WOW, Anyone Just See Obama's Press Conf on IRAQ?

[EconChick]

twitter....perhaps you should stay there....Twitter lol

That's your retort? Last week I thought you had at least some brains. But please keep posting.

twitter....lol

I've seen some pretty dumb tweeters on Twitter but not as dumb as you when it comes to serious topics.

As if you have some superiority because you happen to be on some other part of the internet under a different name? What a dumb fuck.

As for using it as a source? No dumbass, I go to counter the liberal media's brainwashing just as I do here.

 

[1776]

Obama is a lying sack of shit.....he said the Iraq War was lost, a waste.....so trying to now claim he wanted to win there with a strong presence in Iraq is bullshit.

He only took advantage of the "peace" brought about in Iraq thanks to the US military crushing AQI/insurgents and claimed it was all his work, then quickly made plans to get out of Iraq with no US military left there to keep the peace.

Now you see what mess he has created in Iraq leaving that country with no US support...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American people also don't like when we get attacked.

You do realize the American people didn't want Clinton going after UBL either don't you?

The American people are reactive on the subject of war. They don't have time to keep up with what's going on in the world....their lives are difficult enough trying to master their own lives.

The president has to LEAD and explain, not follow the polls.

The American people will always send mixed signals on this subject. Right now they overwhelmingly say stay our of foreign entanglements, and yet they send Obama's polls diving on foreign policy.

Why do you think that is?

It's because they are not the leaders, the president is the leader.

So you clearly think President Reagan was full of shit, a fucking imbecile, when he made this one of his principles for American military action:

Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.

Reagan's Rules for Military Action | The American Spectator

LOL, Reagan was the best president of the last century. Very few seem to have his ability to lead and persuade. That's on either side of the aisle.

Reagan would be handling this in the opposite way O is.

I can't help that your guy is the biggest fucking loser of a leader. O is a marketer. He will make lots of money one day as he should as a marketer. But he's no Commander in Chief.

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama is a lying sack of shit.....he said the Iraq War was lost, a waste.....so trying to now claim he wanted to win there with a strong presence in Iraq is bullshit.

He only took advantage of the "peace" brought about in Iraq thanks to the US military crushing AQI/insurgents and claimed it was all his work, then quickly made plans to get out of Iraq with no US military left there to keep the peace.

Now you see what mess he has created in Iraq leaving that country with no US support...

Obama's only mistake here is allowing the neverending current of interventionism, that wears against every president,

to push him downstream.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you really that stupid about how negotiations work??????????? It was a placeholder you idiot. Have you even read it??????????????? The 2008 SOFA was written with complete ambiguity and Bush left a lot of room for renegotiating it.....as any president would do, stupid ass.

Do I really have to explain Diplomacy 101? You're so ignorant of anything on this topic.

There's very little ambiguity in it. You'd know that if you'd read it.

What you don't know, apparently, is that the Iraqi Parliament would have to have voted for changes that kept American troops in Iraq, and that wasn't going to happen.

NOOOOOOOOOO, idiot. You keep looking at it with the simplicity of a 2 yr old. It's about 50 times more complicated a negotiation than that.

I guess you think lawyers never negotiated behind the scenes.

Or that business people don't negotiate. Hey if the price is 10 bucks, it's black and white.

You show a complete ignorance about the concept of negotiations. Complete ignorance.

Are you denying that the Iraqi Parliament had to approve a rewrite of the SOFA?

Can you back that up with anything of substance?

 

[EconChick]

Obama is a lying sack of shit.....he said the Iraq War was lost, a waste.....so trying to now claim he wanted to win there with a strong presence in Iraq is bullshit.

He only took advantage of the "peace" brought about in Iraq thanks to the US military crushing AQI/insurgents and claimed it was all his work, then quickly made plans to get out of Iraq with no US military left there to keep the peace.

Now you see what mess he has created in Iraq leaving that country with no US support...

Yes, nothing disgusts me more than watching someone who did/does NONE of the heavy lifting claim credit for things the heavy lifters actually do.

Love how his followers think sitting back and lobbying drones has been winning the war against Islamic extremists.

In addition to his pacifist approach, the Drones Are My Whole Foreign Policy approach just pisses the extremists off more. Queue the music for ISIS.

I predict after O leaves, the same thing will happen when Carter left: the US will be so weakened that even the dumbest liberals will see the need for a strong Commander in Chief who does the job right and not in a half assed way.

 

[1776]

Here is the timeline for Obama regarding Iraq:

1) Opposed removing Saddam from power like a typical socialist that likes other anti-west dictators.
2) Called the Iraq War a failure right in the middle of the battle.
3) Once in office and Iraq was stable, he took credit for "winning Iraq" and played up bringing home the troops.
4) Fulfilled his campaign promises by pulling out 100% from Iraq.
5) Watched terrorist groups sneak back into Iraq once we left.
6) Blames Bush and Iraq for ISIS cutting off people's heads in Iraq today.

 

[EconChick]

There's very little ambiguity in it. You'd know that if you'd read it.

What you don't know, apparently, is that the Iraqi Parliament would have to have voted for changes that kept American troops in Iraq, and that wasn't going to happen.

NOOOOOOOOOO, idiot. You keep looking at it with the simplicity of a 2 yr old. It's about 50 times more complicated a negotiation than that.

I guess you think lawyers never negotiated behind the scenes.

Or that business people don't negotiate. Hey if the price is 10 bucks, it's black and white.

You show a complete ignorance about the concept of negotiations. Complete ignorance.

Are you denying that the Iraqi Parliament had to approve a rewrite of the SOFA?

Can you back that up with anything of substance?

Well for starters, let me ask you a question for a change. We have SOFAs with 40 countries. Please tell me how many of them were required to have their legislatures approve them?

 

[1776]

Dumbfuck....he was given a nice gift from Bush and he destroyed it.

Iraq was stable and peaceful with US troops there helping the Iraqis rebuild their country and keep the terrorists out.

Obama decided to pull out and not finish the job allowing Iraq to be strong enough to defend themselves....in order to win elections.

Now he blames Iraq and Bush for his fuck-up.

Obama is a lying sack of shit.....he said the Iraq War was lost, a waste.....so trying to now claim he wanted to win there with a strong presence in Iraq is bullshit.

He only took advantage of the "peace" brought about in Iraq thanks to the US military crushing AQI/insurgents and claimed it was all his work, then quickly made plans to get out of Iraq with no US military left there to keep the peace.

Now you see what mess he has created in Iraq leaving that country with no US support...

Obama's only mistake here is allowing the neverending current of interventionism, that wears against every president,

to push him downstream.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since 1776 puts it so succinctly, let me post it again:

Obama lied about trying hard to get a deal with Iraq to keep troops there, he never wanted to stay because it was a campaign promise to run away like a chickenshit.

Maybe for sake of clarity in this debate we should backtrack to the point where you fail to make a good case that the US would be better off if a few thousand American troops were still in Iraq,

taking casualties on a regular basis.

You remember Jim Jones who was O's first Natl Sec Advisor, right? I was surprised to even hear him admit it this morning. Everyone is starting to realize that what those of us that were in Iraq kept telling them would happen has now happened.

People are spooked on both sides of the aisle about JUST how brutal ISIS is and just how swiftly they're moving. Add to that the fact that AQ didn't publicly advertise their plans to hit us on 9/11, yet ISIS comes right out and advertises it.

Who in their right mind would ignore that.

The FBI is tracking at least 70 Americans who've gone to fight with ISIS who have clean papers. One actually went there, came back to the US, and then went back to blow himself up. There are thousands of Europeans who've done the same.

I hate so say this to my isolationist friends, and I have many, but even Rand Paul is having to modify his stance now with what the world is watching ISIS accomplish.

We were attacked on 9/11 BECAUSE we meddled in ME affairs, and had troops there, not because we were isolationist.

Interventionism in matters that were none of our business got us Beirut, Iraq, 9/11, and undoubtedly something more to come if we keep meddling.

Meddling is a failed policy. Continuing to meddle is a continuation of a failed policy.

 

[EconChick]

Here is the timeline for Obama regarding Iraq:

1) Opposed removing Saddam from power like a typical socialist that likes other anti-west dictators.
2) Called the Iraq War a failure right in the middle of the battle.
3) Once in office and Iraq was stable, he took credit for "winning Iraq" and played up bringing home the troops.
4) Fulfilled his campaign promises by pulling out 100% from Iraq.
5) Watched terrorist groups sneak back into Iraq once we left.
6) Blames Bush and Iraq for ISIS cutting off people's heads in Iraq today.

Thanks for summarizing it so even carbonator can get it.

ETA: I shouldn't have said "get it" when what I meant was that it's put in an uncomplicated way'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dumbfuck....he was given a nice gift from Bush and he destroyed it.

Iraq was stable and peaceful with US troops there helping the Iraqis rebuild their country and keep the terrorists out.

Obama decided to pull out and not finish the job allowing Iraq to be strong enough to defend themselves....in order to win elections.

Now he blames Iraq and Bush for his fuck-up.

Obama is a lying sack of shit.....he said the Iraq War was lost, a waste.....so trying to now claim he wanted to win there with a strong presence in Iraq is bullshit.

He only took advantage of the "peace" brought about in Iraq thanks to the US military crushing AQI/insurgents and claimed it was all his work, then quickly made plans to get out of Iraq with no US military left there to keep the peace.

Now you see what mess he has created in Iraq leaving that country with no US support...

Obama's only mistake here is allowing the neverending current of interventionism, that wears against every president,

to push him downstream.

You're arguing that Obama is fucking up because he didn't prolong Bush's fuckup. That's insane..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is the timeline for Obama regarding Iraq:

1) Opposed removing Saddam from power like a typical socialist that likes other anti-west dictators.
2) Called the Iraq War a failure right in the middle of the battle.
3) Once in office and Iraq was stable, he took credit for "winning Iraq" and played up bringing home the troops.
4) Fulfilled his campaign promises by pulling out 100% from Iraq.
5) Watched terrorist groups sneak back into Iraq once we left.
6) Blames Bush and Iraq for ISIS cutting off people's heads in Iraq today.

lol, #3 claims Iraq was 'stable' when the troops came home on schedule. That was plan, dumbass.

 

[1776]

No shitstain....Obama took credit for victory in Iraq under Bush then left too early and caused this mess today.

Iraq wasn't a "fuck-up" when Bush left office otherwise you need to explain Obama and Biden bragging about Iraq being their "greatest accomplishment."

Dumbfuck....he was given a nice gift from Bush and he destroyed it.

Iraq was stable and peaceful with US troops there helping the Iraqis rebuild their country and keep the terrorists out.

Obama decided to pull out and not finish the job allowing Iraq to be strong enough to defend themselves....in order to win elections.

Now he blames Iraq and Bush for his fuck-up.

Obama's only mistake here is allowing the neverending current of interventionism, that wears against every president,

to push him downstream.

You're arguing that Obama is fucking up because he didn't prolong Bush's fuckup. That's insane..

 

[paperview]

So you clearly think President Reagan was full of shit, a fucking imbecile, when he made this one of his principles for American military action:

Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.

Reagan's Rules for Military Action | The American Spectator

LOL, Reagan was the best president of the last century. Very few seem to have his ability to lead and persuade. That's on either side of the aisle.

Reagan would be handling this in the opposite way O is.

I can't help that your guy is the biggest fucking loser of a leader. O is a marketer. He will make lots of money one day as he should as a marketer. But he's no Commander in Chief.

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

 

[1776]

Cocksucker....there is a difference between 100% drawdown and a 90-95% drawdown leaving spec ops and aircraft in Iraq to maintain the peace.

Here is the timeline for Obama regarding Iraq:

1) Opposed removing Saddam from power like a typical socialist that likes other anti-west dictators.
2) Called the Iraq War a failure right in the middle of the battle.
3) Once in office and Iraq was stable, he took credit for "winning Iraq" and played up bringing home the troops.
4) Fulfilled his campaign promises by pulling out 100% from Iraq.
5) Watched terrorist groups sneak back into Iraq once we left.
6) Blames Bush and Iraq for ISIS cutting off people's heads in Iraq today.

lol, #3 claims Iraq was 'stable' when the troops came home on schedule. That was plan, dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No shitstain....Obama took credit for victory in Iraq under Bush then left too early and caused this mess today.

Iraq wasn't a "fuck-up" when Bush left office otherwise you need to explain Obama and Biden bragging about Iraq being their "greatest accomplishment."

Dumbfuck....he was given a nice gift from Bush and he destroyed it.

Iraq was stable and peaceful with US troops there helping the Iraqis rebuild their country and keep the terrorists out.

Obama decided to pull out and not finish the job allowing Iraq to be strong enough to defend themselves....in order to win elections.

Now he blames Iraq and Bush for his fuck-up.

You're arguing that Obama is fucking up because he didn't prolong Bush's fuckup. That's insane..

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

 

[EconChick]

Maybe for sake of clarity in this debate we should backtrack to the point where you fail to make a good case that the US would be better off if a few thousand American troops were still in Iraq,

taking casualties on a regular basis.

You remember Jim Jones who was O's first Natl Sec Advisor, right? I was surprised to even hear him admit it this morning. Everyone is starting to realize that what those of us that were in Iraq kept telling them would happen has now happened.

People are spooked on both sides of the aisle about JUST how brutal ISIS is and just how swiftly they're moving. Add to that the fact that AQ didn't publicly advertise their plans to hit us on 9/11, yet ISIS comes right out and advertises it.

Who in their right mind would ignore that.

The FBI is tracking at least 70 Americans who've gone to fight with ISIS who have clean papers. One actually went there, came back to the US, and then went back to blow himself up. There are thousands of Europeans who've done the same.

I hate so say this to my isolationist friends, and I have many, but even Rand Paul is having to modify his stance now with what the world is watching ISIS accomplish.

We were attacked on 9/11 BECAUSE we meddled in ME affairs, and had troops there, not because we were isolationist.

Interventionism in matters that were none of our business got us Beirut, Iraq, 9/11, and undoubtedly something more to come if we keep meddling.

Meddling is a failed policy. Continuing to meddle is a continuation of a failed policy.

The debate you're asking for about on isolationism is a good debate. It should be its own thread because it involved decades of history and literally thousands of variables.

That means it would require a ton of time to go through.

One of these days I may have the time to attempt it but it would be time consuming to do it well.

But we may not have to debate it. I predict ISIS is going to attack either here or Europe and isolationists will be forced to look at things differently.

Obama has tried to withdraw from as much as the world as he possibly could and see where it's gotten us.

The answer is not to be pacifist, like Obama. The answer is to elect Presidents that the bad guys fear.

And I'll make one more short comment about isolationism. Folks with that outlook really need to study how interconnected our financial system is, how interconnected our logistics are (much of what you possess in your house has come through shipping lanes), how interconnected travel is, and so on.

It's a long discussion.

 

[1776]

You stupid son of a bitch....he didn't try to get an agreement with Iraq's leaders because he had petty personal differences with them and he wanted to make cocksuckers like you happy here.

No shitstain....Obama took credit for victory in Iraq under Bush then left too early and caused this mess today.

Iraq wasn't a "fuck-up" when Bush left office otherwise you need to explain Obama and Biden bragging about Iraq being their "greatest accomplishment."

You're arguing that Obama is fucking up because he didn't prolong Bush's fuckup. That's insane..

He left when the agreement said to leave. The agreement the Iraqis signed and supported.

You'd have Americans dying now in Iraq in an illegal occupation? Unbelievable.

 

[EconChick]

Your ape brain can't comprehend this stuff.

Excuse me, but you just said a president who cares about public opinion in military matters such as Iraq is NOT A LEADER.

Reagan made that a RULE. You just defined a core Reagan foreign policy principle as characteristic of a lack of leadership and then you turn around a post later and declare Reagan a great leader.

Try to put together a coherent, consistent version of your grab bag of partisan-infected ideas, would you?

It's fun watching her tie herself up in incoherent, inconsistent knots.

She does it over and over and doesn't even see it.

I hate to say it but they don't realize that what they suffer from is exactly that. Ape brains.

Could you imagine trying to teach something as abstract as physics to these libs?

Look carbonator, you have to ditch your cognitive leaning toward everything as an ON or OFF switch to understand this topic.

There is NOTHING black and white about it.

When I make a statement, I'm thinking in gradations. Like on a scale of 1-100.

When you post, it's as if it's either 1 or 0.

It means you don't have the ability to understand ambiguity.

Or all the things that go on between 2 to 99.


Reagan believed that it was optimal if you could convince the public to see it your way, but he sure as hell didn't wait for the public to approve of something if it needed to be done.

What do I mean by optimal? I mean the teacher would give Ronnie a score of 100 out of 100 if he could sway every single American on the topic.

But even Reagan didn't. There were still a small percentage that were the usual tards.

Do you think Reagan meant 100%?

Of course not. He was speaking about probabilities.