64 thoughts on “Iraq”

  1. ““We’ll kill you if you mess with us, but otherwise go die” is not even close to my preferred foreign policy, but it’s what President Barack Obama prefers”

    Umm no. Obama doesn’t care if they mess with us and he really could care less if they mess with our friends. The “they” can be anyone. Not sure how that pivot to Asia will go when Asian countries see that we wont even help our friends in Iraq.

  2. It would feel good to some to sit back as Iraq collapses with a sense of “I told you so” about President Obama, as part of Mr. Obama being so thoroughly mistaken that we appear to welcome the collapse, be it of our foreign policy or our economy.

    In Syria, you really didn’t know who to side with, the insurgents, where we had to somehow differentiate pro-U.S. insurgents from the local arm of Al-Qaeda, with the Assad Regime, which was the only side with even a remote interest in protecteding Christians but is still one step removed from the Devil.

    In Iraq, we have a secular, democratically elected leader in Nouri al-Maliki, who is begging us for air support on the level we have been providing in other countries to fight terrorists. We don’t have Assad or an anti-Assad group of questionable connections, we have an ally who desparately needs our help.

    In commenting on this Web site, I don’t think I have much influence over President Obama. But should the President order air strikes, I am going to be supporting our President 100%. I have no idea if he will, but if he does, this is the time to come together.

    1. As for Maliki he is still Shia and most of the Sunnis, which used to be a big part of Saddam’s power structure, will never accept his rule. It is no coincidence this is happening in the old bastions of Saddam’s supporters like Tikrit. Neither will the Wahabist sect Al-Qaeda members be interested in Shia rule. As for the Kurds they were a de facto autonomy ever since the no-fly zones were introduced so this is hardly surprising.

      1. Yes, but this isn’t a domestic uprising in Iraq. Assad is pushing the Islamist militants out of his country and into Iraq.

    2. “But should the President order air strikes, I am going to be supporting our President 100%.”

      Same here.

      I can’t believe that Obama was arming and training Islamic militants to overthrow their governments in Libya and Syria but wont lift a finger to help Iraq fend off these butchers. I spent an hour watching beheading videos. We used to say never again but we are not doing anything to prevent a slaughter worse than anything the Nazis or communists did in the last century.

  3. Toppling Saddam left an immense power vacuum of which the main beneficiaries are Al-Qaeda. Hardly unexpected. Plus if they keep funding anti-Assad forces in Syria the same will happen there too. Not unexpected either. Same thing applies to Libya. Rinse repeat.

    Some of those Al-Qaeda funded terrorists fighting in Syria and elsewhere are North African Muslims raised in Europe. Some of them will come back and do terrorist actions in Europe as well.

    http://www.france24.com/en/20140526-belgium-opens-terrorist-probe-deadly-jewish-museum-attack-brussels/

    The War on Iraq was a waste of time, money, and lives.

    1. “Toppling Saddam left an immense power vacuum of which the main beneficiaries are Al-Qaeda. ”

      We filled that vacuum with American troops and and Iraqi government. What we are seeing now in Iraq is not a continuation of the same war. It is a new war with some of the same actors.

      “The War on Iraq was a waste of time, money, and lives.”

      It doesn’t have to be. There was nothing inevitable about the return of AQ to Iraq. And it isn’t inevitable that they stay there. What would have stopped ISIS and other AQ affiliates from fleeing Syria into Iraq is 150k American troops fighting with our Iraqi allies.

      No one deserves to live under the rule of Islamic militants and the price we paid was incredibly cheap compared to other wars in history and the people who are going to pay the highest price are the Iraqis, Nigerians, Libyans, ect who fall under the control of the butchers.

      1. “What would have stopped ISIS and other AQ affiliates from fleeing Syria into Iraq is 150k American troops fighting with our Iraqi allies.”

        Nothing prevents you from volunteering to go to Baghdad and signing up to fight
        for the Maliki Government. Form the “New Abraham Lincoln Brigade”.

        2. I don’t suppose it would ever occur to you that having an opinion on a war does not obligate one to go fight that war.

          2. Yes there is. The Obama administration believes that words are always enough. The jihadis know that blood speaks a language all its own.

          3. “There is a difference between blood and words.”

            And there’s a difference between cars and fish. Which is about as relevant to the discussion as your codswallop

        3. I see dn-guy supports AQ cutting people’s heads off and stealing young girls to forcefully convert them to Islam and marry them off to the highest bidder.

        4. Maybe you can form up a brigade of people to find the data retention policy required server backup for the IRS’ e-mail infrastructure during 2009 to 2011? Ay?

  4. Toppling Hussein was the best thing for the people of Iraq and the rest of the world. The U.S. quitting before the victory was complete was the worst thing to happen to allies worldwide and it left a vacuum of which the main beneficiaries are iran, Syria, Russia, china and the various groups of nihilistic muslims.

    1. Yup.

      Obama’s red lines rhetoric would have carried some weight with 150k troops on the border and it would have been less likely for ISIS to invade Iraq from Syria if we were there to help Iraq stop them.

      A lot of Iraqis fought with and for us to kick AQ out of their country and now we are abandoning our allies. Why should Taiwan or South Korea think we will come to their aide when we will not even help Iraq?

  5. To anyone who thinks that this isn’t our problem and that we shouldn’t do anything to help. Go watch this video out of Nigeria, http://www.prochan.com/view?p=35d_1402247336

    Do not click this link if you have a weak stomach. It is extremely graphic but it is the reality of what is happening to the people under the rule of Islamic militants.

    While Democrats freak out over #waronwomen and micro- aggressions, there are real problems in the world that need attention. And while there is a complicated history that brought us to this point, Obama’s foreign policy has been the greatest enabler for these atrocities in thousands of years.

      1. wodun – It is a vile and disgusting record of inhumanity but sadly it is far from the worst I’ve seen on YouTube. Don’t be sorry to have posted it, none of us (as adults) should be kept from the truth.

  6. When the US and allies conquered Iraq in 2003 they needed to implement a Monroe plan quickly to win hearts and minds, moving the vast majority of the population into enjoying what would have been a better quality of life.
    That’s what worked in post war Germany. Instead they dicked about for months that dragged into years, which allowed other parties to fill that hearts and minds vacuum. Nothing has changed since then, other than people getting more secure in their entrenched militarized beliefs.

    2. I disagree. What’s needed is a Carthage plan. There is only one sort of good Muslim.

      1. ISIS spilled over the border from Syria. This isn’t a popular domestic uprising. Their rise has nothing to do with neo-cons and everything to do with a twisted religious zealotry and Obama’s foreign policy failures in relation to Syria and Iraq.

        These are the type of militants that Obama has partnered with in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Obama squandered the victory in Iraq and partnered with our enemies to sow chaos, death, and destruction all over Northern Africa and the Middle East. The death toll in Libya and Syria far exceed our ten year war in Iraq.

        1. Precisely. I knew Iraq would never get 100% peaceful because of all the tensions in the borders. This was not like Germany which was completely surrounded and de facto occupied after WWII. Or like Japan which has sea all around it and was de facto occupied after they lost too. Saddam was a butcher but he kept all the disparate forces in Iraq in check.

      2. I agree 100% Comrade dn-guy! Al-Qaeda’s ideology is the very same as George W. Bush’s, Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s. You are very perceptive. I worship you.

      3. Rand, you gave this idiot another chance. I think he’s abused your site long enough.

  7. The main problem with the conduct of the Iraq War under Bush was the installation of a clueless and incompetent civilian viceroy after the initial military victory, followed by a way-over-hasty devolution of governing authority to the motley collection of opportunists and sharp characters who’ve been in charge ever since and who are now, doubtless, planning their imminent exits from the scene. What is likeliest to follow is simply a continuing extension of the Al Queda-vs.-Iran war that’s been raging in Syria and environs for several years and which will now probably spread over much of Iraq, absent renewed U.S. intervention. That intervention wil not be forthcoming so long as Obama remains in office as he bugged out of Iraq as early in his first term as he could, leaving no U.S. presence behind despite the obvious necessity for one to prevent just what is now happening.

    The U.S. ruled both Japan and Germany for roughly a decade after the end of WW2 via military occupation governments that were headed by senior American generals. The same should have been done in Iraq, though for more than 10 years. Instituting democratic governance in Iraq should have been a bottom-up exercise pursued incrementally – local level first, national level last. An on-going American military presence was also required because there were still enemies nearby who were not going to leave Iraq alone if they could arrange to mess with it instead. Obama made that easy. Contrast this with the multi-decadal basing of U.S. troops in both Europe and Japan – and Korea, for that matter – where some remain down to the present day.

    The only bright spot in this whole mess is the increasing likelihood of the Kurds declaring independence for their portion of Iraq once the central government falls – an eventuality that may be mere weeks, or even days, away. The Kurds would love to have U.S. troops based on their territory and will almost certainly formally request as much immediately. Obama, I fear, will refuse. I think the Kurds can fend off the jihadis without us. The Iranians may be a tougher problem. It would behoove the Kurds to make some expeditionary sallies in force into Baghdad, once things go sufficiently pear-shaped, and avail themselves of all the American-supplied weaponry they can snag from the collapsing central government before the jihadis and/or Quds Force types beat them to it. If they can hang on until there’s a sane administration in Washington again, there will be an opportunity to go back into the Middle East in a way that’s sustainable and work our will on all the forces of darkness there, Sunni as well as Shia, Arab as well as Persian.

    1. “The main problem with the conduct of the Iraq War under Bush was the installation of a clueless and incompetent civilian viceroy after the initial military victory, followed by a way-over-hasty devolution of governing authority to the motley collection of opportunists and sharp characters who’ve been in charge ever since”

      Funny, anyone who said this at the time was called a terrorist.

      1. Quite a few people said this at the time. The Left were not among them as their interest in American wars is limited to doing everything possible to lose them. That was certainly Obama’s agenda coming into office. Iraq was to be left as expeditiously as possible, come what may. Hence the total lack of interest in pressing the Status of Forces issue. The current unpleasantness, and much of the preliminary unpleasantness as well, would not be or have been going on were there still a significant American troop presence in Iraq.

      2. And now Democrats side with the actual terrorists. All the talk about human rights and respect for women is just a bunch of BS if you won’t stand up to these butchers as they rape, torture, and behead their way across the world.

  8. Let me see….we can provide airstrikes for the Lybian Rebels but we cant for our Allies….thanks Obama!

  9. No more like the end of the beginning.

    I agree with Dick up above that the bright spot are the Kurds. Execept, of course, that Turkey will be watching and will not like a free and independent Kurdistan because they have a hefty contingent of Kurds on their side of the border and they don’t want them to get any ideas of seccession.

    Iran may possibly find a way to stem the juggernaut – they are in Baggers now discussing the options with Maliki. There will be a price for that though. If Iran can roll back the ISIS (ISA?) onslaught then Iraq will be beholden. Iran is already helping Assad knock off the rebels (with heavy Russian help), and has become largely successful in that.

    It just may be that the rebels have overextended themselves, stuck their neck out too far and Iran will chop it off. In which case Iran is the big winner here.

    Obama?

    He doesn’t care.

  10. Oh and while everyone’s attention was on Iraq, Russia rolled some T-72’s into Ukraine.

    And also flew some planes near the Alaskan border.

    I’m sure Obama will read about it in the paper.

  11. After the 9/11 atrocity, my immediate opinion was that we should have nuked Mecca before sundown. We had all of these expensive nuclear weapons sitting around unused since 1945, and along comes an attack that was worse than Pearl Harbor. It would have been the ideal moment to make a point that the Muslim world would never forget.

    But President Bush decided to be nice about it and attempt to bring Western-style democratic government to the Middle East. I was eventually convinced that it was a noble effort, and worth a try. Afghanistan was the location of the worst terrorist elements, and Iraq was a strategic beachhead. Look at a map. It was a central location in the Middle East, and together with Afghanistan formed a pincer around Iran. So I could see the value in the strategy that was chosen.

    But the American Left sought to undermine our war effort from the start. The “peace movement”, which we know was a Communist front from the Vietnam era, the Democrat Party, and the media all conspired to delegitimize our national strategy and sow discord among the American populace. The Left used that to bring themselves to power in 2006 and 2008. As with Vietnam, they then proceeded to stab our allies in the back.

    Islam has been at war with the entire non-Islamic world for 1400 years. There is no possibility of peaceful coexistence between Western Civilization and Islam. Either we live and they die or they live and we die. About the best we can hope for is to cordon off the majority Islamic countries, and ban Islam from the Western world. That means no immigration and no mosque construction. I propose a Constitutional amendment declaring Islam a totalitarian political ideology that is not protected by the First Amendment. If that is not done, then this will eventually become a war of extermination.

    We cannot hope to treat Islam as the threat that it is until we first defeat Leftism. Leftism is a form of mental illness, and it is the real cancer that is eating away at Western Civilization.

    1. Basically agree. I have taken to describing myself, somewhat archly, as a “moderate exterminationist” where dealing with Islam is concerned. My opinion is that we will have to kill some unknown number of these people in order to get the remaining ones to behave reasonably. The maximum number is every Muslim on the face of the Earth. The minimum is probably well below that, though my personal opinion is that this minimum number is likely to be at least seven figures in magnitude, possibly eight.

      The First Amendment exception also seems inevitably necessary. The Sacred 1st was not designed to accommodate “outlandish” religions so much as to prevent sectarian warfare among the multiple flavors of Christianity that had come to exist by Colonial times. Still, it’s a measure of how wise the Founding Fathers were that their handiwork has accommodated a far broader range of religious belief than any of its original ratifiers could have possibly conceived of back in the day.

      It was fairly easy to sweep Judaism into the mix, but Mormonism, to cite a noteworthy example, proved a lot harder to shoehorn into the 1st Amendment’s assumed religious model. Mormonism did most of the bending, not unlike what happened when the British outlawed suttee in India.

      The 1st Amendment has now been extended to encompass Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, the Bahais and many other religions that were barely present on these shores or which did not exist at all at the time of the Founding Fathers. What all of these religions have in common that make them – now – largely 1st Amendment-compatible is lack of a divine mandate of conquest for the greater glory of (fill in the blank Deity) and no remaining religious rites that would otherwise be regarded as actionable felonies, e.g., infant or adult sacrifice. Even so, it’s a good thing the British put paid to suttee in India before the U.S. had any significant Hindu population looking to burn widows alive on their husbands’ funeral pyres as a matter of routine. In our own times, Santeria, with its animal sacrifices, has already required about as much insulation from animal cruelty laws as the Free Exercise Clause is likely able to permit.

      If the old Aztec religion ever makes a comeback, we will also find the 1st Amendment hardly helpful. Islam is worse. It has conquest, subjugation and forcible conversion of infidels baked deeply into its DNA. It is not 1st Amendment-compatible as playing nicely with non-Muslim others is specifically enjoined by Allah.

      Every century or so since the time of Islam’s founding the Arabs work themselves up into frothing fury and come boiling out of the desert to convert the world for Allah. They have always eventually run into some non-Muslim force that whipped them back to their desert wastes after the shedding of copious blood, much of it theirs. We are now “privileged” to be living through another such time. The vast growth of Muslim populations over the past century and a half since the last Mahdi was making mischief suggests that the butcher’s bill to stop-punch the latest fun and games is likely to be at least proportional to what was required in the time of Chinese Gordon and the glory days of the British Empire. That’s a lot of blood. But Islam is stubborn. It will require a lot of subduing – and bloodshed. Better it be theirs than ours.

      1. I have taken to describing myself, somewhat archly, as a “moderate exterminationist” where dealing with Islam is concerned. My opinion is that we will have to kill some unknown number of these people in order to get the remaining ones to behave reasonably.

        Excellent news Dick, not far from you there will be some Muslims, living and working in your own community, so you don’t have to wait for the powers that be to start your Crusade, they’re there handy for you to murder at any time!

        Go man, go do the righteous thing and murder a few Muslims!

        1. Muslims living in America are not, with very limited exceptions, the ones causing trouble in the world. Other than some honor killings here and there, immigrant Muslims seem to have largely self-selected like many prior immigrant groups on the basis that they didn’t really want to keep observing the whole sicky-bag of Muslim cultural practices endemic to their countries of origin.

          If I ever decided the commission of capital felonies was necessary to save the Republic, let’s just say that Muslims would probably not be my first targets; too few deserving subjects living here. The few that are deserving of such attention, like the Tsarnaev brothers, are also hard to find. The FBI, NSA and CIA, even with tip-offs from the Russians, missed the Tsarnaev brothers. I don’t fancy I could do better as no Russian intelligence officers are among my regular correspondents.

          The really troublesome Muslims are mostly back in their countries of origin or traveling about among failed states and other hotbeds of jihadism. When it comes to selectively killing people and breaking stuff, the U.S. military is unexcelled. It is the appropriate instrument of national policy to employ in subduing marauding jihadis.

          1. So you’re fussy about US Muslims, but not foreign Muslims? Or are you under the impression that most Muslims not living in the US are bad people?

            Cetainly the comment of yours that I quoted didn’t give the impression that you were too worried about which Muslims you though should be executed.

          2. I’m “fussy”, as you say, about American Muslims because I see no evidence that most of them are either making gratuitous trouble or would be inclined to.

            That seems to be much less true of immigrant Muslim populations in other places, particularly European places, and even elsewhere in the Anglosphere like the U.K. and Australia. In these places, immigrant Muslims seem far more inclined to cling to their old-country ways and to regard themselves as, in effect, colonists for Islam. If this attitude persists in subsequent generations of Muslims born and raised in these places, it suggests to me that there will be a lot of future civil wars of varying levels of severity. I think a defensible case can be made that this is already true in France, Holland and, to a bit less an extent, the U.K.

            To answer your question, yes, I think many, possibly even most, Muslim immigrants to Europe and other places are bad people. They should be deported back to their countries of origin and no more should be allowed in.

            As to Muslims still living in their countries of origin, polls routinely show sizable majorities in favor of stoning adulterers and rape victims, executing gays and apostates and imposing sharia law by force on non-Muslims. These attitudes seem to be worst in places like Pakistan, but they’re really quite high in every majority-Muslim country. Are these bad people? In a word, yes.

            The worst of them, of course, are the ones who take action to actualize their beliefs – the Al Quaedas, Al Shababs, Boko Harams and Ansar al Whatevers who certainly number in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even a million or more. A properly constituted, strategically sound and realistic war against these people would amount to a no-quarter-given campaign of extermination.

            Perhaps simply eliminating all their worst actors would be sufficient to, as the French say “encourage the others” in the global Muslim population to accommodate themselves to the reality that they are not going to conquer the rest of the world for Islam and get on with lives not predicated on endless bloody jihad. That would be nice. But not, I fear, highly probable.

            At a minimum, I believe we are looking at a multi-decadal struggle against aggressive Islam unless things get bad enough that America would contemplate use of nuclear weapons to “thin the herd.” Use of a nuclear or biological weapon against the American homeland is about the only thing I can see likely to provoke such a response. I regard the probability of such an event occurring in the next decade or two to be as high as perhaps one in ten.

            Obama has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of doing what is necessary to subdue jihadist Islam anywhere in the world. In this respect, Obama is simply a reflection of the attitudes of the American Progressive Left. Defending America has never been part of their agenda. The remaining two and a half years of Obama’s administration are, therefore, likely to see additional avoidable reverses along the lines of the current mess in Iraq. It will fall to Obama’s successor to either step up or not.

          3. Religious violence is a very minor problem in the western countries you mention compared to other social violence, in the US of course, religious violence receives far less coverage, statistics would suggest though that this has far more to do with the fact that it just can’t compete, media wise, with the horrific levels of violence endemic in American society.

            Despite your claim that most Muslims in western countries are bad people, statistics prove they’re no more prone to committing crime that the general population.

            Your beliefs are obviously motivated more by your religious hatred than by reality.

          6. Depends, as usual, on how you define “religious violence”. In many European countries, for instance, gay bashings by roving bands of Islamic youths have increased enormously in the last decade or so. So have rapes of unaccompanied non-Muslim women. So have a lot of other crimes such as the tens of thousands of car burnings in France. For those inclined toward Muslim apologetics, it is the usual tactic to simply regard these things as assault, sexual assault and vandalism, not religiously-motivated jihad against the host culture. That’s what most on the Left claim to think – at least for public consumption. Horseshit. This is religiously-motivated violence, pure and simple.

            It’s true that this sort of thing is rarer in the U.S. than elsewhere. One reason is that foreign-born Muslims are a much smaller percentage of the U.S. population than of, say, that of France or Holland. Another reason is, as you note, the pre-existing background level of violence in the U.S. But that background is also a function of the presence of disaffected and dysfunctional sub-populations of long-present ethnic groups that each vastly outnumber Muslims in the U.S. population.

            And this violence is not evenly distributed either. Roughly half of all murders and violent felonies in the U.S., for example, are committed by black boys and men between the ages of 15 and 35 though they constitute only about 2% of the U.S. population. It may be true that most blacks are not habitual criminals, but the ones who are are busy.

            In this same way, it may be true that most Muslims in European countries don’t actually commit crimes, but the ones who do, commit a lot of them. The rest of the disaffected Muslim populations in these places lend tacit support to the active criminal element.

    2. “After the 9/11 atrocity, my immediate opinion was that we should have nuked Mecca before sundown.”

      aside from feeling good what is the benefit here?

      what do you want to achieve.?

      what do you think will happen?

  12. I knew that our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan had gone off the rails when we allowed them to adopt Constitutions that enshrined Sharia law. We should have put our foot down and told them, “Nope. Start over and try again.”

    1. Agreed. Hence my comment above about a protracted period of military governance by the U.S. I made the comment specifically about Iraq, but it applies even more to Afghanistan.

  13. Oh yes one more thing……

    Those of us without our heads firmly buried in the sand noticed the attacks in Pakistan –

    or “Pah-Kee-stahn” as the Dear Leader pronounces it with unutterable sophistication.

    Pak has nukes.

    WHEN (not if) President Mom Jeans runs away from Afghanistan – like a frightened little boy – be ready for the same thing to happen in the Afghan/Pak region as you are now seeing in Syria/Iraq.

    And the irony of it all is that Iran would be the only hope to prevent the Jihadists from getting the nukes. And the Russians.

    If the Jihadi’s get those nukes – Jim, Gerrib, dn …. none of you are safe.

    1. Ouch! That’ll leave a mark.

      If the head of ISIL (formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq) has a twitter feed, he’ll soon send a tweet from David Petraeus’ former headquarters saying “I’m in your chair and I got ur desk! All your base belong to us,”

      As is said about aircraft accidents, it usually isn’t just one thing, but a string of failures that leads to the crash. That holds true for Obama’s foreign policy. He screwed up the status of forces agreement, probably intentionally, and doubled-down on that failure so he’d have an excuse to pull out all our troops. That left no-one to ensure security and keep Iran from shipping massive amounts of weapons to Syria.

      The lack of Iraq as a base to influence events (and weapons shipments) to non-terrorist Syrian rebels led to our arms dealing in Benghazi, which Obama turned into another debacle. Then Obama had another foreign policy debacle in Syria where Kerry and Obama’s combined idiocy preserved Assad’s regime and left Putin doing donuts on the Whitehouse lawn, which undoubtedly had more than a little influence on a resurgent Russia that had the confidence to seize Crimea. The Syrian debacle has now flowed back into Iraq, and soon the Iranians will probably intervene. Meanwhile Obama is busy freeing top Taliban commanders and shuttling tens of thousands of Dreamer’s all over the US.

      I think he may be racking up more foreign policies disasters than all previous Presidents combined.

      1. And we are only seeing the first order events. Iraq still exists today, but it may not shortly. The Taliban leaders just got back, and they sure as hell are not under custody. Iran is still marching towards there bomb, and there is no leverage to stop them. Russia doesn’t need to become the USSR again, because it is annexing the states outright, no need for an union. In fact, Russia is being a bit picky over what it really needs in terms of territory. And China’s not going to ignore the buffet sitting in front of it for much longer.

        The best any Democrat can say is that by slashing our military and supposedly backing out of wars (I’m not really sure we’ve done so well in that department); we might be cutting our debt. But we most definitely are not. Further, will have even less leverage in the future for determining how we manage that debt. About the only thing saving us right now is the domestic growth in the energy sector, and all of that has come about despite the Administration. Often times that growth required judges flat out ruling against the over reach of the Obama Administration. And it may not be enough.

        Just think, we still have over 2 more years of this Administration left to go! You know the Democrats are excited about it.

        1. “The best any Democrat can say is that by slashing our military and supposedly backing out of wars (I’m not really sure we’ve done so well in that department); we might be cutting our debt. ”

          And who holds a lot of that debt?

          Why, China!!!!!

          How convenient for them…

  15. The genius in chief just said this was a political problem. What an idiot.

    Sorry world. You all get to suffer because our president is stupid and weak.

  16. AND OF COURSE………

    Since President Moron Mom Jeans cannot learn from one event to the next, we have this from the Daily Mail:

    “The United States once had Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in custody at a detention facility in Iraq, but president Barack Obama let him go, it was revealed on Friday.

    Al Baghdadi was among the prisoners released in 2009 from the U.S.’s now-closed Camp Bucca near Umm Qasr in Iraq.

    But now five years later he is the head of a group of ruthless extremists who are bearing down on Baghdad, burning down everything in their way and carrying out executions on Iraqi soldiers and police officers.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657231/Revealed-Obama-RELEASED-warlord-head-ISIS-extremist-army-five-years-ago.html#ixzz34XYX26mM

    Yes that’s right folks! Obama had this guy under lock and key and gave him up. So now the guy is pillaging and destroying a swath through Syria and Iraq – and therefore destroying the beautiful Representative Iraq that Obama and Buffoon-Biden said would be a jewel in the Obama Legacy.

    And no doubt Obama knew this guy was working again BEFORE he released 5 more angels, recently.

    In a sane world, Obama would be impeached and convicted today in about 20 minutes.

  17. Obama’s statement today that we would not be sending ground forces shocked me.

    Let me be clear; I personally oppose sending ground forces. However, the president saying so just simplified things greatly for the other side; one less thing they have to worry about and factor in to their movements. This was a statement with no benefit whatsoever while having a significant downside, and so a move of profound stupidity.

    There are times when it’s a good idea for a president to keep his big mouth shut, and this was one of them. However, that’s clearly somet5hing Obama has not the wit to comprehend.

    Regarding air strikes; I’d favor them if done right. And by “done right” I mean doing them for effect, not show. For example, an effective move would be strikes with no warning and loose ROE’s against the islamists while moving by road en mass (easy targets but a narrow window of opportunity). An example of ineffective airstrikes would be to blather and dither for a while, then announce we’re going to do it (thus giving the enemy time to prepare and disperse) and thus, strike with little effect. I’m betting Obama does the latter.

    Oh, and if the Daily Mail (cited by Gregg, above) is correct and we did release the already-known-to-be Al Quaeda islamist leader, Al-Baghdadi, in 2009, then either Bush or Obama committed mass murder by proxy. (The daily mail piece doesn’t mention when in 2009 this abomination occurred, so it could be either the Bush or Obama admin). There is no excuse, none, for letting these animals loose to slaughter.

  18. Politicians simply don’t understand some really basic concepts. One is the nation. If we don’t like what goes on inside a nation we send spies. When they do an act of war against us, not to themselves, we send soldiers and eliminate the government that did war with us. If an element within a nation does something to us, we hold the host nation responsible. How responsible depends on them.

    All very simple. Most of the time we just send spies.

Comments are closed.