Turns out Obama was right again. Must suck to be the failed GOP leadership.

[Oldstyle]

I know R-Derp is generally clueless but how do you start THIS thread as Obama is in the process of asking Congress for the authority to wage war in the Middle East?

His naive foreign policy has led to the ISIS problem now he's going to have to send American troops BACK into the region. Would now be the time to point out that Obama's military advisers warned him that a premature withdrawal of troops would lead to a destabilized region...advice that Barry ignored because he wanted to be known as the President that stops wars?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

10732877

Would now be the time to point out that Obama's military advisers warned him that a premature withdrawal of troops would lead to a destabilized region..

You keep forgetting that Obama's military advisers were not in control of Iraq in 2012 because Bush agreed to leave by then. And you keep forgetting to mention that Obama's military advisers would not approve of keeping combat troops in Iraq without immunity from being held to Iraqi Shia law.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

CF 10719315

So we had troops and logistical support in the region, but Obama withdrew it all so he could declare victory for his reelection.

Obama withdrew all troops from Iraq to honor the Bush Maliki set deadline for withdrawal. And to bring Bush's dumb war to find WMDs to an end. Iraq became a sovereign nation again under Bush. Obama did keep I believe 5000 troops in Kuwait to keep some logistical and training of Iraq troops in the area and close by.

The DAIISH terrorist scum assault came into Iraq from Syria. The incompetent Iraq officers that Malikii put in command did not recognize the terrorist threat until it was too late and those Shiite coward officers fled their posts in Mosul and Tikrit when DAIISH launched a new assault on Iraq having nothing to do with Bush's failed war to find a WMD that he started in 2003,and agreed to end in 2008 by withdrawing all troops from Iraq.

 

[Oldstyle]

10732877

Would now be the time to point out that Obama's military advisers warned him that a premature withdrawal of troops would lead to a destabilized region..

You keep forgetting that Obama's military advisers were not in control of Iraq in 2012 because Bush agreed to leave by then. And you keep forgetting to mention that Obama's military advisers would not approve of keeping combat troops in Iraq without immunity from being held to Iraqi Shia law.

Did Obama's military advisers caution him that a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq might lead to instability? Did they not advise him to leave a force of 10,000 troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army? Did Obama not ignore that advice?

You want to ignore what Barack Obama CHOSE to do...the foreign policy decisions that he made that led to a vacuum of power that ISIS took advantage of! That's not on Bush...that's on Barry! Obama made the decision that he was going to be the President who "ended" the war in Iraq and so he ignored the advice of his military advisers and did what he thought was going to burnish his legacy.

This President now has a history of ignoring reality because it conflicts with how HE views the world around him. It's something that permeates his domestic policy as well as his foreign policy and it's what's made him the ineffective leader that he is. Six plus years into his time in office he still seems to feel that if he SAYS something is a certain way that it will become that way!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10741591

Did Obama's military advisers caution him that a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq might lead to instability?

Some did, some didn't. However Obama was not the one that needed convincing, Iraqis were not convinced that they needed foreign troops on their soil. So advising Obama should have followed advising Iraq's politicians and
their Iraqi security officials. But Bush made it difficult to convince the Iraqis of what Americans think they needed.

Your question means nothing if we apply reality to it,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10741591

Did they not advise him to leave a force of 10,000 troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army?

Find me one adviser that advised Obama in 2011 to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq subject to Iraqi Sharia law without the immunity that they need and deserve. If you can find none your argument is flawed and should be dropped for its absurdity.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10741591

Did Obama not ignore that advice?

As explained in my last two post the answer is no. You are ignoring the immunity issue and that is what explains the full withdrawal when Bush's agreement on immunity with Iraq ran out of time.

You need to find out why Bush limited his agreement with Maliki to failed three years. Your problem is really with Bush who failed to negotiate a long term basing in Iraq deal that he wanted. Why not a ten year deal like Obama negotiated with Afghanistan?

Bush is your wimp. Deal with it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10741591

You want to ignore what Barack Obama CHOSE to do...the foreign policy decisions that he made that led to a vacuum of power that ISIS took advantage of

I'm ignoring nothing. You cannot point to a foreign policy decision that Obama made that led to a vacuum of power that ISIS took advantage of.

Maliki had seized too much power when he stacked the Iraq Army and Police with his own political henchman.

Obama opposed him on that. It was not Obama's decision to alienate Sunnis and keep them out of the Army.

So name the Obama decision that created a vacuum. Lets see it. Remember DAIISH terrorist scum rose to power in Syria before moving into Iraq.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10741591

Did Obama's military advisers caution him that a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq might lead to instability?

Some did, some didn't. However Obama was not the one that needed convincing, Iraqis were not convinced that they needed foreign troops on their soil. So advising Obama should have followed advising Iraq's politicians and
their Iraqi security officials. But Bush made it difficult to convince the Iraqis of what Americans think they needed.

Your question means nothing if we apply reality to it,

OS 10741591

Did they not advise him to leave a force of 10,000 troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army?

Find me one adviser that advised Obama in 2011 to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq subject to Iraqi Sharia law without the immunity that they need and deserve. If you can find none your argument is flawed and should be dropped for its absurdity.

I'm always amused by those who say that the expiring Bush Status of Forces agreement meant we had no choice but to pull out our troops. The truth is that Obama didn't even TRY to get a new status of forces agreement because he didn't want to keep US troops in Iraq! If he'd insisted on that as a condition of continued American aid then the Iraqis wouldn't have had a choice but to comply.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10741591

You want to ignore what Barack Obama CHOSE to do...the foreign policy decisions that he made that led to a vacuum of power that ISIS took advantage of

I'm ignoring nothing. You cannot point to a foreign policy decision that Obama made that led to a vacuum of power that ISIS took advantage of.

Maliki had seized too much power when he stacked the Iraq Army and Police with his own political henchman.

Obama opposed him on that. It was not Obama's decision to alienate Sunnis and keep them out of the Army.

So name the Obama decision that created a vacuum. Lets see it. Remember DAIISH terrorist scum rose to power in Syria before moving into Iraq.

It's the EXACT policy decision that Obama is about to repeat in Afghanistan. The decision to withdraw all US combat troops. He did it in Iraq and it emboldened ISIS to launch large scale attacks against major Iraqi cities. The fact that Obama ignored the ISIS threat for as long as he did...calling it the "JV"...simply underscores how clueless he and his Administration is when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10747604

I'm always amused by those who say that the expiring Bush Status of Forces agreement meant we had no choice but to pull out our troops.

What's amusing about the truth. We had no choice if the Iraqis in power decided they did not want or need US troops in Iraq after Bush agreed to a date when they all had to be gone. We would have had to re-invade on some false pretext and topple the elected government there to keep troops. And that did not go so well when Bush toppled the government in 2003 on false pretext of WMD.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10747604

I'm always amused by those who say that the expiring Bush Status of Forces agreement meant we had no choice but to pull out our troops.

What's amusing about the truth. We had no choice if the Iraqis in power decided they did not want or need US troops in Iraq after Bush agreed to a date when they all had to be gone. We would have had to re-invade on some false pretext and topple the elected government there to keep troops. And that did not go so well when Bush toppled the government in 2003 on false pretext of WMD.

No choice? Dude, we gave BILLIONS to the Iraqis in aid. The "choice" we had was simply to tell them that if they didn't give us what we required...then that aid would not be forthcoming! You couldn't possibly have a bigger incentive to comply.

The truth is and always has been...that Barack Obama didn't push for a new Status of Forces Agreement because he intended to pull US combat troops out of Iraq so he could declare that he had "ended" the war in Iraq.

That was a decision that HE made. Not George W. Bush! Not Maliki! Not the Joint Chiefs! That was Barack Obama's call and he and he alone is responsible for the results that followed.

 

[Oldstyle]

What shows Obama's total disconnect with reality however isn't his optimism with how things would pan out in Iraq after we left but his head in the sand posture during the six months that ISIS was moving large numbers of armed men from Syria across the open desert to attack large cities and strategic targets like oil fields in Iraq.

He literally looked the other way while ISIS ran roughshod over vast areas of the Middle East because it didn't fit his "narrative" that he had decimated Al Queda and they were no longer a threat.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10749822

No choice? Dude, we gave BILLIONS to the Iraqis in aid. The "choice" we had was simply to tell them that if they didn't give us what we required...then that aid would not be forthcoming! You couldn't possibly have a bigger incentive to comply.

Name the US Federal aid going to Iraq in 2012 and the amount. Then tell us the billions in contracts for F16s and Abrams Tanks the was Iraqi money coming to the aid if the US.

The Iraqis didn't want YS troops in their country and they could not be bought. They could have gone elsewhere for the weapons systems they were spending their oil wealth on.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The truth is and always has been...that Barack Obama didn't push for a new Status of Forces Agreement because he intended to pull US combat troops out of Iraq so he could declare that he had "ended" the war in Iraq.

They were not US troops in a combat role if any were to stay. So the war to find Saddam's arsenal of WMD was ended. The more you write the more we see you have no idea what you are talking about.

Troops could have stayed and Obama still ended the US combat role in Iraq's ongoing civil and political unrest.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What shows Obama's total disconnect with reality however isn't his optimism with how things would pan out in Iraq after we left....

You are not being honest. Obama said Iraq had many challenges ahead.

And that Maliki is gone the Iraqis are meeting the challenge presented by Daesh terrorist scum. As we speak the Iraqis are preparing to retake Mosul.

On your Syria nonsense, did you want Obama to send tens of thousands of ground troops into Syria to prevent the Daesh advance? What is your silly complaint about Syria all about?

Obama did get the chemical weapons out if Syria so Daesh can't get there hands on that? There really were chemucal weapons in Syria and I have not heard you thank Obama for getting Assad and Putin to give up all those CW.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nothing surprised the Iraqis more than obumble walking out of negotiations for the status of forces agreement.

 

[rdean]

Republicans sent our troops to Iraq in the hopes of procuring the Iraqi oil industry. How do we know? Because it was the only thing Republicans protected after the invasion. Not the Christians. Not the government buildings. Only oil fields.

So young Americans were shot at, killed and maimed. For that GOP leadership, the oil was worth the cost. But those days are over. Any Americans that go to the middle east will be shot at by everyone. They hate us for the Iraqi invasion. For drones. For setting the middle east on fire. For creating Isis by disbanding the Iraqi military (something even many Republicans call the worst mistake made). Only those living in the middle east can fix it. Not us. It never was our place to bring them the government right wingernuts imagine they should have. There were never any WMD's and the fact that the GOP base still believes that bullshit after Bush himself said they were never found only proves what idiots they are.

Obama understands this. This is why he refused to put "boots on the ground to be shot at and die" even after Republicans have been screaming he is no leader. What the fuck do these tards expect to happen if he does put boots on the ground????? They don't want us. They don't want our government. They know Republicans want their oil. How stupid the GOP is. What is it they can't seem to understand and why?

Oh gawd, can you really be this stupid? Oh wait, we are talking about rderp here....

Do you have any idea who ended up getting most of the oil? It certainly wasn't the US.

Only a complete ignoramus would still be claiming we went there for oil, considering the Iraqi government retained ownership of the oil fields and bid out contracts to countries like China, Malaysia, France, and Russia.

U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields - TIME

Bush was an idiot for letting that happen. We should of taken complete ownership of those oil fields to pay for the war. We also should had just carpet bombed that entire country instead of trying to bring them freedom. Muslims can never accept freedom anyway.

theHawk said: Do you have any idea who ended up getting most of the oil? It certainly wasn't the US.

Only a complete ignoramus would still be claiming we went there for oil, considering the Iraqi government retained ownership of the oil fields and bid out contracts to countries like China, Malaysia, France, and Russia.

-------------------------------

And only a tard would look at the fact the country devolved into rioting and looting and the only thing the Bush administration protected were the oil fields and then claim the war was about, uh, that's right, he didn't say what it was about. Worse, he said "Muslims can never accept freedom anyway" meaning that the GOP failed at whatever it was they were trying to do.

I love to use the words of ridiculous right wingers against them. Eventually, they just might learn to "think".

They protected the oil fields so there wouldn't be a repeat of Kuwait. Are you so dumb you don't remember what ecological disaster happened then? I know seeing oil fields burn would put a big smile on your face.

Burn the Christians, save the oil fields.

When did Republicans care about ecology?

 

[rdean]

OS 10747604

I'm always amused by those who say that the expiring Bush Status of Forces agreement meant we had no choice but to pull out our troops.

What's amusing about the truth. We had no choice if the Iraqis in power decided they did not want or need US troops in Iraq after Bush agreed to a date when they all had to be gone. We would have had to re-invade on some false pretext and topple the elected government there to keep troops. And that did not go so well when Bush toppled the government in 2003 on false pretext of WMD.

No choice? Dude, we gave BILLIONS to the Iraqis in aid. The "choice" we had was simply to tell them that if they didn't give us what we required...then that aid would not be forthcoming! You couldn't possibly have a bigger incentive to comply.

The truth is and always has been...that Barack Obama didn't push for a new Status of Forces Agreement because he intended to pull US combat troops out of Iraq so he could declare that he had "ended" the war in Iraq.

That was a decision that HE made. Not George W. Bush! Not Maliki! Not the Joint Chiefs! That was Barack Obama's call and he and he alone is responsible for the results that followed.

So when Maliki told Americans to leave, we had a choice. They don't call that liberation. They call that enslavement.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Nothing surprised the Iraqis more than obumble walking out of negotiations for the status of forces agreement.

No immunity for our troops no agreement. Obama did not walk away from negotiating. There was a negotiation point that the Iraqis would not concede. No advisers to the president on the US side would put US troops under Iraqi law.

Perhaps you would have conceded to the Iraqis demands but I don't believe you could be anyone that matters.