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

[NotfooledbyW]

Stu 10152035 10152035,

I thought it was a bad idea to go in and in hindsight I was proven right. I also thought it was a bad idea to leave prematurely, and in hindsight I was proven right.

Why do you think you were proven right on the latter? Petraeus recently said no one knows if the withdrawal would have made a difference. Do you have more insight than Petraeus?

And it is interesting to note that you view the decision to invade and the decision to withdraw equally as a US President's decision. The decision to force inspectors out and invade was the sole decision of a US President. There is not doubt about that. But the decision to end foreign troops on Iraqi soul was ultimately the decision of the Iraqi people.

Also please provide some verification that Iraq's legislature actually voted in October 2011 to extend US troop presence in Iraq.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You might want to try reading about the withdrawal from someone who generally knows what he's talking about:

This is the Way the Iraq War Ends with Bangs and Whimpers Informed Comment

 

[JakeStarkey]

The neo-con far right continue their bottom feeding behavior. Bush's invasion destabilized a precarious balance in the ME. There is no denying and no revisionism can change that. Petraeus says there is no way to tell if the withdrawal from Iraq caused the situation we are in now.

 

[EconChick]

Stop posting "Ste 10151876", whereas you think it makes you look serious, it makes you look silly and spergy.

In the 2008 SOFA, regarding immunity, only partial immunity was granted by Iraqi Parliament, Bush never required full immunity when signing the SOFA because he knew this could threatened stability in the reason by forcing an early exit of American forces. US contractors were subject to Iraqi criminal law and US Forces were subject to prosecution from a joint Iraqi-American committee. Obama required full immunity, not only this, demanded it from Parliament, and wouldn't accept an executive memorandum from Maliki. He knew such a condition was untenable and provided him cover for the withdrawal he wanted all along.

LOL, it's nice having someone else set Sparky straight for a change. You remind me of how I used to write my early posts- long, well thought out, substantive, SPOT on, etc.... until I realized "most" of the libs on this board are nothing more than propagandists of the first order and going into depth on these subjects was a complete waste of time. Time that could be spent directed to trouncing idiot libs in other ways.

Anyway, nice to have ya setting Fakey & Foo straight on the facts about Iraq, Stein. Even 5 year olds know these troops are in harms way and it takes a real special idiot to deny that.

 

[EconChick]

Ste 10152035

On one hand you celebrate the withdrawal, and credit Obama's decision there, but on the other hand claim his hands were tied, and that the current situation isn't his fault because of Bush's SOFA. So which is it?

The decision on the complete withdrawal came from the Iraqi side. I celebrate the fact that they achieved and were practicing sovereignty and I don't fall for the same old neocon anti-Iran warmongering and sabre rattling that helped influence Bush make the original 'bad decision' to invade in the first place. He had a perfect option to disarm Iraq peacefully via the UN inspection process that he constantly proclaimed he preferred over war. I also accept David Petraeus' admonition that no one knows whether a residual force staying on would have had an influence against the IS terrorist assault.

No. If you bother to read my posts you would have seen that I have said Bush's was in the same situation as Obama was later when they both were in negotiations with a sovereign nation where 80 Percent of the population was very sensitive about keeping troops on their soil without being subject to their new found democratic institutions courts and constitution. Its not a matter of 'fault' for either president on the end of the war that Bush started in 2003. It is a matter of the reality of what the war left in its wake even before the IS terrorist burst onto the scene last June. Bush didn't have a say when the Iraqis demanded a date certain. And Obama did not have a say when they later decoded their priority was to hold that date and not concede on the immunity issue. You are trying to devise a technical bypass around the reality that Iraq was in control of the decision to go it alone. If you think 17,000 non military Americans were still in Iraq .. And then there is the matter of Maliki's behavior and whether Obama should have stayed on as the air force for the Shiite exclusive regime that he had turned their democracy into. .

Blah blah blah.

No one cares about the degree to which you are ignorant about our troops in Iraq.

But keep bumping this thread. I order you to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You never wrote, "long, well thought out, substantive, SPOT on" posts, and you never substantiated what you did post. You like Steinlight blab and we are supposed to take your word for it.

Nope.

 

[EconChick]

Are these troops in harms way or not? Yes or No?

You can play with words all you want, idiot.

I just care that you help keep this thread alive. I command you to keep posting.

 

[BlindBoo]

Let the cocksuckers in Baghdad foot the bill for our assistance...otherwise nuke the whole goddam place. I am fed up with these morons...20!friggen years of horse shit.

tough to disagree with that point of view - although really it's only been about 10

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

30+ since RayGun.

 

[deltex1]

Let the cocksuckers in Baghdad foot the bill for our assistance...otherwise nuke the whole goddam place. I am fed up with these morons...20!friggen years of horse shit.

tough to disagree with that point of view - although really it's only been about 10

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

30+ since RayGun.

50 since LBJ...

 

[BlindBoo]

Let the cocksuckers in Baghdad foot the bill for our assistance...otherwise nuke the whole goddam place. I am fed up with these morons...20!friggen years of horse shit.

tough to disagree with that point of view - although really it's only been about 10

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

30+ since RayGun.

50 since LBJ...

What goodies did (bunghole)LBJ arm Iraq with? Did he take them off the list of nations who support terrorism and give them 4 billion dollars in tax payer backed loans (that we paid for)? Nope, LBJ was supporting Iran, the USSR was supporting Iraq. Our post WWII intervention in Iraq began with Raygun officially, however, there was always talk that it was under Carter that we influenced Iraq to invade Iraq.......

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Camp 10048655

Our troops and airmen are in harms way as they help fight a terrorist organization that has vowed to kill Americans, bring violence to our shores and commit atrocities and crimes against humanity on a massive scale. The OP disparages and insults those troops and continues to do so by blatantly posting misleading misinformation even as lately as today.

eag 10129123

We are in combat whether you like it or not..............The people who we are sending will be in harms way and more than likely will be in direct combat...........especially with laser tag.......................

JS 10149791

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

Kosh 10149808 regarding JS 10149791

Why does the far left support Obama illegal wars?

Ant 10149820 regarding JS 10149791

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

JS 10150191

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

TT 10150304 regarding JS 10150191

I didn't send US troops in harms way, Obama did.

TT 10150346 regarding JS 10150191

What is temporary? I didn't want US combat troops sent back to Iraq without an agreement from the Iraqi government exempting them from prosecution in the Iraqi 'make believe' courts. I didn't want them to STAY there without the same guarantee that we have in South Korea, Japan and most other countries where US troops are stationed.

EC 10151223 regarding JS 10149791

Just shut up, idiot. You're a disgrace. What's wrong with YOU? These troops are in harms way. Our fellow Veterans.

EC 10151454

Are these troops in harms way, Fakey? Yes or no?

EC 10155170

Ste 10152022

Stop posting "Ste 10151876", whereas you think it makes you look serious, it makes you look silly and spergy.

In the 2008 SOFA, regarding immunity, only partial immunity was granted by Iraqi Parliament, Bush never required full immunity when signing the SOFA because he knew this could threatened stability in the reason by forcing an early exit of American forces. US contractors were subject to Iraqi criminal law and US Forces were subject to prosecution from a joint Iraqi-American committee. Obama required full immunity, not only this, demanded it from Parliament, and wouldn't accept an executive memorandum from Maliki. He knew such a condition was untenable and provided him cover for the withdrawal he wanted all along.

LOL, it's nice having someone else set Sparky straight for a change. You remind me of how I used to write my early posts- long, well thought out, substantive, SPOT on, etc.... until I realized "most" of the libs on this board are nothing more than propagandists of the first order and going into depth on these subjects was a complete waste of time. Time that could be spent directed to trouncing idiot libs in other ways.

Anyway, nice to have ya setting Fakey & Foo straight on the facts about Iraq, Stein. Even 5 year olds know these troops are in harms way and it takes a real special idiot to deny that.

Regarding (EconChick's post 10155170) I never argued that the advisers that have been sent to Iraq since June were not in harms way. I'll let the other poster that EconChic has queried, answer for himself. But since that question was directed to me and is not something I would ever argue against, it means that EconChick has demonstrated more of her continuous disconnect from reality. The troops are in harms way and that is for sure. They are certainly serving in a crucial and dangerous non-combat role that certainly could put them in 'harms way' as many have been busy here saying it. But it remains a non-combat role. And EconChick remains incoherent as she begs to impress Steinlight with her former self and what she claims to have voluntarily given up - being coherent. In her own words "well thought out, substantive, SPOT on, etc.... "


I wonder who EconChick is arguing with here:

Are these troops in harms way or not? Yes or No?

And I will be interested in finding out how EconChick will reconcile her expressed fondness for Steinlight with the point made by Steinlight that invading Iraq in the first place was the wrong thing to do? (similar to the views of the dreaded liberals and Code Pink)

It was refreshing to hear Steinlight tell us that. But I wondered if EconChick would cuss him or her out for it.

 

[Kosh]

Camp 10048655

Our troops and airmen are in harms way as they help fight a terrorist organization that has vowed to kill Americans, bring violence to our shores and commit atrocities and crimes against humanity on a massive scale. The OP disparages and insults those troops and continues to do so by blatantly posting misleading misinformation even as lately as today.

eag 10129123

We are in combat whether you like it or not..............The people who we are sending will be in harms way and more than likely will be in direct combat...........especially with laser tag.......................

JS 10149791

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

Kosh 10149808 regarding JS 10149791

Why does the far left support Obama illegal wars?

Ant 10149820 regarding JS 10149791

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

JS 10150191

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

TT 10150304 regarding JS 10150191

I didn't send US troops in harms way, Obama did.

TT 10150346 regarding JS 10150191

What is temporary? I didn't want US combat troops sent back to Iraq without an agreement from the Iraqi government exempting them from prosecution in the Iraqi 'make believe' courts. I didn't want them to STAY there without the same guarantee that we have in South Korea, Japan and most other countries where US troops are stationed.

EC 10151223 regarding JS 10149791

Just shut up, idiot. You're a disgrace. What's wrong with YOU? These troops are in harms way. Our fellow Veterans.

EC 10151454

Are these troops in harms way, Fakey? Yes or no?

EC 10155170

Ste 10152022

Stop posting "Ste 10151876", whereas you think it makes you look serious, it makes you look silly and spergy.

In the 2008 SOFA, regarding immunity, only partial immunity was granted by Iraqi Parliament, Bush never required full immunity when signing the SOFA because he knew this could threatened stability in the reason by forcing an early exit of American forces. US contractors were subject to Iraqi criminal law and US Forces were subject to prosecution from a joint Iraqi-American committee. Obama required full immunity, not only this, demanded it from Parliament, and wouldn't accept an executive memorandum from Maliki. He knew such a condition was untenable and provided him cover for the withdrawal he wanted all along.

LOL, it's nice having someone else set Sparky straight for a change. You remind me of how I used to write my early posts- long, well thought out, substantive, SPOT on, etc.... until I realized "most" of the libs on this board are nothing more than propagandists of the first order and going into depth on these subjects was a complete waste of time. Time that could be spent directed to trouncing idiot libs in other ways.

Anyway, nice to have ya setting Fakey & Foo straight on the facts about Iraq, Stein. Even 5 year olds know these troops are in harms way and it takes a real special idiot to deny that.

Regarding (EconChick's post 10155170) I never argued that the advisers that have been sent to Iraq since June were not in harms way. I'll let the other poster that EconChic has queried, answer for himself. But since that question was directed to me and is not something I would ever argue against, it means that EconChick has demonstrated more of her continuous disconnect from reality. The troops are in harms way and that is for sure. They are certainly serving in a crucial and dangerous non-combat role that certainly could put them in 'harms way' as many have been busy here saying it. But it remains a non-combat role. And EvonChick remains incoherent as she begs to impress Steinlight with her former self and what she claims to have voluntarily given up - being coherent. In her own words "well thought out, substantive, SPOT on, etc.... "


I wonder who EconChick is arguing with here:

Are these troops in harms way or not? Yes or No?

And I will be interested in finding out how does EconChick reconcile her expressed fondness for Steinlight with the point made by Steinlight that invading Iraq in the first place was the wrong thing to do? ( The view of the

So the far left supports Obama's illegal wars. And now supports 1500 more troops going to Iraq..

My how the far left has changed since their comments from 2003 - 2009..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kosh, you mean the far right supports all this, as well as the left, right?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh 10156850

So the far left supports Obama's illegal wars. And now supports 1500 more troops going to Iraq..

Who do you think is 'far left' here?

What war is illegal?


Just so you know I have always supported Bush when he sent troops and air strikes to kill and destroy terrorist scum wherever they are.

I support Obama for continuing to target terrorists and kill them. I consider Daesh th be terrorists. What is your point.

Iraq has invited our troops and pilots to come in to help them defeat Daesh terrorists. I have absolutely no problem with sending combat troops into Iraq in a non-combat role as long as Iraqis fight Daesh directly on the ground.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So the far left supports Obama's illegal wars. And now supports 1500 more troops going to Iraq..

Back in 2003 US troops were sent in as an invasion force despite the valid options of UN inspections that were headed in the direction of resolving the threat potential of WMD if they were truly there. That invasion was not at the request of the Iraqi government. It was not launched with the approval if the UN Security Council.

The current deployment of US military advisers into Iraq is at the request of the democratically elected government of Iraq.

There is no comparison between a 150,000 ground troop with guns a blazing invasion to topple a government and an "invited-in" contingent of a few thousand highly trained Special Forces who are there to advise and assist the elected government of Iraq in their war against Daesh terrorists.

Anyway Steinlight says he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq so Im hoping he will come back and explain to people like you why. And being blessed by gods gift to Iraq today in such a sweet and sincere post, it will be interesting to hear Steinlight explain to Iraq invasion supporters why it was such a bad idea.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ste 10150606

We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place and created a power vacuum. There were more efficient ways to deal with Saddam threatening to start trading oil in Euros. One thing Bush Cheney and their group of jewish neo-cons didn't understand was asymmetric warfare, they believed in this nonsense of nation building and Democracy, a foolish liberal notion. They could have assassinated Saddam and put in a compliant member of the Iraqi military and Baathist party to maintain the balance of power in the region against Iran while maintaining a secular dictatorship that stands strong against radical sunni elements like ISIS from arising.

Among other things Steinlight is a proponent of the USA assassinating an authoritarian head of state while at the same time the USA, the UN and Iraq were fully engaged in the peaceful and diplomatic means - through UNSC Resolution 1441 - to bring final resolution to Iraq's disarmament obligations to the world.

How brilliant this Steinlight is. Is he more brilliant on Iraq than god's gift to Iraq has self-proclaimed herself to be?


EC 10150908

I've been in more than half of all countries in the Mid East.

And she could maybe have slept at a Holiday Inn Express while visiting there too. What a pair of Iraq experts we have in our midst from the conservative side.

I'd like to hear Steinlight explain how assassinating the tyrant Saddam Hussein would resolve the WMD issue of 2002 and early 2003 without a full scale invasion force to secure the stockpiles of the "most lethal weapons ever devised"... . Surely there would be violent sectarian resistance to Saddam Hussein being removed by assassination and then replaced by the Judeo/Christiani backed US assassin team that Steinlight would have sent in.

In all that ensuing civil chaos does the WMD fall into the hands of al Qaeda and get used against US cities as Bush and Cheney had been warning would clearly be the case?

What kind of national security 'thinker' has EconChick endorsed here?

I'll gladly keep bumping this thread until we get the answers.

 

[Ellipsis]

We all knew this for some time. The role is advisory, we won't send combat units to Iraq.

"The White House announced Friday that President Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of up to 1,500 "additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

 

[Ellipsis]

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

That's just a cute way of saying "we won't fire first". Obama knows something is going to happen to our troops and is waiting for a few US casualties and the resulting public cry for blood before acting.

 

[asterism]

There's no diference between combat troops and non-combat troops.

But there is a difference between a combat role and a non-combat role. Perhaps that is why the announcement was written to say this:

""additional U.S. military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces" against ISIS."

The Kurds and Iraqis are in the combat role.

Yeah, here's the "training and advice:"

Got out on patrol with a unit, kill a few from the other side then say, "that's how you do it." These advisers are fighting alongside the ISF and Kurds and in many cases are directing their actions. Calling it a "non-combat role" is just political cover and always has been.