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

[EconChick]

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.

Neither one of you was correct, but one of you was smart enough to drop it.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

 

[rdean]

There are a lot of moistened panties in the GOP over the prospect of troops being put on the ground over there.

You guys might get your fix after all these years congrats

Yeahhhhhh, the whole time I was there I just loved being under rocket fire and riding through a maze of IEDs and being within range of snipers.

Perhaps it never occurred to you that some of us can actually think a little past next week....and can clearly see what the future holds.

And some of us actually have the inner fortitude to fight instead of laying down like Europeans have.

Fight who? And what are you fighting for?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oh, and btw, Saddam didn't strike our homeland but he did fire on our aircraft. Remember the no-fly zone? You folks tend to forget there were 23 different writs Congress sited for going to war with Iraq. Only 1 was WMD.

Iraq did not fire on our aircraft after UN Resolution 1441 was passed. If Invading Iraq prior to UN Resolution 1441 was not necessary, how do you explain that it became necessary to invade Iraq when Iraq ceased returning fire after 1441.

You seem to forget that the US and UK bombed the hell out of Iraq during the summer of 2002.

Your writs argument is more foolishness from you. The invasion was about Iraq's supposed violation of UN Res 1441 for hiding 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' from the Res 1441 inspection regime.

 

[regent]

So some Americans might be alive today thanks to Obama's troop pull-out.

 

[Vigilante]

So some Americans might be alive today thanks to Obama's troop pull-out.

And because of his troop pull out THOUSANDS of Christians, and muslims have been killed by FANATIC ISLAMISTS that would not have been able to otherwise....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

blah blah blah, you have no fucking idea

I make points and sense. You write 'blah blah blah and let us see you foul mouth.

Your arguments are devoid of facts and reason.

9492265

It was never Bush's plan to leave NO troops there.

When Maliki wrote to the UNSC in 2007 under Bush's watch requesting that the UNSC MNF Resolution be terminated by the end of 2008, it meant that whatever plans Bush had for Iraq were over. Bush and the USA, and the US military became absolutely meaningless in terms of the US having 'plans' for Iraq. It was over in 2007, EconChick. If you were there and you wanted Iraq to be subject to a George W. Bush's plan for Iraq, they you are the one that failed. Are you trying to blame Obama for your failures? You should not have been sleeping with all those Saudis. Were you on the taxpayers dime? You should have been working more and sleeping with the foreigners less.
Why didn't you sleep with Maliki and get him not to kick the MNF out of Iraq and become a fully sovereign state?

 

[EconChick]

NotFooledbyW, your charade is up.

On Sunday, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Leon Panetta admitting that Obama should've left troops there.


Just like I said.

And others have said.

Actually, I admire your tenacity and I do have respect for you. It's just that you're wrong on this subject. You sound like you've done a lot of ACADEMIC research, but I'm here to tell ya, Academia if screwing a lot of people up.


Anyway, you'll need to stop arguing your Obama stance, because Nne.Believes.It.Anymore.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9806875

I'm actually an expert on the topic. I spent most of my time negotiating with Iraqis and was there over a long span of time.

You really did a horrible job negotiating with the majority sect in Iraq didn't you? Maybe it was your foul mouth that made them hate us.

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News

You want Obama to negotiate with these guys. You are not really knowledgeable about Iraq are you. You ought to admit it and give up making a fool out of yourself more each day that passes.

You need to listen to Obama and let the grown ups and the Shiites themselves deal with it.

Shia paramilitary force kills dozens of ISIS fighters, destroy armored vehicles in Tikrit
September 18, 2014 by Amre Sarhan Tikrit (IraqiNews.com) A security source within the information office in Shia Peace Brigades stated on Thursday that, tens of ISIS elements have been killed and injured during a limited military operation in al-Esehaqi area, 80 km south of Tikrit. The source said, “Today, a limited military operation in southern Tikrit resulted in the demolition of two armored vehicles and tens of dead and wounded among ISIS militants.”

Shia paramilitary force kills dozens of ISIS fighters destroy armored vehicles in Tikrit - Iraqi News

I see nothing wrong with Iraqis fighting their own fight on the ground an not one spec of a US soldier's blood should be spilled on the ground. I have no problem with the world's finest fighter pilots giving all kinds of an assist from a mile up...

If IS terrorists want to fight an American let him learn to fly a fighter plane and come on up and see how they do.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NotFooledbyW, your charade is up.

On Sunday, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Leon Panetta admitting that Obama should've left troops there.


Just like I said.

And others have said.

Actually, I admire your tenacity and I do have respect for you. It's just that you're wrong on this subject. You sound like you've done a lot of ACADEMIC research, but I'm here to tell ya, Academia if screwing a lot of people up.


Anyway, you'll need to stop arguing your Obama stance, because Nne.Believes.It.Anymore.

What a crock.. 2/3 of Americans don't want US troops in a combat role on the ground over there. You and McCain and that moron Lindsay Graham are the outliers.

And you can't read material and get it right - so I doubt you got it right about what Leon Panetta says. But if Panetta says Obama should have left troops there - I got Petraeus saying no one knows if it would have made a difference. So who do you believe? Petraeus or Panetta. Funny how things work out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9830423

NotFooledbyW, your charade is up. On Sunday, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Leon Panetta admitting that Obama should've left troops there.

General Odierno at the time and General Petraeus recently made statements that do not agree with the way you have characterized what Panetta is going to say.

However, Odierno gave a vote of confidence to the Iraqi forces who had taken over security for Baghdad after U.S. forces handed over control. "The Iraqis wanted to be in charge; they wanted the responsibilities; and they have demonstrated that they are capable," he said.

- source CNN.com - 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October, CNN, September 30, 2009.

“Petraeus was asked: Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

Petraeus answered: "No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence."

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising. <> So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate. <> As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nt-a-surprise/

 

[EconChick]

NotFooledbyW, your charade is up.

On Sunday, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Leon Panetta admitting that Obama should've left troops there.


Just like I said.

And others have said.

Actually, I admire your tenacity and I do have respect for you. It's just that you're wrong on this subject. You sound like you've done a lot of ACADEMIC research, but I'm here to tell ya, Academia if screwing a lot of people up.


Anyway, you'll need to stop arguing your Obama stance, because Nne.Believes.It.Anymore.

What a crock.. 2/3 of Americans don't want US troops in a combat role on the ground over there. You and McCain and that moron Lindsay Graham are the outliers.

And you can't read material and get it right - so I doubt you got it right about what Leon Panetta says. But if Panetta says Obama should have left troops there - I got Petraeus saying no one knows if it would have made a difference. So who do you believe? Petraeus or Panetta. Funny how things work out.

Every American President in the past has LED the public, not followed the public like Obama does.

I don't know what your academic background is but you sure aren't steeped in leadership like I am.

As for my not having any understanding of Iraq, that's like saying my handle isn't EconChick.

You're arguing from emotion and not from front line experience.

 

[EconChick]

9830423

NotFooledbyW, your charade is up. On Sunday, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Leon Panetta admitting that Obama should've left troops there.

General Odierno at the time and General Petraeus recently made statements that do not agree with the way you have characterized what Panetta is going to say.

However, Odierno gave a vote of confidence to the Iraqi forces who had taken over security for Baghdad after U.S. forces handed over control. "The Iraqis wanted to be in charge; they wanted the responsibilities; and they have demonstrated that they are capable," he said.

- source CNN.com - 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October, CNN, September 30, 2009.

“Petraeus was asked: Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

Petraeus answered: "No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence."

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising. <> So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate. <> As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nt-a-surprise/

Yep, Petraeus tends to talk about things in a very nuanced way and does not always make things clear to people. He is well known for that. He can also be found contradicting himself. He can also dance around like a politician.

A lot of my special operator friends dislike him.

In the quote above you can clearly see him say "I would love to have seen a force on the ground." He can do double speak so his quotes can take people down the wrong path. I've actually briefed him and liked him and understood how to interpret him but I can see why he confuses peop;le.

 

[EconChick]

NotFooledbyW, your charade is up.

On Sunday, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Leon Panetta admitting that Obama should've left troops there.


Just like I said.

And others have said.

Actually, I admire your tenacity and I do have respect for you. It's just that you're wrong on this subject. You sound like you've done a lot of ACADEMIC research, but I'm here to tell ya, Academia if screwing a lot of people up.


Anyway, you'll need to stop arguing your Obama stance, because Nne.Believes.It.Anymore.

What a crock.. 2/3 of Americans don't want US troops in a combat role on the ground over there. You and McCain and that moron Lindsay Graham are the outliers.

And you can't read material and get it right - so I doubt you got it right about what Leon Panetta says. But if Panetta says Obama should have left troops there - I got Petraeus saying no one knows if it would have made a difference. So who do you believe? Petraeus or Panetta. Funny how things work out.

Actually I agree with the bolded statement above. The public's not there yet....they never are. Australia just foiled a plot of 12 to behead random Aussies on the street. You let something like that happen to occur....and you'll have 95% of public saying kick their asses.

 

[EconChick]

Oh, and btw, Saddam didn't strike our homeland but he did fire on our aircraft. Remember the no-fly zone? You folks tend to forget there were 23 different writs Congress sited for going to war with Iraq. Only 1 was WMD.

Iraq did not fire on our aircraft after UN Resolution 1441 was passed. If Invading Iraq prior to UN Resolution 1441 was not necessary, how do you explain that it became necessary to invade Iraq when Iraq ceased returning fire after 1441.

You seem to forget that the US and UK bombed the hell out of Iraq during the summer of 2002.

Your writs argument is more foolishness from you. The invasion was about Iraq's supposed violation of UN Res 1441 for hiding 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' from the Res 1441 inspection regime.

Now you sound like an idiot. And a disrespectful one at that. I've tried being respectful to you, but I'm not going to keep doing it. And tell you what idiot, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'mthe one that's one step ahead of events, not you. And trust me, that's going to happen more and more...because I have a very long history of it.

So you can stop your shit, or I will fucking pummel you with your ignorance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

023.a.02 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.

023.a.06 9825943

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.

023.a.07 9829491

Neither one of you was correct, but one of you was smart enough to drop it.

Are you saying that Iraq did not make the choice to refuse to grant immunity for US troops in 2012 and beyond. RetiredGySgt and I are saying that they did refuse. It is no secret that they did refuse. You claim we are not correct. How so? Can you back your claim up with anything?

 

[EconChick]

023.a.02 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.

023.a.06 9825943

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.

023.a.07 9829491

Neither one of you was correct, but one of you was smart enough to drop it.

Are you saying that Iraq did not make the choice to refuse to grant immunity for US troops in 2012 and beyond. That is what RetiredGySgt and I are saying. You claim we are not correct. How so? Can you back your claim up with anything?

I'm saying they could have come to terms on all the sticking points, with immunity being one of them. Are you aware of how both sides danced around the immunity issue for "domestic consumption in Iraq" in the 2008 SOFA?

The wording was done in a way to appease certain "domestic" factions while our allies there and our State Dept people actually put enough ambiguity in the language to make everyone think they were getting what they wanted.

 

[EconChick]

In other words, they made it look like Iraqis had more power with immunity than they actually had.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

022.a.02 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.

022.a.03 9824268

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

022.a.04 9824805

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

You appear to be accepting the fact that RetiredGySgt, mdk, and I agree upon that it is entirely factual that the immunity issue was non-negotiable for the US position. And because the immunity issue was non-negotiable for the Iraqi side also, why did you ask RetiredGySgt this in your post numbered 9806619, “Oh wait Gunny, I just reread your post. Are you saying it had nothing to do with Obama's poor negotiating skills?”

So if both sides were locked out of further negotiations over the immunity issue then what was the issue then?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

023.a.09 9831330

I'm saying they could have come to terms on all the sticking points, with immunity being one of them. Are you aware of how both sides danced around the immunity issue for "domestic consumption in Iraq" in the 2008 SOFA?

Then you are saying not really much of anything. Bush could have decided to let the UN inspections continue in March 2003 but he didn't. Bush could have gone in with a 'PLAN' to deal with the sectarian divides that would ignite once the Baathists were removed from power. Your 'could haves' come way late in the quagmire that Iraq became when Bush chose invasion over peaceful disarmament through the UN. But even with all that there is no indication that you know what you are talking about when you say they could have resolved the immunity issue. I know that because the Shiites and Maliki were not going there. They went to the limit with Bush in 2008 to keep troops through 2011. Maliki had a few years of consolidating Shiite power and by mid-2011 he felt as General Odierno said.... capable of handling their security on their own. That's a huge dynamic when trying to compare 2008 to 2012. The fact that you ignore the presumed increase in Iraq's defense force capabilities by 2011 from what it was in 2008 shows you have no ability to be reasonable on this issue. But why would you want to be reasonable? Your intent is to lay the blame on Obama for what Maliki failed to do. So you keep trying to fix the facts to fit the agenda, but it does not fool anyone at all.

We are talking about the lives and security of US troops, and you keep defaulting to 'ambiguity'. Screw that EconChick. I have great appreciation and admiration for our troops and I don't buy what you are trying to peddle one bit.