Troops back to Iraq........more idiotic foreign policy by the Obama administration (illegal, soldiers)

[padcrasher]

It's hard to get riled up about this because those like myself never supported an attack on Iraq to begin with.

So excuse of while we YAWN as right wingers who got us caught up in Iraq, try to score political points on a spineless wimp who will not get us out of there.

To us you're all idiots.

[NoJiveMan]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

I wonder what will be next???

""The irony is that the U.S. is protecting a pro-Iran Shiite regime in Baghdad against a Sunni-based insurgency while at the same time supporting a Sunni-led movement against the Iran-backed dictatorship in Syria," Hayden wrote. "The U.S. is caught in the contradictions of proxy wars, favoring Iran's ally in Iraq while trying to displace Iran's proxy in Syria.""

U.S. Troops Deployed in Iraq Again

Interesting, I did a G00GLE search about troops returning to Iraq, and couldn't find one recent, found lot's of old stories though.
Where does OP get information from? a crystal ball?
Or, is this one of those "ok, I'll bite threads"?

Found a news story about recent Iraq vets being deployed to afghanistan though.


Google

G00GLE is your friend.

[Finn_Jarber]

Sounds like the OP is against the US selling them 19 billion worth of weapons? Perhaps he'd prefer if Russia sold them to Iraq?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by NoJiveMan

Interesting, I did a G00GLE search about troops returning to Iraq, and couldn't find one recent, found lot's of old stories though.
Where does OP get information from? a crystal ball?
Or, is this one of those "ok, I'll bite threads"?

Found a news story about recent Iraq vets being deployed to afghanistan though.


Google

G00GLE is your friend.

Funny how that works, but it is on one article on the internet from a site called New American and linked to the John Birch Society, but I am sure it is 100% true cause nothing is false on the internet.

[NoJiveMan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Funny how that works, but it is on one article on the internet from a site called New American and linked to the John Birch Society, but I am sure it is 100% true cause nothing is false on the internet.

Oh, alignment with the tea party movement or a fringe political faction.
That explains it.
Radical Right Wing Jibberish.
John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thank you, now we know the rest of the story.

[ChrisFromChicago]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/wo..._r=1&ref=world

The article referred to in this news article as "support" is nothing of the sort.

As far as I can tell . . .it is more about potential sales of arms, and the fact that Iraq is playing all sides of the fence (Including Russia).

I would agree with the article, in general. Syria may have implications of IRAQ, and if it spills over into IRAQ who knows what will happen.

Yet I see no evidence a redeployment yet. Nor do I think a redeployment would not or would happen regardless of president next year.

[padcrasher]

We still have 5000 mercenaries in Iraq.

No U.S. Troops, But An Army Of Contractors In Iraq : NPR

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

I wonder what will be next???

""The irony is that the U.S. is protecting a pro-Iran Shiite regime in Baghdad against a Sunni-based insurgency while at the same time supporting a Sunni-led movement against the Iran-backed dictatorship in Syria," Hayden wrote. "The U.S. is caught in the contradictions of proxy wars, favoring Iran's ally in Iraq while trying to displace Iran's proxy in Syria.""

U.S. Troops Deployed in Iraq Again

But, but, it can't be. Didn't he just boast that the war in Iraq was over?

A statement I have been challenging for a long time.

There was NO surrender.

There was no signing of a peace treaty.

There was no "we won" claim.

Obama just quit without a victory.

[Bulldawg82]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

We still have 5000 mercenaries in Iraq.

No U.S. Troops, But An Army Of Contractors In Iraq : NPR

Don't believe that report (at least, not about "No U.S. Troops"). They are still several thousand there, just not predominantly in Baghdad. They are not there as "troops", but as "advisors" or "training instructors". They are military and their mission can change at the barking of an order by the President.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by wade52

I remember him.

The guy who got us in, then horribly mismanaged the whole thing, and left it for the next guy to clean up. After he made Iran the predominant power in the region by removing Saddam.

Brilliant.

I'm glad to see you have finally come to the conclusion that the democrat Senate are just as responsible for "getting us in".

After all the Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, DEMOCRAT, co -sponsored the bill giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. And all those DEMOCRATS with high power positions voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

We know by the way ole' harry Reid runs the senate NOTHING gets done unless the senate Majority Leader supports it like passing a budget.

WITHOUT these DEMOCRATS Bush could NEVER have invaded Iraq:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) Current VP
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY) Current Sec of state (Labeled Smartest women in the world by many lefties)
Daschle (D-SD) Leader of the Senate at the time and co-sponsored the bill
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC) Ran for VP
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA) Ran for Pres.
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT) Ran for Pres.
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV) Current leader of the Senate
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)