Yo Barack...can You Spell Kobani?

[NotfooledbyW]

#1776 10257445

ISIL/ISIS overrunning most of Syria and Iraq.....yet dumbfuck liberals are defending their brainless pussy leader.

Why are you over-exaggerating ISIL/ISIS's conquest of territory in Syria and Iraq? Are you spreading propaganda for the terrorists? They have not taken over "MOST of" anywhere and specifically they have not over-run Most of Iraq. They've been stopped and are being reversed in Iraq for over a month now. But if you don't want to give up on them I guess that is up to you. I just don't get all this RW exaggeration of IS terrorist's power.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kiwi 10252578

And I happen to think that Obama's incompetence also played into the emergence of the ISIS, along with Maliki's incompetence.

NF 10254483 regarding kiwi 10252578

Could you explain what 'incompetence" from Obama helped lead to the emergence of ISIS?

SC 10258963 regarding NF 10254483

2) It was Obama's infamous 'red line' in Syria, and his subsequent inability to back it up, that virtually destroyed the Syrian rebel movement to establish a new government in Syria, forcing the rebels to pick new allies.

What are you talking about here? The Red Line had nothing to do with building the rebel movement in Syria. It ultimately was about removing 1200 Tons of chemical weapons from a civil war zone. And that was a success for the Obama Administration not incompetence. And I see no correlation from the red line to the rise of ISIS/ISIL. Besides if Assad's government were to fall = the security of the CW stockpiles and weapons would have been a rather grave situation - with the biggest threat going to the nation of Israel. Good thing those CW have been removed and destroyed.

 

[Spare_change]

(A) When you bring up the SOFA negotiations you are bringing up Bush 43's incompetence at negotiating a long term deal back in 2008. If Bush knew Iraq would not be ready for all troops to be gone by the end of 2011, then Bush should have signed a deal that gave the Iraqis that Bush and I guess you think they needed.

(B) When you say Obama willingness to sabotage the SOFA discussions you must be able to explain just how he sabotaged them. Can you explain how Obama sabotaged the SOFA discussions?

The SOFA agreement had been a hot issue to Iraq internal politics; Maliki had to demonstrate his independence from the US. An interim agreement to extend the the then-current SOFA was in place, in order to allow time for the final product to be negotiated. By doing that, Maliki could show how he wasn't a US puppy. However, when the Obama administration refused the interim agreement, and pushed an all-or-nothing final SOFA agreement. It was, simply, Obama's way to get what he truly wanted - withdrawal from Iraq while being able to blame someone else.

(C) When you claim that Obama;s "slavish conviction to removing troops from Iraq directly contributed to Maliki's need to realign his government, and retrench his power base " you need to explain what is incompetent about 'removing troops' specifically in accordance with Bush's negotiated date for US troop withdrawal from the country. There is no incompetence there. And you also need to explain what you mean by Maliki realigning his government and retrenching his power Base? That makes no sense since it was Maliki that initiated the process against Bush where Bush had no choice but to sign the 2008 SOFA deal wherein Iraqis demanded that all US troops be removed from Iraq before January 1, 2012. I must remind you that Obama contrary to Bush succeeded in getting a ten year SOFA with Afghanistan. There was nothing stopping Bush from getting a ten year deal was there? If there was what was it?

Again, you are failing to grasp the intricacies of the negotiation process. Because Obama decided to play hardball over the interim SOFA extension, Maliki was forced to compromise with his internal political opposition. Their original constitution had to be accepted, despite the fact that everyone recognized it was not ready. As a result, the coalitions fell apart. It took the US 12 years to get our Constitution right, and we demanded they get it done in 6 years.

To try to compare Iraq to Afghanistan SOFA negotiations is like trying to compare potatoes to cars. One has nothing to do with the others - they had different goals, different political environments, and different ally alignments.

(D) I would like to know how you "know" that keeping troops in Iraq after 2011 would have prevented the rise of the IS terrorists in Syria and Iraq. I prefer to accept Petraeus' judgment that there is no way to know that. “Petraeus was asked: Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on ithe ground? Petraeus answered: "No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence."

So, tell me ... Petraeus was a member of the Armed Forces, and as such, is steeped in complete obedience to the civilian command structure. Of course, he didn't condemn the Obama administration - that was NOT his mission. It is NOT an accident that Petraeus' post-military career started with a high-level administration post, despite the fact that he had little or no experience in intelligence collection operations while in the military. In short, he was not qualified for the job - the Senate didn't want to know, but rather, rubber stamped his appointment - but it's clear that his performance has been lackluster, if not completely incompetent.

Now, as to the actual issue of the impact of military troops remaining in Iraq - at the time of the sabotage of the SOFA discussions by Obama, the military was providing security training to the military, civil engineering assistance and training to the Iraqi government, supporting efforts to improve the education system, and providing direct military support to the Iraqi military. The downsizing of US military support, as a result of the SOFA negotiation collapse, did not begin until later.

I don't think you have defined one lick of incompetence on Obama's part. In fact the situation could have been worse if the US military seen by the Sunni street as defending Maliki's partisan Shiite government.

As to the claim that Obama incompetence contributed to ISIS, history will judge. Maybe the use of the word 'incompetence' is too strong - maybe the phrase 'intentional and orchestrated subversion of the Iraq-US coalition' would be more accurate.

 

[Spare_change]

#1776 10257445

ISIL/ISIS overrunning most of Syria and Iraq.....yet dumbfuck liberals are defending their brainless pussy leader.

Why are you over-exaggerating ISIL/ISIS's conquest of territory in Syria and Iraq? Are you spreading propaganda for the terrorists? They have not taken over "MOST of" anywhere and specifically they have not over-run Most of Iraq. They've been stopped and are being reversed in Iraq for over a month now. But if you don't want to give up on them I guess that is up to you. I just don't get all this RW exaggeration of IS terrorist's power.

You're not paying attention ... go back and review recent history. We are having little, or no, impact on ISIS operations.

 

[Spare_change]

kiwi 10252578

And I happen to think that Obama's incompetence also played into the emergence of the ISIS, along with Maliki's incompetence.

NF 10254483 regarding kiwi 10252578

Could you explain what 'incompetence" from Obama helped lead to the emergence of ISIS?

SC10258963 regarding NF 10254483

2) It was Obama's infamous 'red line' in Syria, and his subsequent inability to back it up, that virtually destroyed the Syrian rebel movement to establish a new government in Syria, forcing the rebels to pick new allies.

What are you talking about here? The Red Line had nothing to do with building the rebel movement in Syria. It ultimately was about removing 1200 Tons of chemical weapons from a civil war zone. And that was a success for the Obama Administration not incompetence. And I see no correlation from the red line to the rise of ISIS/ISIL. Besides if Assad's government were to fall = the security of the CW stockpiles and weapons would have been a rather grave situation - with the biggest threat going to the nation of Israel. Good thing those CW have been removed and destroyed.

Now, THAT is funny, I don't care who you are!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10259760 regarding NF 10259555(A)&(B)

The SOFA agreement had been a hot issue to Iraq internal politics; Maliki had to demonstrate his independence from the US. An interim agreement to extend the the then-current SOFA was in place, in order to allow time for the final product to be negotiated. By doing that, Maliki could show how he wasn't a US puppy. However, when the Obama administration refused the interim agreement, and pushed an all-or-nothing final SOFA agreement. It was, simply, Obama's way to get what he truly wanted - withdrawal from Iraq while being able to blame someone else.

(A) What interim agreement was in place?. Agreement among whom? Obama offered to extend the Bush/Maliki 2009 through 2011 agreement under the same terms regarding legal protections for our combat/armed troops to be stationed in Iraq after 2011.

(B) Obama Push was for legal immunity for our troops - no American politician and no American uniformed or civilian military leader stand for anything less that want Obama pursued.

(C) Maliki's own Party in the Parliament was opposed to giving immunity to extended staying US troops. Specifically the Sadrists who were as anti-American as the Shiites could get were the block that put Maliki in power. So Maliki could show he was not a US puppet all he wanted, the sadrists did not give a damn about that. They were not granting immunity. And that Anti-American attitude was there when Bush invaded in 2003.

(D) This: "Obama's way to get what he truly wanted - withdrawal from Iraq while being able to blame someone else." shows partisan hacks-manship on your part. I don't know why your threw that nonsense into your commentary. Its really petty bickering and not sound policy discussion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10259760 regarding NF 10259555(C)

Because Obama decided to play hardball over the interim SOFA extension, Maliki was forced to compromise with his internal political opposition.

Since it is such a big part of your argument that Obama sabotaged the SOFA negotiations, you need to provide some kind of verification as to what you think this 'interim SOFA extension' actually is. I don't see how your telling me that Obama played hardball over something that may not even exist is much of an argument that Obama is incompetent because of that.

 

[1776]

Uh shitstain, they control eastern to northern Syria and western Iraq.

Scum like you aren't reading the intel reports that Obama is ignoring....

#1776 10257445

ISIL/ISIS overrunning most of Syria and Iraq.....yet dumbfuck liberals are defending their brainless pussy leader.

Why are you over-exaggerating ISIL/ISIS's conquest of territory in Syria and Iraq? Are you spreading propaganda for the terrorists? They have not taken over "MOST of" anywhere and specifically they have not over-run Most of Iraq. They've been stopped and are being reversed in Iraq for over a month now. But if you don't want to give up on them I guess that is up to you. I just don't get all this RW exaggeration of IS terrorist's power.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10259770 regarding NF 10259620, #1776 10257445

You're not paying attention ... go back and review recent history. We are having little, or no, impact on ISIS operations.

What exactly is 'impact' in your mind? ... They've been driven away from the Mosul Dam and one other Dam in Iraq in the past two months. Two-thirds of their oil revenue has been eliminated. The Iraqis have broken the siege at the Baiiji Oil Refinery and the city of the same name has been liberated. They have lost hundreds of fighters trying and failing to take Kobani.

Must I remind you that Bush sacrificed 4000 Americans fighting an insurgency in Iraq for four years in a war that need not have been waged. What 'impact' did Bush inflict on that insurgency during the first two months? And there was no 'war' there when Bush decided to go in. Just peaceful UN inspections. It seems you have a ridiculously overblown standard for achieving impact in the current new war against ISIS/ISIL or more appropriate, against Daesh. The impact the new coalition against Daesh is as much as has been anticipated - considering the training that local ground forces will be given as part of the preferred Obama policy that American lives are not going to be sacrificed as ground troops fighting a fight the local men and women need to fight for themselves.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#1776 10257445

ISIL/ISIS overrunning most of Syria and Iraq.....

#1776 10260102 regarding NF 10259620, #1776 10257445

Uh shitstain, they control eastern to northern Syria and western Iraq. Scum like you aren't reading the intel reports that Obama is ignoring....

They do not control the entirety of 'western Iraq' or 'eastern to northern' Syria. So it is now duly noted that you lied when your wrote as if it were some kind of fact that the ISIL/ISIS terrorists have succeeded in overrunning most of Syria and Iraq. There is no way that parts of 'western Iraq' can be recognized as "most of"/ Now way. Where do your lies end foul mouth?

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10259770 regarding NF 10259620, #1776 10257445

You're not paying attention ... go back and review recent history. We are having little, or no, impact on ISIS operations.

What exactly is 'impact' in your mind? ... They've been driven away from the Mosul Dam and one other Dam in Iraq in the past two months. Two-thirds of their oil revenue has been eliminated. The Iraqis have broken the siege at the Baiiji Oil Refinery and the city of the same name has been liberated. They have lost hundreds of fighters trying and failing to take Kobani.

Must I remind you that Bush sacrificed 4000 Americans fighting an insurgency in Iraq for four years in a war that need not have been waged. What 'impact' did Bush inflict on that insurgency during the first two months? And there was no 'war' there when Bush decided to go in. Just peaceful UN inspections. It seems you have a ridiculously overblown standard for achieving impact in the current new war against ISIS/ISIL or more appropriate, against Daesh. The impact the new coalition against Daesh is as much as has been anticipated - considering the training that local ground forces will be given as part of the preferred Obama policy that American lives are not going to be sacrificed as ground troops fighting a fight the local men and women need to fight for themselves.

Your screed on Bush is nothing but deflection .... you can't put together a coherent discussion about ISIS, so you attack Bush? Surely, you can do better than that. You pull emotional strings, but don't consider reality. For example, despite your wailing about all the troops sacrificed in those 4 years, you do realize that we lost more soldiers to motorcycle accidents here in the US during the same time frame, right? I would suggest that you measure the success or failure with pragmatism, rather than trotting out emotional diatribes.

As for ISIS, you are being misled ... the administration has told you that 2/3 of their oil revenue has been eliminated ... a kabuki dance done with the facts. 2/3 of their NORMAL distribution has been interrupted, BUT they have turned to alternative methods of distribution. Your government is aware of this. For example,

"In a testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services this month, U.S. Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen said that the United States is paying particular attention to bringing down ISIS financial security, with regard to its sales of oil, which he and others estimate can amount to about $1 million a day from oil and refined product sales alone. What’s problematic is that ISIS has taken advantage of long-maintained smuggling routes, largely positioned in the south of Turkey. "

ISIS is now the wealthiest terrorist movement in the world http://english.alarabiya.net/perspective.html

If you actually spend the time to look at the real situation, you will see that ISIS has not been stopped at all. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...q-isis-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html When you go to that reference, take particular note of the the progress statements in the Anbar province.

The air strikes are nothing more than a fop to pacify US voters, and conceal the ineptness of US foreign policy in that area.

 

[Spare_change]

(A) What interim agreement was in place?. Agreement among whom? Obama offered to extend the Bush/Maliki 2009 through 2011 agreement under the same terms regarding legal protections for our combat/armed troops to be stationed in Iraq after 2011.

"In the United States, President Bush has pushed hard for a deal to be completed by July 31. But Democrats in Congress are reluctant to sign off on an agreement before the presidential elections, and Republicans are split.


As a result, Iraqi politicians say, the likelihood is for the two sides to devise an interim pact extending the presence of American troops in Iraq in some mutually acceptable form for a limited amount of time."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?pagewanted=print

Condoleeza Rice, "... speaking with The Cable to promote her new book No Higher Honor, said today that when the Bush administration signed the agreement, it was understood by both the U.S. and Iraqi governments that there would be follow-up negotiations aimed at extending the deadline -- a step that would be in both the U.S. and Iraqi interest.


"There was an expectation that we would negotiate something that looked like a residual force for our training with the Iraqis," Rice said. "Everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force."


Rice said the Iraqi government, despite SOFA's Jan. 2012 end date, was not only open to a new agreement that would include an extension for U.S. troops, but expected that a new agreement would eventually be signed.


"We certainly understood that the Iraqis preserved that option and everybody believed that option was going to be exercised," Rice said. "

(B) Obama Push was for legal immunity for our troops - no American politician and no American uniformed or civilian military leader stand for anything less that want Obama pursued.

Wrong - so very wrong. That is exactly what a SOFA agreement is - protection for our troops. Iraq was ready to sign and extension - Obama pulled the rug out from under the negotiations.

(C) Maliki's own Party in the Parliament was opposed to giving immunity to extended staying US troops. Specifically the Sadrists who were as anti-American as the Shiites could get were the block that put Maliki in power. So Maliki could show he was not a US puppet all he wanted, the sadrists did not give a damn about that. They were not granting immunity. And that Anti-American attitude was there when Bush invaded in 2003.

Again, you are allowing your naivete to cloud reality. Maliki was posturing for internal politics purposes. You're buying into the anti-war propaganda.

(D) This: "Obama's way to get what he truly wanted - withdrawal from Iraq while being able to blame someone else." shows partisan hacks-manship on your part. I don't know why your threw that nonsense into your commentary. Its really petty bickering and not sound policy discussion.

Statements of fact hardly qualify as "partisan hacks-manship"[/QUOTE]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I wrote "(B) Obama Push was for legal immunity for our troops - no American politician and no American uniformed or civilian military leader stand for anything less that want Obama pursued." and you respond with this:

SC 10260837

Wrong - so very wrong. That is exactly what a SOFA agreement is - protection for our troops. Iraq was ready to sign and extension - Obama pulled the rug out from under the negotiations.

I will get back to you on what you explain to be an interim pact of 2008 negotiations. That had nothing to do with the 2011 negotiations at all. Now we have something concrete to ask of you. Who was going to sign for Iraq the extension you claim Iraq was ready to sign in 2011? Nothing of the sort exists. It is impossible for Obama to pull the rug out of a document that never existed or meant anything to Iraq's Parliament and Constitution..

 

[francoHFW]

OP- According to your RW "news" Kobani was lost weeks ago lol...dingbat.

 

[Spare_change]

I wrote "(B) Obama Push was for legal immunity for our troops - no American politician and no American uniformed or civilian military leader stand for anything less that want Obama pursued." and you respond with this:

SC 10260837

Wrong - so very wrong. That is exactly what a SOFA agreement is - protection for our troops. Iraq was ready to sign and extension - Obama pulled the rug out from under the negotiations.

I will get back to you on what you explain to be an interim pact of 2008 negotiations. That had nothing to do with the 2011 negotiations at all. Now we have something concrete to ask of you. Who was going to sign for Iraq the extension you claim Iraq was ready to sign in 2011? Nothing of the sort exists. It is impossible for Obama to pull the rug out of a document that never existed or meant anything to Iraq's Parliament and Constitution..

Bring your apology with you ....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10260837

Statements of fact hardly qualify as "partisan hacks-manship

Statements of fact hardly qualify as "deflection". At least my statements of fact about Bush's record on making an 'impact' over five years in the war he started are based on actual facts. and data. Obama is dealing with a new war that he did not start and I asked you for your definition of 'impact'. You have yet to provide your definition, but you say there has been no impact or maybe little impact. For reference purposes I'm trying to compare Iraq 2003 through 2008 to understand your expectation of 'impact' of military operations under a Republican President that started a war by his own choosing. If you were satisfied with Bush's 'impact' on running the military by the first two months and the successive years then I will doubt very much your assessment that the impact on the war against Daesh in Iraq in particular during the first two months of this war is "nothing more than a fop to pacify US voters, and conceal the ineptness of US foreign" as an incredibly bold display of hypocrisy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bring your apology with you ....

Do you have a source showing where Iraq was ready to sign onto an agreement that granted legal immunity to troops stationed in Iraq after 2011. You went out on a limb on that one and you sawing it from the wrong side.

 

[Spare_change]

Bring your apology with you ....

Do you have a source showing where Iraq was ready to sign onto an agreement that granted legal immunity to troops stationed in Iraq after 2011. You went out on a limb on that one and you sawing it from the wrong side.

When you do your research, please try to look for the right thing.

1) I claimed that, when Bush negotiated the 2008 SOFA agreement, there was a collective agreement to renegotiate the SOFA in 2012.

2) When internal politics (in Iraq AND our Democratic congress) delayed the process, there was an understanding that a 2 year extension of the 2008 SOFA would be signed. (See Condi Rice's comments)

3) Obama decided to play 'hardball' (your words) or sabotage the SOFA process (my words), Maliki couldn't rally the support necessary to get it signed in Iraq.

4) As a result, despite the strong advice of DoD, Obama painted us in the corner that forced us to pull our troops out before their government was stable, their constitutional structure was defined, and their military was ready to protect their country.

THAT is what I claimed ... feel free to do your research.

By the way ... read what I post, and what I link. Clearly, in both articles were references to the interim extension - it will be unnecessary to do the research.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SP 10261537

By the way ... read what I post, and what I link. Clearly, in both articles were references to the interim extension - it will be unnecessary to do the research.

There is reference to an interim something or other in July of 2008. A permanent SOFA was passed after that in December. An interim deal was apparently not needed or made between the two sovereign nations. It has nothing to do with Obama.





SP 10261537

1) I claimed that, when Bush negotiated the 2008 SOFA agreement, there was a collective agreement to renegotiate the SOFA in 2012.

And if there was some kind of back door, under the table, agreement made it had no legal binding constitutionality on the Iraqi side. And you are evading the main sticking point for Iraq's Parliamentarians that prevented any kind of agreement going forward after 2011.

Whatever your wink and nod, handshake, collective agreement to renegotiate was in 2008, the 2011 Parliament and Maliki himself would not accept US forces on Iraqi soil being granted the same immunity that they had for three years under the 2008 'negotiated and approved by Parliament' SOFA.

The alleged handshakes between whomever in 2008 did not bind the Iraqis to the proper legal immunity for our troops so there was no way possible for Obama to negotiate around that major sticking point.

You can keep trying to avoid the issue of legal immunity for our troops but your entire theory of what you think happened to negotiations in 2011 become a total farce when you leave immunity out of your equation.

You may wish to do a bit more research on your own. You are citing political hype from the right and presenting it as would be facts. They are not facts at all.

 

[deltex1]

Foo's stubborn fascination with 2003 and 2008 allows him to ignore the debacle of 2014.