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.
Obama is an idiot for sending us back there, along with anyone in congress supporting him. This will just end for the U.S. very badly, and further motivate the Sunni extremist movement to attack the U.S. Bottom line the U.S. should leave the Middle East, end all foreign aid/support for their governments, and stop intervening there. This will get the Sunni extremists to focus on someone else, whether its Syria, Iran, Iraq's Iranian backed government, Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, or Israel.
Even if we wanted to destroy ISIS the only way to win would be a total war (destroy everything, rebuild nothing), and in order to get the manpower to do it the draft would have to reinstated, but no politician would have the backbone to do it if this is what they decide to do.
For those arguing for 15 to 30,000 troops there seem to ignore how big Iraq is. Iraq is a little bigger than the State of California, and has 36 million people. The number needed to secure Iraq is much higher, and again would require a reinstatement of the draft, something I doubt anyone, Obama, Congress, etc.., would ever do.
For all you wanting to go back to Iraq would you send your own children?
Here is the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, on Iraq and ISIS.
Instead of finishing it in the right manner Obama has brought us into this mess for a second time.
Pretty much made the first time null & void with a high price paid with gains thrown to the trash heap.
When Bush killed 100,000+ innocent Iraqi people, killed 1,000's of US soldiers for nothing, wasted $900 billion dollars in Iraq, and then turned Iraq into a country ruled by ISIS terrorists, did republicans complain? (No.)
If its OK for Bush's White House to say 935 lies about Iraq, why are you attacking Obama so hard for 1 lie about Iraq?
And besides people must sometimes change their minds when things change. (Today) a terrorist organization called ISIS is threatening to control 100% of Iraq, including its infrastructure, oil, and money.
Should Obama keep his promise to get out of Iraq, and let ISIS fully take control of Iraq?
Or should Obama put more troops on the ground, and break the promise he made when ISIS was not a threat?
oh an opinion pieces from the communist news network
bush lies?????....he was repeating what the liberals were saying
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1999
-----------------------
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
--------------------------
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777
=====================================
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
---------------------------------
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001
----------------------------------------
===============================
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
------------------
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.
"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table."
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
=================================
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 2002
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
connection to alqeada :
Quote:
US State Department
November 4, 1998
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.
Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.
Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.
oh yeah...so many bush lies....started by the liberals
Like I said several months ago... Obama needs a war!
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, but all he wanted to do was get as far away from Iraq as possible and declare his "victory". I know all about the condition Malaki made, but I don't think Obama attempted any negotiations with Malaki and took the easy way out and accepted Makaki's condition without any resistance. He also ignored the advice of his generals (most who have since "retired") that full withdrawal was not in the best interest of Iraq and the US. And that was when the region wasn't a hotbed and there was no IS/ISIS/ISIL. His foolishness, arrogance and most of all his abundance of ignorance has come to bite him on his arse and drag the US into what could end up being combative boots on the ground.
Plan on more US troops being sent and plan on them to be there for several years. Will they see combat? To be seem. Will any US troop(s) be killed? To be seen.
Obama is an idiot for sending us back there, along with anyone in congress supporting him. This will just end for the U.S. very badly, and further motivate the Sunni extremist movement to attack the U.S. Bottom line the U.S. should leave the Middle East, end all foreign aid/support for their governments, and stop intervening there. This will get the Sunni extremists to focus on someone else, whether its Syria, Iran, Iraq's Iranian backed government, Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, or Israel.
Even if we wanted to destroy ISIS the only way to win would be a total war (destroy everything, rebuild nothing), and in order to get the manpower to do it the draft would have to reinstated, but no politician would have the backbone to do it if this is what they decide to do.
For those arguing for 15 to 30,000 troops there seem to ignore how big Iraq is. Iraq is a little bigger than the State of California, and has 36 million people. The number needed to secure Iraq is much higher, and again would require a reinstatement of the draft, something I doubt anyone, Obama, Congress, etc.., would ever do.
For all you wanting to go back to Iraq would you send your own children?
Here is the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, on Iraq and ISIS.
1. ignore the threat , don't go in, and allow the extremist orthodox Islamic group (sunni based...ie orthodox) to grow...they are already in Iraq, Uzbekistan, turkey, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia..... and attack Israel, the usa, or any other country they wish to convert (think the crusades and the Islamic invasion of Europe)
or
2. we go in with force and take them out before they take us out
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, but all he wanted to do was get as far away from Iraq as possible and declare his "victory". I know all about the condition Malaki made, but I don't think Obama attempted any negotiations with Malaki and took the easy way out and accepted Makaki's condition without any resistance. He also ignored the advice of his generals (most who have since "retired") that full withdrawal was not in the best interest of Iraq and the US. And that was when the region wasn't a hotbed and there was no IS/ISIS/ISIL. His foolishness, arrogance and most of all his abundance of ignorance has come to bite him on his arse and drag the US into what could end up being combative boots on the ground.
Plan on more US troops being sent and plan on them to be there for several years. Will they see combat? To be seem. Will any US troop(s) be killed? To be seen.
there was just a Marine killed in Baghdad, 2 weeks ago
1. ignore the threat , don't go in, and allow the extremist orthodox Islamic group (sunni based...ie orthodox) to grow...they are already in Iraq, Uzbekistan, turkey, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia..... and attack Israel, the usa, or any other country they wish to convert (think the crusades and the Islamic invasion of Europe)
or
2. we go in with force and take them out before they take us out
this trickle in of 1500 troops is not the answer
The reason I pointed out about why the Sunni extremist movement attacks the U.S. is because of what the U.S. does in the Middle East, whether it is supporting regimes as brutal as ISIS (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Eygpt), intervening needlessly in Middle Eastern affairs (Syria, Libya, Iraq, Eygpt), or involving itself needlessly in its conflicts (Israel/Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan/South Sudan, etc...).
Best thing we can do is leave them alone, get out of the Middle East, stop supporting their regimes, and get rid of the Israelis. Going back into Iraq will only result in another victory for the Mujaheddin, and putting the U.S. in a religious conflict between Sunni/Shi'a/other religious groups. Once the U.S. leaves the Middle East the Jihad will focus on governments in the region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel). OBL and Anwar Al-Alaki state repeatedly that they attack the U.S. for what we do, not reestablishing the caliphate, we vote early in Iowa, we drink beer, women in the workplace, etc...
Bottom line we should not go back into Iraq, and we should let the cards fall where they may for the nations there.
Seems like only yesterday he was promising deliver america from all these wars. What a fraud.
They will say whatever it takes to get elected.
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.
