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

[EconChick]

EC 10142958

ve got about 1000 posts showing you're wrong about all things IRAQ

Why are you hiding them then. Pick your best one where I can be shown to be wrong about one thing Iraq, let alone all things Iraq.

I know I am right that Obama was not the first US President to require the Parliament in Iraq to approve a SOFA. That's because Bush's SOFA in 2008 had that very same requirement and the last time I checked 2008 came before 2011.

Come on cite one of those thousands.

Or keep running.

Look FOO the fool. You and Fakey are 2nd graders that crave attention. That fits perfectly with MY goal of constantly bumping an important headline. Thank you two morons.

Now back to topic. COMBAT TROOPS.

 

[EconChick]

Yup all the result of the 2003 invasion that destabilized the ME.

WMD was there you stupid ass. Even your favorite Socialist rag, the New York Times, was forced to admit it IN WRITING several months ago. MORON. We've been over this a million times, IDIOT.

Not as were described as a cause for war, it was not, by anyone of repute.

EC, you are simply an idiot and a poor liar.

Here...this bears repeating for an even bigger foo than FOO:

"But when the 2016 elections get here, there are so many videotaped statements of the President lying out his teeth or contradicting himself ON ALL THINGS FOREIGN POLICY that if the GOP can't paste together some awesome ads reminding people, they deserve to be trounced."


Hey Fakey, as a Capitalist, I think it's great you add to click count for this Board, but that's the limit of your value.

We all know it. Including you darling.

So by all means, post away, Fakey. We all just chuckle.

Obama isn't running

What are Republicans going to run on in foreign policy? that they have been wrong all the time?

I have to admit that when Obama vowed their would be no US boots on the ground, for once he didn't lie. My 5 year old told me that soldiers were no longer allowed to wear boots and were all issued sneakers. Can anyone else confirm that?

Fakey and Foo can!

They'll tell you there are no boots on the ground too.

 

[EconChick]

Put down the crack pipe Foo...the "internecine killing spree" has existed ever since Mohammad invented Allah..

It did not exist in Iraq in the first months of 2003. The truth is that the US invasion into Iraq aroused an internecine killing spree that did not exist before the Brits and Americans attacked Iraq.


I wrote, "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."

You can't rewrite history Deltex.

Are you still babbling?

Shut up. This thread's about new COMBAT TROOPs in Iraq.

Do you know the difference, FOO????? LOL

You've already been pummeled on the SOFA. This thread's about COMBAT TROOPS in IRaq.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you say you were an E1

And now you were in the AF not the Army

No one backed you up on the SOFA issue. You lose again.

Wow, you were an E1 who was a mover and doer.

I'm also from Mars. My cousins are Klingons. Spock is a distant relative too.

ROLL EYES.


Yo dumbass, I've never said I was in the Army. Always said it was the Air Force. That's your dementia acting up.

Back to the topic. Those are combat troops. PERIOD.

Now STFU old man.

a fool like you, of any age, remains a fool

Those are not the combat units about which you were yammering some time ago.

You should really re-enlist because it is obvious you aren't making it in the civilian world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The SOFA was refused by the Iraqis, which EC lost in that argument.

We have 3100 troops in or about to be in Iraq, not deployed in combat units but as advisers and trainers.

The neo-cons are whining, but the Pres will not open American ground combat on ISIS ISIL.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The list is long. Gates, generals and two ambassadors in addition to Panetta.

The reality that Panetta defended in 2011 overpoweres any list of opinion ions that you can put together.

Here's Panetta's reality:

Panetta in November 2011: This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. ...This is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. This was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we're going to for with them or what they're going to have to do. "

Iraq made the decision in 2011 to stay with the Bush deadline that was agreed to in 2008. That us what Panetta said in 2011. You cannot deny that fact now based on Panetta's switcharoo a few years later.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EC 10145280

Everyone knows they're combat troops...

Yes. But I also know they are currently not serving in a combat role in Iraq. And its not too difficult to know that trained combat troops are not engaged in combat every second of their active duty lives.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EC 10145303

This thread's about new COMBAT TROOPs in Iraq.

I thought you were big picture EconChick.

The reason additional combat troops would be sent into Anbar is because the internecine killings that the Bush led invasion of Iraq aroused was never fully subdued.

Your pal Deltex in ignorance told me to that the "internecine killing spree" in Iraq "has existed ever since Mohammad invented Allah..""

Are you as ignorant as Deltex in believing that the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq were engaged in a killing spree during the first few months of 2003?


EC 10145303

You've already been pummeled on the SOFA

That's not true. Look. Bush contradicts your phony claims about the SOFA.

The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq -- a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge.

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement

Bush took credit for the success of the surge and that 'success' being the reason that all US troops could be withdrawn by the end of 2011.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EC 10145303

This thread's about new COMBAT TROOPs in Iraq.

Is this a continuation of the war Bush started in March 2003 or is it a new war requiring new combat troops due to a new threat to our national security?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EC 10145303

This thread's about new COMBAT TROOPs in Iraq.

That's cute. I see it being about using the non-combat role of new troops being sent into Iraq as if it were a combat role in order to malign their Commander in Chief by accusing him of playing politics with foreign policy and advancing some kind of sinister Obama plot to expand troop deployment Iraq trough mission creep.

It's called mission creep. And Obama playing politics with foreign policy.

WD 10127559

It's his war now.

 

[TooTall]

Now you say you were an E1

And now you were in the AF not the Army

No one backed you up on the SOFA issue. You lose again.

Wow, you were an E1 who was a mover and doer.

I'm also from Mars. My cousins are Klingons. Spock is a distant relative too.

ROLL EYES.


Yo dumbass, I've never said I was in the Army. Always said it was the Air Force. That's your dementia acting up.

Back to the topic. Those are combat troops. PERIOD.

Now STFU old man.

a fool like you, of any age, remains a fool

Those are not the combat units about which you were yammering some time ago.

You should really re-enlist because it is obvious you aren't making it in the civilian world.

My 5 year old told me that the US troops Obama sent to Afghanistan are not combat troops. He said they are not there to train the Iraqi Army in combat tactics, but are going to train them to be clerk typists and supply clerks. Can you verify that for me?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EC 10145299

They'll tell you there are no boots on the ground too

That is another lie. I will tell you that there are combat troops on the ground acting in an advisory role and not engaged in combat.

So where is that one of a thousand posts that show was wrong about something in Iraq? Throwing down lies to cover the fact that you got nothing is still running, running we can laugh at for being so pathetic.

 

[Politico]

It's his war now.

It's been his war for years now.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TT 10146384

My 5 year old told me that the US troops Obama sent to Afghanistan are not combat troops. He said they are not there to train the Iraqi Army in combat tactics, but are going to train them to be clerk typists and supply clerks. Can you verify that for me?

Did you set the kid straight or did you let him continue to believe something that is clearly not true? If you chose the latter Is that because you want him to grow up to be a Republican .

Its problem to not teach kids how to first gather and confirm fact before opining. But that appears not to run in your family TooTall. Sorry about your
Luck. Maybe the kid can escape.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

WD 10127559

It's his war now.

Pol 10146388

It's been his war for years now.

Then why do Republicans keep bringing up Bush's war to find WMD that were not to b found that he started in 2003?

This new war against ISIS will never see the kind and numbers of American casualties that Bush's war left in its wake.

So why not support Obama specifically for leading a way to defeat IS terrorists by combining US superior air power with assisting and advising locals in the invaded areas to do the more dangerous fighting on the ground.

Why demand that Obama fight his war the same stupid and lethal for Americans way that stupid Bush did it.

Bush didnt defeat the al Qaeda that invaded Iraq during his war. He let the get away to thrive in Syria.

I'll never understood how people can still say the surge worked now that we have learned that the Bush surge merely drove al Qaeda out of Iraq to wait for the Bush / Maliki 2011 deadline to pass and all foreign troops would be gone.

So the IS terrorists onslaught into Iraq last June is a new threat and war for Obama to deal with in a wiser way than the CinC who got 4484 Americans killed over WMD that did not exist and then propped up a major Iraqi governing failure named Maliki.

Move on people Bush was a failure and made a ness of Iraq. Now Obama will clean up the new threat by doing it right for a change.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The surge worked so that is why we are back in Iraq?

These troops are to train and advise Iraqi units for combat, not to seek and engage the enemy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush and Maliki were responsible for the deal. Obama is responsible for how it was carried out. We cannot do what Iraqi soldiers must do. We can train and advise but they have to fight.

 

[paulitician]

Had to laugh watching the 'News' this morning. They were going on & on about Obama sending more troops to Iraq to help the 'Out-Gunned' Iraq Military defeat ISIS. Huh? Come again? Out-gunned?? American Taxpayers have been raped for several $Billions funding & arming the Iraq Military. Yet they're 'out-gunned' by a small ragtag group of Terrorist nutters?

I mean, this really does say it all about the Iraq War. How many more $Billions and lives are we gonna be forced to flush over there?

 

[TooTall]

The surge worked so that is why we are back in Iraq?

These troops are to train and advise Iraqi units for combat, not to seek and engage the enemy.

These US COMBAT troops are to train and advise Iraqi units for combat. While conducting the training these US COMBAT troops will be armed and dangerous. There, I corrected that for you. Only combat troops are qualified to train and advise the Iraqi troops in combat tactics.

 

[paulitician]

The surge worked so that is why we are back in Iraq?

These troops are to train and advise Iraqi units for combat, not to seek and engage the enemy.

These US COMBAT troops are to train and advise Iraqi units for combat. While conducting the training these US COMBAT troops will be armed and dangerous. There, I corrected that for you. Only combat troops are qualified to train and advise the Iraqi troops in combat tactics.

Obamabots are in denial. Their Dear Leader hasn't ended any wars. He's only continued and started new ones. But ignorance really is bliss. It is what it is.