In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

Prove you're not a lying Odumbo buffoon and answer the question, Ekim the Inbred Chimp: Why does Odumbo need an aircraft carrier in Iraq if Al-Qaeda is "decimated and on the run", Ekim the Inbred Chimp? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why on earth would you ba stupid enough to think anyone would answer your asinine questions? You are just a fucking retard with a monkey living in your head rent free.

Do "we" still have a military presence in Europe? The Pacific? Were those folks shooting at us soon after we liberated them?

It is horrific to lose 5,000 people in any event or series of events. How long did you want us to stay in Iraq? At what costs?

Are you going to base your policy decisions on how many people die from an event or a related series of events? I suspect in reality you will select your events or the series of events depending on your agenda or political interests at the time, and thereby justify the losses based on your agenda or interests. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would base my decision on how every occupying nation has fared in that shit ass region of the world.


Are you ok with the 4-6 TRILLION dollar cost and loss of serviceman? I'm not and I ain't never voting for a politician who is/was.

I would base my decision on how every occupying nation has fared in that shit ass region of the world.


Are you ok with the 4-6 TRILLION dollar cost and loss of serviceman? I'm not and I ain't never voting for a politician who is/was. Originally Posted by WTF

We are dealing with something here that in past wars was not an issue. Religous Fevor.

The closest thing we came to it in WW-2 was the undying devotion to the Emperor shown by most Japanese. But at the wars end, when we introduced them to blue jeans and fried chicken, they forgot most of that.

But the Muslims are different. They really believe that "72 virgin" shit. The want to die and get their reward.

Like Insaid before. Let's develop ALL of our energy sourses, and tell that bunch of 12th century rag heads to get fucked.

Why on earth would you ba stupid enough to think anyone would answer your asinine questions? You are just a fucking retard with a monkey living in your head rent free. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

And the monkey is smarter than the Idiot!

And the monkey is smarter than the Idiot! Originally Posted by bigtex

"buttsex" loves his monkeyboy... They 69 their "bigs"... LOL

"buttsex" loves his monkeyboy... They 69 their "bigs"... LOL Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Uhhhh, you're hitting the sauce hard tonight, aren't you?

Is Hanoi COG aware of his ATF "Sweet Ass" drinking problem?

He is pinch hitting for stupid.

Are you fucking CRAZY- Bush won the war- is the most idiotic statement you made- invading Iraq was a trillion dollar mistake!!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Bush contributed to US military and the coalition's winning the war in Iraq. The most idiotic statements I've heard, are statements saying that we lost Iraq war, that there were no WMD, that there was a civil war there, that Iraq was a mistake, and so on.

The people that opposed the Iraq war did so based on misinformation, and based on lack of understanding of the geostrategic situation. These people have no understanding of the enemy that we're dealing with. Under asymmetrical warfare, going into Iraq made perfect sense. It was up to the politicians in Washington DC, specifically the current administration, to continue to build on what we started over there.

We won Iraq war with a straight cut victory. It was on the American people to select the right people to political office to nurture what we handed to them.

Then both of you guys are agreeing it was a stupid war.

Would you have left out troops there if they could be tried in a Iraq court? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No, that's not what they're saying. Criticizing the failure of the current administration, to nurture the victory that we handed to them, does not constitute them seeing this as a "stupid" war. Quotation marks used strongly.

The current administration made it difficult for the Iraqis to agree on a SOFA. He could've got one, the Iraqis wanted one, but the current administration continued to up ante to guarantee that they would not get a security agreement with us.

Why stop there you silly fuck? Why not include every democrat in the nation plus the military . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

First, don't stick the military with the Democrats. The military is predominantly conservative. We strongly supported Bush and his efforts to get us into Iraq. Many had no problems going back to Iraq more than once.

Second, the Democrats have historically been the party of appeasement. The Democrats have consistently argued for a course of action that would've amounted to us giving up the fight. The Democrats wanted us to cede to the south during the Civil War. The Democrats consistently worked against the military as it fought in Vietnam. Democrat policy combined with antiwar protesters aimed at pulling US troops out of Vietnam. The goal the military was/is to fight and win. When they did win, the Democrats in Congress and their supporters on the streets of America lost the war for us on US soil. In 2006, the Democrats tried the same stunt with regard to Iraq war.

Thanks to the indirect propaganda efforts of the Soviet Union, which began the 1930s, the Soviets have successfully morphed the Democratic Party into the party of modern appeasement, and the party of increased socialism. The Soviet Union may be gone, but there efforts continue to work its magic on the current policies of the Democratic Party.

Their current antics with regard to Iraq is just another example of them pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Everyone who knew anything about the Iraqi's said there would be a civil war when the USA pulled the troops out. They were right. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Anyone who didn't have a clue about Iraq, who opposed anything that present Bush wanted to do, wanted Republicans to fail, argued that Iraqis will fail. Part of that argument included them arguing that this would be something that would turn into a civil war.

The US military knew all along what the long-term plan for Iraq would be. The military knew that an Iraq pullout would not happen until the Iraqi government was capable of holding itself up. This included the ability to prevent different factions from fighting each other. We accomplished that long before we ultimately pulled out.

What didn't get mentioned in the news is that the Iraqi military effectively fought the pockets of insurgency that was still there.

The current crisis in Iraq stemmed from the current administration's failure to capitalize on the initial crisis in Syria. You guys did not predict that. Even if Saddam were in power, that terrorist group would've overran northern Iraq.

This is not a civil war. This is an outright invasion, this isn't a situation where we have two political groups fighting each other in Iraq. This is nothing like the Civil War in the US or any other country that had a traditional civil war.

And those that opposed the Iraq war argued that there will be a civil war in Iraq after the troops left, they were doing so because they wanted the troops and Bush to lose. They were doing it out of spite not because they knew anything. When it came to the situation surrounding Iraq, they didn't know jack.

This current crisis is a result of Obama dropping the bubble. His failure to initially take advantage of the initial crisis in Syria allowed this terrorist group to grow stronger. Had he done what a real president would've done, this terrorist group would not have gained prominence or strength. They certainly would not have been able to spill over into Iraq.

This isn't a failure because we refuse to listen to you guys, this is a failure because you guys chose somebody that proved to be as indecisive as we predicted he would be.

Judy Judy Judy you are such a shit slinger. Iraq wanted troops to stay, but would not give them immunity of the Iraq courts . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The United States was in position of strength. Once 2011 rolled around, the Iraqis were arguing for us to have at least 10,000 troops stay behind to train, provide guidance, provide intelligence, and provide other related support to help strengthen Iraqi military.

They knew that they needed time to fully get to where they needed to be to be strong enough to deal with a crisis that they're dealing with right now. Our ambassador that was there didn't receive guidance for the White House and how to capitalize on this.

There was no will on Pres. Obama's part to utilize the strength to get the SOFA extended.

You are lying through the keyboard again Judy. Wasn't the timeline for drawing down Bush's timeline? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

] That was based on conditions on the ground. This called for combat troops to be out of the country by the summer of 2010, and the remainder of the troops to be out of the country by the end of 2011. The option was there for both sides to negotiate an extension of that agreement in order to keep a contingent of troops over there to provide training, guidance, and leadership.

Of course Bush won the war I saw the Mission accomplished sign. I am sure you have seen they want us back. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

A lot of people equate that mission accomplished sign as Bush declaring the war over. The vast majority those people have never been in the Navy. That, "Mission Accomplished," sign was something the ship was saying to the world. In order not to use the ships funds, they requested that the White House generate a sign for them.

If you actually listen to the speech that George Bush made on the flight deck, he only declared major combat operations over. And in that same speech, he laid out the fact that we would be facing continued dangers in that country. He also mentioned a timeline for withdrawal, and that was when the country was a strong democracy able to secure itself.

We did precisely that before the timeline of withdrawal called for us to leave.

You can supply them, you can train, them you can arm them, but when they drop their weapons shed their uniforms abandon their supply's and run away....FUCK THEM !!!! Originally Posted by i'va biggen

] Given the urgency that the Iraqis wanted us to keep troops there, they would've given us a SOFA. They wanted at least 10,000 US troops in the Green zone to train Iraqi troops. New Iraqi soldiers, and new Iraqi security forces, would've been cycled through the Green zone to receive training. They also would've received maintenance training. In other words, we would've been there long enough to create a continuum of training to continue to strengthen Iraqi military.

We would've instilled in them the concept of cyclical and continuous training.

With our not being able to do that, the Iraqi forces deteriorated. You could thank the current administration for that failure.

Given the importance that the Iraqis placed on leaving some US troops in the Green zone, it would've made perfect sense to keep the US presence in that country the same way we The US presence in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

Another shining example of the right wing mantra of it is always someone else's fault. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The crisis in Iraq and Syria can be traced directly to the failures of the Obama administration. When Pres. Obama became the president, our foreign-policy became his responsibility. What happened with regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world where we're trying to create change, falls on Pres. Obama's shoulders.

As far as blaming someone else, that's something that's consistent among the Democrats. Just look at how Pres. Obama consistently blamed Bush in his first term, and look at how he consistently blamed Congress. He had a lapdog media willing to echo his argument.

But if you look at the policies pushed by the Democrats, versus the Republicans, you'll see that the Democrats push policies to make up for, "someone else's," wrongs. A perfect example of this is the gun control issue. They like to blame the gun, but not the idiot that's irresponsible with the gun. There are other examples that show that the Democrats like to levy blame on somebody else.

Do you mean like the perpetual wars in Germany, Japan, and South Korea? Yep, I've been to Germany a few times. Nothing like dodging daily sniper fire to wake you up in the morning.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This is what a lot of people that opposed the Iraq war don't understand. They don't understand the bigger picture, geopolitical, geostrategic and historical. I've been to Cuba and to Puerto Rico. We had a troop presence in Cuba since 1898.

Another thing that they miss is that it'll take generations of training and retraining, like the Japanese, South Koreans, and the Germans in the aftermath of war. Not going out of the way to work out an agreement to allow troops to stay was a disaster. We're going to need to be in those countries as trainers and advisers for decades to come.

SO JD are you saying that we should have occupied Iraq forever, have perpetual war? Never leave? Besides Bush had sign the withdraw agreement before he left office. Obama was just sticking to it. Originally Posted by BigLouie

No, that's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that we should've had an agreement that allowed us to do for the Iraqis what we did for the Germans and for the Japanese. This isn't an infinite war intent, it's a process that allows us to develop what we created in the first place. Training those forces has to take years and even decades.

Had Pres. Obama negotiated a deal that allowed us to stay longer, we would've been there as trainers. Our soldiers would not have left the Green zone.

It's great that you are now recognizing that it was Bush that signed the agreement that provided the timeline for pulling the US out. That timeline was based on conditions on the ground. They projected, based on our phenomenal progress in that country, that we would not need combat troops in the country beyond the summer of 2010. The also projected that we would not be needed there in large numbers past 2011.

The also projected that all we'd need is a smaller number of forces there to train the Iraqi forces after the main forces let.

That agreement allowed room for another agreement to extend our stay beyond 2011.

Everyone seems to forget that the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq was the oil fields. Since the first Bush was in office there was a position paper that the US should take control of the Iraq oil fields through any means possible. What a trillion dollar mistake on Bush's part and no one seems to have a problem with him getting us into this mess. Originally Posted by BigLouie

That's not true. United States gets the vast majority of its oil from locations in North America and adjacent to it. The majority of our oil comes in via pipelines. This means our oil rigs in the Caribbean, and pipelines from Mexico, from Canada, and from locations in United States, provide us with the vast majority of our oil.

This was true before the Iraq war.

Venezuela is also a major supplier of our oil. Outside of North America, Saudi Arabia provides the most oil. But compared to North America, Saudi Arabia is minor. If this were about oil, we would've invaded Venezuela.

The real reason for entering Iraq was asymmetrical in nature. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to have a military capable of attacking United States to be a threat. With Al Qaeda proving that it was willing to strike within the United States, and with a dictator not coming clean with this the WMD programs, we were in an asymmetrical situation that's comparable to being in the room full of easily flammable liquids with a man playing with matches. We had to go into Iraq, which was a perfect next stop in the war terror.

People who have absolutely no clue, about the threat that the United States faces, don't see that the enemy that we are facing has visible and invisible parts. This enemy uses traditional and nontraditional means of warfare. Iraq under Saddam, the Taliban, Abu Sayef (sp) in the Philippines, Hamas, the Taliban, and any other terror group that believes in killing the infidel, are part of a single entity.

Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries. In their eyes, every predominantly Muslim country is part of the Islamic nation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. The first step would be to create several Taliban style governments across the Middle East. Once the Middle East is turned into a revived Moorish caliphate, the next step would be to work on the rest of the world.

This war was never just about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. These were just symptoms of the real issue. This issue is a radical Islamic war to eradicate the West, and to establish global Islamic caliphate's around the world.

With Saddam Hussein hosting radical terrorist conventions, and making death to America speeches, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he would choose to side with between the United States or Al Qaeda.

If you look at the map the Middle East, and see Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan, you'll see that we have turned the Middle East into a checkerboard of countries in different stages of democracy.

Up to 2005, I predicted a ripple effect that would happen as a result of our interventions into Afghanistan and Iraq. I argued that once these two countries progressed on the path that we set them on, the rest of the Arab world would want the same thing.

What I predicted ended up becoming the Arab Spring which started a few years later. The Obama administration failed to capitalize on this Arab spring.

Again, when the US military and those in DC to support us handed United States of victory, we handed you guys a good deal. All you had to do was to vote for people into office that would support building on what we accomplished. Those who voted for the Democrats shot us in the foot.

When the Democrats swept both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, both the Iranians and our enemies in that region were cheering a victory.

Are you talking about Bush cutting and running since he is the one who signed the withdraw agreement

And don't this beat all. Looks like Iran might team up with the US to help out the current Iraq leaders Originally Posted by BigLouie

First, Bush didn't cut and run. That agreement was based on success on the ground. We secured victory, then we pulled out. That's what that agreement was about. What Obama has done with regards to Afghanistan, now that's cut and running.

Second, because of the Obama administration's failure with both Syria and Iraq, we are faced with the situation in Iraq. We now have to deal with an enemy that's also fighting the Syrian government.

I feel sorry for the Iraqi's but damn they fucked up a good thing by fighting us so hard after we toppled the sadistic Saddam.............

Fuck em. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The general Iraqi population didn't want to fight us. The backbone of the insurgency consisted of both Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters. These guys were labeled the Anti-Iraqi Force, or AIF. They didn't represent the interests of the Iraqi population. Most Iraqi population wanted the terrorists to go away.

When they saw that we were helping them, and that the terrorists wanted something that was not in their best interest, even the Sunnis turned against Al Qaeda.

Those that were fighting us were not fighting us in unity, they were also fighting each other. Both the terrorists, and Iraqi people, were tuning into American media. They were looking at the general population's view of the Iraq war. With an increasing number of Americans opposing the Iraq war, the terrorists' morale went up, while that of the Iraqi people went down.

People wondered why the Iraqi people did not initially turn against these terrorists, and why they were keeping quiet. A main reason for this was that they were seriously worried that those that opposed the Iraq war in the US would end up getting their way. They were banking on the US troops leaving under pressure from the US population. They knew full well that those that cooperated with the US will be executed in the form of getting beheaded. That's right after they got seriously tortured.

When they saw that the US government intended to keep staying and fighting, and that the US military was kicking butt and taking names as it had done from the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraqi people turned more and more towards visibly helping us when they otherwise would've kept to themselves.

You could blame those that opposed the Iraq war, who voiced it on websites like this, and through antiwar demonstrations, through the media... You could blame those people for the insurgents fighting us as long as they did.

Had the terrorist attacks in Iraq not impacted the American population's resolve, and had support for the Iraq war remained at high levels, the terrorists would've given up earlier. Again, opposition in the United States contributed to fueling the insurgency, the insurgents knew full well that a fight against United States military was suicide for the insurgents... that the way to defeat the US was to defeat the will of the electorate to fight.

The enemy that the US was fighting in Iraq was just following an example that was set in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese hinged their long-term strategy on wearing down the resolve of the American populace. The terrorist were open for the same results. When they didn't get it, and when we showed resolve, the Iraqi population turned more in our favor and against that of Al Qaeda and the other terrorists.

No, that's not what they're saying. Criticizing the failure of the current administration, to nurture the victory that we handed to them, does not constitute them seeing this as a "stupid" war. Quotation marks used strongly.

The current administration made it difficult for the Iraqis to agree on a SOFA. He could've got one, the Iraqis wanted one, but the current administration continued to up ante to guarantee that they would not get a security agreement with us.



First, don't stick the military with the Democrats. The military is predominantly conservative. We strongly supported Bush and his efforts to get us into Iraq. Many had no problems going back to Iraq more than once.

Second, the Democrats have historically been the party of appeasement. The Democrats have consistently argued for a course of action that would've amounted to us giving up the fight. The Democrats wanted us to cede to the south during the Civil War. The Democrats consistently worked against the military as it fought in Vietnam. Democrat policy combined with antiwar protesters aimed at pulling US troops out of Vietnam. The goal the military was/is to fight and win. When they did win, the Democrats in Congress and their supporters on the streets of America lost the war for us on US soil. In 2006, the Democrats tried the same stunt with regard to Iraq war.

Thanks to the indirect propaganda efforts of the Soviet Union, which began the 1930s, the Soviets have successfully morphed the Democratic Party into the party of modern appeasement, and the party of increased socialism. The Soviet Union may be gone, but there efforts continue to work its magic on the current policies of the Democratic Party.

Their current antics with regard to Iraq is just another example of them pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.




Anyone who didn't have a clue about Iraq, who opposed anything that present Bush wanted to do, wanted Republicans to fail, argued that Iraqis will fail. Part of that argument included them arguing that this would be something that would turn into a civil war.

The US military knew all along what the long-term plan for Iraq would be. The military knew that an Iraq pullout would not happen until the Iraqi government was capable of holding itself up. This included the ability to prevent different factions from fighting each other. We accomplished that long before we ultimately pulled out.

What didn't get mentioned in the news is that the Iraqi military effectively fought the pockets of insurgency that was still there.

The current crisis in Iraq stemmed from the current administration's failure to capitalize on the initial crisis in Syria. You guys did not predict that. Even if Saddam were in power, that terrorist group would've overran northern Iraq.

This is not a civil war. This is an outright invasion, this isn't a situation where we have two political groups fighting each other in Iraq. This is nothing like the Civil War in the US or any other country that had a traditional civil war.

And those that opposed the Iraq war argued that there will be a civil war in Iraq after the troops left, they were doing so because they wanted the troops and Bush to lose. They were doing it out of spite not because they knew anything. When it came to the situation surrounding Iraq, they didn't know jack.

This current crisis is a result of Obama dropping the bubble. His failure to initially take advantage of the initial crisis in Syria allowed this terrorist group to grow stronger. Had he done what a real president would've done, this terrorist group would not have gained prominence or strength. They certainly would not have been able to spill over into Iraq.

This isn't a failure because we refuse to listen to you guys, this is a failure because you guys chose somebody that proved to be as indecisive as we predicted he would be.



The United States was in position of strength. Once 2011 rolled around, the Iraqis were arguing for us to have at least 10,000 troops stay behind to train, provide guidance, provide intelligence, and provide other related support to help strengthen Iraqi military.

They knew that they needed time to fully get to where they needed to be to be strong enough to deal with a crisis that they're dealing with right now. Our ambassador that was there didn't receive guidance for the White House and how to capitalize on this.

There was no will on Pres. Obama's part to utilize the strength to get the SOFA extended.



] That was based on conditions on the ground. This called for combat troops to be out of the country by the summer of 2010, and the remainder of the troops to be out of the country by the end of 2011. The option was there for both sides to negotiate an extension of that agreement in order to keep a contingent of troops over there to provide training, guidance, and leadership.



A lot of people equate that mission accomplished sign as Bush declaring the war over. The vast majority those people have never been in the Navy. That, "Mission Accomplished," sign was something the ship was saying to the world. In order not to use the ships funds, they requested that the White House generate a sign for them.

If you actually listen to the speech that George Bush made on the flight deck, he only declared major combat operations over. And in that same speech, he laid out the fact that we would be facing continued dangers in that country. He also mentioned a timeline for withdrawal, and that was when the country was a strong democracy able to secure itself.

We did precisely that before the timeline of withdrawal called for us to leave.



] Given the urgency that the Iraqis wanted us to keep troops there, they would've given us a SOFA. They wanted at least 10,000 US troops in the Green zone to train Iraqi troops. New Iraqi soldiers, and new Iraqi security forces, would've been cycled through the Green zone to receive training. They also would've received maintenance training. In other words, we would've been there long enough to create a continuum of training to continue to strengthen Iraqi military.

We would've instilled in them the concept of cyclical and continuous training.

With our not being able to do that, the Iraqi forces deteriorated. You could thank the current administration for that failure.

Given the importance that the Iraqis placed on leaving some US troops in the Green zone, it would've made perfect sense to keep the US presence in that country the same way we The US presence in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.



The crisis in Iraq and Syria can be traced directly to the failures of the Obama administration. When Pres. Obama became the president, our foreign-policy became his responsibility. What happened with regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world where we're trying to create change, falls on Pres. Obama's shoulders.

As far as blaming someone else, that's something that's consistent among the Democrats. Just look at how Pres. Obama consistently blamed Bush in his first term, and look at how he consistently blamed Congress. He had a lapdog media willing to echo his argument.

But if you look at the policies pushed by the Democrats, versus the Republicans, you'll see that the Democrats push policies to make up for, "someone else's," wrongs. A perfect example of this is the gun control issue. They like to blame the gun, but not the idiot that's irresponsible with the gun. There are other examples that show that the Democrats like to levy blame on somebody else. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Thank you, Brother!

Have you gone mad or are you just a stupid buffoon that talks out of his ass? how did Bush win the war? Tell that to the 5000 families that lost loved ones. We are no safer than the start of the Iraqi war and Iraq is far worse off than before the war. Economically the war cost taxpayers 1 trillion dollars- let me repeat 1 TRILLION dollars- imagine the amount of jobs that could have been created with that money.

Saddam wasn't close to having a nuke and again where are the WMD's? Saddam was no angel, but I assure you had he still been in power- Iraq would not be in the shit hole it's in now- nor would Al-Queada have an influence in Iraq as it does now- you are fool to believe Bush won that war. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Bush helped the military win the war by maintaining the resolve to keep winning. Also, you don't speak for the families of the lost service-members when it comes to the Iraq War. The vast majority of the service-members that combat deployed to Iraq did so because they believed in the cause behind Iraq war. They would've died for it to.

In fact, there is a video of a soldier's interview on radio. He voices frustration at those who opposed Iraq war, and who were trying to act that opposition out by defunding the Iraq war. What this guy said is representative of how the vast majority of us feel, and he expressed the frustration that we had with those that opposed the war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh1dWrf-k_E

Also, the invasion of Iraq made is relatively safer compared to what we were looking at.

Converting that region into a democracy is crucial for our long-term security. Again, look at the map of the Middle East. The heart of the Middle East is a checkerboard of countries in various stages of democracy. That's the catalyst that you need to change the rest of the region.

All the current administration had to do was to build on the success of the previous administration. The Arab Spring was a perfect opportunity to capitalize and nourish new fledgling democracies.

People say we could not have done this with a Middle Eastern country because of religious or other reasons. Guess what? They said we couldn't do this with Japan which had a different philosophy up to and including World War II than it does today. We don't have any Japanese pilots wanting to fly into our aircraft carriers. The current philosophy would not allow them to do that.

I've met the people over there, the vast majority of them aren't religious zealots. They're normal people that want a normal life. They showed their appreciation to us throughout our deployment. They were westernizing at a rapid rate during my deployment to the point that the country was visibly much different at the end of the deployment than it was at the beginning.

Give us a few decades and we'd be able to do for the Middle East what we did for Europe and Asia.

Those that opposed the Iraq war don't see this because they're not looking at the big picture. They're just driven by their opposition to the conservatives, which blinds them to the geostrategic, geopolitical, and historical big pictures.

You're also implying that the money that was used for the Iraq and for Afghanistan wars could have been used on the economy. You are erroneously implying that the government creates most of the jobs as opposed to the real people that create jobs; the rich, the superrich, the corporations, businesses, etc.

A lot of that money was spent on the economy. A lot of logistics went into supporting both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That money was spent on US soil and elsewhere in order to get the military supplied. The communities that supported the businesses the provided logistics benefited as well.

The best way to create jobs is to do the opposite of what the majority of what the Democrats/liberals want us to do. You don't create jobs by forcing an increase in the minimum wage for example.

If the American electorate were interested in putting people in place that will create policies to create more jobs, they would stop voting for Democrats.

As for where are Iraq's WMD's.

Anybody that knows what WMDs are would know the WMD's were found in Iraq post invasion. WMD's consist of nuclear, biological, and chemical agents that could kill multiple people and continue to kill multiple people after these agents have been released. Sarin, blister, and mustard agents have been used in IEDs that have been used against the troops. Sarin, blister, a mustard agents are chemical agents; hence, they are weapons of mass destruction.

As for what happened to the stockpiles. According to Gen. Georges Sada, a senior ranking general within Saddam's inner circle, the stockpiles were moved to Syria. In the video below, he details how these WMD were moved out of Iraq. In one part of the clip, he talks about how the Russians assisted with moving WMD on the ground.

According to Stanislav Lunev, senior GRU agent to defect from Russia, Russian spitznaz forces assisted the Iraqis in the '90s during the UN weapons inspections. That relationship didn't change. So this event substantiates one of the things that General Georges Sada talks about in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrSl30UIPRs

Again, chemical agents have been used against the troops post invasion. So not all the WMD was moved out of country.

Actually, it would not have mattered if Saddam were still in power. ISIS would have pushed into Iraq and sweep Saddam's army aside. Remember, we established a northern and southern no-fly zones. We consistently bombarded Iraq throughout the 90s. This bombardment helped facilitate the rapid advance into Iraq during the 2003 invasion.

Had ISIS rolled into Iraq under those conditions, they too would've had a rapid advance. Remember, they're fighting against the Syrian government. They would've had the same success against Saddam's army.

Again, Iraq under Saddam, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Hamas, and any other radical terrorist organization in the world, are all a part of the same entity that were fighting against. Also, the concept of Al Qaeda was to unite different terrorist organizations throughout the world using Osama bin Laden's organization as the base.

According to the 9/11 commission report, at least one terrorist group in Iraq joined Al Qaeda in the '90s.

Also, Saddam constructed the Salman Pak terrorist training facility. The Iraqi military used this terrorist training facility to train terrorists to do to things that they been doing against us and around the world. They even had a mock airplane on the grounds to help train people hijack airplanes.

According to the base commander that surrendered to the Marines, they had trained Al Qaeda as well as other terrorist groups. Anybody that thinks that Al Qaeda and Saddam ran two separate teams, and were not on the same team in dealing with United States, don't understand what's going on in that region. They don't understand asymmetrical warfare.

Whether there was an operational link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda with regards to 9/11 or not, and whether or not they had operational links in other parts of the world, is beside the point. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to be partners to be considered "in lockstep" when dealing with the same enemy.

Romney had it right and Obama mocked Romney...................but history will show Obama fucked up on Iraq by not keeping some level of forces in Iraq.

In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney expressed concern about Russia and said that he thought the Obama administration's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq was a mistake. Obama ridiculed Romney's "Cold War" mentality and claimed the Iraq skedaddle as one of his greatest foreign policy achievements. Here is what Romney said about Iraq:

and TeamObama's Twitter response:

Wow. Look at what Romney said about the Iraq withdrawal. What a crazy. So out of touch. Glad we dodged that bullet.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Obama turned out exactly the way we conservatives said he would turn out. All one had to do was to look at his track record and see which way he voted. When he came up to difficult decisions, he generally didn't enter a "yes" or "no" vote. Questions about his associations with domestic terrorists and questions about his Muslim upbringing were valid questions.

His policies overseas, his dragging his feet, and his leading from behind all fit the projections we made about him based on his past. We made these projections in 2007, we also predicted that he'd be indecisive. That's precisely what he has been throughout his presidency.

When it comes to foreign policy, the Republicans are light-years ahead of the Democrats. A Republican president would've gotten a deal with the Iraqis to leave trainers/advisors behind. A Republican president would've capitalized on the Arab Spring, benefiting both the people in the Arab World as well as our long term security.