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

[EconChick]

You were in Kuwait, you said, right?

Or is that the other EconChick?

What? In your dementia world, if you've been in one ME country, you can't be in any other?

How do you look yourself in the mirror with the dumb shit you say on here?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not at all! Bush left it so it could be renegotiated by his successor

No one in their right mind could possibly believe that when Bush backed down in the 2008 negotiations and caved to the demands of the Iraqis to set a deadline for complete withdrawal, that Bush was leaving it to Obama to be renegotiated after the passage of time. That is nuts. And more nuts is the idea that Bush's failure to get a long term security deal, like the one Obama achieved with Afghanistan, was intended to strengthen Obama's hand.

 

[EconChick]

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.

I agree. He did get that ONE thing right. And that was it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which is what I said in the first place. They are not there to engage in combat, their duty is to train and advise.

And to all of you who have served: thank you.

 

[EconChick]

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.

There's no way you were in the Army.

You know too little about the frontlines.

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.

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.

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


Why did you purposely not mention DEFENSIVE actions? What if they're attacked? I told you I was under rocket fire all the time, dummy.

 

[Antares]

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.

There's no way you were in the Army.

You know too little about the frontlines.

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.

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.

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


Why did you purposely not mention DEFENSIVE actions? What if they're attacked? I told you I was under rocket fire all the time, dummy.

They are also for Force Protection.

 

[EconChick]

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

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



EXACTLY!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

...since he couldn't be bothered to negotiate, even with the new Iraqi government, before sending US troops back to Iraq

There was no need for negotiation. You really don't keep up with news about Iraq do you:

U.S.: Iraq grants U.S. forces immunity from future prosecution

The new agreement struck with Baghdad via diplomatic note is far less sweeping and appeared far less formal than the SOFA. But the U.S. government said the assurances were enough, given the scope and size of the mission.

"With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams," said Rear Admiral John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman. The Pentagon said on Friday the first teams would be drawn from forces already in Iraq under the U.S. embassy mission, and that additional teams would arrive from outside the country shortly after.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the agreement would give protections similar to the ones already enjoyed by U.S. diplomatic personnel in Baghdad.

"Our troops will have the legal protections they need to perform their mission," Harf said.

U.S. Iraq grants U.S. forces immunity from future prosecution - WorldIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EXACTLY

Your suffering credibility is totally shot now. If you think Obama supports Jihad by the Muslim Brotherhood or any other other terrorist organization you have lost all contact with reality.

 

[EconChick]

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?

Just shut up, idiot. You're a disgrace.

What's wrong with YOU? These troops are in harms way. Our fellow Veterans.

Get it?

Got it?

Good.

 

[EconChick]

EXACTLY

Your suffering credibility is totally shot now. If you think Obama supports Jihad by the Muslim Brotherhood or any other other terrorist organization you have lost all contact with reality.

Shut the fuck up, pathological liar. You have even less credibility than Fakey.

You were completely trounced weeks ago on every issue to do with Iraq.

But please....keep bumping my thread. I hope you do it till 2016. By then, Obama will have REALLY screwed up Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

CF 10149827 regarding JS 10149611.

"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

Why couldn't Condoleeza Rice get a long term security deal like Obama did in Afghanistan?

If Condi had a clue she would realize that immunity was given in the 2008 SOFA because the Iraqis got the concessions from the Bush Administration to withdraw all US troops from urban areas and to withdraw all troops from all of Iraq by the end of 2011.

What a stupid headline. "We never expected to leave Iraq in 2011". If they did not expect to leave by then why sign a deal that they would definitely leave by then?


Here another good answer for Condi. It was the success of the surge that made it impossible to get immunity for US troops passed in the Iraqi Parliament. Surely Condi must think that the siurge was a succes:

“It is not clear that Maliki wanted that many troops,” said Colin H. Kahl, who was deputy assistant secretary of defense at the time and closely involved in the talks. “Indeed, he was conscious of the extreme unpopularity of a continued U.S. presence with his [Shiite] constituency and he had no interest in a sizable U.S. presence along the Arab-Kurd divide (which is what all our big troop options assumed). Moreover, the immunities issue would not have likely been resolved even if the administration started negotiations earlier and offered more. It was simply too toxic, politically, for Iraqi politicians to accept.”

Kahl added: “Ironically, part of the difficulty in securing an agreement stemmed from our success. The Iraqi security forces were now much more numerous and capable, so Iraqi politicians were not as desperate for us to stick around. They recognized the value of a continued U.S. presence, but it was not so valuable that it was worth the domestic political risk or to prioritize the national interest over their desire to outflank their political rivals.”

The McCain-Graham claim that Iraq 8217 s 8216 main political blocs were supportive 8217 of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - The Washington Post

Key paragraph:

"Ironically, part of the difficulty in securing an agreement stemmed from our success. The Iraqi security forces were now much more numerous and capable, so Iraqi politicians were not as desperate for us to stick around"

 

[EconChick]

Because it is temporary? And why folks don't trust you, TooTall, is that you are politicizing harms' way for our troops?

We're the ones throwing the BS flag on YOU and OBAMA lying about troops being sent.

But keep bumping my thread, worthless.

 

[EconChick]

combat troops are out, non combat troops are back ... big difference

No dum dum, that's not the question.

Are they in harms way is the question.

It's fun laughing at your morons......

 

[EconChick]

Are these troops in harms way, Fakey?

Yes or no?

 

[asterism]

OK, Iraq = Liberated, and a dictator that was a huge menace to the middle east society at large is now gone. His son's who were also a terror are GONE. His idiot cabinet who would follow him straight into Hell like Hitlers followers did him are GONE.

OK, Libya = a dangerous place that got our ambassador there killed, along with others who couldn't get the help needed by this administration that had left these men behind.

OK, Syria = currently at war, hundreds of thousands dead, and no end in sight.

OK, Egypt = Tried it Obumblers way, but then had to arrest the Muslim brotherhood President and his ilk, even as Obumbler and is gang protested this action in which it had taken against the bru-tha hood.

OK, Ukraine = A notable demonstration that Obumbler has no influence on Russia, and on the stopping of Russia's actions in that country whether it be through negotiations or diplomatic efforts. His cozening up to Putin on the supposedly closed microphone makes him a laughing stock now and/or untrustworthy to us here in this nation all because of.

What part of 5000 Americans killed for no reason can't you comprehend?

There were ample reasons for invading Iraq. If you don't believe me, ask John Kerry and Hillary Clinton as well as a large number of other leading Democrats who voted for the authorization to do so. Their 'I was for it before I was against it' BS is not playing well with most people. Their positions and statements have been posted on USMB dozens of times and I won't waste time doing it again.

You can post your nonsense as often as you want. People based their support for the war in Iraq on misinformation at best and outright lies at worst. But that's only the first part. No one expected us to become an occupying force that would fight an insurgency war for a decade. We got suckered into that. No one expected Bush and company to be such horrible war leaders and tacticians. They turned victory into defeat and it had nothing to do with the war on the people who attacked us on 9/11. Instead of defeating al Qaeda they made them stronger.

You have a very selective perspective and sloppy logic. What victory did bush turn into defeat? That was your hero's doing.

The war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan was lost when we failed to follow them into Pakistan and instead decided to nation build.
Iraq was lost when after defeating the Iraqi military and capturing Saddam we failed to obtain a surrender with conditions and instead decided to nation build.

I have never agreed with anything you have posted until now. You are 100% correct in this post.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EC 10151229

You were completely trounced weeks ago on every issue to do with Iraq.

But you cannot find one post out of the thousand you claim to have whet I was shown to be wrong about Iraq.

Your foul mouth has returned - a sign that you are lost and bewildered by the facts and the truth I bring to my posts.

 

[EconChick]

Frank, Condi does not count. Maliki would not accept SOFA without Iraqi court jurisdiction. BHO made the right decision on that. If you and Condi want to submit our soldiers to Iraqi jurisdiction, well, then fuck you both.

I want our soldiers home. I did not want them there in the first place.

Wrong again. It was the Iraqi Parliament that would not agree and Obama wasn't interested in playing hardball to get them to agree.

Pretty soon they'll be claiming the US didn't go to the moon. It's just as ludicrous.

 

[asterism]

-> Libya: Now a mess with two governments, and Islamists causing trouble.
-> Syria: Held by Assad and by Islamists worse than him i.e. IS and Free Syria Army.
-> Iraq: After supporting an ineffective Shiite administration and knocking off Saddam - Islamists now control a large part of Iraq.
-> Ukraine: Much like Georgia, Ukraine is trying to hold on to more than it can chew. The blame game with Moscow, and the sanctions, are hurting American investments in Russia and not accomplishing peace.
-> Nation X: To be continued...

Or we could get ourselves out of the mess that is the Middle East, end the sanctions with Russia, and be glad we got out before things got worse.

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

The Middle East was not stable in 2003, it was a powder keg. Saddam was increasing his power, influence, had France and Russia on the take, and was manipulating the oil for food program.

There was no containing Saddam. He needed to go. Bush's underlings fucked up the occupation after the war was successfully won, but those consequences don't hold a candle to the threat posed by Saddam and his harboring of terrorists. There's a reason Zarqawi went to Iraq after he was routed from Afghanistan. It's the only place he could establish a base.

 

[EconChick]

EC 10151229

You were completely trounced weeks ago on every issue to do with Iraq.

But you cannot find one post out of the thousand you claim to have whet I was shown to be wrong about Iraq.

Your foul mouth has returned - a sign that you are lost and bewildered by the facts and the truth I bring to my posts.

Foul mouth? You mean like people on the front lines have, Bambi?

LOL, it never left. Pond scum like you and Fakey are sub-human. Try going to a military or special ops site and peddling these lies.

LOL, the image of what they'd do to you makes me chuckle.

You have no idea what you're talking about on this topic, shit-for-brains.

And your propaganda is going to get (has gotten) people hurt.