Looks like Baghdad imploding

[NotfooledbyW]

Iraq hails victory over Islamic State extremists in Tikrit


KHALID MOHAMMED, AP

Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, center, Iraqi forces commander in Tikrit, inspects his forces in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad, Iraq, on April 1, 2015.


CF 10000989

Obama turned Iraq over to his Jihadist friends in ISIS

TD 10040997

Yeah and how's that worked out for Iraq? ISIS is still at Baghdad's door fool.

Obama got his regime change and you and other asshole Naziprogs were cheering away that everything would change because BamBam's man was in charge.

Fucking idiots.

CF 10073757

Baghdad falls after the midterm shellacking.

Bookmark it

How more idiotic can you people be?

Iraqi forces, including soldiers, police officers, Shiite militias and Sunni tribes, launched a large-scale operation to recapture Tikrit on March 2. Last week, the U.S. launched airstrikes on the embattled city at the request of the Iraqi government.

Recapturing Tikrit is seen as the biggest win so far for Baghdad's Shiite-led government. The city is about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Baghdad on the road connecting the capital to Mosul. Retaking it will help Iraqi forces have a major supply link for any future operation against Mosul.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the victory was compelling evidence that the U.S. strategy against IS was working. He said the Tikrit operation had been stalled for weeks but that coalition airstrikes and advancing local forces apparently caused IS fighters to withdraw.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11100750.

In which case don't you think Barack Obama should have been doing everything he could to GET a new SOFA?

Doesn't matter since the Iraqis were never going to approve a SOFA with immunity and Panetta
has been proven wrong for recommending US troops needed to stay if they got immunity.

Obama kept 15,000 troops in Kuwait in case Iraq asked for them to come back in. Iraq never asked for US combat troops on the ground to fight for them. Panetta's book tour behavior last year should embarrass him tonight. The Iraqis just liberated Tikrit. Baghdad will never implode or fall. Iraqis will not lose Iraq to Daesh.

Iraq is steadily defeating Daesh and they still do not want or need Americans on the ground in a combat role.

"Iraq hails victory over Islamic State extremists in Tikrit"


KHALID MOHAMMED, AP

"Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, center, Iraqi forces commander in Tikrit, inspects his forces in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad, Iraq, on April 1, 2015."

Why should Americans have stayed when Iraq would not give them immunity? The Iraqis will survive,

They survived twice as much deaths in 2006 when 140,000 US troops were there as they did in 2014 when US troops were not there.

 

[Oldstyle]

All Panetta did was tell the truth...which you don't want to hear.

As for what's taking place in Iraq right now? It's the Iranians that are helping Iraq push ISIS back. Who do you think is going to end up in the driver's seat if things continue on as they are? If you think that Iran being the major influence in Iraq is a good thing for us or the rest of the Middle East then you're even more naive than I thought you were.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11101623

All Panetta did TOPICS GALLERY tell the truth...which you don't want to hear.

I heard Panetta tell this truth in 2011 as negotiations were ongoing:

NF 11079033

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

What you call Panetta's truth was essentially a forecast that has turned out not to have been appropriate because Iraq is will rebuild it for the Sunnis that live In a free and democratic state that has chosen its allies and how to defend their nation in whatever way they see fit. And they liberated Tikrit and the PM has pledged to rebuild the city for the Sunnis that live there.

 

[Oldstyle]

You keep repeating the same nonsense, Notfooled and that doesn't change the fact that Panetta made it very clear in his subsequent book that the reason no new SOFA was accomplished was because a small faction in the Obama White House...including Barack Obama...didn't want one.

You're now forced to accuse Leon Panetta of being a liar because if he ISN'T...then it's obvious that the reason no new SOFA was reached wasn't because of the Iraqis...it was because of the Obama White House!

 

[Camp]

You keep repeating the same nonsense, Notfooled and that doesn't change the fact that Panetta made it very clear in his subsequent book that the reason no new SOFA was accomplished was because a small faction in the Obama White House...including Barack Obama...didn't want one.

You're now forced to accuse Leon Panetta of being a liar because if he ISN'T...then it's obvious that the reason no new SOFA was reached wasn't because of the Iraqis...it was because of the Obama White House!

Oldstyle, why do you continue with your claims? Notfooled continues to consistently post links with quotes and data to prove his points and you continue to defend your opinion with, well, opinions. You just seem to be unable to accept that Obama was elected into office by folks who did not want anymore dead and wounded Americans coming home from Iraq. You seem to think we should have Iraq's interest as our primary concern. The American people spoke with their votes. We want our primary concern to be not wasting American military personnel lives on the whims and failures of Iraqi politicians. We gave them the chance to be free and independent. Enough is enough. No more massive numbers of dead and maimed Americans for Iraq.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've defended my "opinion" with the opinion of Leon Panetta...the man who was chosen BY Barack Obama to not only head the CIA but to be his Secretary of Defense! For you to sit here and declare that Panetta's writings on the inner workings of the Obama White House and specifically Obama's lack of interest in a new SOFA, somehow doesn't count is amusing.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11101623

All Panetta did TOPICS GALLERY tell the truth...which you don't want to hear.

I heard Panetta tell this truth in 2011 as negotiations were ongoing:

NF 11079033

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

What you call Panetta's truth was essentially a forecast that has turned out not to have been appropriate because Iraq is will rebuild it for the Sunnis that live In a free and democratic state that has chosen its allies and how to defend their nation in whatever way they see fit. And they liberated Tikrit and the PM has pledged to rebuild the city for the Sunnis that live there.

What Panetta related about why the new SOFA was never reached isn't a "forecast"...it is a behind the scenes look at WHY a new SOFA wasn't accomplished despite calls for one from the Joint Chiefs, Panetta and the State Department.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your problem is that Leon Panetta has a reputation for impeccable integrity. So either he's a liar...and that's hard to believe...or he was telling the truth about why a new SOFA never got done.

 

[Camp]

Your problem is that Leon Panetta has a reputation for impeccable integrity. So either he's a liar...and that's hard to believe...or he was telling the truth about why a new SOFA never got done.

Panetta nor anyone else in authority or knowledge of the topic had the responsibility to decide whether the potentials of leaving troops inside of Iraq with or without a SOFA or any other kind of agreement. Only the President had the ultimate authority. He decided his priority was the safety of American personnel and that the potential or possible loss of military personnel was not worth the benefits of having troops inside the jurisdiction and borders of Iraq. He did what the American people elected him to do. Sorry if you wanted a different President. The people voted in Obama and his promise to leave Iraq. Sorry if you don't like the way things eventually turned out in Iraq. Bush and Cheney had plenty of time to accomplish what they wanted. The country decided to go a different way. That is why we have elections. I for one am glad we did not leave troops inside Iraq. I believe if we had we would have lost many troops when ISIS began it's campaign in establishing the Caliphate. Ten or twenty or even thirty thousand American troops may have temporary blunted the campaign, but only at the cost of many American lives.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your problem is that Leon Panetta has a reputation for impeccable integrity. So either he's a liar...and that's hard to believe...or he was telling the truth about why a new SOFA never got done.

Panetta nor anyone else in authority or knowledge of the topic had the responsibility to decide whether the potentials of leaving troops inside of Iraq with or without a SOFA or any other kind of agreement. Only the President had the ultimate authority. He decided his priority was the safety of American personnel and that the potential or possible loss of military personnel was not worth the benefits of having troops inside the jurisdiction and borders of Iraq. He did what the American people elected him to do. Sorry if you wanted a different President. The people voted in Obama and his promise to leave Iraq. Sorry if you don't like the way things eventually turned out in Iraq. Bush and Cheney had plenty of time to accomplish what they wanted. The country decided to go a different way. That is why we have elections. I for one am glad we did not leave troops inside Iraq. I believe if we had we would have lost many troops when ISIS began it's campaign in establishing the Caliphate. Ten or twenty or even thirty thousand American troops may have temporary blunted the campaign, but only at the cost of many American lives.

You're 100% right, Camp! It was Barack Obama's decision to pull those troops out. I find you to be rather naive however if you think it was because of a concern over troop safety rather than a political calculation that doing so would get him reelected. If troop safety was his paramount concern then why wouldn't he also be pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan now?

As for what ISIS would have done if twenty thousand US combat troops had remained in Iraq? I personally don't think they would have dared to cross the border in numbers against the US military. The only reason they did was that we were gone and they didn't fear the Iraqi military in the slightest.

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact is...Barack Obama created a vacuum of power in Iraq when he pulled all our troops out...a vacuum that was subsequently filled by ISIS. That was a policy decision that Obama made over the objections of his Joint Chiefs, his Secretary of Defense and his State Department. His inner circle at the White House made the call on that and they and they alone bear the responsibility for what took place in Iraq afterwards.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11102807

The fact is...Barack Obama created a vacuum of power in Iraq when he pulled all our troops out...a vacuum that was subsequently filled by ISIS.

The vacuum that ISIS filled had nothing to do with US troops not remaining in the country after 2011 first of all because Obama left 15,000 troops in Kuwit. Iraq has never requested US troops to re-enter Iraq in a combat role. And secondly you are now spewing lunatic fringe nut-isms about the "vacuum" that ISIS filled because they filled no vacuum, they murdered and robbed and terrorized a swath of Sunni areas when 80,000 Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and fled. 5,000 US would not have been in a position to stop the assault last June even if Iraq asked for US troops in advance. They would not have been stationed in Mosul in any numbers that could have constrained Daesh.

If you wish to continue to drool on with your 'filled vacuum" crap you must continue to ignore the news of the day denying Tikrit and all the IA and Shiite Militia's and Peshmerga and Sunni fighters victories over Daesh the past few months. The "filled vacuum" legend is dying if not dead already in Iraq.

Keep proceeding - I like to record Obama hater folly.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11102786

As for what ISIS would have done if twenty thousand US combat troops had remained in Iraq? I personally don't think they would have dared to cross the border in numbers against the US military.

There is no way ever that Iraq would have ever granted 24.000 US troops immunity. The Sadrists and Maliki did not want any US troops staying after the Bush agreed deadline. Al Qaeda filtered into Iraq when there were 150,000 US troops in the country when they were free to conduct whatever military ops they determined necessary to do.

Imagine what Daesh could have done to 24,000 US troops when they were seen as the local Sunnis best defense against Maliki's anti Sunni policies. Americans would have looked horrible defending Maliki and Shiites against millions of Sunnis that were not included in Maliki's version of governing Iraq. ISIS did not come into Iraq as a heavily weaponized army from Syria. The came in small groups befriending Sunni frustrated fighters that were battling Maliki's government forces and police. American troops had no business taking Milikis side in that fight or the Sunni side being infiltrated by terrorists.

Keep showing your total ignorance of Iraq's turmoil and sectarianism and political realities.

Not one America was killed in Iraq's Daesh War. Yet ISIS just suffered its worst defeat yet — losing the Iraqi city of Tikrit

Iraqis from all three major sects are defeating Daesh anyway. Surely you aren't denying that?

.
Coalition forces kill 9,500 fighters; 400 soldiers to be deployed to train Iraqi troops

Updated Mon at 8:33am

PHOTO: Coaltion forces fighting Islamic State could soon be joined by 400 Australian and New Zealand soldiers deployed in Iraq to train local troops. (AFP: Tauseed
Coalition forces have killed more than 9,000 Islamic State fighters, and the forces will soon be joined in Iraq by 400 more soldiers to train local troops, the Australian military says.

Iraq is fighting Daesh in the way that they as a sovereign nation wants and no American Troops are dying. It's a shame that you continue to criticize that based upon ignorance of what is going on over there and what went on since 2002.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11102807

The fact is...Barack Obama created a vacuum of power in Iraq when he pulled all our troops out...a vacuum that was subsequently filled by ISIS.

The vacuum that ISIS filled had nothing to do with US troops not remaining in the country after 2011 first of all because Obama left 15,000 troops in Kuwit. Iraq has never requested US troops to re-enter Iraq in a combat role. And secondly you are now spewing lunatic fringe nut-isms about the "vacuum" that ISIS filled because they filled no vacuum, they murdered and robbed and terrorized a swath of Sunni areas when 80,000 Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and fled. 5,000 US would not have been in a position to stop the assault last June even if Iraq asked for US troops in advance. They would not have been stationed in Mosul in any numbers that could have constrained Daesh.

If you wish to continue to drool on with your 'filled vacuum" crap you must continue to ignore the news of the day denying Tikrit and all the IA and Shiite Militia's and Peshmerga and Sunni fighters victories over Daesh the past few months. The "filled vacuum" legend is dying if not dead already in Iraq.

Keep proceeding - I like to record Obama hater folly.

How does the US having troops in Kuwait translate into there not being a power vacuum in Iraq? Did ISIS attack Kuwait? Ah...no...they attacked Iraq where there were no US troops! And why were there no US troops to support the Iraqi Army? There were no US troops in Iraq to stop the ISIS "JV" because Barry and his little buddies in the White House had decided to pull them out! THAT is why Leon Panetta roasted Obama's leadership skills. Panetta and the Joint Chiefs told Obama what the result of a total pull out might mean. Barry ignored them.

 

[Oldstyle]

Now you've got Iranian militiamen inside of Iraq fighting against ISIS and if ISIS "is" defeated then the Iranians will be the ones reaping the rewards for helping out. Let me guess, Notfooled...you're one of those idiots who doesn't see Iran as a danger

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11109860

Now you've got Iranian militiamen inside of Iraq fighting against ISIS and if ISIS "is" defeated then the Iranians will be the ones reaping the rewards for helping out. Let me guess, Notfooled...you're one of those idiots who doesn't see Iran as a danger

The Iranians reaped the rewards of the 2003 US invasion soon after it began. You were not concerned about Iran when they came into Iraq long before Obama was elected. What is your sudden concern now? This is who brought the Badr Militia into Iraq from Iran. The guy holding hands with smirking Bush there:


↑
President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

OS 9893178

Maliki was put in place by the US. He was propped up by the billions that we gave to Iraq.

He was propped up by Tehran as well. Allawi was the US Choice while Maliki was Tehran's choice and the anti American Sadrists put Maliki in power. .

You make no sense bitching about Iran defending Shiites from being butchered right across their border in Iraq. Of course they will help.

Would you prefer it were American ground troops dying over there again. Haven't you seen enough US troops come home in body bags from Iraq? Are you sick mentally or something?

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11109860

Now you've got Iranian militiamen inside of Iraq fighting against ISIS and if ISIS "is" defeated then the Iranians will be the ones reaping the rewards for helping out. Let me guess, Notfooled...you're one of those idiots who doesn't see Iran as a danger

The Iranians reaped the rewards of the 2003 US invasion soon after it began. You were not concerned about Iran when they came into Iraq long before Obama was elected. What is your sudden concern now? This is who brought the Badr Militia into Iraq from Iran. The guy holding hands with smirking Bush there:


↑
President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

OS 9893178

Maliki was put in place by the US. He was propped up by the billions that we gave to Iraq.

He was propped up by Tehran as well. Allawi was the US Choice while Maliki was Tehran's choice and the anti American Sadrists put Maliki in power. .

You make no sense bitching about Iran defending Shiites from being butchered right across their border in Iraq. Of course they will help.

Would you prefer it were American ground troops dying over there again. Haven't you seen enough US troops come home in body bags from Iraq? Are you sick mentally or something?

I would have preferred it if Barack Obama had listened to the advice of his Secretary of Defense and his Joint Chiefs of Staff and done the work to obtain a new SOFA so that a force of about 20,000 American troops could have stayed and stabilized Iraq.

All of the thousands of people in Iraq that were butchered by ISIS can thank Barry for leaving them to the "mercy" of the so called "JV Team"

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11022504 RE: konradv, post: 9603642

Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now. If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

If you really wanted a stable Iraq you should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. The inspectors were verifying that Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles or programs to make them. But if you had to be dumb enough to invade Iraq when inspectors were in their you should have listened to your military advisers and gone with several hundred thousand troops and a plan for setting up a government to replace the one you just tore down. I have not hear you complain that Bush ignored Shineski and other military advisers that a plan was needed to be able to keep Iraq stable after removing the regime that kept order and prevented AQ and ISIS types from gaining ground in Iraq.

Your are complaining that six years of Obama got us to the point we were at on March 22 2015 but it looks like now with the liberation of Tikrit this past week that within a year Iraq will be stabilized without Daesh going on a killing rampage as they did for six months in 2014.

So my projections are that 8 years of Obama has one year of increased violence in Iraq but never as high as 2006 and that was achieved with no US combat troops in a combat role and no fatalities after 2010,

On the otherhand with Bush he had five years total with only one being stable but not as stable as prior to the invasion itself. That is a total of increased instability plus 4484 US deaths and 40,000 casualties for four years with only one relatively stable year out of five years. That is 20% stability for Bush and 80% stability for Obama in Iraq by Wingnut statndards.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11102786

If troop safety was his paramount concern then why wouldn't he also be pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan now?

Troops serving in Afghanistan were immune from Afghan courts by UN mandate and will be covered for at least the next ten years under a SOFA agreement that Obama negotiated and passed a Loya Jirga and was signed by the new president.

Why couldn't bush get a ten year deal in Iraq just like Obama did in Afghanistan?