Guess How Many Troops Obama Just Authorized 2B Deployed to Iraq?? Sound Familiar, LOL?

[Antares]

JakeStarkey

When in December Jake?

When should I expect you?

Looks like you caught our liberal nut job.

Yeah, I backed him in a corner. He won't threaten now, Papa.

When in Dec Jake?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

he doesn't lie (knowingly

Did you knowingly lie when you made the argument that Obama was the first US President to require a SOFA to be approved by Iraq's Parliament? Or were you truly unaware of the fact the Bush/Maliki/Sadr SOFA of 2008 had to go through Parliament too. Which was it? A lie or ignorance?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SOFAs are always standing parts of such agreements.

Used to hand of solatia payments in Korea as part of the SOFA when we tore up farmers' lands or damaged the roads.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is a fact that Bush attacked Iraq

It is an opinion that it caused further unrest in the ME.

That is a much more fact-based opinion than the opinion that keeping ten thousand troops in Iraq after 2011 wouid have prevented the IS terrorists from terrorizing portions of Iraq where Sunnis are the majority population.

Petraeus doesn't support that opinion at all. It is a politically contrived opinion and nothing more.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

STTAB 10132290

He hopes that all Americans are as stupid as JakeStarkey is and believe that American's aren't going into combat in Iraq.

Why would anyone think that Americans need to go into combat in Iraq. The IS terrorists have been stopped in Iraq. No US troops in ground combat were required.

 

[deltex1]

STTAB 10132290

He hopes that all Americans are as stupid as JakeStarkey is and believe that American's aren't going into combat in Iraq.

Why would anyone think that Americans need to go into combat in Iraq. The IS terrorists have been stopped in Iraq. No US troops in ground combat were required.

Is that why Obabble was so hesitant to say we are defeating ISIS in Iraq? The CINC does not seem to get the same reports as the Fooster.

 

[deltex1]

It is a fact that Bush attacked Iraq

It is an opinion that it caused further unrest in the ME.

That is a much more fact-based opinion than the opinion that keeping ten thousand troops in Iraq after 2011 wouid have prevented the IS terrorists from terrorizing portions of Iraq where Sunnis are the majority population.

Petraeus doesn't support that opinion at all. It is a politically contrived opinion and nothing more.

Thanks for your opinion Foo.

 

[deltex1]

"The story of why we failed to leave behind a residual force has been well told elsewhere. One of the best sources is the 2013 book "The Endgame" by Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor. This past week, Peter Beinart provided an excellent autopsy in a piece for The Atlantic. Beinart's is the more surprising as he attacks the Obama administration from a liberal vantage point.

Gordon and Trainor report that Obama's top military leadership -- Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others -- wanted to keep a residual force and thought anything less than 16,000 troops would be insufficient. But they ran into resistance on two fronts. The Prime Minister wanted Americans out; al-Maliki had designs of his own for the exercise of power. The Obama White House has long argued that it was al-Maliki who scuppered any deal.

As accounts like those of Gordon and Trainor along with Beinart have shown, however, the White House was always half-hearted about pushing. The President was skeptical of his military advisers and apparently sympathetic to political advisers who wanted to get out of Iraq pronto -- and certainly before the 2012 elections. So, Obama overruled recommendations from his military leaders and presented the Iraqis with a plan for 3,500 continuous troops. Squabbles broke out between both sides and eventually an agreement fell apart."


Opinion Did Obama botch the endgame in Iraq - CNN.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Is that why Obabble was so hesitant to say we are defeating ISIS in Iraq?

What transcript are you citing where Obama was hesitant to say that? What is the date of it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pauli is not making any important point.

Either he wants ISIS ISIL defeated or not.

His hatred of the President and the American system, like bripat, clouds his vision.

It's funny how I disagree with Pauli on one very fundamental BIG issue (Iraq) yet I have 100 times more respect for him than I have for you. He's consistent, he doesn't lie (knowingly), he doesn't flip flop, he has integrity, he has brains, I really enjoy reading his posts.....the list is long........ all the opposite of you.

I'm pretty sure most people think the same.

I'm pretty sure what you think does not reflect reality.

You simply don't have it here to succeed. Tis what is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We cannot keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq because the neo-cons screwed up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 10140557

The Prime Minister wanted Americans out; al-Maliki had designs of his own for the exercise of power

Why do you focus only on selective parts of articles you are citing? You didn't pay any attention to the words that show that Obama was right to push for removal of Maliki through the democratic process.

"Maliki had designs of his own for the exercise of power"

And those "designs" could not be resolved had 16,000 troops been kept in Iraq after 2011, which was a political impossibility anyway, whether Obama was half-hearted or not.

 

[deltex1]

Is that why Obabble was so hesitant to say we are defeating ISIS in Iraq?

What transcript are you citing where Obama was hesitant to say that? What is the date of it?

Posts 272 and 273 of this thread...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Is that why Obabble was so hesitant to say we are defeating ISIS in Iraq?

Another point against your hate-driven analysis is that "we" are not the ones who are going to defeat Daesh on the ground over the next year or two. That is the responsibility of the Iraqis. With that actual correct strategy in mind it is no wonder Obama is not so generous to include American blood in the "we" that will be required to defeat Daesh over the next year or two.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Posts 272 and 273 of this thread...

Do those override this?

"“We cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region,” "

If so why?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 10127852

stick the sofa up yer arse...and the footstool with it.

The Bush/Maliki/Sadr SOFA of 2008 definitely was a Bush failure as we can see Deltex's lizard brain reaction to serious discussion about it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 10127922

There is no combat in Iraq..

Let the cocksuckers in Baghdad foot the bill for our assistance...otherwise nuke the whole goddam place.

Can you explain to EconChick that "our assistance is a non-combat role.

She seems to be rather confused about it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 10127860

ten since W...twenty since 41....

Forty-one knew right from wrong. Its too bad he didn't impart that wisdom to his foolish son. Forty-Three had the chance to verify Iraq was disarmed without killing anyone when Iraqis were not killing each other. Forty-Three chose in 2003 to arouse an internecine killing spree that was never fully abated or resolved prior to the end of his term. And while that remains a significant factor in all this Bush is given a pass for cutting a deal that set the end date for US involvement to come to an end,

Bush could have at least tied Maliki to include Anbar Sunnis in Iraq's future and security forces. But Bush cut and run and now lets his idiot minions try to blame it all on Obama.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

AF 10127952

So he lied again

What was the lie?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10127980

Gee Obama decided to withdraw all troops from Iraq.

No. Bush and Maliki were the two heads of state that decided that ALL US troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. Obama decided at what rate and he kept some there as long as possible.