Trump Threatens To Sanction Iraq -- Why The F'k Are We Still There??

[pknopp]

So now you are back in favor of invading Iraq??

I wish you trumpers make your mind up....

You are the same folks who were saying how Iraq was a disaster and how you were always against it, blah blah....

Now you are saying going into Iraq was a good move??

I never said Iraq was a disaster. Iraq was a great success until Obama turned it over to Iran by withdrawing our forces to enhance his chances of reelection 2012. Going in, we had little understanding of their society, and made some serious errors, but by 2007 we had turned Iraq from a vile and violent dictatorship into a peaceful democracy - remember all those smiling faces and purple thumbs being waved in the faces of the terrorists? Some people like to complain that President Bush had no idea what he was doing, but in 2006 when his top generals said there was no way to bring the fighting to an end, he personally interviewed lower ranking generals to replace them and chose Petraeus who turned everything around in less than a year.

And then Obama came along and trashed everything, causing the rise of ISIS, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi, millions of homeless refugees, and finally, secure now in his second term, he sent US forces back to Iraq to try to clear up the horrendous mess he had made. And that's where we are now, trying to clean up the mess Obama left behind him.

Actually, it was Jr. that negotiated the pullout date.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[7] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline.[8][9][10] The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[11][12][13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[1][11][12]

An oft repeated lie. The Status of Forces agreement allowed that if the PM thought it would be too risky for the US to withdraw, our forces could stay, but Obama refused saying that unless the parliament asked him to keep troops there he would pull them out. The Pentagon had told Obama the country would go up in flames if we left and Maliki told him the same thing, but Obama chose to ignore the Status of Forces agreement and pull out on the eve of the 2012 election because he had promised to in 2008 and he was afraid it would hurt his chances for reelection. When Obama told the American people why he was pulling out of Iraq, he didn't say he was forced to by the Status of Forces agreement, he said it was because Iraq no longer needed us, which he knew was a lie.

All started with the lie "Mission Accomplished". We were told we would be in and out. It would be a short war. You are complaining about things that happened 10 years after we were told that.

It was a short war. What took time was helping the Iraqis build a new country after the devastation and trauma Saddam caused.

LOL, if you say so. We caused the devastation.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

So we should have invaded the Soviet Union too??

BAwahhahahaha….


Morons

I know all this is confusing to you, but we haven't invaded Iran and don't plan to.

No pussy...

You said invading Iraq was a great idea

and according to yo goofy ass -- we should have invaded the Soviet Union....

So yea, you want us to invade Iran too.....stand on that dumb shit you were just saying, don't pussy out now

Ok, the discussion has clearly gone over your head. Now you're incapable of nothing but rants.

In other words --- you are a pussy....

who thinks he can play army men with people lives and never have to face any consequences....

There is NO REASON TO BE IN IRAQ....period....

Trump should honor what he campaigned on and bring the troops home

In other words, you found yourself incapable of debating the present situation so you now try to deflect from it.

I already debated it...back in 2002 you moron...

Back when dic suckers like you were clamoring for a war with Iraq -- back when you were claiming they were behind 9/11 -- claiming they were going to nuke us if we don't invade now....and what happened??

Trumpers suddenly claim the Iraq invasion was a disaster and yall were always against it.....then voted for a guy who campaigned on pulling out of Iraq


Now yo dumb ass is here trying to claim the war in Iraq was a great idea again??

 

[satrebil]

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Of course we can stop Iran from acquiring nukes and most countries neither want them or need them. North Korea is a special case. NK and SK have been preparing for so long for war that even without nuclear weapons it is estimated that in the first 24 hours of a war, a million people would be killed and millions more as the war continued. Clinton actually ordered his DoD to draw up plans for attacking NK because he was so frustrated trying to deal with them, but SK nixed it because it would have devastated their country.

That situation does not exist in Iran. There is no equivalent to SK it could devastate in retaliation if we bombed out its ability to produce nukes. If Iran makes a dash to build nukes it will be bombed out, if not by the US, then by Israel which has vastly superior air power to Iran. There is no rational justification for allowing a country that chants death to America and threatens frequently to wipe out another country to acquire nukes.

How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for this fantasy Iran campaign?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Yep, and we were told once they got them that it would be the end of the world as we know it...but that never happened.

Yet

And they count on people like you living their lives in fear of such an event to justify all the military actions and all the loss of freedoms.

What military actions have we taken because of NK? What freedoms have you lost because of NK? The fact is this is a regime that is intensely paranoid and incredibly brutal to its own people, so there is no firm basis for believing they will act rationally.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I know all this is confusing to you, but we haven't invaded Iran and don't plan to.

No pussy...

You said invading Iraq was a great idea

and according to yo goofy ass -- we should have invaded the Soviet Union....

So yea, you want us to invade Iran too.....stand on that dumb shit you were just saying, don't pussy out now

Ok, the discussion has clearly gone over your head. Now you're incapable of nothing but rants.

In other words --- you are a pussy....

who thinks he can play army men with people lives and never have to face any consequences....

There is NO REASON TO BE IN IRAQ....period....

Trump should honor what he campaigned on and bring the troops home

In other words, you found yourself incapable of debating the present situation so you now try to deflect from it.

I already debated it...back in 2002 you moron...

Back when dic suckers like you were clamoring for a war with Iraq -- back when you were claiming they were behind 9/11 -- claiming they were going to nuke us if we don't invade now....and what happened??

Trumpers suddenly claim the Iraq invasion was a disaster and yall were always against it.....then voted for a guy who campaigned on pulling out of Iraq


Now yo dumb ass is here trying to claim the war in Iraq was a great idea again??

lol You debated what is going on today back in 2002? Do you know what year it is? What's the date?

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Of course we can stop Iran from acquiring nukes and most countries neither want them or need them. North Korea is a special case. NK and SK have been preparing for so long for war that even without nuclear weapons it is estimated that in the first 24 hours of a war, a million people would be killed and millions more as the war continued. Clinton actually ordered his DoD to draw up plans for attacking NK because he was so frustrated trying to deal with them, but SK nixed it because it would have devastated their country.

That situation does not exist in Iran. There is no equivalent to SK it could devastate in retaliation if we bombed out its ability to produce nukes. If Iran makes a dash to build nukes it will be bombed out, if not by the US, then by Israel which has vastly superior air power to Iran. There is no rational justification for allowing a country that chants death to America and threatens frequently to wipe out another country to acquire nukes.

How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for this fantasy Iran campaign?

No sacrifice will be necessary. If the job cannot be done with sanctions, the Iran will be bombed out from the air. No invasion, no US casualties.

 

[theHawk]

Trump Pushes Iraq, Threatens Sanctions After Vote to Expel U.S. Troops

I should have known most Trumpers were full of shit when it came to genuinely wanting to stop being policemen of the world.....I really thought Trump was serious when he said he wanted to get out of Iraq....but if this is true, why is he threatening to sanction Iraq just because they voted for US troops to leave their country?? We been in Iraq for 18 years and they ain't free yet?? Why are we there then??

"President Trump threatened Iraq with sanctions and a bill for billions of dollars if the U.S. is forced to withdraw its troops from the nation after the Iraqi parliament, responding to a U.S. airstrike that killed a powerful Iranian general on its soil, voted in favor of expelling American forces."

It was bad enough that the Iraqi Prime Minister objected to the strike at his airport, claiming Qassem Soleimani was a guest of his country -- why would the number 1 terrorist in the history of the world be invited as a guest in Iraq?? Now the Iraqi parliament voted to kick our US troops out of their country?? Like I said, why are we still there then??

And what is Trump's reaction?? "In response, Trump has threatened to sanction Baghdad "like they've never seen before ever," if Iraq were to expel US troops. 'It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he added, a reference to over 1,000 rounds of economic penalties imposed by the US on Tehran after the Trump administration pulled out of the multilateral Iran nuclear deal in 2018."

The last time we threatened to sanction Iraq -- Saddam Hussein was president -- what the fuck did we spend 18 years in Iraq for?? Why are we still there?? You can still have fun attacking Iran from bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc etc etc -- so using Iran as an excuse to stay in Iraq for another 18 years is not an excuse....I want Trumpers to really step back from their sycophancy and acknowledge the fact that Trump is actually trying to force Iraq to allow our troops to stay there -- after all of this talk of leaving Iraq and brining our troops home......why are we there??

If you bothered listening to what he actually said, he just said the Iraqis would need to pay for the huge military installations we built that costs billions. *IF* they don’t pay, then sanctions to get our money that we are owed. No different than in Germany, when we turn over a base the Germans are required by law to pay for all the buildings.

 

[satrebil]

That's what missile defense systems are for. Moreover, anyone dumb enough to fire nukes at us wouldn't exist the next day. Do you not understand MAD or are you intentionally being obtuse?

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Yep, and we were told once they got them that it would be the end of the world as we know it...but that never happened.

I don't like that NK has nukes. I would prefer they didn't. Kim Jong Un is a fucking nutjob.

However I also don't want to send scores of Americans to their deaths to eliminate them. If it's anyone's responsibility, it's South Korea's. We've advanced them enough over the past 50 years, they can handle their own business.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What military actions have we taken because of NK? What freedoms have you lost because of NK? The fact is this is a regime that is intensely paranoid and incredibly brutal to its own people, so there is no firm basis for believing they will act rationally.

It is not just about NK, it is about the state of fear...you know the "axis of evil" and all that jazz. When NK stops acting like a threat then all of sudden another one magically pops up...crazy how that works.

Got to keep feeding the machine...

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Ah, yes, mutual destruction is so much more desirable than preventing our enemies from being able to destroy us. We adopted MAD only after we failed to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nukes, now you want to fashion future policies after past failures.

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Yep, and we were told once they got them that it would be the end of the world as we know it...but that never happened.

I don't like that NK has nukes. I would prefer they didn't. Kim Jong Un is a fucking nutjob.

However I also don't want to send scores of Americans to their deaths to eliminate them. If it's anyone's responsibility, it's South Korea's. We've advanced them enough over the past 50 years, they can handle their own business.

Now that NK has long range missiles that can reach us, it's our business, too.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I don't like that NK has nukes. I would prefer they didn't. Kim Jong Un is a fucking nutjob.

However I also don't want to send scores of Americans to their deaths to eliminate them. If it's anyone's responsibility, it's South Korea's. We've advanced them enough over the past 50 years, they can handle their own business.

The world if full of nut jobs, a lot of people think our last few presidents were nut jobs.

I think it is the utmost in hypocrisy we as a nation think we can dictate to other nations what weapons they are allowed to have.

 

[satrebil]

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Of course we can stop Iran from acquiring nukes and most countries neither want them or need them. North Korea is a special case. NK and SK have been preparing for so long for war that even without nuclear weapons it is estimated that in the first 24 hours of a war, a million people would be killed and millions more as the war continued. Clinton actually ordered his DoD to draw up plans for attacking NK because he was so frustrated trying to deal with them, but SK nixed it because it would have devastated their country.

That situation does not exist in Iran. There is no equivalent to SK it could devastate in retaliation if we bombed out its ability to produce nukes. If Iran makes a dash to build nukes it will be bombed out, if not by the US, then by Israel which has vastly superior air power to Iran. There is no rational justification for allowing a country that chants death to America and threatens frequently to wipe out another country to acquire nukes.

How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for this fantasy Iran campaign?

No sacrifice will be necessary. If the job cannot be done with sanctions, the Iran will be bombed out from the air. No invasion, no US casualties.

I have already been pointed out, via North Korea, that sanctions don't work. And if you think Iran is just going to stand idle while we drop bombs on them, you are an idiot. They have advanced weaponry and a ruthless military, and they WILL use them.

Your premise of "we'll bomb them so they don't bomb us" is juvenile and absurd.

 

[satrebil]

I don't like that NK has nukes. I would prefer they didn't. Kim Jong Un is a fucking nutjob.

However I also don't want to send scores of Americans to their deaths to eliminate them. If it's anyone's responsibility, it's South Korea's. We've advanced them enough over the past 50 years, they can handle their own business.

The world if full of nut jobs, a lot of people think our last few presidents were nut jobs.

I think it is the utmost in hypocrisy we as a nation think we can dictate to other nations what weapons they are allowed to have.

"I think it is the utmost in hypocrisy we as a nation think we can dictate to other nations what weapons they are allowed to have."

Bingo.

 

[satrebil]

Past failures, eh? Pray tell - when did the Soviets nuke us?

They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.

Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.

Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.

Yep, and we were told once they got them that it would be the end of the world as we know it...but that never happened.

I don't like that NK has nukes. I would prefer they didn't. Kim Jong Un is a fucking nutjob.

However I also don't want to send scores of Americans to their deaths to eliminate them. If it's anyone's responsibility, it's South Korea's. We've advanced them enough over the past 50 years, they can handle their own business.

Now that NK has long range missiles that can reach us, it's our business, too.

Once again, only if they fire one at us.

I have a gun who's bullets can reach all of my neighbors homes. Does that mean they should be able to dictate whether I'm allowed to own one?

 

[Godboy]

Iraq owes us a tremendous amount of money.

For invading their country? We now charge to invade sovereign nations that were no threat to us?

No, retard. They owe us for rebuilding and protecting their country. Also, taking out Saddam for them has to be worth a pretty penny too.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, retard. They owe us for rebuilding and protecting their country. Also, taking out Saddam for them has to be worth a pretty penny too.

If we had not invaded and destroyed their country, we would not have needed to rebuild it.

That would be like someone breaking into your house and trashing the place and then trying to charge you to fix it....would you pay up?

 

[toomuchtime_]

What military actions have we taken because of NK? What freedoms have you lost because of NK? The fact is this is a regime that is intensely paranoid and incredibly brutal to its own people, so there is no firm basis for believing they will act rationally.

It is not just about NK, it is about the state of fear...you know the "axis of evil" and all that jazz. When NK stops acting like a threat then all of sudden another one magically pops up...crazy how that works.

Got to keep feeding the machine...

NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.

 

[ABikerSailor]

NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.

During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.

They take turns being the "imminent" threat, there is few that we cycle between...can't have a lapse in the fear, that would be bad.

Fear is a necessary component for control.

 

[Godboy]

No, retard. They owe us for rebuilding and protecting their country. Also, taking out Saddam for them has to be worth a pretty penny too.

If we had not invaded and destroyed their country, we would not have needed to rebuild it.

That would be like someone breaking into your house and trashing the place and then trying to charge you to fix it....would you pay up?

Are you forgetting the part where they were ruled by a madman who mass murdered his own people? They owe us.