Any of your liberal historical geniuses ever hear of the "Killing Fields?"

[JakeStarkey]

That sure sounds like you in the past, teapartysamurai: pout, spout, and rout.

 

[teapartysamurai]

So what concern of the United States was it that Iraq and Iran fought a bloody war in the 80's?

Should we have intervened on one side or the other? How many American lives would it have been worth to get involved? What would the purpose of getting involved have been?

WHAT do you think will be the danger if a nuclear Iran takes over Iraq?

Are you making an argument for having left Saddam in power? Because no one was worried about Iran taking over Iraq then? Are you acknowledging that we already had an adequate strategic balance of power in place in the ME vis a vis Iran/Iraq before we meddled in it and messed up the entire situation?

Good for you. You get it now.

Okay, why play this tactic when I already gave the point to you, that I didn't know Bush signed a treaty for withdrawal in 2011?

Instead, you fall back to the well worn liberal tactic OF claiming I said something NOT in evidence and then expecting me to argue from that false premise.

THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

How many times do I have to say it doesn't MATTER whether we should or should not have gone into Iraq.

The FACT IS we are there! Now the question has to be is sudden withdrawal a good idea.

I'm arguing it is NOT a good idea based on the times the US had done a sudden withdrawal.

It has resulted in death, chaos, and in the case of WWI and Gulf War I, we had to return to clean up the mess again (in other words WWII and the Iraq Invasion.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

This so called "liberal tactic" is what you pull all the time, teapartysamurai.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And?

Iraq attacked Iran.

And??????????

The fact is Iran was involved in a war, and dopes like Achmadinajad don't forgive and forget.

The point still stands.

Iran is rarely an aggressive nation.

There's almost nothing in it's history that indicates it's going to invade another country.

Will they be involved in spook ops? Yep. Everyone is.

Well number one Iran has been involved in terrorism for a LONG time.

Number two, terrorists have been using Iran as base to commit terrorist acts in Iraq, just as the communists used Cambodia as a base to make attacks in Vietnam.

Don't tell me that isn't true. It's the same thing they are doing in Pakistan against Aghanistan.

It's a well worn trick and anyone with a brain KNOWs that Iran is just waiting for the US to leave.

Open your mind and read the article in the op.

 

[Amelia]

Please stop saying that Obama seeks to withdraw.

Obama wanted to stay.

But he couldn't pull it off so he spun it as he was withdrawing to keep his promise to the American people.

 

[teapartysamurai]

WHAT do you think will be the danger if a nuclear Iran takes over Iraq?

Are you making an argument for having left Saddam in power? Because no one was worried about Iran taking over Iraq then? Are you acknowledging that we already had an adequate strategic balance of power in place in the ME vis a vis Iran/Iraq before we meddled in it and messed up the entire situation?

Good for you. You get it now.

Iran won't invade Iraq. Frankly it won't need too, they have many common interests. And one lovely thing that the Iraq invasion did was solidify the PKK..which brings a coalition of Iran, Iraq and Turkey into the mix.

Good job boys.

I love how you libs always think there's this perfect world out there if ONLY we just believed.

Same thing liberals told us about Germany. They won't invade. They just want living space, blah blah blah

 

[rightwinger]

Are you making an argument for having left Saddam in power? Because no one was worried about Iran taking over Iraq then? Are you acknowledging that we already had an adequate strategic balance of power in place in the ME vis a vis Iran/Iraq before we meddled in it and messed up the entire situation?

Good for you. You get it now.

Iran won't invade Iraq. Frankly it won't need too, they have many common interests. And one lovely thing that the Iraq invasion did was solidify the PKK..which brings a coalition of Iran, Iraq and Turkey into the mix.

Good job boys.

I love how you libs always think there's this perfect world out there if ONLY we just believed.

Same thing liberals told us about Germany. They won't invade. They just want living space, blah blah blah

You have an odd view of History

FDR was the greatest liberal in this countries history. It was FDR urging that we prepare for war and conservatives urging that we avoid foreign entanglements

And just for your information, Germany did not invade us

 

[teapartysamurai]

Article 24—Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq

Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:

1.All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.

Status of Forces Agreement, 2008 - Wikisource

Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17th day of November, 2008, in the English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic.

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

FOR THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ:

Wow! I was not aware of that. If it's true (and it is) that was a very BAD move by the Bush admin.

I was not aware the Bush signed this and all the media coverage that has covered Obama's announcement of a pullout (in the liberal media) hasn't mentioned this.

My only assumption can be the reason there has been no mention is Obama wants to take the credit for pulling out of the troops before the 2012 election.

Wow is right. No one is mentioning it? Really? That's an odd statement since I heard HILLARY CLINTON specifically mention it yesterday on CNN,

and only a few minutes ago I heard the news anchor on MSNBC reference that mention in a conversation with R Senator Kelly Ayotte, who, in classic dimwit fashion,

blithely ignored it and went on ranting about Obama.

That's interesting, because I've been reading about it for days, and YET this is the first mention I've heard of it being linked to a Bush treaty.

I can only assume Obama wished to take credit for the withdrawal to shore up his base, but it's not playing well in red state America, so Obama's finally letting that little fact slip.

It's a political win-win as far as he is concerned.

I just think it's going to be a big LOSE for a lot of Iraqis.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do hope I'm wrong.

But, I've seen this play out before, with promises of peace for all time.

I mean let's cue up the old phonograph and have John and Yoko sing "War is over, if you want it!" Blah blah blah

And then MILLIONS DIED. But the stupid peaceniks turned a complete blind eye to that little fact.

We have the Arab Spring with Obama basically doing the same thing to the ME that Carter did to the Shaw, allowing the uber islamification of Iran.

NOW it will be the entire ME.

Frankly, like the oft repeated line in Star Wars, I got a bad feeling about this.

I think there is a lot of blood shed in the ME on the way and not just in Iraq.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Any of your liberal historical geniuses ever hear of the "Killing Fields?"

Now Obama seeks to repeat that horrible lesson in history for no other reason than to shore up his base for an election that (right now) he is likely to lose.

This is one of your more ignorant and moronic threads, that’s quite an accomplishment, well done.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any of your liberal historical geniuses ever hear of the "Killing Fields?"

Now Obama seeks to repeat that horrible lesson in history for no other reason than to shore up his base for an election that (right now) he is likely to lose.

This is one of your more ignorant and moronic threads, that’s quite an accomplishment, well done.

That's nice to compliment her, C_Clayton_Jones.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Exactly.

And now Obama seeks to do the same with Iraq.

It doesn't really matter whether you agree with either war.

The results of just pulling out is quite clear.

It is the ultimate betrayal of people who risked their lives to help the US who will get nothing out of it but torture and death.

Not only will it be a disaster in the short run, in the long run it will send a CLEAR message that you should NEVER help the US catch terrorists, because they US won't have your back if you do.

It is the ultimate in short-sighted thinking. Obama is doing it for NOTHING but short-term political gain.

ANY gain we had hoped to have fighting terrorism in the ME, will be lost for GENERATIONS because of Obama's electorial narcissism.

It's crime against humanity.

It makes me as sick (no, sicker) as when Bush 41 just pulled out of Iraq after Gulf War I and left the Kurds to freeze and die in the mud.

One of the reaons I didn't vote for Bush 41 in '92.

I'm heart sick over the human suffering he has condemned so many people to in Iraq over this. I'm really am heart sick over it.

God help those people, because Obama sure won't.

i don't think you could post anything phonier and thereby more disgusting as this. but you will certainly try. negged

Damn, did she just say that leaving Iraq is a crime against humanity?

It has happened every time we have just up and left.

We leave people who risked their lives to back us up to the mercy of their enemies.

You DO know what happened to the Kurds after Gulf War I?

or what happened to many people after we pulled out of Vietnam??????

 

[Ravi]

Iran won't invade Iraq. Frankly it won't need too, they have many common interests. And one lovely thing that the Iraq invasion did was solidify the PKK..which brings a coalition of Iran, Iraq and Turkey into the mix.

Good job boys.

I love how you libs always think there's this perfect world out there if ONLY we just believed.

Same thing liberals told us about Germany. They won't invade. They just want living space, blah blah blah

You have an odd view of History

FDR was the greatest liberal in this countries history. It was FDR urging that we prepare for war and conservatives urging that we avoid foreign entanglements

And just for your information, Germany did not invade us

Just when I think she can't get any stupider. I wonder where she went to school? Probably in Texas where they revise history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Have you ever thought the overwhelming majority of America do not want America militarily in Kurdistan, Vietnam, or Iraq, much less in your crazystateofmindistan?

 

[teapartysamurai]

TPS starts an uninformed thread & invariably gets a history lesson.

On the contary it looks like a lot of libs are getting a history lesson as well.

True, I did not know that Bush signed a treaty for a withdrawal by 2011.

However, it seems many liberals do not know Or just don't care what happens when the US simply pulls out of a country.

 

[rightwinger]

TPS starts an uninformed thread & invariably gets a history lesson.

On the contary it looks like a lot of libs are getting a history lesson as well.

True, I did not know that Bush signed a treaty for a withdrawal by 2011.

However, it seems many liberals do not know Or just don't care what happens when the US simply pulls out of a country.

You also didn't know that Republicans were in charge during the Killing Fields

You also didn't know that liberal FDR was President during WWII

You also didn't know that Germany didn't invade us

 

[teapartysamurai]

And how the Killing Fields became the Killing Fields?

The Killing Fields Museum - Learn from Cambodia - Home

It's because Democrats decided to just withdraw completely from Vietnam. Condemning not only many Vietnamese to death but MANY Cambodians.

Whether you agree with Vietham or not, Vietnam left us with one very important historical lesson.

You can't just withdraw militarily from a country whether you agree with that war or not. To do so condemns not just hundreds but MILLIONS to their deaths.

Now Obama seeks to repeat that horrible lesson in history for no other reason than to shore up his base for an election that (right now) he is likely to lose.

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired ArmyGen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

Key general calls Iraq pullout plan a 'disaster' - Washington Times

There is a reason why the Democrats didn't gain politically after pulling out of Vietnam. It's because too many Americans saw the attrocities in tht aftermath.

That's one of the reasons Kerry lost in 2008. Too many people remember Kerry's hand in us just pulling out of Vietnam

Does Obama care how many people have died in Iraq?

Does he care that every Iraqi who risked their lives to help our military hunt down terrorists will be condemned to possibile imprisonment, torture and death?

Does he care that every Iraqi that ignored danger to vote in those elections will now have their lives and their children's lives in danger?

Does he care, Iraq will probably be taken over by another tyrant like Hussein?

Oh hell no, he doesn't care. All he cares about is winning an election.

The IDIOTS who think this is a good thing, Obama just withdrawing.

How many times must this happen before LIBERAL MORONS crack open a history book and learn from our past mistakes?

Remember this in 2012.

Remember and VOTE.

Saloth Sar (30 November 1925 – 15 April 1998),[1][2] better known as Pol Pot, (Khmer: ប៉ុល ព&#6031, was a Cambodian Chinese revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge[3] from 1963 until his death in 1998. From 1976 to 1979, he served as the Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea.

Pol Pot became leader of Cambodia in mid-1975.[4] During his time in power he imposed a version of agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero." The combined effects of forced labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions resulted in the deaths of approximately 21 percent of the Cambodian population.[5] In all, an estimated 1,700,000–2,500,000 people died under his leadership.

In 1979 after the invasion of Cambodia by neighbouring Vietnam in the Cambodian–Vietnamese War, he fled into the jungles of southwest Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge government collapsed.[6] From 1979 to 1997 he and a remnant of the old Khmer Rouge operated from the border region of Cambodia and Thailand, where they clung to power, with nominal United Nations recognition as the rightful government of Cambodia.
Pol Pot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vietnam is a Communist nation, so sometimes making blanket conclusions might not seem the best thing to do. In fact, when it comes to Cambodia's "killing fields"Pol Pot was fighting a war with Govt. for years and had an established movement in the country since 1962. In the case of Iraq, it is well known and has been known that Iraq consists of 3 different factions and has for thousands of years. See if this sounds familier,

The Sykes-Picot agreement had been made with the assent of Imperial Russia, defining their respective spheres of influence and control in West Asia after the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The Agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[31] Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Shi'ites and Kurds fought for independence.
Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I submit to you, that the US leaving the nation of Iraq is not a pullout made from a decision in Washington, but is one more of the Iraqi Govts. making.


.smaller Larger By SAM DAGHER
BAGHDAD?Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity
Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ.com

Given these factors, if our presence is not welcomed there, then not only do we needlessly sacrifice our Military in a questionable operation, but we do so for no reason other than to support a regime and a nation that does not want us there in the first place. Frankly, I would not trade one US Military soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine for the entire country and as such , in my humble opinion they cannot get home soon enough to suit me.

May I submit to you this.

We had the same attitude about WWI.

It was a dumb war. Killed millions and it was only because of Wilson being so bound and determined to be in WWI that the US was even involved.

After the war, and once the Versailles Treaty was signed the US bowed from the international scene into a decade+ of isolationism.

The result was the US losing MILLIONS MORE soldiers in WWII.

That went well, huh?

You are still just centered on whether or not we should fight the wars in the first place.

That's not my concern here. My concern is once we do invade a country, get involved in a war, etc, CAN we just pull out and leave?

Is it a good idea?

I think history teaches over and over no!

 

[JakeStarkey]

And she doesn't know Bo Jackson, either. Lucky Bo!

 

[Dragon]

You'd rather that our soldiers who have already died, die for nothing!

They DID die for nothing. My preferences won't change that one way or the other. I would prefer, however, that we stop throwing more lives away on nothing once we figure that out.

Incidentally, the U.S. military did not occupy Cambodia. Our occupation of Vietnam until 1973 prevented the country from unifying under Hanoi's government. Our pullout in 1973 allowed that government to win the civil war and unify the country two years later. But it had nothing to do with what happened in Cambodia. To argue otherwise is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy and an argument without any foundation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You'd rather that our soldiers who have already died, die for nothing!

They DID die for nothing. My preferences won't change that one way or the other. I would prefer, however, that we stop throwing more lives away on nothing once we figure that out.

Incidentally, the U.S. military did not occupy Cambodia. Our occupation of Vietnam until 1973 prevented the country from unifying under Hanoi's government. Our pullout in 1973 allowed that government to win the civil war and unify the country two years later. But it had nothing to do with what happened in Cambodia. To argue otherwise is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy and an argument without any foundation.

Explain to her a "zero sum" game for her, please.

 

[teapartysamurai]

So, judging from TPS's thread, is the t-party, as a whole, in favor of outrageously expensive, both in lives & treasure, long & drawn- out, foreign occupations?

Notice how liberals will decry the money spent on foreign wars?

But if you add up what we spend on all our wars since WWII, what we have spent on liberalism (from the New Deal, to Johnson's Great Society, to Obama's Stimulussssssss) would DWARF the amount spent on wars.

Notice liberals don't have a problem with socialist spending.