No, it's Obama's fault. Romney would have grabbed his bayonet, jumped on his horse, and rescued the ambassador.

Now there's an image...

I believe Romney would have used force to save American lifes. Our current administration is too apologetic to the Muslim world. An example is allowing the Iraqi government to decide whether or not we withdrew our forces. Seems like I remember we won that war

Yeah we won, in 2003, "mission accomplished", remember?
Oh wait, we "won", when Gen Petraeus convinced the natives that if they helped us whup the insurgents streaming into the country, we would go home.
You see, most of us don't want Iraq to be a state, not even a possession, because if that happens, nobody will ever trust us again.

Well then what the fuck are we still there for, nine years later?
Oh that's right, we're doing that "nation building" we don't do.

Hmm, how do you know when you're done?
I guess you ask the nation you built, if they are ready to go it alone.

But I'm sure Romney would give you better job security, at least until you're dead.

Only fools and weak presidents routinely force to obtain victories. Let's see. Haiti. How many American soldiers died in that invasion? Smarter leaders won the entire war without firing a shot.

Bosnia. Let's see. Once we decided the Europeans could not solve their own problem, then we had Milosevik negotiate himself right out of his job. 100,000 American soldiers and $1trillion spent to fight our way in? Oh. Intelligent leaders solved the whole thing by expensing near zero munitions.

Great leaders find solutions without wasting American solders uselessly (ie Mission Accomplished, VietNam, Lebanon). That was 5000 American soldiers massacred because a president was so dumb stupid as to "use force to save American lifes". To even protect America from mythical weapons.

Weak and demented leaders, such as George Jr and Nixon, even lied to themself. And therefore massacred Americans for no purpose. Because inferior leaders only see solutions in military crusades.

I'm sure you're aware that using force also sacrifices American lives. Basically, neither option would guarantee American lives are saved. Granted, soldiers are expected to lose their lives in conflict and granted, they would likely have had a better shot at surviving than the ambassador, but someone was gonna die. It was just be a matter of whose life is lost. Using force would mean the decision is made that the one ambassador was worth however many soldier lives the force would have taken during AND after the fact, assuming the use of force was successful.

Also, last I remember, Iraq is still its own country and we had turned sovereignty over to them back in 2004. That being the case, and as long as we're not contractually obliged by their government, such as it is, to remain, they have every right to tell us GTFO and we need to honor that if we're not at war with them. Gratitude has no currency value in this case, not if we can't keep the promises made way back when to rebuild the infrastructure.

How long did we occupy the Phillipines, Germany, and Japan?? Did we leave because they told us to go? Also, I believe strongly we should have seized the oil to pay our debts.

Mythical weapons in Iraq??? Re-check your facts. Open Source reporting acknowledges there were chemical weapons recovered. I personally know 2 soldiers injured by them. Also, Open Source reporting has revealed the insurgents were using chlorine gas bombs. Chemical weapons are a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

BTW, don't blame Vietnam on the Republicans. That was a mess created by Democrats and it was a Republican who got us out. I just can't see a Republican President watching real time uas footage and not sending troops to rescue them. Remember, that consulate was considered US Soil.

Did they tell us to GTFO?

You talking about Eisenhower (R) with his nation-building project covered by SEATO? The one where his pet nation South Vietnam elected a right bastard for a president, who then claimed to be under attack from North Vietnam because the North very publicly didn't like him, thus starting the war itself in 1957?

Or do you mean Kennedy (D) who didn't immediately send troops to clean up the mess when the skirmishes started, but did go on the indirect offense with missions like Operation Ranch Hand?

Or Johnson (D) who was president when Tonkin happened and the battles really ramped up?

Or Nixon (R) with his Vietnamization, Christmas Bombing and the signing of a peace treaty that ended the war for the US but not for Eisenhower's pet nation South Vietnam, effectively abandoning it and allowing it to get taken over by the North?

Lots of failures for both sides of the aisle there.

Only extremists would blame one side of the aisle. To ignore the problem. We know from Nixon's tapes that Kissinger and Nixon discussed what they knew was already an American defeat. But Nixon's #1 concern: not surrender on his watch. So he massacred the most American soldiers in that useless and unnecessary war.

In that draft, the Officer said they would do everything possible to keep us all out of the Army. 150 went in. Only 13 were physically fit for the Army. That President was more concerned for his legacy than the nation, a solution, or American soldiers. Even Army officers knew better.

Why was Alexander so Great? He also did what informed and intelligent leaders do. He negotiated so that his soldiers would not be wasted in battle. He also did not foolishly do the equivalent of "seizing oil to pay debts". Only dumb stupid leaders do that.

Romney would have to use "force to save American lifes". Because his people have a long history of getting Americans in trouble. Unilaterally attacking others even for no reason. Talking belligerently. And putting more Americans at risk. Informed leaders and military know the best way to save lives is to not make military force necessary. History demonstrates only the informed avert a need for military force. So many examples posted previously.

Why did Colin Powell avert a military conflict with China? Again, the informed solve problems without military force. By silencing wackos in George Jr's administration. And by negotiating to solve an otherwise simple problem. Those wackos that so wanted a China war are the baggage that Romney would bring to the White House.

Wackos routinely see conflict as a solution. Especially when it created a bogeyman.

Mythical weapons of mass destruction: some gas (which is routinely found even in semiconductor fabs) is not a WMD. But wackos harm American soldiers by solving all problems with a military adventure. By even inventing mythical threats.

Smart leaders would have heard what every nation, adjacent to Iraq, said. He was a threat to no one. 'Big dic' thinking would routinely massacre American soldiers for greater glory. To even steal oil and treasure to pay for it. America does not need leaders who find solutions in military crusades. America is still suffering (ie this recession) from that stupidity.

'Big dic' thinking is the last thing we want in the White House. History says why.

I bet he did. Wars of conquest to take natural resources are a historical reality that I am not as anxious as Big Sarge for us to return to.

long enough to commit genocide for not-our-first-time. Pretty sure that's not a great example, mate.

Sarge, please tell us why the Republicans ripped Jimmy Carter, a Democratic President,
for losing one helicopter and several lives in an unsuccessful raid
to free hostages in Iran in Operation Eagle Claw (1980).

Caveat: Be careful to whom you attribute blame for the aborting of this mission.

I don't know anything much about the Philipines, but as far as I am aware America went to war with Germany and Japan because of an attack on American territory.

Iraq was supposedly 'liberated' from an oppressive dictator. Time and again we were told that we were not at war with the Iraqi people. So why are we now talking in terms of winners and losers, defeated and victorious?

Not leaving until you decide, regardless of the desires of the nation you are occupying sounds a lot like imperialism to me.

If Obama gets reelected, I'd like to see him offer Romney an appointment as Ambassador to Libya (in the spirit of bipartisanship of course).

Cyber Wolf - The truth is the first US troops were sent into French Indochina by President Truman in 1950 to train the Vietnamese and support the French. At the end of Eisenhower's term, there were 796 US troops in country. You should also note that Eisenhower vetoed a plan to use tactical nukes.

Kennedy increased the US presence to 16,000 troops. Johnson was the one that turned it into a full blown war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August 1964 gave Johnson the power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war. This resolution allowed the President unilateral power to launch a full scale war if the President deemed necessary. It has since come to light that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated by the Johnson administration in order to gain power to wage war.

The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam