Obama and more Iraq Troops (Congress, middle east, illegal, solution)
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.
Did anyone truly believe the liar in chief would pass up an opportunity to flip flop and send more troops?
This is what he does, say one thing and do another assuming that no one will notice.
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.
Originally Posted by steven_h Why did he evacuate Iraq, when the military warned him this would happen? I swear this guy has no clue how to administrate, and seems to be flying by the seat of his pants. Does "over his head" even cover it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
1. The American public wanted out. How long were we going to keep a bunch of troops there? 2 years, 5 years 100 years? We were there for 9 years, enough was enough.
2. The Iraqis wanted us out
Oh please, this is so simple even a teen can grasp this.
1) The American public wanted out of WAR. Where are the pickets trying to get us out of Germany, Japan, S. Korea...etc. ? There's a big difference between occupying and warring.
2) Thanks to Obama, they wanted us out. His (Obama) breakup was quite intentional, and gave him the ability to pull out entirely.
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.
Excuse me?
DUDE!!! The balance of power doesn't change for another 2 months!!!
Why don't you save that blame for January 4th, the day after they sit down, to blame them for everything.
I figured some liberals wouldn't be able to contain their blame, but 3 days after the vote, and months before they actually take power?
And besides my post asked questions that are important to America. And when republicans are asked questions important to America what do they do?
Answer: They totally avoid the questions. Then to spin the subject they say something like "that's an asinine post."
DUDE!
Anyone who can say Bush lied 986 times, and believe Obama only lied once about Iraq...
What is mind boggling is that you actually push the "Submit Reply" button after typing such nonsense. What's insane is that you believe you're asking important questions that everyone is interested in the answers to.
Originally Posted by steven_h Why did he evacuate Iraq, when the military warned him this would happen? I swear this guy has no clue how to administrate, and seems to be flying by the seat of his pants. Does "over his head" even cover it?
Oh please, this is so simple even a teen can grasp this.
1) The American public wanted out of WAR. Where are the pickets trying to get us out of Germany, Japan, S. Korea...etc. ? There's a big difference between occupying and warring.
2) Thanks to Obama, they wanted us out. His (Obama) breakup was quite intentional, and gave him the ability to pull out entirely.
But did any of the countries Obama bombed not deserve it?
Did Obama lie to the American people to attack a country?
The fact is republicans lied about Iraq, attacked Iraq for nothing, killed 100,000+ innocent Iraqi people, killed 1,000's of US soldiers for nothing, wasted $900 billion dollars in Iraq, and turned Iraq into the ISIS homeland.
And my point is republicans never said a negative word while or after GW Bush did the above things.
But as soon as Obama gets in office republicans attacked him like a pack of wolves for the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi (and Benghazi was not even Obama's fault.)
If Obama did what GW Bush did in Iraq I would want him in jail, and I sure as hell would not attack a republican president for something like Benghazi when it was not their fault.
These anti-Obama threads are not about reality, justice, or helping America. They are childlike, insane, misguided, illogical political attacks (to make democrats look bad by using lies, spin, manipulation, and childlike insanity.)
Anyone who can say Bush lied 986 times, and believe Obama only lied once about Iraq...
What is mind boggling is that you actually push the "Submit Reply" button after typing such nonsense. What's insane is that you believe you're asking important questions that everyone is interested in the answers to.
Holy Crap Batman
The point of this thread is Obama told America he would get out of Iraq, and now he wants to put more US soldiers in Iraq (that's 1 lie.)
Panetta also wanted to have jumped into the Syrian Civil War early by backing the "moderate" rebels. Which of course would have been insane, and would have lodged us into a messy multi-sided conflict with foreign weapons and fighters pouring in from multiple sources. He appears to be a steady and reliable advocate for the military-industrial complex itself.
The specific problem with "leaving troops" in Iraq after 2011 is that many of the Shia and Sunni militias were intentionally holding back on attacking US targets because the withdrawal date was arriving shortly. Had the US stuck around, there's a fine chance that the various truces would have collapsed, and it would have been right back to civil war-mode anyway, but with 30,000 or so US soldiers in the middle of it again.
Iraq never came close to achieving peace during or after "the surge":
Iraq as it was constituted after Saddam (a corrupt Shia-dominated government ruling over a hostile but substantial Sunni minority) was fundamentally unstable, and the presence or absence of US soldiers does not change that reality.
DUDE!!! The balance of power doesn't change for another 2 months!!!
Why don't you save that blame for January 4th, the day after they sit down, to blame them for everything.
I figured some liberals wouldn't be able to contain their blame, but 3 days after the vote, and months before they actually take power?
WOW!
That's for the senate. Hasn't the GOP held the house for a couple of years now?
And the question remains is why aren't YOU angry at McCain for leading the charge for American intervention in Syria and Iraq? And why aren't YOU angry at Republicans who are also mostly on board with Obama in the destruction of ISIS?
Because they're YOU'RE party and you don't want to bring up the fact that the GOP are agreeing with the Dems on this one?
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.
