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

[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.

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.

You reinforced only what I was writing, and they are not (which you purposely ignored) to seek and engage the enemy.

Words and terms have meaning and definition, and you have been correct on using them correctly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pauli, then we have some weird lefty and far righty folks supporting this stupidity.

 

[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.

You reinforced only what I was writing, and they are not (which you purposely ignored) to seek and engage the enemy.

Words and terms have meaning and definition, and you have been correct on using them correctly.

The only thing you got right in your original statement is the US combat troops that are training and advising the Iraqi troops will not seek to engage the enemy. They are armed and will most certainly engage the enemy if attacked in the course of their training.

 

[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.

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.

You reinforced only what I was writing, and they are not (which you purposely ignored) to seek and engage the enemy.

Words and terms have meaning and definition, and you have been correct on using them correctly.

The only thing you got right in your original statement is the US combat troops that are training and advising the Iraqi troops will not seek to engage the enemy. They are armed and will most certainly engage the enemy if attacked in the course of their training.

They are not their to attack the enemy, only to train and advise.

Words and terms have particular meanings.

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, words, and meanings.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

CF 10127562

Leaving US Troops in non-combat roles to support the ISF, just like Bush planned.

Bush planned to leave no US troops after 2011 in an agreement with sovereign Iraq in December 2008. That is the only historically accurate and factual statement that can be said about Bush's plans for Iraq when he was still president.

But congratulations on understanding there is such a thing as a non-combat role for combat trained soldiers who are wearing their normal combat boots on the ground in Iraq.

Could you please explain it to EconChick so she can no longer be stuck on stupid regarding that matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CF 10127562

Leaving US Troops in non-combat roles to support the ISF, just like Bush planned.

Bush planned to leave no US troops after 2011 in an agreement with sovereign Iraq in December 2008. That is the only historically accurate and factual statement that can be said about Bush's plans for Iraq when he was still president.

But congratulations on understanding there is such a thing as a non-combat role for combat trained soldiers who are wearing their normal combat boots on the ground in Iraq.

Could you please explain it to EconChick so she can no longer be stuck on stupid regarding that matter.

Liar!

Bush left it so his successor could negotiate, he never thought his successor would be a staunch supporter of Jihad and throw Iraq and Syria to ISIS

 

[JakeStarkey]

CF is being stupid again, nothing new.

What Bush negotiated is what we are stuck with, because Maliki would not compromise on our troops being tried by Iraqi courts, which is exactly what Crusader Frank and his cohorts want: American troops answerable to Iraqi judges.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CF is being stupid again, nothing new.

What Bush negotiated is what we are stuck with, because Maliki would not compromise on our troops being tried by Iraqi courts, which is exactly what Crusader Frank and his cohorts want: American troops answerable to Iraqi judges.

Not at all! Bush left it so it could be renegotiated by his successor, you're either lying or ignorant if you think otherwise

He never thought the USA would elect a POTUS who supported the Muslim Brother hood and Jihad

 

[TooTall]

CF is being stupid again, nothing new.

What Bush negotiated is what we are stuck with, because Maliki would not compromise on our troops being tried by Iraqi courts, which is exactly what Crusader Frank and his cohorts want: American troops answerable to Iraqi judges.

Are you concerned about the 3100 US troops presently in Iraq being tried in Iraqi courts? Obama sent them there so don't even try to blame anyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CrusaderFrank wants Iraqi judges to have jurisdiction over American troops, so we can assume that Frank is pro-jihadist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CF is being stupid again, nothing new.

What Bush negotiated is what we are stuck with, because Maliki would not compromise on our troops being tried by Iraqi courts, which is exactly what Crusader Frank and his cohorts want: American troops answerable to Iraqi judges.

Are you concerned about the 3100 US troops presently in Iraq being tried in Iraqi courts? Obama sent them there so don't even try to blame anyone else.

Our troops are not subject now to the courts. That's the point, meathead. So you like CF want our troops subject to raghead law.

 

[TooTall]

CrusaderFrank wants Iraqi judges to have jurisdiction over American troops, so we can assume that Frank is pro-jihadist.

Using your logic, we can then assume Obama is pro-jihadist as well, since he couldn't be bothered to negotiate, even with the new Iraqi government, before sending US troops back to Iraq. Crusader Frank does not have that power.

 

[Antares]

CrusaderFrank wants Iraqi judges to have jurisdiction over American troops, so we can assume that Frank is pro-jihadist.

You support everything Obama does therefore we know you are a Dem.

See how that works?

 

[TooTall]

CF is being stupid again, nothing new.

What Bush negotiated is what we are stuck with, because Maliki would not compromise on our troops being tried by Iraqi courts, which is exactly what Crusader Frank and his cohorts want: American troops answerable to Iraqi judges.

Are you concerned about the 3100 US troops presently in Iraq being tried in Iraqi courts? Obama sent them there so don't even try to blame anyone else.

Our troops are not subject now to the courts. That's the point, meathead. So you like CF want our troops subject to raghead law.

I must have missed it when Obama negotiated a new SOFA. I will apologize when you prove that he did that, and I mean it !

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no SOFA that submits American troops to Iraqi courts, apparently as you, Antares, and Frank want.

You can thank BHO for that. I guarantee you Bush would not have accepted it either.

What is the fuck wrong with you guys: these are our troops in harms way and you are playing fuck all.

Why?

 

[Kosh]

There is no SOFA that submits American troops to Iraqi courts, apparently as you, Antares, and Frank want.

You can thank BHO for that. I guarantee you Bush would not have accepted it either.

What is the fuck wrong with you guys: these are our troops in harms way and you are playing fuck all.

Why?

Why does the far left support Obama illegal wars?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CF is being stupid again, nothing new.

What Bush negotiated is what we are stuck with, because Maliki would not compromise on our troops being tried by Iraqi courts, which is exactly what Crusader Frank and his cohorts want: American troops answerable to Iraqi judges.

Are you concerned about the 3100 US troops presently in Iraq being tried in Iraqi courts? Obama sent them there so don't even try to blame anyone else.

Our troops are not subject now to the courts. That's the point, meathead. So you like CF want our troops subject to raghead law.

That's a fake issue that Obama made up! Bush and Condi Rice had an agreement in place with the Iraqis. maybe Obama should have asked Dubya and Condi to negotiate the agreement for him?

 

[Antares]

There is no SOFA that submits American troops to Iraqi courts, apparently as you, Antares, and Frank want.

You can thank BHO for that. I guarantee you Bush would not have accepted it either.

What is the fuck wrong with you guys: these are our troops in harms way and you are playing fuck all.

Why?

Lie much?
(rhetorical question,you always do)

They ARE in harms way and they WILL end up in Combat and Obama said "NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND"

Obama spews all kinds of lies and you defend him AT ALL COSTS.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CrusaderFrank wants Iraqi judges to have jurisdiction over American troops, so we can assume that Frank is pro-jihadist.

"Rice said that she didn't understand why the Obama administration was unable to reach an agreement on immunity with the Iraqis, considering that the previous SOFA granted immunity to U.S. soldiers and was passed overwhelmingly by the Iraqi parliament at the time.

"We did manage to negotiate an immunity clause that was acceptable to the Iraqis and acceptable to the Pentagon. I don't know what happened in these negotiations," Rice said."

Condoleezza Rice We never expected to leave Iraq in 2011

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maliki wanted, as does the reactionary right, American troops subject to Iraqi courts.

Maliki's gone, no SOFA has Americans appearing before Iraqi courts now, and elements of both the far right and the far left, for all of the wrong reasons, to continue.

Why is that, guys?