If we go back into Iraq, will Hilary make any statements on it?

[Saint Milei]

Would be very interesting to see her discuss Iraq again

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

She couldn't avoid giving a statement if she wants to be taken seriously. Her detractors would eat her alive.

[Simfan34]

No, she will say nothing whatsoever about the matter and completely disregard it.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

100% moot point. Absolutely will not ever happen under any circumstances. Obama made his career on opposing intervention in the first place, and he is more than intelligent enough to not drag the country back into the quagmire again. The most he will do is airstrikes, if anything, so Hillary will not have to comment on any re-entrance into Iraq.

[IceSpear]

If we nuke Japan again, will Hillary make any statements on it?

[Bull Moose Base]

A more realistic scenario:

If we don't go back into Iraq and it descends into basically civil war and the Republicans all blame Obama for pulling out of Iraq, will Rand Paul agree with everyone? I say yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She supported a $1 trillion war invading a country that didn't have Al Qaeda active. She supported arming the rebels in Syria, who include Al Qaeda and are active in Iraq. So she has made her pro Al Qaeda position abundantly clear.

[Beet]

She supported a $1 trillion war invading a country that didn't have Al Qaeda active. She supported arming the rebels in Syria, who include Al Qaeda and are active in Iraq. So she has made her pro Al Qaeda position abundantly clear.

So anyone who is pro rebel is pro Al Qaeda now? Is BRTD pro Al Qaeda then? What about the fact that Assad is the most brutal dictator on this side of North Korea, who routinely massacres his own people? And the rebels in Syria, including al Nusra, are the ones who were most successful in fighting against ISIS/ISIL, the group that is taking over Iraq now. They are the real enemy. If we had listened to Hillary and taken out Assad back in 2013, Iraq would probably still be in one piece today.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

She supported a $1 trillion war invading a country that didn't have Al Qaeda active. She supported arming the rebels in Syria, who include Al Qaeda and are active in Iraq. So she has made her pro Al Qaeda position abundantly clear.

So anyone who is pro rebel is pro Al Qaeda now? Is BRTD pro Al Qaeda then? What about the fact that Assad is the most brutal dictator on this side of North Korea, who routinely massacres his own people? And the rebels in Syria, including al Nusra, are the ones who were most successful in fighting against ISIS/ISIL, the group that is taking over Iraq now. They are the real enemy. If we had listened to Hillary and taken out Assad back in 2013, Iraq would probably still be in one piece today.

What about Assad? The rebels may not be Al Qaeda, but they still are the bad guys in my opinion. America has no dog in this fight, nor do we have one in Iraq. If we had listened to Hillary, Alawites would be slaughtered and our embassy would be burnt to the ground by ex rebel ingrates.

On another note, BRTD is worse than being pro Al Qaeda, because he supports all of Obama's wars while mocking American veterans routinely. It is called being a douche, and it is far, far more dangerous to American security than some routed shell organization that exists in the mountains of Afghanistan.

[Beet]

She supported a $1 trillion war invading a country that didn't have Al Qaeda active. She supported arming the rebels in Syria, who include Al Qaeda and are active in Iraq. So she has made her pro Al Qaeda position abundantly clear.

So anyone who is pro rebel is pro Al Qaeda now? Is BRTD pro Al Qaeda then? What about the fact that Assad is the most brutal dictator on this side of North Korea, who routinely massacres his own people? And the rebels in Syria, including al Nusra, are the ones who were most successful in fighting against ISIS/ISIL, the group that is taking over Iraq now. They are the real enemy. If we had listened to Hillary and taken out Assad back in 2013, Iraq would probably still be in one piece today.

What about Assad? The rebels may not be Al Qaeda, but they still are the bad guys in my opinion. America has no dog in this fight, nor do we have one in Iraq. If we had listened to Hillary, Alawites would be slaughtered and our embassy would be burnt to the ground by ex rebel ingrates.

You're preaching to the wrong choir, my man. I'm against intervention, as I've made clear many times before. But if you think the events of the last week have strengthened the isolationist position, you're wrong. I recognize negative developments for my position when I see them, even though I don't like it. The existence of ISIS/ISIL, which is now in danger of becoming a real state, is entirely due to the power vacuum in Syria left by the civil war. It's a much bigger disaster than Benghazi. Libya is bad sure, but it's not nearly as bad as Syria. And the decision not to airstrike Syria made the U.S. look weak, particularly since Obama had pointed out a red line. In the months since we've seen U.S. rivals from Russia to China emboldened. There's a good argument to be made that the August 2013 decision not to air strike was a mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to vote that Al Qaeda is still more dangerous to the U.S. than BRTD.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She supported a $1 trillion war invading a country that didn't have Al Qaeda active. She supported arming the rebels in Syria, who include Al Qaeda and are active in Iraq. So she has made her pro Al Qaeda position abundantly clear.

So anyone who is pro rebel is pro Al Qaeda now? Is BRTD pro Al Qaeda then? What about the fact that Assad is the most brutal dictator on this side of North Korea, who routinely massacres his own people? And the rebels in Syria, including al Nusra, are the ones who were most successful in fighting against ISIS/ISIL, the group that is taking over Iraq now. They are the real enemy. If we had listened to Hillary and taken out Assad back in 2013, Iraq would probably still be in one piece today.

We don't have to pick a side in every conflict, you know. In fact, we wouldn't be in this mess if we'd learn to leave the Middle East alone. Maybe we can pick some other area of the world to take an active interest in.