Let them fight each other till kingdom come, its not worth the blood of a single American soldier to be over there.The Iranian regime does not operate like the West. With no desire for democracy, human rights or development, it would simply slaughter the opposition like Assad.
Let them fight each other till kingdom come, its not worth the blood of a single American soldier to be over there.
Im not assuming anything. Whatever happens shouldnt be our business. Its not our war.Regarding Iraq, it would be over virtually overnight. The Iranian regime has no interest in development. If it did, it would allow the people online.
The regime would slaughter a million people or more and rule over Iraq just as it does Iran.
The fault in your logic is thinking the Iranian regime cares about development.
Im not assuming anything. Whatever happens shouldnt be our business. Its not our war.
The Iranian regime does not operate like the West. With no desire for democracy, human rights or development, it would simply slaughter the opposition like Assad.
Im not assuming anything. Whatever happens shouldnt be our business. Its not our war.
Sounds exactly like the good 'ol USA (except the US govt's prefers to waterboard).
The left will be happy with whatever President Obama does for they always have Bush to blame.
Personally, I don't think he's doing enough. Can we really afford a full-blown terrorist stronghold in the Middle East? Pay now or pay bigger later.
Edit: I'm sure not well-informed about what's going on, or about Iran, but if Iran will handle it? I say let 'em have at it.
If by neocons you mean Obama, Clinton, and all the rest of the administration cheerleaders during the Arab Spring uprisings...well...sure...I suppose so.Wesley Clark got it right. The neocons wanted to destabilize the Middle East, they just thought they could control the chaos and turn it to their advantage.
You dont seem to have any reading comprehension, I already said it doesnt matter if its a year (and Iran never killed millions so you are totally exaggerating as usual) or decades (which will probably happen since the Sunnis and the Kurds wont give up without a fight and they got weapons to match the Iranians), as long as we are out of it. Its none of our business to be over there.You're assuming they will be embroiled in a decades long struggle against Sunni terrorists. Nonsense. They'll slaughter a million or so and rule Iraq just as they do Iran.
I'm not sure how you forgot that part of your claim.
Yeah, the US is just like Saddam, Assad and the Iranian regime. :roll:
As much as this hurts..... I must agree.
Withdraw every single US citizen/soldier/diplomat immediately and never return.
Close any embassy or "point of interest" the US has there, and vacate the country completely.
Now.
No need for troops. They should be sending in airplanes to evacuate all Americans from anywhere they might be in the country. Time to close the embassy and put Iraq in the rear view mirror.
You don't need 27,000 troops to launch drones for surveillance and/or strategic bombing. Besides, have the Iraqis asked for American troops on the ground? Again, I go back to Ukraine and Putin/Russia. The US gave up control of Iraq - Russia gave up control of the Ukraine. You cannot condemn Russian aggression in Ukraine, in support of those who want them to intervene and then support US aggression in Iraq. In both cases, internal divisions are leading to civil unrest and "revolution". It's not America's place to choose sides in a civil war. But protecting American interests, nationals and property in Iraq is perfectly reasonable and expected.
Was a terrorist army 10,000 men strong invading The Ukraine?
Sending 250 dudes to protect an embassy =/= an advise and support mission.
There isn't a terrorist army 10,000 men strong invading Iraq either. This "army", if you consider it one, is made up primarily of Iraqi Sunnis, many of whom have been fighting in Syria. This is an internal, religious, political conflict among Iraqis determining what kind of country they want going forward. Those who don't want to be ruled by terrorist thugs and murderers need to stand up and be heard. I believe they will be.
And I'll add Maliki's refusal to give the USA the SOFA agreement it must have.I'm going with Maliki's failure to be inclusive-that's what led to this.
It's a rear gaud action.
If he wants to pull out the diplomats, that is fine. There has obviously been an escalation of violence in Iraq and it would not be prudent to ignore it and do nothing. Putting troops into the embassy will help secure the area while they make an orchestrated withdrawal, protecting US assets.
Unlike some of his previous moves, you just don't say we are leaving.
THAT is the real condemnation of this administration. They have been incompetent since day one. They have supported uprisings without considering consequences, supported the ouster of traditional allies by extremists, and now are supporting terrorist faction in Syria.
Its amateur hour there.
You dont seem to have any reading comprehension, I already said it doesnt matter if its a year (and Iran never killed millions so you are totally exaggerating as usual) or decades (which will probably happen since the Sunnis and the Kurds wont give up without a fight and they got weapons to match the Iranians), as long as we are out of it. Its none of our business to be over there.
Let the Iranians have the Shiite part of Iraq, that pretty much means that they will be tied up fighting the terrorists there for decades to come, it shouldnt be the US problem anymore.
Wesley Clark got it right. The neocons wanted to destabilize the Middle East, they just thought they could control the chaos and turn it to their advantage.
This is a group formed by a merger of ISI and the AQ offshoot in Syria. Their mainbody was formed and organized in Syria and then moved into Iraq.That's an invasion.