John BombBombBomb McCain desired Regime Change II in Iraq 2012

[NotfooledbyW]

Would a one track narrow minded President McCain have ordered large numbers of US combat troops back into Iraq to force Iraq's elected officials to accept US terms for renewed US occupation of Iraq, when the Iraqis refused to extend the 2008 Bush timetable for withdrawal that forced all US troops out by the end of 2011?

Thank god for Obama. Thank god McCain/and his idiotic VP pick Palin did not win in 2008.

There could be American troops dying on the ground in Iraq right now .

Because:

B]McCain Slams Obama: We Should Have Stayed In Iraq[/B]

McCain Slams Obama: We Should Have Stayed In IraqByCaitlin MacNeal Published August 10, 2014, 10:00 AM EDT

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), known for his aggressive foreign policy views, slammed President Obama's approach to the Islamic state militants in Iraq.

On CNN's "State of the Union," McCain blamed the deteriorating situation in Iraq on America's failure to leave forces behind in Iraq.

The senator said Obama's targeted strikes in Iraq aren't enough.

.

McCain Slams Obama: We Should Have Stayed In Iraq

Maybe McCain consulted Palin and has concluded that the Iraq became part of the United States when his Party's president bombed and invaded it in 2003

 

[tinydancer]

Liar. Iraq desperately tried to renegotiate the accord. Obama refused.

Obama and western leaders own this invasion of Iraq by ISIS. Every drop of blood spilled in Syria and Iraq by ISIS is on their hands.

 

[tinydancer]

And just an FYI for any left winger. It is not a civil war in Syria. It is not a civil war in Iraq.

Both countries have been invaded and now occupied by a terror army that our leaders allowed to grow in power and stature so they could depose Assad. It is sickening that our media continues to lie and call these invasions "civil wars" and not for what they are.

Jihadists from all over the world have flocked to ISIS. They are now the wealthiest and most powerful terror army on the planet.

Check out this man and his family now in Syria.

The boy, who looks dressed more for a holiday than a warzone, looks uncomfortable and struggles to grip the head in both hands

'That's my boy!': Shocking photograph of a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD Australian boy brandishing the head of a Syrian soldier - and his jihadist father who took it

Young son of Khaled Sharrouf was photographed holding the severed head in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa
Sharrouf, one of Australia's most-wanted terrorists posted the photo to Twitter last week
He is believed to be fighting with al-Qaeda off-shoot Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant


Australian jihadist's son, 7, poses with decapitated head of Syrian solider | Mail Online

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On 08-10-2014 at 02:24 PM I asked, "Would a one track narrow minded President McCain have ordered large numbers of US combat troops back into Iraq to force Iraq's elected officials to accept US terms for renewed US occupation of Iraq, when the Iraqis refused to extend the 2008 Bush timetable for withdrawal that forced all US troops out by the end of 2011?"

Notice that I wrote "the Iraqis refused to extend the 2008 Bush timetable for withdrawal"

And then on 08-10-2014 at 03:10 PM tinydancer called me a liar and then wrote, "Iraq desperately tried to renegotiate the accord. Obama refused."

What I know is that on this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-obama-will-win-the-war-that-bush-failed.html) econchick posted a report that shows I am absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong.


On 07-24-2014 at 11:17 AM EconChick posted reporting by New York Times' Michael Gordon where he wrote, "Simply put, while a number of Iraqi political leaders may have privately wished for continued American involvement to serve as a buffer and broker between both domestic rivals and neighboring regimes, far fewer were willing to support this position in a public, contentious debate. No one wants to be regarded as an American stooge in the prideful arena of Iraqi politics. Backing parliamentarians into a corner by demanding public ratification doomed a new SOFA to failure."

So the question is, what backed Iraqi parliamentarians into a corner? I had to read the actual report that Gordon wrote because tinydancer didn't post the full facts of the matter.

She wouldn't post from the actual document but my standards require that I will:


The following comes from Michael Gordan's oped:

"But the White House wanted airtight immunities for any troops staying in Iraq, which American government lawyers, the Iraqi chief justice and James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted would require a new agreement that was endorsed by the Iraqi Parliament."

So if you would like to be informed about why the Iraqis did not allow US troops to stay beyond the Bush negotiated deadline you can check it on this link provided by tinydancer:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/23...anted=all&_r=0


The truth of the matter is that Obama would have kept some troops in Iraq if the Iraqi official/parliamentarians would have passed it. They would not pass it. So they rejected it.

You are busted calling me a liar when you are wrong about the facts and the historical record.

 

[Wildman]

And just an FYI for any left winger. It is not a civil war in Syria. It is not a civil war in Iraq.

Both countries have been invaded and now occupied by a terror army that our leaders allowed to grow in power and stature so they could depose Assad. It is sickening that our media continues to lie and call these invasions "civil wars" and not for what they are.

Jihadists from all over the world have flocked to ISIS. They are now the wealthiest and most powerful terror army on the planet.

Check out this man and his family now in Syria.

The boy, who looks dressed more for a holiday than a warzone, looks uncomfortable and struggles to grip the head in both hands

'That's my boy!': Shocking photograph of a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD Australian boy brandishing the head of a Syrian soldier - and his jihadist father who took it

Young son of Khaled Sharrouf was photographed holding the severed head in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa
Sharrouf, one of Australia's most-wanted terrorists posted the photo to Twitter last week
He is believed to be fighting with al-Qaeda off-shoot Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant


Australian jihadist's son, 7, poses with decapitated head of Syrian solider | Mail Online

i despise censored photos, where can i find the uncensored version ?

 

[blackhawk]

As the status of forces agreement that was ending was trying to be extended the military planners were saying they would need to have force of between 20,000 to 25,000 remain in Iraq to help keep things secure and stable the final number Obama came up with was 3000 mostly for training and advisory roles. As good as American troops are 3000 could not have stopped what came across the border from Syria 20,000 to 25,000 would have likely dissuaded ISIS from ever crossing the border.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On 08-10-2014 at 10:28 PM blackhawk wrote, "As the status of forces agreement that was ending was trying to be extended the military planners were saying they would need to have force of between 20,000 to 25,000 remain in Iraq to help keep things secure and stable the final number Obama came up with was 3000 mostly for training and advisory roles. "



So what is your point? Your statement may be true but my correction for tinydancer is that those 20,000 to 25,000 combat troops could 'never' be approved by Iraq's legislature. According to Iraq's Chief Justice in order for any negotiated SOFA to be a binding agreement, it had to be approved by the parliament. So whether it was one US combat soldier or a million it does not matter. The Iraqis majority opposed it. And that is how democracy works.

After all Bush also told us in Springfield Ohio in September 2004 all about America's obligation to Iraq:

We have an obligation, I think -- this generation has an obligation to do the hard work, the hard work to defend ourselves from these brutal killers; the hard work to spread freedom and liberty; the work necessary so that someday, people will look back at us and say, thank goodness they didn't lose faith. Thank goodness they were strong in their beliefs that we can overcome this evil and that liberty will help change the world for the better.

Iraq's rejection in 2011 of any troops staying in 2012 according to Bush his damned self means the Iraqis chose liberty and freedom. Why should a US President undo what Bush killed so many to achieve in Iraq. Freedom and Liberty. It was even called Operation Iraqi Freedom.




On 08-10-2014 at 10:28 PM blackhawk wrote, "As good as American troops are 3000 could not have stopped what came across the border from Syria 20,000 to 25,000 would have likely dissuaded ISIS from ever crossing the border"



So what. The Iraqis did not and would not allow those troops to stay with immunity from the Iraqi law and courts. Would you keep troops there without immunity?

 

[blackhawk]

On 08-10-2014 at 10:28 PM blackhawk wrote, "As the status of forces agreement that was ending was trying to be extended the military planners were saying they would need to have force of between 20,000 to 25,000 remain in Iraq to help keep things secure and stable the final number Obama came up with was 3000 mostly for training and advisory roles. "



So what is your point? Your statement may be true but my correction for tinydancer is that those 20,000 to 25,000 combat troops could 'never' be approved by Iraq's legislature. According to Iraq's Chief Justice in order for any negotiated SOFA to be a binding agreement, it had to be approved by the parliament. So whether it was one US combat soldier or a million it does not matter. The Iraqis majority opposed it. And that is how democracy works.

After all Bush also told us in Springfield Ohio in September 2004 all about America's obligation to Iraq:

We have an obligation, I think -- this generation has an obligation to do the hard work, the hard work to defend ourselves from these brutal killers; the hard work to spread freedom and liberty; the work necessary so that someday, people will look back at us and say, thank goodness they didn't lose faith. Thank goodness they were strong in their beliefs that we can overcome this evil and that liberty will help change the world for the better.

Iraq's rejection in 2011 of any troops staying in 2012 according to Bush his damned self means the Iraqis chose liberty and freedom. Why should a US President undo what Bush killed so many to achieve in Iraq. Freedom and Liberty. It was even called Operation Iraqi Freedom.




On 08-10-2014 at 10:28 PM blackhawk wrote, "As good as American troops are 3000 could not have stopped what came across the border from Syria 20,000 to 25,000 would have likely dissuaded ISIS from ever crossing the border"



So what. The Iraqis did not and would not allow those troops to stay with immunity from the Iraqi law and courts. Would you keep troops there without immunity?

You put in a lot of effort to say nothing the truth is if Obama had really wanted to extend the agreement he could have found away. The bottom line is Obama wanted all the way out of Iraq no matter what he didn't care what his military advisors said he didn't care about the possible consequences he just wanted to say he ended the war something he and his supporters reminded us of many times before things went to hell.

 

[Two Thumbs]

off topic

But just how seriously am I to take a person whose name is notfooledbyW?

since it joined Jul 2014

who gives a fuck what mccain wants?

it's obama bombing the fuck out of people now instead of sending mass aide to the refugees.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On 08-10-2014 at 11:32 PM Blackhawk wrote: "You put in a lot of effort to say nothing the truth is if Obama had really wanted to extend the agreement he could have found away.:


Here's a clue for you Blackhawk. When you preface your point with "IF" it is not 'the truth'. It is your biased speculation. It is speculation that is fundamentally flawed because the fact is that the Iraqi government would not approve it. Obama's only option would be the McCain option to force regime change including disbanding the entire parliament and appoint a new government that would allow US combat troops to continue combat operations in Iraq with the same status as Bush negotiated in 2008 with a January 1 2012 deadline.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On 08-10-2014 at 11:36 PM Two Thumbs wrote, "who gives a fuck what mccain wants?"


I do. He's spreading a lie that people like Blackhawk and maybe you can't critically analyze and could harm the current military effort going on in Iraq. For Obama to do what the 'sore loser' wants he would have to violate Iraq's sovereignty.

What kind of arguments are you presenting. Going after a screen name and how long one's been here. You are weak.


On 08-10-2014 at 11:36 PM Two Thumbs wrote, it's obama bombing the fuck out of people now instead of sending mass aide to the refugees.

They are not 'people' being bombed. They are terrorists who have formed a terrorist army and are ruthless murderers, thieves and likely rapists.


If McCain believes more bombs are required then he should make that case. I think most Americans will support that. But when McCain outright fantasizes on the ability of a US President to force a sovereign government to do something they are dead set against he needs to be called out. That is what I've done and I don't see you being able to refute it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Liar. Iraq desperately tried to renegotiate the accord. Obama refused.

Who is "Iraq" in your desperate biased analysis? Or what officials constitute your "Iraq". Things like this matter in a facts-based world.

 

[Two Thumbs]

On 08-10-2014 at 11:36 PM Two Thumbs wrote, "who gives a fuck what mccain wants?"


I do. He's spreading a lie that people like Blackhawk and maybe you can't critically analyze and could harm the current military effort going on in Iraq. For Obama to do what the 'sore loser' wants he would have to violate Iraq's sovereignty.

What kind of arguments are you presenting. Going after a screen name and how long one's been here. You are weak.


On 08-10-2014 at 11:36 PM Two Thumbs wrote, it's obama bombing the fuck out of people now instead of sending mass aide to the refugees.

They are not 'people' being bombed. They are terrorists who have formed a terrorist army and are ruthless murderers, thieves and likely rapists.


If McCain believes more bombs are required then he should make that case. I think most Americans will support that. But when McCain outright fantasizes on the ability of a US President to force a sovereign government to do something they are dead set against he needs to be called out. That is what I've done and I don't see you being able to refute it.

so if iraq demanded that obama stop killing it's people, you'd expect him to stop?

those terrorist aren't people? pfft So you were good with W waterboarding terrorist, right?


you might want to pay more attention to what you say, cuz you're fucking stewpud and have an outdated screen name to let people know upfront.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

so if iraq demanded that obama stop killing it's people, you'd expect him to stop?

those terrorist aren't people? pfft So you were good with W waterboarding terrorist, right?

Your first hypothetical is stupid because if Maliki were to be asking there be no bombing of these subhuman terrorists then he is for them. In that case it would be right to remove him from power just as Bush toppled the Taliban from power in 2002. I supported that decision to wipe out the Taliban by Bush and continue to support our military mission there.

You whiffed the ball in that one. next pitch.


On torture you are even dumber in your reply. I agree with McCain and Petraeus on this waterboarding issue it is reprehensible and wrong. And I see you have no thinking process when you go with the right wing herd reply.

When a sub-Human scum ball terrorist is operating weaponry or military vehicals on the ground it is legitimate during war to kill him by whatever means possible.

However a sub-human terrorist in custody is a POW. We don't torture even subhuman terrorists in captivity. I prefer we kill them on the battlefield but if they surrender properly or get taken alive like KSM, it is morally repugnant to torture them and stooping down to their subhuman level.


Got any more stupid replies?

That's two big whiffs. You swing at anything don't you!


Listening to Ben Conable of Rand Corp, a retired US Marine intelligence officer who served in Anbar. The best analysis I have heard thus far.

 

[theHawk]

I love it, let's create a fantasy thread about what McCain would of done even though he lost two elections ago. That way we can deflect from the obvious fact that Obama's foreign policy has been and still is a total disaster, so much so that even Hilary Clinton is now trying to separate herself from the Hussein.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I love it, let's create a fantasy thread about what McCain would of done even though he lost two elections ago. That way we can deflect from the obvious fact that Obama's foreign policy has been and still is a total disaster, so much so that even Hilary Clinton is now trying to separate herself from the Hussein.

The fact that McCain is a US Senator and he is criticizing Obama's policy on the Sunday shows based upon very shallow an hypothetical talking points means we as citizens should question his motives. You want to shut that questioning down becsause the is little defense of what he is saying.

You think it suffices to just go about saying Obama is wrong without ever attempting to explain why.

Why the fear of debate and establishing facts.


Retired Marine and intelligence officer Ben Consble just said on C/Span that the reason bombing every military asset creating dust in Iraq is a bad idea because there are non-IS Sunni militias that have captured or possess some of those vehicals. The US could take them all out with ease but our policy is to hit only the most radical and ruthless IS terrorists. That takes more time and more precision and intelligence gathering.

We don't want the US to be seen as defending Maliki from any group other than the brutal terrorists when they can be sorted out.

JohnBombBombBombMCcain's boilerplate strategy in this battle appears to be foolish. As foolish as kicking the inspectors out and bombing and invading Iraq instead. Lets not blindly listen to such fools ever again.

I predict you will run away shortly. I wish you wouldn't.

 

[paulitician]

Meanwhile, the Dear Leader has begun bombing Iraq and is trying to 'Regime Change' Maliki. He's also currently funding & arming rebels in Syria. He's doing nothing different than John McInsane or Mitt Romney would be doing right now. This kind of delusional spin is just more loony Obamabot programming. This hilarious video sums them up perfectly...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ]Help Obama Kickstart World War III! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kosh]

I love it, let's create a fantasy thread about what McCain would of done even though he lost two elections ago. That way we can deflect from the obvious fact that Obama's foreign policy has been and still is a total disaster, so much so that even Hilary Clinton is now trying to separate herself from the Hussein.

The fact that McCain is a US Senator and he is criticizing Obama's policy on the Sunday shows based upon very shallow an hypothetical talking points means we as citizens should question his motives. You want to shut that questioning down becsause the is little defense of what he is saying.

You think it suffices to just go about saying Obama is wrong without ever attempting to explain why.

Why the fear of debate and establishing facts.


Retired Marine and intelligence officer Ben Consble just said on C/Span that the reason bombing every military asset creating dust in Iraq is a bad idea because there are non-IS Sunni militias that have captured or possess some of those vehicals. The US could take them all out with ease but our policy is to hit only the most radical and ruthless IS terrorists. That takes more time and more precision and intelligence gathering.

We don't want the US to be seen as defending Maliki from any group other than the brutal terrorists when they can be sorted out.

JohnBombBombBombMCcain's boilerplate strategy in this battle appears to be foolish. As foolish as kicking the inspectors out and bombing and invading Iraq instead. Lets not blindly listen to such fools ever again.

I predict you will run away shortly. I wish you wouldn't.

Can you show where the far left did not do this to Bush on every move he made?

 

[paulitician]

I know this is going to sound shocking to Communists/Progressives and Neocons, but it's time for a balanced Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy and secured borders. More Big Brother control of your lives and war, will not make you safer. In fact, it'll actually only make you less safe. Anyway, just a suggestion. Enjoy your war sheeple.

 

[whitehall]

Would a one track narrow minded President McCain have ordered large numbers of US combat troops back into Iraq to force Iraq's elected officials to accept US terms for renewed US occupation of Iraq, when the Iraqis refused to extend the 2008 Bush timetable for withdrawal that forced all US troops out by the end of 2011?

Thank god for Obama. Thank god McCain/and his idiotic VP pick Palin did not win in 2008.

There could be American troops dying on the ground in Iraq right now .

Because:

B]McCain Slams Obama: We Should Have Stayed In Iraq[/B]

McCain Slams Obama: We Should Have Stayed In IraqByCaitlin MacNeal Published August 10, 2014, 10:00 AM EDT

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), known for his aggressive foreign policy views, slammed President Obama's approach to the Islamic state militants in Iraq.

On CNN's "State of the Union," McCain blamed the deteriorating situation in Iraq on America's failure to leave forces behind in Iraq.

The senator said Obama's targeted strikes in Iraq aren't enough.

.

McCain Slams Obama: We Should Have Stayed In Iraq

Maybe McCain consulted Palin and has concluded that the Iraq became part of the United States when his Party's president bombed and invaded it in 2003

"His party's president bombed and invaded it"? President Bush gave Saddam almost a year to comply with UN sanctions. (Our) Congress including about 36% of democrats voted for boots on the ground in Iraq. The claim of "his party's president" is typical of the treasonous cowardly democrat party undermining the mission after they voted for it. Harry Reid should have been indicted for treason when he tried to impact the morale of the Military when he told Americans and the Troops that "the war is lost" just before the Troop surge. It wasn't "McCain's party" that bought a full page ad in the NY Times that called the commander of US Troops in combat "betray-us" it was cowardly treasonous democrat operatives that did all they could to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.