Oh, and Obama didn't have much of a choice. Bush laid down the exit plan...Obama wanted MORE troops to stay, but he wanted them to stay with the ability to not be brought to court for their behaviors (hey, where are the Libs ranting about Bush allowing our soldiers to disrespect the natives). Iraq said, "No, thanks, we'll keep to the timetable...goodbye". THEY ARE BOOTING US OUT...not what Obama wanted. Nice spin, though. 
Where? Again, more casualties in Affy than ever before...more weapons in the hands of bad guys...more Muslim extemists coming to power in the tinderbox of the Muslim world. 
Which part is wrong?Seahawks08 wrote:First off I would like to say I love cluck u, some of the best chicken I have ever eaten.
Secondly, perceptions always trump reality, so sorry cluck but the OP has the data that the casual American will look at and say Obama has earned an A in Foreign Policy.
Plus, some of your information is exaggerated and quite frankly, wrong.
I'm not 100%, but I doubt we've lost our 'best' military technology to either Iran or China.Cluck U wrote:Which part is wrong?Seahawks08 wrote:First off I would like to say I love cluck u, some of the best chicken I have ever eaten.
Secondly, perceptions always trump reality, so sorry cluck but the OP has the data that the casual American will look at and say Obama has earned an A in Foreign Policy.
Plus, some of your information is exaggerated and quite frankly, wrong.
It wasn't the extension of the war that strained relations, it was Pakistan's refusal to get rid of the terrorists in their country. And this mainly stems from the SS department in the ISI.Obama's extended war in Affy has strained relationships within Pakistan
I'm not as sure on this one, but I don't think Obama wanted more troops to stay, but rather the generals. And then there's the fact that you are criticizing him if those troops did stay. If McCain was president, they would be there forever.Obama wanted MORE troops to stay
There was no threat. It was a humanitarian mission. Maybe you should ask yourself the question, how many civilians would have died if NATO did nothing? Also, the UN mandate had some sway.Oversaw the murder of Quadaffi? Really? What threat was he to us? And what, exactly is happening there now? How many thousands of civilians died in our "peace" operation? How many attrocities continue being committed by the new fractured militias and their leadership? Anyone know what happened to thousands of anti-aircraft missles? Shucks....seems as though Obama and his clowns forgot that those things would be of interest to some bad guys.
Pssst, the secular military still holds the reigns of the country.Oh, and Obama oversaw the change in Egypt. Pssssssst...the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections...with an even nuttier group of extremists coming in second. Wait until Iraq has their elections.
is there a source for this?more weapons in the hands of bad guys...more Muslim extemists coming to power in the tinderbox of the Muslim world.
1) Are you kidding me? Of course Obama's war strained relationships with the US...we've been BOMBING and killing people, including CIVILIANS, inside Pakistan with regularity...despite their protests.Seahawks08 wrote:
It wasn't the extension of the war that strained relations, it was Pakistan's refusal to get rid of the terrorists in their country. And this mainly stems from the SS department in the ISI.
I'm not as sure on this one, but I don't think Obama wanted more troops to stay, but rather the generals. And then there's the fact that you are criticizing him if those troops did stay. If McCain was president, they would be there forever.
There was no threat. It was a humanitarian mission. Maybe you should ask yourself the question, how many civilians would have died if NATO did nothing? Also, the UN mandate had some sway.
Pssst, the secular military still holds the reigns of the country.
is there a source for this?more weapons in the hands of bad guys...more Muslim extremists coming to power in the tinderbox of the Muslim world.
Jesus Christ, Bush goes into Iraq and everyone says he's a hot head....US interests first...Bush didn't respect other's sovereignty...didn't care about our perception in the eyes of Arabs or Muslims...blah, blah, blah. But hey, Obama can cowboy around and he is a hero. 
Wait, are you telling me that our President sent a second place piece of equipment, not the best, because we didn't want to give our best troops the best chance of being successful when going hundreds of miles into another country's territory in order to get the number one terrorist...the one responsible for thousands of American deaths? Of course, that make total sense. I mean, if the second best equipment failed, and some of our guys got killed, that wouldn't have been a complete embarrassment for our administration.Grizalltheway wrote:I'm not 100%, but I doubt we've lost our 'best' military technology to either Iran or China.Cluck U wrote:
Which part is wrong?
1) And WHY are we bombing Pakistan? Oh, that's right, there are Taliban and Al-Qaeda there that the ISI won't get rid of. And for you to pull Bush into this is ludicrous. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Al-Qaeda did. Since Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were hiding in Affy and Pakistan, those are the hot spots that need to be taken care of. Not Iraq.1) Are you kidding me? Of course Obama's war strained relationships with the US...we've been BOMBING and killing people, including CIVILIANS, inside Pakistan with regularity...despite their protests. Jesus Christ, Bush goes into Iraq and everyone says he's a hot head....US interests first...Bush didn't respect other's sovereignty...didn't care about our perception in the eyes of Arabs or Muslims...blah, blah, blah. But hey, Obama can cowboy around and he is a hero.
2) Obama’s generals, and the Administration (that’s Obama), tried to get Iraq to keep more US troops. But, as stated, Iraq said, “NO”…not without Iraq being able to hold accountable any atrocities committed by US troops.
WHOOPS! Not good enough for cowboy Obama. So, Obama had to agree to the PRE-OBAMA withdrawal date. Sure, Obama is claiming he is getting our troops out…but he didn’t have a choice. Mission Accomplished…not quite!
3) If we didn’t give the banks the TAPR money, just imagine how bad the economy would have been. If we didn’t spend a whole bunch of money on pork barrel Democratic pet projects, imagine how bad the economy would be. If we didn’t knock of Ghadaffy, imagine how many casualties there would have been. If we didn’t go in after Sadaam, imagine how bad things could have gotten…oh, and the UN mandate had some sway. If we didn’t give millions to “say no to sex” projects, just imagine how bad it would be. If we didn’t spend billions oppressing other countries and propping up capitalistic, anti-democratic, anti-freedom governments, imagine how bad it would be. I don’t have a strong record to stand on, but imagine how bad it will be if another guy wins.
Yeah, I see your point.
4) The Egyptian military will be giving up (one way or another) power soon...to a government that will be run by Islamic fundamentalist Unless, of course, you support the idea that Obama should continue to support an unpopular, strong armed government that rules without (and against) the people’s will. You know, like Bahrain.
5) Source? NPR, of all places.
Sorry, but you are either uninformed or just following, or filtering, the lib media, “support Obama at all costs” campaign.
To be honest, I'm just glad that most of our troops are out of there. It will be seen as Obama ending the Iraq War. Again, perception > reality. 
Are you that big of a tool that you're going to sit here and blame drones and helicopters crashing squarely on Obama?Cluck U wrote:Wait, are you telling me that our President sent a second place piece of equipment, not the best, because we didn't want to give our best troops the best chance of being successful when going hundreds of miles into another country's territory in order to get the number one terrorist...the one responsible for thousands of American deaths? Of course, that make total sense. I mean, if the second best equipment failed, and some of our guys got killed, that wouldn't have been a complete embarrassment for our administration.Grizalltheway wrote:
I'm not 100%, but I doubt we've lost our 'best' military technology to either Iran or China.
And if you don't think China got a look, and a piece, of our helicopter, then I've got a bridge for you to purchase.
Oh, and reports are that the drone that Iran has is one of our best.
Ooops!
...ahem!!Grizalltheway wrote:Are you that big of a tool that you're going to sit here and blame drones and helicopters crashing squarely on Obama?Cluck U wrote:
Wait, are you telling me that our President sent a second place piece of equipment, not the best, because we didn't want to give our best troops the best chance of being successful when going hundreds of miles into another country's territory in order to get the number one terrorist...the one responsible for thousands of American deaths? Of course, that make total sense. I mean, if the second best equipment failed, and some of our guys got killed, that wouldn't have been a complete embarrassment for our administration.
And if you don't think China got a look, and a piece, of our helicopter, then I've got a bridge for you to purchase.
Oh, and reports are that the drone that Iran has is one of our best.
Ooops!
