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

[Freewill]

Wait a second, I thought one of the reasons to be against removing Saddam is that he brought stability to the region and kept Iran in check. No matter how brutal his sons and him were in so doing it. Never mind using WMD against his own people.

How can you say we made a bad situation worse? HOW? Libya's Kaddafi gone. Syria has removed the gas that he probably got off of Saddam. Iran/Iraq is not longer at war. And the biggest thing is Saddam is GONE. A well known sponsor of terrorism.

What was predicted if a democracy was established in the ME? Exactly what we see happening, people rising up against the dictators. Which I don't see as a bad thing. ISIS is bad but there is nothing to link their rise to the Iraq war.

What we have to lose is that after showing the world that we would stand against those like Saddam we whimper and say all is lost.

I didn't say the area was stable, I said it was a hornet's nest. What Saddam provided was a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The fact that it wasn't as fucked up as it could have been doesn't mean it was stable.

Now, Iraq is in the process of falling into pieces, it can't defend itself, ISIS has planted its flag, Iran is scaring the shit out of people with its nuclear program, Iran is supporting area terrorism unimpeded, terror groups have metastasized all over, things are still a hornet's nest.

At very best, and I don't believe this, things are no better, no worse. And at what cost? A trillion dollars that we didn't have, thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds lost, AND an American populace that is understandably war-weary and likely to hamstring future military action as a result.

This is another self-inflicted wound.

.

Really, and no offense intended, but Saddam was not the savior of the middle east. He was paying suicide bomber for crying out loud. He attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He was shooting at our jets. You can write the history any way you want but the ME was f..ked up before Iraq and I see one big difference, democracy in Iraq. If we let that fall we are nothing but a pussy nation that believes in nothing and THAT will encourage our enemies.

Again, that's not what I said, I did not say that Saddam was "the savior of the Middle East". Come on, please don't mis-characterize my words. His presence, his behavior, his ego -- all as ugly as it was -- provided military and strategic balance against other bad guys. Not everything is black & white, good vs. bad. This is bad vs. bad, and on balance it kept the Middle East from becoming the even bigger disaster it is today, all at our hands.

This is where we blew it, and made things worse. We simplistically saw that Saddam was a bad guy and decided it was our right to invade another sovereign country and take out its leader -- a former friend and ally of ours, by the way -- without giving a goddamn moment's pause regarding the larger-picture ramifications. It's what Bush wanted, and he pushed it through.

So now, since we broke it, we own it. We have to fucking go back in. And we've put ourselves into a position in which we may have to be allies -- ALLIES -- of Iran and SYRIA. What the fuck. Those thousands of American lives and limbs and minds, that trillion dollars, all pissed away because of Bush's historically bad idea. The one many of us begged him not to run with.

.

We did not make things worse. Iran was Iran and still is Iran. Libya was lead by a nut bag and we bombed them, is that what made things worse in you mind? Syria was never our friend, always sponsored terrorism and that has not changed.

But did we make a difference? Read this: Kurds benefited from the Iraq war, and for that they are grateful to America. US military personnel are regarded in the region as a hybrid of Team America: World Police and pop stars. The sight of an American prompts everything from military salutes to free meals. America is viewed by many as everything the Kurds want to become. On one occasion a man told me he went to California on vacation for two weeks—“the best two weeks in my whole life.”

ISIS Be Damned. Iraqi Kurds Still Love America VICE United States

I never would have voted for war but the Congress did and we went. I'll be damned if I now am going to say that the Iraqi people voting was not worth the pain. I am not going to say a free Kurdistan was not worth the pain. I am not going to ever buy into the notion that Saddam did anything but brought fear, destabilization and death to the ME.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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!

The 9/11 attacks was because of George Sr having US troops on sacred soil in SA..That was the reason for the first attacks on the World trade Center...when it was bombed...

yep and to counter the attack they wanted to place more infidel boots on the ground in a muslim nation Repub-reasoning

In OP's defense- TeaPartySamurai is alright for a rw reactionary hack spazz.

In other words, it's "America's fault" that terrorists attacked us.

Typical liberal thinking. Blame America first.

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!

The 9/11 attacks was because of George Sr having US troops on sacred soil in SA..That was the reason for the first attacks on the World trade Center...when it was bombed...

Wait a minute.

You libs say it's unfair to blame Clinton because he wasn't president during 9/11.

But it's okay to blame Bush 41, even though Clinton was president in 1993 when the first WTC bombing happened???

I'm sorry but, you probably have a better time blaming Clinton for pulling out of Somalia, at which time OBL wrote that America was a "paper tiger."

He made the same mistake the Japanese made about Pearl Harbor.

He thought we were decadent and would not fight back.

Usama bin Ladin American Soldiers Are Paper Tigers Middle East Quarterly

I didn't blame anyone, I merely stated a fact, live with it...

Yeah, nice try, but it isn't a "fact." It's you trying to point fingers in your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Dot Com]

I served BTW TPSamurai you cumb dunt!!! So don't ever question my patriotism to the Constitution (thats been subverted) & people of this great nation, as opposed to the corporations

 

[Moonglow]

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!

The 9/11 attacks was because of George Sr having US troops on sacred soil in SA..That was the reason for the first attacks on the World trade Center...when it was bombed...

yep and to counter the attack they wanted to place more infidel boots on the ground in a muslim nation Repub-reasoning

In OP's defense- TeaPartySamurai is alright for a rw reactionary hack spazz.

In other words, it's "America's fault" that terrorists attacked us.

Typical liberal thinking. Blame America first.

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!

The 9/11 attacks was because of George Sr having US troops on sacred soil in SA..That was the reason for the first attacks on the World trade Center...when it was bombed...

Wait a minute.

You libs say it's unfair to blame Clinton because he wasn't president during 9/11.

But it's okay to blame Bush 41, even though Clinton was president in 1993 when the first WTC bombing happened???

I'm sorry but, you probably have a better time blaming Clinton for pulling out of Somalia, at which time OBL wrote that America was a "paper tiger."

He made the same mistake the Japanese made about Pearl Harbor.

He thought we were decadent and would not fight back.

Usama bin Ladin American Soldiers Are Paper Tigers Middle East Quarterly

I didn't blame anyone, I merely stated a fact, live with it...

Yeah, nice try, but it isn't a "fact." It's you trying to point fingers in your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I have no Bush derangement , that is your fallacy..

According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'.[8] These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries' interior affairs."

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dot Com]

OP's username would lead one to believe that shes a Tea Partier but her rhetoric sounds like a Republican World Police (on someone else's dime the middle-class ) -type.

she's one of the many ODS sufferers on this board.

 

[Moonglow]

You can't deny the past to live in the future...

 

[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?

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?

The UN decided you dumbass, Bush was enforcing their sanctions.

 

[jknowgood]

OH! Never mind!

What am I talking about? A Democrat is president! It's OKAY when HE talks about war, right????

Obama lays out plan to 'eradicate cancer' of Islamic State fighters

President Obama vowed to “destroy” Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terrorists in a prime-time address Wednesday that sought to restore eroding public confidence in his leadership and ability to safeguard national security.

The president announced a “systematic campaign of airstrikes” against fighters with the ISIS “wherever they exist,” signaling U.S. targets will expand from Iraq to Syria.

I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are,” Obama said during the 15-minute address from the White House. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIS] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

Obama lays out plan to eradicate cancer of Islamic State fighters TheHill

Remember the good old days liberals? When a Republican was president and your messiah could shoot his mouth off about Iraq anytime he wanted?



Yeah, those were the "good old days."

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. NOW, a Democrat is president and what do you know? Terrorists DON'T love us more because a black man/muslim/Kenyan/whatever is president.

Now, Obama finally has the problem in HIS lap.

So, he TALKS tough. He draws red lines like he already did in Syria and then did . . . . NOTHING.

So, he's talking tough again. Does he still think that all he need do?

Wait and see.

Just count on HYPOCRITE LIBERALS not to call Obama a war criminal, claim he's violating the Geneva Convention (that was always a funny one) or he violating the Constitution (and when has Obama cared about the Constitution???)

Wow, expect crickets from liberals on this.

But cheer up libs. You can always rant, rave and keep on blaming Bush!

look at how stupid this bush guy is? you can actually see the stupid on his face. and you people love this idiot. lol. he destroys our economy and has started world war 3 over getn his paper and you idiots want him or some one like him back in power. wow

You do realize Bush has been out of power for six years don't ya? . This is Obama's mess.

 

[candycorn]

And the expectation that just because you can cite where you tied your left shoe first, had toast and jelly instead of a bagel and cream cheese, and took only left turns to work one day and had a great day is proof that if you do the same things again you'll have a great day every day is bunk as well.

You do have a point, bombing is involvement.

I doubt you'll see boots on the ground under Obama.

Correlation does not prove causation, that's perfectly true. However, it certainly doesn't argue against it. So, let's look at the data we have:
1. First gulf war. Mired enforcing no-fly zones and having troops stationed for over a decade until....
2. 2nd gulf war. No credible threat, yet troops on the ground for nearly a decade.
3. Afghanistan. Started out as essentially air support for the Northern Alliance (remember them?) against the Taliban, but ramped up to include Special Ops and occupying troops. Still there over a decade later. Once again, for an "enemy" that posed no credible threat.

So, we have three data points, all three leading to ten year long occupations of varying intensities. I admire the optimism that this time will be different, but it is hopelessly naive. And, of course, completely unnecessary, just like the last three times.

The future is uncertain. Again, I doubt you'll see boots on the ground under Obama in any large numbers.

 

[Contumacious]

OH! Never mind!

What am I talking about? A Democrat is president! It's OKAY when HE talks about war, right????

Obama lays out plan to 'eradicate cancer' of Islamic State fighters

President Obama vowed to “destroy” Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terrorists in a prime-time address Wednesday that sought to restore eroding public confidence in his leadership and ability to safeguard national security.

The president announced a “systematic campaign of airstrikes” against fighters with the ISIS “wherever they exist,” signaling U.S. targets will expand from Iraq to Syria.

I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are,” Obama said during the 15-minute address from the White House. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIS] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

Obama lays out plan to eradicate cancer of Islamic State fighters TheHill

Remember the good old days liberals? When a Republican was president and your messiah could shoot his mouth off about Iraq anytime he wanted?



Yeah, those were the "good old days."

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. NOW, a Democrat is president and what do you know? Terrorists DON'T love us more because a black man/muslim/Kenyan/whatever is president.

Now, Obama finally has the problem in HIS lap.

So, he TALKS tough. He draws red lines like he already did in Syria and then did . . . . NOTHING.

So, he's talking tough again. Does he still think that all he need do?

Wait and see.

Just count on HYPOCRITE LIBERALS not to call Obama a war criminal, claim he's violating the Geneva Convention (that was always a funny one) or he violating the Constitution (and when has Obama cared about the Constitution???)

Wow, expect crickets from liberals on this.

But cheer up libs. You can always rant, rave and keep on blaming Bush!

Excuse me retardo, the problem is not the color of the presidents' skin but the WAR PARTY's policy. The War Party - The military industrial complex owns both parties. So long as the US continues to be a belligerent warmongering nation problems will continue.

.

 

[Ibentoken]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

 

[BillyP]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

 

[haissem123]

OH! Never mind!

What am I talking about? A Democrat is president! It's OKAY when HE talks about war, right????

Obama lays out plan to 'eradicate cancer' of Islamic State fighters

President Obama vowed to “destroy” Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terrorists in a prime-time address Wednesday that sought to restore eroding public confidence in his leadership and ability to safeguard national security.

The president announced a “systematic campaign of airstrikes” against fighters with the ISIS “wherever they exist,” signaling U.S. targets will expand from Iraq to Syria.

I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are,” Obama said during the 15-minute address from the White House. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIS] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

Obama lays out plan to eradicate cancer of Islamic State fighters TheHill

Remember the good old days liberals? When a Republican was president and your messiah could shoot his mouth off about Iraq anytime he wanted?



Yeah, those were the "good old days."

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. NOW, a Democrat is president and what do you know? Terrorists DON'T love us more because a black man/muslim/Kenyan/whatever is president.

Now, Obama finally has the problem in HIS lap.

So, he TALKS tough. He draws red lines like he already did in Syria and then did . . . . NOTHING.

So, he's talking tough again. Does he still think that all he need do?

Wait and see.

Just count on HYPOCRITE LIBERALS not to call Obama a war criminal, claim he's violating the Geneva Convention (that was always a funny one) or he violating the Constitution (and when has Obama cared about the Constitution???)

Wow, expect crickets from liberals on this.

But cheer up libs. You can always rant, rave and keep on blaming Bush!

look at how stupid this bush guy is? you can actually see the stupid on his face. and you people love this idiot. lol. he destroys our economy and has started world war 3 over getn his paper and you idiots want him or some one like him back in power. wow

Yeah, because your Bush Derangement syndrome, is sooooooooooooo intelligent!

Bush hasn't been in power for over six years, genius.

We are headed toward WW3 if things keep going this way and Bush isn't at the helm.

Sorry, but your attempts to blame Bush for this mess isn't going to work.

bush bankrupt us with these wars now we have to clean them up and it's not his fault? how so? he opened flood gates for derivative thievery and it's not his fault they stall your retirement funds. how so? this evil idiot and his cronie crooks knew exactly what they were doing and starting the road paved to hell and you idiots not only let them you encouraged them and jumped on the band wagon.

 

[dilloduck]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

Maybe if he wasn't being attacked by so many mercenaries who have been hired , armed and trained by other countries including America he would be doing OK.

 

[BillyP]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

Maybe if he wasn't being attacked by so many mercenaries who have been hired , armed and trained by other countries including America he would be doing OK.

Nice of you to root for Assad, but he got caught up in that Arab Spring shit, which were all helped by the CIA no doubt...
But O'bama responsible for ISIS? Umm... No.

 

[dilloduck]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

Maybe if he wasn't being attacked by so many mercenaries who have been hired , armed and trained by other countries including America he would be doing OK.

Nice of you to root for Assad, but he got caught up in that Arab Spring shit, which were all helped by the CIA no doubt...
But O'bama responsible for ISIS? Umm... No.

I'd love to root for Obama but he can't be trusted and the world knows it. It's embarrassing when even Tehran calls him on his blatant lying.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

What!!! The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Assad and Syria. Bashir Assad became president decades ago after his father died and left him the presidency.

 

[BillyP]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

Maybe if he wasn't being attacked by so many mercenaries who have been hired , armed and trained by other countries including America he would be doing OK.

Nice of you to root for Assad, but he got caught up in that Arab Spring shit, which were all helped by the CIA no doubt...
But O'bama responsible for ISIS? Umm... No.

I'd love to root for Obama but he can't be trusted and the world knows it. It's embarrassing when even Tehran calls him on his blatant lying.

Wow! Rooting for Assad AND caring about what fucking Iran has to say? Do all the carpets in your house point towards Mecca?

 

[dilloduck]

Oh looky----apparently Kerry cares too. He must be a Muslim. LOL

"Kerry: US open to talks with Iran on Islamic State"

Kerry US open to talks with Iran on Islamic State - Yahoo News

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

Now he's sending 3,000 troops to fight Ebola.... Is he going to call it ebosil