Posted on 12/31/2019 2:06:22 AM PST by PghBaldy
I doubt it, but I know what you mean.
Dependent: requiring someone or something for financial, emotional, or other support.
Bush needed to get rid of the regime in Iran, after Saddam.
Easier said than done. Regime change should have been our policy since Khomeini took over in 1979. I was in Iran during the fall of the Shah and the overrunning of our Embassy the first time on February 14, 1979.
If you cannot see the difference between this assault and Benghazi, you do not have the brains to understand anything said in explanation.
Go play in traffic.
Those aren’t Iraqi protesters; they’re Iranian terrorists. The Iraqi protesters were the ones that burned down the Iranian consulates in Najaf, Basra, and Karbala.
I said there are parallels.
The article said an Iranian backed militia group. Same as Iran.
This is NOT Trump’s Benghazi in the least. No ambassador or any American staff were killed in a day long firefight that was ignored by the State Dept.
> “The article said ...”
I see ...
Same logic here:
Rudy Giuliani is anti-Semitic because he’s got evidence on George Soros.
Don’t argue with what I just said.
George Soros is Jewish.
Rudy is attacking GS.
Facts are facts.
Therefore, Rudy is a Jew Hater.
We can take any argument, take the facts and twist to our ends. It’s a Clinton thing.
Lot’s of govt people should have been tried after 9/11 right up to when Trump took office.
Parallels? What parallels?
Benghazi Ambassador begged for extra security months before the attack in which he and 3 others were killed. AS the attack was going on Obama refused to send help and then blamed it all on a freakin’ youtube movie.
In Iraq the embassy was evacuated and all who remain are armed military with help nearby if needed. Plus Trump has publicly held Iran responsible and from his past I guarantee there will be action taken.
So again, what are the parallels?
You got it. The analogy with Iran’s regime and our Pelosi-Schiff-Nadler Axis is a good one.
“I still am puzzled by your statement that the US withholding aid from Iraq will make them more dependent upon Iran.”
Well, whatever aid they’re currently getting from the U.S. will make them more dependent on Iran (or anyone else, for that matter) to get that aid, financial, military, etc.
“Easier said than done. Regime change should have been our policy since Khomeini took over in 1979. I was in Iran during the fall of the Shah and the overrunning of our Embassy the first time on February 14, 1979.”
I know you were, and the mood in Iran was different then.
After Bush went into Iraq after Saddam, there was hopeful anticipation by the Iranian people that Bush would save them also & get rid of the regime. And the regime was much weaker then, with a fraction of the forces they have now. The regime was afraid that Bush would attack them next and was quietly lying low & keeping their heads down. So, it would have been much easier then.
The U.S. tried “regime change” in Iran when the Mossadegh government was overthrown in the 1950s. That lasted for about 25 years before the Iranians toppled the Shah and threw his ass out.
I understand it’s New Year’s Eve, but isn’t it a bit early to start with the imbibing?
We had too when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, and all subsequent actions in Iraq were really follow ups to the initial Gulf War.
Those aren’t Iraqi protesters; they’re Iranian terrorists. The Iraqi protesters were the ones that burned down the Iranian consulates in Najaf, Basra, and Karbala.
There are likely Shia Iraqi’s among them, but you make a good point.
However, the real event will be the coverage by our media of the event and the hyperbolic statements that are sure to come. Most of Western media has one goal - to destroy Trump. The democrat party has one goal - to destroy Trump. The GOPe will want an escalation and many of the most hawkish are not fans of the President. The Iraqi government is controlled by Iran and they are not our friend.
It’s a crap sandwich any way you slice it.
Cue the video of the evacuation of the embassy in Vietnam on the networks and just wait for the ridiculous coverage over what is realistically another day in the life of Iraq.
Hope I am wrong, but doubt it. There are no good options that I see and none that will address the Iran problem short of destroying their regime once and for all.
Trump will not back down, but if he responds harshly the media will say “wag the dog” over impeachment. If he does not respond the media will say he is weak. Dare I say it, but the mad mullah’s of Iran will be turned into a proxy militia of the American left.
Because Trump refused to bomb Iran, I expect the Iranians are looking to replay the US embassy hostage situation in 1979. Now would be the time to remove all US personnel from Iraq.
We didn’t have to do anything. In fact, radical Islam is far more prevalent in those oil-rich countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that rely on the U.S. to defend them because their own citizens can’t even be bothered defending their country.
“The U.S. tried “regime change” in Iran when the Mossadegh government was overthrown in the 1950s. That lasted for about 25 years”
25 yrs, Not bad. And in that 25 yrs, Iran prospered like never before, financially, socially, militarily, educationally, globally. It’s too bad the Iranians brainwashed by the mullahs with help from Russia, didn’t have ability to see into the future at what was going to happen when they ushered in the Ayatollah.
and another example of why Bush Jr. should go down in history as one of the worst presidents in US history.
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.