Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD!

[Lonestar_logic]

Pathological liar Maliki hated the US all his life and supported Hezbollah, and Bush only made him hate America more! Maliki took the training wheels off, HIMSELF, while Bush was still "mentoring" him.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

A former senior C.I.A. officer, who served in Iraq during the war, told me that U.S. officials were given specific reports about the darkest aspects of Maliki’s past. But American diplomats who served in Iraq after the invasion said that they were unaware of any hard evidence that he had engaged in terrorism. “Getting a detailed sketch of Maliki was very difficult,” one told me. “All we knew was that he was not a super-duper bad guy, like some of the others.” When Maliki met with American officials, he denied being involved in terrorist attacks, and distanced himself from his patrons in Iran. “You can’t know what arrogance is until you are an Iraqi Arab forced to take refuge with the Iranians,” he told Ryan Crocker, at that time the American Ambassador to Iraq. He said that he had never learned Farsi, and used a translator whenever he met with Iranian officials. But his associate, who said that he was present at meetings with Iranians, told me, “Maliki can speak Farsi very easily.” And though Maliki insisted that Hezbollah, the Iranian-sponsored militia and political party, was an object of loathing in the Dawa Party, the associate told me that Maliki was very close to Hezbollah.

U.S. officials took many of the reports about Maliki and his associates to be rumor. At one point, Maliki and Crocker discussed a series of attacks in 1983, in which Dawa operatives in Kuwait bombed the embassies of the U.S. and France, evidently to retaliate for their support of Saddam. Maliki acknowledged that the bombers had belonged to Dawa, Crocker told me, but said that they were working exclusively for Iran. “Is that true?” Crocker said. “We decided that it was plausible enough.”

Jeffrey Beals, a former American diplomat, said that the U.S. knew Dawa had carried out attacks but didn’t think that Maliki’s potential involvement precluded his candidacy; most of the new Iraqi leaders had engaged in such activities. In the eighties, according to Crocker, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, ran a “revolutionary consulate” in Damascus, where, under the auspices of Syrian intelligence, he issued false passports to militants active in the region. As Beals explained it, the Americans decided that waiting for an untainted partner was impractical: “A history of armed covert struggle against Saddam wasn’t a disqualifying factor.”

By the time Maliki returned to Baghdad, in April, 2003, he had come to regard the United States with profound animosity, friends and associates say. Over the years, the U.S. government had supported nearly all of his enemies—most notably Saddam—and opposed his friends, especially the revolutionary regime in Iran. “Maliki was known as an anti-American,” Dia al-Shakarchi, a Dawa activist in the eighties, said. “Even after 2003, his stance was very aggressive toward Americans.”

snip/

By the time Maliki took office, the police and the Army were overwhelmingly Shiite, packed with former militiamen bent on cleansing Baghdad of Sunni Arabs. In the summer of 2006, each morning brought new reports of sectarian atrocities. Maliki did very little to stop them, according to Matthew Sherman, the civilian adviser to the U.S. Army. “We’d go into his office, we’d tell him about a massacre that had been carried out by his men,” Sherman told me. “And Maliki would just sit there and say, ‘I’m sure they were terrorists.’ We could never get him to act against the death squads.” (Maliki says that he never received any evidence that his soldiers or police had acted improperly.)

Maliki’s rivals in Baghdad began plotting to unseat him, and he occasionally made a display of strength. In 2006, after months of pushing the Americans to turn over Saddam, he took custody of the former President and hastily ordered an execution—carried out in an ill-lit basement, by men in masks, on the first day of Eid al Adha, the Muslim holiday.

As grainy cell-phone videos of the event sparked worldwide consternation, Maliki said that he’d rushed the execution because he was worried that Baathists would try to free Saddam—though he never produced any evidence. Criticism by human-rights groups left him unapologetic: “Where were they during the mass graves and the executions and the massacres that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?” American officials were appalled, believing that the hurried execution undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi legal process. In videos, Saddam’s executioners chanted, “Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!,” a reference to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian-backed guerrilla commander. Even the U.S. officials who had handed Saddam over said that the execution was a disaster for the country, both internally and abroad. “It was a lynching,” the former diplomat told me. “They basically martyred him.”

Whatever doubts remained about Maliki’s assertiveness evaporated on the night of March 22, 2008, when Maliki told General David Petraeus, the American military commander, that he had ordered the Iraqi Army into the southern city of Basra, where Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, was entrenched. Sadr was an old rival; his party competed with Dawa for the loyalty of Iraq’s vast Shiite underclass, drawing power from the Mahdi Army’s reputation for protecting against attacks by Sunni extremists. Maliki loathed Sadr, whom he regarded as coarse and uneducated, and was furious when the militia took over large parts of Baghdad and southern Iraq. Still, when Maliki announced the offensive in Basra, the Americans were stunned; they had warned that preparations for such an operation would take six months. Crocker told me that they had no choice: “We had to support him.”

The operation, called the Charge of the Knights, nearly ended in disaster. The Iraqi Army was underequipped and underprepared, and its ranks started to fall apart soon after the fighting began. Maliki flew into downtown Basra, landing at an old palace, which was surrounded by Sadr’s militiamen. The mortar fire was relentless; Maliki’s chief of security, whom he had known since childhood, was killed. In Washington, Brett McGurk, a national-security aide, walked into the Oval Office and put a map of Basra in front of President Bush. The map showed Sadr’s forces everywhere. “Maliki was this little red dot in the middle,” McGurk recalled. Bush, unfazed, said, “Make sure he wins.”

As the fighting raged, Crocker and Petraeus telephoned Maliki. “We could hear the mortar fire landing all around him,” Crocker said. “We suggested to the Prime Minister that he’d made his point, that perhaps it was time to declare victory and come home.” Maliki rebuffed them. “The Americans didn’t like the whole situation,” he told me. “I told them, ‘This is not your job. This is my job.’ I told them I would stay until we saw the battle to the end.”

LMFAO. Nice try idiots.

No wonder there will always be 10-20% of you that will remain in the dark.

You call that analysis? Jesus, I'm not even going to waste my time explaining that one.

Just let the POLLS explain it to you. People with IQs of 40 are getting it now....

So now your view is formed by polls?

Polls are formed by views.

 

[idb]

Not the smartest choice then?

LMAO. You're not very smart, are you?

The complexity of the situation and you think that post magically explains it to your small brain? You think that's the only "take" on that event? Hint. It's not dumb ass. Did you graduate from HS?

Did I use too many big words for you?

 

[idb]

God, you libs are too fucking easy. No wonder YOU, YOUR PARTY, and YOUR IDIOT LEADER are crashing and burning.

ANY objective person with a pulse would tell you that you can't both say that:

X was there.
X was never there in the first place.

What dumb fucks. Next you'll tell me idb can be physically present at his house and at my house at the same time. Which he can't. But I'm sure you'll try. You'll try by spin. You'll start to divert like you always do. You'll say he can be on TV and do both. And I'll say, no dumbasses I just made it clear I said physically present........and you'll still argue....then 40 pages later libtards will finally concede....or 100s of pages later.

Now you're having an argument with yourself!
How does your post relate to mine at all?
I'm guessing you'll still lose the argument.

Good grief, what a fool.

What an idiot.

That's what they do in Logic 101.

That's how I know you've never had a logic class. That and you get TROUNCED on the ability to argue logically.

Really dude, if you haven't graduated from high school yet, you really should go post in the general section and stay out of complicated sections like politics.

Logic 101?
Having read your increasing irrational and incoherent posts I'm coming to the logical conclusion that the only reason you've even heard of 'Logic 101' is because you heard a couple of the smart kids at school talking about it.

 

[Freewill]

Bullshit. Obabble said that...not Iraq. It's what he wanted since 2003.

Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq's continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.

Those efforts had never really gone anywhere; One senior U.S. military official told National Journal last weekend that they were stuck at "first base" because of Iraqi reluctance to hold substantive talks.

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There - The Atlantic

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, for instance, is a hugely pro-American politician who believes Iraq's security forces will be incapable of protecting the country without sustained foreign assistance. But in a recent interview, he refused to endorse a U.S. troop extension and instead indicated that they should leave.

"We have serious security problems in this country and serious political problems," he said in an interview late last month at his heavily guarded compound in Baghdad. "Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn't the answer to the problems of Iraq. It may be an answer to the problems of the U.S., but it's definitely not the solution to the problems of my country."

If any of the above is even close to the truth post the quote, from the time, where Obama said he wanted troops to stay.

Then you can explain why you and everyone on the left was taking vicotry laps about how Obama ended the war in Iraq. What we are seeing from the left now is so laughable. Denying that they were not joyous in taking credit for removing the troops. How can you folks be so two faced?

 

[zeke]

Now you're having an argument with yourself!
How does your post relate to mine at all?
I'm guessing you'll still lose the argument.

Good grief, what a fool.

What an idiot.

That's what they do in Logic 101.

That's how I know you've never had a logic class. That and you get TROUNCED on the ability to argue logically.

Really dude, if you haven't graduated from high school yet, you really should go post in the general section and stay out of complicated sections like politics.

Logic 101?
Having read your increasing irrational and incoherent posts I'm coming to the logical conclusion that the only reason you've even heard of 'Logic 101' is because you heard a couple of the smart kids at school talking about it.

She is ECON CHICK. Holder of 73 Masters degrees in EVERYTHING. Multi gazallioniare from her 45 years as a trader on Wall street. This chick is consulted by EVERY Repub politician from 1980 on. And her advice has caused many of them to be elected. She just can't tell you which ones. It's a secret. And incoherence is a specialty of hers. Well that and her self professed moments of brilliance and importance.

If that fails to impress you idb, she also throws a mean insult. But they are no better than the run of the mill Republican insults on here. I wonder why she can't insult better. Maybe she needs another degree?

 

[Freewill]

I wonder if Maliki realized that the US would be funding the group that would be attacking his country.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh geeze, here we go again. I feel like the physics teacher trying to get those with intellectual disabilities to stop fidgeting.

The training was great. What you would know if you kept up with the smallest sliver of news is that we the U.S. provided the glue. We weren't just there militarily, we were mentoring them in the diplomatic realm, the political realm, the econ development realm, police, military, etc.


We were the glue, shit for brains.

When Obama pulled out, he removed the glue. Bush had been helping to guide Maliki along by mentoring him. O basically made Maliki take the training wheels off before he was ready.

Maliki regressed and made decisions that really hurt Sunnis. When the Sunnis were attacked by ISIS, Sunni soldiers and police had already given up on Maliki's leadership.

They fell apart for political reasons, not training reasons.

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.

Pathological liar Maliki hated the US all his life and supported Hezbollah, and Bush only made him hate America more! Maliki took the training wheels off, HIMSELF, while Bush was still "mentoring" him.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

A former senior C.I.A. officer, who served in Iraq during the war, told me that U.S. officials were given specific reports about the darkest aspects of Maliki’s past. But American diplomats who served in Iraq after the invasion said that they were unaware of any hard evidence that he had engaged in terrorism. “Getting a detailed sketch of Maliki was very difficult,” one told me. “All we knew was that he was not a super-duper bad guy, like some of the others.” When Maliki met with American officials, he denied being involved in terrorist attacks, and distanced himself from his patrons in Iran. “You can’t know what arrogance is until you are an Iraqi Arab forced to take refuge with the Iranians,” he told Ryan Crocker, at that time the American Ambassador to Iraq. He said that he had never learned Farsi, and used a translator whenever he met with Iranian officials. But his associate, who said that he was present at meetings with Iranians, told me, “Maliki can speak Farsi very easily.” And though Maliki insisted that Hezbollah, the Iranian-sponsored militia and political party, was an object of loathing in the Dawa Party, the associate told me that Maliki was very close to Hezbollah.

U.S. officials took many of the reports about Maliki and his associates to be rumor. At one point, Maliki and Crocker discussed a series of attacks in 1983, in which Dawa operatives in Kuwait bombed the embassies of the U.S. and France, evidently to retaliate for their support of Saddam. Maliki acknowledged that the bombers had belonged to Dawa, Crocker told me, but said that they were working exclusively for Iran. “Is that true?” Crocker said. “We decided that it was plausible enough.”

Jeffrey Beals, a former American diplomat, said that the U.S. knew Dawa had carried out attacks but didn’t think that Maliki’s potential involvement precluded his candidacy; most of the new Iraqi leaders had engaged in such activities. In the eighties, according to Crocker, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, ran a “revolutionary consulate” in Damascus, where, under the auspices of Syrian intelligence, he issued false passports to militants active in the region. As Beals explained it, the Americans decided that waiting for an untainted partner was impractical: “A history of armed covert struggle against Saddam wasn’t a disqualifying factor.”

By the time Maliki returned to Baghdad, in April, 2003, he had come to regard the United States with profound animosity, friends and associates say. Over the years, the U.S. government had supported nearly all of his enemies—most notably Saddam—and opposed his friends, especially the revolutionary regime in Iran. “Maliki was known as an anti-American,” Dia al-Shakarchi, a Dawa activist in the eighties, said. “Even after 2003, his stance was very aggressive toward Americans.”

snip/

By the time Maliki took office, the police and the Army were overwhelmingly Shiite, packed with former militiamen bent on cleansing Baghdad of Sunni Arabs. In the summer of 2006, each morning brought new reports of sectarian atrocities. Maliki did very little to stop them, according to Matthew Sherman, the civilian adviser to the U.S. Army. “We’d go into his office, we’d tell him about a massacre that had been carried out by his men,” Sherman told me. “And Maliki would just sit there and say, ‘I’m sure they were terrorists.’ We could never get him to act against the death squads.” (Maliki says that he never received any evidence that his soldiers or police had acted improperly.)

Maliki’s rivals in Baghdad began plotting to unseat him, and he occasionally made a display of strength. In 2006, after months of pushing the Americans to turn over Saddam, he took custody of the former President and hastily ordered an execution—carried out in an ill-lit basement, by men in masks, on the first day of Eid al Adha, the Muslim holiday.

As grainy cell-phone videos of the event sparked worldwide consternation, Maliki said that he’d rushed the execution because he was worried that Baathists would try to free Saddam—though he never produced any evidence. Criticism by human-rights groups left him unapologetic: “Where were they during the mass graves and the executions and the massacres that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?” American officials were appalled, believing that the hurried execution undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi legal process. In videos, Saddam’s executioners chanted, “Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!,” a reference to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian-backed guerrilla commander. Even the U.S. officials who had handed Saddam over said that the execution was a disaster for the country, both internally and abroad. “It was a lynching,” the former diplomat told me. “They basically martyred him.”

Whatever doubts remained about Maliki’s assertiveness evaporated on the night of March 22, 2008, when Maliki told General David Petraeus, the American military commander, that he had ordered the Iraqi Army into the southern city of Basra, where Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, was entrenched. Sadr was an old rival; his party competed with Dawa for the loyalty of Iraq’s vast Shiite underclass, drawing power from the Mahdi Army’s reputation for protecting against attacks by Sunni extremists. Maliki loathed Sadr, whom he regarded as coarse and uneducated, and was furious when the militia took over large parts of Baghdad and southern Iraq. Still, when Maliki announced the offensive in Basra, the Americans were stunned; they had warned that preparations for such an operation would take six months. Crocker told me that they had no choice: “We had to support him.”

The operation, called the Charge of the Knights, nearly ended in disaster. The Iraqi Army was underequipped and underprepared, and its ranks started to fall apart soon after the fighting began. Maliki flew into downtown Basra, landing at an old palace, which was surrounded by Sadr’s militiamen. The mortar fire was relentless; Maliki’s chief of security, whom he had known since childhood, was killed. In Washington, Brett McGurk, a national-security aide, walked into the Oval Office and put a map of Basra in front of President Bush. The map showed Sadr’s forces everywhere. “Maliki was this little red dot in the middle,” McGurk recalled. Bush, unfazed, said, “Make sure he wins.”

As the fighting raged, Crocker and Petraeus telephoned Maliki. “We could hear the mortar fire landing all around him,” Crocker said. “We suggested to the Prime Minister that he’d made his point, that perhaps it was time to declare victory and come home.” Maliki rebuffed them. “The Americans didn’t like the whole situation,” he told me. “I told them, ‘This is not your job. This is my job.’ I told them I would stay until we saw the battle to the end.”

LMFAO. Nice try idiots.

No wonder there will always be 10-20% of you that will remain in the dark.

You call that analysis? Jesus, I'm not even going to waste my time explaining that one.

Just let the POLLS explain it to you. People with IQs of 40 are getting it now....

 

[EconChick]

What...this?


Can you highlight the specific answer to his question please?

Yeah, I figured that would be too sophisticated for you to grasp.

You and maddow's question shows yet again the stupidity of you libs.

It presupposes you would be told everything a president knows.

Which we all know YOU dumbshits don't.

So, does Obama give you a data dump every morning, dumbass?

Do you know everything the president is told??

Does he give you all his evidence for his actions???

I'm waiting for the answer idiots.

Waiting.....


Crickets..........

Yo! I'm waiting............

We all know the answer is NO but how much you wanna bet you tards won't admit it's no.

I'm waiting..........

Sorry, had enough of your diversions form the real topic.

Your boy fucked up. Crashing and burning. Look at the polls. Dem base is pissed.

So, can I assume from this post that you are actually getting the 'information dump' from the president that the libruls aren't.

That must be what makes your opinions so much more informed than everyone else's.

Not under this MORON of a president. You couldn't pay me all the money in the world to work for him.

But yes I've worked at the highest levels of intelligence.

I am not the one talking out of my ass about foreign policy. You are.

 

[EconChick]

And I notice you never answered my question. You libs never do.

 

[Desperado]

Bullshit. Obabble said that...not Iraq. It's what he wanted since 2003.

Mr. Maliki played down Iraq's need for any major help from the U.S. military, even while acknowledging serious deficiencies in areas including control of airspace and borders. He said the days when ethnic or sectarian-based militias roamed the streets of Iraq and operated above the law were over.

"Not a single militia or gang can confront Iraqi forces and take over a street or a house," said Mr. Maliki. "This is finished; we are comfortable about that."

He said full withdrawal of U.S. troops also will remove a prime motivator of insurgents—both the Shiite fighters tied to militia groups and Iran, and Sunnis linked to Mr. Hussein's ousted Baath party.

Also note that the citizens of the US wanted our military out of Iraq and voted that way.
One of the reasons Obama won was by promising to end the war. As opposed to McCain who became a laughing stock by saying we should keep our troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
I remember when he said that on some Sunday talk show, When I heard that I knew than that McCain had just sealed his fate and lost the election.

 

[Iceweasel]

And I notice you never answered my question. You libs never do.

Libs believe whatever they want to believe for the moment. Usually to force some agenda down our throats. Facts don't matter.

 

[Iceweasel]

Also note that the citizens of the US wanted our military out of Iraq and voted that way.
One of the reasons Obama won was by promising to end the war. As opposed to McCain who became a laughing stock by saying we should keep our troops in Iraq for another 100 years.

Aslo note the desperate tone to your post. Iraq wasn't on the ballot. We did not vote on it. You have no idea what everyone was thinking that voted for Obama and it's unlikely we would have kept a full force of troops there. Likely a small force, like in other countries. And now we see the outcome of a complete pullout, neither Obama nor the sleepwalkers that voted for him saw it coming. Go figure.

 

[Desperado]

Also note that the citizens of the US wanted our military out of Iraq and voted that way.
One of the reasons Obama won was by promising to end the war. As opposed to McCain who became a laughing stock by saying we should keep our troops in Iraq for another 100 years.

Aslo note the desperate tone to your post. Iraq wasn't on the ballot. We did not vote on it. You have no idea what everyone was thinking that voted for Obama and it's unlikely we would have kept a full force of troops there. Likely a small force, like in other countries. And now we see the outcome of a complete pullout, neither Obama nor the sleepwalkers that voted for him saw it coming. Go figure.

Of course Iraq was not on the ballot, but it was a major plank in their platforms and a major talking point. Americans were war weary and did not think Iraq was worth the cost and wanted nothing more to do with the country.

 

[Iceweasel]

Of course Iraq was not on the ballot, but it was a major plank in their platforms and a major talking point. Americans were war weary and did not think Iraq was worth the cost and wanted nothing more to do with the country.

I doubt most people knew what "the plank" was. What was the McCain and Romney's position, without looking it up? If it wasn't worth it then why is it worth it now? Or is it?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

We couldn't put our soldiers under Iraqi law not because of future actions but fearing prosecution for the 300,000 or so dead Iraqi civilians during previous operations.

 

[Theowl32]

Well, there are a few reasons why this country truly cannot ever win a war again. The simple fact is most people have absolutely no clue what it entails and all of the logistical realities. It is hell, and that is a fact. However, there is a lot more to it.

This "war on terror" was never going to be about eliminating one terror group, or getting rid of one leader etc. That, is the naivety that has been truly causing the mass murders we see today. If we think this war on terror has been about causing "disruption" for al qaeda, or killing bin laden then we just do not get it. If we actually think this was all about a thump and run after 911, then we are really lost.

That is what it seems most of America believes. Hence, we are in a quagmire like Vietnam, which is truly when we started getting immense pressure to conduct politically correct wars. Still to this day, stopping the spread of communism was a righteous thing. South Korea can tell you all about it. Of course that type of thing is not acknowledged by our commie press.

We are very fortunate WWII was fought just before the press became what it has become today. Very fortunate. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the reality we face now. We are surrounded by a naive public that truly does not know what this war on terror is about, how it should be conducted, and the only way it can be won. Those thinking if we leave the whole area and just abandon Israel, or whatever will end the spread of terror, then you truly have no clue and are just awfully naive.

 

[dilloduck]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

We couldn't put our soldiers under Iraqi law not because of future actions but fearing prosecution for the 300,000 or so dead Iraqi civilians during previous operations.

I don't see why not-----We invaded the entire country, hung it's dictator and killed his sons.

 

[Iceweasel]

We couldn't put our soldiers under Iraqi law not because of future actions but fearing prosecution for the 300,000 or so dead Iraqi civilians during previous operations.

I don't see why not-----We invaded the entire country, hung it's dictator and killed his sons.

Talk about being informed! They violated numerous UN resolution so the invasion was legal by all counts. Except by libs, but they aren't part of the real universe. We didn't hang Saddam and his boys could have surrendered like papa.

 

[Plasmaball]

Who is THEY???? This is the liberal problem when you have a small brain. There's no they. There wasn't even any THEY with the Soviet Union. Not even with China.

There are many factions. They change their opinions. And they change their minds during different time frames. There are thousands of variables to take into account and once again you libs think in MONOLITH.

this is the problem with righties like you. Too fucking stupid because their ego gets in the way and they need to win. You state there is no they and then proclaim that there is a they.

The other point is that Germany is not the middle east and thus we can assume they won't act the same.
Furthermore picking the word "they" as if its some sort of issue in terms is stupid.

Typically when saying they, you mean the leaders. Its really not that complex of an issue. Of course we could also look at polls in Iraq that showed a majority wanted America out. The Iraqi Government wanted us out, America wanted out and thus the negotiation failed.

Bush failed because we went into a region we shouldnt have.
Bush failed because he put Maliki in charge, he hand picked him.
Obama failed because he washed his hands of Iraq the moment he got in there and thus didnt bother to guide the Iraqi government like Bushed tried.

Iraqi did what always happens. You remove a bigger power and they fall into tribal wars. You were told it would happen, It happened, and now everyone is trying to blame everyone else because some didnt want to listen.

No lunkhead. You're just an idiot. You have no credibility on this issue. Some of you are just too stupid to grasp complex subjects. I'm sure you don't do well with physics.....don't do well with the Constitution.....and I KNOW you don't do well with economics. I on the other hand was there before, during, and after the surge. I spent time in every part of the country. I could go on but it would really make you feel small. You're not the person I'm talking to when I post. I'm talking to people who have open minds and realize the media's been feeding them bullshit for 6 years now.

I know idiots like you are hopeless.




ETA: And for the umpteenth time idiot, bush passed a success story on to Obama. O said so himself. So go back to smoking crack moron.

You mean the Iraqi army Bush spent 5+ years training at the expense of our blood and treasure!!!

Yea, that one.

Just another in the very, very long line of GOP failures. The only thing they are really good at is "fail".

Oh geeze, here we go again. I feel like the physics teacher trying to get those with intellectual disabilities to stop fidgeting.

The training was great. What you would know if you kept up with the smallest sliver of news is that we the U.S. provided the glue. We weren't just there militarily, we were mentoring them in the diplomatic realm, the political realm, the econ development realm, police, military, etc.


We were the glue, shit for brains.

When Obama pulled out, he removed the glue. Bush had been helping to guide Maliki along by mentoring him. O basically made Maliki take the training wheels off before he was ready.

Maliki regressed and made decisions that really hurt Sunnis. When the Sunnis were attacked by ISIS, Sunni soldiers and police had already given up on Maliki's leadership.

They fell apart for political reasons, not training reasons.

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.

Funny. I don't understand complex issues but here you are copying my post as if this was your opinion all along..

Again you are a wannabe politicalchic and nothing more.

Btw isis are the Sunnis dipshit.

Oh and he didn't regress..he was a virtual unknown and Bush went with him because he had nobody else to pick as leader. We didn't know what he was going to do....seriously go away.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

They fell apart because the dumb fuck you dumb fucks put into office fucked it up. IDIOTs.

They fell apart because Maliki's coaltion in parliament would approve nothing that gave US troops immunity from Iraq law. The Sadr block in parliament and other nationalists wouid not pass it.

Obama correctly would not negotiate that out.

You may not give a shit about our troops being subject to Iraqi courts but Obama does.

Thats how democracy works. The majority rules.

Just like the majority in the US rules who have settled it, Bush should have never started the war in the first place and none of this wouid be happening as a result of US horribly misplaced military agression agsinst Iraq in 2003.