Rick Perry: I'd Send U.S. Troops Back To Iraq

[freedombecki]

Sooo, Ricky wants to invade Iraq for the THIRD time? How nice...

Rick Perry Would Put U.S. Troops Back In Iraq (VIDEO)

No, Perry wants to prevent people like Barack Obama from the proxy murders of American allies who collaborated with American troops to bring peace to warmongering Iraq. Saddam's old group will make short work of the new government America paid trillions so their youngsters can grow up in a peaceful world.

Obama pretends his ideas are so high and mighty AlQaeda and their collaborators from Saddam's reign will play nice on our departure. I hold him responsible for the bloodletting that is to come in the Middle East over his cowardice in the face of facts.

Let me explain this as nicely and as slowly as possible.

One. "Saddam's Old Group" (which by the way is called the Ba'ath Party of Iraq... there's another one that runs Syria) is now non-existent.

Two. Iraq is now engaged in sectarian violence between the Shiite majority, the Sunni Minority, and the Kurds as well as various cells of Al Qaeda operatives that are taking advantage of the chaos there, like they have been in Somalia for the past two decades.

Three. This sectarian violence has gone on for NOT years, NOT decades, BUT CENTURIES.

Four. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do about this sectarian violence.

Five. Al Qaeda did and does not have a safe haven in Iraq because we left. Our presence there actually means nothing in the long run.

HOW SO YOU ASK????

Well I'll enlighten you.

Al Qaeda thrives on sectarian wars, random violence, political instability, and famine. These things are all too common in the Middle East. This is especially so after the "Arab spring" which has left countries like Egypt... Libya... Ethiopia... Nigeria... Syria... Yemen... and others in complete or partial chaos.

Al Qaeda made it's way into Libya last year helping the rebels overthrow their drugged up dictator.

Libya will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Egypt is falling into chaos since they ousted their President.

Egypt will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Syria may be next.

Most people use Iraq becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda as a reason for staying there (I feel as though that's us being sitting ducks... but I'll play along and follow the logic).

My question is so... if we have to be in Iraq to keep Iraq from being a safe haven for Islamic Militants what about...

Libya, Syria, or Egypt?

How about the examples of other nations that already are safe havens for Al Qaeda?

Yemen? Somalia? Northern Nigeria? Niger? Chad? Sudan?

Should we occupy these nations as well? Or is there a more practical, cost effective, less dangerous, and more efficient way of combating Al Qaeda in all of these various nations where Al Qaeda reigns even more freely then in Iraq and Afghanistan? And IF we can combat Al Qaeda in Somalia or Libya, without invading, occupying, and rebuilding these nations from the ground up at the expense of tax payers, WHY CAN'T WE DO THE SAME FREAKING THING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN? It's an honest and simple question I think this party needs to consider if we want to defeat radical Islam... SERIOUSLY.

I'm not some let's all get along liberal that blames the wars on America beating down on the brown people. I believe in the fundamental purpose of the war on terror, to protect our own interests worldwide and defeat organized radical Islamism. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE TAKING THE MOST INTELLIGENT APPROACH. Quite the opposite... I think our approach is idiotic, way to costly, and may lead to our downfall as a nation if we don't change immediately. That is all.

Your new national bird?

 

[rdean]

Sooo, Ricky wants to invade Iraq for the THIRD time? How nice...

Rick Perry Would Put U.S. Troops Back In Iraq (VIDEO)

Third time? Bush one drove Saddam out of Kuwait and rightfully so. He stopped at the border.

Bush two was a disaster on top of a fiasco.

Which is what Rick would be.

 

[Lakhota]

Sooo, Ricky wants to invade Iraq for the THIRD time? How nice...

Rick Perry Would Put U.S. Troops Back In Iraq (VIDEO)

Third time? Bush one drove Saddam out of Kuwait and rightfully so. He stopped at the border.

Bush two was a disaster on top of a fiasco.

Which is what Rick would be.

Yes, THIRD time! Bush 41 stopped at what border?

Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

American Power: April Glaspie Memo Leaked

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq | Mother Jones

 

[Cammmpbell]

Sooo, Ricky wants to invade Iraq for the THIRD time? How nice...

Rick Perry Would Put U.S. Troops Back In Iraq (VIDEO)

No, Perry wants to prevent people like Barack Obama from the proxy murders of American allies who collaborated with American troops to bring peace to warmongering Iraq. Saddam's old group will make short work of the new government America paid trillions so their youngsters can grow up in a peaceful world.

Obama pretends his ideas are so high and mighty AlQaeda and their collaborators from Saddam's reign will play nice on our departure. I hold him responsible for the bloodletting that is to come in the Middle East over his cowardice in the face of facts.

Let me explain this as nicely and as slowly as possible.

One. "Saddam's Old Group" (which by the way is called the Ba'ath Party of Iraq... there's another one that runs Syria) is now non-existent.

Two. Iraq is now engaged in sectarian violence between the Shiite majority, the Sunni Minority, and the Kurds as well as various cells of Al Qaeda operatives that are taking advantage of the chaos there, like they have been in Somalia for the past two decades.

Three. This sectarian violence has gone on for NOT years, NOT decades, BUT CENTURIES.

Four. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do about this sectarian violence.

Five. Al Qaeda did and does not have a safe haven in Iraq because we left. Our presence there actually means nothing in the long run.

HOW SO YOU ASK????

Well I'll enlighten you.

Al Qaeda thrives on sectarian wars, random violence, political instability, and famine. These things are all too common in the Middle East. This is especially so after the "Arab spring" which has left countries like Egypt... Libya... Ethiopia... Nigeria... Syria... Yemen... and others in complete or partial chaos.

Al Qaeda made it's way into Libya last year helping the rebels overthrow their drugged up dictator.

Libya will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Egypt is falling into chaos since they ousted their President.

Egypt will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Syria may be next.

Most people use Iraq becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda as a reason for staying there (I feel as though that's us being sitting ducks... but I'll play along and follow the logic).

My question is so... if we have to be in Iraq to keep Iraq from being a safe haven for Islamic Militants what about...

Libya, Syria, or Egypt?

How about the examples of other nations that already are safe havens for Al Qaeda?

Yemen? Somalia? Northern Nigeria? Niger? Chad? Sudan?

Should we occupy these nations as well? Or is there a more practical, cost effective, less dangerous, and more efficient way of combating Al Qaeda in all of these various nations where Al Qaeda reigns even more freely then in Iraq and Afghanistan? And IF we can combat Al Qaeda in Somalia or Libya, without invading, occupying, and rebuilding these nations from the ground up at the expense of tax payers, WHY CAN'T WE DO THE SAME FREAKING THING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN? It's an honest and simple question I think this party needs to consider if we want to defeat radical Islam... SERIOUSLY.

I'm not some let's all get along liberal that blames the wars on America beating down on the brown people. I believe in the fundamental purpose of the war on terror, to protect our own interests worldwide and defeat organized radical Islamism. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE TAKING THE MOST INTELLIGENT APPROACH. Quite the opposite... I think our approach is idiotic, way to costly, and may lead to our downfall as a nation if we don't change immediately. That is all.

Please don't waste good logic on people who think like George W. Bush. It's like casting pearls before swine.

 

[California Girl]

Sooo, Ricky wants to invade Iraq for the THIRD time? How nice...

Rick Perry Would Put U.S. Troops Back In Iraq (VIDEO)

you really are as dishonest as the website you read...Where did he say HE WOULD INVADE Iraq?

How else would he get troops back in Iraq without an invitation?

How do you know we won't be 'invited'? Did he specify that he would 'invade'? No. He said he'd send troops back. Given that Iraq is on the verge of imploding, he may well be right.

 

[Cammmpbell]

you really are as dishonest as the website you read...Where did he say HE WOULD INVADE Iraq?

How else would he get troops back in Iraq without an invitation?

How do you know we won't be 'invited'? Did he specify that he would 'invade'? No. He said he'd send troops back. Given that Iraq is on the verge of imploding, he may well be right.

If we are stupid enough to put young American boots back on the ground in Iraq we'll prove that we cannot learn anything from our mistakes. I don't believe anybody...especially god told George W. Bush anything. He was hell bent on getting Saddam Hussein and now he's the only one involved who rests good at night.

 

[The Rabbi]

We pull out of Iraq and the country starts to go into chaos. The original pull out envisioned a troop presence for a long time, much as we still have bases in South Korea. Obama fucked up by failing to secure this. Perry is right, as usual.

I read this, I see you thanked you, and i say to myself...You are a fucking retard.

Translation: You must be right because I can't think of anything intelligent to say to contradict these obvious facts.
Thanks, Scumball!

 

[Full-Auto]

No, Perry wants to prevent people like Barack Obama from the proxy murders of American allies who collaborated with American troops to bring peace to warmongering Iraq. Saddam's old group will make short work of the new government America paid trillions so their youngsters can grow up in a peaceful world.

Obama pretends his ideas are so high and mighty AlQaeda and their collaborators from Saddam's reign will play nice on our departure. I hold him responsible for the bloodletting that is to come in the Middle East over his cowardice in the face of facts.

Let me explain this as nicely and as slowly as possible.

One. "Saddam's Old Group" (which by the way is called the Ba'ath Party of Iraq... there's another one that runs Syria) is now non-existent.

Two. Iraq is now engaged in sectarian violence between the Shiite majority, the Sunni Minority, and the Kurds as well as various cells of Al Qaeda operatives that are taking advantage of the chaos there, like they have been in Somalia for the past two decades.

Three. This sectarian violence has gone on for NOT years, NOT decades, BUT CENTURIES.

Four. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do about this sectarian violence.

Five. Al Qaeda did and does not have a safe haven in Iraq because we left. Our presence there actually means nothing in the long run.

HOW SO YOU ASK????

Well I'll enlighten you.

Al Qaeda thrives on sectarian wars, random violence, political instability, and famine. These things are all too common in the Middle East. This is especially so after the "Arab spring" which has left countries like Egypt... Libya... Ethiopia... Nigeria... Syria... Yemen... and others in complete or partial chaos.

Al Qaeda made it's way into Libya last year helping the rebels overthrow their drugged up dictator.

Libya will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Egypt is falling into chaos since they ousted their President.

Egypt will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Syria may be next.

Most people use Iraq becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda as a reason for staying there (I feel as though that's us being sitting ducks... but I'll play along and follow the logic).

My question is so... if we have to be in Iraq to keep Iraq from being a safe haven for Islamic Militants what about...

Libya, Syria, or Egypt?

How about the examples of other nations that already are safe havens for Al Qaeda?

Yemen? Somalia? Northern Nigeria? Niger? Chad? Sudan?

Should we occupy these nations as well? Or is there a more practical, cost effective, less dangerous, and more efficient way of combating Al Qaeda in all of these various nations where Al Qaeda reigns even more freely then in Iraq and Afghanistan? And IF we can combat Al Qaeda in Somalia or Libya, without invading, occupying, and rebuilding these nations from the ground up at the expense of tax payers, WHY CAN'T WE DO THE SAME FREAKING THING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN? It's an honest and simple question I think this party needs to consider if we want to defeat radical Islam... SERIOUSLY.

I'm not some let's all get along liberal that blames the wars on America beating down on the brown people. I believe in the fundamental purpose of the war on terror, to protect our own interests worldwide and defeat organized radical Islamism. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE TAKING THE MOST INTELLIGENT APPROACH. Quite the opposite... I think our approach is idiotic, way to costly, and may lead to our downfall as a nation if we don't change immediately. That is all.

Please don't waste good logic on people who think like George W. Bush. It's like casting pearls before swine.

After your confession of always voting for crooks.

Just shut up.

 

[The Rabbi]

The country would have fallen into chaos no matter when we left. Which solidifies the reasons not to invade the country in the first place.

Actually the naysayers were saying you would never have a democracy. Never have fair voting. Never win a guerilla war. Never win a conventional war against Saddam.
They were all wrong.

This is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

None of those things were worth one single American life or limb. Not one.

You;re right.
What was worth plenty was denying terrorists the cover that national governments provide. It was worthwhile to enforce UN sanctions so the next time some misbehaving state might say Gee, we dont want to be like Saddam's Iraq. It was worthwhile because Ghaddafi saw what was happening and decided he wanted to give up his nuclear program. It was worthwhile for the additional stability in the middle east.
How many people died in 9/11? How many troops are worthwhile to prevent another one, or worse one?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Let me explain this as nicely and as slowly as possible.

One. "Saddam's Old Group" (which by the way is called the Ba'ath Party of Iraq... there's another one that runs Syria) is now non-existent.

Two. Iraq is now engaged in sectarian violence between the Shiite majority, the Sunni Minority, and the Kurds as well as various cells of Al Qaeda operatives that are taking advantage of the chaos there, like they have been in Somalia for the past two decades.

Three. This sectarian violence has gone on for NOT years, NOT decades, BUT CENTURIES.

Four. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do about this sectarian violence.

Five. Al Qaeda did and does not have a safe haven in Iraq because we left. Our presence there actually means nothing in the long run.

HOW SO YOU ASK????

Well I'll enlighten you.

Al Qaeda thrives on sectarian wars, random violence, political instability, and famine. These things are all too common in the Middle East. This is especially so after the "Arab spring" which has left countries like Egypt... Libya... Ethiopia... Nigeria... Syria... Yemen... and others in complete or partial chaos.

Al Qaeda made it's way into Libya last year helping the rebels overthrow their drugged up dictator.

Libya will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Egypt is falling into chaos since they ousted their President.

Egypt will soon become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Syria may be next.

Most people use Iraq becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda as a reason for staying there (I feel as though that's us being sitting ducks... but I'll play along and follow the logic).

My question is so... if we have to be in Iraq to keep Iraq from being a safe haven for Islamic Militants what about...

Libya, Syria, or Egypt?

How about the examples of other nations that already are safe havens for Al Qaeda?

Yemen? Somalia? Northern Nigeria? Niger? Chad? Sudan?

Should we occupy these nations as well? Or is there a more practical, cost effective, less dangerous, and more efficient way of combating Al Qaeda in all of these various nations where Al Qaeda reigns even more freely then in Iraq and Afghanistan? And IF we can combat Al Qaeda in Somalia or Libya, without invading, occupying, and rebuilding these nations from the ground up at the expense of tax payers, WHY CAN'T WE DO THE SAME FREAKING THING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN? It's an honest and simple question I think this party needs to consider if we want to defeat radical Islam... SERIOUSLY.

I'm not some let's all get along liberal that blames the wars on America beating down on the brown people. I believe in the fundamental purpose of the war on terror, to protect our own interests worldwide and defeat organized radical Islamism. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE TAKING THE MOST INTELLIGENT APPROACH. Quite the opposite... I think our approach is idiotic, way to costly, and may lead to our downfall as a nation if we don't change immediately. That is all.

Please don't waste good logic on people who think like George W. Bush. It's like casting pearls before swine.

After your confession of always voting for crooks.

Just shut up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857UlAih2PI&feature=related]Jerry Lee Lewis - Haunted House - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KissMy]

Iraq civil war is no reason to send troops back into Iraq.

Also Pakistan & Libya are more Al-Qaeda friendly safe haven than Iraq is.

The only reason we should ever concern ourselves with Iraq is if Iran invades.

If this ever becomes the case then we should hit Iran & not Iraq.

 

[G.T.]

I guess Rick Perry has more access to Military Intel re: Iraq than Obama does

 

[High_Gravity]

Sooo, Ricky wants to invade Iraq for the THIRD time? How nice...

Rick Perry Would Put U.S. Troops Back In Iraq (VIDEO)

Wow, I don't want our men and women going back anywhere near that hell hole.

 

[Full-Auto]

Please don't waste good logic on people who think like George W. Bush. It's like casting pearls before swine.

After your confession of always voting for crooks.

Just shut up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857UlAih2PI&feature=related]Jerry Lee Lewis - Haunted House - YouTube[/ame]

I am not interested in any of your perverse behaviors.

 

[Old Rocks]

The country would have fallen into chaos no matter when we left. Which solidifies the reasons not to invade the country in the first place.

We didn't leave Germany for over 50 years, and Europe began to unite after the Berlin Wall was removed.

We obligated ourselves to help two fallen countries for the return of stopping terrorism in this hemisphere.

Right now, Ahmadinejad has his eye on further decimating the USA by stirring up the Marxist strings he is pulling all over South America in order to rile up their masses against us, so he can eat our children in his lifetime.

He smells Obama's weak character like a Hound smells the designated fox his masters are going to kill.

LOL. Mad Hatter a Marxist? The only ideology that he espouses is power for Mad Hatter. And his influence hardly extends beyond the borders of Iran. South America has it's own problems, many of which we helped create. And there are a few nations in South America that are becoming democracies, some, like Costa Rica, that are already there. They will do more to influence the development of the nations of that hemisphere than either the Mad Hatter or us.

 

[Cammmpbell]

After your confession of always voting for crooks.

Just shut up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857UlAih2PI&feature=related]Jerry Lee Lewis - Haunted House - YouTube[/ame]

I am not interested in any of your perverse behaviors.

Yet you are interested enough to insult me. Like I said, "I'll Be Here When The Morning Comes!"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Many in the GOP are very, very brave.

With other people's lives.

.

Of course they are. Many have never even served and don't have any idea what those in the military are going through.

It's easy to be brave when you don't know anything about the situation.

 

[candycorn]

Actually the naysayers were saying you would never have a democracy. Never have fair voting. Never win a guerilla war. Never win a conventional war against Saddam.
They were all wrong.

This is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

None of those things were worth one single American life or limb. Not one.

You;re right.
What was worth plenty was denying terrorists the cover that national governments provide.

You're wrong. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was from Iraq, was apparently trained in Iraq, or received any large material support from Iraq.

It was worthwhile to enforce UN sanctions so the next time some misbehaving state might say Gee, we dont want to be like Saddam's Iraq.

Are you actually saying that because there were UN sanctions levied against Iraq, we are on the hook to put Americans in harm's way. Are you now a UN supporter?

It was worthwhile because Ghaddafi saw what was happening and decided he wanted to give up his nuclear program.

What nuclear program?

It was worthwhile for the additional stability in the middle east.

The middle east wasn't stable before we were there, it wasn't stable while we were there, and it won't be stable after we leave.

How many people died in 9/11? How many troops are worthwhile to prevent another one, or worse one?

Again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Again, you never came up with your list of excuses as to why you weren't over there when bullets were flying.

We're waiting.

 

[candycorn]

The country would have fallen into chaos no matter when we left. Which solidifies the reasons not to invade the country in the first place.

We didn't leave Germany for over 50 years, and Europe began to unite after the Berlin Wall was removed.

We obligated ourselves to help two fallen countries for the return of stopping terrorism in this hemisphere.

Right now, Ahmadinejad has his eye on further decimating the USA by stirring up the Marxist strings he is pulling all over South America in order to rile up their masses against us, so he can eat our children in his lifetime.

He smells Obama's weak character like a Hound smells the designated fox his masters are going to kill.

 

[HUGGY]

Ol Ricky should srop worrying about Iraq and keep his national gaurd back in Texas to fight wild fires...

Just sayin.....