This year we could face our greatest security challenge/threat since WWII.

[BigRedChief]

If you are paying attention, it's going to happen.

Take your pick from below. They are just waiting to blow up. We will not be able to keep all these threats/challenges from exploding.

• Iran on the verge of nuclear weapon. We or Israel attacks. Shit can spiral out of control quick. Iran attacks the USA in the continental USA.
• North Korea has nuclear weapons. They have paid unemployed Russian ballistic engineers to help them. They are now making progress. The kid needs to prove to the military he is as loco as they are. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
• Pakistan has a coup or political instability and terrorists get a hold of one of their nuclear weapons. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
• Syria draws us into a renewal of the cold war. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
• The Saudi or Jordanian Kings get thrown out by their people.
• Egypt turns to civil war and the hard liners win and disavow the Israeli/Egyptian treaty. Shit can spiral out of control quick.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

you just cannot help yourself. Obama got us out

Even though we're still there he got us out.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Your information is incorrect. We had a lot of options to stay. The Iraq's didn't kick us out. We chose to leave. McCain would not have left.

No that is correct information. The Status of Force agreement set a deadline under Bush. Obama had to get out. The Iraqi's wanted us out. McCain may have pushed to stay but I am not sure he could have without some major controversy. But the agreement was signed by Bush.

Fact Check
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/po...raq/index.html

Each man's attacks are rooted in fact. The Obama administration did attempt, unsuccessfully, to extend the presence of a scaled-back U.S. training mission in Iraq, while Romney has said Washington should have kept a considerably larger force in Baghdad.

and

http://www.businessinsider.com/debat...#ixzz2JJs9mnqp

The status of forces agreement — put into place in 2008, before Obama took office — called for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. When that time came, the Obama administration tried to work out an extension of the agreement with the Iraqi government that would have kept an unspecified number of U.S. troops (likely between 3,000 and 5,000) in the country to train Iraqi security forces.

The deal fell apart after Iraqi political leadership refused to grant legal immunity for U.S. troops, and the last U.S. troops withdrew from the country in December 2011.

[KC Dan]

It's onlu Bushs' fault when it is a negative for the U.S., silly people. Get with the program. If it is positive, it is always Obama, jeez...When will people learn, racists

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No that is correct information. The Status of Force agreement set a deadline under Bush. Obama had to get out. The Iraqi's wanted us out. McCain may have pushed to stay but I am not sure he could have without some major controversy. But the agreement was signed by Bush.

The Status of Force agreement is a piece of paper. We were the ones with 169K troops on the ground. Obama got us out of a war zone. He had a choice.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm pretty sure they blamed the people who attacked for the attack, and the video guy was jailed for a clear probation violation.

They blamed the filmmaker and coincidentally someone decided to bring the hammer down on a parole violation. How convenient.

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No that is correct information. The Status of Force agreement set a deadline under Bush. Obama had to get out. The Iraqi's wanted us out. McCain may have pushed to stay but I am not sure he could have without some major controversy. But the agreement was signed by Bush.

Fact Check
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/po...raq/index.html

Each man's attacks are rooted in fact. The Obama administration did attempt, unsuccessfully, to extend the presence of a scaled-back U.S. training mission in Iraq, while Romney has said Washington should have kept a considerably larger force in Baghdad.

an
http://www.businessinsider.com/debat...#ixzz2JJs9mnqp

The status of forces agreement — put into place in 2008, before Obama took office — called for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. When that time came, the Obama administration tried to work out an extension of the agreement with the Iraqi government that would have kept an unspecified number of U.S. troops (likely between 3,000 and 5,000) in the country to train Iraqi security forces.

The deal fell apart after Iraqi political leadership refused to grant legal immunity for U.S. troops, and the last U.S. troops withdrew from the country in December 2011.

Hey, the first legitimate thing I've seen you can actually blame Bush for! Never heard it said though.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Even though we're still there he got us out.

I don't consider 200 troops still at war in Iraq. We have 200 troops manning the Patriot missiles that we gave Turkey last month. 200 troops are not a war machine.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The Status of Force agreement is a piece of paper. We were the ones with 169K troops on the ground. Obama got us out of a war zone. He had a choice.

Go and see the edits I made to my last post which is #77.

The SoF is more than a piece of paper. It's an agreement. Obama tried to keep some troops there but failed to convince the Iraqis. They made us honor our agreement was all that happened.

Your using half-truths.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

Hey, the first legitimate thing I've seen you can actually blame Bush for! Never heard it said though.

Well, I don't know if "blame" is the right word. I guess you'd have to see that as a bad thing. I don't happen to see it that way.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

blaming a filmaker for benghazi is not an "appeasement" by the President. Try again. He's an appeaser, correct? You should be able to provide a list???

Blaming a filmmaker and being critical of the exercise of free speech that offends our Islamist adversaries (instead of defending such a central tenet of our society) in order to curry favor with them is most certainly appeasement.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Go and see the edits I made to my last post which is #77.

The SoF is more than a piece of paper. It's an agreement. Obama tried to keep some troops there but failed to convince the Iraqis. They made us honor our agreement was all that happened.

Your using half-truths.

It was a non enforcable paper. We didnt want to leave, who was going to make us leave? Leaving was our choice. Thats a fact that I know first hand. We did not leave, repeat not leave because of some SOF agreement.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you just ain't a whistling dixie. No matter who's in office our foreign policy is erriely similiar. Look at the Presidential debate between Romney and Obama. 90% the same.

Now Obama got us out of Iraq. McCain was prepared to stay 100 years. We are getting out of Afghanistan and I think Romeny would have kept us there longer but he would have got us out too.

Correction: Obama retreated from Iraq.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Blaming a filmmaker and being critical of the exercise of free speech that offends our Islamist adversaries (instead of defending such a central tenet of our society) in order to curry favor with them is most certainly appeasement.

BS. Appeasement is allowing someone to take something from you and hoping they dont take more.

Where is the rest of the appeasement examples?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

BS. Appeasement is allowing someone to take something from you and hoping they dont take more.

Appeasement is giving in to the demands of an enemy in order to avoid conflict. Islamists demand that we truncate our freedom of speech when it comes to depictions of Islam or Mohammed. Obama's criticism of someone who exercised their free speech in that manner and the subsequent (purely coincidental, I'm sure) jailing of that person is designed to placate those Islamist concerns. That's not the same as handing over California to prevent Mexico from attacking us, but it's appeasement nonetheless, whether you like it or not.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Where is the rest of the appeasement examples?

Why do I need to provide a list? Even if someone only rapes a single girl, he's still a rapist, right? That said, this wasn't a singular event. Obama's four years have been filled with similar examples of appeasement from his Cairo speech to his calls for Hosni Mubarak to step down to his cancellation of naval exercises in order to avoid conflict with the Iranians. Weakness is part of his character.