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

[mdk]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

Spot on. I was entirely opposed to any agreement that would have removed immunity from our military forces.

 

[jillian]

If that happens, then the US (or France or Britain ) should act, and not before. Otherwise, they are causing the very thing they wish to prevent.

I mean, is it really that difficult of a concept that if you attack someone, they attack back?

Jesus, turn on the breaking news, genius.

Just what I predicted days ago. ISIS sympathizers in Australia planning to kidnap random citizens and behead them. About 12 arrested.

If you want I can go dig up my precise prediction. Like all my predictions over the years on foreign policy, you're talking to someone who knows what I'm talking about.

so many rightwing talking points.

so little knowledge or understanding.

try again.

LOL, there are dif levels of libs (in descending order):


smart libs (only a hand full)
gullible libs
stupid libs
dumb as dirt libs
lobotomized libs
and then there's you, Jillian



You're way too stupid to be in this discussion, Jilly poo. This discussion is about the Middle East and you can't even find it on a map. But you're welcome to sell Obama t-shirts...that's ok.

perhaps that's true in rightwingnuthackworld

and now i'll just continue to sit back and laugh at you

LOL I take it you to don't care for each other?

i have no opinion about her other than that she's rude.

 

[EconChick]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

Spot on. I was entirely opposed to any agreement that would have removed immunity from our military forces.

So was everyone else. That's not what the issue was. Everyone knew that was non negotiable.

 

[EconChick]

And no, pre-emptive is not idiotic. I agree it doesn't make sense when you're thinking purely conventional - completely agree, but with what we're facing in these times, waiting to counter can be too late.

So, Isis hasn't attacked the US, but they might. Thus, pre-emptive strikes, almost certainly goading an attack, and therefore justifying the unprovoked attack after the fact. All wrapped up neat with a bow, just like last time. Pffft.

They'll attack one of our allies first. Just give it a little time. Britain or France first.

If that happens, then the US (or France or Britain ) should act, and not before. Otherwise, they are causing the very thing they wish to prevent.

I mean, is it really that difficult of a concept that if you attack someone, they attack back?

Jesus, turn on the breaking news, genius.

Just what I predicted days ago. ISIS sympathizers in Australia planning to kidnap random citizens and behead them. About 12 arrested.

If you want I can go dig up my precise prediction. Like all my predictions over the years on foreign policy, you're talking to someone who knows what I'm talking about.

Sentence structure is not your strong suit I guess. If I am talking to someone that knows what you are talking about why am I talking to you? I want to talk to the person that knows what you are talking about. Cause you seem to be having problems talking about it.

But go ahead and dig up those predictions. I'll be back in 24 hours and we can go over them. OK? Or get the other person to dig them up so they can tell you what you said.

Shit for brains, what makes you think I have any respect for you. There are adults on this board and then there's the kids throwing Gerber baby food incapable of having an intelligent discussion. I can get down to your level but you can't get up to mine.

But by all means, if you're stupid on the topic, try to grab some attention by attempting English class critique like someone on the internet gives a shit. Me no give shitsky about correct writing on a forum. And on top of that, your little dick is of no use on that subject either.

Get it?
Got it?
Good.

 

[EconChick]

Yes, I fucked him every morning and a Saudi every night.


You trailer trash are soooooooooooooooo impressive with your command of facts.

You have written that you are a whore, Cheney is a genius but you think I live in a trailer? Weird.
The first item you should know as the truth, the second is funny and the third is plain ole ignorance on your part. LMAO. (did you mention to Mrs. Cheney your love of Dick?)

For starters, it takes a special kind of idiot to actually believe I fucked a different Saudi every day. They don't like white chicks.

Which is why you're too stupid to be on this thread.

It doesn't matter where you live, and plenty of people who live in trailers could run circles around your intellect. But it is an idiom and you know exactly what the idiom means. Oh wait, my bad, I'm talking to an uneducated clod that doesn't know what an idiom is.

For starters, I was just responding to your claim. (of all the Saudis' you fucked. Were you lying?) What else can I say. And how in the fuck do I know you are a white chick? May be you are, maybe you are not. This is the Internet you know and you can be anything and everything you want to be. Just be all you can be. OK?
Be the econchick if that makes you feel good. Or... go fuck your Dick Cheney blow up doll. Makes no difference to me who or what you are. You are just a dipshit on a message board from what I can tell. With an over inflated opinion of your self. But that is not unusual among right wingers on this board. Carry on.

Wow, now that showed real foreign policy acumen.



It's not even coherent for trash talk.


LMAO.


We conservatives really intimidate you. Sorry, grow a spine and a brain and maybe you won't feel so overwhelmed.

Is the "we" part about you? Or is it about the other person that knows what you are talking about? Just curious.

And what makes you think I want to engage in a foreign policy discussion with you? Or even the other one of you that knows what you are talking about. Why would I want to waste all that time trying to educate you? Not going to happen. Let the "other" you try and educate you. Or check with your Dick Cheney. He's a genius you say. And you know him personally. From all your years in Iraq. Rummy your buddy to? Is Rumsfeld a genius as well?

Dude, you seem to be confused about your identity and easily excitable about English usage. I suggest you join a forum with little old ladies that taught English class, where someone gives a shit about it. Meanwhile let the adults talk about national topics that you don't know shit about it.....so run along.

 

[EconChick]

Yes, I fucked him every morning and a Saudi every night.


You trailer trash are soooooooooooooooo impressive with your command of facts.

You have written that you are a whore, Cheney is a genius but you think I live in a trailer? Weird.
The first item you should know as the truth, the second is funny and the third is plain ole ignorance on your part. LMAO. (did you mention to Mrs. Cheney your love of Dick?)

For starters, it takes a special kind of idiot to actually believe I fucked a different Saudi every day. They don't like white chicks.

Which is why you're too stupid to be on this thread.

It doesn't matter where you live, and plenty of people who live in trailers could run circles around your intellect. But it is an idiom and you know exactly what the idiom means. Oh wait, my bad, I'm talking to an uneducated clod that doesn't know what an idiom is.

For starters, I was just responding to your claim. (of all the Saudis' you fucked. Were you lying?) What else can I say. And how in the fuck do I know you are a white chick? May be you are, maybe you are not. This is the Internet you know and you can be anything and everything you want to be. Just be all you can be. OK?
Be the econchick if that makes you feel good. Or... go fuck your Dick Cheney blow up doll. Makes no difference to me who or what you are. You are just a dipshit on a message board from what I can tell. With an over inflated opinion of your self. But that is not unusual among right wingers on this board. Carry on.

Wow, now that showed real foreign policy acumen.



It's not even coherent for trash talk.


LMAO.


We conservatives really intimidate you. Sorry, grow a spine and a brain and maybe you won't feel so overwhelmed.

Is the "we" part about you? Or is it about the other person that knows what you are talking about? Just curious.

And what makes you think I want to engage in a foreign policy discussion with you? Or even the other one of you that knows what you are talking about. Why would I want to waste all that time trying to educate you? Not going to happen. Let the "other" you try and educate you. Or check with your Dick Cheney. He's a genius you say. And you know him personally. From all your years in Iraq. Rummy your buddy to? Is Rumsfeld a genius as well?

Let's see, we're talking about war and you're having some meltdown about the use of pronouns. Intelligent people talk about the topic, and can figure out qyite nicely what others are saying without commenting on where someone dotted an I. Moron. LMAO.

 

[saveliberty]

So Obama wasn't going to keep troops in Iraq due to a missing agreement, which is still lacking...

...and now he will.

Won't put boots on the ground...

...and now he will add advisors.

Obama has broken just about every claim so far, why is this going to be different?

Top military brass already see the flaws and are prepared to ask for troops. Econchick has been on target so far.

 

[Lakhota]

This must be a Ph.D. thread the way some posters are bragging.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9824934.

So Obama wasn't going to keep troops in Iraq due to a missing agreement, which is still lacking...

Econchick has been on target so far.

It is not still lacking. You are wrong. And you and your EconChick are both equally disturbed know-nothings on this issue:

They got an emergency SOFA deal because of the intense security threat caused by IS terrorists in Iraq.

.
The Pentagon says they expect the same immunity this time, though it isn’t clear if the extremely divided parliament is going to be any more willing to give it this time. The more likely event would be Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreeing to some sort of “emergency” provision.

It doesn’t appear as if that would actually be legal under Iraqi law, but it would likely be sufficient to give the Pentagon at least some claim to being above the law, particularly since Maliki, as the acting Interior Minister, also has total control of the nation’s police force.

US 8220 Advisers 8221 Waiting for Legal Cover for Iraq Deployment -- News from Antiwar.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9808062

9808049

9807844

Chem WMD is sitting in Syria as we speak for starters dumb ass.

If you believe that, there is no way you can be all that you claim to be.. Does Rumsfeld know where these are too?

Once again, you show your ignorance.

Sarin gas is WMD idiot. It's all over open source that it came from Iraq. It's a no brainer.

What open source?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9492265

We've been talking about it at length in the "Putin Kills 298 People..." thread for some reason. It was never Bush's plan to leave NO troops there. That's been widely distorted by the entire dumbass press.

It was a placeholder that served multiple purposes. One was to put pressure on Maliki (as in we'll pull completely out and leave you in a lurch if you don't do what we need).... .

You can see one of the many flaws in EconChick's 'placeholder' fairy tale with Obama stuck in the constant role as Big Bad Wolf. That phrase she wrote (9492265) regarding "Bush's threat to pull completely out and leave Maliki in a lurch if he didn't do what 'we' need is typical of EconChick's empty-headed double standard. I'm pointing out that EconChick is referring in Bush's case to the period from 2007 through 2008. She is therefore revealing that Bush and her Master Degree brain knew in 2008 that Maliki was not doing what Bush wanted him to do. But Bush was stuck with making an empty threat because he needed Maliki to help sell the illusion that Iraq was stable at the end of 2008 so Bush could walk away saying that his surge had worked and Bush won the war. Of course that was more of the long series of Bush's lies that started immediately following the passage of UN Resolution 1441 in November of 2002 and when the UN inspections in Iraq soon afterward were fully resumed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9806545

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

9806605

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

9806614

Roger, Gunny. I spent much time over there. I've also spent weeks here educating dumb ass libs on this board about the SOFA. Their small brains still can't comprehend what people like you and I are saying.

9806619

Oh wait Gunny, I just reread your post. Are you saying it had nothing to do with Obama's poor negotiating skills?

9806808

And either Gunny misspoke or he's woefully misinformed. I'm trying to give him an opportunity to clarify before I respond. I suspect he was just not clear.

It is too bad that RetiredGySgt has not responded to EconChick's question. Just look at her pathetic attempt to tie anything that ever happens to some sort of nefarious attack on the President of the United States no matter the facts and no matter the just plain common sense. Of course Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq over the immunity issue and RetiredGySgt is correct that it was in fact Iraq's choice and keeping troops in after the 2008 Bush deadline was a no go.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9806740

Yes, the obomanation had NOTHING to do with that withdrawal....President Who Pulled U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Says Idea He Pulled Troops Out of Iraq is Bogus - Katie Pavlich

9806808

But yes, one minute Obama has no power over Iraqi leaders and the next minute he's claiming credit for having pressured Maliki out. <> These double speaking libs keep backing themselves into a corner.

Here we see more of EconChick's weak and partisan reasoning as she makes a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction in stating that Obama had no power to change Maliki's unwillingness to take political actions that would have led to an inclusive Iraq government versus having the power to withhold something needed by Maliki such as US air strikes and a return of military advisers in the wake of the IS terrorists over-running parts of Sunni Iraq. Obama does get credit along with the Iraqi politicians themselves and Iraq and others for forcing Maliki to go. That is because that was Obama's policy to not allow the US military to become once again Malki's own personal air force and army to be used against what he says as political challenges to his power. Those who complain about Obama's policy in Iraq since he took office are by default nothing but Maliki stooges. Bush was a Maliki stooge and that perhaps explains why the Bush cling-ons continue to feel remorse for Maliki's departure.

 

[Geaux4it]

9806740

Yes, the obomanation had NOTHING to do with that withdrawal....President Who Pulled U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Says Idea He Pulled Troops Out of Iraq is Bogus - Katie Pavlich

9806808

But yes, one minute Obama has no power over Iraqi leaders and the next minute he's claiming credit for having pressured Maliki out. <> These double speaking libs keep backing themselves into a corner.

Here we see more of EconChick's weak and partisan reasoning as she makes a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction in stating that Obama had no power to change Maliki's unwillingness to take political actions that would have led to an inclusive Iraq government versus having the power to withhold something needed by Maliki such as US air strikes and a return of military advisers in the wake of the IS terrorists over-running parts of Sunni Iraq. Obama does get credit along with the Iraqi politicians themselves and Iraq and others for forcing Maliki to go. That is because that was Obama's policy to not allow the US military to become once again Malki's own personal air force and army to be used against what he says as political challenges to his power. Those who complain about Obama's policy in Iraq since he took office are by default nothing but Maliki stooges. Bush was a Maliki stooge and that perhaps explains why the Bush cling-ons continue to feel remorse for Maliki's departure.

Unfortunately, Obama voters who made this mess are the real 'stooges'

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

Yes, but none of them will be shooting at ISIS, only taking fire.

Our troops make great targets.

 

[CitizenSeven]

I didn't contend you had made that claim. I'm pointing out pre-emptive war is idiotic, couter-productive, and immoral. They haven't attacked the US, so by attacking them, the US is goading them into doing it. It's circular reasoning, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And no, pre-emptive is not idiotic. I agree it doesn't make sense when you're thinking purely conventional - completely agree, but with what we're facing in these times, waiting to counter can be too late.

So, Isis hasn't attacked the US, but they might. Thus, pre-emptive strikes, almost certainly goading an attack, and therefore justifying the unprovoked attack after the fact. All wrapped up neat with a bow, just like last time. Pffft.

They'll attack one of our allies first. Just give it a little time. Britain or France first.

If that happens, then the US (or France or Britain ) should act, and not before. Otherwise, they are causing the very thing they wish to prevent.

I mean, is it really that difficult of a concept that if you attack someone, they attack back?

Jesus, turn on the breaking news, genius.

Just what I predicted days ago. ISIS sympathizers in Australia planning to kidnap random citizens and behead them. About 12 arrested.

If you want I can go dig up my precise prediction. Like all my predictions over the years on foreign policy, you're talking to someone who knows what I'm talking about.

And just what I predicted almost 3 weeks ago. If you attack somebody, expect to be attacked in return:
Australia To Fly Guns And Ammunition Into Iraq

Supplying an enemy, especially arms, is a hostile act. What would be the reaction in the US if say China started arming the Drug cartels in northern Mexico?

 

[EconChick]

9492265

We've been talking about it at length in the "Putin Kills 298 People..." thread for some reason. It was never Bush's plan to leave NO troops there. That's been widely distorted by the entire dumbass press.

It was a placeholder that served multiple purposes. One was to put pressure on Maliki (as in we'll pull completely out and leave you in a lurch if you don't do what we need).... .

You can see one of the many flaws in EconChick's 'placeholder' fairy tale with Obama stuck in the constant role as Big Bad Wolf. That phrase she wrote (9492265) regarding "Bush's threat to pull completely out and leave Maliki in a lurch if he didn't do what 'we' need is typical of EconChick's empty-headed double standard. I'm pointing out that EconChick is referring in Bush's case to the period from 2007 through 2008. She is therefore revealing that Bush and her Master Degree brain knew in 2008 that Maliki was not doing what Bush wanted him to do. But Bush was stuck with making an empty threat because he needed Maliki to help sell the illusion that Iraq was stable at the end of 2008 so Bush could walk away saying that his surge had worked and Bush won the war. Of course that was more of the long series of Bush's lies that started immediately following the passage of UN Resolution 1441 in November of 2002 and when the UN inspections in Iraq soon afterward were fully resumed.

Nobody believes your stupidity, hon.

It's like watching a 2 yr old explain how a judge adjudicates a murder case.

YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. You simply don't have the brain power. Poor thing.

 

[EconChick]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

Yes, but none of them will be shooting at ISIS, only taking fire.

Our troops make great targets.

Mudwhistle you're one of the more reasonable people on the board so I'll try to say this without sarcasm but TRY TELLING THAT to the SPECIAL OPERATORS.

 

[EconChick]

9806740

Yes, the obomanation had NOTHING to do with that withdrawal....President Who Pulled U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Says Idea He Pulled Troops Out of Iraq is Bogus - Katie Pavlich

9806808

But yes, one minute Obama has no power over Iraqi leaders and the next minute he's claiming credit for having pressured Maliki out. <> These double speaking libs keep backing themselves into a corner.

Here we see more of EconChick's weak and partisan reasoning as she makes a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction in stating that Obama had no power to change Maliki's unwillingness to take political actions that would have led to an inclusive Iraq government versus having the power to withhold something needed by Maliki such as US air strikes and a return of military advisers in the wake of the IS terrorists over-running parts of Sunni Iraq. Obama does get credit along with the Iraqi politicians themselves and Iraq and others for forcing Maliki to go. That is because that was Obama's policy to not allow the US military to become once again Malki's own personal air force and army to be used against what he says as political challenges to his power. Those who complain about Obama's policy in Iraq since he took office are by default nothing but Maliki stooges. Bush was a Maliki stooge and that perhaps explains why the Bush cling-ons continue to feel remorse for Maliki's departure.

Unfortunately, Obama voters who made this mess are the real 'stooges'

-Geaux

SUCCINCTLY PUT, G!

 

[EconChick]

9806740

Yes, the obomanation had NOTHING to do with that withdrawal....President Who Pulled U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Says Idea He Pulled Troops Out of Iraq is Bogus - Katie Pavlich

9806808

But yes, one minute Obama has no power over Iraqi leaders and the next minute he's claiming credit for having pressured Maliki out. <> These double speaking libs keep backing themselves into a corner.

Here we see more of EconChick's weak and partisan reasoning as she makes a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction in stating that Obama had no power to change Maliki's unwillingness to take political actions that would have led to an inclusive Iraq government versus having the power to withhold something needed by Maliki such as US air strikes and a return of military advisers in the wake of the IS terrorists over-running parts of Sunni Iraq. Obama does get credit along with the Iraqi politicians themselves and Iraq and others for forcing Maliki to go. That is because that was Obama's policy to not allow the US military to become once again Malki's own personal air force and army to be used against what he says as political challenges to his power. Those who complain about Obama's policy in Iraq since he took office are by default nothing but Maliki stooges. Bush was a Maliki stooge and that perhaps explains why the Bush cling-ons continue to feel remorse for Maliki's departure.

blah blah blah, you have no fucking idea