Thank you, Obumble! Iran Is Ready to Take Over Iraq’s Troops...

[Roadrunner]

What no US troops in Iraq, I wonder why??? Could it be that they didn't want any there?

If Obama was a leader he could've negotiated and we wouldn't have this mess now. Obama is a pussy.

and If Bush and his Administration were honest, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

And if the Brits hadn't created all these phony countries with their artificial boundaries, those fuckers would settle it themselves.

 

[Roadrunner]

OH NO! 2 countries that 25 years ago destroyed each other for several years and are neighbors are gonna work together! THE HORROR!

What a mistake it was to end that war.
What was oil per barrel then?

They'd sell it for $5 a barrel to buy bullets to kill each other with.

 

[jknowgood]

What no US troops in Iraq, I wonder why??? Could it be that they didn't want any there?

If Obama was a leader he could've negotiated and we wouldn't have this mess now. Obama is a pussy.

and If Bush and his Administration were honest, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

A debunked lie, try again.

 

[bendog]

There go the lives we sacrificed to get rid of a problem, making the way for a much more vicious problem!

Daily Beast ^
In an announcement that could complicate the cornerstone of America’s mission in Iraq—training Iraq’s military to fight ISIS—an Iranian general said Monday that he also is prepared to begin training Iraqi military officers. The message comes after Baghdad and Tehran reached a security agreement in December, which has not been made public but will reportedly increase military cooperation between the two countries. Washington and Tehran have quietly cooperated in the fight against ISIS largely by avoiding direct contact and keeping to separate spheres of influence. If Iran begins training Iraqi officers at the same time the U.S. carries out its...

Saddam would never have allowed this!

Saddam is dead... get a real life!

yes, it's a pity boy George fubared.

Did you not hear, Obama successfully ended the Iraq war. So this mess is all his.

No, there'll be no end to George's war for some time. There's an irony that ours and Iran's strategic interests align on Iran.

 

[jknowgood]

There go the lives we sacrificed to get rid of a problem, making the way for a much more vicious problem!

Daily Beast ^
In an announcement that could complicate the cornerstone of America’s mission in Iraq—training Iraq’s military to fight ISIS—an Iranian general said Monday that he also is prepared to begin training Iraqi military officers. The message comes after Baghdad and Tehran reached a security agreement in December, which has not been made public but will reportedly increase military cooperation between the two countries. Washington and Tehran have quietly cooperated in the fight against ISIS largely by avoiding direct contact and keeping to separate spheres of influence. If Iran begins training Iraqi officers at the same time the U.S. carries out its...

Saddam would never have allowed this!

Saddam is dead... get a real life!

yes, it's a pity boy George fubared.

Did you not hear, Obama successfully ended the Iraq war. So this mess is all his.

No, there'll be no end to George's war for some time. There's an irony that ours and Iran's strategic interests align on Iran.

Nope Obama said himself he successfully ended the iraq war. You calling him liar?

 

[Desperado]

What no US troops in Iraq, I wonder why??? Could it be that they didn't want any there?

If Obama was a leader he could've negotiated and we wouldn't have this mess now. Obama is a pussy.

and If Bush and his Administration were honest, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

What no US troops in Iraq, I wonder why??? Could it be that they didn't want any there?

If Obama was a leader he could've negotiated and we wouldn't have this mess now. Obama is a pussy.

and If Bush and his Administration were honest, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

A debunked lie, try again.

Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, yet we still invaded, Give it you best shot and tell me why?

 

[jknowgood]

What no US troops in Iraq, I wonder why??? Could it be that they didn't want any there?

If Obama was a leader he could've negotiated and we wouldn't have this mess now. Obama is a pussy.

and If Bush and his Administration were honest, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

What no US troops in Iraq, I wonder why??? Could it be that they didn't want any there?

If Obama was a leader he could've negotiated and we wouldn't have this mess now. Obama is a pussy.

and If Bush and his Administration were honest, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

A debunked lie, try again.

Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, yet we still invaded, Give it you best shot and tell me why?

I don't know how many times I have to say this. The main reason we took Saddam out was because he wouldn't comply with un sanctions. Bush gave him plenty of time. Saddam chose to go to war and lost.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since we could never change Shi'ite society to act like Little Rock, Arkansas, and since we could never maintain the troop levels necessary to keep the Iraqis' penchant to associate with their own against the West, and said all of this Bush knew, Vigilante, your OP is fail.

All of you neo-cns were told the inevitable outcome of overthrowing Saddam would be the eventual closer ties and alliance between Iraq and Iran.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know how many times I have to say this. The main reason we took Saddam out was because he wouldn't comply with un sanctions. Bush gave him plenty of time. Saddam chose to go to war and lost.

Give that argument in an international court of law under UN or Hague sanction, and you have just convicted yourself. The US had no legal right to enforce the sanctions; the UN would not give it to the US. The US waged pre-emptive war against a nation it had isolated. Saddam would have fallen through internal processes.

 

[bendog]

Yeah, lying that the war was not simply about nation building with the belief that a unified govt would emerge in Iraq with all three "tribes" opting for a representative republic, gets us nowhere beyond simply restating the myth, that even Wolfowitz and BushII have discarded. I mean had it worked, it'd have been great.

But the arguments over sanctions and womd etc just cover up the basic differences. Those who viewed the neocons as dangerous idiots, figured the Iraqis weren't gonna kiss and make up with each other.

 

[jknowgood]

I don't know how many times I have to say this. The main reason we took Saddam out was because he wouldn't comply with un sanctions. Bush gave him plenty of time. Saddam chose to go to war and lost.

Give that argument in an international court of law under UN or Hague sanction, and you have just convicted yourself. The US had no legal right to enforce the sanctions; the UN would not give it to the US. The US waged pre-emptive war against a nation it had isolated. Saddam would have fallen through internal processes.

He did everything legally, quit your butthurt.

 

[Manonthestreet]

And China, who was the biggest benefactor of the Iraqi oil we freed up, continues to sit this out and laughs at the dumbass teapers like you all.

but but I thought we went over there to steal their oil..........

 

[TheOldSchool]

And China, who was the biggest benefactor of the Iraqi oil we freed up, continues to sit this out and laughs at the dumbass teapers like you all.

but but I thought we went over there to steal their oil..........

No the oil was the reason we were told the war would pay for itself. Try to keep up man.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No libs claimed we were there to steal it...try some honesty

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know how many times I have to say this. The main reason we took Saddam out was because he wouldn't comply with un sanctions. Bush gave him plenty of time. Saddam chose to go to war and lost.

Give that argument in an international court of law under UN or Hague sanction, and you have just convicted yourself. The US had no legal right to enforce the sanctions; the UN would not give it to the US. The US waged pre-emptive war against a nation it had isolated. Saddam would have fallen through internal processes.

He did everything legally, quit your butthurt.

No, the war was not legal by UN or The Hague. Why do you think the senior Bushies have not tried to travel to western Europe and never will again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The war was illegal, despite Congress's declaration of force.

The UN specifically rejects such action, and the UN would not give the US the right to enforce the UN resolution.

Bushies don't travel to Western Europe, do they? Smart Bushies.

 

[jknowgood]

I don't know how many times I have to say this. The main reason we took Saddam out was because he wouldn't comply with un sanctions. Bush gave him plenty of time. Saddam chose to go to war and lost.

Give that argument in an international court of law under UN or Hague sanction, and you have just convicted yourself. The US had no legal right to enforce the sanctions; the UN would not give it to the US. The US waged pre-emptive war against a nation it had isolated. Saddam would have fallen through internal processes.

He did everything legally, quit your butthurt.

No, the war was not legal by UN or The Hague. Why do you think the senior Bushies have not tried to travel to western Europe and never will again?

It was legal, he probably doesn't want to surround himself with looneys.

 

[Vigilante]

And China, who was the biggest benefactor of the Iraqi oil we freed up, continues to sit this out and laughs at the dumbass teapers like you all.

but but I thought we went over there to steal their oil..........

No the oil was the reason we were told the war would pay for itself. Try to keep up man.

And you fucking DemocRATS made such a fuss and had your ANTI-WAR protesters march declaring as such, we DIDN'T take their oil! FOOL! BUT just listen to our FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT...."Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."

 

[TheOldSchool]

And China, who was the biggest benefactor of the Iraqi oil we freed up, continues to sit this out and laughs at the dumbass teapers like you all.

but but I thought we went over there to steal their oil..........

No the oil was the reason we were told the war would pay for itself. Try to keep up man.

And you fucking DemocRATS made such a fuss and had your ANTI-WAR protesters march declaring as such, we DIDN'T take their oil! FOOL! BUT just listen to our FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT...."Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."

We didn't take their oil because we had cheaper sources of oil. We didn't want or need it. But it was a great deal for China. And they didn't even have to lift a finger. Thanks Bush!

 

[Vigilante]

The war was illegal, despite Congress's declaration of force.

The UN specifically rejects such action, and the UN would not give the US the right to enforce the UN resolution.

Bushies don't travel to Western Europe, do they? Smart Bushies.

Then why listen to the U.N. about anything if they have RESOLUTIONS that are non-binding especially after war?.... You get more and more into the leftist corner with every post, Manchurian Republican!