Is Iraq going to fall?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I think at this point we should pull all troops out. We currently have a battle plan of surrender . We have the world's best army at breaking things and killing the enemy . We suck at nationbuilding. If you are not going to pull the gloves off and let our boys fight then bring them all home.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ummmm, US troops left in 2011 buck.

I love it, blame Obama for a war Bush started.

I don't think Iraq is going to fall. The government needs to regroup. There will be more fighting. If they try and push further north the Kurds will kick their asses.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummmm, US troops left in 2011 buck.

I love it, blame Obama for a war Bush started.

I don't think Iraq is going to fall. The government needs to regroup. There will be more fighting. If they try and push further north the Kurds will kick their asses.

-spence

I meant both places but thanks for assuming I'm not as bright as you buddy .
Blaming Bush for Obama's abysmal foreign-policy isn't right either.
I stand by the rest of my statement .
Al Qaeda surely seems to be on the run .....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummmm, US troops left in 2011 buck.

I love it, blame Obama for a war Bush started.

I don't think Iraq is going to fall. The government needs to regroup. There will be more fighting. If they try and push further north the Kurds will kick their asses.

-spence

"blame Obama for a war Bush started"

I didn't hear a single person blame Obama for the war. Not one. Can you point to one?

Obama inherited a stabilizing Iraq, thanks to the Surge (which Obama and Hilary both mocked, by the way). Obama implemented the withdrawal which occurred on his watch, and the effects have not been favorable. It's absolutely fair to hold him accountable for that, as he had some choices available.

We do stink at nationbuilding. But if we learn anything from 09/11, we need to learn that it's not in our interests to allow for sovereign govenrments to be friendly with jihadists. That threatens our security. The fact is, we might well be better off right now had we not invaded to begin with. But we did invade, we can't change that, all we can do is manage the afetrmath as best we can, and the guy in charge now, has zero ability to solve these problems. I

raq is a lot less stable today than it was when Obama took office. That's fact. The deterioration is not all his fault. But he deserves some blame.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama inherited a stabilizing Iraq, thanks to the Surge (which Obama and Hilary both mocked, by the way). Obama implemented the withdrawal which occurred on his watch, and the effects have not been favorable. It's absolutely fair to hold him accountable for that, as he had some choices available.

Didn't we negotiate with terrorists during the surge?

Iraq wanted us to leave and most Americans wanted us to leave. Given how broken the country was/is I don't see how any US action short of a continued occupation could provide the kind of stability you seem to think is reasonable.

The simple fact is the Iraqi people have to step up and do this themselves. The world can help, but you can't make the horse drink...

-spence

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;



The simple fact is the Iraqi people have to step up and do this themselves. The world can help, but you can't make the horse drink...

-spence[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with this and if the wrong people get in power over there, and become a threat to national security we bomb them into the Stone Age again .
It took two weeks to take over Iraq .

Hysterical you bringing up the cost of the war .....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't we negotiate with terrorists during the surge?

Iraq wanted us to leave and most Americans wanted us to leave. Given how broken the country was/is I don't see how any US action short of a continued occupation could provide the kind of stability you seem to think is reasonable.

The simple fact is the Iraqi people have to step up and do this themselves. The world can help, but you can't make the horse drink...

-spence

"most Americans wanted us to leave."

Most Americans would like tax rates of zero. That's why we are a republic, and not a pure democracy, we don't put everything to a referendum.

"I don't see how any US action short of a continued occupation could provide the kind of stability you seem to think is reasonable."

I agree. I supported a long term, small occupying force. And that term, "occupying", is a little offensive to the kids whose boots are on the ground. We weren't there for conquest, or I'd have an oil well with my name on it.

"stability you seem to think is reasonable"

Spence, you tell me, is the stability I envision not a worthwhile goal? Given what happened on 09/11, do you disagree when I say we can't allow the jihadists to control a nation? I cannot wait to hear your response. You're OK with the jihadists taking over Iraq, or with the kooks in Iran taking over Iraq?

I got 20 emails yesterday from citizens I be-friended when I was there. None of them understands why we left, and sure as hell, it puts those who helped us, at great risk now that we aren't there to protect them. When the jihadists take control Spence, what do you suppose happens to the Iraq citizens who helped us?

That seems to be a pattern with your hero, ask the Pakistani doctor who helped us catch Bin laden. Oh that's right, you can't ask him, we let the Pakistanis throw him in prison instead of bringing him here and giving him the $25 million reward he earned...and then continue to give them foreign aid.

Kudos to you and Obama, Spence. Kudos.

It's an absolute joke.