How come no one cares about Obama's surge in Iraq?

[MarcATL]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused wit

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

LIAR. They put pressure on Bush because obama was poised to win.

No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq
THE CORNER THE ONE AND ONLY. No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by PATRICK BRENNAN June 16, 2014 3:53 PM @PTBRENNAN11 One of the key points of debate in the U.S. over the recent events in Iraq is over what the U.S. could have done to avert them. If the U.S. still had troops there, would Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have become the sectarian strongman he has, would ISIS have established the stronghold it has, etc.?

This is a complicated question, and one should never be too confident in counterfactuals. But there’s a compelling case articulated by a range of people that a U.S. presence there could have made today’s situation less likely, and certainly allowed us to have more options to respond today. But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: Claim that President Obama had no choice about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and blame Bush.

The inconvenient aspect of this argument is that it’s not true. Chris Hayes laid out four points in the opening monologue of his show on Friday night, three of which consituted the above argument: The three problematic claims: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush. These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.

Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times.

Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.

Read more at: No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

Shouldn't you be blaming Bush for being so weak as to cave so easily then?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

You didn't understand the words.

Oh...that's it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[easyt65]

When asked about his offensive statements about women in the last debate, Trump diverted to talking about ISIS

Is he going to congratulate the President in tonight's debate?

And now YOU are diverting to women when the discussion is about ISIS.

Congratulate the President for WHAT?! The only reason there is a battle for Mosul is because Obama allowed ISIS to freely flow into Iraq to begin with!

 

[blackhawk]

In 2008 candidate Obama was telling the country Iraq was the bad war the wrong war the dumb one and was pledging to end the war in Iraq and bring all U.S. troops home and he did pull all our troops out. So the question should be why is he getting the country involved in Iraq again given how much he opposed doing so in 2008?

 

[rightwinger]

[QUOTE="rightwinger, post: 15583227, member: 20321
Looks like our Presidents strategy is working with 500 Americans participating in the battle

Yeah, letting mile-long ISIS convoys to freely flow into Iraq was a helluva strategy!

Allowing them to take over much of Iraq our troops already liberated - wonderful strategy!

'500 Americans participating' after Barry promised no more boots on the ground there...not to mention more US soldiers who have died there since that promise - AWESOME!

BTW, CNN reported this morning that the Iraqi forces are going into Mosul doing the fighting while US forces stay to the outskirts, doing hardly NO fighting. If CNN is right, and liberals claim they are the 'gospel', then US troops aren't 'participating' in combat.[/QUOTE]




500 advisors seems like a wise investment by our President

Iraq is still a relatively inexperienced military force with only remnants of the old structure. US advisors provide not only tactics but intelligence. PLUS, there is US air support

This is the way US forces should be used in the future. Let others do the fighting and dying while we provide technological expertise

 

[Wry Catcher]

'How come no one cares about Obama's surge in Iraq?'

Any Focus on Iraq reminds people:

1. He promised to bring the troops home.

2. He promised 'No Boots On The Ground.'

3. He promised the 'War on Terror' is over'

4. He has brought more American troops home in body bags since he said these things

5. HE allowed ISIS to flow into Iraq, taking over much of the territory our military had already liberated.

6. He and Hillary financed / supplied / armed/trained / protected / enabled / facilitated ISIS and its rise to current levels.

7. He and Hillary ran weapons to Al Qaeida in Libya and to ISIS in Syria through Benghazi

8. He called ISIS a JV team, and now to force the entrenched 'JV Team' out of Mosul it could take up to a year (reportedly)

9. He is the Nobel Peace Prize winner that made all of this possible / happen

10. He is a liar, his foreign policy is a failure, and he has made the world less safe.

Evidence that lies, half-truths and character assassination are the only tools you have to offer.

 

[easyt65]

500 advisors seems like a wise investment by our President

Iraq is still a relatively inexperienced military force with only remnants of the old structure. US advisors provide not only tactics but intelligence. PLUS, there is US air support

This is the way US forces should be used in the future. Let others do the fighting and dying while we provide technological expertise

1. Learn to work Quotes.

2. 500 'advisors' would have been un-necessary if Barry would not have allowed ISIS to flow freely into Iraq, and a LOT of people would have been saved.

3. Sending 3 new waves of US troops into Iraq to 'supervise' fights against terrorists that never should have been necessary in the 1st place is how US troops should be used in the future?

No, how US troops SHOULD have been used was to send several planes to completely wipe out ISIS as their convoys traveled though desolate desert, preventing the invasion, preventing the slaughter of innocents, and preventing the need for this new Iraqi war to retake their country from Obama's 'JV Team'.

 

[easyt65]

Evidence that lies, half-truths and character assassination are the only tools you have to offer.

Sorry you don't like hearing the truth, Wry. All those are true, proven true, and straight from Barry's mouth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In 2008 candidate Obama was telling the country Iraq was the bad war the wrong war the dumb one and was pledging to end the war in Iraq and bring all U.S. troops home and he did pull all our troops out. So the question should be why is he getting the country involved in Iraq again given how much he opposed doing so in 2008?

The answer is simple. Today's battle is against a real enemy, not a mythical one. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a fools errand, one which cost our nation dearly. The engagement in Iraq against ISIS, a legitimate threat against the civilized world, is actually supported by a real coalition of the willing, not the shame put forth by the Bush II Administration (when our only really partner on the field of battle was the UK).

 

[Wry Catcher]

500 advisors seems like a wise investment by our President

Iraq is still a relatively inexperienced military force with only remnants of the old structure. US advisors provide not only tactics but intelligence. PLUS, there is US air support

This is the way US forces should be used in the future. Let others do the fighting and dying while we provide technological expertise

1. Learn to work Quotes.

2. 500 'advisors' would have been un-necessary if Barry would not have allowed ISIS to flow freely into Iraq, and a LOT of people would have been saved.

3. Sending 3 new waves of US troops into Iraq to 'supervise' fights against terrorists that never should have been necessary in the 1st place is how US troops should be used in the future?

No, how US troops SHOULD have been used was to send several planes to completely wipe out ISIS as their convoys traveled though desolate desert, preventing the invasion, preventing the slaughter of innocents, and preventing the need for this new Iraqi war to retake their country from Obama's 'JV Team'.

Gee, you too claim to know more than the Generals and Commander-in-Chief!

 

[BlindBoo]

If he hadn't stupidly pulled out when he did

Right, except that it was the decider in chief, President Bush, who was forced to sign the SOFA with the timetable for our complete departure from Iraq.

ISIS in Iraq will hopefully soon be a thing of the past. How many US soldiers have been lost so far in Iraq since the withdrawal?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Because obie fucked it up. He made a political decision to get out quick and the SOFA timeline came about because of him in the first place. He got out too quickly and created a vacuum for ISIS to thrive in now eight years later right before the elections he's going to do something about it? Are you blind?

LIAR. The choice was made by the Iraqi government, not Obama, and agreed to by GWB before Obama was in the Oval. You must know that, so why do you always need to lie?

LIAR. They put pressure on Bush because obama was poised to win.

No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq
THE CORNER THE ONE AND ONLY. No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by PATRICK BRENNAN June 16, 2014 3:53 PM @PTBRENNAN11 One of the key points of debate in the U.S. over the recent events in Iraq is over what the U.S. could have done to avert them. If the U.S. still had troops there, would Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have become the sectarian strongman he has, would ISIS have established the stronghold it has, etc.?

This is a complicated question, and one should never be too confident in counterfactuals. But there’s a compelling case articulated by a range of people that a U.S. presence there could have made today’s situation less likely, and certainly allowed us to have more options to respond today. But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: Claim that President Obama had no choice about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and blame Bush.

The inconvenient aspect of this argument is that it’s not true. Chris Hayes laid out four points in the opening monologue of his show on Friday night, three of which consituted the above argument: The three problematic claims: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush. These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.

Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times.

Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.

Read more at: No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

Shouldn't you be blaming Bush for being so weak as to cave so easily then?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

You didn't understand the words.

Oh...that's it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Apparently Iceweasel was privy to everything discussed behind "closed doors". He must be a very special person.

 

[Iceweasel]

If he hadn't stupidly pulled out when he did

Right, except that it was the decider in chief, President Bush, who was forced to sign the SOFA with the timetable for our complete departure from Iraq.

ISIS in Iraq will hopefully soon be a thing of the past. How many US soldiers have been lost so far in Iraq since the withdrawal?

How's the middle east doing since we left?

 

[easyt65]

The answer is simple. Today's battle is against a real enemy, not a mythical one.

Yes, not a 'mythical' enemy like Obama's 'JV Team'. ISIS, Barry's allies in Syria, who he ran weapons to from Benghazi, is a real ENEMY.

The ONLY reason they are in Iraq, why there is a fight for Mosul today is because of Barry's failed foreign policies, because he CHOSE to allow them to flow into Iraq.

The Battle for Mosul is NOT about Bush. It is NOT about invading Iraq. THAT war was won, THAT Battle is over, and we/Iraqis are NOT fighting Hussein or his forces today, so spare us the BS about how this goes all the way back to 'Buuuuuuuush'!

The enemy is ISIS! ISIS grew into such a much larger world threat because Barry became obsessed with Assad after his failed 'Red Line' BS, so much so that he allied himself with TERRORISTS - ISIS. He and Hillary financed, supplied, armed, protected, trained, and even dragged the US into an UN-Authorized war in Syria to help them - or get them to help us - overthrow Assad. And ISIS F*ED Barry by flowing into Iraq...unless that was part of their deal. Barry LET them flow into Iraq. We could EASILY have destroyed them, but the military was not allowed to do so.

THIS - the Battle for Iraq / Mosul is NOT on Bush...THIS is ALL on Barry!

 

[easyt65]

How's the middle east doing since we left?

How's the Middle East and North Africa Doing under Barry's Foreign Policies?

Al Qaeida took over Libya...ISIS invaded Iraq...The US has been dragged into the middle of 2 UN-Authorized wars between terrorists and dictators with the US choosing to side with the terrorists in nations where we have no business being..and Barry's obsession with Assad / Syria has us on the edge of nuclear war with Russia who is protecting Syria.

Impressive

 

[ColonelAngus]

Lefties, Obama might be the might be the worst foreign policy President ever

 

[blackhawk]

In 2008 candidate Obama was telling the country Iraq was the bad war the wrong war the dumb one and was pledging to end the war in Iraq and bring all U.S. troops home and he did pull all our troops out. So the question should be why is he getting the country involved in Iraq again given how much he opposed doing so in 2008?

The answer is simple. Today's battle is against a real enemy, not a mythical one. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a fools errand, one which cost our nation dearly. The engagement in Iraq against ISIS, a legitimate threat against the civilized world, is actually supported by a real coalition of the willing, not the shame put forth by the Bush II Administration (when our only really partner on the field of battle was the UK).

Your answer is that of a typical partisan according to the current CIC ISIS was not a real threat they were simply the JV and remained that even while they were taking control of large areas in both Syria and Iraq.

 

[MarcATL]

In 2008 candidate Obama was telling the country Iraq was the bad war the wrong war the dumb one and was pledging to end the war in Iraq and bring all U.S. troops home and he did pull all our troops out. So the question should be why is he getting the country involved in Iraq again given how much he opposed doing so in 2008?

Because the facts have changed. Haven't you far rightwingers been bitching about Obama not being willing to listen and change? Well he's doing it now, and you're still bitching.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[blackhawk]

In 2008 candidate Obama was telling the country Iraq was the bad war the wrong war the dumb one and was pledging to end the war in Iraq and bring all U.S. troops home and he did pull all our troops out. So the question should be why is he getting the country involved in Iraq again given how much he opposed doing so in 2008?

Because the facts have changed. Haven't you far rightwingers been bitching about Obama not being willing to listen and change? Well he's doing it now, and you're still bitching.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

And you left wingers have been bitching for years about America involving its self in other people's wars. I guess your concern over that depends on the letter next to the Presidents name.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.

Iraqi Forces Attack Mosul, a Beleaguered Stronghold for ISIS

If he hadn't stupidly pulled out when he did, there would be no need for him to put on a phony supercape and risk American lives all over again, wasting the lives of the troops who took Mosul in the first place.

I just have to laugh at idiots who are so stupid they don't remember that the SOFA treaty to remove all troops from Iraq was signed by Bush and Obama COMPLIED with that treaty and met it for the December 2011 deadline.

Smartest President in history couldn't negotiate a new one? DERP!

So another pinhead who doesn't recall that Iraq wanted us OUT.

What Iraq wanted was of no account. We spent our goods there. Obama had a duty to see that the effort wasn't squandered in the name of political correctness. He didn't.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.

Iraqi Forces Attack Mosul, a Beleaguered Stronghold for ISIS

If he hadn't stupidly pulled out when he did, there would be no need for him to put on a phony supercape and risk American lives all over again, wasting the lives of the troops who took Mosul in the first place.

I just have to laugh at idiots who are so stupid they don't remember that the SOFA treaty to remove all troops from Iraq was signed by Bush and Obama COMPLIED with that treaty and met it for the December 2011 deadline.

Obama could have used gentle persuasion, and set aside the treaty. In one act he made the entire effort there a loss, and caused the death of Americans there to be wasted.

Now we are back, spending money and American lives with more pinprick attacks.