Pages:
Author

Topic: What is he doing in IRAQ? (Read 2966 times)

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 12:53:34 PM
#25
I'm not saying Obama is actually wrong - when I think he IS wrong, I DO say that. What I'm saying is that no matter what he says or does, idiots like you will SAY he's wrong, just because he's the one who says or does it. Do you understand yet, or do I have to dumb it down even more for you?
No it wasn't and you believed the lies Obama told you…

To the point you ridiculed those of us who said they needed to leave some troops there and Obama blew the agreement…

And Obama claimed victory…

Yes this is Obama's fault and now we're going back aren't we?

The ultimate admission of failure…

And you're still pissing on those who fought for all that…
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 12, 2014, 12:50:46 PM
#24
I'm not saying Obama is actually wrong - when I think he IS wrong, I DO say that. What I'm saying is that no matter what he says or does, idiots like you will SAY he's wrong, just because he's the one who says or does it. Do you understand yet, or do I have to dumb it down even more for you?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 12, 2014, 12:46:07 PM
#23
BTW since obama killed osama that murder has been used as a recruiting tool and al qaida has more than doubled in size and tripled its attacks and isis has flourished. So, under bush al qaida was on the run, without a home country, short on cash and their leader lived in hiding and under obama their leader is dead, their numbers are flourishing, their bank accounts raking in close to $100 million a month and they're killing thousands per day. There's a reason Americans feel less safe under obama and it sure as hell isn't because he's done a good job squashing terrorists. Maybe its because he can't even admit they are muslim terrorists.
dd loves to brag that obama has killed more al qaida leaders than anybody ever but when it comes down to it all that killing with drones didn't stop the terrorists from flourishing under obama.
Sooooooooooooo predictable.   How did I know I'd come in here and no matter what the President said, it would be wrong?Huh  Because it happens each day here, every day here, all day here.  The only consistent thing for these guys is Obama is wrong.  They won't themselves take a position because then they couldn't say Obama is wrong every day in every way.

IMHO, he's wrong here, too, FWIW, because we should let them kill each other and stay the hell out of it.  But, of course, for the righties, if he'd said that, he'd be -- ready for this incredible surprise -- WRONG, too.
So you think that he is wrong, but mostly you just want to discredit those on the right who...think he is wrong.  Ah, liberal logic... if you hate him so much ,why did you vote him?
The difference is if he'd said we are going to stay out of it, I'd have said he's right, whereas those on the right who are condemning him for doing this would say the exact same thing if he did ANYTHING else, they'd say that's wrong, just like they say this is wrong.

Are you really that dense, that you can't read English and understand?Huh?  (Rhetorical question.  You're not, but you play one on the Internet)
full member
Activity: 141
Merit: 100
September 12, 2014, 12:42:42 PM
#22
BTW since obama killed osama that murder has been used as a recruiting tool and al qaida has more than doubled in size and tripled its attacks and isis has flourished. So, under bush al qaida was on the run, without a home country, short on cash and their leader lived in hiding and under obama their leader is dead, their numbers are flourishing, their bank accounts raking in close to $100 million a month and they're killing thousands per day. There's a reason Americans feel less safe under obama and it sure as hell isn't because he's done a good job squashing terrorists. Maybe its because he can't even admit they are muslim terrorists.
dd loves to brag that obama has killed more al qaida leaders than anybody ever but when it comes down to it all that killing with drones didn't stop the terrorists from flourishing under obama.
Sooooooooooooo predictable.   How did I know I'd come in here and no matter what the President said, it would be wrong?Huh  Because it happens each day here, every day here, all day here.  The only consistent thing for these guys is Obama is wrong.  They won't themselves take a position because then they couldn't say Obama is wrong every day in every way.

IMHO, he's wrong here, too, FWIW, because we should let them kill each other and stay the hell out of it.  But, of course, for the righties, if he'd said that, he'd be -- ready for this incredible surprise -- WRONG, too.
So you think that he is wrong, but mostly you just want to discredit those on the right who...think he is wrong.  Ah, liberal logic... if you hate him so much ,why did you vote him?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 12, 2014, 12:36:07 PM
#21
BTW since obama killed osama that murder has been used as a recruiting tool and al qaida has more than doubled in size and tripled its attacks and isis has flourished. So, under bush al qaida was on the run, without a home country, short on cash and their leader lived in hiding and under obama their leader is dead, their numbers are flourishing, their bank accounts raking in close to $100 million a month and they're killing thousands per day. There's a reason Americans feel less safe under obama and it sure as hell isn't because he's done a good job squashing terrorists. Maybe its because he can't even admit they are muslim terrorists.
dd loves to brag that obama has killed more al qaida leaders than anybody ever but when it comes down to it all that killing with drones didn't stop the terrorists from flourishing under obama.
Sooooooooooooo predictable.   How did I know I'd come in here and no matter what the President said, it would be wrong?Huh  Because it happens each day here, every day here, all day here.  The only consistent thing for these guys is Obama is wrong.  They won't themselves take a position because then they couldn't say Obama is wrong every day in every way.

IMHO, he's wrong here, too, FWIW, because we should let them kill each other and stay the hell out of it.  But, of course, for the righties, if he'd said that, he'd be -- ready for this incredible surprise -- WRONG, too.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
September 12, 2014, 11:27:07 AM
#20
We have seen this movie before. America is about to get it's ass handed to it by a bunch of guys in pajamas... Again.
Honestly, how stupid can we be? We fought these guys for over a decade in Iraq before we gave up, and they just got stronger. Now I'm supposed to believe that we can do it from the air? Our foreign policy s ridiculous.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 11:23:34 AM
#19
BTW since obama killed osama that murder has been used as a recruiting tool and al qaida has more than doubled in size and tripled its attacks and isis has flourished. So, under bush al qaida was on the run, without a home country, short on cash and their leader lived in hiding and under obama their leader is dead, their numbers are flourishing, their bank accounts raking in close to $100 million a month and they're killing thousands per day. There's a reason Americans feel less safe under obama and it sure as hell isn't because he's done a good job squashing terrorists. Maybe its because he can't even admit they are muslim terrorists.
dd loves to brag that obama has killed more al qaida leaders than anybody ever but when it comes down to it all that killing with drones didn't stop the terrorists from flourishing under obama.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 11:18:25 AM
#18
0bamas war hasn't started and we already lost, his refusal/denial to recognize the roots of all of this, which is a desire to have a ISLAMIC state.  Kind of hard to win a war when you refuse to be honest about the enemy.
The question is, why did obama tell us Iraq was a stable, self reliant and sovereignty when it wasn't? His military advisors told him Iraq wasn't ready to go it alone and bush explained why we couldn't leave until it was, so how come obama the smartest president ever and the greatest military leader who caught osama wasn't smarter than bush? And BTW more men died in afg under obama than under bush.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 12, 2014, 11:07:15 AM
#17
0bamas war hasn't started and we already lost, his refusal/denial to recognize the roots of all of this, which is a desire to have a ISLAMIC state.  Kind of hard to win a war when you refuse to be honest about the enemy.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 10:59:22 AM
#16
"Liar of the year" strikes again.


NYT Baghdad bureau chief: The White House lied to Americans for years about what bad shape Iraq was in
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/351694.php
Via Ace, something to keep in mind tonight while The One is doing his johnny-on-the-spot shtick about fighting jihadism in Iraq. “Lie” is my word, not Tim Arango’s, but read his comment and tell me what’s more likely. That the vast American intelligence community was “ignorant” of how bad things were in a country where we’d spent eight years developing assets? Or that the White House had every reason to know how dangerous Iraq was becoming but chose to suppress that information because the truth was problematic?
Is “ignorant” really the best word to describe willful blindness to a politically inconvenient truth? Obama got elected promising to bring the troops home; the only way he could do that without major domestic headaches was to claim that Iraq didn’t need them anymore. So he did, the truth notwithstanding. Imagine how many low-information voters will watch tonight’s speech and wonder where this bolt-from-the-blue known as ISIS came from. Last they heard, Iraq was doing just fine.

You guys know better, though. I’ve linked it more than once before but it’s worth re-reading Peter Beinart’s post from a few months ago about Obama’s history of malign neglect in Iraq. He had one Iraq goal as president — to get out, come what may, just as he promised voters he would do in 2008. And he did it, even though that meant denying Iraq a small but potent residual American force that could have held Maliki’s sectarian impulses in check (which in turn would have made Iraq’s Sunnis less inclined to turn to ISIS) and would have been well positioned to smash ISIS once it crossed the border from Syria. Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker has written about this at length.
Quote
“We used to restrain Maliki all the time,” Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, the deputy commander in Iraq until January, 2011, told me. “If Maliki was getting ready to send tanks to confront the Kurds, we would tell him and his officials, ‘We will physically block you from moving if you try to do that.’ ” Barbero was angry at the White House for not pushing harder for [a Status of Forces] agreement. “You just had this policy vacuum and this apathy,” he said. “Now we have no leverage in Iraq. Without any troops there, we’re just another group of guys.” There is no longer anyone who can serve as a referee, he said, adding, “Everything that has happened there was not just predictable—we predicted it.”
I did listen to his speech last night and when he said that about Isis, that they weren't Islamic…You talk about giving the opposition motivation…
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 10:54:51 AM
#15
Yep, looks like they weren't so soverign, stable, and self reliant after all.  Didn't have a representative government either.  They had a Shia government that went about the business of persecuting the Sunnis and a sham of an army stitched together after the brilliant move of disbanding Saddam's army and dismantling of its infrastructure and institutions.   

Same as it ever was, or ever will be. 
No it wasn't and you believed the lies Obama told you…

To the point you ridiculed those of us who said they needed to leave some troops there and Obama blew the agreement…

And Obama claimed victory…

Yes this is Obama's fault and now we're going back aren't we?

The ultimate admission of failure…

And you're still pissing on those who fought for all that…
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 10:32:58 AM
#14
The American ambassador at the time told Filkins that he and his staff got no guidance from the White House while they were trying to negotiate an agreement with Maliki. “[T]hey wanted to leave,” said Iyad Allawai, “and they handed the country to the Iranians. Iraq is a failed state now, an Iranian colony.” And now we’re going to be fighting on the Iranian side against the Wahhabi monster our absence helped create, a prospect so dismal and dangerous that even the famously hawkish David Frum thinks we should leave ISIS alone for fear of empowering Iran even further. Obama checked out on Iraq and now, thanks to his neglect, he has no choice but to check back in under the worst circumstances.

Like I say, read the Beinart piece. That’s how we got here.


http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/10/nyt-baghdad-bureau-chief-the-white-house-lied-to-americans-for-years-about-what-bad-shape-iraq-was-in/
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 10:17:13 AM
#13
"Liar of the year" strikes again.


NYT Baghdad bureau chief: The White House lied to Americans for years about what bad shape Iraq was in
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/351694.php
Via Ace, something to keep in mind tonight while The One is doing his johnny-on-the-spot shtick about fighting jihadism in Iraq. “Lie” is my word, not Tim Arango’s, but read his comment and tell me what’s more likely. That the vast American intelligence community was “ignorant” of how bad things were in a country where we’d spent eight years developing assets? Or that the White House had every reason to know how dangerous Iraq was becoming but chose to suppress that information because the truth was problematic?
Is “ignorant” really the best word to describe willful blindness to a politically inconvenient truth? Obama got elected promising to bring the troops home; the only way he could do that without major domestic headaches was to claim that Iraq didn’t need them anymore. So he did, the truth notwithstanding. Imagine how many low-information voters will watch tonight’s speech and wonder where this bolt-from-the-blue known as ISIS came from. Last they heard, Iraq was doing just fine.

You guys know better, though. I’ve linked it more than once before but it’s worth re-reading Peter Beinart’s post from a few months ago about Obama’s history of malign neglect in Iraq. He had one Iraq goal as president — to get out, come what may, just as he promised voters he would do in 2008. And he did it, even though that meant denying Iraq a small but potent residual American force that could have held Maliki’s sectarian impulses in check (which in turn would have made Iraq’s Sunnis less inclined to turn to ISIS) and would have been well positioned to smash ISIS once it crossed the border from Syria. Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker has written about this at length.
Quote
“We used to restrain Maliki all the time,” Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, the deputy commander in Iraq until January, 2011, told me. “If Maliki was getting ready to send tanks to confront the Kurds, we would tell him and his officials, ‘We will physically block you from moving if you try to do that.’ ” Barbero was angry at the White House for not pushing harder for [a Status of Forces] agreement. “You just had this policy vacuum and this apathy,” he said. “Now we have no leverage in Iraq. Without any troops there, we’re just another group of guys.” There is no longer anyone who can serve as a referee, he said, adding, “Everything that has happened there was not just predictable—we predicted it.”
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 10:07:32 AM
#12
So why after 6 years of Bush and Darth's War and $4 trillion and 4500 dead Americans and tens of thousads of injured and maimed Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead and displaced Iraqis - didn't they?   Must be Obama's fault.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
September 12, 2014, 10:04:16 AM
#11
Yep, looks like they weren't so soverign, stable, and self reliant after all.  Didn't have a representative government either.  They had a Shia government that went about the business of persecuting the Sunnis and a sham of an army stitched together after the brilliant move of disbanding Saddam's army and dismantling of its infrastructure and institutions.   

Same as it ever was, or ever will be. 
member
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
September 12, 2014, 09:57:22 AM
#10
Ok, Iraq is the place to be.  But who is guarding our southern and northern borders while this is happening?  Tomorrow is 9/11.


AND he is going to ask Congress what they want to do?  Of course.  CYA, in case his plans go wrong.  Since when does he care what Congress thinks?
member
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
September 12, 2014, 09:53:22 AM
#9
You may want to do a bit of reading. ISIS is primarily located in Syria and Iraq (not Iran).
So I learned.  Sorry about that.  He will put Americans on the ground in Iraq to train them to fight ISIS.  Didn't we do the same thing before this?  And look what happened.  Iraq is in another mess.  And Americans were killed.  Lots of them.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
September 11, 2014, 01:59:28 PM
#8
It is needed. To stop the ISIS.
Or atleast take the momentum they have away from them.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
September 11, 2014, 01:24:25 PM
#7
I don't know why anyone in the military would put their life on the line for this flip flopping moron. So many of them were maimed or died only to see him give up all their gains in Iraq in just few months time. And will Obama go to the U.N. and Congress like Bush to seek approval. Hell no. Of course the same liberals that voted for Bush's action in Iraq were later protesting and condemning it while calling our troops war criminals. They ran away from it just like they are running away from Obamacare now.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
September 11, 2014, 01:22:53 PM
#6
I'm trying to figure out what this broad coalition is…

Bush had 37 nations with him and the liberals said he was acting unilaterally…

You think that Obama needs to go to the United Nations for permission?

And I'm surprised that there's not numerous threads from the liberals here praising his wonderful leadership…

Maybe because finally they realize his leadership isn't all that wonderful.

And claiming success in Yemen and Somalia… I think most consider those are failures…

But then again failure for a liberal is success.
Just wait for the attack to happen here then things will change… Drastically
Pages:
Jump to: