And their citizens chose to elect a corrupt and ineffectual Shia government that is a puppet of Iran.Iraq went from a Country run by a brutal dictator to a Country where their citizens could participate in a Democratic process.
Had we never gone into Iraq, there would be no ISIS today. Moreover, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people did not want us there any longer and had we stayed they made it a condition that our troops there be subject to their courts. Thus had we continued to stay it would have been an occupation, not at their invitation. This was all heavily reported on a the time despite the right wing mythology circulating today.Obama's decision to remove all remnants of American militarily assets enabled this murderous band of thugs to tear across that Country killing Women Children and Men.
Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
I'm elated ! Again, thanks Obama for the vindication.
Thanks for showing the world that your little more than a narrcisitic mam child.
Thanks for being a Great dead Albatross around the neck of the Democrat party and thanks for all of the new GOP seats won in the 2014 midterms.
Thanks for making sure Texas stays RED, and thanks for re-bre-branding the Democrat party as a desperate bunch of dishonest twisted ideologues who have to resort to manufacturing division where there is none because they have nothing substantial to run on.
Thanks for your greasy underlings from Josh Earnest to Susan Rice who've shown the world that his administration is not above bald face lies and obstruction.
So no, I'm not pissed.
The best weapon against the Democrat party is to keep one of their supporters or their Politicians talking.
For example, one could use the internet to pull up the 2012 Presidential debate between Obama and Romney where Obama pledged that there would be no SOFA or troops left at all in Iraq.
Blaming it on the Iraqi's is a desperate attempt to shift blame from where it belongs.
And to think Obama was bullied by the Iraqi's ? The guy that just out of spite released a information on Israel's Nuclear capabilities isn't going to let Iraqi's tell him what to do.
No, his decision was planned and executed based on much Political capital it would earn him.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
So now Israel's enemies have ironclad confirmation that Israel has nukes, and not just suspicion that they do. How is that a good thing again? The next President will sure have some **** to clean up.
"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
--Albert Einstein, 1929
Oh yes, naturally. Because when I look at the other Baathist regime in the area (Syria), gosh, I see just a bastion of peace and stability and no extremists at all....Had we never gone into Iraq, there would be no ISIS today.
They wanted the same thing from Bush. I guess The Smartest President Ever just wasn't as good a negotiator as his predecessor?Moreover, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people did not want us there any longer and had we stayed they made it a condition that our troops there be subject to their courts
Maliki was willing to go to bat to get that requirement waived if we were willing to leave enough troops to make it worth his while by supporting the coalition that al-Maliki was building between moderate Shia, moderate Sunni, and the Kurds. Then the White House torpedoed the talks by inserting a ceiling of 5,000 troops at the last minute, and the coalition fell apart (the administration also apparently tasked Joe Biden with the role of keeping it together, whether that was deliberate sabotage or not is anyone's guess). Maliki had no choice but to join with the Sadrists if he wanted to retain his position, which meant he could no longer get the requirement waved.
The President wanted us out by the 2012 election, and he made sure we got out.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
Clearly if you oppose the foreign aid policy you should oppose it to all of these states and not merely to Israel which unlike the rest of the nations on the list is a democracy that shares its values and interests with the United States.
The American aid to Israel also comes with many obligations, including one that forces Israel to buy its armaments only from American companies and thus reinvest the money that was given to Israel by the American administration into the American military industry.
Regarding the PM of Israel "insulting" Obama by accepting the invitation to speak in front of the Congress; the Iranian issue is clearly an existential issue for Israel, and since Netanyahu believes Obama is heading for a bad deal, just like Suadi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan believe and the UK and France imply by the way, he was trying to convince the Congress to use its own powers to tackle down such deal. It's also noteworthy that while Netanyahu has his share in the conflict between the two Obama is the one who actually went out of his way and is still going out of his way to insult and attack the PM of Israel and the state of Israel, to the level of getting himself involved in the Israeli elections trying to undermine the democratic process and avoid having Netanyahu reelected.
As to your final passage, I didn't say Israel isn't the one that is most concerned with the Iranian issue, of all nations in the world. I even stated that it has the most to lose. Iran may not be such an existential threat to the United States, but clearly this does not somehow mean or imply that Iran is not a threat to the US at all. Iran is the world's number one sponsor of terrorism, a great part of it being anti-American terrorism carried through its proxies, mainly Hezbollah and various Iraqi militias and insurgents. It had caused a lot of American deaths and injuries in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is looking to expand its control over the Mideast and greatly expand the wideness of its Shiite terror net. So it isn't completely justified to label an hypothetical military attack by the United States on the Iranian regime as "going to war for Israel". Regardless as things appear no one is heading for war with Iran at the moment. Things could change instantly in the future, but neither Israel nor the United States appear willing to engage Iran militarily at present, and both are promoting diplomatic methods as the supported approach.
Last edited by Apocalypse; 03-27-15 at 01:21 PM.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
Lol. Not that they voted "wrong" but that they voted to oppress one sect. That they aren't interested in democracy, representation for everyone, shared power or anything else that the West may think that they should force. But neocon supporters of the very failed Bush doctrine have tied themselves like pretzels to frame Iraq as some sort of success. Not only is that opposite the truth, for all the US interference and military adventurism in the Middle East, it's in ****ing ruins. And what do people want, more US interference.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy