He surrendered in Iraq and left. He can surrender in Afghanistan and leave there, too. I think he's more interested in using drones to bomb our ally Pakistan though. He is the commander in chief. He can do whatever he wants as far as those powers are concerned. I don't see the point in making excuses for something you disagree with, eh?
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. The subject is that Obama had what I thought was a good exit strategy to get us out of a war we don't belong in. Now, there is a 100% about face and we will be sending people there to die for decades to come. I don't approve. I wanted to know what others thought about this. That was the entire subject opf my original post.
you have to understand. His followers are only concerned about what he promises, not what he does. Anything that does not follow along with a promise is to be blamed on someone else. That way his sheeple are placated
Maybe he could just surrender. Then apologize. Seems to be the M.O. Bush isn't president anymore. If you want to play that game, it's Carter's fault. He made the middle east into the mess it is.
He left us Iran. And Hezbolah. And the mess in Syria. And every other terrorist organization sponsored by Iran. The Iran-Iraq war. Russians invaded Afghanistan while he snoozed.
Carter created all those organizations, huh. And he, not the CIA, created the Shah and massive legal torture in Iranian law, causing the revolution and Soviet invasion next door. Yep.
The CIA may have done those things, but Carter made the whole nation our enemy for decades that followed the revolution. The soviets perceived weakness and took advantage of the fool in the oval office.
Nope, as I said, Carter didn't install the Shah and then train SAVAK. You guys did long before he came out of Georgia.
1. You proved that they met in the late 70s. 2. You were trying to prove that Carter installed the Shah in the early 50s, created SAVAK, and created a reign of terror. 3. You failed miserably.
He kissed the shah's ass. And wiped it for him when he took a shit. The people of Iran hated him and us for it ever since. If I could find those pictures, which were public and in the papers, so could the Iranian people.
Now I understand the theory you think you proved. Iranians were content to be tortured for 20 years, but then they saw pictures of Carter meeting the Shah, so they overthrew the Shah. Darn that Carter. Why didn't he send the photographer outside to get more pictures of Socks or whoever his dog was.
No. They overthrew the Shah, regardless of what Carter wanted. It's how Carter acted after the revolution that mattered. There's a reason the students took our people hostage.
I am disappointed we are considering this... especially when Obama specifically said our combat troops would be out in 2014. Does it make sense to leave a small force there? Maybe, but I think it is pretty weak to say the combat mission is over, then still leave troops there to train and work with or support Afghan troops.
Continuing my quest to guess at what it is you're hinting... So you're saying that in the midst of revolution against torture by SAVAK, which the U.S. had trained and Iranians knew it, Carter should have attacked. Iran is 3 times as big as Iraq. A war with Iran beginning in 1979 would be finishing about now, caused by our national bankruptcy.
