How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should've Left There?

[EconChick]

Obama and Maliki didn't want to deal with each other. I blame both of them.

You blame both. How much factual investigation did you bother yourself with to reach that limp conclusion?

mostly the Frontline Episode on loosing Iraq where they show That Obama and Maliki didnt really want to deal with each other, That Obama pulled out the government aids, which in turn Maliki saw his chance to purge sunni leaning forces for his own type of people who were loyal to him.

but i mean why believe facts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/w...rom-iraq-fades-as-reality-overtakes-hope.html

The withdrawal ceremony on that winter day in 2011 was, in the end, the result of a failed negotiation. In theory, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi leadership wanted a small American detachment to stay behind. In reality, neither side was enthusiastic and seemed just as happy that a dispute over legal conditions scotched the deal.

oh look, they actually talked about it:

At a May 19 meeting, Mr. Obama decided to keep up to 10,000 troops and on June 2 talked with Mr. Maliki by secure video to open the discussions. To help negotiate an agreement, the administration brought back Brett McGurk, a Bush aide who had negotiated the original 2008 withdrawal deal. But the talks quickly foundered on the question of maintaining legal protections for American troops from Iraqi law. The 2008 agreement had been approved by Iraq’s Parliament, and Pentagon lawyers insisted a follow-on agreement would have to be as well.

Maliki was even willing to sign an executive order:

Though Mr. Maliki was willing to send it to Parliament, chances of passage seemed slim. Kurdish leaders supported it, but Sunni and other Shiite leaders did not. Mr. Maliki suggested instead that he sign an executive agreement guaranteeing immunity for American troops and Mr. McGurk supported that, arguing that the need to keep some troops was worth some risk. But lawyers in Washington rejected it, and even Iraq’s chief justice quietly advised it had to be approved by Parliament.

Look i know its hard to swallow that pride and just admit things, but Obama Fucked up. He didnt handle Iraq properly and its comeback to bite him in the ass. This though is just part of the context that is Iraq. You also have to consider what roles Bush and Maliki played as well. If you just focus on Obama you will loose sight of the truth, but at the sametime you have to be honest and admit obama is part of the problem.

I disagree little bits here and there but definitely agree with the overall point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that putting troops back into Iraq has not suddenly become a good idea.

 

[dilloduck]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

I wonder if that means GIs or some private army . I wonder what we pay our "contractors" .

 

[EconChick]

9807763

Patently false idiot. No one wanted to keep 140,000 troops there IDIOT. The generals suggested about 30K so as to not squander the peace. (Even 10k could have helped.)

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace.

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

One more time, Fakey, not squander the peace like Obama has done.

What peace? This with 150,000 troops there. Are you sure you were there? Maybe you were in Shangri La.

'Everyday terrorism'
2 Closest were Pakistanand Afghanistan(Brookings Institute)

With roughly two explosions deadly to civilians and police every day in 2009 (762 explosions causing 3,089 deaths), Iraq continues to be the non-state terrorism capital of the world, suffering more deaths from such attacks than any other country.

2 Show graphs.

Civilian deaths from violence in 2009 Iraq Body Count




Why don't you take a break from your bs EconChick? This world record violence took place with 150,000 US troops there but Bush signed a deal that those troops had to stay out of cities by June 2009. What the hell were 10000 going to do with Maliki in charge in 2010.

You make no sense.

Well, when I'm talking to adults I don't take the extra time to caveat the hell out of everything I say. For starters it's annoying.

You really don't understand the idiom, squander the peace? Do you know what an idiom is? It's figurative, not literal.

If you want to get literal, we are at peace in the US yet Chicago sees 20 times the number you just posted for Iraq.

Also I notice you didn't compare it to the earlier years....again the relativity concept. That's because it would demonstrate how clueless you are.

 

[EconChick]

Look i know its hard to swallow that pride and just admit things, but Obama Fucked up. He didnt handle Iraq properly and its comeback to bite him in the ass. This though is just part of the context that is Iraq. You also have to consider what roles Bush and Maliki played as well. If you just focus on Obama you will loose sight of the truth, but at the sametime you have to be honest and admit obama is part of the problem.

I've posted this someplace else.

"If we do go back plan on 60/70 thousand troops and plan on being there for 50 years or so. Otherwise it's wast of our time."

Now you know my feelings on this, theirs enough blame to go around from day one IMO.

But the question is what are we going to do about it?

Unless our political leaders pull their damn heads out of their asses we are only going to pile more mistakes onto the mistakes already made.

It's time for long term solution even if it hurts.

Oh and BTW....Hello Plasma.

I don't agree with every detail of your post but I enthusiastically agree with the intent.

 

[deltex1]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

I wonder if that means GIs or some private army . I wonder what we pay our "contractors" .

As with all things obama...you will have to read the directive to find out what's in it. I don't even know what case by case means...battle to battle? Area by area? City by city? Sounds pretty ad hoc to me.

 

[EconChick]

Look i know its hard to swallow that pride and just admit things, but Obama Fucked up. He didnt handle Iraq properly and its comeback to bite him in the ass. This though is just part of the context that is Iraq. You also have to consider what roles Bush and Maliki played as well. If you just focus on Obama you will loose sight of the truth, but at the sametime you have to be honest and admit obama is part of the problem.

I've posted this someplace else.

"If we do go back plan on 60/70 thousand troops and plan on being there for 50 years or so. Otherwise it's wast of our time."

Now you know my feelings on this, theirs enough blame to go around from day one IMO.

But the question is what are we going to do about it?

Unless our political leaders pull their damn heads out of their asses we are only going to pile more mistakes onto the mistakes already made.

It's time for long term solution even if it hurts.

Oh and BTW....Hello Plasma.

howdy...Well for me its the do we do anything or just let things play out back and forth im dealing with. The neo-cons who got us into this mess planned for us to be there for 50 years or more with numerous amounts of troops.
I dont like that they wanted this. Iraq has been a giant waste of time, and sadly very few people in washington are willing to admit this.

We're going to wind up doing that whether we want to or not. Start the counter for 50 way back in 1990...we're half way there. And yes troops just like we left in Korea, Japan, etc. It doesn't need to be that many..

 

[dilloduck]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

I wonder if that means GIs or some private army . I wonder what we pay our "contractors" .

As with all things obama...you will have to read the directive to find out what's in it. I don't even know what case by case means...battle to battle? Area by area? City by city? Sounds pretty ad hoc to me.

Classic definition of micro managing a war. The generals will love it. Ask Obama before you do anything.

 

[EconChick]

It's a mess. Write it off. If ISIS wins, and acts like the bogey men the far left and right are making them out to be and actually attacks the US, then deal with them. This pre-emptive nonsense causes more trouble than it could ever prevent.

You remind me of all the myopics in govt I used to try to warn before AQ hit in 2001. No I never, nor did anyone, predict they'd use planes or do what they did. What some of us could clearly see though that they had a very clear trajectory of action over the years and the next one was going to be spectacular and we knew it would hurt American interests. Some of us are experts at doing trend analysis certain things. ISIS will have an upward trajectory as well.

 

[EconChick]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

LOL, if people only knew how pathetic most of us military types view these idiots....even Dempsey pisses me off

 

[deltex1]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

LOL, if people only knew how pathetic most of us military types view these idiots....even Dempsey pisses me off

I hear many in the active force agree. Are there any generals with balls?

 

[EconChick]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

I wonder if that means GIs or some private army . I wonder what we pay our "contractors" .

Dempsey's talking GIs

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the neo-cons had power, the heavy units never would have left.

Kissinger's article Time explains why the neo-cons are bit players now.

Patently false idiot. No one wanted to keep 140,000 troops there IDIOT. The generals suggested about 30K so as to not squander the peace. (Even 10k could have helped.)

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace.

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

One more time, Fakey, not squander the peace like Obama has done.

Misfirection by you simply underlines your lack of understanding.

I said if the neo cons had had their way, the heavy units would not have left.

hint: they are not going back

You have no idea what you're talking about when you say "heavy units." You know nothing about military logistics either.

Your are wrong, as usual. Spend six years with 1st Cav and going to Europe every year, or go on spring maneuvers in Korea with 2d ID and the ROKS.

You were an office clerk in DC, nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the neo-cons had power, the heavy units never would have left.

Kissinger's article Time explains why the neo-cons are bit players now.

Patently false idiot. No one wanted to keep 140,000 troops there IDIOT. The generals suggested about 30K so as to not squander the peace. (Even 10k could have helped.)

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace.

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

One more time, Fakey, not squander the peace like Obama has done.

Misfirection by you simply underlines your lack of understanding.

I said if the neo cons had had their way, the heavy units would not have left.

hint: they are not going back

You have no idea what you're talking about when you say "heavy units." You know nothing about military logistics either.

Your are wrong, as usual. Spend six years with 1st Cav and going to Europe every year, or go on spring maneuvers in Korea with 2d ID and the ROKS.

You were an office clerk in DC, nothing more.

Dempsey is covering his ass is all. American public polling clearly demonstrates that heavy ground units have to come from the Arabs, not us.

 

[Sunni Man]

We have zero business being in Iraq or taking sides in their civil war. .....

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have no trouble taking sides if it is bad guys killing bad guys.

The Arab nations will have to supply the heavy formations for normal ground operations, not the US.

 

[deltex1]

I have no trouble taking sides if it is bad guys killing bad guys.

The Arab nations will have to supply the heavy formations for normal ground operations, not the US.

Whatever that means.

 

[saveliberty]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

It broke a few posts ago.

 

[EconChick]

If the neo-cons had power, the heavy units never would have left.

Kissinger's article Time explains why the neo-cons are bit players now.

Patently false idiot. No one wanted to keep 140,000 troops there IDIOT. The generals suggested about 30K so as to not squander the peace. (Even 10k could have helped.)

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace.

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

One more time, Fakey, not squander the peace like Obama has done.

Misfirection by you simply underlines your lack of understanding.

I said if the neo cons had had their way, the heavy units would not have left.

hint: they are not going back

You have no idea what you're talking about when you say "heavy units." You know nothing about military logistics either.

Your are wrong, as usual. Spend six years with 1st Cav and going to Europe every year, or go on spring maneuvers in Korea with 2d ID and the ROKS.

You were an office clerk in DC, nothing more.

Really? How much money you want to lose dumb ass? How about a thousand bucks? You ready to start putting money where your mouth is dumb fuck?

I'll wait for your answer.




Crickets.









Crickets.

 

[EconChick]

If the neo-cons had power, the heavy units never would have left.

Kissinger's article Time explains why the neo-cons are bit players now.

Patently false idiot. No one wanted to keep 140,000 troops there IDIOT. The generals suggested about 30K so as to not squander the peace. (Even 10k could have helped.)

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace.

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

One more time, Fakey, not squander the peace like Obama has done.

Misfirection by you simply underlines your lack of understanding.

I said if the neo cons had had their way, the heavy units would not have left.

hint: they are not going back

You have no idea what you're talking about when you say "heavy units." You know nothing about military logistics either.

Your are wrong, as usual. Spend six years with 1st Cav and going to Europe every year, or go on spring maneuvers in Korea with 2d ID and the ROKS.

You were an office clerk in DC, nothing more.

I'm waiting you fat ass.