quarter expenses.
Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!
Make a difference.
PLEASE Contribute Today!
Posted on 08/12/2014 5:20:51 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
US combat forces will not re-enter Iraq, John Kerry insists, but the US says it will explore more “political, economic and security options” as the country transitions out of political deadlock with a new prime minister.
With a new “inclusive, participatory” government in Baghdad, the US would “absolutely look to provide additional options” to help stabilise the country.
Kerry made it clear this did not mean a return of US combat troops.
“There will be no reintroduction of American combat forces into Iraq,” he said. “Nobody, I think, is looking forwards to a return to the road that we’ve travelled.
“What we’re really looking for here is a way to support Iraq, support their forces with either training or equipment or assistance of one kind or another, that can help them to stand on their own two feet and defend their nation.
“That’s the goal. That’s where the conversation begins.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
So we’re just going to continue funding and supplying both sides (directly or indirectly) with enough small arms to wipe out their next generation.
Kerry will negotiate that only half of the Christians
will be raped, enslaved, and their children beheaded.
Only half, so that HE can “look good”.
Kerry obviously misrecognizes human blood
... as Heinz ketchup.
He’s like a floating leaf, pretending to tell the river where to take him.
Well... ya go and hire a Vietnam war protester as Secretary of State...
I wonder if he has noticed that ISIS is behaving like Genghis Khan.
Let’s keep telegraphing to the enemy what we will and won’t do. Seems to have worked great so far. Idiots!!!!!!
In the 1950s and early 1960s (until Viet Nam) we were brought up being taught that the US military was the forces of good to be used only to defend us and fight evil.
US policy has lost all pretense of either fighting to defeat evil or defending our borders.
We are no longer the country I grew up in. Not even close.
In other words we'll try to pay them to be our friends (economic options) and act like they're keeping the peace (security options) and we'll prop up whatever barbarian ends up in power. (political options) All done with our money, nice.
With a new “inclusive, participatory” government...
You know, that sounds great at the local LGBT convention but in world politics it means you don't have the cajones to go toe to toe with them.
Kerry made it clear this did not mean a return of US combat troops.
In other words, "hey enemies of the US, just ride this out and you're still in business. Nothing to fear from us." Kerry and bammy really are babes in the woods when it comes to international politics. They literally have no idea what they are doing... Unless strengthening our enemies and weakening the US internationally is their intent. There is probably a 50-50 chance that is one of their goals.
Does not matter. When realities and events force them to put boots on the ground, they will once again engage in rhetorical contortions to blame George Bush.
And the low-info public will buy it.
And the 300+ boots that are there are only advisors....
We're there because we didn't leave a force behind as we have done for every other war....and it was at the SPECIFIC direction of Obama.
Obama, Kerry and the left want every opportunity when they speak about Iraq to throw Bush under the bus. Even all these years later, in effect they are trying to blame Bush for ISIS. Nobody is buying it though.
The irony here is that they would confiscate American’s own weapons while supplying a foreign country with military weapons free of charge (ammo included)! Oh, and we the taxpayers are funding this.
Would someone like Kerry want to harm America and other Americans? Does he hate the US the same way Obama does? Does he think he, John F’in Kerry would be immune to any harm from terrorists, by enabling them and weakening this country? If there were 10 9/11s that happen as a result of Obama and his actions/in-actions, what would be his comments?
I thought there were 800 US “troops” in Iraq securing the embassy?
The easy answer is just look at Kerry's and other liberals' economic stance. They most certainly want to harm and punish "the rich" by taking away the fruits of their success.
But that's too easy, I understand that by "harm" you meant physical harm not economic harm. Sadly, I believe the answer to that is also yes. Two parts to that: One, given the violent rhetoric of liberals I have no doubt they wish physical harm upon people with conservative views. It is regularly spouted all over social media. Two, liberals are generally ideologically driven. At the far end of the bell curve (in fact probably not all that far down it) many believe the struggle for progressive ideals is bigger than the people making it. I believe they would have no problem with a few (for a suitably vague definition of "a few") Americans coming to harm if it meant the advancement of their agenda - "for the greater good." For these people, the ends justifies any means. That's why you see them acting so hypocritical. They espouse high ideals, but are willing to do and say the basest things about or to their enemies - they feel justified in doing so.
As to harming America overall I believe Kerry and many liberals are on board with that. I am sure obama holds that as an objective. Why? Because they view themselves as having "a larger view" they think of themselves as world citizens, world socialists looking out for everyone not just Americans. By their actions and statements (eg. the apology tour) it is obvious they believe it is wrong for America to act unilaterally on the world stage (unless of course it is on some issue they support). But when it comes to projecting strength and power - shudder, they can't stomach that. So obama and his cohorts don't just want to act differently while they are in power. They know that isn't going to last. They want to transform America. They want to fundamentally weaken America so that not only won't we (under their leadership) act unilaterally, we can't act unilaterally under subsequent leadership. Not for a long time, if ever. So yes, they are intentionally weakening America so that we will have to "play nice" with everyone else. That is their gift to the world, to the people they see as their responsibility, not Americans.
Finally, no-doubt Kerry feels pretty safe personally. No doubt lives in a nice area. No doubt has lots of personal security. Probably thinks any terrorist attack will happen to someone else, and while that's too bad, well, his objectives are far bigger than a few thousand lives.
No combat troops in Iraq? Who does this clown think is lasing the targets they’re hitting?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.