COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Obama sending 300 more U.S. troops to Iraq

45 Comments
By JOSH LEDERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

"The announcement will bring to nearly 800 the total number of U.S. forces in and around Iraq to train local forces, secure the embassy and protect American interests." Train local forces! They were trained and laid down weapons and ran!

Destroy the vehicles they acquired and cut off supply lines.....with force! These brutal Muslims need to be stopped and the sooner the better. Otherwise they will prosper and spread.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Hmmm... maybe if Obama hadn't left early to help with his re-election campaign, all of those people slaughtered by ISIS and the threat to US personnel never would have materialized in the first place. I guess from Obama's standpoint, the ends justifies the means.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

And so creep begins. Just like in Vietnam.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Troops with military hardware, including weapons constitutes "boots on the ground" unless the language in use is Newspeak. Obama is very comfortable with Doublethink.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Wolfpack - in 2008 Al Qaeda was defeated and terrorism was on the run. Thats what President Obama said. It must have been true!

Benghazi was the indicator it was not, craftily explained as the video and supported by mainstream media. Sickening news is not credible any longer.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I'm not surprised by this. Should just empty out the embassy. There is Not much there worth protecting anyway.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

almost 1,000 now. and they are being called troops, not advisors. This will not end well as any day now we will see the first attacks on these poor saps. Just let the Sunni caliphate have its desert wasteland and, if the Shias can't hold their own, the other parts or Syria and Iraq that they can bring under their control. Not like they pose a threat to anyone outsiide the Middle East.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Well, first of America should not help unless the Iraq Gov signs and deal protection all U.S troops and a new power sharing deal. That county needs a system that has 3 main party's and it will take 2 parts to control power in the gov. So the Shiites can team up with the Kurd and the Kurd can give the numbers to the Sunnis. It will be up 2 the Kurd's to pick a side to back and they can swing power to the other side if 1 clings to power and so on.

The biggest problem in Iraq is that this Shiite government hack/rigged everything and has fired all the hi up Kurd and Sunnis Army Generals, replacing them with Shiite generals like a bunch of communist. They have taken over the government with a iron fist. The Shiite Gov wanted to takeover and needed American troops out, as soon as they did, we have seen the Shiite Gov cling 2 powers kicking out Kurdish & Sunnis from top military jobs and so on, to replace them all with Shiite highest ranked generals now.

From the start of the Iraq gov trying to rid Iraq of U.S troops to cling to power, America warned them about doing that. As America pulled out they had 0 troop deaths a week or over months. Before they pulled out they had the terrorist on the run and Intel was smashing the last standing terrorist planing attacks. America showed them how the strategy's worked "clearly" and how Intel was set up now and now kicking in. The Intel was ruining the terrorist out of the city's and then out of areas near the city, so much so, the troops had to go deeper out into the desert to kill them with the raids we seen 6 months before they pulled out. The Iraq war waa won and in the bag & no U.S troops, died In the end, we have just seen less and less Iraq police and troop deaths & attacks were happening less and less. That was all slowly undone once the U.S troops/Intel had to pull out of Iraq.

The blame lies with the Iraq Gov that knew all that^, and got shown all of the above, but was in a dream world thinking all is ok because they wanted to rule Iraq and needed U.S troops out.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama band aids the cancer of Iraq , thus showing the community organizer's foreign policy that he can handle after folding the tent and turned Iraq into Iranian and its proxy government. Next, the drive by shooting will continue in Iraq same as parts of inner city in U.S. Do not alarm, it is only $17 trillion + deficit plus the usual blaming game!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The biggest problem in Iraq is that this Shiite government hack/rigged everything and has fired all the hi up Kurd and Sunnis Army Generals, replacing them with Shiite generals like a bunch of communist.

This has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I fear this is a war that cannot be won.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Just as I said.

Good ol' Obama first says no troops, then advisers, now 200 more, soon to be thousands.

What was that about those who forget the past?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Scott. There will never be the type of compromise andf power sharing you are hoping for. These are real people, not pawns in some board game. Iraq is doomed as a nation stste, all because the US chose to stick the boot into Saddam. and now they are sending troops again and will achive nothing but lose more lives and spend more money. leave these lunatics to sort each other out.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So Saddam is gone and the world is a better place w/o him. Arguably should he have been left in power? Well, he did keep Iraq together at that time. Although it was at a cost of other Iraqi lives. Was the US invasion the right thing to do? Many throughout the world at the time thought so. Yes, US Democrats too!. In retrospect was it the right thing to do? Who knows?

What is different ten years later. Saddam was nearly 70 years old. Would he be alive today? Would he or his successor have maintained the dictatorship through the Arab Spring uprisings? Who knows. It may have been worse.

Iraq is hell today It was not hell 3 years ago. Iraq was left as a finished operation and neglected since. Wrong move as we see today. Not to point fingers but the time for action was months ago. And hesitation only allows this group of maniacs to strengthen, organize and equip more each day.

So, to satisfy many on JT. Bush did it. He invaded not solely on his decision but under his watch. Obama gets some blame for the current situation also. And the mystery card. Saddam may well have died of old age by now and who knows what we would have.

Bottom line, the region has been and will be a mess for quite some time to come. The would needs to understand that and make the best choices when the need present themselves.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mark G:

" 2008 Al Qaeda was defeated and terrorism was on the run. Thats what President Obama said. It must have been true! "

Yep, and in 2010 Biden called Iraq one of Obamas "greatest achievements" and proudly praised the Maliki government. Strangely, American party hacks manage to blend all that out and still somehow blame everything on GWB incarnated.

Be that as it may, the first thing a reasonable president would do in the current situation is to stop supporting the Sunni radicals in Syria, instead of giving them weapons, which then invariably find their way to ISIS in Iraq.

And Assad`s authoritarian but secular regime should be supported against the religions nuts -- we are seeing the alternative under the fluttering black flags of ISIS.

But I am not holding my breath for common sense to appear in White House politics.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mark G -

Was the US invasion the right thing to do? Many throughout the world at the time thought so.

You've posted similar comment before when the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the world was against the Iraqi invasion (found any WMD yet?) and many, particularly the French, predicted this sort of outcome. Millions around the world marched in protest against the then proposed invasion. So give up on the line that "Ok, it wasn't perfect but many of you agreed". The truth is a few weak minded or USA financially dependent countries embarked on this Mother of all Mistakes. History is not going to make the US look any better.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Very, very little of the world supported the US in its invasion of Iraq. Particularly as the UN had weapons inspectors in the country who had unfettered access to search for WMDs. But the US got all angry because the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs, so they unilaterally decided to enter the US, without world support. And of course we all know why the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs - there weren't any to be found.

So no, the US invasion wasn't the right thing to do, as pretty much the whole world knew at the time, and knows even more so now.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Instead of this drip-feed of personnel, why doesn't America just be honest and send in several armoured divisions?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Strangerland:

" Very, very little of the world supported the US in its invasion of Iraq. Particularly as the UN had weapons inspectors in the country who had unfettered access to search for WMDs. "

The revisionist history here is astonishing. No, the weapons inspectors did not have "unfettered access"; they were being sent being on wild goose chases and randomly refused access. In fact, the French proposal (which the US rejected) was to massively increase the number of inspectors and get them more access. Meanwhile, 80 tons of VX gas remain unaccounted for and it can safely be assumed that some of that was shipped to Syria. Meanwhile, in Southern Iraq, the "no-fly zone" was being violated by Saddam on a daily basis (which in itself is an act of war). I was against the Iraq invasion too, but please, can`t we do without making up stuff?

And even after the invasion, there were many chances to get it right. GWB could have preserved the Iraqi armee and handed it over to a more acceptable Baath leader; there were several. Instead, Paul Bremer rode into town and dissolved both the armee and the Baath party with a stroke of a pen. That was the real big mistake.

And even after that, GWB finally managed to put a lid on things and got Malaki to agree to give concessions to the Sunnis -- remember the Awakening movement? Obama abandoned all that and replaced it with a withdrawal and declaration of victory.

There are so many errors in this Iraq story; it is really sad that some simply want to reduce it to US party political talking points.

Anyway, right now, with the Sunni jihadis on a victory run, the most important thing should be to stop a repeat of the same in Syria. Is Obama doing that? NO! To the contrary, he is doing the opposite.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, the weapons inspectors did not have "unfettered access"; they were being sent being on wild goose chases and randomly refused access.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. Read the report from Hans Blix, the head inspector: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

"As to whether Iraq had cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively”, Mr. Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said that the Iraqi side had tried on occasion to attach conditions, but so far had not persisted in those or other conditions. The initiatives now taken by the Iraqi side, three to four months into resolution 1441, could not be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. "

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Very, very little of the world supported the US in its invasion of Iraq.

So what? Why should we care what anyone thinks? I'm glad...NO, ecstatic that Saddam is gone. I sleep well every night.

Particularly as the UN had weapons inspectors in the country who had unfettered access to search for WMDs. But the US got all angry because the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs, so they unilaterally decided to enter the US, without world support.

And after Saddam violated UN resolution article 1441 that clearly outlined the consequences if Saddam didn't comply, which he didn't.

And of course we all know why the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs - there weren't any to be found.

How many times do you want to keep talking about this?

So no, the US invasion wasn't the right thing to do, as pretty much the whole world knew at the time, and knows even more so now.

Sorry, getting Saddam was the right thing to do, NO one misses him. There are hundreds of Iraqis that are thankful for what the US has done to help them.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"So what? Why should we care what anyone thinks?"

Ah, America... thy name is Diplomacy. ; )

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.

The more boots means the more road side bombs. Instead of more boots, Obama should use drone strike from distance.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The US sent 300 advisors, and then the Russians sent advisors and bombers, and then the US sent more advisors and drones, and so I guess it's Russia's turn... Iraq is getting lots of advice, I guess.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The more boots means the more road side bombs. Instead of more boots, Obama should use drone strike from distance.

And who are we going to hit? How do you decimate an enemy that hides among women and children and sometimes dresses like a woman. If it's a group of men out in the open, I have no problem with that, but within the city you need to get proper identification first before you start lighting these guys up? In other words, in order to get close to a target, which means, you need boots on the ground and given the circumstances, you would need a lot of boots on the ground to pacify the situation and I don't think NO one has the stomach for that.

@Luca

Ah, America... thy name is Diplomacy. ; )

Yup, you got that right!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Okay to clear up my statement above @12:45 pm: My point being is many posters just blame Bush. Bush did not act alone. He had support both domestically and internationally. Even todays praised Democrats share guilt.

Lets not forget the Scuds the honorable Saddam was sending to Israel. He was NOT a nice man! Iraq was held together with fear and fierce retaliations if not complied. Do you recall the Chemical weapons used on the Kurds? The invasion of Kuwait and the withdrawal which robbed the nation of everything not nailed down. THe torched oil fields. And the reputation of the fearsome Republican Guard!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Aren't the Chinese sending any troops to beef up security at the Chinese embassy?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Serrano:

" Aren't the Chinese sending any troops to beef up security at the Chinese embassy? "

No, they are not, and it is not necessary either. There is no way ISIS will advance into the Shiite heartland. Basically, this is Sunni rebellion, and ISIS simply took over the Sunni areas.

The real big question is if Obama will hand over Syria to ISIS too, and alas with his foolish support of the so-called "vetted rebels" it looks like he will. Remember that unlike Iraq, Syria has a solid Sunni majority. Does the West really want to help create a huge, virulent Sunni jihadis theocracy covery Syria and half of Iraq?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - "Hmmm... maybe if Obama hadn't left early to help with his re-election campaign, all of those people slaughtered by ISIS and the threat to US personnel never would have materialized in the first place. I guess from Obama's standpoint, the ends justifies the means."

And I guess from your viewpoint, US troops can just stay in Iraq for like, forever.

Time to wake up, Wolf.

Bgood41 -"Obama band aids the cancer of Iraq, thus showing the community organizer's foreign policy that he can handle after folding the tent and turned Iraq into Iranian and its proxy government."

Sorry bud, your boy George was the one who created the conditions that allowed Iran to become the strongest nation in the region.

You voted for GWB? That makes you partially responsible for this disaster, time to man up and admit you screwed up. 

MarkG - "Iraq is hell today It was not hell 3 years ago. Iraq was left as a finished operation and neglected since."

LOL! But really, this isn't the time for jokes. 

Strangerland - "Very, very little of the world supported the US in its invasion of Iraq. Particularly as the UN had weapons inspectors in the country who had unfettered access to search for WMDs. But the US got all angry because the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs, so they unilaterally decided to enter the US, without world support. And of course we all know why the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs - there weren't any to be found. So no, the US invasion wasn't the right thing to do, as pretty much the whole world knew at the time, and knows even more so now."

Great post. Couldn't agree more. 

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's not witthin American best national interest to put more American combating troops on the ground since Russia and Iran have stepped in to provide iraqi government handware and manpower.

Let's face it, iraqi sectarian fight will last for a long long time from here, the situation is beyond any country's control inclduing Iraq itself.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@sushi

And I guess from your viewpoint, US troops can just stay in Iraq for like, forever.

No, Bush was already starting a slow withdrawal gradually, but was going to leave a sizable force their to maintain and to further stabilize the country. Obama had it made, all he had to do was follow up on it, he didn't do it and the rest (as we say is) is history.

Sorry bud, your boy George was the one who created the conditions that allowed Iran to become the strongest nation in the region. ..And Obama screwed it up further by NOT establishing the SOFA agreement with Maliki. What as the result? A resurgence of Al Qaeda and ISIL. He gave up too quickly.

You voted for GWB? That makes you partially responsible for this disaster, time to man up and admit you screwed up. Right back at you? Are you allowed to vote? If NOT, your supporting Obama amounts to the exact same thing.

Just Sayin'....

Sorry, getting rid of Saddam was the best thing. NO one misses him, seriously...NO one!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Bass4funk - "No, Bush was already starting a slow withdrawal gradually, but was going to leave a sizable force their to maintain and to further stabilize the country. Obama had it made, all he had to do was follow up on it, he didn't do it and the rest (as we say is) is history

And on the subject of history, it's very clear that - like bush - you have very little concept of it.

The 3 main tribes in Iraq hate each other.  That was a well known fact decades before 2003. Saddam did a 'good' job keeping them apart.

bush's invasion completely destroyed that balance, and the fact is, any invading nation would have had to "leave a sizable force there to maintain and to further stabilize the country" pretty much on an ongoing basis/forever to prevent ...exactly what we are seeing today: sectarian violence.

This would have meant a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq with U.S. soldiers under threat and being picked off virtually every day - as was happening.

Also, as has happened, U.S. support at home would collapse.

Bottom line is America cannot stay in Iraq forever, no matter how much pundits like yourself might think it 'necessary.'

Bass, reality says America cannot stay forever.

Reality says at some point America must bring its soldiers home (yes, this is partly political decision but it's also one based on economics.)

Bass, reality also says U.S. engagement in Iraq has failed.  U.S. soldiers and Iraqis and others have died in vain. And it's not because of strategy, numbers of troops, dates and paces of withdrawal.

No, U.S. engagement in Iraq would NEVER have succeeded in the first place.

History tells us so, and if bush and Cheney had bothered to read their history books prior to invading, they may have realized this too.

Ditto for Afghanistan.

From this viewpoint in 2014, bush/Cheney's decision to invade both countries looks even more tragic - clearly they had no idea what they were doing. 

And your point about having more troops in Iraq shows you have no idea either. 

Sorry about that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Very, very little of the world supported the US in its invasion of Iraq.

So what? Why should we care what anyone thinks? I'm glad...NO, ecstatic that Saddam is gone. I sleep well every night.

So how do you sleep at night with Kim Jung On still running N. Korea, and with whoever runs Iran running Iran? If getting rid of dictators was a valid reason for invading and destroying a country, the US still has a lot of work ahead of it. But the problem is, getting rid of Saddam was never the reason given for invading Iraq (though it was most definitely Bush Jr.'s secret goal - to finish the work daddy couldn't). WMDs were the reason given.

Particularly as the UN had weapons inspectors in the country who had unfettered access to search for WMDs. But the US got all angry because the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs, so they unilaterally decided to enter the US, without world support.

And after Saddam violated UN resolution article 1441 that clearly outlined the consequences if Saddam didn't comply, which he didn't.

Read the report I linked. Iraq was complying with the weapons inspectors.

And of course we all know why the weapons inspectors weren't finding the WMDs - there weren't any to be found.

How many times do you want to keep talking about this?

The US unilaterally went in and destroyed a country that had done it no wrong and posed no thread. We will talk about it until the US properly repents - until the end of all time if that need be. If you don't like it, then you should be ensuring your country doesn't destroy any more countries with no good reason.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@SushiSake3

And I guess from your viewpoint, US troops can just stay in Iraq for like, forever.

Well I was making the point that the US troops were prematurely removed based on Obama's re-election time table. Obama's lame excuse was that he could not work out a status of forces agreement. Now there are upwards of 1,000 American troops on the ground without a status of forces agreement. So Obama lied - but I have gotten used to that along with the media and Liberals ignoring the them.

No one is saying that they want US troops in Iraq forever. Just that the timeline should not be based on crass political calculations. Now that Obama has been safely re-elected he sends the troops back in thus proving his stupidity for heading for the exits too early.

So Sushi, how long should Obama keep US troops in Iraq this time?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And now, while hundreds more continue to die in Iraq, we have twinkletoes bush retired and taking it easy painting pictures in Texas, and war supporters like Bass4funk, BGood, etc. going off about troop levels and withdrawal timetables and whoever knows what else absolutely trivial stuff that is not going to make a shred of difference in the long run, while also  wasting oxygen and everyone's time blaming Obama, who:

1/ did not vote for the war

2/ did not want the war

3/ cannot control the war for reasons entirely beyond the office of the POTUS.

It's sickening.

  

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@stranger

So how do you sleep at night with Kim Jung On still running N. Korea, and with whoever runs Iran running Iran? If getting rid of dictators was a valid reason for invading and destroying a country, the US still has a lot of work ahead of it. But the problem is, getting rid of Saddam was never the reason given for invading Iraq (though it was most definitely Bush Jr.'s secret goal - to finish the work daddy couldn't). WMDs were the reason given.

If you want to believe that liberal talking point, go ahead. Saddam was an unstable nut that DID allow terrorists to train and operate in Iraq, terrorists that wanted to kill Americans! Bush did what he thought was right in removing that threat. If you want to make the argument it was wrong going into Iraq, fine, I don't have a problem with that, we will just have to disagree, but as far as removing Saddam, it was the best thing. At least he didn't sit around like some idiot coward.

Read the report I linked. Iraq was complying with the weapons inspectors.

I did. Sorry, he violated article 1441 "14 times" Nuff said!

The US unilaterally went in and destroyed a country that had done it no wrong and posed no thread.

No, the country was destroyed by the sectarian violence 90%, stop blaming that on US troops.

We will talk about it until the US properly repents - until the end of all time if that need be.

Because that is the only thing the left can do. NO way the US should apologize, does that mean, Whites have to apologize for being White for have previously owned slaves? You guys need to grow up, remember the past, don't dwell on it, it doesn't serve you well.

If you don't like it, then you should be ensuring your country doesn't destroy any more countries with no good reason.

No, I don't like it, but I do laugh because I know Liberals are ALL TALK and ONLY TALK, you guys can only talk about Bush and nothing else, if liberals and the Dems would spend more time solving seriously vexing problems instead of focusing and putting all their baseless anger towards Bush and acting like 3 year olds, maybe this country wouldn't be in this plight, but the efforts and energy and vitriol wasted on Bush has served the Democratic party nothing and you guys know it. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney will be right were they are at and God bless them.

@sushi

And on the subject of history, it's very clear that - like bush - you have very little concept of it.

Why, because you and most liberals don't like the truth?? Sorry. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but....

The 3 main tribes in Iraq hate each other. That was a well known fact decades before 2003. Saddam did a 'good' job keeping them apart.

Sorry, but that anger was brooding over and there were a few attempts on his life, you thought he had everything in order, but that order was slowly coming to an end and if you think gassing the Kurds and raping and murdering the Shiites is keeping things under control, well then you really don't know the real Iraq. Dude, stop listening to Hayes and Maddow!

bush's invasion completely destroyed that balance, and the fact is, any invading nation would have had to "leave a sizable force there to maintain and to further stabilize the country" pretty much on an ongoing basis/forever to prevent ...exactly what we are seeing today: sectarian violence.

Nope, it was the sectarian violence that had to deal with both Islamic factions, NOT the US.

This would have meant a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq with U.S. soldiers under threat and being picked off virtually every day - as was happening.

And had that small force been allowed to have stayed there we wouldn't be looking at a mess and a possible Jihadist state. Thanks Obama.

Also, as has happened, U.S. support at home would collapse.

So, when Bush followed the advice the initiate the surge, most of the Republicans, Democrats and people were against it, it worked and after that, even on most Islamic sites, Al Qaeda admitted defeat. Sometimes as president, you have to show leadership and sometimes go against popular opinion, which is what a real leader does. Which also means, Obama doesn't come close to being in that category.

Bottom line is America cannot stay in Iraq forever, no matter how much pundits like yourself might think it 'necessary.'

And America can't afford to have another 9/11 just because liberals are spineless cowards hiding under the covers thinking that it will protect them from the Jihadists...bottom line!

Reality says at some point America must bring its soldiers home (yes, this is partly political decision but it's also one based on economics.)

Yes, once the job is finished and it wasn't!

reality also says U.S. engagement in Iraq has failed. U.S. soldiers and Iraqis and others have died in vain. And it's not because of strategy, numbers of troops, dates and paces of withdrawal.

Yes, it is. The surge worked, when everyone was against it. Don't lie like that, please.

No, U.S. engagement in Iraq would NEVER have succeeded in the first place.

Of course it would have.

History tells us so, and if bush and Cheney had bothered to read their history books prior to invading, they may have realized this too.

Funny, when has Obama ever read a book on the ME? Oh, I keep forgetting, he's a know it all President, why should the anointed one bother to read? Perhaps if he did, he would have known leaving early would start the gears in motion that Al Qaeda would regroup, but he didn't. Ignorance is bliss.

Ditto for Afghanistan.

Yes!

From this viewpoint in 2014, bush/Cheney's decision to invade both countries looks even more tragic - clearly they had no idea what they were doing.

You meant to say, the sectarian violence, get it right.

And your point about having more troops in Iraq shows you have no idea either.

I do. I was there. Yes, it would have.

And now, while hundreds more continue to die in Iraq, we have twinkletoes bush retired and taking it easy painting pictures in Texas,

As he rightfully should, good for him and did you know he gets about $115,000 for public speeches. Yes, he is having a good life, again, good for him and his family.

and war supporters like Bass4funk, BGood, etc. going off about troop levels and withdrawal timetables and whoever knows what else absolutely trivial stuff that is not going to make a shred of difference in the long run, while also wasting oxygen and everyone's time blaming Obama, who:

But you do the same about Bush. Huh, how does that equate? If I complain about the current running, active President, that's bad, but if you complain about a retired President, that's good? ROFL!! Sushi....you crack me up dude, for real!

1/ did not vote for the war

But he did advocate and felt troops should stay and fight in Afghanistan

2/ did not want the war

And yet, more soldiers died in Afghanistan under Obama and don't forget the mess currently in Iraq for withdrawing too early.

3/ cannot control the war for reasons entirely beyond the office of the POTUS.

Obama can't even control himself or his big mouth.

It's sickening.

You're not hearing any arguments or disputes from me!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's not necessary for you to reply to another reader's post sentence by sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America can't afford to have another 9/11

4,486 US servicemen and women were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. That's one and a half 9/11s. There has been the equivalent of another 9/11 in and around Afghanistan. What exactly is it that America 'cannot afford'? Are American lives lost overseas worth less than lives lost at home?

Read the report I linked. Iraq was complying with the weapons inspectors.

I did. Sorry, he violated article 1441 "14 times" Nuff said!

We are talking about the link to Blix's report to the SC? Where do you get the "14" times? One person saying it 14 times, or 14 people saying it once each, isn't the same, you know. And when you're talking about whether or not to start a war, don't you feel Nuff said! is a bit ...... cavalier? insouciant?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you want to believe that liberal talking point, go ahead.

If you want to try to dress up fact as a 'liberal talking point', I guess you can. But the fact is that getting rid of Saddam was not ever the reason given for going into Iraq. The reason was to get rid of the WMDs, which of course we know now was based on lies, as they didn't exist.

Saddam was an unstable nut that DID allow terrorists to train and operate in Iraq, terrorists that wanted to kill Americans! Bush did what he thought was right in removing that threat.

Wrong. There was no terrorist threat against America in Iraq until after the Americans got rid of Saddam.

No, the country was destroyed by the sectarian violence 90%, stop blaming that on US troops.

Wrong. The country was a functioning country without violence before the Americans destroyed it. Saddam didn't allow the sectarian violence. Once he was gone, there was nothing stopping it.

NO way the US should apologize

The US unilaterally invaded and destroyed a country that had not attacked it, and posed no threat to it, based on lies about WMDs that didn't exist.

The attitude that no apology is necessary is exactly why so much of the world hates America. The sad thing is that all the good Americans have to pay for the sins of those who are too proud to apologize for their wrongs. It's shameful really.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@cleo

4,486 US servicemen and women were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. That's one and a half 9/11s. There has been the equivalent of another 9/11 in and around Afghanistan. What exactly is it that America 'cannot afford'? Are American lives lost overseas worth less than lives lost at home?

So you're basically saying, just leave the jihadists that want to establish a caliphate and then launch suicide attacks on the west, just leave them alone and the problem will go away, that's what you're saying? You have a choice send in civilians that wouldn't know how to take care of these armed thugs or you send in an experienced military force? Take a pick, either way, it's coming.

We are talking about the link to Blix's report to the SC? Where do you get the "14" times?

That was part of the entire weapons inspection debacle.

@strange

If you want to try to dress up fact as a 'liberal talking point', I guess you can. But the fact is that getting rid of Saddam was not ever the reason given for going into Iraq. The reason was to get rid of the WMDs, which of course we know now was based on lies, as they didn't exist.

Ok, it didn't exist, I got it, NOW moving on and back to the present! So now what to do with the terror insurgency, what will his majesty do or most likely not do to fix this out of control situation. I know for a fact, we had in the late 80's and early 90's a lot of Iraqs were fleeing (a fairly large exodus in California) Saddam's regime and we would hear first hand about how the oppositions groups and other factors were coming to the forefront and becoming the catalyst for a possible regime change, which was the main reason. Also, spent time there, whether you want to belive it or not, fine with me, but I was assigned there for a while. I know what happened. Oil was not a part of it at least Iraqi oil, the US doesn't get their oil from there anyway. Saudi Arabia is a different story

Wrong. There was no terrorist threat against America in Iraq until after the Americans got rid of Saddam

There was always a threat from jihadists towards Israel and the US.

Wrong. The country was a functioning country without violence before the Americans destroyed it. Saddam didn't allow the sectarian violence. Once he was gone, there was nothing stopping it.

It was going to happen anyway and it was already starting and there ewe signs of civil unrest growing.

The US unilaterally invaded and destroyed a country that had not attacked it, and posed no threat to it, based on lies about WMDs that didn't exist.

Blame hat on the entire international intel agencies, I hope you equally criticize them as well.

->The attitude that no apology is necessary is exactly why so much of the world hates America. The sad thing is that all the good Americans have to pay for the sins of those who are too proud to apologize for their wrongs. It's shameful really.

I think most Americans could care less what the world thinks, just like most of the world doesn't care what America thinks of them. Goes both ways.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Someone has to stand for principles and values, I appreciate the compliment, Sushi

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I think most Americans could care less what the world thinks

And that's the attitude that led to 9-11.

Note: I'm not saying 9-11 was justified, just pointing out the facts.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

And that's the attitude that led to 9-11.

Note: I'm not saying 9-11 was justified, just pointing out the facts.

And so where is OBL and all the other top senior Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? Our response was justified. They were all liberally decimated until his holiness decided to move our troops and allowed Al Qaeda and ISIL to regroup and flourish.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The SHia allies have already promised to target any U.S. invaders.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The devil himself has principles and values...so?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites