know all this is confusing to you, but we haven't invaded Iran and don't plan to.

No pussy...

You said invading Iraq was a great idea

and according to yo goofy ass -- we should have invaded the Soviet Union....

So yea, you want us to invade Iran too.....stand on that dumb shit you were just saying, don't pussy out now

Ok, the discussion has clearly gone over your head. Now you're incapable of nothing but rants.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They need saved from us. Iraq was a secular fairly modern country before we invaded. Yes, it had some real problems but that hasn't changed. The only thing that changed is we have made it a third world country.

lol Iraq was neither secular nor modern under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni-Shia conflict continued and it was much less modern than it is now.

Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas—hostile to his secular rule—were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority ...

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia

First we invaded and destroyed Iraq — then we left it poisoned

lol Saddam's secular rule, in which the Sunni got everything and the Shia had nothing. Very funny.

So now you are back in favor of invading Iraq??

I wish you trumpers make your mind up....

You are the same folks who were saying how Iraq was a disaster and how you were always against it, blah blah....

Now you are saying going into Iraq was a good move??

I never said Iraq was a disaster. Iraq was a great success until Obama turned it over to Iran by withdrawing our forces to enhance his chances of reelection 2012. Going in, we had little understanding of their society, and made some serious errors, but by 2007 we had turned Iraq from a vile and violent dictatorship into a peaceful democracy - remember all those smiling faces and purple thumbs being waved in the faces of the terrorists? Some people like to complain that President Bush had no idea what he was doing, but in 2006 when his top generals said there was no way to bring the fighting to an end, he personally interviewed lower ranking generals to replace them and chose Petraeus who turned everything around in less than a year.

And then Obama came along and trashed everything, causing the rise of ISIS, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi, millions of homeless refugees, and finally, secure now in his second term, he sent US forces back to Iraq to try to clear up the horrendous mess he had made. And that's where we are now, trying to clean up the mess Obama left behind him.

Actually, it was Jr. that negotiated the pullout date.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[7] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline.[8][9][10] The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[11][12][13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[1][11][12]

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

So we should have invaded the Soviet Union too??

BAwahhahahaha….


Morons

I know all this is confusing to you, but we haven't invaded Iran and don't plan to.

No pussy...

You said invading Iraq was a great idea

and according to yo goofy ass -- we should have invaded the Soviet Union....

So yea, you want us to invade Iran too.....stand on that dumb shit you were just saying, don't pussy out now

Ok, the discussion has clearly gone over your head. Now you're incapable of nothing but rants.

In other words --- you are a pussy....

who thinks he can play army men with people lives and never have to face any consequences....

There is NO REASON TO BE IN IRAQ....period....

Trump should honor what he campaigned on and bring the troops home

 

[satrebil]

We are an oil exporter, we have no need for ME oil. Nuclear missiles that are aimed at us only become a problem if they are fired. Russia has had nukes pointed at us for 70 goddamn years, and we at them. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction and has been a successful deterrent for the duration. The ME, given their track record, is far more likely to nuke themselves anyways.

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Iraq owes us a tremendous amount of money.

For invading their country? We now charge to invade sovereign nations that were no threat to us?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Yep, and we were told once they got them that it would be the end of the world as we know it...but that never happened.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Iraq was neither secular nor modern under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni-Shia conflict continued and it was much less modern than it is now.

Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas—hostile to his secular rule—were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority ...

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia

First we invaded and destroyed Iraq — then we left it poisoned

lol Saddam's secular rule, in which the Sunni got everything and the Shia had nothing. Very funny.

So now you are back in favor of invading Iraq??

I wish you trumpers make your mind up....

You are the same folks who were saying how Iraq was a disaster and how you were always against it, blah blah....

Now you are saying going into Iraq was a good move??

I never said Iraq was a disaster. Iraq was a great success until Obama turned it over to Iran by withdrawing our forces to enhance his chances of reelection 2012. Going in, we had little understanding of their society, and made some serious errors, but by 2007 we had turned Iraq from a vile and violent dictatorship into a peaceful democracy - remember all those smiling faces and purple thumbs being waved in the faces of the terrorists? Some people like to complain that President Bush had no idea what he was doing, but in 2006 when his top generals said there was no way to bring the fighting to an end, he personally interviewed lower ranking generals to replace them and chose Petraeus who turned everything around in less than a year.

And then Obama came along and trashed everything, causing the rise of ISIS, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi, millions of homeless refugees, and finally, secure now in his second term, he sent US forces back to Iraq to try to clear up the horrendous mess he had made. And that's where we are now, trying to clean up the mess Obama left behind him.

Actually, it was Jr. that negotiated the pullout date.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[7] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline.[8][9][10] The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[11][12][13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[1][11][12]

An oft repeated lie. The Status of Forces agreement allowed that if the PM thought it would be too risky for the US to withdraw, our forces could stay, but Obama refused saying that unless the parliament asked him to keep troops there he would pull them out. The Pentagon had told Obama the country would go up in flames if we left and Maliki told him the same thing, but Obama chose to ignore the Status of Forces agreement and pull out on the eve of the 2012 election because he had promised to in 2008 and he was afraid it would hurt his chances for reelection. When Obama told the American people why he was pulling out of Iraq, he didn't say he was forced to by the Status of Forces agreement, he said it was because Iraq no longer needed us, which he knew was a lie.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'd like to know which way Trump is going. When he was campaigning, he said he would get us out of the ME. Matter of fact, he's been saying that for a long time, but yet, more troops keep going there.

Just recently, he's said that we will remain in Iraq until they pay for the base in Baghdad, so which is it? Are we getting out or not?

Donald Trump threatens Iraq sanctions after vote to expel US troops

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump threatened to impose deep sanctions on Iraq if it moves to expel U.S. troops and said Sunday he would not withdraw entirely unless the military is compensated for the "extraordinarily expensive air base" there.

Trump's remarks came on the same day that Iraq's Parliament voted to support expelling the U.S. military from its country over mounting anger about a drone strike the president ordered last week that killed Iran's Qasem Soleimani and earlier U.S. airstrikes in the country. The vote was nonbinding.

"We've spent a lot of money in Iraq," Trump told reporters aboard

I understand where Trump is coming from. He's a businessman. We stuck a lot of money into Iraq with virtually no ROI. But every good businessman knows that there's a time when you need to just cut your losses and move on. That is what needs to happen here and he needs to realize that. We're never going to get paid back by a 3rd world shithole that is constantly in conflict, sanctions be damned.

I want to see all troops, personnel, & equipment pulled. And I mean everywhere - Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, even Israel. It is beyond time for us to stop being the world's police. I firmly believe we should have the biggest, baddest, meanest military on the planet - but it should be HERE, protecting the homeland. Not half a world away dying over sandboxes that have been butchering eachother since they learned how to pick up sticks.

I could not agree more. I can't see wasting our time, money, resources and lives anywhere but in our country.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

So we should have invaded the Soviet Union too??

BAwahhahahaha….


Morons

I know all this is confusing to you, but we haven't invaded Iran and don't plan to.

No pussy...

You said invading Iraq was a great idea

and according to yo goofy ass -- we should have invaded the Soviet Union....

So yea, you want us to invade Iran too.....stand on that dumb shit you were just saying, don't pussy out now

Ok, the discussion has clearly gone over your head. Now you're incapable of nothing but rants.

In other words --- you are a pussy....

who thinks he can play army men with people lives and never have to face any consequences....

There is NO REASON TO BE IN IRAQ....period....

Trump should honor what he campaigned on and bring the troops home

In other words, you found yourself incapable of debating the present situation so you now try to deflect from it.

 

[pknopp]

Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas—hostile to his secular rule—were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority ...

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia

First we invaded and destroyed Iraq — then we left it poisoned

lol Saddam's secular rule, in which the Sunni got everything and the Shia had nothing. Very funny.

So now you are back in favor of invading Iraq??

I wish you trumpers make your mind up....

You are the same folks who were saying how Iraq was a disaster and how you were always against it, blah blah....

Now you are saying going into Iraq was a good move??

I never said Iraq was a disaster. Iraq was a great success until Obama turned it over to Iran by withdrawing our forces to enhance his chances of reelection 2012. Going in, we had little understanding of their society, and made some serious errors, but by 2007 we had turned Iraq from a vile and violent dictatorship into a peaceful democracy - remember all those smiling faces and purple thumbs being waved in the faces of the terrorists? Some people like to complain that President Bush had no idea what he was doing, but in 2006 when his top generals said there was no way to bring the fighting to an end, he personally interviewed lower ranking generals to replace them and chose Petraeus who turned everything around in less than a year.

And then Obama came along and trashed everything, causing the rise of ISIS, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi, millions of homeless refugees, and finally, secure now in his second term, he sent US forces back to Iraq to try to clear up the horrendous mess he had made. And that's where we are now, trying to clean up the mess Obama left behind him.

Actually, it was Jr. that negotiated the pullout date.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[7] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline.[8][9][10] The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[11][12][13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[1][11][12]

An oft repeated lie. The Status of Forces agreement allowed that if the PM thought it would be too risky for the US to withdraw, our forces could stay, but Obama refused saying that unless the parliament asked him to keep troops there he would pull them out. The Pentagon had told Obama the country would go up in flames if we left and Maliki told him the same thing, but Obama chose to ignore the Status of Forces agreement and pull out on the eve of the 2012 election because he had promised to in 2008 and he was afraid it would hurt his chances for reelection. When Obama told the American people why he was pulling out of Iraq, he didn't say he was forced to by the Status of Forces agreement, he said it was because Iraq no longer needed us, which he knew was a lie.

All started with the lie "Mission Accomplished". We were told we would be in and out. It would be a short war. You are complaining about things that happened 10 years after we were told that.

 

[Borillar]

Trump Pushes Iraq, Threatens Sanctions After Vote to Expel U.S. Troops

I should have known most Trumpers were full of shit when it came to genuinely wanting to stop being policemen of the world.....I really thought Trump was serious when he said he wanted to get out of Iraq....but if this is true, why is he threatening to sanction Iraq just because they voted for US troops to leave their country?? We been in Iraq for 18 years and they ain't free yet?? Why are we there then??

"President Trump threatened Iraq with sanctions and a bill for billions of dollars if the U.S. is forced to withdraw its troops from the nation after the Iraqi parliament, responding to a U.S. airstrike that killed a powerful Iranian general on its soil, voted in favor of expelling American forces."

It was bad enough that the Iraqi Prime Minister objected to the strike at his airport, claiming Qassem Soleimani was a guest of his country -- why would the number 1 terrorist in the history of the world be invited as a guest in Iraq?? Now the Iraqi parliament voted to kick our US troops out of their country?? Like I said, why are we still there then??

And what is Trump's reaction?? "In response, Trump has threatened to sanction Baghdad "like they've never seen before ever," if Iraq were to expel US troops. 'It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he added, a reference to over 1,000 rounds of economic penalties imposed by the US on Tehran after the Trump administration pulled out of the multilateral Iran nuclear deal in 2018."

The last time we threatened to sanction Iraq -- Saddam Hussein was president -- what the fuck did we spend 18 years in Iraq for?? Why are we still there?? You can still have fun attacking Iran from bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc etc etc -- so using Iran as an excuse to stay in Iraq for another 18 years is not an excuse....I want Trumpers to really step back from their sycophancy and acknowledge the fact that Trump is actually trying to force Iraq to allow our troops to stay there -- after all of this talk of leaving Iraq and brining our troops home......why are we there??

Iraq owes us a tremendous amount of money.

For what? Destroying their country?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok, so you want to wait until after nuclear missiles are fired at us before doing anything.

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Of course we can stop Iran from acquiring nukes and most countries neither want them or need them. North Korea is a special case. NK and SK have been preparing for so long for war that even without nuclear weapons it is estimated that in the first 24 hours of a war, a million people would be killed and millions more as the war continued. Clinton actually ordered his DoD to draw up plans for attacking NK because he was so frustrated trying to deal with them, but SK nixed it because it would have devastated their country.

That situation does not exist in Iran. There is no equivalent to SK it could devastate in retaliation if we bombed out its ability to produce nukes. If Iran makes a dash to build nukes it will be bombed out, if not by the US, then by Israel which has vastly superior air power to Iran. There is no rational justification for allowing a country that chants death to America and threatens frequently to wipe out another country to acquire nukes.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Yep, and we were told once they got them that it would be the end of the world as we know it...but that never happened.

Yet

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'd like to know which way Trump is going. When he was campaigning, he said he would get us out of the ME. Matter of fact, he's been saying that for a long time, but yet, more troops keep going there.

Just recently, he's said that we will remain in Iraq until they pay for the base in Baghdad, so which is it? Are we getting out or not?

Donald Trump threatens Iraq sanctions after vote to expel US troops

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump threatened to impose deep sanctions on Iraq if it moves to expel U.S. troops and said Sunday he would not withdraw entirely unless the military is compensated for the "extraordinarily expensive air base" there.

Trump's remarks came on the same day that Iraq's Parliament voted to support expelling the U.S. military from its country over mounting anger about a drone strike the president ordered last week that killed Iran's Qasem Soleimani and earlier U.S. airstrikes in the country. The vote was nonbinding.

"We've spent a lot of money in Iraq," Trump told reporters aboard

He also said he would prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, and these two goals are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Yep, and we were told once they got them that it would be the end of the world as we know it...but that never happened.

Yet

And they count on people like you living their lives in fear of such an event to justify all the military actions and all the loss of freedoms.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Saddam's secular rule, in which the Sunni got everything and the Shia had nothing. Very funny.

So now you are back in favor of invading Iraq??

I wish you trumpers make your mind up....

You are the same folks who were saying how Iraq was a disaster and how you were always against it, blah blah....

Now you are saying going into Iraq was a good move??

I never said Iraq was a disaster. Iraq was a great success until Obama turned it over to Iran by withdrawing our forces to enhance his chances of reelection 2012. Going in, we had little understanding of their society, and made some serious errors, but by 2007 we had turned Iraq from a vile and violent dictatorship into a peaceful democracy - remember all those smiling faces and purple thumbs being waved in the faces of the terrorists? Some people like to complain that President Bush had no idea what he was doing, but in 2006 when his top generals said there was no way to bring the fighting to an end, he personally interviewed lower ranking generals to replace them and chose Petraeus who turned everything around in less than a year.

And then Obama came along and trashed everything, causing the rise of ISIS, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi, millions of homeless refugees, and finally, secure now in his second term, he sent US forces back to Iraq to try to clear up the horrendous mess he had made. And that's where we are now, trying to clean up the mess Obama left behind him.

Actually, it was Jr. that negotiated the pullout date.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[7] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline.[8][9][10] The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[11][12][13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[1][11][12]

An oft repeated lie. The Status of Forces agreement allowed that if the PM thought it would be too risky for the US to withdraw, our forces could stay, but Obama refused saying that unless the parliament asked him to keep troops there he would pull them out. The Pentagon had told Obama the country would go up in flames if we left and Maliki told him the same thing, but Obama chose to ignore the Status of Forces agreement and pull out on the eve of the 2012 election because he had promised to in 2008 and he was afraid it would hurt his chances for reelection. When Obama told the American people why he was pulling out of Iraq, he didn't say he was forced to by the Status of Forces agreement, he said it was because Iraq no longer needed us, which he knew was a lie.

All started with the lie "Mission Accomplished". We were told we would be in and out. It would be a short war. You are complaining about things that happened 10 years after we were told that.

It was a short war. What took time was helping the Iraqis build a new country after the devastation and trauma Saddam caused.