Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, he should have taken them out like he did AND THEN STAYED OUT. I read this is going to cost 5 billion. Lord, knows we have better things to do with 5 billion than prop up some lazy Arabs who won't fight for their own country. We spent nearly 10 years "advising and training" and equipping these losers already. They deserve to have their heads lopped off by ISIS if they won't stand up for themselves and do their own fighting. Arabs are like the welfare class we have in the US. As long as you keep giving them stuff, they will never do anything but ask for more. Cut them off and let them fend for themselves and maybe, just maybe they will actually break out of their dependency.
Why do you guys keep accusing the Arabs of not fighting for their country?
We lost 4500 men in Iraq? How do you suppose they got killed? Did they shoot or blow up themselves?
And how exactly does the U.S. prevent or stop ISIS? "Take them out" how?
Hillary must be glowing right now. She wanted to leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely. She also wants to leave the troops in Afghanistan indefinitely. She also backed ISIL in Syria & was angry Obama wouldn't invade. Democrats will still stream to the polls to vote for this in 2016. Liberalism in the Democratic party is dead. What's left are corporate NeoProgressives.
She does not give a flying fajita about sending our best and bravest into those meat grinders over there. What a waste of our patriots. Let them blow each other to smithereens.
It was against others, I was talking about why Bin Laden was declaring it against the U.S. In it he specifically mentions U.S. occupation if the Islamic Holy land on the Arab Peninsula in Saudi Arabia, not because the U.S. is not an Islamic country. It has to do with what the U.S. does in the Middle East.
Good points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803
Referring to U.S. support to dictatorships in the Middle East that oppress Muslims there (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Yemen's dictator, Egypt's military dictatorship under Mumbarak the U.S. supported, which makes the U.S. hypocritical to say it is a force for freedom and democracy around the world when it is supporting/has supported terrible regimes.
Exactly.
Like Mohammed Talbi said, "We have the Freedom to Shut-up."
Shows how ignorant most Americans really are.
A great experiment would be to lock-down the US for 50-60 years and then arrest, torture and execute Americans who exercised Free Speech or Free Press.
Then having walked in the shoes of a few Billion people terrorized by US-backed dictators, you can ask American how it felt to be under tyranny, and whether or not they enjoyed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803
In 1953 the U.S. and allies overthrew Iran's democratically elected government for oil, and installed the Shah to allow cheap access to it.
No, that was the US. Britain put up some funding, but it was all Kim Roosevelt (if memory serves a grandson of Teddy Roosevelt).
Four years later, Eisentyrant put Roosevelt in charge of the US coup attempt in Syria (1957-1958).
I believe it was Kermit Roosevelt (also related to TR) who was in charge of the murder of King Faisal II of Iraq in the coup in 1958.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803
The blow back came in 1979 with the Islamic revolution/Taking of hostages in the Tehran Embassy.
That was entirely Carter's fault.
If Carter listens to General Haig (Army Chief of Staff at the time) and Bill Smith (US Ambassador to Iran), then the red carpet is rolled out for Khomeini and there are no problems.
Instead Carter listens to his Neo-Trotskyite advisors Brzezinski and Gary Sick, who convince him to send General Hugyens to Iran to instigate a coup using the Iranian military.
Khomeini tells them that at his speech at Tehran University, and that's what whips the students into a frenzy who then take over the embassy.
The Shah told Smith he wished to abdicate for health reasons (pancreatic cancer), and suggested Khomeini as a successor. With help from the Brits, Smith begins low-level talks. Khomeini is living in Paris at the time, causing the French DGSE to get suspicious of US/British activities.
When the French discover that the Shah is abdicating and the US (and sock-puppet Brits) are going to install Khomeini, the French leak that info because they wanted their man (Ayatollah Ruhollah) to take over Iran.
That leak of information by the French is what triggered the chain of events leading to the revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803
In the 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran War the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein, even while he was gassing his own people and the Iranians with Chemical Warfare.
With chemical weapons made in the US.
US military advisors were on the ground the entire time. I could have gone in 1984, but I was already slated to go to Egypt and train their army.
Near the end when Iraq was losing, the US attacked and destroyed most of the larger surface ships in Iran's navy, in particular their destroyers, to prevent them from screening troops moving through Kuzehstan into Basra.
There's going to be a slow US military buildup in Iraq. He's doing what he should have done in 2011 and left troops behind to train the Iraqi army
They were supposedly trained. What have we been doing in Iraq for the last decade? No, we trained them, left and they all went home. Doing it again isn't going to change that.
All of the leftwing morons claiming voting republican gave them opportunities for new wars seem to overlook that he with the dumbo ears (and intellect) is a war mongering, hateful president more than happy to have American troops killed to try to make up for his obvious lack of testosterone.
Like Mohammed Talbi said, "We have the Freedom to Shut-up."
Shows how ignorant most Americans really are.
A great experiment would be to lock-down the US for 50-60 years and then arrest, torture and execute Americans who exercised Free Speech or Free Press.
Then having walked in the shoes of a few Billion people terrorized by US-backed dictators, you can ask American how it felt to be under tyranny, and whether or not they enjoyed it.
No, that was the US. Britain put up some funding, but it was all Kim Roosevelt (if memory serves a grandson of Teddy Roosevelt).
Four years later, Eisentyrant put Roosevelt in charge of the US coup attempt in Syria (1957-1958).
I believe it was Kermit Roosevelt (also related to TR) who was in charge of the murder of King Faisal II of Iraq in the coup in 1958.
That was entirely Carter's fault.
If Carter listens to General Haig (Army Chief of Staff at the time) and Bill Smith (US Ambassador to Iran), then the red carpet is rolled out for Khomeini and there are no problems.
Instead Carter listens to his Neo-Trotskyite advisors Brzezinski and Gary Sick, who convince him to send General Hugyens to Iran to instigate a coup using the Iranian military.
Khomeini tells them that at his speech at Tehran University, and that's what whips the students into a frenzy who then take over the embassy.
The Shah told Smith he wished to abdicate for health reasons (pancreatic cancer), and suggested Khomeini as a successor. With help from the Brits, Smith begins low-level talks. Khomeini is living in Paris at the time, causing the French DGSE to get suspicious of US/British activities.
When the French discover that the Shah is abdicating and the US (and sock-puppet Brits) are going to install Khomeini, the French leak that info because they wanted their man (Ayatollah Ruhollah) to take over Iran.
That leak of information by the French is what triggered the chain of events leading to the revolution.
With chemical weapons made in the US.
US military advisors were on the ground the entire time. I could have gone in 1984, but I was already slated to go to Egypt and train their army.
Near the end when Iraq was losing, the US attacked and destroyed most of the larger surface ships in Iran's navy, in particular their destroyers, to prevent them from screening troops moving through Kuzehstan into Basra.
Historically...
Mircea
The whole Iran operation was also Kermit Roosevelt.
BTW...I had no idea that the Shah had suggested Khomeini as his successor.
The crazy thing about the '79 hostage crisis is that FEW Americans even knew about our involvement in '53! Perhaps it was still classified by that time, but damn...no one saw that our fingerprints were all over that operation.
The military was wrong every step of the way in Iraq, why would anyone listen to them? They have no game plan. This is just pissing money down the drain. We can not defeat an ideology. The ideology will not surrender. Even if we magically ended ISIL & their ideology, who would take over in Iraq? The Shia? The Al Sadr Militia is Shia. Iraq's neighbors to the East, Iran, are Shia. You going to leave them in charge? No, who then? The Kurds? That's a joke, the Kurd's can't organize a clusterf*ck much less run a country that they aren't even part of. Moderate Sunni's? No such thing. What's left? Station US troops there for eternity & dump our tax money into their country? No reason our Arab allies couldn't send their troops in, except that they're not really our allies & they agree with ISIL, not us. There is no lesser of two evils of the Unites States. Since that's the case, we're better off doing whatever costs us the least amount of money & men. That is of course, to bring the troops home & let this thing sort itself out.
You do realize, I hope, that the military has to follow without comment the orders of the commander in chief, right? And that would be Obama, right? Any time this clown took the advice of the military there was success. When he did not (pulling all troops out) there was disaster.
Yeah, the military was wrong every step of the way. NOT.
Which leaves Obama as being wrong every step of the way. Of course this was to be expected.
I'm against having troops in Iraq period, but don't forget that McCain is probably the biggest proponent and cheerleader of placing American forces and aid in Iraq and Syria and most Republicans are supporting these moves as well otherwise how come the GOP controlled house and now senate aren't pushing back and opposing it?
So don't make it sound like this is all Obama and Dems when the GOP who love to oppose everything Obama does is in almost COMPLETE SUPPORT of sending American troops and aid to that region too.
You seem to fail to grasp that the republicans at present do not have the power to send more troops to Iraq. That would be the democrats, specifically Obama. You know, the one who promised no troops would be sent?
Now, please answer a question, Who sent troops and then more troops to Iraq?
You do realize, I hope, that the military has to follow without comment the orders of the commander in chief, right? And that would be Obama, right? Any time this clown took the advice of the military there was success. When he did not (pulling all troops out) there was disaster.
Yeah, the military was wrong every step of the way. NOT.
Which leaves Obama as being wrong every step of the way. Of course this was to be expected.
What successful advice did the military give Obama?
And since when does the military set policy in the Middle East?
Give me a case of the military ever telling a sitting president to "pull out all the troops" anywhere...Even when the war was going disastrously and the mission was undefined and nebulous..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
