Best
169 Comments
Post
  • #41
    !
    Obama Just Deployed Troops to Iraq to Protect the Baghdad Embassy

    Seems the Bush admin warned back in 2007 about what would happen when we left.
    Seems "The Obama" thought he the Liberal knew better.
    Seems "The Obama" was indeed wrong.
    Probably found out about it in the media. Just like everything else in his ever so lacking admin.
  • #52
    !
    So instead we should have just left a permanent military presence in Iraq? Over 4000 dead service men and women wasn't enough?
  • #58
    !
    Do your homework, Bush would have withdrawn all combat troops, same as Obama if he'd been given ultimatums like Iraq governing council handed Obama.
    Republicans talking heads are making hay out of mud on this issue.
    Dispatching combat troops to green zone was prudent but he should have sent 1,000, not 250.
  • #87
    !
    Bush warned us? Kind of like an arsonist speaking out on the need to hire more fire fighters. If Bush hadn't his wat into this war we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
  • R Load more replies

  • #49
    !
    @AntiPorcheria But you know, we have to keep an embassy there, as we did in Russia throughout the Cold War, and for the same reasons.

    Talking is always better than thermonuclear warfare.
  • #64
    !
    @AntiPorcheria Fat lot of good sending 275 fighting men into a civil war where you can't tell the players without a score card. If we had any sense we would pull all our people out of the country, wish the Sunni fanatics and the Shia fanatics best of luck, and sit on the sidelines while they murder each other and destroy the chimera of a country that was Iraq.
  • #75
    !
    Yes, the troops need to come home safely. That was a good use of $750,000 with the marble floors and swimming pool etc. (SARCASM)
  • #76
    !
    It's the largest and most expensive embassy in the world and is nearly as large as Vatican City. It employs 15,000 people and cost $750 million to build.
  • R Load more replies

  • #39
    !
    Once again, we stuck our noses in a foreign country that has always hated us and we just had to try to show the world how 'totally awsome' the USA is by defending people that don't want our help. We need to get the hell out of ALL those countries and STOP PAYING THEM OFF WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS and let them eat sand and drink their oil and see how long they last.
  • #59
    !
    Why don't you read the article u dramatic little POS he deployed them to protect our embassy guys. 275 wouldn't put a dent in ISIS.
  • #51
    !
    " he (Obama) is covering all his bases."

    By sending additional security forces to defend our diplomatic and contracted people in the Green Zone?
  • R Load more replies

  • #73
    !
    I suppose you support NOT defending our embassy and ending up with a repeat of what the Republicans are claiming happened in Benghazi?
  • #166
    !
    @e065702xx no the ass clown just made a statement last week he would not send any troops, now that his own party turning on him he changes his mind.
  • #57
    !
    The place is a fortress and there are already hundreds of security personal defending the embassy. The 275 are most likely there so that they can stay at heightened security indefinitely.
  • #45
    !
    Why do we have 5,000 people in our Embassy in Baghdad? Why did we build a billion dollar Embassy in a Country that doesn't like us and never will? I suspect we could get away with the same kind of staff Hillary gave Ambassador Stevens in Libya three or four people.
  • #102
    !
    Let's see Obama National Security Team is Susan Rice, Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. We are in a heap of trouble with people I wouldn't trust to do anything much less plan our defense. How did we get to a place where people like that can even be considered for high offices.
  • #124
    !
    Now we are in something that is personal to me. I spent my time in Benghazi too. I was part of the staff. We had ZERO military, including no Marine Security Guard staff there, at the time. Then, as now, you simply CANNOT put in enough military protection (or civilians either) to protect something when there is an emeny outnumbering you. Even in war (excuse me- police action), numbers can defeat technology. We are there to do a job, know that, and accept it.
  • #132
    !
    @BobSmith Yea but he's not Hillary tell that to the people who died at Benghazi. Who they rather had running the state dept oh wait minute we can't there dead. Kerry is just the less of two evils is all.
  • #38
    !
    It's a big ass embassy, I don't really see what would be wrong with sending some troops to protect an area of ours. Just as long as we don't get involved in another war I'm fine with it. We have troops all over the world, this is nothing.
  • #94
    !
    How many weeks beforehand did they know that an attack was going to happen so they could prepare in Benghazi? Oh, that's right, it was hours before and the requests to send more troops there were denied by the same people claiming it was a scandal.
  • #142
    !
    @AceLuby

    Send 'MORE" troops! NO troops were sent, much less "MORE" troops. That former President Bush is living rent free in your head. LoL.
  • #158
    !
    @AceLuby wrong again. They knew weeks and months before Benghazzi. See the diplomatic cables Hillary delegated while she posed for photo opps.
  • #4
    !
    Technically he kept his promise, he said he wasn't sending troops back into combat. This is a security detail. Still though.... could of sworn he said no more troops in Iraq. At least that's the way he made it sound when he said we absolutely weren't sending troops back into combat, I think we all assumed that meant they weren't going back period. But son of a bitch.... here they are.

    Well at least we won't be looking forward to another Benghazi.
  • #25
    !
    he said " i will not send troops into iraq, as long as they do not have immunity to iraqi laws" which is logical since we don't want americans being prosecuted under their laws. And put into their prisons. Without proper representation or defense.
  • #36
    !
    Well I hope we aren't looking forward to another one. Paulden mentioned prudent. given whats going on maybe it would be prudent to close the place for awhile.
  • #65
    !
    Quotes from Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest:

    Get there first with the most men.
    Reported by General Basil W. Duke and Richard Taylor
    Often erroneously reported as "Git thar fustest with the most mostest." In The Quote Verifier : Who Said What, Where, and When (2006) by Ralph Keyes, p. 272, the phrase he used has also been reported to have been "I always make it a rule to get there first with the most men" and "I just took the short cut and got there first with the most men."

    Every moment lost is worth the life of a thousand men.
    Said to Braxton Bragg at Chickamauga, September 18-20, 1863. As quoted in May I Quote You, General Forrest? by Randall Bedwell.

    President Obama should have been reading Forrest instead of Marx.
  • #165
    !
    The Confederacy lost due to the paucity of industrial resources, not the quality of its fighters and leadership. Forrest was one of its most successful cavalry commanders.
    From Forrest's Wikipedia entry:
    "A cavalry and military commander in the war, Forrest is one of the war's most unusual figures. Less educated than many of his fellow officers, Forrest had already amassed a fortune as a planter, real estate investor, and slave trader before the war. He was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and division commander by the end of the war. Although Forrest lacked formal military education, he had a gift for strategy and tactics. He created and established new doctrines for mobile forces, earning the nickname The Wizard of the Saddle.[4]"
  • #33
    !
    Wow, what a shock. Sending Marines to guard embassies and consulates in the middle of a insurrection. Looks like he's finally learning from past mistakes.
  • #74
    !
    @Curmudgeon The mistakes he is making as an apprentice pale in comparison to the supposed steady hand of experience the Republicans brought to the table from 2000 - 2008, which were an utter disaster and have led directly to the current ISIS crisis.
  • #88
    !
    @e065702xx I doubt that is true, time will tell. Any President that takes his men into war with and instructions other than 'WIN' is a dam fool. You are whining about W being a Moderate. I wouldn't have another Moderate in office because of him, while you want more of it. Strange. Get your PC newsmen off the battle field, kill every one in your way or don't go to war.

    You see how ISIS is rolling through Iraq, it's because they are doing what needs to be done in their opinion. The LIBERALS who controlled Bush's HOUSE and SENATE don't have any blame in the last presidency. Go sell that BS to farmers to put on their roses.

    Now we are getting Obama leaders talking about joining forces with Iran on the battle field, and you are supporting Obamas brilliant and well defined foreign policy. People are laughing at you.
  • #96
    !
    @Curmudgeon Bush was a moderate?!?!? LOL! You guys just LOVE rewriting history so you can blame anybody but your own idiotic ideology for the failures of the US. There are too many to count and you won't own up to a single one and blame it all on the evil 'left', despite no liberal policies being enacted since LBJ, and before that FDR.
  • R Load more replies

  • #97
    !
    @Curmudgeon Yep, and who built that embassy again? Who decided to start a 10 year war that ultimately led to a civil war due to the vacuum it caused? Hmmm...
  • #101
    !
    @AceLuby Yeah those Moderates with Liberal Houses and Senate are a PITA but peanuts when compared to the spending and policies of this current trainee.
  • #135
    !
    @AceLuby Then you need a fiscally responsive le person more than ever. Are you suggesting a tax and spend Democrat would be better suited. Obama's existence casts serious doubt on that.
  • #130
    !
    Instead of deploying troops to protect the embassy he should have evacuated the embassy. I don't think those Iraqi's play by the rules.
  • #112
    !
    So 275 against thousands who posses modern armament stolen from Iraqi depots. I see no problem at all with this approach. We are not talking about loosely organized suicide bombing specialists here, we are talking about a structure military force moving through the country. What a bozo.
  • #127
    !
    We're not their primary target; in fact, attacking us won't help either side at all. Too much depletion of resources they need against each other.
  • #159
    !
    @cpeter133 You think they are going to take the missile launchers and heavy guns and not lay a barrage on the US compound? Currently the Iraqi forces are posing no issue to the advancement of the force, so this will change in bagdad how? Heck if they start bombarding the US compond they would problem get extra people to help them. If we aren't going to help, we are no good to the current iraqi troops. So we are not the target as long as the iraqi soldiers are able to accomplish what they have failed at to date.
  • R Load more comments...
Post