Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Sep 7, 2013, 03:47 PM

I don't disagree except you are wrong about Iraq . After VI Day we had an agreement with a duly elected Iraqi government that was not perfect ;but on it's way to power sharing . After we left our security commitments on the table and decided to cut and run ,the current adm had little choice but to court Tehran for protection.

paraclete · Sep 7, 2013, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't disagree except you are wrong about Iraq . After VI Day we had an agreement with a duly elected Iraqi government that was not perfect ;but on it's way to power sharing . After we left our security commitments on the table and decided to cut and run ,the current adm had little choice but to court Tehran for protection.

More B/S it was obvious that the shiites would reach out to Iran and that was probable in any event, all you did in Iraq was to disturb the balance of power in the ME. You needed Saddam even though he was an embarrassment to keep Iran in check, You gave them Iraq on a platter and embolden them. You were just Saudi lackeys in Iraq and you can't see it.

tomder55 · Sep 7, 2013, 07:33 PM

I stand by what I wrote above . We will never know how things would've worked out if we didn't cut and run. I'll tell you one thing that would be different though .Iran would not be using Iraq as a land route to supply Assad with weapons and Qod forces . I'll tell you something else. There would not be an al Nusra Front in Syria infiltrating into the country from Iraq because by 2008 AQ was defeated in Iraq .

tomder55 · Sep 7, 2013, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

More B/S it was obvious that the shiites would reach out to Iran and that was probable in any event, all you did in Iraq was to disturb the balance of power in the ME. You needed Saddam even though he was an embarrassment to keep Iran in check, You gave them Iraq on a platter and embolden them. You were just Saudi lackeys in Iraq and you can't see it.

OK how about explaining how us going into Iraq was handing the country over to Iran while at the same time we were being lackeys for the Saudis . You contradicted yourself in one paragraph.

Wondergirl · Sep 7, 2013, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

by 2008 AQ was defeated in Iraq .

AQ isn't defeatable. It's a stateless, multinational movement and operates like the Energizer bunny.

tomder55 · Sep 7, 2013, 07:53 PM

It was defeated in Iraq and yes it is defeatable .By 2008 there was no safe haven for AQ in Iraq. All we needed to do to maintain that status was to keep the security arrangement we had with the elected government in place.

Wondergirl · Sep 7, 2013, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

All we needed to do to maintain that status was to keep the security arrangement we had with the elected government in place.

"elected government"

And that could have been done how?

talaniman · Sep 7, 2013, 08:00 PM

LOL, a small contingent of 20,000 troops were going to stop Iranians from running through Iraq to Syria?? REALLY!! Marines are good, but not that good. The deal breaker was our guys had to be subject to the Iraqi authority.

So it wasn't cut and run, it was No Way!!

tomder55 · Sep 8, 2013, 02:09 AM

The Obots blew the negotiations.

Yes elected government.. in fact there were 2 successful elections before the emperor's reign. There was power sharing arrangements ,and although the Shia obviously dominated the government , both the Kurd and the Sunnis were represented and had officials appointed and elected at the highest levels of the government.

But now we have a resurgent AQ in Iraq again trying to foment civil war there ,brutalizing the Sunni areas they occupy ;and sending jihadists across the border to fight in Syria.They call themselves al Nusra front . The Obots call them allies.

paraclete · Sep 8, 2013, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

ok how about explaining how us going into Iraq was handing the country over to Iran while at the same time we were being lackeys for the Saudis . You contradicted yourself in one paragraph.

You were being lackeys by fighting a Saudi war, they feared Saddam, by defeating him you removed the barrier to shiite ascendency in Iraq and obviously Iranian influence. You just don't understand that other nations have entirely different agendas to you

paraclete · Sep 8, 2013, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

the Obots blew the negotiations.

yes elected government ..in fact there were 2 successful elections before the emperor's reign. There was power sharing arrangements ,and although the Shia obviously dominated the government , both the Kurd and the Sunnis were represented and had officials appointed and elected at the highest levels of the government.

But now we have a resurgent AQ in Iraq again trying to foment civil war there ,brutalizing the Sunni areas they occupy ;and sending jihadists across the border to fight in Syria.They call themselves al Nusra front . The Obots call them allies.

All you are proving is you don't know your arse from your apex

speechlesstx · Sep 8, 2013, 07:17 AM

All I know is the people making the decisions on this are busy playing video poker and golf.

paraclete · Sep 9, 2013, 06:33 AM

Well you might be right the whole thing seems like a plot from a video game

smoothy · Sep 9, 2013, 06:35 AM

And we STILL haven't heard how John Kerry got out of his one year tour of duty in Vietnam after only 4 months.

And after his anti-war rants after that... why should anyone believe a word he has to say about anything.

paraclete · Sep 9, 2013, 06:41 AM

But he wants to make amends by leading the country to war from the safety of the White House

smoothy · Sep 9, 2013, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

but he wants to make amends by leading the country to war from the safety of the White House

Didn't work so well for Obama... and its not going ot work for him either.

Every time someone in the Obama administration opens their mouth about something... they make something worse than it was.

After all... Obama isn't qualified to do much of anything.. except write fiction books... and everyone in his administration thus far has been even less qualified than he is.

tomder55 · Sep 9, 2013, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by smoothy

And we STILL haven't heard how John Kerry got out of his one year tour of duty in Vietnam after only 4 months.

And after his anti-war rants after that....why should anyone belive a word he has to say about anything.

Kerry threw down the gauntlet... "hand over all your weapons" or face an "unbelievably small" attack... you have one week to comply .

excon · Sep 9, 2013, 07:30 AM

Hello tom:

"hand over all your weapons" or face an "unbelievably small" attack... you have one week to comply .

Because it's a teeny, tiny, limited strike, NOT designed to DO anything, is the reason I'm against it..

They oughta send a Tomahawk into Assad's bedroom, and then DESTROY his air force...

Excon

smoothy · Sep 9, 2013, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:
Because it's a teeny, tiny, limited strike, NOT designed to DO anything, is the reason I'm against it..

They oughta send a Tomahawk into Assad's bedroom, and then DESTROY his air force...

excon

Then the Hammas, Al Queada or Iran backed rebels will take over the country... a fate far worse than Assad for everyone.

Like I've said... there is no good solution here... only worse ones.

smoothy · Sep 9, 2013, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Kerry threw down the gauntlet .... "hand over all your weapons" or face an "unbelievably small" attack...you have one week to comply .

Coming from that coward... I bet they are laughing right now...