# Looks like Baghdad imploding



## deltex1

CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.



Check your local listings.


----------



## blackhawk

I'm sure he's been informed at this point I highly doubt there is anything he could do about or if he even wants to.


----------



## Peach

Maliki called troops ahead of his announcement he will "run" for a third term.....................


----------



## Peach

blackhawk said:


> I'm sure he's been informed at this point I highly doubt there is anything he could do about or if he even wants to.



Maliki is bringing in troops because he wants a third term; ISIS not there.


----------



## blackhawk

Peach said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he's been informed at this point I highly doubt there is anything he could do about or if he even wants to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maliki is bringing in troops because he wants a third term; ISIS not there.
Click to expand...


Not yet give them time.


----------



## konradv

Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.


----------



## Lakhota

Maliki's days are numbered.


----------



## Peach

blackhawk said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he's been informed at this point I highly doubt there is anything he could do about or if he even wants to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maliki is bringing in troops because he wants a third term; ISIS not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not yet give them time.
Click to expand...


The Kurds have declined to give them time, are fighting them in Northern Iraq, the UK dropped their FIRST water and food to the Yazidikis today.  We opened a hornet's nest, but ISIS could unite the nation. The COMMON ENEMY factor.


----------



## Peach

Lakhota said:


> Maliki's days are numbered.



He was a lousy pick, yes. We installed the best of the "choices" that could snow Bush, bad move.


----------



## blackhawk

Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.

That is a good point so it's really not our responsibility to take in the children flooding across the Southern border from Central America because of the situation in their countries but that of the people who live there to do something about it and make the situation better instead of sending their children here for us to deal with.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Is Obama finished attacking today's 18th hole yet ?


----------



## blackhawk

Peach said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maliki is bringing in troops because he wants a third term; ISIS not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet give them time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Kurds have declined to give them time, are fighting them in Northern Iraq, the UK dropped their FIRST water and food to the Yazidikis today.  We opened a hornet's nest, but ISIS could unite the nation. The COMMON ENEMY factor.
Click to expand...


The Kurds are strong fighters but they are outnumbered and outgunned unless we start supplying them with weapons or do more than surgical strikes they will get worn down.


----------



## konradv

blackhawk said:


> Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.
> 
> That is a good point so it's really not our responsibility to take in the children flooding across the Southern border from Central America because of the situation in their countries but that of the people who live there to do something about it and make the situation better instead of sending their children here for us to deal with.



That's a different thread, but they are on our doorstep, NOT half a world away.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?


----------



## konradv

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?



Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?


----------



## Lakhota

Possible coup underway.

Troops surround Baghdad 'Green Zone' as embattled Prime Minister Maliki appears to cling to power | News.com.au


----------



## blackhawk

konradv said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.
> 
> That is a good point so it's really not our responsibility to take in the children flooding across the Southern border from Central America because of the situation in their countries but that of the people who live there to do something about it and make the situation better instead of sending their children here for us to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a different thread, but they are on our doorstep, NOT half a world away.
Click to expand...


The principal is the same not matter if were talking a thousand miles away or five thousand.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?



More like a victory lap for beating cousin Muhammed on the 18th hole.


----------



## deltex1

konradv said:


> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064



Saddam is dead, AQ is on the run.  Iraq is secure.  Babble obabble.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Praise Allah Obama killed Osama

That meant a lot. He was so strategically vital. Lord knows how big a mess the ME would be if the Criminal "Mastermind" was still in the picture


----------



## konradv

CrusaderFrank said:


> Lord knows how big a mess the ME would be if the Criminal "Mastermind" was still in the picture



Dubya?  Rummy?  President Cheney?


----------



## Rozman

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
Click to expand...


Bush isn't President...
Your Internet is really slow.
You need to get off dial up...
Upgrade to cable maybe.


----------



## konradv

deltex1 said:


> Saddam is dead, AQ is on the run.  Iraq is secure.  Babble obabble.....



Self-awareness is a good first step, but the goal is to find out WHY you must babble all the time.


----------



## konradv

Rozman said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush isn't President...
> Your Internet is really slow.
> You need to get off dial up...
> Upgrade to cable maybe.
Click to expand...


So what?  I don't post to make you comfortable with your prejudices.


----------



## deltex1

konradv said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam is dead, AQ is on the run.  Iraq is secure.  Babble obabble.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-awareness is a good first step, but the goal is to find out WHY you must babble all the time.
Click to expand...


Change your rag, dude...


----------



## konradv

deltex1 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam is dead, AQ is on the run.  Iraq is secure.  Babble obabble.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-awareness is a good first step, but the goal is to find out WHY you must babble all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change your rag, dude...
Click to expand...


At least I can change.  What's your problem?


----------



## LeftofLeft

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
Click to expand...


The mission was removing Saddam. Democrats stated that he was a threat and had to be removed.


----------



## konradv

LeftofLeft said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mission was removing Saddam. Democrats stated that he was a threat and had to be removed.
Click to expand...


I'm not some generalized "Democrat".  I am me and think for myself.  You should try it some time.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

You guys wanted the people there to rule, and once again they are trying.  Be careful what you wish for...


----------



## bripat9643

konradv said:


> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064



It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Osama is dead, Obama won Iraq, Detroit is saved


----------



## Katzndogz

Peach said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maliki is bringing in troops because he wants a third term; ISIS not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet give them time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Kurds have declined to give them time, are fighting them in Northern Iraq, the UK dropped their FIRST water and food to the Yazidikis today.  We opened a hornet's nest, but ISIS could unite the nation. The COMMON ENEMY factor.
Click to expand...


Except for the part of Iraq that supports ISIS.


----------



## tinydancer

Lakhota said:


> Maliki's days are numbered.



It will be interesting to see if Obama can kill him off Lakhota like he did with Mubarak (barely alive) and Gaddafi (super dead).

You still haven't been able to off Assad. The Ukraine is a complete fuck up.

Hey why not fuck up Iraq too because Obama doesn't like the dude. Hey Karzai take note. 

He hates you too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.
Click to expand...


Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam...yeah surprising


----------



## tinydancer

The UK is Obama's poodle. Apparently Messina yes Obama's Messina is advising Cameron to try to look like he cares and mount a humanitarian effort.

This is pathetic.


----------



## tinydancer

Peach said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maliki's days are numbered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was a lousy pick, yes. We installed the best of the "choices" that could snow Bush, bad move.
Click to expand...


You didn't install jack shit with Maliki. That's why Obama is so pissed. He wants him gone to the tune of ISIS burying people alive.

Obama. The President of the United States of America is now responsible for the deaths of thousands of Yazidis.

Obama. All because he wanted Assad and Maliki gone has unleashed this terror. 

Team Obama in Iraq. It's bad enough what they did in Syria but now Iraq as well.

*Waving their weapons and cheering, fanatics swooping across Iraq stood over bodies and celebrated as they burned 500 Yazidis alive
*

Team Obama burn people alive.

Fanatics swooping across Iraq stood over bodies and celebrated as they burned 500 Yazidis alive | Mail Online


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Lakhota said:


> Maliki's days are numbered.




You got right. Excellent call.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CrusaderFrank said:


> Praise Allah Obama killed Osama
> 
> That meant a lot. He was so strategically vital. Lord knows how big a mess the ME would be if the Criminal "Mastermind" was still in the picture



He was strategically and inspirationally valuable to his terrorist goons in 2001 and some years afterward. You do know what happened in September of that year on Bush:Cheney's watch don't you? 

Obama didnt send Seal Team 6 into OBL's compound to killi or capture him for strategic reasons. I won't bother you with why the 9/11/01 mastermind of those attacks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.



Kneejerk, knucklehead commentary at its finest. Excellent job Deltex1, nice job.


----------



## bianco

tinydancer said:


> *The UK is Obama's poodle. * Apparently Messina yes Obama's Messina is advising Cameron to try to look like he cares and mount a humanitarian effort.
> 
> This is pathetic.



UK is Obama's poodle?
Anyone who thinks that should have a serious rethink.


----------



## Crystalclear

PaintMyHouse said:


> You guys wanted the people there to rule, and once again they are trying.  Be careful what you wish for...




ISIS is not "the people".


----------



## bianco

Crystalclear said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys wanted the people there to rule, and once again they are trying.  Be careful what you wish for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is not "the people".
Click to expand...


Seems it will be soon.


----------



## Moonglow

Oblama is back at the White House, he called off the vacation..Now rwer's will have to fall back on other bitches and moans...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

LeftofLeft said:


> The mission was removing Saddam. Democrats stated that he was a threat and had to be removed.



*Saddam was  a threat* up to December 2002 because the UN inspectors were not allowed in. 

Saddam ceased to be a threat when the inspectors returned. Bush failed to recognize that reality and decided on invasion instead of peaceful disarmament. A tragic blunder Bush made - not the Dems.



tinydancer said:


> Team Obama burn people alive.



Documenting tinydancer's  obsessions.


----------



## irosie91

Crystalclear said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys wanted the people there to rule, and once again they are trying.  Be careful what you wish for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is not "the people".
Click to expand...


Isis is hundreds of millions of people----in the world----
not hundreds of millions in Iraq------but IN THE WORLD----
hundreds of millions is more than enough-----There were
not hundreds of millions of Nazis   in the  1930s and 40s----not even tens of millions.     Do not underestimate  ISIS-----


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...



Tell the President what. Maliki doesn't push Obama around like he did to Bush for years. Guess CNN misled you into one more knee jerk armchair general rant.


----------



## percysunshine

.

How is that 'Peace Prize' working out?

Gotta love those Oslovians.

.


----------



## deltex1

NotfooledbyW said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the President what. Maliki doesn't push Obama around like he did to Bush for years. Guess CNN misled you into one more knee jerk armchair general rant.
Click to expand...

Maliki is gone Foo...he took Obabble's manhood with him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.





This is how an Iraqi heart surgeon described Iraq's medical infrastructure situation in 2009. That is what Bush left behind in Iraq. Did you complain to Bush about the dire straights the Iraqis faced because of Bush's decision to invade and occupy that country - now here are hearing from right wingers that it was all about some old rusty, unusable artillery shells, US and European made, that were abandoned left overs from the Iraq/Iran wars. Did you object to the Bush administration leaving Iraqis in such poor condition after nearly six years of invasion and occupation?



> Occupation, invasion, murder, terrorism, intimidation, and threats would not put an end to the aggravated violence because of the worsening oppression of peoples and unjustified wars that do not create freedoms and democracy.  All that the occupation built as a political process which it alleges to be legitimate, has proved that it is a failure, for the Government of Iraq is classified as the most failed in the world, and the most financially and administratively corrupt. Thus, I urge you to work on expelling the occupation out of Iraq as soon as possible and to allow the Iraqi people and international will to achieve genuine national reconciliation between the patriotic forces and the components of the mosaic of our people and its factions so that it is an Iraqi solution with regional and international support and so that it is not a forced solution as a result of force, invasion and threats.   Dr. Omar Al – Kubaisy  Brussels, Belgium.  March 18th, 2009.





> As for the reality on the ground,   CDs will be handed out to you which will, in pictures,  reflect and  document a little of the suffering of the Iraqi people from the terror of bombardment and bombing, the destruction of infrastructure, violence and terror, the killing which has targeted the people and its doctors, its efficient professionals, and its scientists and academics as well as the forced displacement of people inside and outside Iraq; the suffering of women as well as the widows and the orphans and the spread of crime and sickness and epidemics; the spread of  commercialization of bad medicines and addictive drugs; the internally displaced refugee camps; their conditions as well as the condition of the detainees in the prisons of the occupation as well as in  those of the imposed authority.  However, suffice it for me to state that we are in a country that :
> 1-  70% of its doctors have emigrated.
> 2-  It has lost more than 5,500 of its scientists and academics, killed, imprisoned, or emigrated.
> 3-  70% of its hospitals have minimum standard performance, below the required standards in the remnants of what is destroyed, raided, or stolen.
> 4-  90% of medicines in pharmacies is neither analysed nor is it registered or is bad or corrupt and contaminated; it is brought on to the black market across the borders by ghost companies and a country in which  thousands of unlicensed pharmacies and drug depots exist, run by people who are not pharmacists.
> 5-  Its hospitals are used as centers for ethnic and sectarian physical liquidation and terror by the militias.
> 6-  The Ministry of Health is part of a sectarian quota  division system that specifies the identity of the minister and the directors general and is controlled by the theocratic political parties as well as the religious and sectarian militias. It is an institution in which financial and administrative  corruption prevails and according to the Transparency Committee, more than US Dollars 2 Billion have disappeared as a result of phony ghost contracts and bribery. There is no supervisory or monitoring  role to be mentioned by the present  parliamentarians who are doctors , but on the contrary, their interference may cause a negative effect on the size and the nature of the financial and administrative corruption.
> 7-  Widespread mental illness and drug addiction and the widespread growth of opium poppy plantations and opium for the first time since occupation.
> 8-  Fixing basic medical records and their exchange with insignificant invoices and lists by the occupation authorities.
> 9-  The spread of epidemics and the loss of credibility of all statistics and the lack of statistics of cholera, Measles, Diphtheria and Whooping Cough, and Toxoplasmosis and a worsening situation of Tuberculosis and HIV Aids.
> 10-  Unsafe imported foods.
> 11-  A rise of incidence in cancer and the nature of the registered cases recently and a rise in cases of congenital malformation as due to the aggravated complications as a result of radioactive pollution and the burning down of the forests and trees.  Pollution of rivers, as a result of the collapse of the sewage system, particularly in the Middle and the South caused by the use of Depleted Uranium and White Phosphorous as well as Cluster Bombs, and the prevention by the occupation forces of remedial measures and surveys to discover the polluted locations for sterilization and cleansing.
> 12-  The proliferation of landmines in the sites of  the old wars, as well as unexploded ordinance, especially in Basra and in the border areas.
> 13-  loss of cooperation and harmony with the humanitarian and voluntary organizations, such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and others, as well as financial corruption in the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, and the escape outside Iraq,  of its President with US protection.
> 14-  Lack of medicines and supplies and, as well as minimal  financial allocations, since they  did not exceed 4% of the overall budget allocations in the best of cases, and because of rampant corruption.
> 15-  Lack of safe potable water for more than 70% of the population and the continuing lack of electricity as well as the lack of proper sanitation.
> 16-  The highest rates of infant and newborn mortality in the world.
> 
> 17-  In Iraq after the occupation:
> More than five million persons displaced.
> More than 4 million below poverty level.
> Approximately, 2 million widows.
> Five million orphans.
> Insufficient food for more than eight million.
> More than 400,000 detainees and prisoners.
> More than 28% of the population is unemployed.



Dr. Omar Al Kubaisy s speech in the European Parliament 18 March 2009




> I, an experienced doctor and cardiac specialist, who is  experienced in the treatment of  heart disease and  who has served in his specialty in The State of Iraq for the past 4 decades,  stand in your presence and addresses you.  I have lived with and through the rule of several successive governments and political regimes which you know. I haven't any particular party or political fealty and affiliation.  My people as well as my students and my colleagues in Iraq bare witness to my service in the medical, health and military and civilian medical services fields, professionally as well as academically.  I specialized and trained in European hospitals in England, Italy, Ireland, France and here in Belgium, specializing in heart disease during the critical periods of the long war and the chocking embargo. I transferred the most up to date technical skills and research  you had achieved in the cardiac field in order to benefit Iraq's patients  as well as its doctors at a time when Iraqis suffered from the scourge of a technical, scientific and economic embargo which lasted for 13 years; I also witnessed the invasion of Iraq and when I also saw with my own two eyes, on the 9th and 10th April, 2003, how the invading tanks invaded my cardiac center and burned, looted and plundered the largest center for cardiac surgery in the center of Baghdad in plain sight of the entire world, for it to be left open for further plunder for many days to come under the invader's auspices.
> In this center we used to perform 8 open heart surgeries on Iraqi adults and children, daily.  European doctors from England, Switzerland, France, Italy, Spain and Germany volunteered their work there as a humanitarian contribution to the center.  I recall a telephone call from a colleague from the South of France who had worked in the past with us in the Center, when Baghdad and the area in which the center is situated was undergoing heavy aerial bombardment, during the invasion, begging me to leave the center with the rest of my colleagues in order to escape because the center was a target, as he seemed to believe from the direct satellite pictures. I remember  when tears poured down my cheeks whilst watching the Cardiac Center burn and I was screaming at the commanding officer of the group which supervised the operation from the top of a tank, saying to "me stop your tears", we will build you a greater, larger and more up to date Center.







> Following the U.S. invasion in 2003, 78 percent of Iraq’s health professionals in Baghdad alone had fled by 2007. Before the invasion, Iraq had approximately 34,000 physicians; by 2006, 18,000 remained. Those doctors who stayed were forced to work in difficult conditions: More than 80 percent of physicians at Iraq’s emergency hospitals report being assaulted. Many have paid the highest costs: by 2006, 2,000 Iraqi doctors had been killed.
> Once renowned for its top-notch health care, Iraq has seen its health system steadily collapse. Already hobbled by sanctions before the invasion, 12 percent of all Iraqi hospitals were destroyed, 7 percent were looted, a third of family planning centers were destroyed and leading public health laboratories in Basra and Baghdad were also destroyed after the fall of Iraq. In the facilities that have survived, 65 percent of the remaining equipment is considered useless. Patients needing advanced care have to leave the country.



A grim prognosis for Syrian and Iraqi hospitals Al Jazeera America

And Deltex got excited to hopefully see Baghdad 'IMPLODE' under Obama. Deltex's 'implosion' did not happen under Obama. Let's talk about Bush's 'implosion' that resulted from one President's deliberate and stupid decision to send ground troops in.


----------



## Moonglow

deltex1 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the President what. Maliki doesn't push Obama around like he did to Bush for years. Guess CNN misled you into one more knee jerk armchair general rant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maliki is gone Foo...he took Obabble's manhood with him.
Click to expand...

I see you're crying over the loss of such a divine piece of manhood...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the President what. Maliki doesn't push Obama around like he did to Bush for years. Guess CNN misled you into one more knee jerk armchair general rant.
Click to expand...


Obama turned Iraq over to his Jihadist friends in ISIS


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10000989 regarding NF 9676108, DT 9603587   





CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama turned Iraq over to his Jihadist friends in ISIS



Obama was first world leader to bomb IS terrorists in Iraq and Syria, so you don't make sense at all.

And IS terrorists do not control much of Iraq. And where the do it is predominately in Sunni areas. 

But if you truly are upset about a world leader turning Iraq over to terrorists you need to rethink what GW Bush did. Sunni terrorists such as al Qaeda had an enemy in control of Baghdad until 2003. Al Qaeda would have been dealt with quite brutally if they tried to terrorize Sunni parts of Iraq as IS terrorists have done this past summer.

What Bush did was put a Shiite run government in place that proved incompetent to hold ground in Sunni areas. 

Obama had warned Maliki that he had to recognize Sunni disenchantment with his Shiite government but Maliki would not change. 

Maliki is gone and the new Defense Minister in the new government is a Sunni from Mosul and former officer in Saddam's military.  

IS wont take over Iraq ever. That is more Obama hater's nuttiness.


----------



## jwoodie

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10000989 regarding NF 9676108, DT 9603587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama turned Iraq over to his Jihadist friends in ISIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was first world leader to bomb IS terrorists in Iraq and Syria, so you don't make sense at all.
> 
> And IS terrorists do not control much of Iraq. And where the do it is predominately in Sunni areas.
> 
> But if you truly are upset about a world leader turning Iraq over to terrorists you need to rethink what GW Bush did. Sunni terrorists such as al Qaeda had an enemy in control of Baghdad until 2003. Al Qaeda would have been dealt with quite brutally if they tried to terrorize Sunni parts of Iraq as IS terrorists have done this past summer.
> 
> What Bush did was put a Shiite run government in place that proved incompetent to hold ground in Sunni areas.
> 
> Obama had warned Maliki that he had to recognize Sunni disenchantment with his Shiite government but Maliki would not change.
> 
> Maliki is gone and the new Defense Minister in the new government is a Sunni from Mosul and former officer in Saddam's military.
> 
> IS wont take over Iraq ever. That is more Obama hater's nuttiness.
Click to expand...


If Obama is doing so well, why do you have to keep blaming Bush?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

> CF051 10000989 regarding NF 9676108, DT 9603587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama turned Iraq over to his Jihadist friends in ISIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF*052* 10008755 regarding CF 10000989, NF 9676108, DT 9603587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was first world leader to bomb IS terrorists in Iraq and Syria, so you don't make sense at all. <> And IS terrorists do not control much of Iraq. And where they do it is predominately in Sunni areas. <> But if you truly are upset about a world leader turning Iraq over to terrorists you need to rethink what GW Bush did. Sunni terrorists such as al Qaeda had an enemy in control of Baghdad until 2003. Al Qaeda would have been dealt with quite brutally if they tried to terrorize Sunni parts of Iraq as IS terrorists have done this past summer. <> What Bush did was put a Shiite run government in place that proved incompetent to hold ground in Sunni areas. <> Obama had warned Maliki that he had to recognize Sunni disenchantment with his Shiite government but Maliki would not change. <> Maliki is gone and the new Defense Minister in the new government is a Sunni from Mosul and former officer in Saddam's military. <> IS wont take over Iraq ever. That is more Obama hater's nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JW053 10016173 regarding NF 10008755, CF 10000989, NF 9676108, DT 9603587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama is doing so well, why do you have to keep blaming Bush?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Since when is stating the facts about what happened and the uncontested historical record, 'blaming' somebody. If you dispute anything I've written in post 052, it would be interesting to see what is on your mind if anything is there at all. Your crying about 'blame Bush' in no way refutes what I have presented as an argument for why Obama has been doing the right thing with respect to Iraq and specifically with respect to Maliki. You can't 'blame' Obama for Maliki being PM of Iraq and doing such a terrible job. Maliki gained power under the nose of the Bush White House. I'm not blaming Bush for Maliki's divisive governance over the past seven years. I am pointing out that it was Obama's policy that Iraq would be better off if hey got rid of him in a peaceful and democratic way. And they did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Looks like Baghdad is NOT imploding in a major setback for the US political right just before the midterm elections. The righties here had so hoped to see Baghdad fall by now to IS terrorists for their selfish political agenda they can't even talk about Iraq anymore at all.


----------



## dilloduck

NotfooledbyW said:


> Looks like Baghdad is NOT imploding in a major setback for the US political right just before the midterm elections. The righties here had so hoped to see Baghdad fall by now to IS terrorists for their selfish political agenda they can't even talk about Iraq anymore at all.



If Baghdad had imploded the media wouldn't report on it anyway.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DD 10038086 regarding NF 10038044.  





dilloduck said:


> If Baghdad had imploded the media wouldn't report on it anyway.



But you have Fox News and Limbaugh & all the rest of that hate talk radio machine to get the message out that you prayers were answers. I headed on hate talk radio driving home that more aid and comfort is coming the IS terrorists way from hater leaders like Senator Ted Cruz. It seems Senator Cruz has become a propaganda mouthpiece for the IS terrorists now. He has gone public declaring some 
recent attacks in the US and Canada as IS terrorists inspired. That gives IS terrorist credit for attacks in North
America. In sure the IS terrorists recruiters are appreciating that propaganda support.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF051 10000989 regarding NF 9676108, DT 9603587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama turned Iraq over to his Jihadist friends in ISIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF*052* 10008755 regarding CF 10000989, NF 9676108, DT 9603587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was first world leader to bomb IS terrorists in Iraq and Syria, so you don't make sense at all. <> And IS terrorists do not control much of Iraq. And where they do it is predominately in Sunni areas. <> But if you truly are upset about a world leader turning Iraq over to terrorists you need to rethink what GW Bush did. Sunni terrorists such as al Qaeda had an enemy in control of Baghdad until 2003. Al Qaeda would have been dealt with quite brutally if they tried to terrorize Sunni parts of Iraq as IS terrorists have done this past summer. <> What Bush did was put a Shiite run government in place that proved incompetent to hold ground in Sunni areas. <> Obama had warned Maliki that he had to recognize Sunni disenchantment with his Shiite government but Maliki would not change. <> Maliki is gone and the new Defense Minister in the new government is a Sunni from Mosul and former officer in Saddam's military. <> IS wont take over Iraq ever. That is more Obama hater's nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JW053 10016173 regarding NF 10008755, CF 10000989, NF 9676108, DT 9603587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama is doing so well, why do you have to keep blaming Bush?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is stating the facts about what happened and the uncontested historical record, 'blaming' somebody. If you dispute anything I've written in post 052, it would be interesting to see what is on your mind if anything is there at all. Your crying about 'blame Bush' in no way refutes what I have presented as an argument for why Obama has been doing the right thing with respect to Iraq and specifically with respect to Maliki. You can't 'blame' Obama for Maliki being PM of Iraq and doing such a terrible job. Maliki gained power under the nose of the Bush White House. I'm not blaming Bush for Maliki's divisive governance over the past seven years. I am pointing out that it was Obama's policy that Iraq would be better off if hey got rid of him in a peaceful and democratic way. And they did.
Click to expand...


Val Jarrett said she was holding off having her ISIS troops capture Baghdad until after the November Shellacking. She has the 5 commanders Obama released taking full operational command


----------



## dilloduck

I'm sure they appreciated the weapons drop even more.


----------



## Roadrunner

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
Click to expand...

God ANOTHER idiot that thinks Bush put that sign up.

How fuckin' stupid can you be?

Don't answer, I've seen enough already.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
Click to expand...








^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama






^ Obama and Val Jarrett's Iraq


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> ^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama



Another one of your lies.

That was Spring, 2004.

Right before it all blew up for Dubya.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10038442 regarding KR 9603797, CF 9603770



CrusaderFrank said:


> ^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Obama and Val Jarrett's Iraq



Nope. The purple fingers did not work. More Iraqis were killed and maimed and had their property destroyed or taken away following that purple finger photo you posted.

You could not find enough space to show the 100,000 Iraqis that ended up dead after Bush decided to attack the land where they lived.

But worse for your attempt at making a point is that you need to show the photos of all the Americans that were killed in Bush's Iraq and compare that the photos of Americans killed in what you call Obama's Iraq. Its NOT Obama's Iraq and it never was. Iraq sovereignty was transferred to Iraq during the Bush years

Obama did not inherent occupational authority over Iraq from Bush.

You cannot honestly compare a "Bush Iraq" to an "Obama Iraq".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies.
> 
> That was Spring, 2004.
> 
> Right before it all blew up for Dubya.
Click to expand...


What the fuck are you babbling about you fucking liar


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10038442 regarding KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Obama and Val Jarrett's Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The purple fingers did not work. More Iraqis were killed and maimed and had their property destroyed or taken away following that purple finger photo you posted.
> 
> You could not find enough space to show the 100,000 Iraqis that ended up dead after Bush decided to attack the land where they lived.
> 
> But worse for your attempt at making a point is that you need to show the photos of all the Americans that were killed in Bush's Iraq and compare that the photos of Americans killed in what you call Obama's Iraq. Its NOT Obama's Iraq and it never was. Iraq sovereignty was transferred to Iraq during the Bush years
> 
> Obama did not inherent occupational authority over Iraq from Bush.
> 
> You cannot honestly compare a "Bush Iraq" to an "Obama Iraq".
Click to expand...


Obama has created MILLIONS of refugees in Syria and Iraq. He's done more for Jihad than bin Laden ever could


----------



## Roadrunner

Crystalclear said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys wanted the people there to rule, and once again they are trying.  Be careful what you wish for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is not "the people".
Click to expand...

You don't know that at all.


----------



## Roadrunner

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10038442 regarding KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Obama and Val Jarrett's Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The purple fingers did not work. More Iraqis were killed and maimed and had their property destroyed or taken away following that purple finger photo you posted.
> 
> You could not find enough space to show the 100,000 Iraqis that ended up dead after Bush decided to attack the land where they lived.
> 
> But worse for your attempt at making a point is that you need to show the photos of all the Americans that were killed in Bush's Iraq and compare that the photos of Americans killed in what you call Obama's Iraq. Its NOT Obama's Iraq and it never was. Iraq sovereignty was transferred to Iraq during the Bush years
> 
> Obama did not inherent occupational authority over Iraq from Bush.
> 
> You cannot honestly compare a "Bush Iraq" to an "Obama Iraq".
Click to expand...

You are right.

ISIS(AQ in Iraq, all the same) was not conducting mass executions in broad daylight in  "Bush's Iraq".

Only a pussy like Obama could have emboldened and empowered them to do the things they are doing today.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10038766 regarding NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770 





CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama has created MILLIONS of refugees in Syria and Iraq. He's done more for Jihad than bin Laden ever could.



How on earth did Obama 'create' millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq? Do you have an explanation for why you think that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RR 10038800 regarding NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770



Roadrunner said:


> ISIS(AQ in Iraq, all the same) was not conducting mass executions in broad daylight in  "Bush's Iraq".



Somehow at least 100,000 Iraqis and 4,484 Americans ended up dead in Bush's Iraq.  There was no AQ in Iraq until it became Bush's Iraq. 

What is your point now? Is Obama a 'pussy' to you and Bush is not because Bush was willing to get over 4000 Americans killed in Iraq to prevent mass executions such as the several perpetrated by IS terrorists the past six months?  Your message is very confounding when we look at the numbers. 

And I'll ask you if the attack on September 11 2001 under Bush's watch was a mass execution by terrorists? 

So why was Bush so weak that he "_emboldened and empowered" _AQ to attack NYC and the Pentagon on that crisp September morning in 2001?


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies.
> 
> That was Spring, 2004.
> 
> Right before it all blew up for Dubya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about you fucking liar
Click to expand...

I'll say it again:  the purple fingers were in the Spring of 2004. 

That was before all the insurgency, and the roadside IEDs, and the clusterfuck and chaos that resulted from Bush's quagmire.  It was before Abu Ghraib, it was before Fallujah.

It was only one year after the invasion, when U.S. troops still controlled Baghdad.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Sy 10040071 regarding CF 10038763, Sy 10038470, CF 10038442 





Synthaholic said:


> I'll say it again:  the purple fingers were in the Spring of 2004.
> 
> That was before all the insurgency, and the roadside IEDs, and the clusterfuck and chaos that resulted from Bush's quagmire.  It was before Abu Ghraib, it was before Fallujah.
> 
> It was only one year after the invasion, when U.S. troops still controlled Baghdad.



You will notice that CrusaderFrank and fellow haters are not intellectually or factually equipped to defend their claims and complaints. They really have to fabricate elaborate myths in order to attack Obama and defend the most failed president that preceded him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ The Iraq Bush entrusted to Hussein Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies.
> 
> That was Spring, 2004.
> 
> Right before it all blew up for Dubya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about you fucking liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll say it again:  the purple fingers were in the Spring of 2004.
> 
> That was before all the insurgency, and the roadside IEDs, and the clusterfuck and chaos that resulted from Bush's quagmire.  It was before Abu Ghraib, it was before Fallujah.
> 
> It was only one year after the invasion, when U.S. troops still controlled Baghdad.
Click to expand...


Say it all you want. When Bush left office, Baghdad was safe and stable, no more dangerous than any major US Democrat controlled city. 

Today, it's a disaster, at least as far as normal people look at things. To Obama Fluffers, it's "ISIS in control-- Mission Accomplished!"


----------



## Rotagilla

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
Click to expand...


Who is president now?


----------



## tinydancer

Lakhota said:


> Maliki's days are numbered.



Yeah and how's that worked out for Iraq? ISIS is still at Baghdad's door fool. 

Obama got his regime change and you and other asshole Naziprogs were cheering away that everything would change because BamBam's man was in charge.

Fucking idiots.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TD 10040997 regarding La 9603653





tinydancer said:


> Yeah and how's that worked out for Iraq? ISIS is still at Baghdad's door fool



Look at the fool that started this thread. Its worked out because Baghdad has not imploded. Its not even close. The Kurds have taken back half the territory IS terrorists seized last summer.  Your side is losing so I realize that is frustrating for you, and hence the foul mouth returns.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TD 10040997 regarding La 9603653





tinydancer said:


> Obama got his regime change and you and other asshole Naziprogs were cheering away that everything would change because BamBam's man was in charge. Fucking idiots.



No, Iraq got a peaceful political transition to a more inclusive government. It was not regime change. You are confusing Obama with Bush 43 who decided to create this mess in the first place.  No one opposed to your  ignorance based support for Maliki and his deliberate ruination of Iraq's military    suffer any illusions that iS terrorists would be removed within a month of Maliki's departure. You suffer from delusions if you think anyone did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10040489 regarding Sy 10040071. CF 10038763, Sy 10038470, CF 10038442



CrusaderFrank said:


> Say it all you want. When Bush left office, Baghdad was safe and stable, no more dangerous than any major US Democrat controlled city.
> 
> Today, it's a disaster, at least as far as normal people look at things. To Obama Fluffers, it's "ISIS in control-- Mission Accomplished!"




I'll try to find a breakdown by area, but the data does not support your rediculous contention that Baghdad was more stable in 2008 than it is now.

See: Iraq Body Count

These are the body counts for all of Iraq from 2008 to present ;

*2008                 10227
2013 9742
2014 ten mos 13883*

Your sudden concern for dead Iraqis was surely not so evolved back in 2006      and 2007 was it:

*****29*,*387 & 26,959 dead Iraqis



*


----------



## Roadrunner

NotfooledbyW said:


> TD 10040997 regarding La 9603653
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and how's that worked out for Iraq? ISIS is still at Baghdad's door fool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the fool that started this thread. Its worked out because Baghdad has not imploded. Its not even close. The Kurds have taken back half the territory IS terrorists seized last summer.  Your side is losing so I realize that is frustrating for you, and hence the foul mouth returns.
Click to expand...

Linky thingy?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10040489 regarding Sy 10040071. CF 10038763, Sy 10038470, CF 10038442
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say it all you want. When Bush left office, Baghdad was safe and stable, no more dangerous than any major US Democrat controlled city.
> 
> Today, it's a disaster, at least as far as normal people look at things. To Obama Fluffers, it's "ISIS in control-- Mission Accomplished!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to find a breakdown by area, but the data does not support your rediculous contention that Baghdad was more stable in 2008 than it is now.
> 
> See: Iraq Body Count
> 
> These are the body counts for all of Iraq from 2008 to present ;
> 
> *2008                 10227
> 2013 9742
> 2014 ten mos 13883*
> 
> Your sudden concern for dead Iraqis was surely not so evolved back in 2006      and 2007 was it:
> 
> *****29*,*387 & 26,959 dead Iraqis
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


30% more dead under Obama, but were more stable now?

Did your worst enemy hack your account to make you look like an idiot?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10038766 regarding NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has created MILLIONS of refugees in Syria and Iraq. He's done more for Jihad than bin Laden ever could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth did Obama 'create' millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq? Do you have an explanation for why you think that?
Click to expand...


"An estimated 9 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of civil war in March 2011, taking refuge in neighbouring countries or within Syria itself. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 3 million have fled to Syria's immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. 6.5 million are internally displaced within Syria. Meanwhile, under 100,000 have declared asylum in Europe with a small number offered resettlement by countries such as Germany and Sweden."

Syrian Refugees

Time to reorder your Obama Kneepads


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> 30% more dead *under Obama*, but were more stable now?
> 
> Did your worst enemy hack your account to make you look like an idiot?


Don't you mean 'under Maliki'?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10054941 regarding NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770   





CrusaderFrank said:


> "An estimated 9 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of civil war in March 2011, taking refuge in neighbouring countries or within Syria itself. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 3 million have fled to Syria's immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. 6.5 million are internally displaced within Syria. Meanwhile, under 100,000 have declared asylum in Europe with a small number offered resettlement by countries such as Germany and Sweden."
> 
> Syrian Refugees
> 
> Time to reorder your Obama Kneepads




You were asked "How on earth did Obama 'create' millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq? Do you have an explanation for why you think that?".  And your reply is to post that there are nine million Syrian refugees, but absolutely no explanation as to how Obama  'created' their refugee status. We must presume that you have no explanation or decent and respectable thoughts on the matter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10054941 regarding NF 10038833, CF 10038766 regarding NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "An estimated 9 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of civil war in March 2011, taking refuge in neighbouring countries or within Syria itself. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 3 million have fled to Syria's immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. 6.5 million are internally displaced within Syria. Meanwhile, under 100,000 have declared asylum in Europe with a small number offered resettlement by countries such as Germany and Sweden."
> 
> Syrian Refugees
> 
> Time to reorder your Obama Kneepads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were asked "How on earth did Obama 'create' millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq? Do you have an explanation for why you think that?".  And your reply is to post that there are nine million Syrian refugees, but absolutely no explanation as to howObama  'created' their refugee status. We must presume that you have no explanation or decent and respectable thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...


Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS, that's how how he did it. He destabilized the entire Middle East -- all for Jihad


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> Sy 10040071 regarding CF 10038763, Sy 10038470, CF 10038442
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again:  the purple fingers were in the Spring of 2004.
> 
> That was before all the insurgency, and the roadside IEDs, and the clusterfuck and chaos that resulted from Bush's quagmire.  It was before Abu Ghraib, it was before Fallujah.
> 
> It was only one year after the invasion, when U.S. troops still controlled Baghdad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will notice that CrusaderFrank and fellow haters are not intellectually or factually equipped to defend their claims and complaints. They really have to fabricate elaborate myths in order to attack Obama and defend the most failed president that preceded him.
Click to expand...


Reminder: it's time to reorder your Obama Kneepads


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10062342 regarding NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770  





CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS, that's how how he did it. He destabilized the entire Middle East -- all for Jihad



When was Obama in possession of Syria to "hand" Syria over to anyone? Do you ever think before you put your ridiculous accusations in writing.

And what is "Val Jarret's ISIS?  That's a pretty serious charge. Do you have any evidence or due cause to make such an accusation?

Even your false accusation against Valerie Jarret falls short of how she was able to destabilize "the entire Middle East."   That part of the world that was so entirely stabilized by a US ground invasion in 2003 and five year occupation of Iraq that finally  ended after Bush surrendered to Maliki in December of 2008.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

deltex1 said:


> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.
> 
> 
> 
> Check your local listings.



Oh darn, and here I was thinking about retiring there too.


----------



## Synthaholic

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10062342 regarding NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS, that's how how he did it. He destabilized the entire Middle East -- all for Jihad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was Obama in possession of Syria to "hand" Syria over to anyone? Do you ever think before you put your ridiculous accusations in writing.
> 
> And what is "Val Jarret's ISIS?  That's a pretty serious charge. Do you have any evidence or due cause to make such an accusation?
> 
> Even your false accusation against Valerie Jarret falls short of how she was able to destabilize "the entire Middle East."   That part of the world that was so entirely stabilized by a US ground invasion in 2003 and five year occupation of Iraq that finally  ended after Bush surrendered to Maliki in December of 2008.
Click to expand...

He doesn't need evidence or facts - he's a Republican.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> CF 10062342 regarding NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS, that's how how he did it. He destabilized the entire Middle East -- all for Jihad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was Obama in possession of Syria to "hand" Syria over to anyone? Do you ever think before you put your ridiculous accusations in writing.
> 
> And what is "Val Jarret's ISIS?  That's a pretty serious charge. Do you have any evidence or due cause to make such an accusation?
> 
> Even your false accusation against Valerie Jarret falls short of how she was able to destabilize "the entire Middle East."   That part of the world that was so entirely stabilized by a US ground invasion in 2003 and five year occupation of Iraq that finally  ended after Bush surrendered to Maliki in December of 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't need evidence or facts - he's a Republican.
Click to expand...


You Dems Looooooooooooooove you dictators. You miss Uncle Saddam and wish for a Middle East with Saddam in charge.

Bush turned over to Obama a safe and stable Middle East with only Iran as a large potential problem. In record time, Obama destabilized, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iraq


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Delta4Embassy said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.
> 
> 
> 
> Check your local listings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh darn, and here I was thinking about retiring there too.
Click to expand...



Give the new government about a year. Deltex was only hoping for more Sunni vs Shiite chaos and bloodshed in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. I question however why he won't express appreciation for the wiser US Commander in Chief who wiil not put American combat troops on the ground to fight and be killed and wounded so Iraqis on the 'civilized' side won't have to.

*Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS*


> Oct 29, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by Kris Osborn
> Iraqi soldiers and Kurdish peshmerga fighters have made progress retaking territory in the ongoing ground fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, Pentagon officials said.
> 
> Ground movements against the militant Islamic group of fighters, referred to by Pentagon officials as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, have succeeded in capitalizing upon ongoing U.S. coalition airstrikes aimed at destroying the group from the sky, officials said.
> 
> In central Iraq, Iraqi Security Forces, or ISF, fighters are expanding their control of territory beyond the Baiji oil refinery and advancing against ISIS positions in Amiriyah, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said.
> 
> "ISF is also advancing against ISIL, in Amiriyah, with the assistance of coalition airstrikes, and we've seen ISF achieve success in countering ISIL fighters southwest Baghdad as well," he added.
> 
> Also, persmerga forces have regained control of Zumar, a town about 60 kilometers southwest of Mosul, he added. The operation, which had been planned for over a week, wound up achieving its objectives in a number of days.
> 
> "This is the fourth offensive operation in which peshmerga forces have been able to regain control of ground from ISIL, including Mosul Dam, Sardek Mountain, and Rabia Gate," Kirby added.
> 
> Finally, ISF, Kurdish, and coalition forces have targeted specific ISIS locations to impede its ability to shoot, maneuver, communicate, and move near Mosul Dam, Zumar, Baiji, and Baghdad, Kirby said.
> 
> "This has included the destruction of multiple fighting positions, at least eight ISIL vehicles, to include an ISIL tank, a staging area, and a logistics base," he explained.
> 
> Calling these gains encouraging, Kirby said the progress highlights the Iraqi Security Forces' determination to attack ISIS, something which observers have questioned.
> 
> At the same time, analysts and Pentagon officials recognize that the gains on the ground are heavily bolstered by coalition air strikes targeting ISIS positions, forces, assets and installations from the air above Iraq and Syria.
> 
> One analyst said airstrikes are giving new life to the embattled ISF.
> 
> *Peshmerga Troops Start Entering Syrian Border Town*



Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS Military.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10054941 regarding NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "An estimated 9 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of civil war in March 2011, taking refuge in neighbouring countries or within Syria itself. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 3 million have fled to Syria's immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. 6.5 million are internally displaced within Syria. Meanwhile, under 100,000 have declared asylum in Europe with a small number offered resettlement by countries such as Germany and Sweden."
> 
> Syrian Refugees
> 
> Time to reorder your Obama Kneepads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were asked "How on earth did Obama 'create' millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq? Do you have an explanation for why you think that?".  And your reply is to post that there are nine million Syrian refugees, but absolutely no explanation as to how Obama  'created' their refugee status. We must presume that you have no explanation or decent and respectable thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...


Obama withdrew from the ME so he could spike the football and take a victory lap. The JV waited for Obama to leave then took over Syria and Iraq.

Oh, I forgot, he's the Messiah!  Nothing is ever his fault!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Baghdad falls after the midterm shellacking.

Bookmark it


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.
> 
> 
> 
> Check your local listings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh darn, and here I was thinking about retiring there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give the new government about a year. Deltex was only hoping for more Sunni vs Shiite chaos and bloodshed in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. I question however why he won't express appreciation for the wiser US Commander in Chief who wiil not put American combat troops on the ground to fight and be killed and wounded so Iraqis on the 'civilized' side won't have to.
> 
> *Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS*
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 29, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by Kris Osborn
> Iraqi soldiers and Kurdish peshmerga fighters have made progress retaking territory in the ongoing ground fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, Pentagon officials said.
> 
> Ground movements against the militant Islamic group of fighters, referred to by Pentagon officials as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, have succeeded in capitalizing upon ongoing U.S. coalition airstrikes aimed at destroying the group from the sky, officials said.
> 
> In central Iraq, Iraqi Security Forces, or ISF, fighters are expanding their control of territory beyond the Baiji oil refinery and advancing against ISIS positions in Amiriyah, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said.
> 
> "ISF is also advancing against ISIL, in Amiriyah, with the assistance of coalition airstrikes, and we've seen ISF achieve success in countering ISIL fighters southwest Baghdad as well," he added.
> 
> Also, persmerga forces have regained control of Zumar, a town about 60 kilometers southwest of Mosul, he added. The operation, which had been planned for over a week, wound up achieving its objectives in a number of days.
> 
> "This is the fourth offensive operation in which peshmerga forces have been able to regain control of ground from ISIL, including Mosul Dam, Sardek Mountain, and Rabia Gate," Kirby added.
> 
> Finally, ISF, Kurdish, and coalition forces have targeted specific ISIS locations to impede its ability to shoot, maneuver, communicate, and move near Mosul Dam, Zumar, Baiji, and Baghdad, Kirby said.
> 
> "This has included the destruction of multiple fighting positions, at least eight ISIL vehicles, to include an ISIL tank, a staging area, and a logistics base," he explained.
> 
> Calling these gains encouraging, Kirby said the progress highlights the Iraqi Security Forces' determination to attack ISIS, something which observers have questioned.
> 
> At the same time, analysts and Pentagon officials recognize that the gains on the ground are heavily bolstered by coalition air strikes targeting ISIS positions, forces, assets and installations from the air above Iraq and Syria.
> 
> One analyst said airstrikes are giving new life to the embattled ISF.
> 
> *Peshmerga Troops Start Entering Syrian Border Town*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS Military.com
Click to expand...




NotfooledbyW said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.
> 
> 
> 
> Check your local listings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh darn, and here I was thinking about retiring there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give the new government about a year. Deltex was only hoping for more Sunni vs Shiite chaos and bloodshed in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. I question however why he won't express appreciation for the wiser US Commander in Chief who wiil not put American combat troops on the ground to fight and be killed and wounded so Iraqis on the 'civilized' side won't have to.
> 
> *Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS*
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 29, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by Kris Osborn
> Iraqi soldiers and Kurdish peshmerga fighters have made progress retaking territory in the ongoing ground fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, Pentagon officials said.
> 
> Ground movements against the militant Islamic group of fighters, referred to by Pentagon officials as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, have succeeded in capitalizing upon ongoing U.S. coalition airstrikes aimed at destroying the group from the sky, officials said.
> 
> In central Iraq, Iraqi Security Forces, or ISF, fighters are expanding their control of territory beyond the Baiji oil refinery and advancing against ISIS positions in Amiriyah, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said.
> 
> "ISF is also advancing against ISIL, in Amiriyah, with the assistance of coalition airstrikes, and we've seen ISF achieve success in countering ISIL fighters southwest Baghdad as well," he added.
> 
> Also, persmerga forces have regained control of Zumar, a town about 60 kilometers southwest of Mosul, he added. The operation, which had been planned for over a week, wound up achieving its objectives in a number of days.
> 
> "This is the fourth offensive operation in which peshmerga forces have been able to regain control of ground from ISIL, including Mosul Dam, Sardek Mountain, and Rabia Gate," Kirby added.
> 
> Finally, ISF, Kurdish, and coalition forces have targeted specific ISIS locations to impede its ability to shoot, maneuver, communicate, and move near Mosul Dam, Zumar, Baiji, and Baghdad, Kirby said.
> 
> "This has included the destruction of multiple fighting positions, at least eight ISIL vehicles, to include an ISIL tank, a staging area, and a logistics base," he explained.
> 
> Calling these gains encouraging, Kirby said the progress highlights the Iraqi Security Forces' determination to attack ISIS, something which observers have questioned.
> 
> At the same time, analysts and Pentagon officials recognize that the gains on the ground are heavily bolstered by coalition air strikes targeting ISIS positions, forces, assets and installations from the air above Iraq and Syria.
> 
> One analyst said airstrikes are giving new life to the embattled ISF.
> 
> *Peshmerga Troops Start Entering Syrian Border Town*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS Military.com
Click to expand...







Obama's military genius at work


----------



## deltex1

NotfooledbyW said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job.  Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.
> 
> 
> 
> Check your local listings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh darn, and here I was thinking about retiring there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give the new government about a year. Deltex was only hoping for more Sunni vs Shiite chaos and bloodshed in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. I question however why he won't express appreciation for the wiser US Commander in Chief who wiil not put American combat troops on the ground to fight and be killed and wounded so Iraqis on the 'civilized' side won't have to.
> 
> *Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS*
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 29, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by Kris Osborn
> Iraqi soldiers and Kurdish peshmerga fighters have made progress retaking territory in the ongoing ground fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, Pentagon officials said.
> 
> Ground movements against the militant Islamic group of fighters, referred to by Pentagon officials as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, have succeeded in capitalizing upon ongoing U.S. coalition airstrikes aimed at destroying the group from the sky, officials said.
> 
> In central Iraq, Iraqi Security Forces, or ISF, fighters are expanding their control of territory beyond the Baiji oil refinery and advancing against ISIS positions in Amiriyah, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said.
> 
> "ISF is also advancing against ISIL, in Amiriyah, with the assistance of coalition airstrikes, and we've seen ISF achieve success in countering ISIL fighters southwest Baghdad as well," he added.
> 
> Also, persmerga forces have regained control of Zumar, a town about 60 kilometers southwest of Mosul, he added. The operation, which had been planned for over a week, wound up achieving its objectives in a number of days.
> 
> "This is the fourth offensive operation in which peshmerga forces have been able to regain control of ground from ISIL, including Mosul Dam, Sardek Mountain, and Rabia Gate," Kirby added.
> 
> Finally, ISF, Kurdish, and coalition forces have targeted specific ISIS locations to impede its ability to shoot, maneuver, communicate, and move near Mosul Dam, Zumar, Baiji, and Baghdad, Kirby said.
> 
> "This has included the destruction of multiple fighting positions, at least eight ISIL vehicles, to include an ISIL tank, a staging area, and a logistics base," he explained.
> 
> Calling these gains encouraging, Kirby said the progress highlights the Iraqi Security Forces' determination to attack ISIS, something which observers have questioned.
> 
> At the same time, analysts and Pentagon officials recognize that the gains on the ground are heavily bolstered by coalition air strikes targeting ISIS positions, forces, assets and installations from the air above Iraq and Syria.
> 
> One analyst said airstrikes are giving new life to the embattled ISF.
> 
> *Peshmerga Troops Start Entering Syrian Border Town*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraqi Security Forces Gain Ground Against ISIS Military.com
Click to expand...

Hoping for that kind of chaos and bloodshed is like hoping for a plate of falafel at the local iraqi deli Foo...its the norm.  I don't want our ground troops fighting house to house against the ragheads.  I want them supervising the extermination of anyone who opposes our interests in the region...be they Sunni, Shia, or goat.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10073576 regarding Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770  



CrusaderFrank said:


> You Dems Looooooooooooooove you dictators. You miss Uncle Saddam and wish for a Middle East with Saddam in charge.
> 
> Bush turned over to Obama a safe and stable Middle East with only Iran as a large potential problem. In record time, Obama destabilized, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iraq



I figured you ran away from answering my questions. I see you are still running. Here they are again: *"When was Obama in possession of Syria to "hand" Syria over to anyone?  And what is "Val Jarret's ISIS? *


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10073576 regarding Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Dems Looooooooooooooove you dictators. You miss Uncle Saddam and wish for a Middle East with Saddam in charge.
> 
> Bush turned over to Obama a safe and stable Middle East with only Iran as a large potential problem. In record time, Obama destabilized, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you ran away from answering my questions. I see you are still running. Here they are again: *"When was Obama in possession of Syria to "hand" Syria over to anyone?  And what is "Val Jarret's ISIS? *
Click to expand...


You question is dumb, but that's no surprise. You mean did Obama have Fee title in Syria? Ahh, that's so clever!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10073632 regarding NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770  


CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama withdrew from the ME so he could spike the football and take a victory lap. The JV waited for Obama to leave then took over Syria and Iraq.



Who 'took over' Syria and Iraq? You must be delusional and that explains why you can't answer questions about your previous delusions. 

You were asked "How on earth did Obama 'create' millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq? Do you have an explanation for why you think that?".  

The only withdrawal Obama made from the ME was from Iraq on Bush's time-line.  There was no other option to that . 

Obama had to triple the number of troops in Afghanistan because of Bush's failed war policy there. Bush allowed the Taliban to be on the verge of retaking over in 2009 but Obama reversed the Taliban's momentum.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10074207 NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770



CrusaderFrank said:


> You mean did Obama have Fee title in Syria? Ahh, that's so clever!



I wrote nothing about "Fee title". You wrote that, "Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS... "

Besides the fact that neither Iraq or Syria have been 'handed over' to ISIS by anyone, you are the one that fashioned the idea that, "Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS". Your statement is false unless there is some means of possession that can be transferred from one to another. 

This ability to 'hand over' can be 
figurative if you can think of something,  So why don't you just admit you made it all up and that there was no hand over of Syria from Obama to any terrorist group


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10074207 NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean did Obama have Fee title in Syria? Ahh, that's so clever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote nothing about "Fee title". You wrote that, "Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS... "
> 
> Besides the fact that neither Iraq or Syria have been 'handed over' to ISIS by anyone, you are the one that fashioned the idea that, "Obama handed Syria and Iraq over to Val Jarrett's ISIS". Your statement is false unless there is some means of possession that can be transferred from one to another.
> 
> This ability to 'hand over' can be
> figurative if you can think of something,  So why don't you just admit you made it all up and that there was no hand over of Syria from Obama to any terrorist group
Click to expand...


Obama handed the Middle East to his friends in Jihad


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10077245 regarding NF 10077224, CF 10074207, NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770



CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama handed the Middle East to his friends in Jihad



Nonsense. Here is a sample of a "hand over"  Its Rice and Bush's writing.


*UPDATE:* A copy of Rice’s note:




FLASHBACK Bush Awards Iraqis Their Sovereignty -- Let Freedom Reign ThinkProgress

The way to stop the IS terrorist swarm last summer across parts of Iraq and Syria would have involved massive amounts of US ground troops.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10077245 regarding NF 10077224, CF 10074207, NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama handed the Middle East to his friends in Jihad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Here is a sample of a "hand over"  Its Rice and Bush's writing.
> 
> 
> *UPDATE:* A copy of Rice’s note:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FLASHBACK Bush Awards Iraqis Their Sovereignty -- Let Freedom Reign ThinkProgress
> 
> The way to stop the IS terrorist swarm last summer across parts of Iraq and Syria would have involved massive amounts of US ground troops.
Click to expand...


Obama announced to the Jihadists all they had to do was wait until he withdrew the troops then the Middle East would be theirs for the taking. We still have troops stationed in Germany, Japan and Korea to keep the peace. But leave it up to Obama, he was determined to throw away the blood and treasure spent securing a safe and stable Middle East


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10078206  regarding NF 10078086, CF 10077245 regarding NF 10077224, CF 10074207, NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770  





CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama announced to the Jihadists all they had to do was wait until he withdrew the troops then the Middle East would be theirs for the taking.



No. The facts and the reality are clear. Bush put it in writing and publically announced very precisely, before Obama took over, that all US troops would be out of Iraq's cities by June 2009 and that all US troops would be entirely out of Iraq by the end of 2011. If you believe what you are saying is actually true then your culprit is Bush not Obama.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NotfooledbyW said:


> CF 10078206  regarding NF 10078086, CF 10077245 regarding NF 10077224, CF 10074207, NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama announced to the Jihadists all they had to do was wait until he withdrew the troops then the Middle East would be theirs for the taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The facts and the reality is clear. Bush put it in writing and publically announced before Obama took over all US troops would be out of Iraq's cities by June 2009 and that all US troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. If you believe what you are saying is actually true then your culprit is Bush not Obama.
Click to expand...


How can we discuss ANYTHING with Obama Fluffers???? According to you he's perfect and never did anything wrong


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10078206 regarding NF 10078086, CF 10077245, NF 10077224, CF 10074207, NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770 





CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama announced to the Jihadists all they had to do was wait until he withdrew the troops then the Middle East would be theirs for the taking.



The troops were withdrawn from Iraq, not from the "Middle East."  The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq cities by June 2009 and complete withdrawal of all US troops from all of Iraq by the end of 2011 *was announced* by formal agreement between Bush and Maliki *in December 2008*. If you wish to continue to believe that Obama's announcements that were in keeping with the Bush/Maliki well-defined deadline for all withdrawal, then you must be blaming Bush for the  'waiting' by the Jihadists. But you are also wrong about the Jihadists 'waiting'. Iraq was still deadly in 2009 because the bombings and attacks never completely stopped as they did in Post WWII Germany. More questions for you keep arising. Why did Bush give Iraq sovereignty before achieving a 'surrender' by the Jihadists? Since you bring up Germany's situation after WWII why didn't Bush do what the great Democratic President did, which is defeat the enemy, demand an unconditional surrender, and then consider withdrawing troops from Iraq and granting them sovereignty? Bush granted Iraq Sovereignty in 2004 as shown in Post 99 (NF 10078086). There were three more years of deadly fighting going on after 2004 which begs the question as to why Bush but the cart before the horse with respect to Iraq's sovereignty. And then Bush never defeated all the Jihadists. The jihadists you now call Obama's friends.



CF 10078206 regarding NF 10078086, CF 10077245, NF 10077224, CF 10074207, NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770 





CrusaderFrank said:


> We still have troops stationed in Germany, Japan and Korea to keep the peace. But leave it up to Obama, he was determined to throw away the blood and treasure spent securing a safe and stable Middle East



Obama did not inherit an *"ended war*" in the Middle East nor was it ever as stable as you make it out to be. Bush destroyed more 'stability' than he created because he upset the Sunni/Shia balance along with the stalemate between Iran and Saudi Arabia on the Sunni/Shia divide.  

I explained above sufficiently why troops were able to be stationed in Germany and kept there all these years. But also the 'defeated' German people had no say in the matter for many years. Not so in Iraq was it? East Germany was under Soviet Occupation until the 1990s and the occupation of West Germany ended in 1955, one year after Germany was made a part of NATO.  Did Iraq join NATO or did I miss something Mr. CrusaderFrank?

QUOTE]By the late-1940s, the United States acted to formalize the split and establish western Germany as an independent republic, and in May 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was formally announced. In 1954, West Germany joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the mutual defense alliance between the United States and several European nations. All that remained was for the Americans, British, and French to end their nearly 10-year occupation. This was accomplished on May 5, 1955, when those nations issued a proclamation declaring an end to the military occupation of West Germany. Under the terms of an agreement reached earlier, West Germany would now be allowed to establish a military force of up to a half-million men and resume the manufacture of arms, though it was forbidden from producing any chemical or atomic weapons.

The end of the Allied occupation of West Germany meant a full recognition of the republic as a member of the western alliance against the Soviet Union. While the Russians were less than thrilled by the prospect of a rearmed West Germany, they were nonetheless pleased that German reunification had officially become a dead issue. Shortly after the May 5 proclamation was issued, the Soviet Union formally recognized the Federal Republic of Germany. The two Germany's remained separated until 1990, when they were formally reunited and once again became a single democratic country.  Allies end occupation of West Germany mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 5 5 1955  [/QUOTE]


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10078300 regarding NF 10078293, CF 10078206, NF 10078086, CF 10077245 regarding NF 10077224, CF 10074207, NF 10074158, CF 10073576, Sy 10073420, CF 10062342, NF 10062333, CF 10054941, NF 10038833, CF 10038766, NF 10038722, CF 10038442, KR 9603797, CF 9603770



CrusaderFrank said:


> How can we discuss ANYTHING with Obama Fluffers???? According to you he's perfect and never did anything wrong



I have never argued that Obama is perfect and never wrong. The reason you can't 'discuss' ANYTHING with me is that you cannot deny the facts. The Facts I cite are not "MY FACTS" and they have nothing to do with some kind of Obama perfection. The reason you must consistently withdraw from our discussion is because you cannot refute or deny or challenge  THE FACTS *such as these*. _*Bush put it in writing and publically announced before Obama took over all US troops would be out of Iraq's cities by June 2009 and that all US troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.*_
That 'truth' cannot be denied. It can  only  be ignored by you. And I am not allowing you to ignore the truth that so pertinently destroys your fallacious point of view.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CF 10073757 regarding RightWingLunacy 10073757 





CrusaderFrank said:


> Baghdad falls after the midterm shellacking. Bookmark it



To make you accountable for being absolutely absurd, you need to put a date by which the IS flag flies over the 'GREEN ZONE, the airport, and al Baghdadi assumes command of the ISF and all of police and government.


They could not hold the Mosul Dam or take the refinery up in Baiji. How on earth do you think they can take over all of Iraq within the next week or so?

Anyway for the record, do you have a date we can watch so we know when you prediction has expired?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NF 10078790 to CF 





			
				NotfooledbyW said:
			
		

> Anyway for the record, do you have a date we can watch so we know when you prediction has expired?



I figured CrusaderFrank would not commit. As pitiful as his argument is. He shouldn't.


----------



## Mindful

Well just look at this.

Baghdad Fashion Show returns The Times of Israel


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Mindful said:


> Well just look at this.
> 
> Baghdad Fashion Show returns The Times of Israel



I wonder if EconChick broke away from the battle for Route Irish to go watch it?


----------



## deltex1

EC was watching Admiral Mullin declare that Iran is far more of a problem for America than ISIS.  The same iran that Obabble is giving away the store to, to polish his legacy.  The same iran he is allowing to control iraq.  Strategic patience, my ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DT 10970273 





deltex1 said:


> The same iran he is allowing to control iraq



Hoe many times are you going to repeat that lie?

NF 10965031 





NotfooledbyW said:


> *President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper



Iran does not control Iraq but if they did it was Bush holding hands with Hakim that welcomed Iran into Iraq.


----------



## deltex1

You need to watch O'Reilly's talking points memo for Tonite, Foo.  He nails it.  Sorry.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> You need to watch O'Reilly's talking points memo for Tonite, Foo.  He nails it.  Sorry.



O'Reilly lied. He said before the invasion he would oppose the invasion and Bush if no WMD were found.

I don't trust pundits that don't keep their word.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to watch O'Reilly's talking points memo for Tonite, Foo.  He nails it.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly lied. He said before the invasion he would oppose the invasion and Bush if no WMD were found.
> 
> I don't trust pundits that don't keep their word.
Click to expand...


But you trust Presidents who do?  Interesting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> But you trust Presidents who do? Interesting.




No I don't trust Bush who says he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully through the UN. He had the best chance ever and blew it.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you trust Presidents who do? Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't trust Bush who says he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully through the UN. He had the best chance ever and blew it.
Click to expand...


Who cares about Bush?  That was . . . how many years ago?  Ancient history.  We have BIG problems now.  Do you realize what your favorite president's little deal is going to do to the Middle East?  Do you, silly boy?  

Saudis seek powers Iran may get in nuke deal

*Riyadh, March 16* *(Reuters):* Any terms that world powers grant Iran under a nuclear deal will be sought by Saudi Arabia and other countries, risking wider proliferation of atomic technology, a senior Saudi prince warned today in a BBC interview.

"I've always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same," said Prince Turki al-Faisal, who has previously served as head of Saudi intelligence and Riyadh's ambassador to Washington and London but is no longer a government official.

Saudi Arabia sees Iran as its main regional rival and fears that an atomic deal would leave the door open to Tehran gaining a nuclear weapon, or would ease political pressure on it, giving it more space to back Arab proxies opposed by Riyadh.

Iran and six world powers known as the P5+1 group are holding talks to reach a deal aimed at assuaging their fears that Tehran is using the fuel enrichment process of its atomic power programme to secretly develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran denies that charge and wants to lift heavy international sanctions


----------



## NotfooledbyW

It's the 12th year anniversary of the start of the Dumb War in Iraq and ChrIsL says "who cares" about the one man that started it:








> . Alaa al-Qureishi shows a religious poster honoring his mother, three brothers and a brother-in-law, who were killed in 2006 and 2007, at his house in Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, March 20, 2015. Twelve years after the U.S. invaded Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, the country is still mired in war. Today, many of his fellow Shiites are on the front lines battling the Islamic State group. But al-Qureishi, 37, is sitting this one out. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)



Did you, MissWho-Cares,  lose five family members to an Invasion and flawed occupation by the United Stares.

ChrL11010925 





ChrisL said:


> Who cares about Bush? That was . . . how many years ago? Ancient history. We have BIG problems now.



I care: 4484 Americans died there after Bush43 failed to keep his word that he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully through the UN.

And here is an Iraqi who cares. You are disgusting to want for your political convenience to erase the memory of what originally caused the massive violence in Iraq right now.

Here is a current  Iraqi point of view that counts much much more than your 'blindered' view of the tragedy in Iraq starting in March 2003 to rid the country of WMD.



> .
> For Iraqis, the various conflicts feel like one long war, which many *blame on the United State*s. A common view is that overthrowing Saddam spurred the explosion of sectarianism that followed when the long-oppressed Shiite majority rose to power.
> 
> A country beleaguered by foreign invasion and civil war became vulnerable to extremism. Fueled by another civil war in neighboring Syria, that extremism grew into al-Qaida in Iraq and later, morphed into the Islamic State group that is now spreading havoc in several countries across the Arab world.
> 
> "Obviously, there is a threat that you can trace that shows Daesh emerged because of the invasion," said Sajad Jiyad of the Iraqi Institute for Economic Reform, using another acronym for the Islamic State group. "It's the lack of rule of law, randomness of the violence and brutality that we see on a daily basis today that shocks people."
> 
> The U.S.-led invasion that began in March 2003 was initially touted as the dawn of a new, democratic era for Iraq.


. For Iraqis years after US invasion seem like unending war - US News

So Miss 'Who-Cares' did Alaa al-Qureishi's mother deserve to die because a US President preferred starting a dumb war instead of disarming Iraq peacefully through the UN as he claims to this day that he wanted to do?

Oh that's right  Alaa al-Qureishi's mother was a believer in Islam, which Bush43 called the religion of peace.

ChrL 11009456 





ChrisL said:


> If there is anything I despise in this world, it is Islam.



So you despise her and her son and all Islamic Iraqis anyway.

Twelve years after your beloved invasion that killed and continues to kill your most despised followers of Islam you say 'who care' - 'ancient history'.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> It's the 12th year anniversary of the start of the Dumb War in Iraq and ChrIsL says "who cares" about the one man that started it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Alaa al-Qureishi shows a religious poster honoring his mother, three brothers and a brother-in-law, who were killed in 2006 and 2007, at his house in Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, March 20, 2015. Twelve years after the U.S. invaded Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, the country is still mired in war. Today, many of his fellow Shiites are on the front lines battling the Islamic State group. But al-Qureishi, 37, is sitting this one out. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, MissWho-Cares,  lose five family members to an Invasion and flawed occupation by the United Stares.
> 
> ChrL11010925
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares about Bush? That was . . . how many years ago? Ancient history. We have BIG problems now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care: 4484 Americans died there after Bush43 failed to keep his word that he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully through the UN.
> 
> And here is an Iraqi who cares. You are disgusting to want for your political convenience to erase the memory of what originally caused the massive violence in Iraq right now.
> 
> Here is a current  Iraqi point of view that counts much much more than your 'blindered' view of the tragedy in Iraq starting in March 2003 to rid the country of WMD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> For Iraqis, the various conflicts feel like one long war, which many *blame on the United State*s. A common view is that overthrowing Saddam spurred the explosion of sectarianism that followed when the long-oppressed Shiite majority rose to power.
> 
> A country beleaguered by foreign invasion and civil war became vulnerable to extremism. Fueled by another civil war in neighboring Syria, that extremism grew into al-Qaida in Iraq and later, morphed into the Islamic State group that is now spreading havoc in several countries across the Arab world.
> 
> "Obviously, there is a threat that you can trace that shows Daesh emerged because of the invasion," said Sajad Jiyad of the Iraqi Institute for Economic Reform, using another acronym for the Islamic State group. "It's the lack of rule of law, randomness of the violence and brutality that we see on a daily basis today that shocks people."
> 
> The U.S.-led invasion that began in March 2003 was initially touted as the dawn of a new, democratic era for Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . For Iraqis years after US invasion seem like unending war - US News
> 
> So Miss 'Who-Cares' did Alaa al-Qureishi's mother deserve to die because a US President preferred starting a dumb war instead of disarming Iraq peacefully through the UN as he claims to this day that he wanted to do?
> 
> Oh that's right  Alaa al-Qureishi's mother was a believer in Islam, which Bush43 called the religion of peace.
> 
> ChrL 11009456
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is anything I despise in this world, it is Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you despise her and her son and all Islamic Iraqis anyway.
> 
> Twelve years after your beloved invasion that killed and continues to kill your most despised followers of Islam you say 'who care' - 'ancient history'.
Click to expand...


I despise Islam, yes.


----------



## Judicial review

Iraq was stable due to Bush policies and Obama pulled the rug out and said none of what we did there mattered and now he has a huge issue that he created in ISIS, and Iraq is fucked.  Yes pardon me if I remember what happened in Iraq and blame Obama.  You fucking moron,NotfooledbyW.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"At least in Saddam's time, there was some semblance of rule of law,"  "He was violent, but it was targeted." a Shiite suffered greatly blames the invasion.

JR 11011366 





Judicial review said:


> Iraq was stable due to Bush policies and Obama pulled the rug out and said none of what we did there mattered and now he has a huge issue that he created in ISIS, and Iraq is fucked. Yes pardon me if I remember what happened in Iraq and blame Obama. You fucking moron,NotfooledbyW.



Why do Iraqis blame the 2003 invasion and they were the ones who wanted US troops to be gone from Iraq according to the Bush43 agreed final withdrawal date?



> .
> "Iraqis are still waiting for a better alternative," Jiyad said. "At least in Saddam's time, there was some semblance of rule of law," he added. "He was violent, but it was targeted."
> 
> Three of al-Qureishi's late brothers were imprisoned under Saddam, accused of political dissent. But he now believes that was a small price to pay for the relative stability the country once enjoyed.
> 
> "What's worse? Prison or death?" he asked, visibly distraught. "I may be doing my country a service by fighting in the war against Daesh, but I will do my family a much bigger disservice if I go to fight and die."



For Iraqis years after US invasion seem like unending war - US News

Did you have your mother and four other relatives killed because of a foreign invader and occupier?

JR 11011366 





Judicial review said:


> Iraq was stable due to Bush policies ...



That is one of the craziest Bush-loving Obama hating right winger loads of crap out there. Ther is no sane human being that thinks a Bush43' policy in Iraq stabilized Iraq comoared to February 2002 levels prior to the bombing and invasion. An invasion that brought Iran into Iraq with greater influence than they could have dreamed possible with the Baathists in control between the Northern and Southern No Fly Zones.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> I despise Islam, yes.



So now that we see your mind is full of hate and bigotry you should not be afraid to answer in the affirmative that Alaa al-Qureishi's mother deserved to die just for being Islamic. 

_"So Miss 'Who-Cares' did Alaa al-Qureishi's mother deserve to die because a US President preferred starting a dumb war instead of disarming Iraq peacefully through the UN as he claims to this day that he wanted to do?"_

So why did you run away from that specific question?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise Islam, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now that we see your mind is full of hate and bigotry you should not be afraid to answer in the affirmative that Alaa al-Qureishi's mother deserved to die just for being Islamic.
> 
> _"So Miss 'Who-Cares' did Alaa al-Qureishi's mother deserve to die because a US President preferred starting a dumb war instead of disarming Iraq peacefully through the UN as he claims to this day that he wanted to do?"_
> 
> So why did you run away from that specific question?
Click to expand...


I don't this person at all.  I don't know anything about this person.  It could have been a good or a bad person.  I think anyone who practices Islam is not a very good person though.  They are the ones full of hatred and bigotry.  They hate women, children, homosexuals, anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs.  

Why should I care about a person I don't know anything about?  

Stop trying to use "emotional" arguments with me.  They are not going to work.


----------



## ChrisL

Judicial review said:


> Iraq was stable due to Bush policies and Obama pulled the rug out and said none of what we did there mattered and now he has a huge issue that he created in ISIS, and Iraq is fucked.  Yes pardon me if I remember what happened in Iraq and blame Obama.  You fucking moron,NotfooledbyW.



I do not necessarily agree with the Iraq war, but I feel that America does what it has to do at times.  I think Obama was in WAY over his head.  I mean, really, he was just a community organizer and a newbie senator.  But to be fair, I think Bush made the deal with Al-Maliki to pull out of Iraq by a deadline, which Obama followed.  

I do think Obama could have tried a little harder to negotiate with him, but the LIBERALS in our country won't allow that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> I do think Obama could have tried a little harder to negotiate with him, but the LIBERALS in our country won't allow that.



Far left anti-war liberals had little if no effect on Obama war policy. That is confirmed quite well when Obama tripled the number of troops in two huge troop surge in Afghanistan to save the US and the ISAF coalition from sure defeat. And three months into his presidency Obama launched the largest US Marines air to ground assault into Taliban strongholds in Kandahar and Helmand Provinces since the war in Vietnam. That did not impress the Code Pink. Kucinich type lefties at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11012746 





ChrisL said:


> Why should I care about a person I don't know anything about?



Your tax dollars were used to indirectly but very effectively to kill that Iraqi man's mother in a dumb war started by a US president. You should care about strangers you support getting killed just because they practice Islam.

You probably know little about the 4484 American soldiers that were killed and their survuvers in the dumb war in Iraq as well. So you must not care about them either.

Getting into the moral and emotional aspect of the Iraq invasion and confirmed by the factual aspect brings out the worst in you and we are assured that you are a bigot.

And you asked why Bush43 matters today and the point of my full responses is that interview in USA today is current, and a Shiite man (12 years after the invasion) blames the 2003 invasion not Obama for not keeping some troops there after 2011. His mother and four brothers were killed in 2006 and 2007.

You sit here safe in the states spewing hatred for Islamic people good or bad. My in laws are Muslim - the finest people you would ever meet - while my daughter and son in law are not any religion at all. - I have a ten year old beautiful grand daughter that you apparently despise her grand parents without knowing them.  We have spent Christmas with those in-laws and vacations at the ocean.

I also work and am friends with many practicing Muslims and have attended several weddings. They are all good people.

You are not emotionally balanced or mature based on what you write. Your bigotry shines bright here and your judgment and sensibilities are impaired. You are part of much of what is wrong with Americans - and it is very plain to see.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11012746
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I care about a person I don't know anything about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your tax dollars were used to indirectly but very effectively to kill that Iraqi man's mother in a dumb war started by a US president. You should care about strangers you support getting killed just because they practice Islam.
> 
> You probably know little about the 4484 American soldiers that were killed and their survuvers in the dumb war in Iraq as well. So you must not care about them either.
> 
> Getting into the moral and emotional aspect of the Iraq invasion and confirmed by the factual aspect brings out the worst in you and we are assured that you are a bigot.
> 
> And you asked why Bush43 matters today and the point of my full responses is that interview in USA today is current, and a Shiite man (12 years after the invasion) blames the 2003 invasion not Obama for not keeping some troops there after 2011. His mother and four brothers were killed in 2006 and 2007.
> 
> You sit here safe in the states spewing hatred for Islamic people good or bad. My in laws are Muslim - the finest people you would ever meet - while my daughter and son in law are not any religion at all. - I have a ten year old beautiful grand daughter that you apparently despise her grand parents without knowing them.  We have spent Christmas with those in-laws and vacations at the ocean.
> 
> I also work and am friends with many practicing Muslims and have attended several weddings. They are all good people.
> 
> You are not emotionally balanced or mature based on what you write. Your bigotry shines bright here and your judgment and sensibilities are impaired. You are part of much of what is wrong with Americans - and it is very plain to see.
Click to expand...


Whatever.  Do you think I care about what you think?  Do you think it effects my life whatsoever?  Nope.    Islam is a cultish horrible pock on the world.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11012763 





ChrisL said:


> I do not necessarily agree with the Iraq war, but I feel that America does what it has to do at times.



America had to do no kind of war in March 2003. The not-dumb-war option was to let the UN inspectors finish what they were professionally and peacefully doing. 

Then Iran does not become mire influential in Iraq as you are bitching about right now


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11012763
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not necessarily agree with the Iraq war, but I feel that America does what it has to do at times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America had to do no kind of war in March 2003. The not-dumb-war option was to let the UN inspectors finish what they were professionally and peacefully doing.
> 
> Then Iran does not become mire influential in Iraq as you are bitching about right now
Click to expand...


You have no idea what America has to do in our best interests.  YOU are not privy to governmental secrets and will NEVER know everything.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrLn11013218 





ChrisL said:


> Whatever. Do you think I care about what you think? Do you think it effects my life whatsoever? Nope.  Islam is a cultish horrible pock on the world.



You do realize that you a running away from rational responses to your bigoted posts. Of course you don't care. You are a closed minded bigot that hates more than a billion Human beings without knowing anything about them. You cannot be fixed but your bigotry can be and should be well documented.


----------



## ChrisL

Oh . . . that's funny to you?  Well, I guess that's all you have since you know I'm correct.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrLn11013218
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. Do you think I care about what you think? Do you think it effects my life whatsoever? Nope.  Islam is a cultish horrible pock on the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that you a running away from rational responses to your bigoted posts. Of course you don't care. You are a closed minded bigot that hates more than a billion Hunan beings without knowing anything about them. You cannot be fixed but your bigotry can be and should be well documented.
Click to expand...


I don't hate the "hunan beings."  I hate the ideology.  That is why I said "I hate Islam."  I can't hate a person I do not know any more than I can care about them.  Just because you are naive and stupid, doesn't mean we all have to be.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11013268 





ChrisL said:


> You have no idea what America has to do in our best interests. YOU are not privy to governmental secrets and will NEVER know everything.



It's not a secret that the UN inspectors had said they would need a few more months to verify Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations with the UNSC.

It's no secret that Bush reject the UN timeframe.

It's no secret that S.Hussein offered Bush43 in December 2002 to allow US Military CIA and FBI to enter Iraq and search peacefully for WMD they suspected was there.

It's no secret that Bush rejected that offer.

It's no secret that the UN debunked every bit of US and UK intelligence on WMD prior to the invasion. 

It's no secret that Bush ignored their on the ground advice.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11013268
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what America has to do in our best interests. YOU are not privy to governmental secrets and will NEVER know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a secret that the UN inspectors had said they would need a few more months to verify Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations with the UNSC.
> 
> It's no secret that Bush reject the UN timeframe.
> 
> It's no secret that S.Hussein offered Bush43 in December 2002 to allow US Military CIA and FBI to enter Iraq and search peacefully for WMD they suspected was there.
> 
> It's no secret that Bush rejected that offer.
> 
> It's no secret that the UN debunked every bit of US and UK intelligence on WMD prior to the invasion.
> 
> It's no secret that Bush ignored their on the ground advice.
Click to expand...


It's no secret that Saddam Hussein was a psychotic lunatic who had used chemical weapons on his OWN people and was responsible for the deaths of over 1,000,000 people.  He was a thorn in the side of the world, and he even admitted that he made it appear that he had chemical weapons because he feared Iran.

Here . . . just ONE of Saddam's atrocities.  

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The *Halabja chemical attack* (Kurdish: _Kîmyabarana Helebce کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە_), also known as the *Halabja Massacre* or *Bloody Friday*,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War in the Kurdish city of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan. The attack was part of the Al-Anfal campaign in northern Iraq, as well as part of the Iraqi attempt to repel the Iranian Operation Zafar 7. It took place 48 hours after the fall of the town to Iranian army and Kurdish guerrillas.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.[1][2] Thousands more died ofcomplications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocideagainst the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

The Halabja attack has been recognized as a separate event from the Anfal Genocide that was also conducted against the Kurdish peopleby the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein.[6] The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanityby the Parliament of Canada.[7]


----------



## ChrisL

Interrogator Shares Saddam s Confessions - Page 4 - CBS News

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> I don't hate the "hunan beings." I hate the ideology. That is why I said "I hate Islam." I can't hate a person I do not know any more than I can care about them. Just because you are naive and stupid, doesn't mean we all have to be.



Do you hate 'enablers' of radical Islam? An ideology does nothing without actual human beings that enable it. 

But do you hate anyone that _*enables*_ the terrible things that radicals Islamists do?

Slyh 11013268 





Slyhunter said:


> radical islamists are willing to die to convert you. non-radical islamists aren't. They still want to control the world via a caliphate and they are *enablers* of the radicals.



ChrL 11009456 





ChrisL said:


> *I totally believe that to be truth.* If there is anything I despise in this world, it is Islam.





ChrisL said:


> *I think anyone who practices Islam is not a very good person though.* They are the ones full of hatred and bigotry. They hate women, children, homosexuals, anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs.



Do you not hate "not ... very good person(s)" that *enable*  the radicals?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11013525 





ChrisL said:


> "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
> 
> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*



Did you read Piro transcripts on record at the FBI?

You are quoting things entirely out of context and disregarding the actual time periods that were being discussed between Agent Piro and SH. Other right wingers make the same inexcusable error as you can see the facts right here;

NF 10003614 





NotfooledbyW said:


> HM 10002132 regarding NF 10002106, HM 10001227
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN  read what Saddam SAID.._*.still wouldn't admit he had no WMDs...*_
> 
> Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your argument Healthmyths, that non-admission policy by Saddam Hussein officially ended in September 2002 when Iraq's Foreign Minister read a letter during a United Nations General Assembly stating quite clearly that Iraq did not have WMD. The letter was signed by Naji Sabri Minister for Foreign Affairs  of the Republic of Iraq"   on September 16, 2002. It is addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, The Secretary General of the United Nations  Here are some relevant excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions. ... The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and *to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction . *This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable *first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction* and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). ... To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the full letter here: Confirmation of letters sent by Dr Naji Sabri Minister of Foreign Affairs under President Saddam Hussein - a Freedom of Information request to Foreign and Commonwealth Office - WhatDoTheyKnow
> 
> What you have done Healthmyths is get yourself all worked up over the FBI Special Agent Piro's interview with Saddam Hussein after he was captured without looking into the timeline of which SA Piro was discussing. You see the above letter signed by Naji Sabri in September coincides with the Piro report had you bothered to read it. I am posting relevant parts of the Piro Report for you edification on this matter. I have bolded in blue points you need to look at Healthmyths if you wish to be honestly informed about all this. A key point is bolded in red. What you cited Healthmyths was a conversation between Piro and SH regarding his 2000 speech. Bush  ordered the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in case you were not aware of that.
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*
> 
> Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):
> 
> Para 2: [conversation about Saddam’s Speeches]
> 
> Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*. *Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose*. Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq's regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to his enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must be able to defend himself. *Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).*
> 
> Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]
> 
> Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran. *Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors. Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States *for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.* In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.
> 
> Para 6: [discussion about Iran’s weapons capabilities and the war of the cities between Iraq and Iran.]
> 
> Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD, *while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.* Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.
> 
> SSA Piro agrees that such an agreement would have assisted Iraq immensely. SSA Piro noted due to the history between the two countries, it would have taken some time before the United States would have entered into such an agreement with Iraq.
> 
> Para 8: Further, SSA Piro advised Hussein that paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarming of Iraq was part of a total disarmament of the entire region, however , that portion of resolution was not enforceable. The threat from Iran would have loomed over Iraq, especially as Iran had continued to advance its weapons capabilities. SSA Piro commented that under those circumstances, it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons program in response. Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agree that Iraq’s technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region.
> 
> Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. *It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions.* However, *Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war.* Yet, it became clear to him *four months before the war that the war was inevitable.*
> 
> Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say. Further he was concerned about the United States advanced technological capabilities and resources.
> 
> Para 11: [talk about evasive actions when Hussein was President]
> 
> Para 12: [not WMD related]
> 
> Para 13: [not WMD related]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize this is quite a bit of reading for you Iraq invasion sympathizers. But its the only way to get the truth on record here.
Click to expand...


Can you see the truth now?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11013475 





ChrisL said:


> t's no secret that Saddam Hussein was a psychotic lunatic who had used chemical weapons on his OWN people



I don't disagree with that. So what is your point other than to run from another direct response by me to one of your posts?

We were addressing the timeframe of 2002 and 2003,and Bush's decision to put an end to peaceful inspections in order to start the war that Iraqis continue to blame for the continuous violence the erupted ever since.

UN inspectors following UN Res 1441 that gave SH a final opportunity to comply and stay in power lunatic and killer and all, were not there to inspect the gassing of the Kurds decades earlier.

They were there to see if SH had an active WMD program plus stockpiles of CW that could end up in Al Qaeda hands. That was a legitimate concern and the inspectors would have ascertained the same occlusion that 12,years of war and sectarian violence also reached. SH had no active stockpiles or WMD programs.

Nosy you ignorant Iraq-invasion UN-trashing fools are going down the same path with regard to Iran.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11013475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> t's no secret that Saddam Hussein was a psychotic lunatic who had used chemical weapons on his OWN people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that. So what is your point other than to run from another direct response by me to one of your posts?
> 
> We were addressing the timeframe of 2002 and 2003,and Bush's decision to put an end to peaceful inspections in order to start the war that Iraqis continue to blame for the continuous violence the erupted ever since.
> 
> UN inspectors following UN Res 1441 that gave SH a final opportunity to comply and stay in power lunatic and killer and all, were not there to inspect the gassing of the Kurds decades earlier.
> 
> They were there to see if SH had an active WMD program plus stockpiles of CW that could end up in Al Qaeda hands. That was a legitimate concern and the inspectors would have ascertained the same occlusion that 12,years of war and sectarian violence also reached. SH had no active stockpiles or WMD programs.
> 
> Nosy you ignorant Iraq-invasion UN-trashing fools are going down the same path with regard to Iran.
Click to expand...


There were no "peaceful inspections."  Saddam's goal was to make it appear as if he had chemical weapons.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11013525
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
> 
> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read Piro transcripts on record at the FBI?
> 
> You are quoting things entirely out of context and disregarding the actual time periods that were being discussed between Agent Piro and SH. Other right wingers make the same inexcusable error as you can see the facts right here;
> 
> NF 10003614
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> HM 10002132 regarding NF 10002106, HM 10001227
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN  read what Saddam SAID.._*.still wouldn't admit he had no WMDs...*_
> 
> Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your argument Healthmyths, that non-admission policy by Saddam Hussein officially ended in September 2002 when Iraq's Foreign Minister read a letter during a United Nations General Assembly stating quite clearly that Iraq did not have WMD. The letter was signed by Naji Sabri Minister for Foreign Affairs  of the Republic of Iraq"   on September 16, 2002. It is addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, The Secretary General of the United Nations  Here are some relevant excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions. ... The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and *to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction . *This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable *first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction* and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). ... To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the full letter here: Confirmation of letters sent by Dr Naji Sabri Minister of Foreign Affairs under President Saddam Hussein - a Freedom of Information request to Foreign and Commonwealth Office - WhatDoTheyKnow
> 
> What you have done Healthmyths is get yourself all worked up over the FBI Special Agent Piro's interview with Saddam Hussein after he was captured without looking into the timeline of which SA Piro was discussing. You see the above letter signed by Naji Sabri in September coincides with the Piro report had you bothered to read it. I am posting relevant parts of the Piro Report for you edification on this matter. I have bolded in blue points you need to look at Healthmyths if you wish to be honestly informed about all this. A key point is bolded in red. What you cited Healthmyths was a conversation between Piro and SH regarding his 2000 speech. Bush  ordered the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in case you were not aware of that.
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*
> 
> Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):
> 
> Para 2: [conversation about Saddam’s Speeches]
> 
> Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*. *Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose*. Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq's regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to his enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must be able to defend himself. *Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).*
> 
> Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]
> 
> Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran. *Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors. Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States *for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.* In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.
> 
> Para 6: [discussion about Iran’s weapons capabilities and the war of the cities between Iraq and Iran.]
> 
> Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD, *while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.* Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.
> 
> SSA Piro agrees that such an agreement would have assisted Iraq immensely. SSA Piro noted due to the history between the two countries, it would have taken some time before the United States would have entered into such an agreement with Iraq.
> 
> Para 8: Further, SSA Piro advised Hussein that paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarming of Iraq was part of a total disarmament of the entire region, however , that portion of resolution was not enforceable. The threat from Iran would have loomed over Iraq, especially as Iran had continued to advance its weapons capabilities. SSA Piro commented that under those circumstances, it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons program in response. Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agree that Iraq’s technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region.
> 
> Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. *It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions.* However, *Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war.* Yet, it became clear to him *four months before the war that the war was inevitable.*
> 
> Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say. Further he was concerned about the United States advanced technological capabilities and resources.
> 
> Para 11: [talk about evasive actions when Hussein was President]
> 
> Para 12: [not WMD related]
> 
> Para 13: [not WMD related]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize this is quite a bit of reading for you Iraq invasion sympathizers. But its the only way to get the truth on record here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you see the truth now?
Click to expand...


I quoted HIS own words during a transcripted interview.  There is also AUDIO included in that link.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate the "hunan beings." I hate the ideology. That is why I said "I hate Islam." I can't hate a person I do not know any more than I can care about them. Just because you are naive and stupid, doesn't mean we all have to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hate 'enablers' of radical Islam? An ideology does nothing without actual human beings that enable it.
> 
> But do you hate anyone that _*enables*_ the terrible things that radicals Islamists do?
> 
> Slyh 11013268
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> radical islamists are willing to die to convert you. non-radical islamists aren't. They still want to control the world via a caliphate and they are *enablers* of the radicals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrL 11009456
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I totally believe that to be truth.* If there is anything I despise in this world, it is Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think anyone who practices Islam is not a very good person though.* They are the ones full of hatred and bigotry. They hate women, children, homosexuals, anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not hate "not ... very good person(s)" that *enable*  the radicals?
Click to expand...


People that enable radicals?  Of course, I would.  Why wouldn't I.  Why wouldn't you?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate the "hunan beings." I hate the ideology. That is why I said "I hate Islam." I can't hate a person I do not know any more than I can care about them. Just because you are naive and stupid, doesn't mean we all have to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hate 'enablers' of radical Islam? An ideology does nothing without actual human beings that enable it.
> 
> But do you hate anyone that _*enables*_ the terrible things that radicals Islamists do?
> 
> Slyh 11013268
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> radical islamists are willing to die to convert you. non-radical islamists aren't. They still want to control the world via a caliphate and they are *enablers* of the radicals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrL 11009456
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I totally believe that to be truth.* If there is anything I despise in this world, it is Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think anyone who practices Islam is not a very good person though.* They are the ones full of hatred and bigotry. They hate women, children, homosexuals, anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not hate "not ... very good person(s)" that *enable*  the radicals?
Click to expand...


You like people who enable or help radicals with their goals?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11014076 





ChrisL said:


> I quoted HIS own words during a transcripted interview. There is also AUDIO included in that link.



Before you were mistaken, now you are lying. You quote exact words but you left out the context from the actual FBI official transcripts that the quote was regarding a 2000 speech prior to the 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda on US soil. In 2002 SH was fully public that he had no WMD.

You could not have read what I posted but you lie as if what I posted does not exist.

The FBI transcripts are the full record of Agent Piro's interviews with SH. Scott Pelly's transcript is quite incomplete.

You need to investigate further than a short TV interview about something if you desire full knowledge. If you wish to be sheep in Bush43's flock keep doing what you are doing - skimming headlines and cherry picking. We see what you are doing.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11014076
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted HIS own words during a transcripted interview. There is also AUDIO included in that link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you were mistaken, now you are lying. You quote exact words but you left out the context from the actual FBI official transcripts that the quote was regarding a 2000 speech prior to the 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda on US soil. In 2002 SH was fully public that he had no WMD.
> 
> You could not have read what I posted but you lie as if what I posted does not exist.
> 
> The FBI transcripts are the full record of Agent Piro's interviews with SH. Scott Pelly's transcript is quite incomplete.
> 
> You need to investigate further than a short TV interview about something if you desire full knowledge. If you wish to be sheep in Bush43's flock keep doing what you are doing - skimming headlines and cherry picking. We see what you are doing.
Click to expand...


I'm lying?  No, those are the words of the man himself and include audio tape.  The fact is that Saddam wanted the world to think he had chemical weapons because he was frightened of Iran.  

Nothing you posted negates that fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> People that enable radicals? Of course, I would. Why wouldn't I. Why wouldn't you?



So you hate all human 'bad' beings that practice Islam because you agreed that all Islam's followers are enablers of radical Islam.

↑ "non-radical islamists .... are *enablers* of the radicals."

you replied to that statement (ChrL 11009456) "*I totally believe that to be truth."

You hate and despise every single Muslim on the planet. You said so right there.*


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11013475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> t's no secret that Saddam Hussein was a psychotic lunatic who had used chemical weapons on his OWN people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that. So what is your point other than to run from another direct response by me to one of your posts?
> 
> We were addressing the timeframe of 2002 and 2003,and Bush's decision to put an end to peaceful inspections in order to start the war that Iraqis continue to blame for the continuous violence the erupted ever since.
> 
> UN inspectors following UN Res 1441 that gave SH a final opportunity to comply and stay in power lunatic and killer and all, were not there to inspect the gassing of the Kurds decades earlier.
> 
> They were there to see if SH had an active WMD program plus stockpiles of CW that could end up in Al Qaeda hands. That was a legitimate concern and the inspectors would have ascertained the same occlusion that 12,years of war and sectarian violence also reached. SH had no active stockpiles or WMD programs.
> 
> Nosy you ignorant Iraq-invasion UN-trashing fools are going down the same path with regard to Iran.
Click to expand...


I don't know what the hell "time period" you are referring to, and that is irrelevant.  The facts are that Saddam WANTED people to believe he had chemical weapons.  He said so himself.  Now, if you are going to try and refute that claim, post a link that refutes it.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> People that enable radicals? Of course, I would. Why wouldn't I. Why wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you hate all human 'bad' beings that practice Islam because you agreed that all Islam's followers are enablers of radical Islam.
> 
> ↑ "non-radical islamists .... are *enablers* of the radicals."
> 
> you replied to that statement (ChrL 11009456) "*I totally believe that to be truth."
> 
> You hate and despise every single Muslim on the planet. You said so right there.*
Click to expand...


Yep.  I hate Islam.  It is a hateful and intolerant cult.


----------



## ChrisL

*NY TIMES: SADDAM'S GERNERALS BELIEVED THEY HAD WMD TO REPEL US*
by MONTANA NEWS ASSOCIATION

by Jim Kouri 
March 14, 2006 
The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting. 

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders. 

http://www.montanasnews.tv/articles.php?mode=view&id=3947

Now, why would Saddam's OWN generals believe he had WMD?  Because THAT is what he led them to believe, as well as the rest of the world.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL11014398 





ChrisL said:


> I'm lying? No, those are the words of the man himself and include audio tape. The fact is that Saddam wanted the world to think he had chemical weapons because he was frightened of Iran.



ChrL 11014407 





ChrisL said:


> I don't know what the hell "time period" you are referring to, and that is irrelevant. The facts are that Saddam WANTED people to believe he had chemical weapons. He said so himself. Now, if you are going to try and refute that claim, post a link that refutes it.



I already did but perhaps you don't know how to use the expand button.

Basically Saddam said 'those words' about his charade in response to a question about a speech in 2000;_ "Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*."_

Here is the link and the informative transcript of it:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf 

US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*


Unfortunately for your argument ChrisL  that non-admission policy by Saddam Hussein officially ended in September 2002 when Iraq's Foreign Minister read a letter during a United Nations General Assembly stating quite clearly that Iraq did not have WMD. The letter was signed by Naji Sabri Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq" on September 16, 2002. It is addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, The Secretary General of the United Nations Here are some relevant excerpts:

Confirmation of letters sent by Dr Naji Sabri Minister of Foreign Affairs under President Saddam Hussein - a Freedom of Information request to Foreign and Commonwealth Office - WhatDoTheyKnow

What you have done ChrisL  is get yourself all worked up over the FBI Special Agent Piro's interview with Saddam Hussein after he was captured without looking into the timeline of which SA Piro was discussing. You see the above letter signed by Naji Sabri in September coincides with the Piro report had you bothered to read it. I am posting relevant parts of the Piro Report for you edification on this matter. I have bolded in blue points you need to look at ChrisL if you wish to be honestly informed about all this. A key point is bolded in red. What you cited ChrisL was a conversation between Piro and SH regarding his 2000 speech. Bush ordered the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in case you were not aware of that.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf 
US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*

Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):

Para 2: [conversation about Saddam’s Speeches]

Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*. *Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose*. Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq's regional threat. *Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to his enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must be able to defend himself*. *Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).*

Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]

Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran.*Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors. Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States *for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.* In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.

Para 6: [discussion about Iran’s weapons capabilities and the war of the cities between Iraq and Iran.]

Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD,*while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.* Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.

SSA Piro agrees that such an agreement would have assisted Iraq immensely. SSA Piro noted due to the history between the two countries, it would have taken some time before the United States would have entered into such an agreement with Iraq.

Para 8: Further, SSA Piro advised Hussein that paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarming of Iraq was part of a total disarmament of the entire region, however , that portion of resolution was not enforceable. The threat from Iran would have loomed over Iraq, especially as Iran had continued to advance its weapons capabilities. SSA Piro commented that under those circumstances, it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons program in response. Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agree that Iraq’s technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region.

Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. *It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions.* However, *Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war.*Yet, it became clear to him *four months before the war that the war was inevitable.*

Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say. Further he was concerned about the United States advanced technological capabilities and resources.

Para 11: [talk about evasive actions when Hussein was President]

Para 12: [not WMD related]

Para 13: [not WMD related]


This is what you cited:

ChrL 11013525 





ChrisL said:


> "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
> 
> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*


t


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lying? No, those are the words of the man himself and include audio tape. The fact is that Saddam wanted the world to think he had chemical weapons because he was frightened of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the hell "time period" you are referring to, and that is irrelevant. The facts are that Saddam WANTED people to believe he had chemical weapons. He said so himself. Now, if you are going to try and refute that claim, post a link that refutes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did but perhaps you don't know hoe to use the expand button.
> 
> Basically Saddam said 'those words' about his charade in response to a question about a speech in 2000;_ "Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*."_
> 
> Here is the link and the informative transcript of it:
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf
> US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your argument ChrisL  that non-admission policy by Saddam Hussein officially ended in September 2002 when Iraq's Foreign Minister read a letter during a United Nations General Assembly stating quite clearly that Iraq did not have WMD. The letter was signed by Naji Sabri Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq" on September 16, 2002. It is addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, The Secretary General of the United Nations Here are some relevant excerpts:
> Confirmation of letters sent by Dr Naji Sabri Minister of Foreign Affairs under President Saddam Hussein - a Freedom of Information request to Foreign and Commonwealth Office - WhatDoTheyKnow
> 
> What you have done ChrisL  is get yourself all worked up over the FBI Special Agent Piro's interview with Saddam Hussein after he was captured without looking into the timeline of which SA Piro was discussing. You see the above letter signed by Naji Sabri in September coincides with the Piro report had you bothered to read it. I am posting relevant parts of the Piro Report for you edification on this matter. I have bolded in blue points you need to look at ChrisL if you wish to be honestly informed about all this. A key point is bolded in red. What you cited ChrisL was a conversation between Piro and SH regarding his 2000 speech. Bush ordered the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in case you were not aware of that.
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf
> US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*
> 
> Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):
> 
> Para 2: [conversation about Saddam’s Speeches]
> 
> Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*. *Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose*. Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq's regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to his enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must be able to defend himself. *Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).*
> 
> Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]
> 
> Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran.*Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors. Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States *for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.* In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.
> 
> Para 6: [discussion about Iran’s weapons capabilities and the war of the cities between Iraq and Iran.]
> 
> Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD,*while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.* Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.
> 
> SSA Piro agrees that such an agreement would have assisted Iraq immensely. SSA Piro noted due to the history between the two countries, it would have taken some time before the United States would have entered into such an agreement with Iraq.
> 
> Para 8: Further, SSA Piro advised Hussein that paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarming of Iraq was part of a total disarmament of the entire region, however , that portion of resolution was not enforceable. The threat from Iran would have loomed over Iraq, especially as Iran had continued to advance its weapons capabilities. SSA Piro commented that under those circumstances, it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons program in response. Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agree that Iraq’s technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region.
> 
> Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. *It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions.* However, *Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war.*Yet, it became clear to him *four months before the war that the war was inevitable.*
> 
> Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say. Further he was concerned about the United States advanced technological capabilities and resources.
> 
> Para 11: [talk about evasive actions when Hussein was President]
> 
> Para 12: [not WMD related]
> 
> Para 13: [not WMD related]
Click to expand...


Are you kidding?  Everything you just posted agrees with what I said.  Saddam wanted everyone to BELIEVE he had chemical weapons.  Even his OWN generals believed it until just 3 months prior to the war.  Duh.


----------



## healthmyths

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lying? No, those are the words of the man himself and include audio tape. The fact is that Saddam wanted the world to think he had chemical weapons because he was frightened of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the hell "time period" you are referring to, and that is irrelevant. The facts are that Saddam WANTED people to believe he had chemical weapons. He said so himself. Now, if you are going to try and refute that claim, post a link that refutes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did but perhaps you don't know hoe to use the expand button.
> 
> Basically Saddam said 'those words' about his charade in response to a question about a speech in 2000;_ "Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*."_
> 
> Here is the link and the informative transcript of it:
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf
> US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your argument ChrisL  that non-admission policy by Saddam Hussein officially ended in September 2002 when Iraq's Foreign Minister read a letter during a United Nations General Assembly stating quite clearly that Iraq did not have WMD. The letter was signed by Naji Sabri Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq" on September 16, 2002. It is addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, The Secretary General of the United Nations Here are some relevant excerpts:
> Confirmation of letters sent by Dr Naji Sabri Minister of Foreign Affairs under President Saddam Hussein - a Freedom of Information request to Foreign and Commonwealth Office - WhatDoTheyKnow
> 
> What you have done ChrisL  is get yourself all worked up over the FBI Special Agent Piro's interview with Saddam Hussein after he was captured without looking into the timeline of which SA Piro was discussing. You see the above letter signed by Naji Sabri in September coincides with the Piro report had you bothered to read it. I am posting relevant parts of the Piro Report for you edification on this matter. I have bolded in blue points you need to look at ChrisL if you wish to be honestly informed about all this. A key point is bolded in red. What you cited ChrisL was a conversation between Piro and SH regarding his 2000 speech. Bush ordered the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in case you were not aware of that.
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf
> US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center *June 11, 2004*
> 
> Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):
> 
> Para 2: [conversation about Saddam’s Speeches]
> 
> Para 3: SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his *June 2000 speech*. *Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose*. Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq's regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to his enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must be able to defend himself. *Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).*
> 
> Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]
> 
> Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran.*Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors. Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States *for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.* In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.
> 
> Para 6: [discussion about Iran’s weapons capabilities and the war of the cities between Iraq and Iran.]
> 
> Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD,*while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.* Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.
> 
> SSA Piro agrees that such an agreement would have assisted Iraq immensely. SSA Piro noted due to the history between the two countries, it would have taken some time before the United States would have entered into such an agreement with Iraq.
> 
> Para 8: Further, SSA Piro advised Hussein that paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarming of Iraq was part of a total disarmament of the entire region, however , that portion of resolution was not enforceable. The threat from Iran would have loomed over Iraq, especially as Iran had continued to advance its weapons capabilities. SSA Piro commented that under those circumstances, it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons program in response. Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agree that Iraq’s technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region.
> 
> Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. *It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions.* However, *Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war.*Yet, it became clear to him *four months before the war that the war was inevitable.*
> 
> Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say. Further he was concerned about the United States advanced technological capabilities and resources.
> 
> Para 11: [talk about evasive actions when Hussein was President]
> 
> Para 12: [not WMD related]
> 
> Para 13: [not WMD related]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  Everything you just posted agrees with what I said.  Saddam wanted everyone to BELIEVE he had chemical weapons.  Even his OWN generals believed it until just 3 months prior to the war.  Duh.
Click to expand...

When Saddam continued to let hundreds of thousands of children starve because he wouldn't certify that WMDs were destroyed to most rational logical people that means you don't KNOW if he is bluffing or not.
YOU just know that if he is bluffing you can save 100,000s of children from starving.  And if he wasn't GOOD.
We would Liberate Iraq.
It didn't make any sense to anyone who saw both sides of the argument to error on allowing kids to starve.
Pure and simple!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11014601 





ChrisL said:


> Everything you just posted agrees with what I said.



What did I Post that you agree with?

Do you agree with me on this:

Unfortunately for your argument ChrisL that non-admission policy by Saddam Hussein officially ended in September 2002 when Iraq's Foreign Minister read a letter during a United Nations General Assembly stating quite clearly that Iraq did not have WMD. The letter was signed by Naji Sabri Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq" on September 16, 2002. It is addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, The Secretary General of the United Nations.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11014601 





ChrisL said:


> Everything you just posted agrees with what I said. Saddam wanted everyone to BELIEVE he had chemical weapons. E



Do you believe this sounds like a dictator playing the "I got WMD" charade in 2002?

"Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD,*while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.* Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with_* the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. *_Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia."

You Iranaphobes ought to take note of that.

Do you know of the means that sanctions would be lifted?  Saddam would have been verified in compliance by the UN inspectors.

Do you agree with this?

"Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran.*Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* *the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors.* Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States *for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.* In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran."

The way SH explains it to Piro was that the charade he played prior to 2002 was by keeping inspectors out. The charade was over when he agreed to allow inspectors back in around October 2002.

So Pelly and Piro were not intentionally trying to say that Iraq pretended to have CW when the inspectors came back in months before war was decided by Bush in March 2003.

So do you agree with all this too?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11014076 





ChrisL said:


> I quoted HIS own words during a transcripted interview. There is also AUDIO included in that link.



No that is actually a lie. You quoted Pelly and Piro's words. Right here it is:

ChrL 11013525 





ChrisL said:


> Interrogator Shares Saddam s Confessions - Page 4 - CBS News
> 
> "He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
> 
> "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
> 
> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*
> 
> Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
> 
> "He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.



Why do you think you can lie your way out predicaments on a forum that you cannot erase?

I am citing Piro's actual written transcript that he recorded during the entire interviews  and turned in to FBI HQ.

Your interpretation of a brief summary is not accurate. The actual transcripts are much more accurate. But you do not appear to be interested in accuracy being a major factor in your biased mind.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11014601
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted agrees with what I said. Saddam wanted everyone to BELIEVE he had chemical weapons. E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe this sounds like a dictator playing the "I got WMD" charade in 2002?
> 
> "Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD,*while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.* Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with_* the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. *_Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia."
> 
> You Iranaphobes ought to take note of that.
> 
> Do you know of the means that sanctions would be lifted?  Saddam would have been verified in compliance by the UN inspectors.
> 
> Do you agree with this?
> 
> "Para 5: Hussein continued his dialogue on the issues relating to the significant threat to Iraq from Iran.*Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* *the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors.* Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States *for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.* In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq. [Hussein gives an analogy about the forearm and wrist] Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998. Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran."
> 
> The way SH explains it to Piro was that the charade he played prior to 2002 was by keeping inspectors out. The charade was over when he agreed to allow inspectors back in around October 2002.
> 
> So Pelly and Piro were not intentionally trying to say that Iraq pretended to have CW when the inspectors came back in months before war was decided by Bush in March 2003.
> 
> So do you agree with all this too?
Click to expand...


Uhhh, yes, it sounds like he was a desperate man who would have said anything.  He even told the interrogator that he wanted Iran and everyone to think that he had chemical weapons.  Do you deny that?  That was according to Piro.  Are you calling him a liar?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11014076
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted HIS own words during a transcripted interview. There is also AUDIO included in that link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is actually a lie. You quoted Pelly and Piro's words. Right here it is:
> 
> ChrL 11013525
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interrogator Shares Saddam s Confessions - Page 4 - CBS News
> 
> "He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
> 
> "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
> 
> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*
> 
> Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
> 
> "He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think you can lie your way out predicaments on a forum that you cannot erase?
> 
> I am citing Piro's actual written transcript that he recorded during the entire interviews  and turned in to FBI HQ.
> 
> Your interpretation of a brief summary is not accurate. The actual transcripts are much more accurate. But you do not appear to be interested in accuracy being a major factor in your biased mind.
Click to expand...


What in the hell are you talking about?  Your bold section says that it was important for him to project that!!!!  YOU are the liar.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11014076
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted HIS own words during a transcripted interview. There is also AUDIO included in that link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is actually a lie. You quoted Pelly and Piro's words. Right here it is:
> 
> ChrL 11013525
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interrogator Shares Saddam s Confessions - Page 4 - CBS News
> 
> "He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
> 
> "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
> 
> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*
> 
> Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
> 
> "He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think you can lie your way out predicaments on a forum that you cannot erase?
> 
> I am citing Piro's actual written transcript that he recorded during the entire interviews  and turned in to FBI HQ.
> 
> Your interpretation of a brief summary is not accurate. The actual transcripts are much more accurate. But you do not appear to be interested in accuracy being a major factor in your biased mind.
Click to expand...


Even his own generals thought he had WMD!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11017265 





ChrisL said:


> Even his own generals thought he had WMD!!!



You did not respond to my post that you cited. So you must agree that this is correct:

NF 11015146 





NotfooledbyW said:


> I am citing Piro's actual written transcript that he recorded during the entire interviews and turned in to FBI HQ.
> 
> Your interpretation of a brief summary is not accurate. The actual transcripts are much more accurate. But you do not appear to be interested in accuracy being a major factor in your biased mind.



By the way it's proven that SH went public in 2002 at the UN that he did not have WMD.

NF 11014999 





NotfooledbyW said:


> The way SH explains it to Piro was that the charade he played prior to 2002 was by keeping inspectors out. The charade was over when he agreed to allow inspectors back in around October 2002.



And what SH told his General does not over--ride his public admission that there were no WMD and the agreement to,allow inspectors was October 2003, Seven month before Bush43 started a dumb war.


----------



## Unkotare

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11017265
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even his own generals thought he had WMD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not respond to my post that you cited. So you must agree that this is correct:
> 
> NF 11015146
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am citing Piro's actual written transcript that he recorded during the entire interviews and turned in to FBI HQ.
> 
> Your interpretation of a brief summary is not accurate. The actual transcripts are much more accurate. But you do not appear to be interested in accuracy being a major factor in your biased mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way it's proven that SH went public in 2002 at the UN that he did not have WMD.
> 
> NF 11014999
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way SH explains it to Piro was that the charade he played prior to 2002 was by keeping inspectors out. The charade was over when he agreed to allow inspectors back in around October 2002.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what SH told his General does not over--ride his public admission that there were no WMD and the agreement to,allow inspectors was October 2003, Seven month before Bush43 started a dumb war.
Click to expand...


What is accurate?  Are you claiming Saddam wasn't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?    God, you people get desperate and then resort to your dishonesty.  It's disgusting, really.  

The POINT about the generals is that YES, Saddam was trying to fool people into believing he had chemical weapons, like I said.  DERP.


----------



## ChrisL

Unkotare said:


> George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post



I've read that before too.  To be fair though, I believe it was GWB who had made the agreement with Al-Maliki.  I still say that Obama should have tried a little harder to keep troops there, but God KNOWS a lot of the liberals in our country would have absolutely FREAKED out because they are ignorant and don't know what the hell is going on apparently.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11017253 





ChrisL said:


> He even told the interrogator that he wanted Iran and everyone to think that he had chemical weapons. Do you deny that?


.

Did you read this in the Pelly/Piro interview that you cited? They were discussing a speech from June 2000. Don't you have any concept of time?



> . And he was kind of surprised. And he asked me what speeches. And I said, 'Well, funny you should ask. And in June 2000 you gave a speech in where you said I*raq would not disarm until others in the region did*. A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone,'" Piro recalls.



So I don't deny what you asked (11017253) that prior to the spring and summer of 2002 when the US and Brits stepped up their bombing runs on Iraq after the 09/11/01attacks. SH *decided to allow the inspectors back in*. From the Piro FBI transcript:,


_*[*QUOTE]. The fact is shown in Para 5: "*Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* the t*hreat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors.*" [/QUOTE*]*_

In summary what you cited was a clear discussion about what SH was thinking and doing in 2000 not 2002.

ChrL 11013525 





ChrisL said:


> So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.





ChrisL said:


> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*



You are the one lying by omission because you refuse to provide the critical fact about the date in order to lead your feeble mind and the feeble minds of others that SH kept his 2000 charade ongoing by not having inspectors back in right up to the March 2003 invasion. We all know that is not the case except for you apparently. 

Are you aware that SH openly and publicly decided *to allow the inspectors back in around October 2002?*

Fact from Piro FBI transcipts: "the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why *he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors."*

More that destroys your argument and verifies mine:




> Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums.      US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center _*June 11, 2004. *_



This is from the official full transcript not a 60 minutes ten minute interview.



> Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD





> Para 3: *Hussein replied this (June 2000) speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose*. *Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) *



It's clear SH did not have WMD.



> Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]





> Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD, *while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.*



SH lost his weapons capabilities.



> Para 7 cont'd: Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.



To let inspectors in and verify no WMD in Iraq SH wanted a security deal wit the US.



> Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. *It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions. *



SH let inspectors in because of bad US and UK intelligence.7



> para 9 cont'd; However, *Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war.* Yet, it became clear to him *four months before the war that the war was inevitable. *



SH wanted to avert war like Bush claimed he did also.



> Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had *wanted to have a relationship with the United States *but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say.



SH wanted a relationship with US to counter Iran's threat to the region.

I tried to make it as fool-proof for dummies for you as it can be. But I know I cannot force facts into your mind that prefers the make-believe world of the right. But Im trying.

Do you think Saddam did not let the inspectors back in after November 2002 when UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed? Perhaps that is the problem you are having when you argue that dates and timing do not matter.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11018124 





ChrisL said:


> Are you claiming Saddam wasn't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?



I am not personally claiming anything. I am directing you to the FACT that the discussion you keep citing Is dated in context to June 2000. The facts from the FBI transcripts show that after 9/11/01 Saddam decided at some point to allow the UN inspectors back in (which he did) in order to avert war with the US. The facts are clear when you read the full FBI transcript that sometime around October 2002 SH quit trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes including GWB and the UNSC that he had WMD.

You are stuck by your self imposed ignorance on a June 2000 conversation that openly becomes outdated after the 9/11/01 al Qaeda attacks.

Events and actions change over time. But you are stuck on a time 15 years ago.

Read Post 160 in full - before posting another brainless knee jerk response would you please?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Unkotare said:


> George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post



From your link: 



> At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda.



If he was right - two questions for you:

(1) why did Bush43 permit Malik three months later to request to the UNSC in December 2007 to end the US troop presence by the end if 2008  unless a SOFA could be negotiated allowing troops to stay on Iraq's conditions beyond 2008?

(2) why did Bush43 having been boxed in by Maliki authorize and approve the 2008 SOFA which dictated Iraqi approval of all US military operations; and to be out of Iraq cities  by June 2009; and entirely out Iraq by the end of 2011, if indeed those date were premature?

(3) And do you have any evidence that Iraq will ever surrender it's future to al-Qaeda or to its offshoot gang of Daesh terrorist scum?

And regards to (3) Bush was wrong again about Iraq like he was wrong going in. Wrong occupying Iraq.  But probably right to agree to leave when we did as that is what the Iraqis wanted.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11017253
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He even told the interrogator that he wanted Iran and everyone to think that he had chemical weapons. Do you deny that?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Did you read this in the Pelly/Piro interview that you cited? They were discussing a speech from June 2000. Don't you have any concept of time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . And he was kind of surprised. And he asked me what speeches. And I said, 'Well, funny you should ask. And in June 2000 you gave a speech in where you said I*raq would not disarm until others in the region did*. A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone,'" Piro recalls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I don't deny what you asked (11017253) that prior to the spring and summer of 2002 when the US and Brits stepped up their bombing runs on Iraq after the 09/11/01attacks. SH *decided to allow the inspectors back in*. From the Piro FBI transcript:,
> 
> 
> _*[*QUOTE]. The fact is shown in Para 5: "*Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD,* the t*hreat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors.*" [/QUOTE*]*_
> 
> In summary what you cited was a clear discussion about what SH was thinking and doing in 2000 not 2002.
> 
> ChrL 11013525
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one lying by omission because you refuse to provide the critical fact about the date in order to lead your feeble mind and the feeble minds of others that SH kept his 2000 charade ongoing by not having inspectors back in right up to the March 2003 invasion. We all know that is not the case except for you apparently.
> 
> Are you aware that SH openly and publicly decided *to allow the inspectors back in around October 2002?*
> 
> Fact from Piro FBI transcipts: "the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why *he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors."*
> 
> More that destroys your argument and verifies mine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums.      US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center _*June 11, 2004. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from the official full transcript not a 60 minutes ten minute interview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Para 3: *Hussein replied this (June 2000) speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose*. *Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear SH did not have WMD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD, *while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SH lost his weapons capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Para 7 cont'd: Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and *would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region*. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To let inspectors in and verify no WMD in Iraq SH wanted a security deal wit the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. *It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SH let inspectors in because of bad US and UK intelligence.7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> para 9 cont'd; However, *Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war.* Yet, it became clear to him *four months before the war that the war was inevitable. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SH wanted to avert war like Bush claimed he did also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had *wanted to have a relationship with the United States *but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SH wanted a relationship with US to counter Iran's threat to the region.
> 
> I tried to make it as fool-proof for dummies for you as it can be. But I know I cannot force facts into your mind that prefers the make-believe world of the right. But Im trying.
> 
> Do you think Saddam did not let the inspectors back in after November 2002 when UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed? Perhaps that is the problem you are having when you argue that dates and timing do not matter.
Click to expand...


No, once he had made everyone suspicious of him, he could not be trusted.  This is world security we're talking about here.  This isn't some silly game.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11018124
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Saddam wasn't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not personally claiming anything. I am directing you to the FACT that the discussion you keep citing Is dated in context to June 2000. The facts from the FBI transcripts show that after 9/11/01 Saddam decided at some point to allow the UN inspectors back in (which he did) in order to avert war with the US. The facts are clear when you read the full FBI transcript that sometime around October 2002 SH quit trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes including GWB and the UNSC that he had WMD.
> 
> You are stuck by your self imposed ignorance on a June 2000 conversation that openly becomes outdated after the 9/11/01 al Qaeda attacks.
> 
> Events and actions change over time. But you are stuck on a time 15 years ago.
> 
> Read Post 160 in full - before posting another brainless knee jerk response would you please?
Click to expand...


Who was to say he didn't hide them?  The bottom line, Saddam Hussein was an untrustworthy, murdering psychopath.  Just like the mullahs who run Iran.  These kinds of "people" (if that's what you want to call them) cannot be trusted.  It's pretty simple really.  

Also, don't even try to tell me that Saddam was all of the sudden some nice cooperative guy after a couple of years.  Gee whiz. 

Hey, I've got a bridge to sell you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11020907 





ChrisL said:


> Who was to say he didn't hide them?


.

 Cornered again you are!  First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11020907
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was to say he didn't hide them?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Cornered again you are!  First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.
Click to expand...


No, the point is, he did not interview Saddam until AFTER he was captured.  The bottom line here, Saddam was a lunatic and nothing he said could be taken as the truth.  He was liar.  WTH is WRONG with you?  

I did no "false interpretations."  I quoted HIS own words.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11020907
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was to say he didn't hide them?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Cornered again you are!  First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.
Click to expand...


Look at you, defending Saddam Hussein.    Yet, you will claim the US is bad.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11021195. 





ChrisL said:


> I did no "false interpretations." .



Sure you did when you did not note that Piro said the conversation he was referring to was regarding a speech that took place in 2000. In 2002 SH was very public about the fact that he had no WMD and was quite willing to let UN inspectors as well as the CIA FBI and US Military WMD experts come into Iraq to search for for WMD that Bush and Congress and the CIA suspected might be there. That was a peace offer that did not rely on trusting Saddam one bit. The UN went in. Bush43 would not test the offer. Bush said the UN could handle that global security matter and then he told the UN to get out. In March 2003 it was Saddam and the UN that were right. It was Bush43 that was wrong.,

Sorry to break the news to you but S.Hussein as evil as he was in the past  was not lying about having not WMD as you verified by citing your belief in the Pelly/Piro interviews. 

So why did Bush go to the UN and get a unanimous vote to give SH a final opportunity to comply on the WMD matter if it was a national security threat to the world and SH had to absolutely be removed from power and the Baathist Party destroyed and turn Iraq into a Shiite Iran friendly place when Saddam said in 2002 that he did not have WMD to all the world and he offered all the world to come in and see.

You make no sense.


----------



## Unkotare

NotfooledbyW said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was right - two questions for you:
> 
> (1) why did Bush43 permit Malik three months later to request to the UNSC in December 2007 to end the US troop presence by the end if 2008  unless a SOFA could be negotiated allowing troops to stay on Iraq's conditions beyond 2008?...
Click to expand...



For Malik's political purposes. A real leader understood that, and a real leader would have renegotiated at the right time. Grow up, junior.


----------



## Unkotare

NotfooledbyW said:


> (3) And do you have any evidence that Iraq will ever surrender it's future to al-Qaeda or to its offshoot gang of Daesh terrorist scum?...




Like the fact that it is happening right fucking now? Idiot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrL 11020907
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was to say he didn't hide them?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Cornered again you are!  First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at you, defending Saddam Hussein.    Yet, you will claim the US is bad.
Click to expand...


Telling the truth is never bad. You should try it sometime. Saddam said he had no WMD's a he was right. Bush said he gets sick to his stomach every time he thinks about the WMD not being there. At least Bush has somewhat of a conscience. You don't . You prefer to pretend it doesn't matter that so many died because Bush was wrong - Obama was right and unfortunately for those in self/denial S.Hussein was right on WMD. 

Now for you Iranaphobes you really should read what SH said about Iran and him wanting to reach a deal with the US for security after sanctions were lifted for WMD compliance.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Unkotare said:


> Like the fact that it is happening right fucking now? Idiot.



Iraq is surrendering it's future to Daesh Terrorist scum? When did or will the surrender of Iraq to Daesh ever happen? Iraq is predominately Shiite and Kurd and Daesh is being driven back by them right now. 

You are a bigger idiot than Bush - he was wrongly predicting the future in 2007 but you got it wrong when all you need to do is read a news report or two.


----------



## Unkotare

NotfooledbyW said:


> Saddam said he had no WMD's a he was right.....




Wrong and wrong.


----------



## Oldstyle

konradv said:


> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064



Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable.  Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now.  If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.


----------



## Oldstyle

Now we're tucking tail and running from Yemen as well because that's become to dangerous for us to have Special Forces troops there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11017253 





ChrisL said:


> He even told the interrogator that he wanted Iran and everyone to think that he had chemical weapons.



Of course SH wanted Iran to think that. Because that is what he told Piro as to why he gave a specific speech in 2000. In 2002 the documented public record is that Saddam was no longer as concerned about Iran as he was with the US because the US and UK were lying about CW he was supposed to producing and stockpiling. 

So he let UN inspectors in to avoid war and quit pretending he had WMD.

Do you deny Saddam let inspectors in during 2002 and are you calling Piro a liar for reporting why SH said he did so?

You are a complete knucklehead on such a simple truth to understand. 

SH didn't have WMD so he let the inspectors in to prove it. Bush chased the inspectors out. SH was cooperating before Bush launched his dumb war. Just the truth - sorry if the truth pains you Republican Iranaphobes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11022504 





Oldstyle said:


> If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.



No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11022504
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?
Click to expand...


Two separate issues...

Obama's military advisers told Obama that taking out all the troops would leave Iraq vulnerable.  They suggested leaving a minimum force of 25,000 US troops to stabilize the Iraqi army.

We needed a new Status of Forces Agreement to replace the one that was expiring.

Barack Obama used the expiring Status of Forces Agreement as an excuse to pull troops out.  He never made a serious attempt to get a new one because he didn't REALLY want to leave US troops in Iraq.

That was his *CHOICE*, NotFooled...a choice that he made for political reasons.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11022504
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?
Click to expand...


Oh, look at you defend Saddam Hussein and Barack Obama.  Lol.  What a bunch of partisan crap.  

If Obama is so smart, he would have negotiated to stay.  He was in WAY over his head as a community organizer.  Why don't you admit that he is no better a president than Bush.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11022504
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?
Click to expand...


More lies.  

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times


----------



## ChrisL

You see, THIS is why you do NOT let politicians run wars.  They don't know what's going on, nor do they understand war.  And this is also why you must ignore liberals.  Those bleeding heart hippies don't know anything either.  They're just like, "oh, war is bad, war is bad."  They don't give ANY thought to the consequences.  NONE.


----------



## ChrisL

From my above link . . . 

“As we pulled out of Iraq in 2011, just think of this: We had all our intelligence capability there. We knew where the enemy was. We were flying drones. We’re tracking them. We have signals intelligence pouring in, eavesdropping on phone conversations and the rest of it. We’re using our counterterrorism forces to bang against these guys. We’re passing that information to the Iraqis so their commandos can do the same,” the general said.

After several years of reduced violence in Iraq, the Americans left.

“On a given day in 2011, that screen went blank. The Iraqis went from a significant amount of intelligence on what was taking place, and the screen just went blank,” Gen. Keane said.

Mosul and Tikrit.



Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


----------



## konradv

Oldstyle said:


> Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable.  Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now.  If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.


Iraq was stable before we went in too. Sorry but that excuse doesn't cut it.  If we wanted stability we should have left well enough alone and finished the job in Afghanistan.


----------



## Oldstyle

konradv said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable.  Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now.  If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable before we went in too. Sorry but that excuse doesn't cut it.  If we wanted stability we should have left well enough alone and finished the job in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Do this for me Konradv...contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama.  ISIS taking over vast parts of Iraq is on Barry's plate.  He thought they were the "JV" and was asleep at the switch as they rolled across the open desert to attack major cities in Iraq.  That's on Obama...not on Bush!


----------



## konradv

Oldstyle said:


> Do this for me Konradv...contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama.  ISIS taking over vast parts of Iraq is on Barry's plate.  He thought they were the "JV" and was asleep at the switch as they rolled across the open desert to attack major cities in Iraq.  That's on Obama...not on Bush!


Everything about Iraq is on Bush.  As Powell said, "You broke it; you bought it."  Trying to justify what Obama may or may not have done implies that what Bush did was right.  Sorry, but I was saying it was a mistake 12 years ago and haven't changed my mind.  There were no good reasons for going in, just excuses.


----------



## ChrisL

konradv said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable.  Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now.  If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable before we went in too. Sorry but that excuse doesn't cut it.  If we wanted stability we should have left well enough alone and finished the job in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


If you consider a man who has committed genocide being in control, always being in a thorn in the side of the world, who stole from his own people and allowed them to starve, who supported and allowed training facilities for terrorists, and also who had torture and rape brigades "stability," then yeah I guess they were "stable."  

Crazy leftists.


----------



## Oldstyle

konradv said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do this for me Konradv...contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama.  ISIS taking over vast parts of Iraq is on Barry's plate.  He thought they were the "JV" and was asleep at the switch as they rolled across the open desert to attack major cities in Iraq.  That's on Obama...not on Bush!
> 
> 
> 
> Everything about Iraq is on Bush.  As Powell said, "You broke it; you bought it."  Trying to justify what Obama may or may not have done implies that what Bush did was right.  Sorry, but I was saying it was a mistake 12 years ago and haven't changed my mind.  There were no good reasons for going in, just excuses.
Click to expand...


So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders make the problems in Iraq ten times worse than it ever was under Bush...that it's still Bush's fault?  Gotcha!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11018129 





ChrisL said:


> I still say that Obama should have tried a little harder to keep troops there



Try "hard" all he could, the answer was still no on immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops gone. Iraq became a sovereign democracy and Iran Friendly Shiite control the central government in Baghdad. Maliki didn't want Americans around poking in his corrupt and partisan business. That thecIraq that Bush built. Stability was a facade.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldstyle said:


> Now we're tucking tail and running from Yemen as well because that's become to dangerous for us to have Special Forces troops there.




Because instead of a leader, we have a bumbling, arrogant idiot in the Oval Office making the entire world more dangerous.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11018129
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still say that Obama should have tried a little harder to keep troops there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try "hard" all he could, the answer was still no on immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops gone. Iraq became a sovereign democracy and Iran Friendly Shiite control the central government in Baghdad. Maliki didn't want Americans around poking in his corrupt and partisan business. That thecIraq that Bush built. Stability was a facade.
Click to expand...


You are grasping at straws to protect your "dear leader."  Pathetic.  The facts are that there WAS some semblance of stability in Iraq when we left, and now it is all falling apart.  Bush might be blamed for starting the war, but you liberals are responsible for LOSING it and wasting all those lives and money.


----------



## Unkotare

When Iranian young people bravely took to the streets to demand democratic reform, obama played golf while they were shot dead in the street. When years of costly effort had set the groundwork for a stable, democratic Iraq, obama patted himself on the back while creating the vacuum ISIS would fill. At every turn, obama has proven himself incompetent, incapable, weak, and vacillating on the world stage. He has made the world a much more dangerous place through his incompetence, arrogance, and idiocy.


----------



## MaryL

Ever since March 2003 Iraq was totally disrupted. No WMD's we weren't  on a nation building effort. So  we disrupted the  area, and what did we get out of it? Isis and Iranian involvement. Blowback anyone?


----------



## ChrisL

MaryL said:


> Ever since March 2003 Iraq was totally disrupted. No WMD's we weren't  on a nation building effort. So  we disrupted the  area, and what did we get out of it? Isis and Iranian involvement. Blowback anyone?



Republicans started the war, but the liberals lost it.  Politicians have no business running wars.  Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11018129
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still say that Obama should have tried a little harder to keep troops there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try "hard" all he could, the answer was still no on immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops gone. Iraq became a sovereign democracy and Iran Friendly Shiite control the central government in Baghdad. Maliki didn't want Americans around poking in his corrupt and partisan business. That thecIraq that Bush built. Stability was a facade.
Click to expand...


Did he really try "hard", Notfooled?  Did he try at all?  Why would he when his goal was to have all the troops out before running for reelection?  

The truth is that Barack Obama never tried to get a new Status of Force agreement because he didn't intend to keep troops in Iraq DESPITE what his military advisers were telling him was the smart thing to do!


----------



## Oldstyle

MaryL said:


> Ever since March 2003 Iraq was totally disrupted. No WMD's we weren't  on a nation building effort. So  we disrupted the  area, and what did we get out of it? Isis and Iranian involvement. Blowback anyone?



Ah, ISIS and Iranian involvement we got following Barry's ill advised decision to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq...taking responsibility for one's actions anyone?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11023097 





Oldstyle said:


> contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama.



You don't get to go from barely a whiff of sectarian strife prior to March 2003 and produce  the sectarian warfare that peaked in 2006 plus al Qaeda moving into the political vacuum that Bush created, and then use 2008 as some kind of baseline with 150,000 US troops still in country. Then take that baseline when Bush signs an agreement to withdraw all troops out of cities by June 2009 and use it as a club to beat on Obama's head. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush essentially agreed that after 2008 the Iraqis were empowered to decide every military operation US troops could carry out. Bush did not have that same restraint that he forced onto his successor. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush agreed to a final deadline for all troops to be out of Iraq before 2012. That meant his successor was required by the Bush agreement to start planning withdrawals and closing bases and all the logistics that coincide with leaving by a date certain. 

Yes the calm in 2008 is not the proper baseline. The proper baseline is a time when zero US troops were on the ground in Iraq. That was when UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq the first 2.5 months of 2003.

Bush started the war and did not return Iraq to its 2003 stability. Then he agreed to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011. You want to bitch about Daesh in Iraq butch at Bush. They got their start Obama Bush's watch and he did not destroy them. Just like he did not kill Bin Ladin.

You may also recall the sorry shape of the US economy during Bush's final months in office. Do you know how much it costs to keep 150,000 US troops in a combat and supportive role in Iraq?

So you cluttered-with-hate-brained morons expect that Obama maintain the same level of stability after 2008 with far less troops and the ones still there were not permitted to go into cities or any other missions except the ones approved by Maliki - friend of Iran and Shiite partisan - a very shitty prime minister of Iraq who wanted US troops gone.

If it took Bush 150,000 US troops to achieve the 2008 level of stability and to maintain it, you cannot expect any President afterward to maintain that level of stability in a corrupt partisan governmental environment with a declining number of troops packing things up and preparing to leave on a timeline that Bush put in place.

But that is the absurd expectation by many a rightwing hater in America from sea to shining sea.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11023097
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to go from barely a whiff of sectarian strife prior to March 2003 and produce  the sectarian warfare that peaked in 2006 plus al Qaeda moving into the political vacuum that Bush created, and then use 2008 as some kind of baseline with 150,000 US troops still in country. Then take that baseline when Bush signs an agreement to withdraw all troops out of cities by June 2009 and use it as a club to beat on Obama's head. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush essentially agreed that after 2008 the Iraqis were empowered to decide every military operation US troops could carry out. Bush did not have that same restraint that he forced onto his successor. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush agreed to a final deadline for all troops to be out of Iraq before 2012. That meant his successor was required by the Bush agreement to start planning withdrawals and closing bases and all the logistics that coincide with leaving by a date certain.
> 
> Yes the calm in 2008 is not the proper baseline. The proper baseline is a time when zero US troops were on the ground in Iraq. That was when UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq the first 2.5 months of 2003.
> 
> Bush started the war and did not return Iraq to its 2003 stability. Then he agreed to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011. You want to bitch about Daesh in Iraq butch at Bush. They got their start Obama Bush's watch and he did not destroy them. Just like he did not kill Bin Ladin.
> 
> You may also recall the sorry shape of the US economy during Bush's final months in office. Do you know how much it costs to keep 150,000 US troops in a combat and supportive role in Iraq?
> 
> So you cluttered-with-hate-brained morons expect that Obama maintain the same level of stability after 2008 with far less troops and the ones still there were not permitted to go into cities or any other missions except the ones approved by Maliki - friend of Iran and Shiite partisan - a very shitty prime minister of Iraq who wanted US troops gone.
> 
> If it took Bush 150,000 US troops to achieve the 2008 level of stability and to maintain it, you cannot expect any President afterward to maintain that level of stability in a corrupt partisan governmental environment with a declining number of troops packing things up and preparing to leave on a timeline that Bush put in place.
> 
> But that is the absurd expectation by many a rightwing hater in America from sea to shining sea.
Click to expand...


That's nuts.  Obviously, you are a partisan hack.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> More lies.
> 
> Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times



You are the liar again. Your link to the Mooney Newspaper:




> .
> Around that time, Gen. Austin recommended a residual force of 23,000 troops, according to a second source familiar with the discussions.
> 
> A spokesman for U.S. Central Command did not comment.



Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times 

You are lying because this is what I wrote:



NotfooledbyW said:


> No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?



You are lying because you did not produce a quote from General Austin giving advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. 

Go find that quote and then come back and call me a liar. You can't and I predict you will run.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies.
> 
> Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the liar again. Your link to the Mooney Newspaper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Around that time, Gen. Austin recommended a residual force of 23,000 troops, according to a second source familiar with the discussions.
> 
> A spokesman for U.S. Central Command did not comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times
> 
> You are lying because this is what I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying because you did not produce a quote from General Austin giving advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline.
> 
> Go find that quote and then come back and call me a liar. You can't and I predict you will run.
Click to expand...


If anyone is lying and is an Obama ass kisser, it would be you.  THAT much is obvious.  You will grasp at any straw to protect Obama.  You are a pathetic excuse for a man.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies.
> 
> Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the liar again. Your link to the Mooney Newspaper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Around that time, Gen. Austin recommended a residual force of 23,000 troops, according to a second source familiar with the discussions.
> 
> A spokesman for U.S. Central Command did not comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times
> 
> You are lying because this is what I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying because you did not produce a quote from General Austin giving advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline.
> 
> Go find that quote and then come back and call me a liar. You can't and I predict you will run.
Click to expand...


You have OCS.  Obama Cocksucker Syndrome.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11023154 





ChrisL said:


> who supported and allowed training facilities for terrorists,



You are one duped wingnuts? Only have time to laugh at that one.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11023154
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> who supported and allowed training facilities for terrorists,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one duped wingnuts? Only have time to laugh at that one.
Click to expand...


What makes you say that?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11023154
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> who supported and allowed training facilities for terrorists,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one duped wingnuts? Only have time to laugh at that one.
Click to expand...


You are one sick dude, you know that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024516 





ChrisL said:


> You have OCS. Obama Cocksucker Syndrom



I knew you would run because no general would recommend leaving one US military man or woman in Iraq without immunity from Iraqi Shia law. Not a one. Perhaps you would do that to our troops but no military adviser ever ever would. 

Did not expect your foul mouth however. You really must realize how badly you screwed up.


----------



## Darkwind

konradv said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still taking victory laps for Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya still claiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush isn't President...
> Your Internet is really slow.
> You need to get off dial up...
> Upgrade to cable maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  I don't post to make you comfortable with your prejudices.
Click to expand...

It appears that you also do not post to make any wit of sense.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024516
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have OCS. Obama Cocksucker Syndrom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you would run because no general would recommend leaving one US military man or woman in Iraq without immunity from Iraqi Shia law. Not a one. Perhaps you would do that to our troops but no military adviser ever ever would.
> 
> Did not expect your foul mouth however. You really must realize how badly you screwed up.
Click to expand...


Whose running, moron?  Not my fault you suck Obama's cock.  Does that offend your delicate sensibilities?  Truth hurts right?  

Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable.  Face facts, your boy lost Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024582 





ChrisL said:


> Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable.



_*Which one said we shouldn't leave even if our troops are not granted immunity? *_Provide the quote where a general advised Obama to do that to our troops?

You can't so you are running by arguing only with yourself. And being foul mouthed more and more.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024582
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Which one said we shouldn't leave even if our troops are not granted immunity? *_Provide the quote where a general advised Obama to do that to our troops?
> 
> You can't so you are running by arguing only with yourself. And being foul mouthed more and more.
Click to expand...


I already provided you the quote.  It's not my fault if you refuse to see.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024582
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Which one said we shouldn't leave even if our troops are not granted immunity? *_Provide the quote where a general advised Obama to do that to our troops?
> 
> You can't so you are running by arguing only with yourself. And being foul mouthed more and more.
Click to expand...


Here, let's give you another link.  See how you weasel your way out of this one.  The psyche of the Obamabots is certainly interesting to watch.  

Obama vs. the generals - The Washington Post


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024582 





ChrisL said:


> Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable.



So now Iraq was _*not stable*_ in 2008?  Then why did Bush agree to remove all troops from Iraqi cities and all troops had be gone by 2012. 

If Iraq was not stable with 150.000 US troops present and without restrictions that came in 2009 how do you expect to maintain stability when the focus of our troops was forced into packing up and leaving. Why did Bush do that to his successor? 

And don't you right wingers maintain an argument that putting a deadline for withdrawal in the open allows the enemy to wait for the withdrawal date and then attack with full fury and force and then they win? But you never recall that argument when Bush put the deadline out there for every former Baathist officer and every terrorist to see. 

How were you going to pay for the 150,000 US troops to maintain Iraq's 2008 stability for infinite years if the Iraqis can't or won't do it themselves. And specifically during the recovery from the Great Bush Recession of 2008. 

Could you let Oldstyle know that Iraq was not Stable in 2008 with 150,000 troops there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024653 





ChrisL said:


> Here, let's give you another link. See how you weasel your way out of this one. The psyche of the Obamabots is certainly interesting to watch.
> 
> Obama vs. the generals - The Washington Post



Is there a General there being directly quoted advising Obama to keep one single soldier in Iraq after January 1 2012.without having the protection of legal immunity?

Is there a quote there? If there is I'd like to see it. Why do you keep arguing with yourself?

The headline sounds great. I'm all for civilian control of the military.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> I already provided you the quote. It's not my fault if you refuse to see.



I read it. That's how I know there was no mention of the words  - immunity for our troops - there.  Nothing about immunity at all. And the one about General Austin was second or third person - not the general directly. In fact you read it because Ibgad to rad through the Mooney Times oped to find it. .


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided you the quote. It's not my fault if you refuse to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. That's how I know there was no mention of the words  - immunity for our troops - there.  Nothing about immunity at all. And the one about General Austin was second or third person - not the general directly. In fact you read it because Ibgad to rad through the Mooney Times oped to find it. .
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be part of a deal if Obama had even attempted to make one?  Yes, I'm sure it would.  Face facts, he failed on this one.  He lost the war for Iraq.  He's a wimpy liberal, just like you.  You people didn't give two craps at the time.  All you wanted was for us to leave WITHOUT thinking about the consequences of such actions.  YOU lost the war.  All of those lives and money  . . . wasted.  Thanks Obama.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024653
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's give you another link. See how you weasel your way out of this one. The psyche of the Obamabots is certainly interesting to watch.
> 
> Obama vs. the generals - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a General there being directly quoted advising Obama to keep one single soldier in Iraq after January 1 2012.without having the protection of legal immunity?
> 
> Is there a quote there? If there is I'd like to see it. Why do you keep arguing with yourself?
> 
> The headline sounds great. I'm all for civilian control of the military.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that media is lying now?  You are delusional.  EVERYONE knows that the generals had advised Obama that it was not a good time to pull out.  But your arrogant president thought he knew better than experienced generals who actually do know something about war.  You're a fool.  You should change your screen name to just FOOL.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CHrL 11023435 





ChrisL said:


> Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.



Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> CHrL 11023435
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?
Click to expand...


Are kidding with this bullcrap?  You must be.  Of course they should!!!  Duh.  Look what has happened, Fool.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> Wouldn't that be part of a deal if Obama had even attempted to make one?



Obama offered to accept an extension of the exact same immunity terms that were contained in the Bush/Maliki 2008 deal. The Iraqis would not grant those terms beyond 2011. It was an impasse that could not be overcome and no US military official advised Obama to submit to Iraqi demands for no immunity. No general no general ever did recommend giving up on getting immunity. That is why to you will never find one that did.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be part of a deal if Obama had even attempted to make one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama offered to accept an extension of the exact same immunity terms that were contained in the Bush/Maliki 2008 deal. The Iraqis would not grant those terms beyond 2011. It was an impasse that could not be overcome and no US military official advised Obama to submit to Iraqi demands for no immunity. No general no general ever did recommend giving up on getting immunity. That is why to you will never find one that did.
Click to expand...


Bull.  Obama couldn't wait to pull troops out of Iraq.  After all, that was one of his campaign promises, and all the dummies thought it was great, while those of us with a brain were shaking our heads.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024497 





ChrisL said:


> That's nuts. Obviously, you are a partisan hac



There is nothing nuts about. If there was you would explain why. Instead you chose to just call it nuts and run.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024497
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nuts. Obviously, you are a partisan hac
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing nuts about. If there was you would explain why. Instead you chose to just call it nuts and run.
Click to expand...


Oh . . .what's this?  Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea.  What bullshit are you going to come up with now?  OCS.  

Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says his old boss, President Barack Obama, erred when he failed to leave a residual military force in Iraq – and when he didn't opt to arm the Free Syrian Army earlier.

"I really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq," Panetta said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS's *"60 Minutes."*

Panetta said he and Obama's other advisers thought that at least 8,000 U.S. troops should have stayed in Iraq. "And frankly, having those troops there I think would've given us greater leverage on [Prime Minister Nouri al-]Maliki to try to force him to do the right thing as well."

The Obama administration has insisted that al-Maliki would not make a "status of forces" agreement that U.S. troops would not be prosecuted by Iraq's government. Republican critics claim the real reason is that Obama wanted to fulfill his campaign promise to completely end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

> . ChrL 11023435
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 11024796
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrL 11024802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Do _*US generals*_ get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual _*leaders in Iraq*_ too?

So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.

US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> . ChrL 11023435
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 11024796
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrL 11024802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do _*US generals*_ get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual _*leaders in Iraq*_ too?
> 
> So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.
> 
> US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Yes.  That would have been best for us AND for the Iraqi people.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> . ChrL 11023435
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 11024796
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrL 11024802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do _*US generals*_ get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual _*leaders in Iraq*_ too?
> 
> So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.
> 
> US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Oh, and BTW, I don't have a global militaristic dream world, you fool.  Acknowledging that having troops remaining in Iraq would have prevented what is happening TODAY is not a militaristic dream world, you idiot.  I can't stand you.  You're a partisan hack and a dumb ass.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> . ChrL 11023435
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 11024796
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrL 11024802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do _*US generals*_ get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual _*leaders in Iraq*_ too?
> 
> So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.
> 
> US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


^^^

This jerk . . . he cannot refute that generals, who KNOW what's happening on the ground and who know how to run a war, should listen to Obama, the community organizer, lawyer and politician.  What an effing idiot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said."

ChrL11024862 





ChrisL said:


> Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. What bullshit are you going to come up with now? OCS.
> 
> Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians
> 
> Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says his old boss, President Barack Obama, erred when he failed to leave a residual military force in Iraq – and when he didn't opt to arm the Free Syrian Army earlier.



I see no mention of immunity in Panetta's book tour quote.

I see immunity mentioned when Panetta was Sec of defense and in a position to be advising Obama to reject the Iraqis anti-immunity position,

NF 10908353 





NotfooledbyW said:


> "On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.
> 
> On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.
> 
> “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.
> 
> There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
> 
> Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said."
> 
> ChrL11024862
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. What bullshit are you going to come up with now? OCS.
> 
> Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians
> 
> Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says his old boss, President Barack Obama, erred when he failed to leave a residual military force in Iraq – and when he didn't opt to arm the Free Syrian Army earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no mention of immunity in Panetta's book tour quote.
> 
> I see immunity mentioned Panetta was Sec of defense and in a position to be advising Obama to reject the Iraqis anti-immunity position,
> 
> NF 10908353
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.
> 
> On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.
> 
> “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.
> 
> There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
> 
> Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, then you didn't read the link, because it is specifically talked about.  Again, Obama insists that he couldn't do anything, but I'm not buying it.  WHERE is his diplomacy?  A leader needs to be able to LEAD.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024941 





ChrisL said:


> Acknowledging that having troops remaining in Iraq would have prevented what is happening TODAY is not a militaristic dream world, you idiot.



Acknowledging that having troops remaining in Iraq is acknowledging that an impossible and unrealistic outcome was first going to happen in order to maybe have the possibility of preventing what happened last summer. It is ignoring the Maliki factor and the rancid political climate that could have actually made the situation worse by having American troops stationed on the ground fully supporting a Shiite dominated government - friendly toward Iran helping to carry out military action against the indigenous Sunni population. Americans would have been seen as Maliki's Army and Air Force. 

You are ignoring the issue of legal immunity not being available for troops that many wanted to leave behind. It's as if you believe in little pixies dropping fairy dust in Iraqi politicians eyes to get them to reverse entrenched convictions to never grant immunity to US troops ever again. 

Republican pixie dust foreign policy is in full swing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> This jerk . . . he cannot refute that generals, who KNOW what's happening on the ground and who know how to run a war, should listen to Obama, the community organizer, lawyer and politician. What an effing idiot.



I am not refuting the fact that US generals know how and advise the US President on how to conduct a war.

I am refuting your absurd and ignoramus pronouncement that you live in a militaristic dream world where US Generals get to tell Iraqi politicians including the Prime Minister who has a close relationship with Iran what they are permitted to do or not do and specifically with regard to granting immunity to US troops.

You ran away from another post by not responding to one but not to its context.

Here it is again:



> .
> Do _*US generals*_ get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual _*leaders in Iraq*_ too?
> 
> So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.
> 
> US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?



Will you keep running or provide a direct response? It all up to you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024996n 





ChrisL said:


> Again, Obama insists that he couldn't do anything, but I'm not buying it. WHERE is his diplomacy? A leader needs to be able to LEAD.



It's more 'talked about' the fact that the Iraqis were immovable on the issue of legal immunity for remaking troops, And you cant use the word 'immunity' in a response to me can you?

It took Bush 150,000 troops to achieve and maintain a 2008 environment that you admitted was not stable. Yet you expect Bush's successor to maintain the level of instability with much less troops all committed to being down to zero in three years. 

Where was Bush's leadership and diplomacy to keep military bases in Iraq for decades like he wanted?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024862 





ChrisL said:


> Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.
> 
> Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians



Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.

If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.

NF 11024987 





NotfooledbyW said:


> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said."



I realize you can't discuss the *immunity issue* since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to  disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:

NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011: 





NotfooledbyW said:


> _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.*_


​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11024582 





ChrisL said:


> Yes, more than ONE general recommended .....  that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable



I have never argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ...  "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."

It's that they all also recommended that any troops that did not leave had to be granted immunity by the Iraqis or they could not remain. The Iraqis would not give up on their opposition to immunity. So they all had to leave when Bush's deadline arrived.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024862
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.
> 
> Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.
> 
> If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.
> 
> NF 11024987
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize you can't discuss the *immunity issue* since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to  disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:
> 
> NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Are you now saying that Obama knows more than Leon Panetta?  Good Lord.  You really do have OCS.  

I don't have to agree with everything a person says to agree with some of the things they say.  DUH.  

He also stated that he feels Obama could have applied pressure to Al-Maliki.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024582
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, more than ONE general recommended .....  that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ...  "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."
> 
> It's that they all also recommended that any troops that did not leave had to be granted immunity by the Iraqis or they could not remain. The Iraqis would not give up on their opposition to immunity. So they all had to leave when Bush's deadline arrived.
Click to expand...


Yes, you did.  Obama could have done more.  That is the point.  He didn't want to.  Why?  Because he wanted to please his liberal base.  Stop being so dishonest.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11031694 





ChrisL said:


> I don't have to agree with everything a person says to agree with some of the things they say.



Are going on record disagreeing with this no matter who says it?

*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> Yes, you did.



That is a lie. I have never....



NotfooledbyW said:


> . ... argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ... "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."



If you think I did - post it -.or if you can't - well then,  run as you usually do.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11031694
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to agree with everything a person says to agree with some of the things they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are going on record disagreeing with this no matter who says it?
> 
> *“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *
Click to expand...


You misunderstand, as usual.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie. I have never....
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> . ... argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ... "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I did - post it -.or if you can't - well then,  run as you usually do.
Click to expand...


Yup, you did.  You said that you didn't believe it.  Stop lying and just admit that you will say anything to defend your lover, Obama.    OCS syndrome.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> Ah, ISIS and Iranian involvement we got following Barry's ill advised decision to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq...taking responsibility for one's actions anyone?



Obama's decisions continue to look better every day as experts reveal more about the Daesh terrorist scum that overran parts of Sunni inhabited Iraq last summer. Obama has the policy right. This has to remain a ground war between modern day Muslims and this cult of end of times medieval murderous goons that I refer to as Daesh terrorist scum because that is what they truly are.

The 2003 - 2011 war to save the world from S.Hussein's WMD instead of peaceful inspection is over. This is a new war and part of the revived (**a* ) (in 2003) Sunni Shiite Ideological and religious split that has now become even more exacerbated by a distinctive and ancient version of Islam that has established a murderous cult-like hermit kingdom that the vast majority of most modern day Muslims reject. It is a cult that needs to control territory without regard to borders which is necessarily required to be large enough to bring forth a serious army that will take on the army of Rome in a final end of times battle. This battle is to be won when the army of the eighth caliphate ruled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi gets trapped and cornered in Jerusalem and finally down to its last 5000 fighters when Jesus Christ the Prophet himself comes floating down from the heavens with a sword and slays an anti-prophet (_**b Dajjal vs Jesus) *_and the world is then ruled by pure Sharia Law.

Apparently the Koran mentions "the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,”   **c  *

All this must matter to those who prefer to be informed on issues where the leaders of all civilized nations must decide how best to deal with such a large murderous cult and specifically all nations that are predominately Islamic and opposed to Daesh's creation of chaos as a medieval end of time cult that cannot have its objective be fulfilled unless you believe Jesus will actually come back to slay Dajjal.

**a*  Daesh propaganda quoting Zarqawi: 





> . “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify … until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” A recent propaganda video shows clips from Hollywood war movies set in medieval times—perhaps because many of the prophecies specify that the armies will be on horseback or carrying ancient weapons.



_**b Dajjal vs Jesus *_


> . An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.



**c  signs *


> .  “Only God knows” whether the Islamic State’s armies are the ones foretold, Cerantonio said. But he is hopeful. “The Prophet said that one sign of the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” he said. “If you go to the mosques now, you’ll find the preachers are silent about this subject.” On this theory, even setbacks dealt to the Islamic State mean nothing, since God has preordained the near-destruction of his people anyway. The Islamic State has its best and worst days ahead of it.



_**a b & c source*_: What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

Obama's pulling troops out according to Bush's hard deadline had nothing to do with the creation  of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Daesh and self-anointment as caliph number eight causing all kinds of cult minded psychopaths and thieves and murderers to have a cause to join him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11033743  





ChrisL said:


> Yup, you did. You said that you didn't believe it. OCS syndrome.



If you think I did - post it - or if you can't - well then, keeping running as you just did again right there in post# 11033743.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, ISIS and Iranian involvement we got following Barry's ill advised decision to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq...taking responsibility for one's actions anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's decisions continue to look better every day as experts reveal more about the Daesh terrorist scum that overran parts of Sunni inhabited Iraq last summer. Obama has the policy right. This has to remain a ground war between modern day Muslims and this cult of end of times medieval murderous goons that I refer to as Daesh terrorist scum because that is what they truly are.
> 
> The 2003 - 2011 war to save the world from S.Hussein's WMD instead of peaceful inspection is over. This is a new war and part of the revived (**a* ) (in 2003) Sunni Shiite Ideological and religious split that has now become even more exacerbated by a distinctive and ancient version of Islam that has established a murderous cult-like hermit kingdom that the vast majority of most modern day Muslims reject. It is a cult that needs to control territory without regard to borders which is necessarily required to be large enough to bring forth a serious army that will take on the army of Rome in a final end of times battle. This battle is to be won when the army of the eighth caliphate ruled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi gets trapped and cornered in Jerusalem and finally down to its last 5000 fighters when Jesus Christ the Prophet himself comes floating down from the heavens with a sword and slays an anti-prophet (_**b Dajjal vs Jesus) *_and the world is then ruled by pure Sharia Law.
> 
> Apparently the Koran mentions "the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,”   **c  *
> 
> All this must matter to those who prefer to be informed on issues where the leaders of all civilized nations must decide how best to deal with such a large murderous cult and specifically all nations that are predominately Islamic and opposed to Daesh's creation of chaos as a medieval end of time cult that cannot have its objective be fulfilled unless you believe Jesus will actually come back to slay Dajjal.
> 
> **a*  Daesh propaganda quoting Zarqawi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify … until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” A recent propaganda video shows clips from Hollywood war movies set in medieval times—perhaps because many of the prophecies specify that the armies will be on horseback or carrying ancient weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _**b Dajjal vs Jesus *_
> 
> 
> 
> . An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> **c  signs *
> 
> 
> 
> .  “Only God knows” whether the Islamic State’s armies are the ones foretold, Cerantonio said. But he is hopeful. “The Prophet said that one sign of the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” he said. “If you go to the mosques now, you’ll find the preachers are silent about this subject.” On this theory, even setbacks dealt to the Islamic State mean nothing, since God has preordained the near-destruction of his people anyway. The Islamic State has its best and worst days ahead of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _**a b & c source*_: What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic
> 
> Obama's pulling troops out according to Bush's hard deadline had nothing to do with the creation  of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Daesh and self-anointment as caliph number eight causing all kinds of cult minded psychopaths and thieves and murderers to have a cause to join him.
Click to expand...


Just a year ago, Barry was citing Yemen as a shining example of how his Middle East strategy against terror was succeeding.  Now the whole country is on fire and embroiled in civil war.  Everything Barack Obama touches turns to shit.  You're simply too much of blinders wearing sycophant to admit it!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> Barry was citing Yemen



Why are you running from your ignorance based commentary on Iraq that I challenged. Do you agree with me now that pulling US troops out if Iraq when Bush agreed they could be pulled out had nothing to do with the rise of ISIS in Syria and then following that, seizing territory in Iraq.

The spark that lit the Daesh fire was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. You cannot erase history to suit your need to blame everything on Obama.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11033743
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you did. You said that you didn't believe it. OCS syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think I did - post it - or if you can't - well then, keeping running as you just did again right there in post# 11033743.
Click to expand...


There is no post #11033743.  How many posts do you think are ON this thread?  

Also, stop editing people's replies for god's sake!  Don't you know how to post YET?  Just use the "post reply" option, you tard.


----------



## Unkotare

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barry was citing Yemen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you running from your ignorance based commentary on Iraq that I challenged. Do you agree with me now that pulling US troops out if Iraq when Bush agreed they could be pulled out had nothing to do with the rise of ISIS in Syria and then following that, seizing territory in Iraq.
> 
> The spark that lit the Daesh fire was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. You cannot erase history to suit your need to blame everything on Obama.
Click to expand...


obama's arrogant incompetence has directly led to the inferno that the region has become. A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement instead of eagerly and irresponsibly pulling out as fast as possible so he could have a fucking 5-minute media moment without giving a thought (as if he had one to give) about the consequences. Consequences that President Bush very specifically warned against. Exactly what he cautioned against has happened, and our hapless, careless, clueless 'President' has no idea what to do other than deny reality and responsibility. 

obama flicked his cigarette butt aside so he could grin into a camera and it sparked a wildfire that could well engulf much more than just the Middle East. People need to keep such things in mind when they vote. It's not just a game.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Unko 11066745 





Unkotare said:


> A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement



Obama listened to every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General that told him not to negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008. The Iraqis refused to budge on the immunity issue. That is a natter of historical record that you are ignoring or deny that it exists. Why do you base your opinion on denial of a major crucial fact. The Iraqis would not sign or pass a SOFA in 2011 that contained legal immunity for US troops. That is the reality you miss.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11066501 





ChrisL said:


> There is no post #11033743.



Your post just now was Post# 11,066,501.  The post you said was no post was Post# 11,033,743. That was about 33,000 posts by all posters  between your two.

When dealing with so many false facts and unfounded opinion by right-wingers it is easier for me to find them on the MB's overall numbering system. No big deal except to those of you needing to divert attention away from all your losing arguments no natter on which thread they keep repeating them or sometime changing them to suit the mist recent argument they are trying to make.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11066501
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no post #11033743.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post just now was Post# 11,066,501.  The post you said was no post was Post# 11,033,743. That was about 33,000 posts by all posters  between your two.
> 
> When dealing with so many false facts and unfounded opinion by right-wingers it is easier for me to find them on the MB's overall numbering system. No big deal except to those of you needing to divert attention away from all your losing arguments no natter on which thread you keep repeating them or sometime changing them to suit the mist recent argument they are trying to make.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to respond to your posts until you start quoting the right way and stop cutting quotes short.  Use the "post reply" option and quote the ENTIRE post.


----------



## Unkotare

NotfooledbyW said:


> Unko 11066745
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama listened to every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General that told him not to negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008. The Iraqis refused to budge on the immunity issue. That is a natter of historical record that you are ignoring or deny that it exists. Why do you base your opinion on denial of a major crucial fact. The Iraqis would not sign or pass a SOFA in 2011 that contained legal immunity for US troops. That is the reality you miss.
Click to expand...




News discussions - Boston.com

Key general Iraq pullout plan a disaster - Washington Times


George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post


Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News


President Bush Warned Obama Not to Pull Out of Iraq Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal


Be warned America s withdrawal from Iraq heralds a world of instability John Bolton World news The Guardian


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Unko 11066745
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama listened to every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General that told him not to negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008. The Iraqis refused to budge on the immunity issue. That is a natter of historical record that you are ignoring or deny that it exists. Why do you base your opinion on denial of a major crucial fact. The Iraqis would not sign or pass a SOFA in 2011 that contained legal immunity for US troops. That is the reality you miss.
Click to expand...


Obama *IGNORED* every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General who warned him that a premature withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq could destabilize the area.

Obama never made an effort to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement as the Bush SOFA expired because Obama never intended to keep American combat troops in Iraq.

*THAT *is the reality that you ignore...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11067078 





ChrisL said:


> I'm not going to respond to your posts until you start quoting the right way and stop cutting quotes short. Use the "post reply" option and quote the ENTIRE post.



I am using the quote or reply function the full quote is a mouse click away if you think you thought was not fuller represented by selective quote - and poster,are allowed to select specific statements that one wishes to focus on - while cutting out the useless stuff such as references to having oral,sex with the president.


Since you said you would find posts by me filled with hate; Since you can't find a poll that shows Americans opposing negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran are the majority; you are not going to respond to my posts.   Goodbye again.


And I just used the search function to find all posts by me that were in response to you ChrL. It worked great. I can see all the posts you are running from such as this one: 

NF 11024759. 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Is there a General there being directly quoted advising Obama to keep one single soldier in Iraq after January 1 2012.without having the protection of legal immunity?



An I can show when you said there was no post number 11033743 and a taught you the fact that there is:,



ChrisL said:


> There is no post #11033743. How many posts do you think are ON this thread?



You just can't admit when you are wrong can you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Unko 11066745 





Unkotare said:


> A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement



NF 11066907 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Obama listened to every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General that told him not to negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008.




Unko 11067175 





Unkotare said:


> News discussions - Boston.com
> 
> Key general Iraq pullout plan a disaster - Washington Times
> 
> George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
> 
> Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News
> 
> President Bush Warned Obama Not to Pull Out of Iraq Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
> 
> Be warned America s withdrawal from Iraq heralds a world of instability John Bolton World news The Guardian



Which one of those links contains anyone in 2011 that had advised Obama to *negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008? 
*
You cited my post but you did not respond to the point that I made about the necessity for immunity for any remaining troops after 2011. You provide links to wall after wall of text that do not address the critical point.   I-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y 


So where is the quote I am seeking?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11067735 





Oldstyle said:


> Obama *IGNORED* every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General who warned him that a premature withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq could destabilize the area.



No he did not ignore them. Those civilian advisers and active duty military advisers had no way to persuade the Iraqis to grant immunity to our troops  after the Bush/Maliki 2008 SOFA expired at the end of 2011. You are confused. It was the Iraqis that ignored that advice mainly because Bush was pushed into a very short term deal in 2008. The Iraqis had final say. After right winger generally claim that 4484 US troops needed to die in order to give the Iraqis a sovereign democratic state ruled by majority Shiite rule that is quite friendly with the theocratic state in neighboring Iran.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11067735
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama *IGNORED* every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General who warned him that a premature withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq could destabilize the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he did not ignore them. Those civilian advisers and active duty military advisers had no way to persuade the Iraqis to grant immunity to our troops  after the Bush/Maliki 2008 SOFA expired at the end of 2011. You are confused. It was the Iraqis that ignored that advice mainly because Bush was pushed into a very short term deal in 2008. The Iraqis had final say. After right winger generally claim that 4484 US troops needed to die in order to give the Iraqis a sovereign democratic state ruled by majority Shiite rule that is quite friendly with the theocratic state in neighboring Iran.
Click to expand...


Of course he ignored them!  He made a political decision that pulling the troops out would get him reelected.  The results of that decision he now owns.  He was told by his military advisers that a rushed withdrawal could endanger stability in Iraq but he chose to ignore their advice and do it anyways.  The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.  That's on nobody but Barry!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11072849 





Oldstyle said:


> Of course he ignored them! He made a political decision that pulling the troops out would get him reelected.



Should Obama have ignored the more important advice from those same advisers who said no troops should stay if Iraq does not extend the immunity that was given with the previous SOFA? 

Tell me you think Obama should have ignored the personal safety of the troops under his command


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11067735
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama *IGNORED* every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General who warned him that a premature withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq could destabilize the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he did not ignore them. Those civilian advisers and active duty military advisers had no way to persuade the Iraqis to grant immunity to our troops  after the Bush/Maliki 2008 SOFA expired at the end of 2011. You are confused. It was the Iraqis that ignored that advice mainly because Bush was pushed into a very short term deal in 2008. The Iraqis had final say. After right winger generally claim that 4484 US troops needed to die in order to give the Iraqis a sovereign democratic state ruled by majority Shiite rule that is quite friendly with the theocratic state in neighboring Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he ignored them!  He made a political decision that pulling the troops out would get him reelected.  The results of that decision he now owns.  He was told by his military advisers that a rushed withdrawal could endanger stability in Iraq but he chose to ignore their advice and do it anyways.  The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.  That's on nobody but Barry!
Click to expand...

Which military advisors, former officers, etc. advised that troops be left in Iraq without a renewed SOFA? Of course you can name the ones who gave the simple opinion and advice to leave troops, but that is easy for a person not in control and responsible for the decision and when the little caveat about the SOFA is ignored. So, give us the name or names of the military advisers that told him to leave troops in Iraq despite the Iraqi governments refusal to grant a new SOFA.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unko 11066745
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama listened to every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General that told him not to negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008. The Iraqis refused to budge on the immunity issue. That is a natter of historical record that you are ignoring or deny that it exists. Why do you base your opinion on denial of a major crucial fact. The Iraqis would not sign or pass a SOFA in 2011 that contained legal immunity for US troops. That is the reality you miss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News discussions - Boston.com
> 
> Key general Iraq pullout plan a disaster - Washington Times
> 
> 
> George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News
> 
> 
> President Bush Warned Obama Not to Pull Out of Iraq Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
> 
> 
> Be warned America s withdrawal from Iraq heralds a world of instability John Bolton World news The Guardian
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11072849
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he ignored them! He made a political decision that pulling the troops out would get him reelected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should Obama have ignored the more important advice from those same advisers who said no troops should stay if Iraq does not extend the immunity that was given with the previous SOFA?
> 
> Tell me you think Obama should have ignored the personal safety of the troops under his command
Click to expand...


You're conflating two issues and trying to make them one.  Obama couldn't have cared less about the personal safety of the troops because he never intended to have them THERE!  He made a political decision to remove combat troops from Iraq and used the expiring SOFA as an excuse once it became obvious that it wasn't a good policy choice because it left Iraq vulnerable to attack from ISIS.

The bottom line has always been that Barack Obama didn't push for a new SOFA because Barack Obama didn't want US troops in Iraq.  He ignored the military advice he got because he wanted his political legacy to be that of the President who "stopped wars"!

He now faces the exact same situation in Afghanistan and although he'd LOVE to pull troops out of there as well and declare that he "stopped" another war...it's finally dawned on him that leaving a power vacuum can lead to "JV teams" taking over countries!  Only took him six plus years to get a semblance of a clue!


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11067735
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama *IGNORED* every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General who warned him that a premature withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq could destabilize the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he did not ignore them. Those civilian advisers and active duty military advisers had no way to persuade the Iraqis to grant immunity to our troops  after the Bush/Maliki 2008 SOFA expired at the end of 2011. You are confused. It was the Iraqis that ignored that advice mainly because Bush was pushed into a very short term deal in 2008. The Iraqis had final say. After right winger generally claim that 4484 US troops needed to die in order to give the Iraqis a sovereign democratic state ruled by majority Shiite rule that is quite friendly with the theocratic state in neighboring Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he ignored them!  He made a political decision that pulling the troops out would get him reelected.  The results of that decision he now owns.  He was told by his military advisers that a rushed withdrawal could endanger stability in Iraq but he chose to ignore their advice and do it anyways.  The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.  That's on nobody but Barry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which military advisors, former officers, etc. advised that troops be left in Iraq without a renewed SOFA? Of course you can name the ones who gave the simple opinion and advice to leave troops, but that is easy for a person not in control and responsible for the decision and when the little caveat about the SOFA is ignored. So, give us the name or names of the military advisers that told him to leave troops in Iraq despite the Iraqi governments refusal to grant a new SOFA.
Click to expand...


Nobody advised that.  His generals told him that withdrawing troops was dangerous because it would lead to instability.  The need for a new SOFA would only exist if you intended to leave troops in Iraq and Barry never had that intention no matter what his military advisers told him.  Iraqi politicians had no stomach for backing a new SOFA because they quite correctly realized that Obama didn't want troops in Iraq and at best was going to leave a token force behind.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.



ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president.  Then they were *not destroyed* by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008. 

The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki. 

The transformation from AQI to ISIS happened in Syria not Iraq anyway. There was no advice by generals to keep 24.000 troops in Syria in 2011 or thereafter.

Your storyline is quite,flawed Oldstyle - it really is.,

Have you ever mentioned immunity in one of your posts? Will you ever use that term in your lifetime?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11073103 





Oldstyle said:


> You're conflating two issues and trying to make them one.



First of all Camp is exactly correct here: 11072964 





Camp said:


> Which military advisors, former officers, etc. advised that troops be left in Iraq without a renewed SOFA? Of course you can name the ones who gave the simple opinion and advice to leave troops, but that is easy for a person not in control and responsible for the decision and when the little caveat about the SOFA is ignored. So, give us the name or names of the military advisers that told him to leave troops in Iraq despite the Iraqi governments refusal to grant a new SOFA.



But your point Oldstyle is invalid. There is no separation of continuing a troop presence and having a legal agreement with the host country's granting immunity for those troops.

Iraq was not going to grant immunity and the US was not going to keep one single troop there without it. It's called an impasse. One impasse that could never have been overcome.,

Just so your are aware, Obama authorized the tripling of US troops in Afghanistan within his first year, which alienated the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party including many members of the Congressional black caucus. Early Spring 2009 Obama authorized the largest US Marine air to ground assault into Helmand and Kandahar Province since the Vietnam war. Obama has never catered to or tried to please the anti war wing of his party.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president.  Then they were *not destroyed* by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.
> 
> The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki.
> 
> The transformation from AQI to ISIS happened in Syria not Iraq anyway. There was no advice by generals to keep 24.000 troops in Syria in 2011 or thereafter.
> 
> Your storyline is quite,flawed Oldstyle - it really is.,
> 
> Have you ever mentioned immunity in one of your posts? Will you ever use that term in your lifetime?
Click to expand...


What's "flawed" is your rather pathetic attempts to make Barack Obama's Middle East policy failures something that George Bush is at fault for!  When Bush left office, Obama inherited a stable Iraq.  Since that time Obama has managed to totally FUBAR not only Iraq but the entire Middle East.  What he was lauding as a success just last year...Yemen...is now imploding.  Syria is a disaster.  Libya is a disaster.  Iran is busily finishing off a nuke.  He even tried to influence an Israeli election only to see that turn into another disaster.

Barack Obama is AWFUL when it comes to foreign policy.  The longer he stays in office the worse things become.  I dare you to find a single foreign policy of Barry's that's been successful.  He's THAT BAD!


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11073103
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating two issues and trying to make them one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all Camp is exactly correct here: 11072964
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which military advisors, former officers, etc. advised that troops be left in Iraq without a renewed SOFA? Of course you can name the ones who gave the simple opinion and advice to leave troops, but that is easy for a person not in control and responsible for the decision and when the little caveat about the SOFA is ignored. So, give us the name or names of the military advisers that told him to leave troops in Iraq despite the Iraqi governments refusal to grant a new SOFA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But your point Oldstyle is invalid. There is no separation of continuing a troop presence and having a legal agreement with the host country's granting immunity for those troops.
> 
> Iraq was not going to grant immunity and the US was not going to keep one single troop there without it. It's called an impasse. One impasse that could never have been overcome.,
> 
> Just so your are aware, Obama authorized the tripling of US troops in Afghanistan within his first year, which alienated the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party including many members of the Congressional black caucus. Early Spring 2009 Obama authorized the largest US Marine air to ground assault into Helmand and Kandahar Province since the Vietnam war. Obama has never catered to or tried to please the anti war wing of his party.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight...George W. Bush was able to work out a SOFA.  Yet for Barack Obama this is an "impasse that could never have been overcome"?

Here's a hint for ya, Sparky...

In order to overcome ANYTHING you first have to try!  Why would Obama try to get a new SOFA when he intended all along to withdraw American troops?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11074189 





Oldstyle said:


> So let me get this straight...George W. Bush was able to work out a SOFA. Yet for Barack Obama this is an "impasse that could never have been overcome"?



Bush was able to work out SOFA in 2008 that was mostly concessions to Iraqis demands when he had 150,000 troops still in the country. Immunity was an issue then and almost scuttled the deal which would have meant that 150,000 troops would have to be airlifted out by January 1 2009. The Iraqis were not ready to handle their own security that soon but Bush agreed that by January 1 2012 they would be. So he made the deal. He failed tonge tab long term deal with basing right like he originally wanted.

The situation was quite different by 2011 -.troops were withdrawn at a steady pace according to the Bush deal. And since Bush set 2012 as the end of immunity the Iraqis saw no reason to concede immunity this time,

And Maliki had filled up the army with his cronies in the officer corp and he and Tehran were satisfied that the Bush deadline was the perfect time to send all troops packing for home. It was an impasse that could not be overcome. The Iraqi parliament had not near enough votes and that was public record at the time.

In 2008 the votes were there because Iraq's army was not ready to stand on their own.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11074189
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight...George W. Bush was able to work out a SOFA. Yet for Barack Obama this is an "impasse that could never have been overcome"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush was able to work out SOFA in 2008 that was mostly concessions to Iraqis demands when he had 150,000 troops still in the country. Immunity was an issue then and almost scuttled the deal which would have meant that 150,000 troops would have to be airlifted out by January 1 2009. The Iraqis were not ready to handle their own security that soon but Bush agreed that by January 1 2012 they would be. So he made the deal. He failed tonge tab long term deal with basing right like he originally wanted.
> 
> The situation was quite different by 2011 -.troops were withdrawn at a steady pace according to the Bush deal. And since Bush set 2012 as the end of immunity the Iraqis saw no reason to concede immunity this time,
> 
> And Maliki had filled up the army with his cronies in the officer corp and he and Tehran were satisfied that the Bush deadline was the perfect time to send all troops packing for home. It was an impasse that could not be overcome. The Iraqi parliament had not near enough votes and that was public record at the time.
> 
> In 2008 the votes were there because Iraq's army was not ready to stand on their own.
Click to expand...


Still, some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why.  It is my belief that he ignored them due to his wanting to please his base.

A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders.  That is all part of being the POTUS.  Obama could have fought harder to come to a deal, but he did not.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president.  Then they were *not destroyed* by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.
> 
> The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki.
> 
> The transformation from AQI to ISIS happened in Syria not Iraq anyway. There was no advice by generals to keep 24.000 troops in Syria in 2011 or thereafter.
> 
> Your storyline is quite,flawed Oldstyle - it really is.,
> 
> Have you ever mentioned immunity in one of your posts? Will you ever use that term in your lifetime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's "flawed" is your rather pathetic attempts to make Barack Obama's Middle East policy failures something that George Bush is at fault for!  When Bush left office, Obama inherited a stable Iraq.  Since that time Obama has managed to totally FUBAR not only Iraq but the entire Middle East.  What he was lauding as a success just last year...Yemen...is now imploding.  Syria is a disaster.  Libya is a disaster.  Iran is busily finishing off a nuke.  He even tried to influence an Israeli election only to see that turn into another disaster.
> 
> Barack Obama is AWFUL when it comes to foreign policy.  The longer he stays in office the worse things become.  I dare you to find a single foreign policy of Barry's that's been successful.  He's THAT BAD!
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you claim that when Bush left Iraq, Iraq was stable, it will not be true. It shows that the root of your argument, the very foundation of your claim is a bold faced blatant lie that is an insult to all the veterans who served in Iraq after Bush left. In 2008, the last full year of Bush's control, 314 American military personnel were killed in action. The following year, Obama reduced the number to 149. That was further reduced in 2010 to 60 killed in action and in 2011 54 and finely, in 2012 to only 1. Your "stable" Iraq created by Bush was anything but stable. Over 10,000 Iraqi lives were being lost each year as the American forces turned over security to Iraqi forces. Civilian bombing were routine and Iraqi security forces were under constant attack. Bush left a huge mess in 2008 and '09 for both the US and Iraq to repair.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president.  Then they were *not destroyed* by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.
> 
> The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki.
> 
> The transformation from AQI to ISIS happened in Syria not Iraq anyway. There was no advice by generals to keep 24.000 troops in Syria in 2011 or thereafter.
> 
> Your storyline is quite,flawed Oldstyle - it really is.,
> 
> Have you ever mentioned immunity in one of your posts? Will you ever use that term in your lifetime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's "flawed" is your rather pathetic attempts to make Barack Obama's Middle East policy failures something that George Bush is at fault for!  When Bush left office, Obama inherited a stable Iraq.  Since that time Obama has managed to totally FUBAR not only Iraq but the entire Middle East.  What he was lauding as a success just last year...Yemen...is now imploding.  Syria is a disaster.  Libya is a disaster.  Iran is busily finishing off a nuke.  He even tried to influence an Israeli election only to see that turn into another disaster.
> 
> Barack Obama is AWFUL when it comes to foreign policy.  The longer he stays in office the worse things become.  I dare you to find a single foreign policy of Barry's that's been successful.  He's THAT BAD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how many times you claim that when Bush left Iraq, Iraq was stable, it will not be true. It shows that the root of your argument, the very foundation of your claim is a bold faced blatant lie that is an insult to all the veterans who served in Iraq after Bush left. In 2008, the last full year of Bush's control, 314 American military personnel were killed in action. The following year, Obama reduced the number to 149. That was further reduced in 2010 to 60 killed in action and in 2011 54 and finely, in 2012 to only 1. Your "stable" Iraq created by Bush was anything but stable. Over 10,000 Iraqi lives were being lost each year as the American forces turned over security to Iraqi forces. Civilian bombing were routine and Iraqi security forces were under constant attack. Bush left a huge mess in 2008 and '09 for both the US and Iraq to repair.
Click to expand...


Would you concede that compared to what Iraq is NOW that it was *incredibly* stable when W. turned it over to Barry?  I know that none of you progressives will ever admit his failings, Camp...but Barack Obama's Middle East policies have been a disaster.  They've turned the Middle East into a roaring bonfire that our "President" doesn't have the faintest idea how to contain let alone put out.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11074189
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight...George W. Bush was able to work out a SOFA. Yet for Barack Obama this is an "impasse that could never have been overcome"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush was able to work out SOFA in 2008 that was mostly concessions to Iraqis demands when he had 150,000 troops still in the country. Immunity was an issue then and almost scuttled the deal which would have meant that 150,000 troops would have to be airlifted out by January 1 2009. The Iraqis were not ready to handle their own security that soon but Bush agreed that by January 1 2012 they would be. So he made the deal. He failed tonge tab long term deal with basing right like he originally wanted.
> 
> The situation was quite different by 2011 -.troops were withdrawn at a steady pace according to the Bush deal. And since Bush set 2012 as the end of immunity the Iraqis saw no reason to concede immunity this time,
> 
> And Maliki had filled up the army with his cronies in the officer corp and he and Tehran were satisfied that the Bush deadline was the perfect time to send all troops packing for home. It was an impasse that could not be overcome. The Iraqi parliament had not near enough votes and that was public record at the time.
> 
> In 2008 the votes were there because Iraq's army was not ready to stand on their own.
Click to expand...


The Iraqis saw no need to concede immunity, NotFooled...because they were only too aware that Barack Obama had no intention of keeping American combat troops in Iraq.  Why would they concede something that was politically unpopular for themselves if they gained nothing from it?  If Obama had promised to leave a large enough force to keep Iraq stable it would have been worth the political heat those Iraqi politicians would have taken for redoing the SOFA.  There was absolutely no incentive for them to do so for the token force that Barry was saying he "might" leave.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11074189 





Oldstyle said:


> In order to overcome ANYTHING you first have to try! Why would Obama try to get a new SOFA when he intended all along to withdraw American troops?



He did not intend to withdraw all troops. Even Romney admitted it in a Presidential debate:



> . ROMNEY: I'm sorry, you actually -- there was a -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with...
> 
> ROMNEY: ...that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops... ... I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got. ... no troops through whatsoever.



CPD October 22 2012 Debate Transcript


And the bad news for you Oldstyle comes out of the Army Times:

*Soldiers in Kuwait will act as response force*
*15,000 are staying in the tiny country, at least for now*
*Jan. 14, 2012 - 08:39AM  |  Last Updated: Jan. 14, 2012 - 08:39AM | *


> .   Nearly 15,000 soldiers are now deployed to Kuwait — including two brigade combat teams and a combat aviation brigade — as the mission there evolves and the U.S. works to maintain a combat-capable presence in the unstable region.





> . "This is a larger contingent than we've typically had," a senior Army official, who spoke on background, told Army Times.





> . Now, the U.S. has forces in Kuwait that are capable of responding to contingencies if needed, the official said.





> . As of Jan. 5, soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, of Fort Hood, Texas, and 1st BCT, 34th Infantry Division, of the Minnesota National Guard were the two primary brigade-sized units deployed to Kuwait.





> . In addition, the 29th Combat Aviation Brigade from the Maryland National Guard also is in Kuwait, moving there after serving as the last CAB in Iraq.





> .  The 1st Cavalry Division brigade moved to Kuwait after serving the first half of its tour in Iraq and will remain in Kuwait until it completes a 12-month deployment this summer.





> .The brigade will serve as the mobile response force in the Central Command area of responsibility, 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, spokeswoman for 1st BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, wrote in an email to Army Times.





> . "We will operate with our standard equipment and in doing so provide a force that is both immediately available and augments a joint team that stands as a strong deterrent against those who wish to harm the U.S. and/or its allies," McManus said.



Obama kept troops in the region - he did not bring every last troop home when it became clear the Iraqis were not going to extend immunity. So they move to where immunity would be granted - Kuwait.


----------



## Oldstyle

And when he moved them all out of Iraq...what happened?


----------



## Oldstyle

ISIS happened...the group that Barry the Clueless referred to as the "JV" even as they were taking over vast areas of Iraq and threatening Baghdad.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11074189
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to overcome ANYTHING you first have to try! Why would Obama try to get a new SOFA when he intended all along to withdraw American troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not intend to withdraw all troops. Even Romney admitted it in a Presidential debate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . ROMNEY: I'm sorry, you actually -- there was a -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with...
> 
> ROMNEY: ...that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops... ... I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got. ... no troops through whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CPD October 22 2012 Debate Transcript
> 
> 
> And the bad news for you Oldstyle comes out of the Army Times:
> 
> *Soldiers in Kuwait will act as response force*
> *15,000 are staying in the tiny country, at least for now*
> *Jan. 14, 2012 - 08:39AM  |  Last Updated: Jan. 14, 2012 - 08:39AM | *
> 
> 
> 
> .   Nearly 15,000 soldiers are now deployed to Kuwait — including two brigade combat teams and a combat aviation brigade — as the mission there evolves and the U.S. works to maintain a combat-capable presence in the unstable region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . "This is a larger contingent than we've typically had," a senior Army official, who spoke on background, told Army Times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Now, the U.S. has forces in Kuwait that are capable of responding to contingencies if needed, the official said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . As of Jan. 5, soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, of Fort Hood, Texas, and 1st BCT, 34th Infantry Division, of the Minnesota National Guard were the two primary brigade-sized units deployed to Kuwait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . In addition, the 29th Combat Aviation Brigade from the Maryland National Guard also is in Kuwait, moving there after serving as the last CAB in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  The 1st Cavalry Division brigade moved to Kuwait after serving the first half of its tour in Iraq and will remain in Kuwait until it completes a 12-month deployment this summer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .The brigade will serve as the mobile response force in the Central Command area of responsibility, 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, spokeswoman for 1st BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, wrote in an email to Army Times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . "We will operate with our standard equipment and in doing so provide a force that is both immediately available and augments a joint team that stands as a strong deterrent against those who wish to harm the U.S. and/or its allies," McManus said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama kept troops in the region - he did not bring every last troop home when it became clear the Iraqis were not going to extend immunity. So they move to where immunity would be granted - Kuwait.
Click to expand...


Face it, pressure from the liberal base LOST the war.  They lost it.  Women had been voting and gaining rights.  That's ALL in the toilet now.


----------



## Oldstyle

So tell me, NotFooled...did that force in Kuwait do ANYTHING while ISIS was ravaging Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11074641 





ChrisL said:


> *Still, some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why.* It is my belief that he ignored them due to his wanting to please his base.
> 
> *A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders.* That is all part of being the POTUS. Obama could have fought harder to come to a deal, but he did not.



*Some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why.* 

What is "It" ? I'm trying to get Oldstyle to use the word "immunity" but he can't do it. Nether can you, Why. 

No American General advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq unless they had immunity. The Iraqi legislature made it clear that it was not going to happen. So Obama kept 5000 troops in Kuwait plus 10,000 more for rapid deployments if requested by Iraq. Obama did not abandon the region.


You say* "A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders"* A few things:

Bush failed to keep Maliki in (December 2007) from forcing the necessity to negotiate a SOFA by the end of 2008. 

Because of that failure Bush failed to get a long term deal with Iraq including basing rights to keep an American presence in Iraq for as long as an American presence was needed. Obama got a ten year SOFA passed for Afghanistan - There is no excuse for Bush being 1/3 the diplomat as Obama.

Maliki's government was in power because of the Sadr Bloc. If you knew anything about Muqtada al Sadr and his anti American history throughout the US occupation of Iraq you'd know why there was no making a deal that granted immunity. It could not be negotiated just with Maliki - it had to pass the parliament - And Sadr was more politically powerful in 2012 than he was in 2008. The votes were not there in 2012. They were barely there in 2008.


----------



## Oldstyle

There are two issues here...

The first is Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq despite being warned by his military advisers that doing so could create a power vacuum.  That was done to give him something to run for reelection on.

The second is how progressives like you have seized on an expiring SOFA as the reason that Barry *HAD* to withdrawn all our troops.  It's patently obvious to anyone who observed how tepid the Obama Administration's push for a new SOFA was, that they didn't really want one since they were determined to withdraw the troops anyways.  Why would you pressure someone to give you something that you would never have a use for?  Why would any Iraqi politician take the risky step of approving a SOFA that was going to be nothing more than window dressing anyways?


----------



## Oldstyle

Since you claim "So Obama kept 5000 troops in Kuwait plus 10,000 more for rapid deployments if requested by Iraq. Obama did not abandon the region."  Why didn't Obama use those troops to help Iraq when Maliki begged for help to stop ISIS?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> So tell me, NotFooled...did that force in Kuwait do ANYTHING while ISIS was ravaging Iraq?



Iraq had to invite them in. Maliki did not make a request for ground combat troops ever. Obama put conditions on Maliki's requests for airstrikes on treating Sunnis better. Maliki did not follow through.

Do you expect Obama to support a leader that was corrupt and partisan with air strikes. Maliki is gone. The new PM is doing a better job.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11076760 





Oldstyle said:


> Since you claim "So Obama kept 5000 troops in Kuwait plus 10,000 more for rapid deployments if requested by Iraq. Obama did not abandon the region."



I didn't claim it. I posted a 2012 Army Times report. Are you calling the Army Times writers liars?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11076747 





Oldstyle said:


> There are two issues here...
> 
> The first is Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq despite being warned by his military advisers that doing so could create a power vacuum.  That was done to give him something to run for reelection on.
> 
> The second is how progressives like you have seized on an expiring SOFA as the reason that Barry *HAD* to withdrawn all our troops.  It's patently obvious to anyone who observed how tepid the Obama Administration's push for a new SOFA was, that they didn't really want one since they were determined to withdraw the troops anyways.  Why would you pressure someone to give you something that you would never have a use for?  Why would any Iraqi politician take the risky step of approving a SOFA that was going to be nothing more than window dressing anyways?




Your entire storyline is bogus since you can't deal with the reality that immunity was not going to be extended by Iraq's Parliament beyond Bush's set deadline of Jan1 2012. 

Why can't you post the word "immunity" don't you know what means for our troops.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11076747 





Oldstyle said:


> he first is Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq despite being warned by his military advisers that doing so could create a power vacuum.



I am still waiting for you to provide one single military adviser who advised against Obama's decision to pull all troops when it became apparent that the Iraqi Parliament was not going to extend the immunity that expired on the date of the deadline that Bush43 agreed that all US troops were required to leave Iraq completely, 

ChrisL cannot provide it either so don't feel alone in your failure.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unko 11066745
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama listened to every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General that told him not to negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008. The Iraqis refused to budge on the immunity issue. That is a natter of historical record that you are ignoring or deny that it exists. Why do you base your opinion on denial of a major crucial fact. The Iraqis would not sign or pass a SOFA in 2011 that contained legal immunity for US troops. That is the reality you miss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News discussions - Boston.com
> 
> Key general Iraq pullout plan a disaster - Washington Times
> 
> 
> George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News
> 
> 
> President Bush Warned Obama Not to Pull Out of Iraq Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
> 
> 
> Be warned America s withdrawal from Iraq heralds a world of instability John Bolton World news The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...






..............


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, NotFooled...did that force in Kuwait do ANYTHING while ISIS was ravaging Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had to invite them in. Maliki did not make a request for ground combat troops ever. Obama put conditions on Maliki's requests for airstrikes on treating Sunnis better. Maliki did not follow through.
> 
> Do you expect Obama to support a leader that was corrupt and partisan with air strikes. Maliki is gone. The new PM is doing a better job.
Click to expand...


The Iraqi Journal Bremer Maliki asked U.S. to send ground troops to Iraq admitted losing control
As usual...you don't know what you're talking about!


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11076747
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> he first is Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq despite being warned by his military advisers that doing so could create a power vacuum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for you to provide one single military adviser who advised against Obama's decision to pull all troops when it became apparent that the Iraqi Parliament was not going to extend the immunity that expired on the date of the deadline that Bush43 agreed that all US troops were required to leave Iraq completely,
> 
> ChrisL cannot provide it either so don't feel alone in your failure.
Click to expand...


You obviously didn't read Leon Panetta's book...did you, NotFooled?  You know...Barry's Secretary of Defense?   Panetta stated that both Defense and State wanted a deal to keep American troops in Iraq (something that Panetta says the Iraqi leaders also privately desired) but that the White House "inner circle" pushed back against the idea.

Panetta Blasts White House for Pulling US Forces out of Iraq Military.com

"He said that Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy advocated that position - which was shared by military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Panetta writes - but found that Mr. Obama's team at the White House "pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated."

"Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he said."

Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News

Are you getting tired of getting handed your ass in our little "discussions", NotFooled?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11074641
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still, some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why.* It is my belief that he ignored them due to his wanting to please his base.
> 
> *A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders.* That is all part of being the POTUS. Obama could have fought harder to come to a deal, but he did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why.*
> 
> What is "It" ? I'm trying to get Oldstyle to use the word "immunity" but he can't do it. Nether can you, Why.
> 
> No American General advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq unless they had immunity. The Iraqi legislature made it clear that it was not going to happen. So Obama kept 5000 troops in Kuwait plus 10,000 more for rapid deployments if requested by Iraq. Obama did not abandon the region.
> 
> 
> You say* "A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders"* A few things:
> 
> Bush failed to keep Maliki in (December 2007) from forcing the necessity to negotiate a SOFA by the end of 2008.
> 
> Because of that failure Bush failed to get a long term deal with Iraq including basing rights to keep an American presence in Iraq for as long as an American presence was needed. Obama got a ten year SOFA passed for Afghanistan - There is no excuse for Bush being 1/3 the diplomat as Obama.
> 
> Maliki's government was in power because of the Sadr Bloc. If you knew anything about Muqtada al Sadr and his anti American history throughout the US occupation of Iraq you'd know why there was no making a deal that granted immunity. It could not be negotiated just with Maliki - it had to pass the parliament - And Sadr was more politically powerful in 2012 than he was in 2008. The votes were not there in 2012. They were barely there in 2008.
Click to expand...


None of this has to do with OBAMA's presidency.  He is supposed to be able to make his own deals.  If he had any diplomacy (or even knew what it was - lol), he would have been able to cut a deal.  Geez, funny, how he can cut deals with rogue terrorist countries like Iran though, huh?  Lol.  

It is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

_*"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official." *_

April 2010 "anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, *the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one.    *In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections.* As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government." *


*April 2010* is the date that any possibility for an extended troop presence beyond 2011 literally crashed and burned. 

See Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR

OS 11076747 





Oldstyle said:


> The second is how progressives like you have seized on an expiring SOFA as the reason that Barry *HAD* to withdrawn all our troops.



Why was there an expiring SOFA at the end of 2011 in unstable Iraq in the first place? Why did Bush agree in 2008 to end immunity in three years?  It was unpredictable that Muqtada al Sadr become kingmaker in Iraq's 2010 election for Prime Minister. Sadr is not an American Progressive. 

It's not progressives that said Obama *HAD* to withdraw all our troops. It was every single military and civilian adviser around the president who realized that a deal including immunity would never make it through Iraq's Parliament which was largely influenced by the anti-American Sadrist Bloc within Maliki's own party. 

Here's some relevant history that explains to uninformed Obama haters exactly what changed politically in Iraqi politics and how that change made an extension of immunity in 2012 absolutely impossible. 

*Militants To Kingmakers, Iraq's Sadrists Show Savvy. *APRIL 02, 2010 4:11 PM ET



> .Another election began Friday in Iraq. It's not a binding vote, but followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one.
> 
> In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections. As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government.
> 
> Sadr has made a career out of being underestimated in Iraq, from the beginning of the American occupation. After the U.S. invasion in 2003, his militia slowly took over much of the south. And in the first set of parliamentary elections four years ago, the Shiite cleric used his political force to push a compromise candidate for prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
> 
> As prime minister, Maliki later turned against the Sadrist militias and defeated them with U.S. military help. Sadr subsequently moved to Iran for religious study, and the Sadrists looked to be finished again. But last month's elections proved otherwise.


. 
Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR




> . The Sadrists may have emerged as the Iraqi group that understands democracy the best, which is bittersweet for the Americans, because the Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official.



Is this so difficult to understand why an extension of the 2008 SOFA was impossible to negotiate:  "Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11078104. 





ChrisL said:


> It is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate.



Read Post 283 and explain why you didn't know anything about the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament in 2010:

_*"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official." *_

"April 2010 "anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, *the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one. *In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections.* As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government." 

See Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR*

*April 2010* is the date that any possibility for an extended troop presence beyond 2011 literally crashed and burned.

If you were informed of Muqtada! Al Sadr's staunch anti-Americanism you would've known better than to write these idiotic words: "it is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate."

*"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official." 

*
Bush43 got the 2008 amnesty through Parliament when Sadr went to Iran after Maliki disbanded Sadr's militia but Maliki kept the Badr militia intact because they were pro-American but also from Iran.

Bush held hands with the BADR leader in the White House .. The Badr militia was aligned with Hakim and Bush and Maliki in 2008;

Here's the photo;

↑
*President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*





President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper 


Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read Post 283 and explain why you didn't know anything about the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament in 2010:
> 
> _*"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official." *_
> 
> "April 2010 "anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, *the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one. *In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections.* As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government."
> 
> See Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR*
> 
> *April 2010* is the date that any possibility for an extended troop presence beyond 2011 literally crashed and burned.
> 
> If you were informed of Muqtada! Al,Sadr's staunch anti-Americanism you would've known better Than to write these idiotic words: "it is Obama's JOB to be able to negotiate."
> 
> *"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."
> 
> *
> Bush43 got the 2008 amnesty through Parliament when Sadr went to Iran after Maliki disbanded,Sadr's militia but Maliki kept the Badr militia intact because they were pro-American but also from Iran.
> 
> Bush held hands with their leader in the White House .. The Badr militia was aligned with Hakim and Bush and Maliki in 2008;
> 
> Here's the photo;
> 
> ↑
> *President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


WHO CARES?  If Obama cannot negotiate deals, then what good is he?


----------



## Oldstyle

I note that you totally ignored my post showing that not only Barack Obama's Secretary of Defense but most of his generals were calling for troops to stay longer in Iraq.  That's coming right from Leon Panetta's mouth.  Defense and State grasped the danger...the Obama team in the White House didn't.  They were too busy playing politics.


----------



## Oldstyle

Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?


----------



## ChrisL

Oldstyle said:


> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?



He's just in love with Obama, I think.  These people and their defense of sleazy politicians.  I'll never get it.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?


Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.


----------



## ChrisL

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
Click to expand...


Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he?  He was absolutely 100% correct, right?


----------



## Camp

ChrisL said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he?  He was absolutely 100% correct, right?
Click to expand...

He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
Click to expand...


Leon Panetta was Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense.  That's Barry's guy saying that Obama's inner circle at the White House never wanted to keep American troops in Iraq and that the President was never engaged in seeking a new SOFA.  How Panetta describes what was taking place in the White House makes NotFooled's claim that Obama only pulled the troops because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to a new SOFA dubious at best.  Panetta drew back the curtain and let everyone see what was going on in the White House.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he?  He was absolutely 100% correct, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, Camp...compared to Barack Obama...Leon Panetta is one of the more honest men on the planet!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11078327 





ChrisL said:


> WHO CARES? If Obama cannot negotiate deals, then what good is he?



Run away again. Informed and intelligent people,care and realize that an anti-American political Bloc took over in Parliament and that extended immunity would never pass. There was no room for the American side to negotiate anything at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*"“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"* Panetta 

OS 11078420 





Oldstyle said:


> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?



No you and ChrisL are lying about Panetta. 

Here is his actual advice to Obama on the issue of immunity:



NotfooledbyW said:


> Panetta in October 2011 said "“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”"
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no it's not exactly what you are saying. You are repeating right wing malicious propaganda
> 
> Panetta said exactly the opposite during the 2011 negotiations of what you are saying:
> 
> "On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said.
> 
> Do you know what that makes you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.
> 
> On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.
> 
> “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.
> 
> There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
> 
> Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes
Click to expand...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”*



OS 11078715. 





Oldstyle said:


> . Leon Panetta was Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense.  That's Barry's guy saying that Obama's inner circle at the White House never wanted to keep American troops in Iraq and that the President was never engaged in seeking a new SOFA.  How Panetta describes what was taking place in the White House makes NotFooled's claim that Obama only pulled the troops because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to a new SOFA dubious at best.  Panetta drew back the curtain and let everyone see what was going on in the White House.



I drew back the curtain and quote Panetta directly what he said in real time as the real negotiations to keep 5,000 troops in Iraq were going on. ChrisL,has been running from the truth ever since. And now you have joined him in spreading yet another right winger lie:



NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11024862
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.
> 
> Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.
> 
> If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.
> 
> NF 11024987
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize you can't discuss the *immunity issue* since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to  disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:
> 
> NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

​


----------



## Unkotare

Shameless obama nuthugger playing games with spin while the real world burns down around us due to the clown-in-chief's incompetence and reckless irresponsibility.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11078327
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? If Obama cannot negotiate deals, then what good is he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run away again. Informed and intelligent people,care and realize that an anti-American political Bloc took over in Parliament and that extended immunity would never pass. There was no room for the American side to negotiate anything at all.
Click to expand...


If you read Panetta's account of how the Obama White House handled the issue of a new SOFA in Iraq, it's quite clear that Panetta felt that Obama never even *TRIED* to get a new agreement!  In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.  Panetta makes it clear that he, the Joint Chiefs, folks over at the State Department and the Iraqi's running things in Iraq all wanted to get a deal done to extend the SOFA but it was Obama and his people inside the White House who "pushed back" on that.  Panetta describes the difference of opinion on keeping troops in Iraq as being "heated" at times between "our side" and "their side".


----------



## ChrisL

Camp said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he?  He was absolutely 100% correct, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.
Click to expand...


Lol.  I would think that would be more so the case with Mr. Obama.  It wasn't just Panetta who advised him that it was too soon to leave.  Sorry, but this is the president's responsibility.  This falls on HIS shoulders as the POTUS.  I know you would just LOVE to pass on the blame, but the buck stops with Mr. Obama.  He is the president, and it's HIS responsibility.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”*
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11078715.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Leon Panetta was Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense.  That's Barry's guy saying that Obama's inner circle at the White House never wanted to keep American troops in Iraq and that the President was never engaged in seeking a new SOFA.  How Panetta describes what was taking place in the White House makes NotFooled's claim that Obama only pulled the troops because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to a new SOFA dubious at best.  Panetta drew back the curtain and let everyone see what was going on in the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drew back the curtain and quote Panetta directly what he said in real time as the real negotiations to keep 5,000 troops in Iraq were going on. ChrisL,has been running from the truth ever since. And now you have joined him in spreading yet another right winger lie:
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrL 11024862
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.
> 
> Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.
> 
> If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.
> 
> NF 11024987
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize you can't discuss the *immunity issue* since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to  disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:
> 
> NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


That's she, like I told you before, you idiot.  Now, I know that you keep calling me a "he" to try and insult me.  You have been proven wrong with just about every post you've made.  

This is OBAMA'S responsibility.  HE is the president.  It is up to him to make the right decisions.  Basically, what you are saying is that he is IMPOTENT as a POTUS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11079781 





Oldstyle said:


> In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.



That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed, 

The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity. 

Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.


Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”*
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11078715.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Leon Panetta was Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense.  That's Barry's guy saying that Obama's inner circle at the White House never wanted to keep American troops in Iraq and that the President was never engaged in seeking a new SOFA.  How Panetta describes what was taking place in the White House makes NotFooled's claim that Obama only pulled the troops because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to a new SOFA dubious at best.  Panetta drew back the curtain and let everyone see what was going on in the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drew back the curtain and quote Panetta directly what he said in real time as the real negotiations to keep 5,000 troops in Iraq were going on. ChrisL,has been running from the truth ever since. And now you have joined him in spreading yet another right winger lie:
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrL 11024862
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.
> 
> Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.
> 
> If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.
> 
> NF 11024987
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” *he said."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize you can't discuss the *immunity issue* since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to  disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:
> 
> NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Maybe you're just a senile old lady.


NotfooledbyW said:


> _*"Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official." *_
> 
> April 2010 "anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, *the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one.    *In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections.* As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government." *
> 
> 
> *April 2010* is the date that any possibility for an extended troop presence beyond 2011 literally crashed and burned.
> 
> See Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR
> 
> OS 11076747
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second is how progressives like you have seized on an expiring SOFA as the reason that Barry *HAD* to withdrawn all our troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was there an expiring SOFA at the end of 2011 in unstable Iraq in the first place? Why did Bush agree in 2008 to end immunity in three years?  It was unpredictable that Muqtada al Sadr become kingmaker in Iraq's 2010 election for Prime Minister. Sadr is not an American Progressive.
> 
> It's not progressives that said Obama *HAD* to withdraw all our troops. It was every single military and civilian adviser around the president who realized that a deal including immunity would never make it through Iraq's Parliament which was largely influenced by the anti-American Sadrist Bloc within Maliki's own party.
> 
> Here's some relevant history that explains to uninformed Obama haters exactly what changed politically in Iraqi politics and how that change made an extension of immunity in 2012 absolutely impossible.
> 
> *Militants To Kingmakers, Iraq's Sadrists Show Savvy. *APRIL 02, 2010 4:11 PM ET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .Another election began Friday in Iraq. It's not a binding vote, but followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are casting ballots in a referendum for prime minister. In practical terms, the winner can count on the support of Sadr's parliamentary bloc — and it's not a small one.
> 
> In fact, the Sadrist movement — once dismissed as a militia — has shown a sophisticated understanding of elections. As a result, it may be the kingmaker of Iraq's next government.
> 
> Sadr has made a career out of being underestimated in Iraq, from the beginning of the American occupation. After the U.S. invasion in 2003, his militia slowly took over much of the south. And in the first set of parliamentary elections four years ago, the Shiite cleric used his political force to push a compromise candidate for prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
> 
> As prime minister, Maliki later turned against the Sadrist militias and defeated them with U.S. military help. Sadr subsequently moved to Iran for religious study, and the Sadrists looked to be finished again. But last month's elections proved otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Militants To Kingmakers Iraq s Sadrists Show Savvy NPR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . The Sadrists may have emerged as the Iraqi group that understands democracy the best, which is bittersweet for the Americans, because the Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this so difficult to understand why an extension of the 2008 SOFA was impossible to negotiate:  "Sadrists are also the only bloc that steadfastly refuses to meet with any U.S. government official."
Click to expand...


Obama, nor America HAVE to abide by anything Iraq or Al-Maliki demanded.  Right?  What would they do about it if we ignored them and stayed anyway?  What are you so frightened of?  They held NO POWER over us.  We have the power, we have the upper hand.  There is absolutely NOTHING they could have done to us if we had decided to ignore them and stay.  Idiot.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11079781
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,
> 
> The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.
> 
> Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.
> 
> 
> Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.
Click to expand...


Too effing bad for Iraq.  There is nothing they could do to us.  You're making excuses, and by your admissions, you are actually admitting that Obama is INEFFECTIVE when it comes to foreign policy.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11079781
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,
> 
> The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.
> 
> Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.
> 
> 
> Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.
Click to expand...


This is why, WAY EARLIER, I said that when we fight wars, the negotiations should be on OUR terms.  WE make the rules.  We tell THEM what is going to happen.  We don't waste all that blood and money to appease the enemy.  We make sure that we are effective in the end game.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11079781
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,
> 
> The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.
> 
> Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.
> 
> 
> Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.
Click to expand...


Screw you.  You liberals LOST the war.  Plain and simple.  When it comes to war, liberals should not have a say because they are pussies.  We didn't invest ALL of what we invested to lose it because of you pussies.  You don't have an effing clue.  CLUELESS.


----------



## Camp

ChrisL said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he?  He was absolutely 100% correct, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I would think that would be more so the case with Mr. Obama.  It wasn't just Panetta who advised him that it was too soon to leave.  Sorry, but this is the president's responsibility.  This falls on HIS shoulders as the POTUS.  I know you would just LOVE to pass on the blame, but the buck stops with Mr. Obama.  He is the president, and it's HIS responsibility.
Click to expand...

Obama made the correct decision. As far as Panetta goes, I have no doubt that if troops had been left behind without the immunity clause and any of them had been arrested by Iraqi officials, Panetta would have been the first to claim he had warned the President to not leave troops behind without the immunity clause, which is what he in fact did advise. 
Thankfully, we did not leave troops behind to prop up the corrupt government Bush created. We would have been seeing more US troops coming home in boxes and crippled. You seem to think we should have begged and pleaded with Iraq to allow us to sacrifice more of our people as if it was some kind of special privilege. Instead, Obama told them to fuck off and parked our troops on the other side of the border in Kuwait where we already had operating bases and could make our own determinations about when and how to use our troops.


----------



## ChrisL

Camp said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he?  He was absolutely 100% correct, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I would think that would be more so the case with Mr. Obama.  It wasn't just Panetta who advised him that it was too soon to leave.  Sorry, but this is the president's responsibility.  This falls on HIS shoulders as the POTUS.  I know you would just LOVE to pass on the blame, but the buck stops with Mr. Obama.  He is the president, and it's HIS responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made the correct decision. As far as Panetta goes, I have no doubt that if troops had been left behind without the immunity clause and any of them had been arrested by Iraqi officials, Panetta would have been the first to claim he had warned the President to not leave troops behind without the immunity clause, which is what he in fact did advise.
> Thankfully, we did not leave troops behind to prop up the corrupt government Bush created. We would have been seeing more US troops coming home in boxes and crippled. You seem to think we should have begged and pleaded with Iraq to allow us to sacrifice more of our people as if it was some kind of special privilege. Instead, Obama told them to fuck off and parked our troops on the other side of the border in Kuwait where we already had operating bases and could make our own determinations about when and how to use our troops.
Click to expand...


No, the bottom line is WE hold the power.  The Iraqis do NOT.  They know that, and so do we.  Obama did what he did to appease clueless people like yourself.  We could have threatened to remove him from power.  

AND you wonder why we would want to set up the government???  Good Lord, you people are completely clueless.  This is why, whenever we fight a war, we don't fight with one hand tied behind our backs.  It takes brutality and toughness to WIN a war.  You don't wimp out during the end game.  You stay, you occupy that country, and you do what it takes so that OUR investment isn't just thrown away.  Duh!  The reason why the US can not and will NEVER be able to win wars is because of you liberals.


----------



## Camp

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11079781
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,
> 
> The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.
> 
> Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.
> 
> 
> Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too effing bad for Iraq.  There is nothing they could do to us.  You're making excuses, and by your admissions, you are actually admitting that Obama is INEFFECTIVE when it comes to foreign policy.
Click to expand...

In case you didn't notice, they killed thousands and crippled 50,000 and turned untold numbers into disabled veterans. Your I idea that they could do nothing to us and all we had to do is be tough is delusional and insane. Your proposal is that if we just kept doing the same thing we did under Bush/Cheney we would get different results this time.


----------



## ChrisL

Camp said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11079781
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,
> 
> The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.
> 
> Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.
> 
> 
> Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too effing bad for Iraq.  There is nothing they could do to us.  You're making excuses, and by your admissions, you are actually admitting that Obama is INEFFECTIVE when it comes to foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you didn't notice, they killed thousands and crippled 50,000 and turned untold numbers into disabled veterans. Your I idea that they could do nothing to us and all we had to do is be tough is delusional and insane. Your proposal is that if we just kept doing the same thing we did under Bush/Cheney we would get different results this time.
Click to expand...


We had that place under control, then we threw it away because of people like YOU.  We LOST the war in the end game.  IF we did not leave, NONE of what is happening over there would be happening now.  Liberals are bleeding heart wimps.  Obama left Iraq because that was one of his campaign promises to appease you bleeding hearts without thought to the consequences.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11079781
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an effort to appease his "base" Obama kept lowering the number of troops that would remain behind until it was such a miniscule number that it became absurd for Iraqi politicians to take the political risk of voting for a new SOFA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Panetta's word years later vs what he said when the negotiations were ongoing, The Amb to Iraq at that time involved in the negotiations said reducing the number of troops and referring to them as trainers that were confined to a base was the only potential way to get immunity passed,
> 
> The smaller the number of troops the more chance to get them immunity.
> 
> Its common sense. Since the Iraqis we balking at granting immunity - it would be tougher getting a large number of troops when the Sadrist Bloc didn't want any troops at all . Reducing the numbers nay have peeled off some lawmakers to find that acceptable.
> 
> 
> Common sense is not your forte when it comes to hating Obama for no reason.
Click to expand...


It is common sense!  Even though Iraqi politicians realized that they needed a stabilizing US force left in Iraq they were not willing to vote for a new SOFA if the force that Obama was going to give them was only a few thousand troops or none at all!  That's what Panetta revealed in his book.  I'm amused by the attempts by people like you and Camp to now defame Leon Panetta when all he did was level with the American people about what really happened.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leon Panetta a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta was the Director of the CIA. Everyone knows that CIA Directors never lie. They are the most trustworthy government officials you can find anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, duh, he wasn't lying was he?  He was absolutely 100% correct, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a trained liar. He knows how to do it with plausible deniability. He lies by omission of including the immunity clause necessary for the agreement to have been completed. He, and others, have made the point over and over that they advised the President to leave a strong force behind, but they he never answers the dilemma regarding the question of immunity. He is attempting to cover his ass for his own responsibility during the negotiating period as CIA Director and Sec. of Defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I would think that would be more so the case with Mr. Obama.  It wasn't just Panetta who advised him that it was too soon to leave.  Sorry, but this is the president's responsibility.  This falls on HIS shoulders as the POTUS.  I know you would just LOVE to pass on the blame, but the buck stops with Mr. Obama.  He is the president, and it's HIS responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made the correct decision. As far as Panetta goes, I have no doubt that if troops had been left behind without the immunity clause and any of them had been arrested by Iraqi officials, Panetta would have been the first to claim he had warned the President to not leave troops behind without the immunity clause, which is what he in fact did advise.
> Thankfully, we did not leave troops behind to prop up the corrupt government Bush created. We would have been seeing more US troops coming home in boxes and crippled. You seem to think we should have begged and pleaded with Iraq to allow us to sacrifice more of our people as if it was some kind of special privilege. Instead, Obama told them to fuck off and parked our troops on the other side of the border in Kuwait where we already had operating bases and could make our own determinations about when and how to use our troops.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should actually read Panetta's book, Camp!  Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department all advised Barack Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.  Panetta says that privately, the Iraqi leadership ALSO understood the need for those troops.

It was the Obama White House that pushed a total withdrawal of troops.  It was the Obama White House that showed zero interest in getting a new SOFA.  I'm sorry but that was Barry's call.  He owns it.  What his Secretary of Defense and his Joint Chiefs warned him might happen...DID HAPPEN!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11075983 





Oldstyle said:


> Panetta says that *privately*, the Iraqi leadership ALSO understood the need for those troops.



You are on thin ice when your argument depends on what someone says that someone else said something *privately*. What a joke you are at verifying facts. There is way too much public record that there was no way the Sadrist Bloc that came into power after Bush was cornered into a 3 year deal in 2008. No one serious with knowledge of the facts could disagree that Sadrist and Maliki in power combined created a stronger anti-American environment than what existed in 2008. 

I don't have to depend on private conversations between who knows and whom. Your case is dead.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11081574 





Oldstyle said:


> Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department all advised Barack Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.



I'm sure they did. But Obama was not the Prime Minister of Iraq or any other office holder in Iraq. It was the Iraqis that needed convincing not Obama. Obama could have kept troops in Iraq in a non-combat role with a small amount of flak from the extremist anti-war crowd. The Iraqis would not extend the immunity - that is vividly clear and you still cannot utter the word because your argument is dead because of the Iraqis not granting it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11079929 





ChrisL said:


> This is OBAMA'S responsibility. HE is the president. It is up to him to make the right decisions. Basically, what you are saying is that he is IMPOTENT as a POTUS.



Obama has no jurisdiction over Iraq or political clout against the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament. He has a responsibility to respect Iraq'd sovereignty and constitution.

What you are saying is that Obama has "Potency" that no president will ever have over Iraq unless they invade and occupy it like Bush did.  Is that what you want?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Unko 11079536 





Unkotare said:


> Shameless obama nuthugger playing games with spin while the real world burns down around us due to the clown-in-chief's incompetence and reckless irresponsibility.



Americans are living in the safest times ever. 

And we don't have to fight their wars for them - that's leadership 

*Arab League Calls for Unified ArabForce to Battle Islamic ...*
Arab League Calls for Unified Arab Force to Battle Islamic Extremists - Latest News Briefs - Arutz Sheva
*Arab* League Calls for Unified *Arab* *Force* to Battle Islamic *Extremists*. *Arab* League chief ... There is an...


----------



## Unkotare

NotfooledbyW said:


> Unko 11079536
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shameless obama nuthugger playing games with spin while the real world burns down around us due to the clown-in-chief's incompetence and reckless irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are living in the safest times ever.
> 
> And we don't have to fight their wars for them - that's leadership
> 
> *Arab League Calls for Unified ArabForce to Battle Islamic ...*
> Arab League Calls for Unified Arab Force to Battle Islamic Extremists - Latest News Briefs - Arutz Sheva
> *Arab* League Calls for Unified *Arab* *Force* to Battle Islamic *Extremists*. *Arab* League chief ... There is an...
Click to expand...



You're living in a fool's paradise, Neville.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrsL 11079912  





ChrisL said:


> Sorry, but this is the president's responsibility. This falls on HIS shoulders as the POTUS. I know you would just LOVE to pass on the blame, but the buck stops with Mr. Obama. He is the president, and it's HIS responsibilit




Can you cite any legal, moral
situational  or practical means whereby a US President has the responsibility for the outcome of a vote or pending vote in a foreign government's legislative body?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Unkotare said:


> You're living in a fool's paradise, Neville.



You cannot contest the fact that Americans are living under the safest of times & that it is a good thing that the Arab League will step up and fight their region's terrorists and extremists on their own - so you throw out an ignorance driven insult. 

In 2001 3000 Americans were killed on US soil including at the Pentagon by foreign based terrorists. Then unrelated to that 4484 Americans were killed in a dumb and unnecessary war that the US started. The war in response to the September 11 attacks was left to falter because of the invasion of Iraq. According to Admiral Mullen Bush presided over 'endless drift' in Afghanistan to the point that Obama had to triple the number of troops in 2009 to save that war from a Taliban victory. Obama then signs a ten year security deal with the Afghans and they are doing  the fighting now. 

Not one single US soldier has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan 90 days into 2015 and you want to declare that Americans are in more danger from war terrorism and crime all because of Obama. There is nothing going on that backs your hate-filled ideas about the world up. Absolutely nothing.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11079929
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is OBAMA'S responsibility. HE is the president. It is up to him to make the right decisions. Basically, what you are saying is that he is IMPOTENT as a POTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has no jurisdiction over Iraq or political clout against the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament. He has a responsibility to respect Iraq'd sovereignty and constitution.
> 
> What you are saying is that Obama has "Potency" that no president will ever have over Iraq unless they invade and occupy it like Bush did.  Is that what you want?
Click to expand...


Well then, he is a terrible leader.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrsL 11079912
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is the president's responsibility. This falls on HIS shoulders as the POTUS. I know you would just LOVE to pass on the blame, but the buck stops with Mr. Obama. He is the president, and it's HIS responsibilit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite any legal, moral
> situational  or practical means whereby a US President has the responsibility for the outcome of a vote or pending vote in a foreign government's legislative body?
Click to expand...


You completely miss my point on PURPOSE, as usual.  You are just a dishonest Obama arse kisser.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11079929
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is OBAMA'S responsibility. HE is the president. It is up to him to make the right decisions. Basically, what you are saying is that he is IMPOTENT as a POTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has no jurisdiction over Iraq or political clout against the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament. He has a responsibility to respect Iraq'd sovereignty and constitution.
> 
> What you are saying is that Obama has "Potency" that no president will ever have over Iraq unless they invade and occupy it like Bush did.  Is that what you want?
Click to expand...


Why don't you face facts.  Obama made a campaign promise to pull out of Iraq.  THAT was what he was concerned with, pleasing the clueless people like yourself.  He was never interested in trying to keep troops in Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq *was not yet stable.* Face facts, your boy lost Iraq[/QUOTE]


MsChrL 11080139 





ChrisL said:


> *We had that place under control,* then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game



Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq *was not yet stable.* Face facts, your boy lost Iraq




MsChrL 11080139 





ChrisL said:


> *We had that place under control,* then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game



Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?[/QUOTE]

We had it under control but left TOO soon.  We should have occupied that country, but some of you don't understand or have any common sense apparently.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq *was not yet stable.* Face facts, your boy lost Iraq




MsChrL 11080139 





ChrisL said:


> *We had that place under control,* then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game



Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?[/QUOTE]

Will you learn how to quote?  It's really quite simple.  Use the "post reply" option.  If you want to quote multiple posts, use the multiquote option.


----------



## ChrisL

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq *was not yet stable.* Face facts, your boy lost Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MsChrL 11080139
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We had that place under control,* then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?
Click to expand...


We had it under control but left TOO soon.  We should have occupied that country, but some of you don't understand or have any common sense apparently.[/QUOTE]

Also, you don't have to put a name on the top.  Post reply notifies me that you are responding to one of my posts.  No need to add a name.


----------



## Unkotare

NotfooledbyW said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're living in a fool's paradise, Neville.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot contest the fact that Americans are living under the safest of times...
Click to expand...



Of course you can, you nearsighted nitwit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"*the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law*."

MsChrL 11079968 





ChrisL said:


> Obama, nor America HAVE to abide by anything Iraq or Al-Maliki demanded. Right?



Wrong. Bush43 abided by exactly what the Iraqis told him to do even though Bush wanted so much more:

"U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq Drafting of U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement Began Nearly Five Years Ago. " - National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 252. Posted - June 13, 2008. U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq

Here is what Bush wanted:



> . Washington D.C., June 13, 2008 - Recently declassified documents show that the U.S. military has long sought an agreement with Baghdad that gives American forces virtually unfettered freedom of action, casting into doubt the Bush administration's current claims that their demands are more limited in scope.  News reports have indicated that the Bush administration is exerting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to accept a U.S.-Iraq security plan by the end of July 2008.  According to these accounts, *the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law*.  Growing awareness of the implications of the pact have fueled opposition by the Iraqi public – to the extent that Prime Minister al-Maliki announced today that discussions had deadlocked.




MsChrL 11079968 





ChrisL said:


> What would they do about it if we ignored them and stayed anyway?



They did exactly what they did to sad-sack Bush43 about it. They told him to take US troops (a) 'out of Iraq's cities in six months' and (b) 'out of Iraq in three years' . They told the all powerful war president that his troops would no longer have freedom of moment; they would have no bases; they could no longer arrest and detain Iraqi citizens; they needed to get approval from Maliki's government to conduct all military operations.

Your question shows your lack of basic knowledge of eight years of war and bloodshed in Bush's dumb war.


MsChrL 11079968 





ChrisL said:


> What are you so frightened of?



What was Bush43 frightened of should be your question. I was not involved in Bush's surrender agreement at the end of his term,


MsChrL 11079968 





ChrisL said:


> They held NO POWER over us. We have the power, we have the upper hand. There is absolutely NOTHING they could have done to us if we had decided to ignore them and stay. Idiot.



I asked earlier why there was an end to immunity by January 1 2012 in the first place and you ran away from that question too. They did what every sovereign nation has the right to do whether weak or strong - they told us to get the hell out and Bush put the USA's sacred word on a Status of Forces Agreement when he had 150,000 troops in the country,

Obama kept America's word and all you do is bitch about it.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> "*the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law*."
> 
> MsChrL 11079968
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama, nor America HAVE to abide by anything Iraq or Al-Maliki demanded. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Bush43 abided by exactly what the Iraqis told him to do even though Bush wanted so much more:
> 
> "U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq Drafting of U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement Began Nearly Five Years Ago. " - National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 252. Posted - June 13, 2008. U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq
> 
> Here is what Bush wanted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Washington D.C., June 13, 2008 - Recently declassified documents show that the U.S. military has long sought an agreement with Baghdad that gives American forces virtually unfettered freedom of action, casting into doubt the Bush administration's current claims that their demands are more limited in scope.  News reports have indicated that the Bush administration is exerting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to accept a U.S.-Iraq security plan by the end of July 2008.  According to these accounts, *the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law*.  Growing awareness of the implications of the pact have fueled opposition by the Iraqi public – to the extent that Prime Minister al-Maliki announced today that discussions had deadlocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MsChrL 11079968
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would they do about it if we ignored them and stayed anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did exactly what they did to sad-sack Bush43 about it. They told him to take US troops (a) 'out of Iraq's cities in six months' and (b) 'out of Iraq in three years' . They told the all powerful war president that his troops would no longer have freedom of moment; they would have no bases; they could no longer arrest and detain Iraqi citizens; they needed to get approval from Maliki's government to conduct all military operations.
> 
> Your question shows your lack of basic knowledge of eight years of war and bloodshed in Bush's dumb war.
> 
> 
> MsChrL 11079968
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you so frightened of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was Bush43 frightened of should be your question. I was not involved in Bush's surrender agreement at the end of his term,
> 
> 
> MsChrL 11079968
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held NO POWER over us. We have the power, we have the upper hand. There is absolutely NOTHING they could have done to us if we had decided to ignore them and stay. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked earlier why there was an end to immunity by January 1 2012 in the first place and you ran away from that question too. They did what every sovereign nation has the right to whether weak or strong - they told us to get the hell out and Bush put the USA's sacred word on a Status of Forces Agreement when he had 150,000 troops in the country,
> 
> Obama kept America's word and all you do is bitch about it.
Click to expand...


Hey, I'm not a partisan hack and I know that Bush made errors too.  We should have ignored their threats and stayed.  After all, we are the BIG EVIL United States who sets up dictatorships and all that jazz.  Lol.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MsChrL 





ChrisL said:


> We should have ignored their threats and stayed.



Territorial integrity means nothing to you then.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MsChrL 11085658 





ChrisL said:


> Hey, I'm not a partisan hack and I know that Bush made errors too.



I do not consider 'complying with international law' at the end of Bush43's term to be an error.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> MsChrL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have ignored their threats and stayed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity means nothing to you then.
Click to expand...


Not during wartime.  Not if we sacrificed lives and tons of money.  We had every right, IMO, to stay and maintain security for as long as necessary.  Not to mention, those people would be MUCH better off, whether they realize it now or not.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11081574
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department all advised Barack Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they did. But Obama was not the Prime Minister of Iraq or any other office holder in Iraq. It was the Iraqis that needed convincing not Obama. Obama could have kept troops in Iraq in a non-combat role with a small amount of flak from the extremist anti-war crowd. The Iraqis would not extend the immunity - that is vividly clear and you still cannot utter the word because your argument is dead because of the Iraqis not granting it.
Click to expand...


So much for your statement that no military leaders told Barry pulling all the troops out would destabilize Iraq...  

So now that we've established that the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department ALL advised Barack Obama to leave a force of around 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq...let's move on to the SOFA.

In his book, Panetta accuses Barack Obama of a number of missteps when it came to Iraq policy.  He says that Obama seldom spoke with Maliki...unlike George W. Bush who held lengthy teleconferences with the Iraqi leader on a weekly basis...

Panetta also says that Obama never pushed for a new SOFA and his ambivalence about getting a new agreement was obvious.  We didn't get a new SOFA because Barry didn't CARE if we got one or not since he was already committed to pulling out all American troops.  That was the "fight" that Panetta detailed.  Everyone else saw the need for a force to stay in Iraq...except a small group around Barack Obama in the White House who wanted them all out.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11085820 





Oldstyle said:


> So much for your statement that no military leaders told Barry pulling all the troops out would destabilize Iraq...



Since your lead paragraph is a lie since  I never said that and you will find no quote where I said thst it is apparent that you have absolutely no argument at all and no defense of your Obana hatred other than to lie and misquote me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MsChrL 11085816 





ChrisL said:


> We had every right, IMO, to stay and maintain security for as long as necessary.



A "right" in international law is not a matter of your opinion. Your opinion is based upon biased interest and misinformation and lack of interest in the big picture.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11085820
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for your statement that no military leaders told Barry pulling all the troops out would destabilize Iraq...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since your lead paragraph is a lie since  I never said that and you will find no quote where I said thst it is apparent that you have absolutely no argument at all and no defense of your Obana hatred other than to lie and misquote me.
Click to expand...


Do you deny that all those military leaders DID advise Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 in Iraq?

Do you deny that Barry ignored that advice?

You've based your entire defense of Obama's Iraq policies on the false premise that it was impossible to get another SOFA.  What Panetta's book illustrates is that the reason it was "impossible" is that Obama never tried!

His Secretary of Defense wanted to get it done.  His Joint Chiefs wanted to get it done.  His State Department wanted to get it done.  They ALL wanted to get a new SOFA deal done.  It's the Obama White House that refused.  It's the Obama White House that fought against doing a new SOFA.  It's the Obama White House that wanted out of Iraq no matter what.  So we pulled out of Iraq with no force left behind to stabilize the country and everything that Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department warned Barry would happen...did happen!


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> MsChrL 11085816
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had every right, IMO, to stay and maintain security for as long as necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "right" in international law is not a matter of your opinion. Your opinion is based upon biased interest and misinformation and lack of interest in the big picture.
Click to expand...


  I don't think so.  My opinions are based in common sense and truth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MsChrL 11080139 





ChrisL said:


> *We LOST the war *in the end game.



MsChrL 11088916 





ChrisL said:


> . My opinions are based in common sense and truth.



Your opinion that Americans had to stay as long as it takes is not worth diddly squat since Daesh terrorist scum will not ever take over Iraq or stay there much longer. Iraq was not "lost" and never will be "lost"  Maliki has lost in his bid toward the Shia-fication of Iraq. Obama was right to refuse to provide Americans to be his Army and Air Force. It takes leadership to know when to hold-em and went to put those cards on the table.

MsChrL 11080139 





ChrisL said:


> *We LOST the war *in the end game.



MsChrL 11080035 





ChrisL said:


> You *liberals *_*LOST the war..*_



Reality is undoing your corroded with hatred opinions with every hour that passes.

There is no _*lost war*_ except to losers



> .  *Iraqi Forces Recapture Government HQ From ISIS in Tikrit*
> BY JACK MOORE 3/31/15 AT 7:32 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A member of the Iraqi security forces carries his weapon as he watches smoke rise from a scene of clashes between the Iraqi army and Islamic State militants in Tikrit March 30, 2015. REUTERS / ALAA AL-MARJAN
> Iraqi forces have recaptured the provincial government headquarters from ISIS in Tikrit as the offensive to retake the city accelerates, officials have revealed.
> 
> After U.S. air strikes, requested by Baghdad, pounded ISIS positions in the city, Shia and Sunni militiamen rejoined Iraqi forces to advance on the encircled city from all sides after boycotting the offensive in protest at Washington’s involvement.
> 
> "Iraqi forces cleared the government complex in Tikrit," an Iraqi army major general said, speaking on condition of anonymity to AFP news agency. "The government buildings have been under our control since last night."
> 
> Regional and militia officials also confirmed to the agency that the Salah ad-Din provincial government headquarters were retaken. Salah ad-Din governor Raad al-Juburi said that the Iraqi flag was flying over the building while the spokesman for the Badr militia, Karim al-Nuri, revealed that fighters from the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), which consists mainly of Iranian-backed Shia militias, retook the compound alongside Iraqi police forces.
> 
> The capture of the compound represents a major success for the 30,000-strong Iraqi force and the biggest victory in the offensive launched on 2 March as it had almost ground to a halt due to the militia’s boycott and ISIS booby traps within the city.
> 
> Sajad Jiyad, Iraq expert and research director at the independent consultancy Integrity, says that the capture of the government complex will make the operation against ISIS easier for the Iraqi forces.
> 
> "This is significant progress and confines the remaining Daesh [the Arabic term for ISIS] fighters to even smaller areas in the city centre and therefore making them easier to target," he notes.



http://www.newsweek.com/iraqi-forces-recapture-government-hq-isis-tikrit-318217

Sorry to ruin your day with the Iraqi flag going up over the Salah ad-Din provincial government headquarters. That comes according to the spokesman for the Badr militia who also revealed according to Newsweek that fighters consisting mainly of Iranian-backed Shia militias, retook the compound alongside Iraqi police forces.

And if you don't like the Badr Militia helping to liberate Tikrit and you wanna blame Badr involvement on Obama you need to remember just exactly who it was that welcomed the BADR Brigades into Iraq from Iran in 2003:

NF 11078319 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush43 got the 2008 amnesty through Parliament when Sadr went to Iran after Maliki disbanded Sadr's militia but Maliki kept the Badr militia intact because they were pro-American but also from Iran.
> 
> Bush held hands with the BADR leader in the White House .. The Badr militia was aligned with Hakim and Bush and Maliki in 2008;
> 
> Here's the photo;  ↑*President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the *Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, *to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper



Iraq is not "lost" MsChrisL Do you understand that yet? Your opinion on that ought to embarrass you.

Do you realize how stupid it was to declare Iraq *lost*  when Daesh terrorist scum never could control the airspace over their ignorant scuzzball worm infested heads?



> . Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi confirmed on Tuesday “The volunteers represents all Iraqi sects and it is tasked with defending all Iraqi lands against the terrorist attack of the terrorist ISIL,” noting that “The volunteers are not limited on a single Iraqi sect rather than other sects.”



Urgent - Volunteers not limited on single sect says Abadi - Iraqi News

There is a new PM in Iraq - you can throw your loser opinion in the trash.

*Volunteers not limited on single sect, says Abadi.  *March 31, 2015 by Ahmed Hussein[/QUOTE]


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MsChrL 11088916 





ChrisL said:


> My opinions are based in common sense and truth.



Your opinion has been that Iraq was lost. There never was any sense or truth to such a ridiculous opinion. If you keep arguing that Daesh terrorist scum have defeated and took control of Iraq we will know that you have no sense or respect for the truth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

More bad news for obstructionisRepublicans

Tough break for all those Obama haters hoping to see Baghdad implode, Daesh to capture Route Irish and the Baghdad Airport, an Iraq war to be lost by liberals, all of Iraq's oil to fall into terrorists hands, whatever idiot Bush43 predicted in 2007 if zuzs troops were pulled out too soon, and on and on and on.



> . *Ghaban visits Tikrit to open police stations*
> April 1, 2015 by Hawar Berwani No Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salah-il-Din (IraqiNews.com) The Minister of Interior, Mohamed Salim al-Ghaban, arrived in Tikrit on Wednesday morning.
> 
> IraqiNews.com reporter said “Ghaban arrived in the city of Tikrit on Wednesday morning to open the police stations in the city to restore normal life.” /End



Ghaban visits Tikrit to open police stations - Iraqi News


Can we rename this thread *Republicans Imploding - the Iraq war is not lost. their dream ISIS fantasy will not become true.*


----------



## iamwhatiseem

konradv said:


> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064



You do know that is a myth?
Saddam was anything but a stabling force in the mideast. Sure he did not allow radicalism within the core centers of Iraq, but he constantly waged wars and created grief for his neighbors on a regular basis.
  After Saddam was removed, and after the surge, Iraq had three years of peace. Something that had not happened for 40 years.
After Obama remoced the troops in Iraq, despite the warnings from his Generals and every military adviser he has telling him it would cause turmoil - he did it anyway and this is why you see the havoc in Iraq.

  I am not advocating the removal of Saddam...that is debatable with both sides having good points. What I am saying is once that was done - it was done, and Obama prematurely removing our forces knowing full well the HUUUGE vacuum of power and instability it would create - is what created the situation we have today.
  Get it right konrad instead of repeating what Huffington Post and MSNBC tells you.


----------



## Carla_Danger

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.
Click to expand...



I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.


----------



## bripat9643

Carla_Danger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.
Click to expand...


All you libturds wanted to keep Saddam in power, didn't you?


----------



## Carla_Danger

bripat9643 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you libturds wanted to keep Saddam in power, didn't you?
Click to expand...



Who put him in power, you boob?


----------



## bripat9643

Carla_Danger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you libturds wanted to keep Saddam in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who put him in power, you boob?
Click to expand...


He did, moron.  You didn't answer the question:  you wanted Saddam to remain in power, didn't you?


----------



## Carla_Danger

bripat9643 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam wouldn't have let that happen.   Nice going, Dubya!  Our interests lie in a stable world.  Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it.  At some point Rumsfeld understood that.
> 
> View attachment 31064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you libturds wanted to keep Saddam in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who put him in power, you boob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did, moron.  You didn't answer the question:  you wanted Saddam to remain in power, didn't you?
Click to expand...



You need to brush up on your history, you boob.


----------



## bripat9643

Carla_Danger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see a liberal asshole supporting a mass murdering dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you libturds wanted to keep Saddam in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who put him in power, you boob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did, moron.  You didn't answer the question:  you wanted Saddam to remain in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on your history, you boob.
Click to expand...


No I don't.  You're obviously an ignoramus.  Now answer the question, did you and your ilk want Saddam to remain in power or not?


----------



## Carla_Danger

bripat9643 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you libturds wanted to keep Saddam in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who put him in power, you boob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did, moron.  You didn't answer the question:  you wanted Saddam to remain in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on your history, you boob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  You're obviously an ignoramus.  Now answer the question, did you and your ilk want Saddam to remain in power or not?
Click to expand...



I gotta get ready for work, but by the time I get home tonight, I'll expect you to have brushed up on your history about how we had a hand at placing Saddam in power.  Right now, you are at the "audacity of duh" level.  I expect to debate more than just useless blabber, but thank you for your time.


----------



## Carla_Danger

bripat9643 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know Rummy was a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you libturds wanted to keep Saddam in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who put him in power, you boob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did, moron.  You didn't answer the question:  you wanted Saddam to remain in power, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on your history, you boob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  You're obviously an ignoramus.  Now answer the question, did you and your ilk want Saddam to remain in power or not?
Click to expand...




Ya know, back when Rummy was shaking Saddam's hand, was around the time Saddam was on his killing spree. Your sudden concern for brown people is 30 + years too late, but is touching nonetheless. Now I need some tissue.

For your homework today, I'd like you to conduct a poll of Iraqi civilians, and ask them if they miss the days of Saddam.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

iamw 11094340 





iamwhatiseem said:


> After Saddam was removed, and after the surge, Iraq had three years of peace. Something that had not happened for 40 years.
> After Obama remoced the troops in Iraq, despite the warnings from his Generals and every military adviser he has telling him it would cause turmoil - he did it anyway and this is why you see the havoc in Iraq.



It is a lie that there were three years of peace in Iraq after the surge. Iraq was the most violent place on earth as far as civilian deaths from car and suicide bombings and terrorist or opposition attack in 2009. 

Obama did not remove the troops unilaterally. Phew complied with the withdrawal agreement set by the Iraqis and agreed to by bush. Yet another lie you got going there. 

No military adviser recommended keeping troops in Iraq if they were granted immunity. That is a lie of omission for failing to disclose that reality.

Now you are calling it turmoil , But turmoil in Iraq was caused by Maliki not moving 5000 troops from Iraq to Kuwait to join 10,000 others already there  in case Iraq changed their mind and decided they were needed. 

Iraq to this day Iraq has not called for US combat troops in a combat role in Iraq.  The rest of the turmoil in the ME is due to toppling Saddam Hussein and empowering Shiites the majority to mistreat Iraq's secular minded Sunnis who like to drink and smoke but were driven back int Daesh arms by Maliki.  Obama tried to get Maliki to quit but he refused so he's gone and good riddance. That was a correct Obama policy you should be greatful for.

The OP was written by a know nothing hoping to see Iraq fail.

In the words of Pacino in Scarface "look at you now"


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> MsChrL 11088916
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinions are based in common sense and truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion has been that Iraq was lost. There never was any sense or truth to such a ridiculous opinion. If you keep arguing that Daesh terrorist scum have defeated and took control of Iraq we will know that you have no sense or respect for the truth.
Click to expand...


Yes we have.  Iraq is going to hell.  

Yes, we should have taken control.  WHENEVER we go to war, we should demand that the end game be according to OUR rules.  That is our mistake.  

I notice that you ignore my statement about how much better off the Iraqi people would be too.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> iamw 11094340
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> After Saddam was removed, and after the surge, Iraq had three years of peace. Something that had not happened for 40 years.
> After Obama remoced the troops in Iraq, despite the warnings from his Generals and every military adviser he has telling him it would cause turmoil - he did it anyway and this is why you see the havoc in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a lie that there were three years of peace in Iraq after the surge. Iraq was the most violent place on earth as far as civilian deaths from car and suicide bombings and terrorist or opposition attack in 2009.
> 
> Obama did not remove the troops unilaterally. Phew complied with the withdrawal agreement set by the Iraqis and agreed to by bush. Yet another lie you got going there.
> 
> No military adviser recommended keeping troops in Iraq if they were granted immunity. That is a lie of omission for failing to disclose that reality.
> 
> Now you are calling it turmoil , But turmoil in Iraq was caused by Maliki not moving 5000 troops from Iraq to Kuwait to join 10,000 others already there  in case Iraq changed their mind and decided they were needed.
> 
> Iraq to this day Iraq has not called for US combat troops in a combat role in Iraq.  The rest of the turmoil in the ME is due to toppling Saddam Hussein and empowering Shiites the majority to mistreat Iraq's secular minded Sunnis who like to drink and smoke but were driven back int Daesh arms by Maliki.  Obama tried to get Maliki to quit but he refused so he's gone and good riddance. That was a correct Obama policy you should be greatful for.
> 
> The OP was written by a know nothing hoping to see Iraq fail.
> 
> In the words of Pacino in Scarface "look at you now"
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure he did.  Lol.  He did not.  He wanted to pull troops out ASAP.  He said as much.  He didn't care about anything else except pleasing the dummies.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> iamw 11094340
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> After Saddam was removed, and after the surge, Iraq had three years of peace. Something that had not happened for 40 years.
> After Obama remoced the troops in Iraq, despite the warnings from his Generals and every military adviser he has telling him it would cause turmoil - he did it anyway and this is why you see the havoc in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a lie that there were three years of peace in Iraq after the surge. Iraq was the most violent place on earth as far as civilian deaths from car and suicide bombings and terrorist or opposition attack in 2009.
> 
> Obama did not remove the troops unilaterally. Phew complied with the withdrawal agreement set by the Iraqis and agreed to by bush. Yet another lie you got going there.
> 
> *No military adviser recommended keeping troops in Iraq if they were granted immunity. That is a lie of omission for failing to disclose that reality.*
> 
> Now you are calling it turmoil , But turmoil in Iraq was caused by Maliki not moving 5000 troops from Iraq to Kuwait to join 10,000 others already there  in case Iraq changed their mind and decided they were needed.
> 
> Iraq to this day Iraq has not called for US combat troops in a combat role in Iraq.  The rest of the turmoil in the ME is due to toppling Saddam Hussein and empowering Shiites the majority to mistreat Iraq's secular minded Sunnis who like to drink and smoke but were driven back int Daesh arms by Maliki.  Obama tried to get Maliki to quit but he refused so he's gone and good riddance. That was a correct Obama policy you should be greatful for.
> 
> The OP was written by a know nothing hoping to see Iraq fail.
> 
> In the words of Pacino in Scarface "look at you now"
Click to expand...


What military leader DIDN'T recommend keeping troops in Iraq?  Leon Panetta did!  So did the Joint Chiefs!  So did the State Department!  It was a small group of progressives in the Obama White House that decided that THEY knew better than those military advisers!  

They used the expiring SOFA as an excuse to pull all the troops out.  Panetta's book reveals that Obama didn't even try to get a deal done.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Oldstyle said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> iamw 11094340
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> After Saddam was removed, and after the surge, Iraq had three years of peace. Something that had not happened for 40 years.
> After Obama remoced the troops in Iraq, despite the warnings from his Generals and every military adviser he has telling him it would cause turmoil - he did it anyway and this is why you see the havoc in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a lie that there were three years of peace in Iraq after the surge. Iraq was the most violent place on earth as far as civilian deaths from car and suicide bombings and terrorist or opposition attack in 2009.
> 
> Obama did not remove the troops unilaterally. Phew complied with the withdrawal agreement set by the Iraqis and agreed to by bush. Yet another lie you got going there.
> 
> *No military adviser recommended keeping troops in Iraq if they were granted immunity. That is a lie of omission for failing to disclose that reality.*
> 
> Now you are calling it turmoil , But turmoil in Iraq was caused by Maliki not moving 5000 troops from Iraq to Kuwait to join 10,000 others already there  in case Iraq changed their mind and decided they were needed.
> 
> Iraq to this day Iraq has not called for US combat troops in a combat role in Iraq.  The rest of the turmoil in the ME is due to toppling Saddam Hussein and empowering Shiites the majority to mistreat Iraq's secular minded Sunnis who like to drink and smoke but were driven back int Daesh arms by Maliki.  Obama tried to get Maliki to quit but he refused so he's gone and good riddance. That was a correct Obama policy you should be greatful for.
> 
> The OP was written by a know nothing hoping to see Iraq fail.
> 
> In the words of Pacino in Scarface "look at you now"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What military leader DIDN'T recommend keeping troops in Iraq?  Leon Panetta did!  So did the Joint Chiefs!  So did the State Department!  It was a small group of progressives in the Obama White House that decided that THEY knew better than those military advisers!
> 
> They used the expiring SOFA as an excuse to pull all the troops out.  Panetta's book reveals that Obama didn't even try to get a deal done.
Click to expand...


Exactly.
Which is a prime example what happens when decisions/policies are made for political reasons.


----------



## Oldstyle

What's amusing to watch is how Barack Obama took the credit for "ending the war in Iraq" but now wants to blame what's happened after he pulled the troops out on someone else!  If you read Panetta's book it's brutally honest.  Obama's little clique of progressives running things in the White House ignored the advice they were given by Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department.  That's their right I suppose...since they are in charge...but when you make a call like that and it turns out that you were dead wrong you need to step up and take responsibility for the fuck up.  That's not something  Barry seems to be capable of though...as usual he's blaming others.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MsChrL 11095362. 





ChrisL said:


> Iraq is going to hell.




What does "Iraq is going to hell" mean now? You have been claiming that Iraq was lost. Lost to what? Not one US soldier was killed or wounded in the liberation of Tiktit. Iraqis DOD the fighting on the ground as it should be. Keeping USctroops in Iraq to fight ISIS to prop up Maliki would have been a huge mistake. All those advisers wanting to keep combat troops in Iraq were wrong.

Tikrit is liberated today with no US troops coming home in body bags or severely wounded.

I realize you would rather have seen Americans die and wounded but you never make any sense anyway.


Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:57pm EDT. *Iraq claims victory over Islamic State in Tikrit
*



> . (Reuters) - The Iraqi government claimed victory over Islamic State insurgents in Tikrit on Wednesday after a month-long battle for the city supported by Shi'ite militiamen and U.S.-led air strikes, saying that only small pockets of resistance remained.
> 
> State television showed* Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, accompanied by leaders of the army and police, the provincial governor and Shi'ite paramilitary leaders, parading through Tikrit and raising an Iraqi flag.*






> .  Ghabban and Abadi's appearances were an assertion of government authority after a military campaign bolstered and initially spearheaded by Iranian-backed Shi'ite militiamen, who have outnumbered the army in the fight against Islamic State since the security forces deserted en masse last summer.



Iraq claims victory over Islamic State in Tikrit Reuters


And you state today that Iraq is going to hell.  You should be congratulating them on their tremendous victory.

You must hate them because they are Muslims.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Looks like Baghdad imploding"

Actually it looks like the OP is a moronic demagogue.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11098798 





Oldstyle said:


> What's amusing to watch is how Barack Obama took the credit for "ending the war in Iraq" but now wants to blame what's happened after he pulled the troops out on someone else



What was the name of the war that was launched in 2003 to find active stockpiles of WMD? That was when whom was President? When did Operation Iraqi Freedom come to an end? That was when whom was President? How many Americans were killed in that war? 4484 right?

When did Operation New Dawn come to an end?

Who was President when the Iraq invasion to find WMD was completely over?

*United States marks the end ofOperation New Dawn - Iraq ...*
Demotix.com The home of World-Leading Photojournalism*new*s/969146/...*end*-*operation*-*new*-*dawn*-iraq
Dec 14, 2011 · Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, gives a speech at the *End* of Mission Ceremony ..

Panetta declared the end of the US invasion of Iraq:



> . "They're going face challenges in the future," Panetta said Wednesday during a visit with troops in Afghanistan. "They'll face challenges from terrorism, they'll face challenges from those that would want to divide their country. They'll face challenges from just the test of democracy, a new democracy and trying to make it work. But the fact is, *we have given them the opportunity to be able to succeed." *



Panetta said correctly "*we have given them the opportunity to be able to succeed"*

Iraq Leon Panetta Announces Official End of War Fox News Latino


So there is no doubt that Obama did bring OIF and OND to an end.

So what happened last year was a new war and a huge challenge for Iraq. They have risen to seize the opportunity that Americans have given them. Not one American has been killed and Tikrit and much of the north has Been liberated by Iraqis from the worst enemy they could possibly faced.

It looks like the war in Iraq against Daesh will end or close to it on Obama's watch after all. 

Republicans can't use Daesh in 2016 as they did in 2014 as a political tool siding with beheaders to gain electoral victories. Tikrit ends the Republican propaganda tool. Mosul will make them the laughingstock of the world.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11097626 





			
				iamwhatiseem said:
			
		

> Which is a prime example what happens when decisions/policies are made for political reasons


. 

What exactly happened factoring in the Iraqis liberating Tikrit today? Your Daesh terrorist scum have been defeated and shamed in battle by many Shia fighters and fighter pilots from the figuratively speaking "Army of Rome"


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11095431 





Oldstyle said:


> What military leader DIDN'T recommend keeping troops in Iraq? Leon Panetta did



No military adviser is on record recommending to Obama in 2011 or since that one single or 24,000 US soldiers should be kept in Iraq in 2012 or beyond if the Iraqis were not going to give them immunity. Panetta stated on the record quite clearly that his position was no immunity no troops can stay.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11095431
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What military leader DIDN'T recommend keeping troops in Iraq? Leon Panetta did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No military adviser is on record recommending to Obama in 2011 or since that one single or 24,000 US soldiers should be kept in Iraq in 2012 or beyond if the Iraqis were not going to give them immunity. Panetta stated on the record quite clearly that his position was no immunity no troops can stay.
Click to expand...


In which case don't you think Barack Obama should have been doing everything he could to GET a new SOFA?  Yet Panetta makes it clear in his book that Barry was totally disengaged from that.  Barack Obama couldn't have cared less about pressing the Iraqis for a new SOFA because Barack Obama had already made up his mind to pull ALL the troops out of Iraq!  

All you're doing now is trying to excuse his abysmal lack of judgement...and failing miserably because you can't refute what Obama's own Secretary of Defense related in his book.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Iraq hails victory over Islamic State extremists in Tikrit*




*KHALID MOHAMMED, AP*

Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, center, Iraqi forces commander in Tikrit, inspects his forces in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad, Iraq, on April 1, 2015.


CF 10000989 





			
				CrusaderFrank said:
			
		

> Obama turned Iraq over to his Jihadist friends in ISIS




TD 10040997 





tinydancer said:


> Yeah and how's that worked out for Iraq? ISIS is still at Baghdad's door fool.
> 
> Obama got his regime change and you and other asshole Naziprogs were cheering away that everything would change because BamBam's man was in charge.
> 
> Fucking idiots.




CF 10073757 





CrusaderFrank said:


> Baghdad falls after the midterm shellacking.
> 
> Bookmark it



How more idiotic can you people be?



> Iraqi forces, including soldiers, police officers, Shiite militias and Sunni tribes, launched a large-scale operation to recapture Tikrit on March 2. Last week, the U.S. launched airstrikes on the embattled city at the request of the Iraqi government.
> 
> Recapturing Tikrit is seen as the biggest win so far for Baghdad's Shiite-led government. The city is about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Baghdad on the road connecting the capital to Mosul. Retaking it will help Iraqi forces have a major supply link for any future operation against Mosul.
> 
> White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the victory was compelling evidence that the U.S. strategy against IS was working. He said the Tikrit operation had been stalled for weeks but that coalition airstrikes and advancing local forces apparently caused IS fighters to withdraw.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11100750. 





Oldstyle said:


> In which case don't you think Barack Obama should have been doing everything he could to GET a new SOFA?



Doesn't matter since the Iraqis were never going to approve a SOFA with immunity and Panetta
has been proven wrong for recommending US troops needed to stay if they got immunity.

Obama kept 15,000 troops in Kuwait in case Iraq asked for them to come back in. Iraq never asked for US combat troops on the ground to fight for them. Panetta's book tour behavior last year should embarrass him tonight. The Iraqis just liberated Tikrit. Baghdad will never implode or fall. Iraqis will not lose Iraq to Daesh.

Iraq is steadily defeating Daesh and they still do not want or need Americans on the ground in a combat role. 

*"Iraq hails victory over Islamic State extremists in Tikrit"*




*KHALID MOHAMMED, AP*

"Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, center, Iraqi forces commander in Tikrit, inspects his forces in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad, Iraq, on April 1, 2015."

Why should Americans have stayed when Iraq would not give them immunity? The Iraqis will survive,

They survived twice as much deaths in 2006 when 140,000 US troops were there as they did in 2014 when US troops were not there.


----------



## Oldstyle

All Panetta did was tell the truth...which you don't want to hear.

As for what's taking place in Iraq right now?  It's the Iranians that are helping Iraq push ISIS back.  Who do you think is going to end up in the driver's seat if things continue on as they are?  If you think that Iran being the major influence in Iraq is a good thing for us or the rest of the Middle East then you're even more naive than I thought you were.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11101623 





Oldstyle said:


> All Panetta did TOPICS GALLERY tell the truth...which you don't want to hear.



I heard Panetta tell this truth in 2011 as negotiations were ongoing:

NF 11079033 





NotfooledbyW said:


> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”*



What you call Panetta's truth was essentially a forecast that has turned out not to have been appropriate because Iraq is will rebuild it for the Sunnis that live In a free and democratic state that has chosen its allies and how to defend their nation in whatever way they see fit. And they liberated Tikrit and the PM has pledged to rebuild the city for the Sunnis that live there.


----------



## Oldstyle

You keep repeating the same nonsense, Notfooled and that doesn't change the fact that Panetta made it very clear in his subsequent book that the reason no new SOFA was accomplished was because a small faction in the Obama White House...including Barack Obama...didn't want one.

You're now forced to accuse Leon Panetta of being a liar because if he ISN'T...then it's obvious that the reason no new SOFA was reached wasn't because of the Iraqis...it was because of the Obama White House!


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> You keep repeating the same nonsense, Notfooled and that doesn't change the fact that Panetta made it very clear in his subsequent book that the reason no new SOFA was accomplished was because a small faction in the Obama White House...including Barack Obama...didn't want one.
> 
> You're now forced to accuse Leon Panetta of being a liar because if he ISN'T...then it's obvious that the reason no new SOFA was reached wasn't because of the Iraqis...it was because of the Obama White House!


Oldstyle, why do you continue with your claims? Notfooled continues to consistently post links with quotes and data to prove his points and you continue to defend your opinion with, well, opinions. You just seem to be unable to accept that Obama was elected into office by folks who did not want anymore dead and wounded Americans coming home from Iraq. You seem to think we should have Iraq's interest as our primary concern. The American people spoke with their votes. We want our primary concern to be not wasting American military personnel lives on the whims and failures of Iraqi politicians. We gave them the chance to be free and independent. Enough is enough. No more massive numbers of dead and maimed Americans for Iraq.


----------



## Oldstyle

I've defended my "opinion" with the opinion of Leon Panetta...the man who was chosen BY Barack Obama to not only head the CIA but to be his Secretary of Defense!  For you to sit here and declare that Panetta's writings on the inner workings of the Obama White House and specifically Obama's lack of interest in a new SOFA, somehow doesn't count is amusing.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11101623
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Panetta did TOPICS GALLERY tell the truth...which you don't want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Panetta tell this truth in 2011 as negotiations were ongoing:
> 
> NF 11079033
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying _*U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. *_*“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call Panetta's truth was essentially a forecast that has turned out not to have been appropriate because Iraq is will rebuild it for the Sunnis that live In a free and democratic state that has chosen its allies and how to defend their nation in whatever way they see fit. And they liberated Tikrit and the PM has pledged to rebuild the city for the Sunnis that live there.
Click to expand...


What Panetta related about why the new SOFA was never reached isn't a "forecast"...it is a behind the scenes look at WHY a new SOFA wasn't accomplished despite calls for one from the Joint Chiefs, Panetta and the State Department.


----------



## Oldstyle

Your problem is that Leon Panetta has a reputation for impeccable integrity.  So either he's a liar...and that's hard to believe...or he was telling the truth about why a new SOFA never got done.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Your problem is that Leon Panetta has a reputation for impeccable integrity.  So either he's a liar...and that's hard to believe...or he was telling the truth about why a new SOFA never got done.


Panetta nor anyone else in authority or knowledge of the topic had the responsibility to decide whether the potentials of leaving troops inside of Iraq with or without a SOFA or any other kind of agreement. Only the President had the ultimate authority. He decided his priority was the safety of American personnel and that the potential or possible loss of military personnel was not worth the benefits of having troops inside the jurisdiction and borders of Iraq. He did what the American people elected him to do. Sorry if you wanted a different President. The people voted in Obama and his promise to leave Iraq. Sorry if you don't like the way things eventually turned out in Iraq. Bush and Cheney had plenty of time to accomplish what they wanted. The country decided to go a different way. That is why we have elections. I for one am glad we did not leave troops inside Iraq. I believe if we had we would have lost many troops when ISIS began it's campaign in establishing the Caliphate. Ten or twenty or even thirty thousand American troops may have temporary blunted the campaign, but only at the cost of many American lives.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is that Leon Panetta has a reputation for impeccable integrity.  So either he's a liar...and that's hard to believe...or he was telling the truth about why a new SOFA never got done.
> 
> 
> 
> Panetta nor anyone else in authority or knowledge of the topic had the responsibility to decide whether the potentials of leaving troops inside of Iraq with or without a SOFA or any other kind of agreement. Only the President had the ultimate authority. He decided his priority was the safety of American personnel and that the potential or possible loss of military personnel was not worth the benefits of having troops inside the jurisdiction and borders of Iraq. He did what the American people elected him to do. Sorry if you wanted a different President. The people voted in Obama and his promise to leave Iraq. Sorry if you don't like the way things eventually turned out in Iraq. Bush and Cheney had plenty of time to accomplish what they wanted. The country decided to go a different way. That is why we have elections. I for one am glad we did not leave troops inside Iraq. I believe if we had we would have lost many troops when ISIS began it's campaign in establishing the Caliphate. Ten or twenty or even thirty thousand American troops may have temporary blunted the campaign, but only at the cost of many American lives.
Click to expand...


You're 100% right, Camp!  It was Barack Obama's decision to pull those troops out.  I find you to be rather naive however if you think it was because of a concern over troop safety rather than a political calculation that doing so would get him reelected.  If troop safety was his paramount concern then why wouldn't he also be pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan now?

As for what ISIS would have done if twenty thousand US combat troops had remained in Iraq?  I personally don't think they would have dared to cross the border in numbers against the US military.  The only reason they did was that we were gone and they didn't fear the Iraqi military in the slightest.


----------



## Oldstyle

The fact is...Barack Obama created a vacuum of power in Iraq when he pulled all our troops out...a vacuum that was subsequently filled by ISIS.  That was a policy decision that Obama made over the objections of his Joint Chiefs, his Secretary of Defense and his State Department.  His inner circle at the White House made the call on that and they and they alone bear the responsibility for what took place in Iraq afterwards.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11102807 





Oldstyle said:


> The fact is...Barack Obama created a vacuum of power in Iraq when he pulled all our troops out...a vacuum that was subsequently filled by ISIS.



The vacuum that ISIS filled had nothing to do with US troops not remaining in the country after 2011 first of all because Obama left 15,000 troops in Kuwit. Iraq has never requested US troops to re-enter Iraq in a combat role. And secondly you are now spewing lunatic fringe nut-isms about the "vacuum" that ISIS filled because they filled no vacuum, they murdered and robbed and terrorized a swath of Sunni areas when 80,000 Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and fled. 5,000 US would not have been in a position to stop the assault last June even if Iraq asked for US troops in advance. They would not have been stationed in Mosul in any numbers that could have constrained Daesh.

If you wish to continue to drool on with your 'filled vacuum" crap you must continue to ignore the news of the day denying Tikrit and all the IA and Shiite Militia's and Peshmerga and Sunni fighters victories over Daesh the past few months. The "filled vacuum" legend is dying if not dead already in Iraq.

Keep proceeding - I like to record Obama hater folly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11102786 





Oldstyle said:


> As for what ISIS would have done if twenty thousand US combat troops had remained in Iraq? I personally don't think they would have dared to cross the border in numbers against the US military.



There is no way ever that Iraq would have ever granted 24.000 US troops immunity. The Sadrists and Maliki did not want any US troops staying after the Bush agreed deadline. Al Qaeda filtered into Iraq when there were 150,000 US troops in the country when they were free to conduct whatever military ops they determined necessary to do.

Imagine what Daesh could have done to 24,000 US troops when they were seen as the local Sunnis best defense against Maliki's anti Sunni policies. Americans would have looked horrible defending Maliki and Shiites against millions of Sunnis that were not included in Maliki's version of governing Iraq. ISIS did not come into Iraq as a heavily weaponized army from Syria. The came in small groups befriending Sunni frustrated fighters that were battling Maliki's government forces and police. American troops had no business taking Milikis side in that fight or the Sunni side being infiltrated by terrorists.

Keep showing your total ignorance of Iraq's turmoil and sectarianism and political realities.
*
Not one America was killed in Iraq's Daesh War. Yet ISIS just suffered its worst defeat yet — losing the Iraqi city of Tikrit*

Iraqis from all three major sects are defeating Daesh anyway. Surely you aren't denying that?



> .
> * Coalition forces kill 9,500 fighters; 400 soldiers to be deployed to train Iraqi troops*
> 
> Updated Mon at 8:33am
> 
> 
> 
> *PHOTO:* Coaltion forces fighting Islamic State could soon be joined by 400 Australian and New Zealand soldiers deployed in Iraq to train local troops. (AFP: Tauseed
> Coalition forces have killed more than 9,000 Islamic State fighters, and the forces will soon be joined in Iraq by 400 more soldiers to train local troops, the Australian military says.



Iraq is fighting Daesh in the way that they as a sovereign nation wants and no American Troops are dying. It's a shame that you continue to criticize that based upon ignorance of what is going on over there and what went on since 2002.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11102807
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is...Barack Obama created a vacuum of power in Iraq when he pulled all our troops out...a vacuum that was subsequently filled by ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vacuum that ISIS filled had nothing to do with US troops not remaining in the country after 2011 first of all because Obama left 15,000 troops in Kuwit. Iraq has never requested US troops to re-enter Iraq in a combat role. And secondly you are now spewing lunatic fringe nut-isms about the "vacuum" that ISIS filled because they filled no vacuum, they murdered and robbed and terrorized a swath of Sunni areas when 80,000 Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and fled. 5,000 US would not have been in a position to stop the assault last June even if Iraq asked for US troops in advance. They would not have been stationed in Mosul in any numbers that could have constrained Daesh.
> 
> If you wish to continue to drool on with your 'filled vacuum" crap you must continue to ignore the news of the day denying Tikrit and all the IA and Shiite Militia's and Peshmerga and Sunni fighters victories over Daesh the past few months. The "filled vacuum" legend is dying if not dead already in Iraq.
> 
> Keep proceeding - I like to record Obama hater folly.
Click to expand...


How does the US having troops in Kuwait translate into there not being a power vacuum in Iraq?  Did ISIS attack Kuwait?  Ah...no...they attacked Iraq where there were no US troops!  And why were there no US troops to support the Iraqi Army?  There were no US troops in Iraq to stop the ISIS "JV" because Barry and his little buddies in the White House had decided to pull them out!  THAT is why Leon Panetta roasted Obama's leadership skills.  Panetta and the Joint Chiefs told Obama what the result of a total pull out might mean.  Barry ignored them.


----------



## Oldstyle

Now you've got Iranian militiamen inside of Iraq fighting against ISIS and if ISIS "is" defeated then the Iranians will be the ones reaping the rewards for helping out.  Let me guess, Notfooled...you're one of those idiots who doesn't see Iran as a danger


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11109860 





Oldstyle said:


> Now you've got Iranian militiamen inside of Iraq fighting against ISIS and if ISIS "is" defeated then the Iranians will be the ones reaping the rewards for helping out.  Let me guess, Notfooled...you're one of those idiots who doesn't see Iran as a danger



The Iranians reaped the rewards of the 2003 US invasion soon after it began. You were not concerned about Iran when they came into Iraq long before Obama was elected. What is your sudden concern now? This is who brought the Badr Militia into Iraq from Iran. The guy holding hands with smirking Bush there:   


↑
*President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*







OS 9893178  





Oldstyle said:


> Maliki was put in place by the US.  He was propped up by the billions that we gave to Iraq.



He was propped up by Tehran as well. Allawi was the US Choice while Maliki was Tehran's choice and the anti American Sadrists put Maliki in power. .

You make no sense bitching about Iran defending Shiites from being butchered right across their border in Iraq. Of course they will help.

Would you prefer it were American ground troops dying over there again. Haven't you seen enough US troops come home in body bags from Iraq? Are you sick mentally or something?


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11109860
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've got Iranian militiamen inside of Iraq fighting against ISIS and if ISIS "is" defeated then the Iranians will be the ones reaping the rewards for helping out.  Let me guess, Notfooled...you're one of those idiots who doesn't see Iran as a danger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians reaped the rewards of the 2003 US invasion soon after it began. You were not concerned about Iran when they came into Iraq long before Obama was elected. What is your sudden concern now? This is who brought the Badr Militia into Iraq from Iran. The guy holding hands with smirking Bush there:
> 
> 
> ↑
> *President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OS 9893178
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maliki was put in place by the US.  He was propped up by the billions that we gave to Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was propped up by Tehran as well. Allawi was the US Choice while Maliki was Tehran's choice and the anti American Sadrists put Maliki in power. .
> 
> You make no sense bitching about Iran defending Shiites from being butchered right across their border in Iraq. Of course they will help.
> 
> Would you prefer it were American ground troops dying over there again. Haven't you seen enough US troops come home in body bags from Iraq? Are you sick mentally or something?
Click to expand...


I would have preferred it if Barack Obama had listened to the advice of his Secretary of Defense and his Joint Chiefs of Staff and done the work to obtain a new SOFA so that a force of about 20,000 American troops could have stayed and stabilized Iraq.

All of the thousands of people in Iraq that were butchered by ISIS can thank Barry for leaving them to the "mercy" of the so called "JV Team"


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11022504 RE: konradv, post: 9603642  





Oldstyle said:


> Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now. If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.



If you really wanted a stable Iraq you should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. The inspectors were verifying that Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles or programs to make them. But if you had to be dumb enough to invade Iraq when inspectors were in their you should have listened to your military advisers and gone with several hundred thousand troops and a plan for setting up a government to replace the one you just tore down. I have not hear you complain that Bush ignored Shineski and other military advisers that a plan was needed to be able to keep Iraq stable after removing the regime that kept order and prevented AQ and ISIS types from gaining ground in Iraq.

Your are complaining that six years of Obama got us to the point we were at on March 22 2015 but it looks like now with the liberation of Tikrit this past week that within a year Iraq will be stabilized without Daesh going on a killing rampage as they did for six months in 2014.

So my projections are that 8 years of Obama has one year of increased violence in Iraq but never as high as 2006 and that was achieved with no US combat troops in a combat role and no fatalities after 2010,

On the otherhand with Bush he had five years total with only one being stable but not as stable as prior to the invasion itself. That is a total of increased instability plus 4484 US deaths and 40,000 casualties for four years with only one relatively stable year out of five  years.  That is 20% stability  for Bush and 80% stability for Obama in Iraq by Wingnut statndards.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11102786 





Oldstyle said:


> If troop safety was his paramount concern then why wouldn't he also be pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan now?



Troops serving in Afghanistan were immune from Afghan courts by UN mandate and will be covered for at least the next ten years under a SOFA agreement that Obama negotiated and passed a Loya Jirga and was signed by the new president.

Why couldn't bush get a ten year deal in Iraq just like Obama did in Afghanistan?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11023245 





Oldstyle said:


> So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders make the problems *in Iraq ten times worse* than it ever was under Bush...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha!  _March 22, 2014 #187_





Can you provide any data that Iraq is ten times worse than it ever was under Bush?

I can back my arguments up with data -  Civilian deaths in Iraq war 2003-2015 Statistic

There were approximately *106,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from March 2003 through the end of March 2008. That comes to an average total of *18,435* Iraqi deaths over Bush's handling of 5.75 years of his dumb war.

There were approximately *46,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from 2009 through the end of March 2015. that comes to an average total of *7,387* Iraqi deaths over Obama's handling of 6.25 years of his dumb war.

There is no way for you to get statistically anywhere near Obama making Iraq ten times worse. So that is a serious misstatement of fact. It is a bold outright lie. The numbers on civilians deaths are that Bush's handling of Iraq was 2.5 times worse when Bush was President than since Obama inherited Bush's dumb war. And with the declining numbers for 2015 thus far it looks like civilian casualties will return to roughly the 2009 levels when there were were at least 124,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq. Obama has done better than Bush by far with no troops in Iraq at all in a combat role since the start of 2012.

So could you please try to refrain from making your absolute bogus claims Oldstyle that are purely based only upon your hatred of Obama. You should be embarrassed.    TEN TIMES WORSE??? my god what an outlandish claim.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11022504 RE: konradv, post: 9603642
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now. If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really wanted a stable Iraq you should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. The inspectors were verifying that Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles or programs to make them. But if you had to be dumb enough to invade Iraq when inspectors were in their you should have listened to your military advisers and gone with several hundred thousand troops and a plan for setting up a government to replace the one you just tore down. I have not hear you complain that Bush ignored Shineski and other military advisers that a plan was needed to be able to keep Iraq stable after removing the regime that kept order and prevented AQ and ISIS types from gaining ground in Iraq.
> 
> Your are complaining that six years of Obama got us to the point we were at on March 22 2015 but it looks like now with the liberation of Tikrit this past week that within a year Iraq will be stabilized without Daesh going on a killing rampage as they did for six months in 2014.
> 
> So my projections are that 8 years of Obama has one year of increased violence in Iraq but never as high as 2006 and that was achieved with no US combat troops in a combat role and no fatalities after 2010,
> 
> On the otherhand with Bush he had five years total with only one being stable but not as stable as prior to the invasion itself. That is a total of increased instability plus 4484 US deaths and 40,000 casualties for four years with only one relatively stable year out of five  years.  That is 20% stability  for Bush and 80% stability for Obama in Iraq by Wingnut statndards.
Click to expand...


I hate to interrupt your "Barry Love Fest" with a dose of reality, NotFooled but we've lost more of our military under Obama than we ever did under W.  In Afghanistan it's at a 3 to 1 ratio.  This notion that Obama policy has created "stability" in the Middle East is laughable.  Quite frankly I haven't seen the Middle East or Northern Africa this unstable ever!


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11023245
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders make the problems *in Iraq ten times worse* than it ever was under Bush...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha!  _March 22, 2014 #187_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide any data that Iraq is ten times worse than it ever was under Bush?
> 
> I can back my arguments up with data -  Civilian deaths in Iraq war 2003-2015 Statistic
> 
> There were approximately *106,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from March 2003 through the end of March 2008. That comes to an average total of *18,435* Iraqi deaths over Bush's handling of 5.75 years of his dumb war.
> 
> There were approximately *46,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from 2009 through the end of March 2015. that comes to an average total of *7,387* Iraqi deaths over Obama's handling of 6.25 years of his dumb war.
> 
> There is no way for you to get statistically anywhere near Obama making Iraq ten times worse. So that is a serious misstatement of fact. It is a bold outright lie. The numbers on civilians deaths are that Bush's handling of Iraq was 2.5 times worse when Bush was President than since Obama inherited Bush's dumb war. And with the declining numbers for 2015 thus far it looks like civilian casualties will return to roughly the 2009 levels when there were were at least 124,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq. Obama has done better than Bush by far with no troops in Iraq at all in a combat role since the start of 2012.
> 
> So could you please try to refrain from making your absolute bogus claims Oldstyle that are purely based only upon your hatred of Obama. You should be embarrassed.    TEN TIMES WORSE??? my god what an outlandish claim.
Click to expand...


And all you have to do is look at your statistical chart on civilian deaths to know that something has gone terribly wrong in Iraq since we pulled our troops out.  Civilian deaths are spiking dramatically and it's obviously because Barry took out the US troops that would have kept things under control and badly misjudged the capabilities of ISIS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11072849 





Oldstyle said:


> He was told by his military advisers that a rushed withdrawal could endanger stability in Iraq but he chose to ignore their advice and do it anyways. The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq. *That's on nobody but Barry*!



So according to your mindset then the fact that Daesh terrorist scum will most likely be driven out of Iraq within the 21 months that Obama has in office - This victory will be on nobody but "Barry" as you say it, right? Tikrit is free and 25% of other territory that Daesh took is now liberated. Thank God Barry did it all right? And your knuckle-headed fears that the Iranian backed militias were going to massacre Sunnis in areas like Tikrit once liberated have not transpired. So there goes another fool-headed prediction down the RW sewer of falsehoods and pro-ISIS propaganda.  You never thought ISIS would be defeated did you Oldstyle?  Your flip to fear of Iranians in Iraq is another loser argument for the whacky right.




> "The situation now is calm," said a police major in Tikrit, speaking on condition of anonymity.
> 
> Some eyewitnesses and government officials also blamed local Sunnis for the looting.
> 
> Abadi, a moderate Shi'ite Islamist, has insisted that he will not tolerate rights abuses by any group in the war against IS, which has massacred thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites and members of other groups.
> 
> Iraqi troops, working in tandem with Shi'ite militias, secured Tikrit on Wednesday, but as the government declared victories, paramilitary fighters started ransacking buildings, according to local officials and witnesses.
> 
> On Friday, Abadi had ordered security forces to arrest anyone breaking the law and then convened his meeting on Saturday with Salahuddin's governor and key officials.
> 
> "It sent a clear message to everyone. Although it is very challenging, the prime minister is on the top of situation," said Rafid Jaboori, Abadi's spokesman.  (Reporting by Ned Parker; Editing by Robin Pomeroy and Stephen Powell)



Shi ite fighters leave Tikrit after looting - Iraqi officials Reuters


Nice dose of reality for you Oldstyle.. Are you going to congratulate "Barry" on this major victory in Tikrit and for calming the situation down so rapidly - now its also  time to support the new Iraqi PM in helping to restore Sunni Tikrit to its pre-.Daesh conditions.  That is if you truly care about Iraqis.  And you should thank "Barry" for getting rid of Maliki. He was the cancer that tore Iraq apart in the first place.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.*

OS 11023245 





Oldstyle said:


> So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders make the *problems in Iraq ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha!  Mar 22, 2015#187



NF 11118895 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Can you provide any data that Iraq is ten times worse than it ever was under Bush? I can back my arguments up with data - Civilian deaths in Iraq war 2003-2015 Statistic
> 
> There were approximately *106,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from March 2003 through the end of March 2008. That comes to an average total of *18,435* Iraqi deaths over Bush's handling of 5.75 years of his dumb war.
> 
> There were approximately *46,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from 2009 through the end of March 2015. that comes to an average total of *7,387* Iraqi deaths over Obama's handling of 6.25 years of his dumb war.



OS 11120821 





Oldstyle said:


> And all you have to do is look at your statistical chart on civilian deaths to know that something has gone terribly wrong in Iraq since we pulled our troops out. Civilian deaths are spiking dramatically and it's obviously because Barry took out the US troops that would have kept things under control and badly misjudged the capabilities of ISIS. #383



I asked if you could provide any data that Iraq is* ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*? So it is obvious by your latest response that you are unable to back up your false claim. We all can see that you do not rely on facts to form your opinions expressed on this forum. Is it impossible for you to tell the truth? You were the one that said Iraq was ten times worse under Obama than it was under Bush. That is in no way true or even close to it.

Also no one has argued that Daesh terrorist scum was not terrible and is still terrible but they are on the run. It is now much more obvious that Obama was correct to pull troops out and not provide military support for Maliki. You are simply wrong about that too. And since you can't be honest with hard facts such as comparing Bush to Obama, what you say should be discarded as the delusions of a know-nothing that makes things up as he goes.

.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11120799 





Oldstyle said:


> I hate to interrupt your "Barry Love Fest" with a dose of reality, NotFooled but we've lost more of our military under Obama than we ever did under W. In Afghanistan it's at a 3 to 1 ratio. This notion that Obama policy has created "stability" in the Middle East is laughable. Quite frankly I haven't seen the Middle East or Northern Africa this unstable ever! #382


  Are you nuts?

This thread is about Iraq.


From 2003 through 2008 there were 4316 American Troops who lost their lives in Iraq. From 2001 through 2008 there were 532 American troops who lost their lives in Afghanistan. That is 4,848 Americans who lost their lives in both wars under Bush.

From 2009 through present there were 269 American Troops who lost their lives in Iraq. From 2009 through present there were 1,993 American troops who lost their lives in Afghanistan. That is 2,262 Americans who lost their lives in both wars under Bush.

I have no respect for Republicans who compare Bush to Obama and who don't count 4,316 Americans who Bush sent to die in a war that did not need to happen and Bush was not prepared to deal with in a war they said would last months not years and Iraq's oil would pay for it and it would cost $50 Billion tops and our troops would be greeted as liberators. .


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.*
> 
> OS 11023245
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders make the *problems in Iraq ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha!  Mar 22, 2015#187
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 11118895
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide any data that Iraq is ten times worse than it ever was under Bush? I can back my arguments up with data - Civilian deaths in Iraq war 2003-2015 Statistic
> 
> There were approximately *106,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from March 2003 through the end of March 2008. That comes to an average total of *18,435* Iraqi deaths over Bush's handling of 5.75 years of his dumb war.
> 
> There were approximately *46,000 *civilian Iraqi deaths from 2009 through the end of March 2015. that comes to an average total of *7,387* Iraqi deaths over Obama's handling of 6.25 years of his dumb war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OS 11120821
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all you have to do is look at your statistical chart on civilian deaths to know that something has gone terribly wrong in Iraq since we pulled our troops out. Civilian deaths are spiking dramatically and it's obviously because Barry took out the US troops that would have kept things under control and badly misjudged the capabilities of ISIS. #383
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if you could provide any data that Iraq is* ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*? So it is obvious by your latest response that you are unable to back up your false claim. We all can see that you do not rely on facts to form your opinions expressed on this forum. Is it impossible for you to tell the truth? You were the one that said Iraq was ten times worse under Obama than it was under Bush. That is in no way true or even close to it.
> 
> Also no one has argued that Daesh terrorist scum was not terrible and is still terrible but they are on the run. It is now much more obvious that Obama was correct to pull troops out and not provide military support for Maliki. You are simply wrong about that too. And since you can't be honest with hard facts such as comparing Bush to Obama, what you say should be discarded as the delusions of a know-nothing that makes things up as he goes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I wonder if the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were slaughtered by ISIS as they rolled through Iraq were thinking to themselves "Boy, Barack Obama sure was correct about pulling US troops out!" right before they were lined up to be shot?


----------



## Oldstyle

That right there is the message that's clearly been sent about what you risk by aligning yourself with a US President who's unwilling to back up his promises.  If you don't think the average man on the street in Afghanistan is paying close attention to what happened in Iraq as soon as the US troops pulled out you're either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.*

I asked if you could provide any data that Iraq is* ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*? You made that claim. Why are you running from it now>

OS 11126594 OS 11126538 





Oldstyle said:


> I wonder if the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were slaughtered by ISIS as they rolled through Iraq were thinking to themselves "Boy, Barack Obama sure was correct about pulling US troops out!" right before they were lined up to be shot? #387




I wonder if the 119,236 Iraqis who were slaughtered and became fatal collateral damage as a result of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through 2011 *while US troops continued their presence* there were thinking to themselves “boy George W Bush was correct to kick the UN inspectors out and send 160,000 Americans into Iraq to shoot them on their way to democracy that suited George Bush Dick Cheney and Oldstyle?  Think about. How is it ten times worse now with no US troops shooting anybody in Iraq since the beginning of 2012?


Since US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been 32,651 Iraq civilians killed. perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh Terrorist Scum.

Perhaps you do not understand numbers Oldstyle?  120,000 Iraqis killed when US troops present is about four times worse than when US troops were gone.

OS 11126594 





Oldstyle said:


> That right there is the message that's clearly been sent about what you risk by aligning yourself with a US President who's unwilling to back up his promises.  If you don't think the average man on the street in Afghanistan is paying close attention to what happened in Iraq as soon as the US troops pulled out you're either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.#388



Obama committed to Afghanistan's long term Security a year before Daesh made their big Republican pleasing assault last June. That deal is good through 2024 and Obama negotiated a ten year SOFA agreement that includes immunity for our troops for ten years at least. So you make no sense as you continue to pretend that you do not have any statistical backup for your huge false claim against Obama that Iraq is ten times worse under Obama than it was under Bush. How long do you want to pretend that you didn't make that crap up? Just admit it. Iraq is better off since the US troops were pulled out int terms of civilian casualties and your Daesh is being defeated and slaughtered now without the  need for US troops to die in THEIR fight. It is THEIR fight. We should never force US troops into Iraq ever again. Thank god Obama did not. Thank god another idiot President like Romney is not sending Americans to start dying in Iraq all over again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

120,000 Iraqis killed from March 2003 through December 2011 while US troops were still present in Iraq until GW Bush's agreed deadline for all of them to leave and not a peep from Oldstyle about that. Or the 4484  US troops that were killed there too. That was good US presidential policy to Oldstyle.


----------



## Oldstyle

You can't seem to comprehend what Obama lack of a coherent foreign "policy" has done to the reputation of the United States throughout the world...can you, Notfooled?  What do you think moderates are doing in Afghanistan right now after watching how Barry walked away from Iraq and left them to the non existent mercies of ISIS?  He drew a "red line" in the sand with Syria and then walked away from it.  He declared Yemen a "success story" for his anti-terror agenda and now he's pulled our troops out of there and walked away from it because THAT has turned to shit.  He's gone from a strategy of "Leading From Behind" to "Running Away and Hiding"!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.*

I asked if you could provide any data that Iraq is ten times worse than it ever was under Bush? You made that claim. Why are you continuing to running from it? I don't want to change the subject to Afghanistan or Syria although you are equally wrong about those to areas of conflict, until you provide the back up data that Iraq is ten times worse under Obama than it ever was under Bush. Remember Bush started the whole mess and Obama said it would be dumb before he did it.


OS 11130457 





Oldstyle said:


> You can't seem to comprehend what Obama lack of a coherent foreign "policy" has done to the reputation of the United States throughout the world...can you, Notfooled?  #391



There is no lack of a coherent foreign policy by Obama which is why, if you want to say there is, you need to provide something that shows that Iraq is ten times worse now than it was under Bush. That is simply not true. If anything it is four times better and it is four times better in terms of Iraqi deaths and there are no US troops in Iraq on the ground in a combat role. So your argument is that it is ten times worse with no US troops on the ground "fighting" as it was when Bush had 150,000 US troops killing and getting killed for five years. Civilian deaths in the several years prior to the invasion was quite minimal There is no rational or reasonable or sane data that supports your argument. So why not put your right wing talking point cliché's away a moment and reflect on this reality:

Since US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been *32,651* Iraq civilians killed. perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh Terrorist Scum. Perhaps you do not understand numbers Oldstyle?  *120,000* *Iraqis that were getting killed* *when US combat troops were present* is about four times worse than when US troops were gone. Your argument that Iraq would be better off with US ground troops is belied by this reality. But being a conservative "reality" is none of your concern when it comes to Obama bashing.

Why not respond to my replies about Iraq before you go jumping to all your other myths about Obama's foreign policy?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.*

OS 11023245 





Oldstyle said:


> So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders *make the problems in Iraq ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha!  #187



Over 1,000,000 Iraqis would have to die over a five or six year period diring Obama.'s presidency in order for your statement to be true. Daesh may kill 15,000 to 20,000 before being completely driven out of Iraq.  So that's 980,000 dead Iraqis to go before your statement of fact could become a fact. Do you think Daesh will kill that many over the next 20 months?

If not why make false claims and arguments against the current US president and sugarcoat the dumb war started by the previous US president ?


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.*
> 
> I asked if you could provide any data that Iraq is ten times worse than it ever was under Bush? You made that claim. Why are you continuing to running from it? I don't want to change the subject to Afghanistan or Syria although you are equally wrong about those to areas of conflict, until you provide the back up data that Iraq is ten times worse under Obama than it ever was under Bush. Remember Bush started the whole mess and Obama said it would be dumb before he did it.
> 
> 
> OS 11130457
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't seem to comprehend what Obama lack of a coherent foreign "policy" has done to the reputation of the United States throughout the world...can you, Notfooled?  #391
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no lack of a coherent foreign policy by Obama which is why, if you want to say there is, you need to provide something that shows that Iraq is ten times worse now than it was under Bush. That is simply not true. If anything it is four times better and it is four times better in terms of Iraqi deaths and there are no US troops in Iraq on the ground in a combat role. So your argument is that it is ten times worse with no US troops on the ground "fighting" as it was when Bush had 150,000 US troops killing and getting killed for five years. Civilian deaths in the several years prior to the invasion was quite minimal There is no rational or reasonable or sane data that supports your argument. So why not put your right wing talking point cliché's away a moment and reflect on this reality:
> 
> Since US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been *32,651* Iraq civilians killed. perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh Terrorist Scum. Perhaps you do not understand numbers Oldstyle?  *120,000* *Iraqis that were getting killed* *when US combat troops were present* is about four times worse than when US troops were gone. Your argument that Iraq would be better off with US ground troops is belied by this reality. But being a conservative "reality" is none of your concern when it comes to Obama bashing.
> 
> Why not respond to my replies about Iraq before you go jumping to all your other myths about Obama's foreign policy?
Click to expand...


Why don't YOU respond to my reply that pointed out that your own graph shows an incredible spike in Iraqi civilian deaths since Barry pulled all of our troops out?  That is "reality".  That is what Barack Obama allowed to happen because he wanted to be able to stand on a stage and tell his adoring fans that he'd "ended" the war in Iraq!  REALITY is that he ignored the advice of his Secretary of Defense, his Joint Chiefs and his State Department and followed the advice of a small group of Administration insiders led by Valerie Jarrett who wanted a total troop withdrawal no matter what.


----------



## Oldstyle

From your own graph on civilian deaths in Iraq...

2009  5,349
2010  4,116
2011  4,153
US troops withdrawn from Iraq in Dec. of 2011
2012  4,622
2013  9,742
2014 17,073

That's just civilian deaths that have taken place since Obama's misguided decision was made.  It doesn't address the rapes and beatings or the millions of Iraqis that have been forced to flee their homes and now live in refugee camps since ISIS moved in force into Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11130457 





Oldstyle said:


> What do you think moderates are doing in Afghanistan right now after watching how Barry walked away from Iraq and left them to the non existent mercies of ISIS?



Did you really want an honest and satisfactory answer to your question? If not , I'll give it to you anyway. The moderates in Afghanistan first of all did not watch President a Obama walk away from Afghanistan. They watched Bush agree with Maliki and Iraq's Parliament legally put an end to the US troop presence in Iraq by 2012.

They did however watch the Iraqi Army fold and run from Daesh terrorist scum and watched the devastation that those Sunni scum have sown upon the region. Afghan moderates have no reason to blame Obama for a ISIS expansion and terrorist activity because they know Obama had nothing to do with causing their own violent ordeals with the Taliban.

They now see the US and many nations in a coalition that is successfully driving Daesh terrorist scum out of Iraq. They see their neighbor on the west also helping Iraq defeat the terrorist scum alongside the US other nations.

You could learn a lot from the courageous and defiant moderate people of Afghanistan. They defy the Taliban and send their daughters to school. They have manned three hundred thousand army and police who have been tested and are fighting the Taliban on offense and are not  running away as the crony infested and corrupted army that Maliki established in Iraq that was never truly tested as  the Afghan Army  has been now for several years under Obama.

The moderates see an Obama deal brewing involving the US and Iran that will potentially bring an Iranian and Indian alliance to fruition that has been long sought by Afghanistan that will help to improve Afghanistan's economy and therefore improve the overall security in the area without the need for any US or foreign ground fighting troops just like Obama and the Iraqis have insisted be the case in Iraq.

You could learn something from Afghani moderates Oldstyle. It's that hating Obama the way you do will not solve the problems that many good people face around the world. In fact US right wing hatred of Obama helps encourage all the enemies of good people everywhere.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11139976. 





Oldstyle said:


> Why don't YOU respond to my reply that pointed out that your own graph shows an incredible spike in Iraqi civilian deaths since Barry pulled all of our troops out?



Because I have challenged your obscene and maliciously dishonest  claim that Obama made Iraq ten times worse.

*Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.  *OS 11023245 ↑"So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders *make the problems in Iraq ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha! #187 "

And you do not have the decency to admit that you made your claim up out of absolutely nothing. And no America soldiers are dying on Iraq's soil in the current battle. Your lack of appreciation for the latter is downright disgusting.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11139976.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU respond to my reply that pointed out that your own graph shows an incredible spike in Iraqi civilian deaths since Barry pulled all of our troops out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have challenged your obscene and maliciously dishonest  claim that Obama made Iraq ten times worse.
> 
> *Page 18 Ten Times Worse???.  *OS 11023245 ↑"So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders *make the problems in Iraq ten times worse than it ever was under Bush*...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha! #187 "
> 
> And you do not have the decency to admit that you made your claim up out of absolutely nothing. And no America soldiers are dying on Iraq's soil in the current battle. Your lack of appreciation for the latter is downright disgusting.
Click to expand...


Too bad that thousands of American soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq only to have Barry simply walk away from that country and surrender it to ISIS because he was too stupid to listen to his own military advisers.

Too bad that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have paid with their lives for Barry's decision to tuck tail and run in Iraq.  Too bad that millions more have been displaced from their homes trying to escape the horror that is ISIS.

I find all of that to be downright disgusting, Notfooled...but that's just me...


----------



## Moonglow

Iraq has to learn to stand on it own some day....


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> OS 11130457
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think moderates are doing in Afghanistan right now after watching how Barry walked away from Iraq and left them to the non existent mercies of ISIS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really want an honest and satisfactory answer to your question? If not , I'll give it to you anyway. The moderates in Afghanistan first of all did not watch President a Obama walk away from Afghanistan. They watched Bush agree with Maliki and Iraq's Parliament legally put an end to the US troop presence in Iraq by 2012.
> 
> They did however watch the Iraqi Army fold and run from Daesh terrorist scum and watched the devastation that those Sunni scum have sown upon the region. Afghan moderates have no reason to blame Obama for a ISIS expansion and terrorist activity because they know Obama had nothing to do with causing their own violent ordeals with the Taliban.
> 
> They now see the US and many nations in a coalition that is successfully driving Daesh terrorist scum out of Iraq. They see their neighbor on the west also helping Iraq defeat the terrorist scum alongside the US other nations.
> 
> You could learn a lot from the courageous and defiant moderate people of Afghanistan. They defy the Taliban and send their daughters to school. They have manned three hundred thousand army and police who have been tested and are fighting the Taliban on offense and are not  running away as the crony infested and corrupted army that Maliki established in Iraq that was never truly tested as  the Afghan Army  has been now for several years under Obama.
> 
> The moderates see an Obama deal brewing involving the US and Iran that will potentially bring an Iranian and Indian alliance to fruition that has been long sought by Afghanistan that will help to improve Afghanistan's economy and therefore improve the overall security in the area without the need for any US or foreign ground fighting troops just like Obama and the Iraqis have insisted be the case in Iraq.
> 
> You could learn something from Afghani moderates Oldstyle. It's that hating Obama the way you do will not solve the problems that many good people face around the world. In fact US right wing hatred of Obama helps encourage all the enemies of good people everywhere.
Click to expand...


The moderates in Afghanistan have my admiration, Notfooled because they HAVE defied the Taliban.  So how was Barack Obama about to repay them for that courage?  He was about to do the same thing to them that he did to the people of Iraq.  The only thing that has stopped him from pulling out of Afghanistan and leaving the moderates there to the "mercy" of the Taliban is that Iraq has become SO bad that he can't pretend that his withdrawal worked.  Not even the liberal media was buying that anymore.  Barry was forced to stay in Afghanistan because his policy of withdrawal in Iraq was shown to be such a total disaster.


----------



## Moonglow

Oldstyle said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11130457
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think moderates are doing in Afghanistan right now after watching how Barry walked away from Iraq and left them to the non existent mercies of ISIS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really want an honest and satisfactory answer to your question? If not , I'll give it to you anyway. The moderates in Afghanistan first of all did not watch President a Obama walk away from Afghanistan. They watched Bush agree with Maliki and Iraq's Parliament legally put an end to the US troop presence in Iraq by 2012.
> 
> They did however watch the Iraqi Army fold and run from Daesh terrorist scum and watched the devastation that those Sunni scum have sown upon the region. Afghan moderates have no reason to blame Obama for a ISIS expansion and terrorist activity because they know Obama had nothing to do with causing their own violent ordeals with the Taliban.
> 
> They now see the US and many nations in a coalition that is successfully driving Daesh terrorist scum out of Iraq. They see their neighbor on the west also helping Iraq defeat the terrorist scum alongside the US other nations.
> 
> You could learn a lot from the courageous and defiant moderate people of Afghanistan. They defy the Taliban and send their daughters to school. They have manned three hundred thousand army and police who have been tested and are fighting the Taliban on offense and are not  running away as the crony infested and corrupted army that Maliki established in Iraq that was never truly tested as  the Afghan Army  has been now for several years under Obama.
> 
> The moderates see an Obama deal brewing involving the US and Iran that will potentially bring an Iranian and Indian alliance to fruition that has been long sought by Afghanistan that will help to improve Afghanistan's economy and therefore improve the overall security in the area without the need for any US or foreign ground fighting troops just like Obama and the Iraqis have insisted be the case in Iraq.
> 
> You could learn something from Afghani moderates Oldstyle. It's that hating Obama the way you do will not solve the problems that many good people face around the world. In fact US right wing hatred of Obama helps encourage all the enemies of good people everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The moderates in Afghanistan have my admiration, Notfooled because they HAVE defied the Taliban.  So how was Barack Obama about to repay them for that courage?  He was about to do the same thing to them that he did to the people of Iraq.  The only thing that has stopped him from pulling out of Afghanistan and leaving the moderates there to the "mercy" of the Taliban is that Iraq has become SO bad that he can't pretend that his withdrawal worked.  Not even the liberal media was buying that anymore.  Barry was forced to stay in Afghanistan because his policy of withdrawal in Iraq was shown to be such a total disaster.
Click to expand...

A new president was elected that was more willing to allow US troops to remain...


----------



## Oldstyle

Moonglow said:


> Iraq has to learn to stand on it own some day....



How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!


----------



## Oldstyle

Moonglow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11130457
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think moderates are doing in Afghanistan right now after watching how Barry walked away from Iraq and left them to the non existent mercies of ISIS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really want an honest and satisfactory answer to your question? If not , I'll give it to you anyway. The moderates in Afghanistan first of all did not watch President a Obama walk away from Afghanistan. They watched Bush agree with Maliki and Iraq's Parliament legally put an end to the US troop presence in Iraq by 2012.
> 
> They did however watch the Iraqi Army fold and run from Daesh terrorist scum and watched the devastation that those Sunni scum have sown upon the region. Afghan moderates have no reason to blame Obama for a ISIS expansion and terrorist activity because they know Obama had nothing to do with causing their own violent ordeals with the Taliban.
> 
> They now see the US and many nations in a coalition that is successfully driving Daesh terrorist scum out of Iraq. They see their neighbor on the west also helping Iraq defeat the terrorist scum alongside the US other nations.
> 
> You could learn a lot from the courageous and defiant moderate people of Afghanistan. They defy the Taliban and send their daughters to school. They have manned three hundred thousand army and police who have been tested and are fighting the Taliban on offense and are not  running away as the crony infested and corrupted army that Maliki established in Iraq that was never truly tested as  the Afghan Army  has been now for several years under Obama.
> 
> The moderates see an Obama deal brewing involving the US and Iran that will potentially bring an Iranian and Indian alliance to fruition that has been long sought by Afghanistan that will help to improve Afghanistan's economy and therefore improve the overall security in the area without the need for any US or foreign ground fighting troops just like Obama and the Iraqis have insisted be the case in Iraq.
> 
> You could learn something from Afghani moderates Oldstyle. It's that hating Obama the way you do will not solve the problems that many good people face around the world. In fact US right wing hatred of Obama helps encourage all the enemies of good people everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The moderates in Afghanistan have my admiration, Notfooled because they HAVE defied the Taliban.  So how was Barack Obama about to repay them for that courage?  He was about to do the same thing to them that he did to the people of Iraq.  The only thing that has stopped him from pulling out of Afghanistan and leaving the moderates there to the "mercy" of the Taliban is that Iraq has become SO bad that he can't pretend that his withdrawal worked.  Not even the liberal media was buying that anymore.  Barry was forced to stay in Afghanistan because his policy of withdrawal in Iraq was shown to be such a total disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new president was elected that was more willing to allow US troops to remain...
Click to expand...


Dude, the ONLY reason Barack Obama didn't pull the troops out of Afghanistan is that Iraq was becoming such a disaster that he couldn't do the same thing in Afghanistan that he did in Iraq.


----------



## Moonglow

Oldstyle said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OS 11130457
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think moderates are doing in Afghanistan right now after watching how Barry walked away from Iraq and left them to the non existent mercies of ISIS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really want an honest and satisfactory answer to your question? If not , I'll give it to you anyway. The moderates in Afghanistan first of all did not watch President a Obama walk away from Afghanistan. They watched Bush agree with Maliki and Iraq's Parliament legally put an end to the US troop presence in Iraq by 2012.
> 
> They did however watch the Iraqi Army fold and run from Daesh terrorist scum and watched the devastation that those Sunni scum have sown upon the region. Afghan moderates have no reason to blame Obama for a ISIS expansion and terrorist activity because they know Obama had nothing to do with causing their own violent ordeals with the Taliban.
> 
> They now see the US and many nations in a coalition that is successfully driving Daesh terrorist scum out of Iraq. They see their neighbor on the west also helping Iraq defeat the terrorist scum alongside the US other nations.
> 
> You could learn a lot from the courageous and defiant moderate people of Afghanistan. They defy the Taliban and send their daughters to school. They have manned three hundred thousand army and police who have been tested and are fighting the Taliban on offense and are not  running away as the crony infested and corrupted army that Maliki established in Iraq that was never truly tested as  the Afghan Army  has been now for several years under Obama.
> 
> The moderates see an Obama deal brewing involving the US and Iran that will potentially bring an Iranian and Indian alliance to fruition that has been long sought by Afghanistan that will help to improve Afghanistan's economy and therefore improve the overall security in the area without the need for any US or foreign ground fighting troops just like Obama and the Iraqis have insisted be the case in Iraq.
> 
> You could learn something from Afghani moderates Oldstyle. It's that hating Obama the way you do will not solve the problems that many good people face around the world. In fact US right wing hatred of Obama helps encourage all the enemies of good people everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The moderates in Afghanistan have my admiration, Notfooled because they HAVE defied the Taliban.  So how was Barack Obama about to repay them for that courage?  He was about to do the same thing to them that he did to the people of Iraq.  The only thing that has stopped him from pulling out of Afghanistan and leaving the moderates there to the "mercy" of the Taliban is that Iraq has become SO bad that he can't pretend that his withdrawal worked.  Not even the liberal media was buying that anymore.  Barry was forced to stay in Afghanistan because his policy of withdrawal in Iraq was shown to be such a total disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new president was elected that was more willing to allow US troops to remain...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the ONLY reason Barack Obama didn't pull the troops out of Afghanistan is that Iraq was becoming such a disaster that he couldn't do the same thing in Afghanistan that he did in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Iraq would not allow troops to be in Iraq.....No agreement could be made...Millions spent on training the Iraqi's, but the leader decided to play split the constituency by religious lines...You evidently think only Oblama has made this decision...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> The moderates in Afghanistan have my admiration, Notfooled because they HAVE defied the Taliban. So how was Barack Obama about to repay them for that courage? He was about to do the same thing to them that he did to the people of Iraq.



First off Baghdad is not imploding at all is it?

CBS/APApril 24, 2015, 12:31 PM
*ISIS loses control of key bridge to Iraq forces*







> . Iraqi security forces and tribal fighters prepare to attack Islamic State group militants on al-Houz bridge on the Euphrates river in Ramadi, 70 miles (115 kilometers) west of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, April 24, 2015. Iraqi security forces recaptured a key bridge from Islamic militants in the capital of western Anbar on Friday, said an Iraqi security official, as top Shiite cleric renewed calls for national unity among political groups in the face of the Islamic militant group. (AP Photo)  AP



But in response to more of your nonsense, you are simply a know-nothing Oldstyle. Long before ISIS separated from al Qaeda in November 2013 Obama negotiated a long term security deal with Afghanistan. A security deal about seven years longer than that Bush surrender deal in Iraq in 2008.

Read it yourself and become a know-something instead:

*U.S.-Afghan Bilateral Security Agreement - Council on Foreign ...*
www.cfr.org/*afghanistan*/united...*afghanistan*s-*security*...*agreement*.../p319...
Nov 21, 2013 - United States and Afghanistan's Security and Defense Cooperation ... The agreement is set to take effect on January 1, 2015 and remain in force through 2024. ... at the Chicago Summit in 2012, and in the context of the Security ... in this Agreement, United States forces may undertake transit, support, and ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> Dude, the ONLY reason Barack Obama didn't pull the troops out of Afghanistan is that Iraq was becoming such a disaster that he couldn't do the same thing in Afghanistan that he did in Iraq.



That is a lie. See my post #405 ... Or..... Run away and hide again.

And the Afghan's have granted our troops immunity while the Iraqis would not - and the Iraqis to this day have asked for US troops to be engaged in their ground war against daesh terrorist scum and the Iraqis with US air strikes are slowly driving ISIS out of Iraq. Your dream of Baghdad imploding will never ever happen.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OS 11265254 





Oldstyle said:


> How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?



US troops leaving on Bush's date certain was not Obama abandoning Iraq. If Iraqis wanted US troops to stay they would have done what Afghanistan has done and granted our troops the immunity they absolutely have to according to Leon Panetta and every single US military officer that leads our troops in combat.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DT 10970273 





deltex1 said:


> EC was watching Admiral Mullin declare that Iran is far more of a problem for America than ISIS.  The same iran that Obabble is giving away the store to, to polish his legacy.  The same iran he is allowing to control iraq.  Strategic patience, my ass.




EC ran away Deltex. She was probably lying or fabricating what the good Admiral said. 

You should take a cue  from EC since you can't get anything right about Iraq anymore either.

Why do you swallow  and repeat Daesh propaganda that they are invincible. And your Iranaphobia destroys your judgement into thing you know more about what to do than a patriotic active duty USAF General:




> A top US Air Force general insisted Friday the American-led air campaign against the Islamic State was effective, rejecting criticism that it was too slow or overly cautious. The bombing raids against the IS jihadists in Iraq and Syria have had a "profound effect on the enemy" and taken out "more than a 1,000 enemy fighters a month from the battlefield," said Lieutenant General John Hesterman, head of the air fleet under US Central Command. Coalition strikes have helped ground forces in Iraq and northern Syria regain territory from the IS and destroyed most of the group's oil refining capacity, Hesterman told reporters via telephone from Qatar.
> 
> Posted on 5 June 2015 | 9:30 pm




1000 Daesh terrorist scum a month taken dead off the battlefield and all  you can do is bitch and bitch and bitch and offer not one syllable of a better plan.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Polling averages 2 days ago had Clinton's electoral-vote advantage at 288 to 191. (270 is what's needed to be president.)

Unfortunately for Republicans, Baghdad never came close to imploding. One big city left for the Iraqis to liberate - themselves on the ground.

ISIS was the Republicans great hope to win this upcoming election. ISIS failed you Delbert. Are you distraught about that?

It's ignorance on the right coming from the author of this thread, combined with more intelligent, inclusive and decent opposition from the center and left that will keep Trump out of the White House forever.



> So we've moved Colorado from Tossup to Lean D. That expands Clinton's electoral-vote advantage to 288 to 191. (270 is what's needed to be president.) According to our map, Clinton would need to win just the states leaning her direction to win, and could lose all of the current tossups — Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania — and still have some cushion. Notice that includes Ohio, where the Republican convention is, and neighboring Pennsylvania, which Democrats have carried since 1992.



NPR Battleground Map: Where Does The Race Stand?

Clinton already has an insurmountable lead on Trump. And you think his boy will close the gap because he claims he can operate a bulldozer. 

Republicans want Americans to die more in the M.E. so the rich Trump kids can play with big boy toys.   They can play safe in NYC except when Bush was President.


deltex1, post: 10073948 





deltex1 said:


> I don't want our ground troops fighting house to house against the ragheads.



 Its time you've thanked Obama for doing what you wanted, Delbert. But still you ride with those Republicans who want to get Americans dead and wounded on the front lines in Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

The OP is an idiot:

*Joint Operations: ISIS controls less than 10% of land*
Jul 28, 2016

Joint Operations: ISIS controls less than 10% of land - Iraqi News


----------



## irosie91

Oldstyle said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq has to learn to stand on it own some day....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!
Click to expand...


abandoning Iraq got the USA out of Iraq


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 11265254 





Oldstyle said:


> . How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!



What Iraq could not do in 2014 it is doing now. The U.S. Did not abandon Iraq it respected Iraq's sovereignty. When Iraq requested air strikes and trainers they needed to get rid of Maliki so when they did that the U.S. responded by leading a coalition that has been driving ISIS out if Iraq ever since.

The Iraqis are now able to hold the territory they liberate.

American soldiers were not needed to die in this operation. That can only be why you are so negative about the U.S. led coalition to kill, capture, and terminate the ISIS existence on Iraq soil.

Iraq was not abandoned. They needed to learn to fight for themselves. Americans could not protect the entire country as they did when Bush ran the war. And lots of Americans were dying under Bush while Iraqis say out the war.

Do you want that back?


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 11265254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> . How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Iraq could not do in 2014 it is doing now. The U.S. Did not abandon Iraq it respected Iraq's sovereignty. When Iraq requested air strikes and trainers they needed to get rid of Maliki so when they did that the U.S. responded by leading a coalition that has been driving ISIS out if Iraq ever since.
> 
> The Iraqis are now able to hold the territory they liberate.
> 
> American soldiers were not needed to die in this operation. That can only be why you are so negative about the U.S. led coalition to kill, capture, and terminate the ISIS existence on Iraq soil.
> 
> Iraq was not abandoned. They needed to learn to fight for themselves. Americans could not protect the entire country as they did when Bush ran the war. And lots of Americans were dying under Bush while Iraqis say out the war.
> 
> Do you want that back?
Click to expand...


Iraq was totally abandoned!  The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Barry that a premature withdrawal of combat troops would create a power vacuum that terrorist groups would exploit.  He chose to ignore their advice.  Then when ISIS was rolling tanks and troops across open desert to attack major Iraqi cities, Barry sat on his hands because he wanted to keep on saying that he'd "ended" the war in Iraq.  Now ISIS is dug into Mosul like ticks on a hound and it's going to cost thousands of lives to get them out of there!  Obama and Clinton were naive ideologues when it came to Middle East policy.  They managed to fuck up everything they touched.


----------



## irosie91

Oldstyle said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle, post: 11265254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> . How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Iraq could not do in 2014 it is doing now. The U.S. Did not abandon Iraq it respected Iraq's sovereignty. When Iraq requested air strikes and trainers they needed to get rid of Maliki so when they did that the U.S. responded by leading a coalition that has been driving ISIS out if Iraq ever since.
> 
> The Iraqis are now able to hold the territory they liberate.
> 
> American soldiers were not needed to die in this operation. That can only be why you are so negative about the U.S. led coalition to kill, capture, and terminate the ISIS existence on Iraq soil.
> 
> Iraq was not abandoned. They needed to learn to fight for themselves. Americans could not protect the entire country as they did when Bush ran the war. And lots of Americans were dying under Bush while Iraqis say out the war.
> 
> Do you want that back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq was totally abandoned!  The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Barry that a premature withdrawal of combat troops would create a power vacuum that terrorist groups would exploit.  He chose to ignore their advice.  Then when ISIS was rolling tanks and troops across open desert to attack major Iraqi cities, Barry sat on his hands because he wanted to keep on saying that he'd "ended" the war in Iraq.  Now ISIS is dug into Mosul like ticks on a hound and it's going to cost thousands of lives to get them out of there!  Obama and Clinton were naive ideologues when it came to Middle East policy.  They managed to fuck up everything they touched.
Click to expand...


right----they did not understand the vile stench of islam----so they left----they left the vile stench of islam to the vile stench of islam


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 14925053 





Oldstyle said:


> Now ISIS is dug into Mosul like ticks on a hound and it's going to cost thousands of lives to get them out of there!




Why are they dug into Mosul? Why are their leaders shaving their beards and trying escape from Mosul?

Why did your candidate Trump tell you that Bush lied us into invading Iraq. Bush made a huge mistake. Should have left Saddam there? Why Oldstyle? Since your own nominee put the blame on Bush, how can you blame Obama for the turmoil there. Bush lied us into invading Iraq and then Bush set the date in December 2008 for all US troops to be out of Iraq cities five months after Obama's inauguration. Bush let the terrorists take control of Iraq's Sunni dominated cities. Bush tied Obama's hands with the 2008 SOFA.

No 2003 invasion - no ISIS created in Iraq formed to kill Americans and fight the Shiite dominated government that Bush's invasion created and left unprepared to defend itself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

rosie91, post: 14925124 





irosie91 said:


> right----they did not understand the vile stench of islam----so they left----they left the vile stench of islam to the vile stench of islam



If you think Iraq is full of the vile stench of Islam why do you applaud Oldstyle's wish that Obama had sent more American's to die defending the vile stench of Islam. 

You actually agree with Obama not Oldstyle.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> Then when ISIS was rolling tanks and troops across open desert to attack major Iraqi cities, Barry sat on his hands because he wanted to keep on saying that he'd "ended" the war in Iraq.



You fool. Obama did end Bush's war to find WMD IN Iraq. He ended it on Bush's deadlines. 

The war to find Saddam's WMD that the UN inspectors were not finding was over on the dates Bush agreed to with Maliki in December 2008. That was Bush's final act on what Trump calls a disaster blamed on Bush. That is what ended that war. The war against ISIS is a new war and new military operation. This time it's being fought with brains and American air superiority. No more Bush stupidity. 

No invasion in 2003 - No ISIS forming in 2004.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 14925053
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ISIS is dug into Mosul like ticks on a hound and it's going to cost thousands of lives to get them out of there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they dug into Mosul? Why are their leaders shaving their beards and trying escape from Mosul?
> 
> Why did your candidate Trump tell you that Bush lied us into invading Iraq. Bush made a huge mistake. Should have left Saddam there? Why Oldstyle? Since your own nominee put the blame on Bush, how can you blame Obama for the turmoil there. Bush lied us into invading Iraq and then Bush set the date in December 2008 for all US troops to be out of Iraq cities five months after Obama's inauguration. Bush let the terrorists take control of Iraq's Sunni dominated cities. Bush tied Obama's hands with the 2008 SOFA.
> 
> No 2003 invasion - no ISIS created in Iraq formed to kill Americans and fight the Shiite dominated government that Bush's invasion created and left unprepared to defend itself.
Click to expand...


How did Bush tie Obama's hands?  Barry didn't WANT a new Status of Forces Agreement!  He never even tried getting one.  That was his excuse for leaving Iraq even though his military leaders were warning him of what might happen if he pulled out too soon.


----------



## Oldstyle

What's pathetic is that he used the expiring Status of Forces as his excuse to get out of Iraq and then turned around and blamed Bush for what happened in Iraq after pulling out combat troops prematurely.  Obama patted himself on the back, touting his "accomplishment" of ending the war right up until it became obvious that what he'd done was a total failure of policy and then he pointed fingers at Bush when ISIS turned out to be more than "the JV team"!


----------



## Oldstyle

Now Obama is criticizing Trump for not being qualified to be President?  Seriously?  Obama was the least qualified "leader" we've had in a long time.  A Junior Senator with zero Executive experience, no legislative expertise and no knowledge of economics or business says The Donald isn't qualified?  That's rich...


----------



## Oldstyle

irosie91 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq has to learn to stand on it own some day....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> abandoning Iraq got the USA out of Iraq
Click to expand...


I hate to break this to you, Rosie but we're right back IN Iraq!


----------



## irosie91

Oldstyle said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq has to learn to stand on it own some day....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> abandoning Iraq got the USA out of Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Rosie but we're right back IN Iraq!
Click to expand...


I am aware----but Obamoid did claim that we were getting out---I was glad----we never should have gotten in----we should have sent a bullet into the head of saddam in  -----<ARE YOU READY?????>    1964


----------



## Moonglow

Oldstyle said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq has to learn to stand on it own some day....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did abandoning it to ISIS work out, Moon?  Telling nations they need to stand on their own might sound good in an abstract way but the practical results SUCK!
Click to expand...

Iraq had the frickin' largest army in the area, all provided free of charge, how did we know they would throw down their arms and run like cowards?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> How did Bush tie Obama's hands?



Bush agreed in the SOFA to remove all US troops from Iraq cities like Fallujah and Mosul by July 2009. That tied Obama's hands because Sunni cities became hotbeds for Sunni resistance to the Shiite, Iran friendly Iraq government and U.S. Troops were could not go in. Bush also agreed in the SOFA that either side could terminate the SOFA at any time this forcing US troops to leave Iraq immediately. So if Obama violated the No troops in cities agreement - a rapid withdrawal could be demand by Iraq. 

Bush also agreed in the SOFA that all US military offensive military operations had to be approved by the Iraqi government. 

Bush handcuffed his successor in Iraq. 

Why didn't Bush get a ten year deal on USA preferred terms?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 14928403 





Oldstyle said:


> I hate to break this to you, Rosie but we're right back IN Iraq!



Yes we were in Iraq on Bush's orders to force UN inspectors out and start a massive air and ground invasion to find hidden massive stockpiles of WMD. Bush's mistaken and disastrous WMD war,  as Trump now calls it, was over in 2013. 4000 plus U.S. Troops died, ten times that were wounded in Bush's WMD war.

Now our troops are in Iraq and flying over Iraq to assist a US led global coalition in the war against ISIS. One US warrior has given his life in the mission.

Do you oppose the current war against ISIS in Iraq?


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Bush tie Obama's hands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush agreed in the SOFA to remove all US troops from Iraq cities like Fallujah and Mosul by July 2009. That tied Obama's hands because Sunni cities became hotbeds for Sunni resistance to the Shiite, Iran friendly Iraq government and U.S. Troops were could not go in. Bush also agreed in the SOFA that either side could terminate the SOFA at any time this forcing US troops to leave Iraq immediately. So if Obama violated the No troops in cities agreement - a rapid withdrawal could be demand by Iraq.
> 
> Bush also agreed in the SOFA that all US military offensive military operations had to be approved by the Iraqi government.
> 
> Bush handcuffed his successor in Iraq.
> 
> Why didn't Bush get a ten year deal on USA preferred terms?
Click to expand...


Every President is responsible for making their own deals depending on what's taking place during their time in office.  When Bush signed his agreement with Iraq it was done with the goal of getting US troops out of Iraq at a future date that seemed achievable.  So Bush leaves office and in comes Obama.  At that point HE is responsible for policy and HE is responsible for adapting to changing situations.  Obama's Joint Chief's recommend a slower withdrawal from Iraq then initially anticipated when Bush signed the original SOFA...fearing too quick an exit would create a power vacuum that might be exploited by extremists.  Obama doesn't want to hear that however because he's going to be running for reelection on a "I'm the guy who got us out of Iraq" narrative!  He want's nothing to do with an extension of US combat troops in Iraq and he's in no way interested in negotiating a new SOFA because he has no intention of keeping troops in Iraq.  The expiration of the existing SOFA is one more excuse to leave.  

The leadership in Iraq at that point does not want US troops to leave but they can't request a new SOFA that would keep US troops in country because they know Obama won't let that happen.  So out we go...and in comes ISIS.  Millions of people are killed or have to flee for their lives causing a massive refugee problem in Europe and ISIS becomes a well funded terror "magnet" attracting radical Islamist's from around the globe.

I'm sorry, Notfooled...but that failure of policy isn't on Bush...that failure of policy falls squarely on the shoulders of one Barack Obama!


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 14928403
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Rosie but we're right back IN Iraq!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we were in Iraq on Bush's orders to force UN inspectors out and start a massive air and ground invasion to find hidden massive stockpiles of WMD. Bush's mistaken and disastrous WMD war,  as Trump now calls it, was over in 2013. 4000 plus U.S. Troops died, ten times that were wounded in Bush's WMD war.
> 
> Now our troops are in Iraq and flying over Iraq to assist a US led global coalition in the war against ISIS. One US warrior has given his life in the mission.
> 
> Do you oppose the current war against ISIS in Iraq?
Click to expand...


I don't oppose military action against ISIS anywhere.  What bothers me is the naive policy decisions that were made by this Administration that made ISIS a problem not just in Syria but throughout the world.  We allowed ISIS to become a power player and now we're going to have to work twice as hard to get rid of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15100545





Oldstyle said:


> What bothers me is the naive policy decisions that were made by this Administration that made ISIS a problem not just in Syria but throughout the world



What policy decisions would those be? Be specific.

I know about Bush's policy decision to convert Iraq from Sunni to Shiite control in 2003, which contributed to the rise of AQI and ISIS and the Sunni insurgency against the Bush planted Iranian influence in Baghdad.

What else do you have?


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 15100545
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What bothers me is the naive policy decisions that were made by this Administration that made ISIS a problem not just in Syria but throughout the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What policy decisions would those be? Be specific.
> 
> I know about Bush's policy decision to convert Iraq from Sunni to Shiite control in 2003, which contributed to the rise of AQI and ISIS and the Sunni insurgency against the Bush planted Iranian influence in Baghdad.
> 
> What else do you have?
Click to expand...


Bush attempted to convert Iraq from a dictatorship run by the Baathist Party to Democratic rule.  Al Queda existed before we even went to war with Iraq.  ISIS grew out of the Syrian conflict...which Bush had nothing to do with but Obama and Clinton made much worse with their "Red Line in the Sand" declaration and then subsequent "Oh, you thought I was serious about that? diplomacy.  I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about when you claim there was a "Bush planted Iranian influence in Baghdad".  Iran and ISIS moved into the power vacuum left behind when Obama went against the recommendations of his military leaders and pulled out American combat troops.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15106352





Oldstyle said:


> Bush attempted to convert Iraq from a dictatorship run by the Baathist Party to Democratic rule.




As Trump tells you, Bush lied us into a quagmire war in Iraq. He really lied to you and you are a sucker if you believe Bush invaded Iraq to create Demicratic rule. He invaded to find large stockpiles of WMD. 

Would you support getting 4864 dead US soldiers to create Democracy in a Muslim country. 

There was no Al Qaeada in Iraq prior to Bush's idiotic invasion and incompetent occupation. That is the point. Saddam and Baathist Sunnis in Iraq would never have allowed AQ operate in Iraq. 

The invasion and subsequent political vacumn allowed AQ to come in. ISIS formed there in 2004 as part of AQ. 

Bush did not defeat them. They moved to Syria an during the Bush surrender SOFA negotiations in December 2008, Bush gave AQI a public date for the withdrawal of all U.S. Troops, starting with cities within the first six months of Obama's term. 

Now you probably will vote for Trump who says Bush lied us into the whole mess we currently now have seen the past two years. 

But our side is defeating ISIS without US bloodshed. Yet you cannot compliment our current president who is getting it done using the men doing the fighting and dying that live there. 

ISIS will be driven out of Iraq by years end and Iraqis will keep them out. Unlike Bush, Obama has put the onus of defending themselves on them. 

Your heroes are losing their caliphate under Obama. 

Your heroes laid in waiting once Bush announced the date for complete withdrawal. 

ISIS is completely on the Bush legacy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15106352 





Oldstyle said:


> Al Queda existed before we even went to war with Iraq.



Of course they did. But they were not in Iraq until after the invasion. AQI was the terror seed that split off from AQ. AQI become ISIS. That ISIS evolved in Iraq not Syria. Bush had every thing to do with it. No invasion in 2003 - no ISIS in Iraq, ever. Baathists were too secular to put up with the threat that AQ and an ISIS could have imposed on Saddam's regime.

If you don't believe me perhaps you'll believe your Republican nominee:

*“Maybe don’t go into Iraq originally. We should have never, ever gone in,” Trump, who supported invading Iraq, said at a February town hall in Bluffton, S.C. “But we did. So we made a mistake. The country made a big mistake, and started all of this horrible thing that you see taking place, including ISIS.”*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15106352 





Oldstyle said:


> ISIS grew out of the Syrian conflict...which Bush had nothing to do with but Obama and Clinton made much worse with their "Red Line in the Sand" declaration and then subsequent "Oh, you thought I was serious about that?



What was the Red Line in reference to? The redline had nothing to do with stopping ISIS. It had nothing to do with ISIS at all.

ISIS grew out of the invasion of Iraq. All Saddam's Iraqi military officers that Bush didn't capture became leaders of ISIS. They were not Syrian. Baghdadi, ISIS's supreme leader is Iraqi.

Don't you read anything of a factual and historical nature?


----------



## Oldstyle

I'm actually a history major.  I read things of a historical nature quite often actually.

If you knew the history of ISIS you'd know that before 2009 it was an organization dominated not by Iraqis but by extremists from Jordan and Egypt.  It wasn't until Barack Obama was in office and announcing the time table for his pull out of American combat troops that ISIS began to concentrate on filling that power vacuum in Iraq.  The truth is...when George W. Bush was leaving office ISIS was in serious decline...not growing at all.


----------



## Oldstyle

The Red Line was in reference to Assad using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition.  Obama threatened a US military response if Assad crossed that "Red Line" but when it was shown that Assad had indeed gassed Syrian's who opposed him, Obama walked that threat back...proving to our enemies that he doesn't have the stomach for a "boots on the ground" conflict and would let them do things like cross hundreds of miles of open desert with large numbers of armored vehicles and troops without a military response.  Obama's weakness emboldened ISIS and led to the fall of major cities in Iraq as well as major oil fields.  It's what put ISIS on the map as a terror power.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15109204 





Oldstyle said:


> It wasn't until Barack Obama was in office and announcing the time table for his pull out of American combat troops that ISIS began to concentrate on filling that power vacuum in Iraq.



Bush beat Obama to announcing a time table for withdrawal. Bush set the timetable in stone with the SOFA when he surrendered to Maliki and Muqtada Al Sadr in December 2002. Iraq became a sovereign nation while Bush was in office. Obama could never undo that sovereignty. All US SOFA's require immunity for US military personnel from the courts and laws within the country in which they serve. Bush signed a deal with sovereign Iraq promising to have US troops out of cities in six months and completely gone in three years.

I can't believe you ever read the historical documents related to Iraq, so here are some pertinent parts:

*U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 2008*

*Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq
On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization
of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq

Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:

All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.
The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.
The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present.
*
The Iraqis never intended to extend the immunity provided in the three year agreement that Bush signed his last full month in office. It was Bush's failure to negotiate at least a ten year deal with immunity that made the three year deal a fixed hard date that Sunni terrorists and Saddam's former military officers and fighters knew they could operate freely in Iraq's Sunni cities within five months of Obama's inauguration. 

That's on Bush. Obama had no means to force sovereign Iraq to grant immunity to US Troops in 2012 and beyond. Bush locked Iraq's sovereign right to enforce Iraq's legal and political will on US Troops. 

Bush's flimsy three year wimp out deal sealed Iraq's fate as Maliki used those three years to disenfranchise Sunnis and set up a crony ghost Shiite army that couldn't fight ISIS until Obama got them to fight their own fight the past 18 months.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15109254





Oldstyle said:


> The Red Line was in reference to Assad using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition. Obama threatened a US military response if Assad crossed that "Red Line" but when it was shown that Assad had indeed gassed Syrian's who opposed him, Obama walked that threat back...proving to our enemies that he doesn't have the stomach for a "boots on the ground" conflict and would let them do things like cross hundreds of miles of open desert with large numbers of armored vehicles and troops without a military response.



You stated that Obama let *them* do things like cross hundreds of miles of open desert with large numbers of armored vehicles and troops without a military response. 

Who is *them*? Be specific.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 15109254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Red Line was in reference to Assad using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition. Obama threatened a US military response if Assad crossed that "Red Line" but when it was shown that Assad had indeed gassed Syrian's who opposed him, Obama walked that threat back...proving to our enemies that he doesn't have the stomach for a "boots on the ground" conflict and would let them do things like cross hundreds of miles of open desert with large numbers of armored vehicles and troops without a military response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that Obama let *them* do things like cross hundreds of miles of open desert with large numbers of armored vehicles and troops without a military response.
> 
> Who is *them*? Be specific.
Click to expand...


That would be ISIS moving troops, artillery and armor across open desert between Syria and the cities they were attacking in Iraq.  You know...the JV team?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15109254





Oldstyle said:


> The Red Line was in reference to Assad using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition. Obama threatened a US military response if Assad crossed that "Red Line" but when it was shown that Assad had indeed gassed Syrian's who opposed him, Obama walked that threat back....



Obama walked nothing back. He wanted Cingress to do its job and authorize the use of military force in Syria. During the debate in Congress a diplomatic breakthrough occurred wherein Assad and Putin agreed to destroy and get rid if it's Chem/Bio weapons arsenal in a very short period of time. 

Obama achieved his redline threat through diplomacy without US boots on ground. 

If only Bush had allowed the UN inspectors resolve Iraq's WMD non-existent threat in March 2003 there would never have been an AQI and eventual ISIS. Just ask Trump.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 15109204
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't until Barack Obama was in office and announcing the time table for his pull out of American combat troops that ISIS began to concentrate on filling that power vacuum in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush beat Obama to announcing a time table for withdrawal. Bush set the timetable in stone with the SOFA when he surrendered to Maliki and Muqtada Al Sadr in December 2002. Iraq became a sovereign nation while Bush was in office. Obama could never undo that sovereignty. All US SOFA's require immunity for US military personnel from the courts and laws within the country in which they serve. Bush signed a deal with sovereign Iraq promising to have US troops out of cities in six months and completely gone in three years.
> 
> I can't believe you ever read the historical documents related to Iraq, so here are some pertinent parts:
> 
> *U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 2008*
> 
> *Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq
> On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization
> of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq
> 
> Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
> 
> All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
> 
> United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.
> 
> The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.
> 
> The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present.
> *
> The Iraqis never intended to extend the immunity provided in the three year agreement that Bush signed his last full month in office. It was Bush's failure to negotiate at least a ten year deal with immunity that made the three year deal a fixed hard date that Sunni terrorists and Saddam's former military officers and fighters knew they could operate freely in Iraq's Sunni cities within five months of Obama's inauguration.
> 
> That's on Bush. Obama had no means to force sovereign Iraq to grant immunity to US Troops in 2012 and beyond. Bush locked Iraq's sovereign right to enforce Iraq's legal and political will on US Troops.
> 
> Bush's flimsy three year wimp out deal sealed Iraq's fate as Maliki used those three years to disenfranchise Sunnis and set up a crony ghost Shiite army that couldn't fight ISIS until Obama got them to fight their own fight the past 18 months.
Click to expand...


You continue to act as if Barack Obama's hands were tied when it came to getting a new Status of Forces Agreement, NotFooled and the truth is...he never even tried!

Obama apologists like yourself attempt to use the expiring SOFA agreement Bush had in place as the reason troops HAD to be pulled out of Iraq!  If we'd had a President who wanted them to stay then the deal would have gotten done.  Maliki didn't want the US out.  He had a good idea what was probably coming.  Obama got the Iraqis to fight the past 18 months?  Really?  How?  By sending back combat troops?  Gee, if he'd simply followed the recommendations of his military leaders ISIS wouldn't have gotten the foothold they did in major Iraqi cities and millions of Iraqis wouldn't have had to flee for their lives.  Failed policy that cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 15109254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Red Line was in reference to Assad using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition. Obama threatened a US military response if Assad crossed that "Red Line" but when it was shown that Assad had indeed gassed Syrian's who opposed him, Obama walked that threat back....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama walked nothing back. He wanted Cingress to do its job and authorize the use of military force in Syria. During the debate in Congress a diplomatic breakthrough occurred wherein Assad and Putin agreed to destroy and get rid if it's Chem/Bio weapons arsenal in a very short period of time.
> 
> Obama achieved his redline threat through diplomacy without US boots on ground.
> 
> If only Bush had allowed the UN inspectors resolve Iraq's WMD non-existent threat in March 2003 there would never have been an AQI and eventual ISIS. Just ask Trump.
Click to expand...


So after being told he faced military action if he used chemical weapons...Assad did so...got zero response from Obama...then promised to get rid of his chemical weapons...and you see that as Obama "achieving" his red line threat?  That's Assad and Putin playing Barack Obama like the spineless, putz he is!  The two of them were most likely laughing their asses off at how naive Kerry and Obama are.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 15109254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Red Line was in reference to Assad using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition. Obama threatened a US military response if Assad crossed that "Red Line" but when it was shown that Assad had indeed gassed Syrian's who opposed him, Obama walked that threat back....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama walked nothing back. He wanted Cingress to do its job and authorize the use of military force in Syria. During the debate in Congress a diplomatic breakthrough occurred wherein Assad and Putin agreed to destroy and get rid if it's Chem/Bio weapons arsenal in a very short period of time.
> 
> Obama achieved his redline threat through diplomacy without US boots on ground.
> 
> If only Bush had allowed the UN inspectors resolve Iraq's WMD non-existent threat in March 2003 there would never have been an AQI and eventual ISIS. Just ask Trump.
Click to expand...


Ah yes...let the UN handle Saddam Hussein!  Would that be the same UN who's Secretary General's son was brokering black market oil deals for Iraq?  You're as naive as Barry and the rest!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ISIL convoys of *pickup trucks*, each truck carrying four fighters, entered Mosul by shooting at the city's checkpoints.


Oldstyle, post: 15109919 





Oldstyle said:


> That would be ISIS moving troops, artillery and armor across open desert between Syria and the cities they were attacking in Iraq. You know...the JV team?



Two things:

One. ISIS did not cross Obama's red-line. That was ASSAD.  So you lied.

Two: ISIS did not invade Iraq by ISIS moving troops, artillery and armor across open desert between Syria and the cities they were attacking in Iraq as you said.

Convoys of pickup trucks were already in Iraq. Blending in with other civilian trucks.




> .
> On 4 June, Iraqi police, under the command of Lieutenant General Mahdi Gharawi, cornered ISIL military leader Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawiin Iraq. Al-Bilawi blew himself up and Gharawi hoped it would prevent an attack.[19] At 02:30 in morning, ISIL convoys of pickup trucks, each truck carrying four fighters, entered Mosul by shooting at the city's checkpoints. Though Mosul's first line of defense was thought to contain 2,500 soldiers, Gharawi says that "reality was closer to 500". He noted that since all of the city's tanks were being used by Iraqi forces in the Anbar province, the city was left with little to combat the ISIL fighters. The insurgents hanged, burned, and crucified some Iraqi soldiers during their attack.[19] ISIL commander Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi was killed near Mosul that day.[20] On 5 June, a curfew was imposed in the city.[21] The government used helicopters to bomb the militants. In the southern part of the city, five suicide bombers blasted an arsenal.[22] ISIL began their attack on the northwestern part of the city on 6 June. The ISIL forces in the city totaled 1,500 soldiers, outnumbered by Iraqi forces by 15 to 1.[23] Two suicide bomber cars exploded, in Muwaffakiya, a village near Mosul, killing six Sabak soldiers. After the attacks, most of the fighters either retreated into the desert or camouflaged among the local population.[22]
> 
> On 8 June, the group launched a double bomb attack against a Patriotic Union of Kurdistanparty office in Jalula, in which eighteen people died.[24] That day, about a hundred vehicles entered Mosul, carrying at least four hundred men. Sleeper cells hidden within the city were then activated and according to police, "neighbourhoods rallied to them".[19] The group also bombed a police station in the neighborhood of al-Uraybi, and commandeered an abandoned building on the west of Tigris river, transforming it into a headquarters for a group of thirty SWAT members.[19]
> 
> On 9 June, ISIL executed fifteen Iraqi security force members who were captured in Tikrit.[25]According to CBS News, ISIL fighters armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades stormed the Nineveh provincial headquarters that same day.[26] By that time, the Fourth Battalion were among the very last local police fighting the attackers, the rest of the defense forces having run away or joined the opposition. Lacking plans and ammunition, Gharawi ordered the Iraqi military to retreat on the advice of retired general Khaled al-Obeidi.[19] On that same night, ISIL and Sunni militants attacked Mosul, causing heavy fighting overnight. Iraqi Army soldiers fled the city while it was under attack, allowing the militants to control much of Mosul by midday on 10 June.[16] The militants seized numerous facilities, including Mosul International Airport, which had served as a hub for the U.S. military in the region.[27] Militants captured the helicopters present at the airport, in addition to "several villages" and a military airbase in south Saladin Province.[26] The Iraqi army "crumbled in the face of the militant assault", which is evidenced by the fact that soldiers abandoned their weapons and dressed as civilians to blend in with the noncombatants.[28]
> 
> The city fell to the ISIL on 10 June 2014 after four days of clashes between the insurgents and the Iraqi military. There were reports that the group was advancing from Mosul to Kirkukat the time. While capturing the city, the group freed nearly 1,000 prisoners, some of whom were greeted by the fighters.[9] Black flags were also flown over government buildings.[5]



Fall of Mosul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's called reading history and being accurate in what you say about it. You need to try accuracy sometime.

Your attack against Obama doesn't work without your tanks and artillery embellishment. 

Is there any source you can provide that confirms your claim about the open desert heavy armored attack on Mosul on June  4 2014?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15109989 





Oldstyle said:


> Ah yes...let the UN handle Saddam Hussein! Would that be the same UN who's Secretary General's son was brokering black market oil deals for Iraq? You're as naive as Barry and the rest!



So you prefer getting 4484 U.S. Troops killed looking for WMDs that did not exist in Iraq over nobody killing anybody going the diplomatic route that was succeeding in Iraq prior to Bush's ignorant decision to find WMD military force. You prefer the creation of ISIS the diplomatic peaceful UN inspection route.

Check!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15109254 





Oldstyle said:


> Obama's weakness emboldened ISIS and led to the fall of major cities in Iraq as well as major oil fields. It's what put ISIS on the map as a terror power.



How about 20,000 Iraq Army and police running away from a 1000 ISIS fighters in Mosul. Obama had no options in that battle. When you lie that credits ISIS's rise in Iraq to weakness on Obama's part you are aiding and abetting the terrorists. You disregard Maliki's corruption and anti-Sunni policy also aids ISIS by finding a false cause of the rise of ISIS. 

Check!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle, post: 15109919 





Oldstyle said:


> That would be ISIS moving troops, artillery and armor across open desert between Syria and the cities they were attacking in Iraq.  You know...the JV team?




You've heard the truth long ago: 



NotfooledbyW said:


> "Oldstyle 13126386
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's total bullshit on your part...ISIS crossed hundreds of miles of open desert with large numbers of fighters in trucks along with tanks and artillery pieces BEFORE they were able to "embed" themselves in Iraqi cities where it's proving extremely difficult to use air power to dislodge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that Mosul is about 150 miles from  the Syrian border. Raqqa is over 300 miles southwest of Mosul as the crow flies. It says here that Mosul was attacked from the west and  northwest using *only* pickup trucks. Perhaps a couple hundred pickup trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Fall of Mosul  *On 6 June, ISIL attacked Mosul from the northwest and quickly entered the western part of the city. The ISIL forces numbered approximately 1,500, while there were at least 15 times more Iraqi forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sunni sympathizers live in the west side of the city.
> 
> A couple hundred pickup trucks could blend with traffic from many areas and assemble just a few miles from the first Mosul checkpoint. That would keep the element of surprise in the terrorists favor. I doubt they all came at one time. Only two guards were at each checkpoint.
> 
> So it is clear Oldstyle that the attackers did not attack across hundreds of miles of open desert from Syria with tanks and artillery pieces. They massed in convoys of pickup truck on Iraqi highways and came through checkpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assault started at 02:30 in the morning when ISIL convoys of pickup trucks advancing from the west shot their way through the two-man checkpoints into the city. By 03:30, street fighting was raging in Mosul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us Oldstyle how US bombing could have been ordered to stop street fighting as the assault began.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In southern Mosul, five suicide bombers attacked an arms depot killing 11 soldiers. Two suicide bombers also killed six people in the village of Muaffakiya, near Mosul. Heavy fighting continued in the city the next day. Over the two days, 61 militants, 41 government troops and seven civilians were killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't have the tanks and artillery that you claimed they brought across the desert from Syria. Do you realize that you've been lying all this time yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the militants advanced they seized military vehicles and weapons and reportedly hanged soldiers and lit them ablaze, crucified them, and torched them on the hoods of Humvees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see they seized them after they were advancing across Mosul.
> 
> 
> June 8, 2014* sleeper cells inside Mosul are activated: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By this time, insurgents surged into Mosul, *sleeper cells hiding in the city had been activated and neighbourhoods rallied to them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some police joined the terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the afternoon of 9 June, some 40 members of the fourth police battalion were among the very last local police fighting to hold back the jihadists in western Mosul. The rest had either *defected* or deserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't need tanks they used s water truck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 04:30 in the afternoon, a military water tanker, rigged with explosives, raced towards the Mosul Hotel where the policemen were stationed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They released more terrorist scum recruits from Mosul prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militants also claimed to had released at least 2,400 prisoners, after seizing police stations and prisons across the city.[99][100] However, after the takeover of Badush prison in Mosul, ISIL separated and removed the Sunni inmates, while the remaining 670 prisoners were executed.[101]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In four days it was over:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of 10 June, ISIL was considered to be in control of Mosul.ISIL seized large quantities of US-supplied military equipment. It also freed thousands of prisoners, many of whom are likely to join the insurgency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot could believe US military action could have prevented this or lie about how the fall of Mosul happened.
> 
> *months preceding the attack:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sources within the Iraq government allege that in the months preceding the assault, Ba'ath loyalists led by al-Douri had been in contact with disaffected Sunni officers who either defected or withdrew upon the ISIL-Ba'ath attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does Obama know which Iraqi officers to bomb or assassinate if he could do such a thing?
> 
> Are you aware of your lies yet Oldstyle?
> 
> Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> ISIL convoys of *pickup trucks*, each truck carrying four fighters, entered Mosul by shooting at the city's checkpoints.
> 
> 
> Oldstyle, post: 15109919
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be ISIS moving troops, artillery and armor across open desert between Syria and the cities they were attacking in Iraq. You know...the JV team?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things:
> 
> One. ISIS did not cross Obama's red-line. That was ASSAD.  So you lied.
> 
> Two: ISIS did not invade Iraq by ISIS moving troops, artillery and armor across open desert between Syria and the cities they were attacking in Iraq as you said.
> 
> Convoys of pickup trucks were already in Iraq. Blending in with other civilian trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> On 4 June, Iraqi police, under the command of Lieutenant General Mahdi Gharawi, cornered ISIL military leader Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawiin Iraq. Al-Bilawi blew himself up and Gharawi hoped it would prevent an attack.[19] At 02:30 in morning, ISIL convoys of pickup trucks, each truck carrying four fighters, entered Mosul by shooting at the city's checkpoints. Though Mosul's first line of defense was thought to contain 2,500 soldiers, Gharawi says that "reality was closer to 500". He noted that since all of the city's tanks were being used by Iraqi forces in the Anbar province, the city was left with little to combat the ISIL fighters. The insurgents hanged, burned, and crucified some Iraqi soldiers during their attack.[19] ISIL commander Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi was killed near Mosul that day.[20] On 5 June, a curfew was imposed in the city.[21] The government used helicopters to bomb the militants. In the southern part of the city, five suicide bombers blasted an arsenal.[22] ISIL began their attack on the northwestern part of the city on 6 June. The ISIL forces in the city totaled 1,500 soldiers, outnumbered by Iraqi forces by 15 to 1.[23] Two suicide bomber cars exploded, in Muwaffakiya, a village near Mosul, killing six Sabak soldiers. After the attacks, most of the fighters either retreated into the desert or camouflaged among the local population.[22]
> 
> On 8 June, the group launched a double bomb attack against a Patriotic Union of Kurdistanparty office in Jalula, in which eighteen people died.[24] That day, about a hundred vehicles entered Mosul, carrying at least four hundred men. Sleeper cells hidden within the city were then activated and according to police, "neighbourhoods rallied to them".[19] The group also bombed a police station in the neighborhood of al-Uraybi, and commandeered an abandoned building on the west of Tigris river, transforming it into a headquarters for a group of thirty SWAT members.[19]
> 
> On 9 June, ISIL executed fifteen Iraqi security force members who were captured in Tikrit.[25]According to CBS News, ISIL fighters armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades stormed the Nineveh provincial headquarters that same day.[26] By that time, the Fourth Battalion were among the very last local police fighting the attackers, the rest of the defense forces having run away or joined the opposition. Lacking plans and ammunition, Gharawi ordered the Iraqi military to retreat on the advice of retired general Khaled al-Obeidi.[19] On that same night, ISIL and Sunni militants attacked Mosul, causing heavy fighting overnight. Iraqi Army soldiers fled the city while it was under attack, allowing the militants to control much of Mosul by midday on 10 June.[16] The militants seized numerous facilities, including Mosul International Airport, which had served as a hub for the U.S. military in the region.[27] Militants captured the helicopters present at the airport, in addition to "several villages" and a military airbase in south Saladin Province.[26] The Iraqi army "crumbled in the face of the militant assault", which is evidenced by the fact that soldiers abandoned their weapons and dressed as civilians to blend in with the noncombatants.[28]
> 
> The city fell to the ISIL on 10 June 2014 after four days of clashes between the insurgents and the Iraqi military. There were reports that the group was advancing from Mosul to Kirkukat the time. While capturing the city, the group freed nearly 1,000 prisoners, some of whom were greeted by the fighters.[9] Black flags were also flown over government buildings.[5]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fall of Mosul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's called reading history and being accurate in what you say about it. You need to try accuracy sometime.
> 
> Your attack against Obama doesn't work without your tanks and artillery embellishment.
> 
> Is there any source you can provide that confirms your claim about the open desert heavy armored attack on Mosul on June  4 2014?
Click to expand...


Obama's "Red Line" was with Assad not ISIS.  My point...which obviously went right over your head...was that Obama's inaction when Assad thumbed his nose at the ultimatum given him by the US President emboldened the leaders of ISIS to move fighters across the open desert from Syria into Iraq and then move loot BACK across that same open desert.


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 15109254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's weakness emboldened ISIS and led to the fall of major cities in Iraq as well as major oil fields. It's what put ISIS on the map as a terror power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about 20,000 Iraq Army and police running away from a 1000 ISIS fighters in Mosul. Obama had no options in that battle. When you lie that credits ISIS's rise in Iraq to weakness on Obama's part you are aiding and abetting the terrorists. You disregard Maliki's corruption and anti-Sunni policy also aids ISIS by finding a false cause of the rise of ISIS.
> 
> Check!
Click to expand...


The Iraqi army RAN because they no longer had American support...something that Obama's military advisors warned him was a possibility.  Or do you think that if we had the five thousand combat troops that were recommended be left behind still in Iraq that a force of a thousand poorly trained ISIS fighters would have routed them?  Let's be honest here...if American forces are still in country then there is no way that ISIS mounts a large offensive against them because we would have slaughtered them.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bottom line is that Obama wanted that troop withdrawal because he was going to run on being the guy who stopped military combat for American ground forces in Iraq and that political stump speech was more important to Barry then the advice he was getting from his Generals.

He took political credit for his actions...which means he owns the results!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Oldstyle said:


> The Iraqi army RAN because they no longer had American support...something that Obama's military advisors warned him was a possibility.



Every single US military adviser warned Obama not to keep troops in Iraq without a SOFA granting immunity. Sure they warned all kinds of bad things could happen but Iraq is a sovereign nation and refused to grant immunity in 2012 and beyond.

Would you prefer sending US Troops to Iraq without immunity?


----------



## Oldstyle

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Iraqi army RAN because they no longer had American support...something that Obama's military advisors warned him was a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single US military adviser warned Obama not to keep troops in Iraq without a SOFA granting immunity. Sure they warned all kinds of bad things could happen but Iraq is a sovereign nation and refused to grant immunity in 2012 and beyond.
> 
> Would you prefer sending US Troops to Iraq without immunity?
Click to expand...


Nice attempt at a deflection!  Of course they warned Obama that a new SOFA was needed...just as they warned him that a premature troop pull out would endanger the gains that had been made in Iraq.  Once again...Barack Obama never made an attempt to get a new SOFA because Barack Obama had already made a political decision that he would run for reelection as the President who "got us out of Iraq"!  Obama made that decision...not the Iraqi leadership.  Obama made the call on that and Obama owns the result.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1, post: 9603587





deltex1 said:


> CNN reporting Maliki sending troops to green zone to protect his job. Someone tell the president...he's at Mcd's in Massatwoshits.




This is the kind of ignorant predictors of doom that voted for Trump. 

An implosion of Shiite Run Baghdad was never going to happen?


----------



## deltex1

Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.


----------



## irosie91

NotfooledbyW said:


> Oldstyle, post: 15106352
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al Queda existed before we even went to war with Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. But they were not in Iraq until after the invasion. AQI was the terror seed that split off from AQ. AQI become ISIS. That ISIS evolved in Iraq not Syria. Bush had every thing to do with it. No invasion in 2003 - no ISIS in Iraq, ever. Baathists were too secular to put up with the threat that AQ and an ISIS could have imposed on Saddam's regime.
> 
> If you don't believe me perhaps you'll believe your Republican nominee:
> 
> *“Maybe don’t go into Iraq originally. We should have never, ever gone in,” Trump, who supported invading Iraq, said at a February town hall in Bluffton, S.C. “But we did. So we made a mistake. The country made a big mistake, and started all of this horrible thing that you see taking place, including ISIS.”*
Click to expand...


BS.     Isis is islam         "ISIS"  is nothing new------just a new name for a phenomenon that has repeated itself scores of times in the course of the history  of  ISLAM.--------the same kind of filth even happened in Islamic spain------during the  
"GOLDEN AGE" of Islamic filth.     Playing  FASCIST BAATHISM against  MUHAMMAD"S     ISIS  is about as useful as was playing TALIBAN against Russian occupation of
Afghanistan------similar results


----------



## irosie91

deltex1 said:


> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.



much as I sympathize with the kurds-------the idea of arming them makes me itch


----------



## deltex1

irosie91 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> much as I sympathize with the kurds-------the idea of arming them makes me itch
Click to expand...

If they're on our side...arm them.  Are they any worse than the Shia or Sunni?


----------



## irosie91

deltex1 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> much as I sympathize with the kurds-------the idea of arming them makes me itch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they're on our side...arm them.  Are they any worse than the Shia or Sunni?
Click to expand...


we armed the  MUJAHADEEN from Pakistan in the 1980s---"in order to fight the Russians"-----I remember it well. 
I remember reading ADULATIONS of the MUJAHADEEN in
the popular press-----if my memory serves---even in  NEWSWEEK.      I was not all that delighted.------I have known LOTS of Pakistanis----sunnis from what was then WEST PAKISTAN-------good people but considering the propaganda to which they were subjected since kindergarten about  THE WEST-----I would be reluctant to put a cap-gun
in their hands-------the other factor is their take on ISLAAAM---even the utterly non-religious muttered the canards. ----turns out   (blush)  I was RIGHT-----the mujahadeen of the 1980s are the TALIBAN today-------in the 1980s thru 90s----Pakistanis I knew BOASTED of relatives and school mates
IN THE NOBLE GROUP.     I sympathize with kurds----they have a right to PROTECTION-----but arm them???    sheeeesh------how would that pan out?


----------



## Moonglow

deltex1 said:


> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.


McConnell and McCain cover those bases..


----------



## Moonglow

irosie91 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> much as I sympathize with the kurds-------the idea of arming them makes me itch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they're on our side...arm them.  Are they any worse than the Shia or Sunni?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we armed the  MUJAHADEEN from Pakistan in the 1980s---"in order to fight the Russians"-----I remember it well.
> I remember reading ADULATIONS of the MUJAHADEEN in
> the popular press-----if my memory serves---even in  NEWSWEEK.      I was not all that delighted.------I have known LOTS of Pakistanis----sunnis from what was then WEST PAKISTAN-------good people but considering the propaganda to which they were subjected since kindergarten about  THE WEST-----I would be reluctant to put a cap-gun
> in their hands-------the other factor is their take on ISLAAAM---even the utterly non-religious muttered the canards. ----turns out   (blush)  I was RIGHT-----the mujahadeen of the 1980s are the TALIBAN today-------in the 1980s thru 90s----Pakistanis I knew BOASTED of relatives and school mates
> IN THE NOBLE GROUP.     I sympathize with kurds----they have a right to PROTECTION-----but arm them???    sheeeesh------how would that pan out?
Click to expand...

Rambo made a movie with them....to show solidarity...


----------



## irosie91

Moonglow said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell and McCain cover those bases..
Click to expand...


really?    good?       McCain is OVER THERE?


----------



## irosie91

Moonglow said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> much as I sympathize with the kurds-------the idea of arming them makes me itch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they're on our side...arm them.  Are they any worse than the Shia or Sunni?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we armed the  MUJAHADEEN from Pakistan in the 1980s---"in order to fight the Russians"-----I remember it well.
> I remember reading ADULATIONS of the MUJAHADEEN in
> the popular press-----if my memory serves---even in  NEWSWEEK.      I was not all that delighted.------I have known LOTS of Pakistanis----sunnis from what was then WEST PAKISTAN-------good people but considering the propaganda to which they were subjected since kindergarten about  THE WEST-----I would be reluctant to put a cap-gun
> in their hands-------the other factor is their take on ISLAAAM---even the utterly non-religious muttered the canards. ----turns out   (blush)  I was RIGHT-----the mujahadeen of the 1980s are the TALIBAN today-------in the 1980s thru 90s----Pakistanis I knew BOASTED of relatives and school mates
> IN THE NOBLE GROUP.     I sympathize with kurds----they have a right to PROTECTION-----but arm them???    sheeeesh------how would that pan out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rambo made a movie with them....to show solidarity...
Click to expand...


moonie------are you posting thru your ass?


----------



## Moonglow

irosie91 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months.  Obabble still not arming the Kurds.  Obabble is an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> much as I sympathize with the kurds-------the idea of arming them makes me itch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they're on our side...arm them.  Are they any worse than the Shia or Sunni?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we armed the  MUJAHADEEN from Pakistan in the 1980s---"in order to fight the Russians"-----I remember it well.
> I remember reading ADULATIONS of the MUJAHADEEN in
> the popular press-----if my memory serves---even in  NEWSWEEK.      I was not all that delighted.------I have known LOTS of Pakistanis----sunnis from what was then WEST PAKISTAN-------good people but considering the propaganda to which they were subjected since kindergarten about  THE WEST-----I would be reluctant to put a cap-gun
> in their hands-------the other factor is their take on ISLAAAM---even the utterly non-religious muttered the canards. ----turns out   (blush)  I was RIGHT-----the mujahadeen of the 1980s are the TALIBAN today-------in the 1980s thru 90s----Pakistanis I knew BOASTED of relatives and school mates
> IN THE NOBLE GROUP.     I sympathize with kurds----they have a right to PROTECTION-----but arm them???    sheeeesh------how would that pan out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rambo made a movie with them....to show solidarity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moonie------are you posting thru your ass?
Click to expand...

No time for transcendental meditation, college football is on...


----------



## irosie91

Moonglow said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> much as I sympathize with the kurds-------the idea of arming them makes me itch
> 
> 
> 
> If they're on our side...arm them.  Are they any worse than the Shia or Sunni?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we armed the  MUJAHADEEN from Pakistan in the 1980s---"in order to fight the Russians"-----I remember it well.
> I remember reading ADULATIONS of the MUJAHADEEN in
> the popular press-----if my memory serves---even in  NEWSWEEK.      I was not all that delighted.------I have known LOTS of Pakistanis----sunnis from what was then WEST PAKISTAN-------good people but considering the propaganda to which they were subjected since kindergarten about  THE WEST-----I would be reluctant to put a cap-gun
> in their hands-------the other factor is their take on ISLAAAM---even the utterly non-religious muttered the canards. ----turns out   (blush)  I was RIGHT-----the mujahadeen of the 1980s are the TALIBAN today-------in the 1980s thru 90s----Pakistanis I knew BOASTED of relatives and school mates
> IN THE NOBLE GROUP.     I sympathize with kurds----they have a right to PROTECTION-----but arm them???    sheeeesh------how would that pan out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rambo made a movie with them....to show solidarity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moonie------are you posting thru your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No time for transcendental meditation, college football is on...
Click to expand...


   oh-----THANK VISHNU------so you will not be posting for awhile???


----------



## Moonglow

irosie91 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're on our side...arm them.  Are they any worse than the Shia or Sunni?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we armed the  MUJAHADEEN from Pakistan in the 1980s---"in order to fight the Russians"-----I remember it well.
> I remember reading ADULATIONS of the MUJAHADEEN in
> the popular press-----if my memory serves---even in  NEWSWEEK.      I was not all that delighted.------I have known LOTS of Pakistanis----sunnis from what was then WEST PAKISTAN-------good people but considering the propaganda to which they were subjected since kindergarten about  THE WEST-----I would be reluctant to put a cap-gun
> in their hands-------the other factor is their take on ISLAAAM---even the utterly non-religious muttered the canards. ----turns out   (blush)  I was RIGHT-----the mujahadeen of the 1980s are the TALIBAN today-------in the 1980s thru 90s----Pakistanis I knew BOASTED of relatives and school mates
> IN THE NOBLE GROUP.     I sympathize with kurds----they have a right to PROTECTION-----but arm them???    sheeeesh------how would that pan out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rambo made a movie with them....to show solidarity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moonie------are you posting thru your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No time for transcendental meditation, college football is on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh-----THANK VISHNU------so you will not be posting for awhile???
Click to expand...

Yes, but only out my ass, not through..


----------



## deltex1

Really the only arming I am in favor of is us...to the teeth.


----------



## irosie91

Moonglow said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we armed the  MUJAHADEEN from Pakistan in the 1980s---"in order to fight the Russians"-----I remember it well.
> I remember reading ADULATIONS of the MUJAHADEEN in
> the popular press-----if my memory serves---even in  NEWSWEEK.      I was not all that delighted.------I have known LOTS of Pakistanis----sunnis from what was then WEST PAKISTAN-------good people but considering the propaganda to which they were subjected since kindergarten about  THE WEST-----I would be reluctant to put a cap-gun
> in their hands-------the other factor is their take on ISLAAAM---even the utterly non-religious muttered the canards. ----turns out   (blush)  I was RIGHT-----the mujahadeen of the 1980s are the TALIBAN today-------in the 1980s thru 90s----Pakistanis I knew BOASTED of relatives and school mates
> IN THE NOBLE GROUP.     I sympathize with kurds----they have a right to PROTECTION-----but arm them???    sheeeesh------how would that pan out?
> 
> 
> 
> Rambo made a movie with them....to show solidarity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moonie------are you posting thru your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No time for transcendental meditation, college football is on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh-----THANK VISHNU------so you will not be posting for awhile???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but only out my ass, not through..
Click to expand...


by  THROUGH  I was referring to the structures that GO THROUGH-------the rectum and anus


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> .     Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months. Obabble still not arming the Kurds. Obabble is an asshole.



It is against Iraq's Constitution to arm the Kurds without Bagdad's approval. We know you have no respect for just about the only positive result that over 4000 Americans ended up dying for in what Trump calls a horrible mistake. The Iraqis have an elected government and you hate our president for respecting Iraq's sovereignty. You are a sick American with every word you write. You won't have a good intelligent black man to blame for all your hate filled delusions you hold about the world.

You started this thread that Bagdad was imploding. Now you are calling Obama an asshole because idiot Ollie North tells you the Mosul cleansing will take a couple months. You are an imbecile that reveres imbeciles.


----------



## deltex1

NotfooledbyW said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .     Ollie North reporting from Mosul...predicting it will take months. Obabble still not arming the Kurds. Obabble is an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is against Iraq's Constitution to arm the Kurds without Bagdad's approval. We know you have no respect for just about the only positive result that over 4000 Americans ended up dying for in what Trump calls a horrible mistake. The Iraqis have an elected government and you hate our president for respecting Iraq's sovereignty. You are a sick American with every word you write. You won't have a good intelligent black man to blame for all your hate filled delusions you hold about the world.
> 
> You started this thread that Bagdad was imploding. Now you are calling Obama an asshole because idiot Ollie North tells you the Mosul cleansing will take a couple months. You are an imbecile that reveres imbeciles.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is why I have tolerated your blindness for a dozen years.  It was impossible to negotiate troop protection so Obabble had to withdraw all troops from Iraq...   what do we have now...5000 troops with no protection..  obama is indeed an asshole...has nothing to do with race...an asshole is an asshole.  Including you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> Really the only arming I am in favor of is us...to the teeth.



Arming us to the teeth won't stop lone wolf terrorism or stop suicide attacks by terror groups like ISIS. Best strategy was to get the Iraqis and Syrians and nations in the region to fight ISIS on the ground. That is what happened since the emergence of ISIS. 

You are stuck on stupid.


----------



## deltex1

NotfooledbyW said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really the only arming I am in favor of is us...to the teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arming us to the teeth won't stop lone wolf terrorism or stop suicide attacks by terror groups like ISIS. Best strategy was to get the Iraqis and Syrians and nations in the region to fight ISIS on the ground. That is what happened since the emergence of ISIS.
> 
> You are stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...

Lone wolf attacks didn't kill 500000 Syrians while Obabble was playing with himself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1, post: 15872720b 





deltex1 said:


> Perhaps that is why I have tolerated your blindness for a dozen years. It was impossible to negotiate troop protection so Obabble had to withdraw all troops from Iraq... what do we have now...5000 troops with no protection.. obama is indeed an asshole...has nothing to do with race...an asshole is an asshole. Including you.



They have protection you lying moron. It was not possible to get it before the Isis assault because Bush left in 2008 declaring to the world that Iraqis were ready to defend themselves and all US troops had to be by a date certain.


So you are a liar. Read it and weep.



> .
> The US has reached an agreement with Iraq on privileges and immunities for the growing number of troops based in the country, helping in the fight against the Islamic State (Isis) militant group, the new US ambassador said on Thursday.
> 
> Stuart Jones said prime minister Haider al-Abadi has given assurances that US troops will receive immunity from prosecution. Under Iraq’s former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, the issue was a major sticking point, ultimately leading to the decision to withdraw all remaining US troops in late 2011.
> 
> “That was a different situation and those troops would have had a different role,” Jones said.
> 
> “We have the assurances that we need from the government of Iraq on privileges and immunities,” he said. “It’s in the basis of our formal written communications between our governments and also based on the strategic framework agreement that is the legal basis of our partnership.”



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...roops-in-iraq-will-get-immunity?client=safari


We know you haters feel entitled to lie about a black man who became president. But a lie is a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself,


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1, post: 15872811 





deltex1 said:


> Lone wolf attacks didn't kill 500000 Syrians while Obabble was playing with himself.





No, it was Trump's new partner and Trump's lover. Assad and Putin.

Trump had a congenial chat with Putin and next day Putin bombs Allepo hospital. I guess you like a proactive civilian killers like Trump and Putin.

Then what does mass murderer Assad say?


*Syria's Assad Ready to 'Cooperate' with President Trump - Breitbart*
Breitbart › national-security › 2016/11/11
AMP - Nov 11, 2016 - Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Syrian President Bashar Assad, told NPR the Assad regime was ready to cooperate with President-Elect Donald Trump, although the Syrians want to “wait and see” what his policies look like, “particularly toward terrorism.”.


If you love Trump you love and welcome dead Syrians. You got what you want. More dead Syrians and Assad in power.


----------



## deltex1

Foo is insane.


----------



## HenryBHough

Oh, THAT Baghdad!

Here I thought it meant San Francisco (Baghdad-by-The-Bay) had fallen into a sinkhole.

Wait!  It IS a sinkhole!

Why is it called Baghdad by the Bay?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> Lone wolf attacks didn't kill 500000 Syrians while Obabble was playing with himself.



You don't give a crap about dead Syrians. They are Muslims. You hate Muslins. Your God would carpet bomb them. Is that what arming to the teeth is all about?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1, post: 15872934 





deltex1 said:


> Foo is insane



Now you run away.  Assad lover.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

deltex1 said:


> Foo is insane.



Insane was your vote for Trump who wants Putin and Assad to keep killing civilians and defeat the Western US led coalition against them.

Anti/America is insane.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

This is not Bagdad imploding. 

*33 ISIS militants, 9 soldiers killed as anti-terrorism forces stormed Mosul’s Aden*
by 


Mohamed Mostafa

Deltex can only find anti-American hit piece by Ollie North.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Pence ok with US committing war crimes. 

That's a Nazi similarity that cannot be denied.


*Mike Pence Refuses To Rule Out Torture In A Trump Administration*
*“We’re going to have a president again who will never say what we’ll never do,” Pence said.*


----------



## deltex1

Patience foo....strategic patience...

Rescue workers in Aleppo 'out of body bags' following 'catastrophic day'


----------

