War Mongering President, War Criminal, Blood On His Hands!

[Mac1958]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

Predicted by whom? Who predicted that the Iraq war would lead to Assad in Syria? Who predicted that a war in Iraq would lead to ISIS coming out of Syria with American backing.

More then likely what was predicted is that if we supported terrorists in Libya and Syria the outcome would not be a good outcome.

Iran? What have they done lately?

One of the primary reasons we were against the war was that we knew we were stepping into a hornet's nest. The situation in the Middle East was so unstable and unpredictable that no one could have predicted anything specific, but we damn sure could predict that we, WE, were going to make a bad situation worse.

And we were absolutely right.

And what has Iran done lately? Well, aside from speeding up their nuclear program, thumbing their nose at us and the world, funding and supporting those who want us dead and Israel gone, and achieving significant influence in what remains of Iraq after WE took out Saddam, nothing, I guess.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now he wants to train ISF?

Wait, isn't that we were doing until he became President?

It takes 15 years of training before the USArmy hands over command of a division, Obama threw the entire ISF over to people with a few years of training because he was concerned about his legacy. Obama legacy is: I turned the entire ME over to ISIL

 

[CitizenSeven]

Well, we are not sending 500,000 troops into Afghanistan and Arabia under Obama so it's not the same thing.

That being said, I think that you're 100% correct that the US has no legitimate interest in another war over there; only to install yet another American hating theocrat as a figurehead that will thankus for the gallons of American blood spilled and then kindly tell us to leave...only to start the whole process of dictatorship over again.

The first and second gulf war started with bombing campaigns as well. Why wouldn't the third? I am shocked and awed by the notion "oh, it's only bombing", as if that doesn't engender hatred and loathing on the part of the targets. And then 20 years from now, some orphans from the current campaign will fly planes into buildings, or detonate nukes in an american city, and the Usians will wonder why. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The only way to stop the cycle is not to get trolled into spinning the wheel.

The troop movements into Arabia proceeded the air campaign. Not the same thing at all. And you know this.

Yes, Bush Intended to go in, which was stupid, but smarter than doing half-measures which are not going to work (air support and training) since they didn't work in Afghanistan either. Or Viet Nam for that matter. So, what will happen is advisers will get caught up in the conflict, which will then justify escalating even more. Then we'll see the boots on the ground. The only way to avoid that inevitability is not to take the first steps.

 

[Siete]

Bwahahaaa!

Nice attempt at spin, but that won't work.

Does that means when Obama criticized Bush for Iraq HE WAS FOR THE TERRORISTS?????????????

Only way that spin works, pal!

You liberals never did have the brains to see your spin through to it's illogical conclusions.

where was ISIS BEFORE we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ?

HUH?

 

[Rinata]

Obama's Cowboy Diplomacy

Frank, that is really ridiculous, even for you!!! You know damn well that no matter what action President Obama decided on would be criticized by you and your fellow haters. At least be honest about it.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama created ISIS. ISIS wasn't born in Iraq. It came from Syria after obama paid and armed them to fight Assad.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yeah, because terrorism didn't exist before Bush invaded Iraq.

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism?

Keep trying that spin, liberals!

Keep trying that spin, neocon.

 

[Plasmaball]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

i wouldnt say Iran is that embolden since they see a threat as well with ISIL and are helping us.

 

[Plasmaball]

ISIL never even attacked us!!!

You can't fight an ideology with bullets and bombs!

Obama is only making more terrorists!!

this isnt going work Frank, not when you supported Iraq from the beginning. you are part of the problem

 

[Plasmaball]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.

This was all predictable. This was all predicted.

.

Yeah, Iran isn't "emboldened" because Obama does NOTHING about them building a bomb!

Nooooooooooooooo, it's all Bush's fault.

Keep trying libs!

Mac isnt a liberal.

 

[BlindBoo]

What amazes me is here is a guy who ran against the war in Iraq, and here he is repeating the same mistakes. Bush was an idiot, no doubt, but what do you call someone who sees that, and then willfully does the same damn thing?

Isis, or Isil, is not a real threat to the US. The US has no legitimate interest in getting sucked into another sand war.

Where did President Obama claim ISIS has WMD? Or called for a invasion and occupation of the country of ISIS? Calling for the Arabs to participate in a coalition against ISIS is the best course of action. Mopping up after President Bushes strategic blunder. Heck of a job, Bushie.......

 

[BlindBoo]

Well, we are not sending 500,000 troops into Afghanistan and Arabia under Obama so it's not the same thing.

That being said, I think that you're 100% correct that the US has no legitimate interest in another war over there; only to install yet another American hating theocrat as a figurehead that will thankus for the gallons of American blood spilled and then kindly tell us to leave...only to start the whole process of dictatorship over again.

The first and second gulf war started with bombing campaigns as well. Why wouldn't the third? I am shocked and awed by the notion "oh, it's only bombing", as if that doesn't engender hatred and loathing on the part of the targets. And then 20 years from now, some orphans from the current campaign will fly planes into buildings, or detonate nukes in an american city, and the Usians will wonder why. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The only way to stop the cycle is not to get trolled into spinning the wheel.

Both of those cases the bombing was a prelude to the war, a softening up of the enemy, prior to a ground invasion by us troops.

 

[jknowgood]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yeah, because terrorism didn't exist before Bush invaded Iraq.

Yeah, I guess 9/11 happened because Bush invaded Iraq, too!

oh, wait a minute! Oops!



Keep trying that spin, liberals!

I'm not a liberal, go fuck yourself, moron.

With Saddam still in power, ISIS would be still only in Syria, and nobody would care. And the US army wouldn't need to go into the region.

Yeah and only if Saddam would've done what he was suppose to do. He would still be alive. Ain't that a bitch?

 

[rdean]

Well, you know, the minute that Obama came out against ISIL, you guys would come out for them.

Beheadings and all. You knew that would happen.

When Obama came out for health care, they came out for "let him die".

Sure am glad race has nothing to do with it.

 

[candycorn]

Well, we are not sending 500,000 troops into Afghanistan and Arabia under Obama so it's not the same thing.

That being said, I think that you're 100% correct that the US has no legitimate interest in another war over there; only to install yet another American hating theocrat as a figurehead that will thankus for the gallons of American blood spilled and then kindly tell us to leave...only to start the whole process of dictatorship over again.

The first and second gulf war started with bombing campaigns as well. Why wouldn't the third? I am shocked and awed by the notion "oh, it's only bombing", as if that doesn't engender hatred and loathing on the part of the targets. And then 20 years from now, some orphans from the current campaign will fly planes into buildings, or detonate nukes in an american city, and the Usians will wonder why. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The only way to stop the cycle is not to get trolled into spinning the wheel.

The troop movements into Arabia proceeded the air campaign. Not the same thing at all. And you know this.

Yes, Bush Intended to go in, which was stupid, but smarter than doing half-measures which are not going to work (air support and training) since they didn't work in Afghanistan either. Or Viet Nam for that matter. So, what will happen is advisers will get caught up in the conflict, which will then justify escalating even more. Then we'll see the boots on the ground. The only way to avoid that inevitability is not to take the first steps.

I doubt that you'll see involvement under Obama. Post Obama...who knows.

 

[rdean]

If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.

Yeah, because terrorism didn't exist before Bush invaded Iraq.

Yeah, I guess 9/11 happened because Bush invaded Iraq, too!

oh, wait a minute! Oops!



Keep trying that spin, liberals!

I'm not a liberal, go fuck yourself, moron.

With Saddam still in power, ISIS would be still only in Syria, and nobody would care. And the US army wouldn't need to go into the region.

Yeah and only if Saddam would've done what he was suppose to do. He would still be alive. Ain't that a bitch?

Supposed to do? Who said? Who decides what other countries are "supposed to do?"

Who even knows about those countries? Who studies those countries first? Who does research? Who bothers to find out stuff first?

And since Isis is made up of Saddam's old army, why would they supposedly stay in Syria? They started in Iraq when Bush disbanded their military?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ISIL never even attacked us!!!

You can't fight an ideology with bullets and bombs!

Obama is only making more terrorists!!

this isnt going work Frank, not when you supported Iraq from the beginning. you are part of the problem

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Yeah. Like G.W.Bush was such a peace advocate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Normal people who pay attention know that nutters have been ratcheting up the fear campaign......in an attempt to goad the POTUS into sending troops to Syria. Why? Not because they think troops are needed there. They are doing it so they can call the man a liar and saddle him with a war.

Transparent fuckers.

 

[Siete]

where was ISIS BEFORE we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ?

HUH?

too difficult to answer Frankie?