We should have stayed in Iraq....

**Mr. Neo-Con** · 9th February 2012 08:22 AM

You know for all those retreat and defeat crowds, pacifists, Leftists, Greens, and all other way out there types that were on that band wagon to cut in run out of Iraq, we see that leaving Iraq was a strategic error (of the highest order) in that we left with unfinished business at hand - namely destroying Iran's Nuclear Program and changing that regime in place. Why would you leave Iraq without dealing with namely one of the biggest sponsors of terror, IRAN? Now, since we left, Iraq won't be that Western springboard of military operations against the terrorists. Face it libs, there must be a concentrated ground operations to deal with Iran's hidden Nuclear Program. And, Iraq would have served well in using that pincer movement to destroy that regime quickly. Nothing less will do. Relying on a supply of different sanctions that buy the terrorists valuable time to gain their weapons of mass destruction only serves the enemy. That's all! Sanctions only benefit the regime! They hurt their population, not the regime. Now, we will be forced to go to deal with Iran in terms that maybe don't serve us well in that Israel will act to deal with Iran since we have no one in the White House that has the balls to do the right thing when needed - like destroying Iran. Israel has to step up to handle Iran, but that has it's limits in that Irael doesn't have the size or strength to handle military operations against Iran and also defend its Northern and Southern borders against the real terrorists over there. Basically Israel has to fight a 360 degree war. Israel doesn't have the ground forces that can take on Iran in terms of numerical forces - as well as defend the Northern Front against Hezbollah and Hamas to the South. That's why it was important to handle Iran while we were over there (sitting in a better strategic position) in Iraq in the West and Afghanistan in the East. Don't be fooled folks, it will take a ground operation to finish off Iran, not some bunker busting bombs that would be used by Israel.

The question folks is this: do we have someone with some balls in the White House to do the right thing and liberate Iran? The answer to that is probably not. Sad! So, Israel will be forced to do its best and it wont be sufficient to eliminate all Iran's WMD's.

Where's the balls at Obama?

**goldendog** · 9th February 2012 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Neo-Con

You know for all those retreat and defeat crowds, pacifists, Leftists, Greens, and all other way out there types that were on that band wagon to cut in run out of Iraq, we see that leaving Iraq was a strategic error (of the highest order) in that we left with unfinished business at hand - namely destroying Iran's Nuclear Program and changing that regime in place. Why would you leave Iraq without dealing with namely one of the biggest sponsors of terror, IRAN? Now, since we left, Iraq won't be that Western springboard of military operations against the terrorists. Face it libs, there must be a concentrated ground operations to deal with Iran's hidden Nuclear Program. And, Iraq would have served well in using that pincer movement to destroy that regime quickly. Nothing less will do. Relying on a supply of different sanctions that buy the terrorists valuable time to gain their weapons of mass destruction only serves the enemy. That's all! Sanctions only benefit the regime! They hurt their population, not the regime. Now, we will be forced to go to deal with Iran in terms that maybe don't serve us well in that Israel will act to deal with Iran since we have no one in the White House that has the balls to do the right thing when needed - like destroying Iran. Israel has to step up to handle Iran, but that has it's limits in that Irael doesn't have the size or strength to handle military operations against Iran and also defend its Northern and Southern borders against the real terrorists over there. Basically Israel has to fight a 360 degree war. Israel doesn't have the ground forces that can take on Iran in terms of numerical forces - as well as defend the Northern Front against Hezbollah and Hamas to the South. That's why it was important to handle Iran while we were over there (sitting in a better strategic position) in Iraq in the West and Afghanistan in the East. Don't be fooled folks, it will take a ground operation to finish off Iran, not some bunker busting bombs that would be used by Israel.

The question folks is this: do we have someone with some balls in the White House to do the right thing and liberate Iran? The answer to that is probably not. Sad! So, Israel will be forced to do its best and it wont be sufficient to eliminate all Iran's WMD's.

Where's the balls at Obama?

At this point would you sacrifice your life or your kids life for Iraq?

**michaelr** · 9th February 2012 08:25 AM

Iraq kicked us out.

**goldendog** · 9th February 2012 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by michaelr

Iraq kicked us out.

So you think we should have stayed Mike? They made the decision on their own.

**highway234** · 9th February 2012 08:28 AM

money grows on trees in Mr. NeoCon's world. Apparently he'd rather us go bankrupt than stop fighting endless wars.

Anyway, the unprovoked invasion of Iraq greatly empowered Iran by crippling its main antagonist nation in the region. Neo-Cons are big on being tough etc. (typically with other people's kids), but when it comes to military strategy and foreign policy, they're morons.

**michaelr** · 9th February 2012 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by goldendog

So you think we should have stayed Mike? They made the decision on their own.

Hell no I don't think we should have stayed. I don't think we should have gone in the first damn place.

I wonder when Americans will get tired of fighting wars for the benefit of the multinational corps and international bank. These have not one thing to do security, and if you look at the damn debt, one could make make a very good case that these wars make us insecure.

**Oscar99** · 9th February 2012 08:56 AM

George W. Bush signed an agreemant with Iraq, that we would get out by 12/2011.

Obama fulfilled that agreement. We can't stay in a country against their will, as that would be an illegal occupation.

**Oscar99** · 9th February 2012 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Neo-Con

...Now, we will be forced to go to deal with Iran in terms that maybe don't serve us well in that Israel will act to deal with Iran since we have no one in the White House that has the balls to do the right thing when needed - like destroying Iran. Israel has to step up to handle Iran, but that has it's limits in that Irael doesn't have the size or strength to handle military operations against Iran and also defend its Northern and Southern borders against the real terrorists over there. Basically Israel has to fight a 360 degree war. Israel doesn't have the ground forces that can take on Iran in terms of numerical forces - as well as defend the Northern Front against Hezbollah and Hamas to the South. That's why it was important to handle Iran while we were over there (sitting in a better strategic position) in Iraq in the West and Afghanistan in the East. Don't be fooled folks, it will take a ground operation to finish off Iran, not some bunker busting bombs that would be used by Israel.

The question folks is this: do we have someone with some balls in the White House to do the right thing and liberate Iran? The answer to that is probably not. Sad! So, Israel will be forced to do its best and it wont be sufficient to eliminate all Iran's WMD's.....

let Israel fend for itself. they are a big boy now.

liberate Iran???????? you want the USA to send in 500,000 troops and invade Iran???? are you nuts??? who's gonna pay for this shit?

**Dr.Gently** · 9th February 2012 09:08 AM

Mr. Neo Con, I agree that you, personally, should stay in Iraq. I think it would do you a world of good.

I would probably contribute to the ticket.

**highway234** · 9th February 2012 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Neo-Con

we have no one in the White House that has the balls to do the right thing when needed - like destroying Iran.

Originally Posted by Mr. Neo-Con

Don't be fooled folks, it will take a ground operation to finish off Iran.

Originally Posted by Mr. Neo-Con

do we have someone with some balls in the White House to do the right thing and liberate Iran?

Hmm. So which is it, NeoCon? Are we destroying the country, or liberating it? They're different concepts. In fact, some people (those would be sane people) might even suggest they're opposite concepts.