- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
We pacified Iraq, Obama gave that up for votes.
So you keep saying.
We pacified Iraq, Obama gave that up for votes.
How do you know that? Why would that have mattered?
He lost the peace. And he did it for votes.
We pacified Iraq, Obama gave that up for votes.
So stay in Iraq, forget the wishes of the American people, and forget the sovereignty of Iraq. You're just proving that Conservatives had no intention of ever having a sovereign Iraq.
Now, I don't think I am very happy about the way American presence is developing there, but there is no question of broken sovereignty here. Iraq practically pleaded for help.
Now they're asking for help, but when we pulled out they were asking for that. Staying at that point would have violated their sovereignty, and been against the wishes of the American people.
Yeah, he did what he said he would do when campaigning. He got elected. So I'd say that a pretty good portion of Americans that voted for him wanted out of Iraq.
Government of the people by the people isn't only when Repubs win.
So stay in Iraq, forget the wishes of the American people, and forget the sovereignty of Iraq. You're just proving that Conservatives had no intention of ever having a sovereign Iraq.
How so?
So do these same people somehow want to go back into Iraq now?
Yes. The Iraqis were quite silly. But that was fine by me. But we absolutely should not make this an American problem. It is the neighborhood's and we can help.
Violated their sovereignty? What sovereignty? You don't recall the conditions applied after Desert Storm?Now they're asking for help, but when we pulled out they were asking for that. Staying at that point would have violated their sovereignty, and been against the wishes of the American people.
Oh, poor Obama!Its not "dancing". Just because it doesnt fall within your narrative of "its ALL OBAMAS FAULT!", does not mean its "dancing". Reality proves otherwise. If numerous large AQ offenses/attacks, and over 4,000 people killed in one year is "pacified" then more power to you I guess.
This isn't about politics. It will be his fault forever.Yea, its all Obama's fault. 2 years left then you will have to come up with something else.
Oh, poor Obama!
Iraq was 'stable', the generals told him he should leave at least 24,000 troops behind, and he refused to listen.
Now women are being sold, raped and murdered, men and boys being beheaded, families left dead and homeless and a murderous caliphate has taken root.
Who do you think deserves responsibility for this disaster?
Obama vs. the generals - The Washington Post
There is no evidence that would have happened at all. There are US troops based all over the world and they seldom get involved in local politics. Who really cares if Germany elects members of the Green Party, or Peru elects Conservatives The troops were all about protecting the hard won security and stability, not domestic politics.You can't go back in the past and play "what would have happened if..." with any level of absolute certainty. However, the number of US troops occupying Iraq because we didn't like the government they had before would tell me that it's unlikely anyone would be put in power by any means without at least the tacit approval of the United States.
Obama said it was stable. If you want a debate, take it up with him, or write a letter to your Congressman.So you are still upholding this view that "Iraq was stable" even tho it was clearly not?
Obama said it was stable. If you want a debate, take it up with him, or write a letter to your Congressman.
Flashback: Obama Says
Obama said it was stable. If you want a debate, take it up with him, or write a letter to your Congressman.
Flashback: Obama Says
Whose idea was it to remove the troops? Who claimed credit and who went against the generals and the CIA's advice?Again for the third time (also interesting how "US Conservative" liked your comment but wont respond to mine): "Again I posted this earlier in response to US Conservative's quote: "The problem with this is you and many people here are thinking I am analyzing this as a Obama and Republican issue. I am not. I am saying this (ISIS being created, and the extreme destabilization in the region) is the result of a combination of factors, not just one man..."
The disagreement between Maliki, the Iraqi parliament, and the US gov.Whose idea was it to remove the troops?
Who claimed credit and who went against the generals and the CIA's advice?
There is only one person responsible.
The disagreement between Maliki, the Iraqi parliament, and the US gov.
Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq, ABC's Raddatz claims | PunditFact
You can familiarize yourself with the history here. ANOTHER OBAMA LIE - CLAIMED IRAQ WAR WAS OVER THEN BOMBS IT - YouTubeThe disagreement between Maliki, the Iraqi parliament, and the US gov.