As for Obama, he keeps stepping in it. 

 

"These kinds of attacks don't happen in other civilized countries" - after the Oregon school shooting. 

 

"We have ISIS contained" - same day as the Paris attacks.

 

Yesterday Obama taunted Republicans who did not want Syrian refugees in their states:  "Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,  At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three year old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.” - a few hours before a female terrorist wearing a suicide vest blew herself up and another jihadi was killed by a grenade during a six-hour siege in Paris.

---

Had there been no oil in Iraq we would have never invaded either time. It's the only reason we ever cared about that place. Good grief.

 

Yes and no.  It was NEVER about the oil in Iraq.

 

The first invasion was in response to Iraq invading Kuwait.  More specifically, it was a little bit about liberating Kuwait and more about protecting Saudi Arabia.  One specific note to point out is that Osama bin Laden had offered his group (then in Afghanistan) to the Saudis for protection against Iraq.  The Saudi's declined and opted for U.S. support and protection.  They (Saudi Arabia) allowed the U.S. to establish a military base in the kingdom.  This angered bin Laden because the "infidels" were allowed to operate in the "holiest place" for followers of Islam and caused part of the later chaos.

 

The "news" reason for the invasion was for the liberation of Kuwait.

 

The second invasion had to do with weapons of mass destruction.  While many argue back and forth whether or not there were any doesn't really matter.  There was some speculation that some of these weapons might have been taken into Syria to hide them.

 

When Saddam Hussein was captured, he was turned over to their government for them to try, prosecute and eventually execute him.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Putin said "To forgive the terrorists is up to God but to send them to him is up to me"

Man, i wish our president said that.

  

Yeah, we need more bluster and puffed chests.

  

Yeah, we need more submission and humility when dealing with radical Islamic barbarians.

Washington said that...

Denzel. In a movie.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/11/17/putin-forgive-terrorists-god-send-them-him-me'>http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/11/17/putin-forgive-terrorists-god-send-them-him-me</a>

 

 

Or maybe the Leathernecks...but it seems some have clear fascination with Ol Vlad

---

Blakes Life Matters

I never understood why Saudi Arabia doesn't police the region

 

They do and they don't.  They don't have a very large or powerful military, but they do have something that is important... money.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

As for Obama, he keeps stepping in it. 

 

"These kinds of attacks don't happen in other civilized countries" - after the Oregon school shooting. 

 

"We have ISIS contained" - same day as the Paris attacks.

 

Yesterday Obama taunted Republicans who did not want Syrian refugees in their states:  "Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,  At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three year old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.” - a few hours before a female terrorist wearing a suicide vest blew herself up and another jihadi was killed by a grenade during a six-hour siege in Paris.

 

Here is the thing that should be an eye-opener.  They are already here, some of them from this country.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Yes and no.  It was NEVER about the oil in Iraq.

 

The first invasion was in response to Iraq invading Kuwait.  More specifically, it was a little bit about liberating Kuwait and more about protecting Saudi Arabia.  One specific note to point out is that Osama bin Laden had offered his group (then in Afghanistan) to the Saudis for protection against Iraq.  The Saudi's declined and opted for U.S. support and protection.  They (Saudi Arabia) allowed the U.S. to establish a military base in the kingdom.  This angered bin Laden because the "infidels" were allowed to operate in the "holiest place" for followers of Islam and caused part of the later chaos.

 

The "news" reason for the invasion was for the liberation of Kuwait.

 

The second invasion had to do with weapons of mass destruction.  While many argue back and forth whether or not there were any doesn't really matter.  There was some speculation that some of these weapons might have been taken into Syria to hide them.

 

When Saddam Hussein was captured, he was turned over to their government for them to try, prosecute and eventually execute him.

 

It's a fact Saddam had used WMD on the Kurds years earlier.  Did he still have them or still use them?  Who knows.  It's tough because Saddam was clearly a horrible human being and his sons were even worse.  It's no surprise the people of Iraq were jumping for joy when the Hussein's were captured/killed.  When you walk down the street and see a woman getting mugged, you can help, you can do nothing, you can call the police.  Geopolitically we are the police.  So really its us or nobody to save people around the world.  So do I feel bad trying to help the people of Iraq?  No.  But the problem is the people in the Middle East are incapable of ruling themselves.  You essentially need a military dictatorship to keep things in order or else you'll see a complete breakdown in law and order.  It'll turn into an Islamic caliphate.  Just look what happened with Egypt.  They ousted Mubarak and finally had a chance to freely elect a moderate leader to promote personal freedoms, religious freedoms, economic policies to support the citizenry, advance into the 21st century, etc.... but what did they do? 50% voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, an oppressive religious party that is considered a terrorists organization by many countries around the world.  Even more amazingly 25% voted for the more extremely religious and oppressive sharia party.  Egypt is supposed to be one of the more culturally advanced and civilized societies over there yet 75% wanted extreme Islamic leadership.  It's insane.  This is what happens when you oust the dictators... you end up with insanity.  Same with Iraq.  They cant rule themselves.  That was the biggest flaw in Bush's plan.  The expectation you could create a democracy.  Fat chance.  Just too different culturally.

 

And its sad because you go back thousands of years and this was the cradle of civilization.  Amazing advancements in math and science.  Pushed humanity forward.  And now look at them.  Its a 3rd world backwater s hole that is 10 centuries behind the rest of us.  

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

The numbers i cited were the estimates for those that crossed over into the EU.  More importantly, just this morning a female detonated a suicide belt during a raid by the French.  This coupled with the use of children to kill "infadels" radically alters the basic demographics we would expect to be radicalized.  

 

Second  It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

 

Whether it was through REMISSIONING, or renegotiation of the SOFA itself, the idea that Bush 43 was in favor of a date certain withdrawal with no consideration for the facts on the ground is disingenuous at best!  It was always his intention to take the steps necessary to secure the future of IRAQ and make sure that they had enough support to maintain the foothold that we had sacrificed for.  

So it was "widely assumed"? That's a far cry from "anticipated from the start". In fact, here's a quote from your own article that completely discredits your "anticipated from the start" comment:

 

"So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration."

 

So, basically, there was no plan to extend the SOFA, and despite giving the matter serious consideration, resistance from Washington and Iraq ultimately shelved any extension deal for him. You left out the part about how American soldiers left behind were to be immune to Iraqi laws or prosecution. I wonder whose idea that was, and I wonder why the Iraqi government wasn't a fan of it.

 

Stop trying to spin. Your entire argument is based upon Jeb Bush's misguided defense of his brother--something that is completely ruining his campaign. When Obama took office, the SOFA was a finalized plan agreed upon by both sides, and neither side put much effort into extending it, or, at least, was willing to extend it in a way that would have recognized Iraqi sovereignty. I thought we were there to help them build their government...

---

No. I posted that article because u expressed concerns about bias. A piece criticizing a republican couldnt be considered a dar right basement or whatever term u used.


The point that u made was that obama was bound by the sofa, which is patently false. He could have renegotiated it or REMISSIONED a force of a certain size as something other than combat troops to get around it. He did neither.


What did he do? He forced a public meeting on immunity for troops. That was a poison pill. Why? Because his party had spent the last 5 years running against our military as "rapists in the dead of night" and public sentiment in iraq killed the deal. It could have been negotiated quietly but in this scenario obama got his pull out and a fig leaf of political cover.


Has he done this in other instances? Why yes. The request for authorization of force in syria was written in a way that actually limited the authority of the executive in other o u f legislation and set a date certain. These were intentional poison pills. Its plain as day to anyone paying attention


I find it interesting that u cant actually defend obamas foreign policy and instead want to play word games about the terms "anticipated from the start" ( your term by the way) and "widely anticipated"

---

I find it interesting that u cant actually defend obamas foreign policy and instead want to play word games about the terms "anticipated from the start" ( your term by the way) and "widely anticipated"

I'm not trying to defend Obama's foreign policy. For one, I disagree with most of it, and two, I've already had that argument with you. I find it interesting that you posted a story basically confirming that Obama had no ability to extend or renegotiate the SOFA without support from the US and Iraq (he had support from neither), and somehow are arguing that it confirms that Obama did nothing. Of course he did nothing. The article makes it clear that the parties that had to agree for him to do something made half-[BLEEP] efforts at best. I mean, others within Washington--not President Obama--wanted US soldiers to be immune to Iraqi laws and prosecution. Don't you see why Iraq might have had a problem with that?

 

I don't blame Obama in the least for wanting us out of Iraq. We should never have been there in the first place, and were it not for some careful engineering on the part of the executive branch from 2001-2003, we never would have been.

---

Yes and no.  It was NEVER about the oil in Iraq.

 

The first invasion was in response to Iraq invading Kuwait.  More specifically, it was a little bit about liberating Kuwait and more about protecting Saudi Arabia.  One specific note to point out is that Osama bin Laden had offered his group (then in Afghanistan) to the Saudis for protection against Iraq.  The Saudi's declined and opted for U.S. support and protection.  They (Saudi Arabia) allowed the U.S. to establish a military base in the kingdom.  This angered bin Laden because the "infidels" were allowed to operate in the "holiest place" for followers of Islam and caused part of the later chaos.

 

The "news" reason for the invasion was for the liberation of Kuwait.

 

The second invasion had to do with weapons of mass destruction.  While many argue back and forth whether or not there were any doesn't really matter.  There was some speculation that some of these weapons might have been taken into Syria to hide them.

 

When Saddam Hussein was captured, he was turned over to their government for them to try, prosecute and eventually execute him.

 

Do you honestly think we would have cared enough about what was going on in Iraq had they not controlled so much oil?

 

Read this, and resist the temptation to pass it off as liberal propaganda before reading.

 

As Vic often said, if you want to get to the heart of the matter, follow the money.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

If America wasn't such a terrorist the middle east wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

No ones saying that. But you can't deny the reality Isis was founded by the west to take on Assad and instead were no facing the real possibility of another ground occupation in the middle East

---

No ones saying that. But you can't deny the reality Isis was founded by the west to take on Assad and instead were no facing the real possibility of another ground occupation in the middle East

Who's denying that?

---

The second invasion had to do with weapons of mass destruction.  While many argue back and forth whether or not there were any doesn't really matter.

So you're saying that it's ok for a President to lie about the motivations for going to war?

---

Who's denying that?

Your post seemed to be suggesting some here where unjustly blaming America for the actions of ISIS. Perhaps I missed your point.

---

Your post seemed to be suggesting some here where unjustly blaming America for the actions of ISIS. Perhaps I missed your point.

More so Americas interventions in the last 30 years.Throughout recent history America has been the biggest terrorist of all.

---

More so Americas interventions in the last 30 years.Throughout recent history America has been the biggest terrorist of all.

[BLEEP].

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

More so Americas interventions in the last 30 years.Throughout recent history America has been the biggest terrorist of all.

Yeah I missed your point you're being serious? You cant be suggesting our foreign policy no matter how badly executed or fumbled along the way is equal to terrorism?

---

More so Americas interventions in the last 30 years.Throughout recent history America has been the biggest terrorist of all.

Wait, you're being serious?

---

Wait, you're being serious?

Poe's Corollary in da house.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Poe's Corollary in da house.

Funny you should mention that. I actually filed him under Poe's Law after his first post on the topic, and the corollary did enter my mind after the second one. I'm glad you're here to vocalize my disbelief of what I'm seeing.

---