Featured Should U.S. Help Iraq Thwart ISIL?

I never thought I would see my brother RD2 post as a liberal.

Well, that is what I was called yesterday when I posted this same basic idea in a thread.

I agree with virtually every word of this post.

So I guess we are both liberals now.

 

I guess I'm liberal #3 then.

 

Are you watching, Afghanistan? This will be YOUR fate in 2016 unless you get a grip on your country.

 

First they want the U.S. out, then they want us back in...

 

They want airstrikes, not an occupation force. Bit of a difference IMO. We also should do neither IMO.

 

I should have said involved.

 

Fair enough.

 

None of you liberals has to worry ...

The gutless Marxist wonder in the White House isn't going to do a dang thing. He's going to look and act like he's concerned, he's going to -- as the FoxNews.com headline says right now -- "mull a possible response" and ultimately let it be too late to respond.

I happen to believe that once we committed to helping the people of Iraq, we have a responsibility to continue to help them. And it is in U.S., European, South American and Near Asian countries' interests for the terrorists to be denied an entire country from which to base their operations. They've lacked a central command since Afghanistan fell to the U.S. invasion in 2002. They will soon have the first star in the flag of the United Islamic Republic, and once that is in place, other countries will join in the unholy alliance.

Then all hell breaks loose. And I'll remind you all then that you cheered as the idiot in the White House did nothing to stop it.

 

Yeah. Cause our help has really accomplished a lot so far.

 

Like ...

 

I'd suggest you research how the war actually went, rather than relying on media accounts, before issuing blanket judgments that are totally inaccurate.

Our involvement defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Our involvement rebuilt bridges, roads, schools, community centers, government buildings.
Our involvement jump started the nearly defunct Iraq oil industry, and despite idiotic claims by screaming meemies that "It's about oil!" it never was, and in fact the U.S. and Europe never bought one drop from Iraq after production returned to 1998 levels.

Our involvement built a democracy.

And the Little Marxist Dictator tore it all apart with one stupid, baseless decision to deliver on an irrational campaign promise to "end the war." To he did, but in order to do so he had to pull out completely. Not since Vietnam have we been so dismissive of an ally, so wrapped up on our own hubris and pettiness that we simply abandoned them. That was the traitor in the White House. His action alone is what "has really accomplished a lot" in Iraq!! :BangHead:

 

Thank you.

 

We cannot afford it, we do not have any money. We should not have been in such a hurry to pull out before the job was done. This is on Obama's hands.

 

You contradicted yourself.

We cannot afford it.

We should not have pulled out.

How could you afford not pulling out, but can't afford sending help ... I do not mean feet on the ground, but material for the Iraqi army?

 

I would actually respond, but I'm sure I'd have better luck trying to eat my desk. You prove yourself to be unreasonable in every post.

 

There's nothing unreasonable about anything I said. It's all the truth. But I also agree with Rev:

... and it didn't have to turn out this way. We're going to regret not decimating al-Qaeda the way this lying little traitor claimed we'd done before the 2012 elections, when the American people were too stupid to ask questions about Benghazi, which proved otherwise.

 

You don't think laying ALL the blame at Obama's feet is unreasonable?
You don't think that continually using angry epithets to describe the president is unreasonable?
You don't think that describing anyone who dares disagree with you as liberal is unreasonable?

You are being unreasonable. You are bitter and angry, and frankly you appear to have an idolatrously high view of this country. I suggest you reexamine yourself.

 

No I didn't. What the Iraqi army needs is training not just material support. Going back in costs far more than already being there.

 

We rebuilt their country, trained and armed their military, showed them how to have free elections, and are sharing intelligence with them. At some point they have got to be on their own. I say we don't help them anymore.

That said, we should have stayed longer. Look at all the post-war societies where the US maintained a long presence, Germany and Japan for instance. Kuwait. Fully functional independent democracies. We stayed there to see it through. Not so much in Iraq.