Yo Barack...can You Spell Kobani?

[NotfooledbyW]

Even Fox News knows that the immunity issue is not a minor issue in Iraq:

‘Double Standard’? Concern on Capitol Hill over immunity for US troops in Iraq
Published June 23, 2014
FoxNews.com.

Double Standard Concern on Capitol Hill over immunity for US troops in Iraq Fox News


Soare_change claims to have worked on Capitol Hill during the 2011 SOFA negotiations. So how did SC miss what Fox News reports as a fact?

SC 10268419

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity ... THAT is the primary function of SOFA.

Fox News states in their report that "The inability to strike an agreement giving American troops immunity was one of the big reasons why a residual force did not stay behind after 2011. "

. Members of Congress are voicing concern that the Obama administration has not gotten strong enough assurances that U.S. troops heading to Iraq to aid the beleaguered government will be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts for any alleged offenses committed while serving there.

Members of Congress are voicing concern that the Obama administration has not gotten strong enough assurances that U.S. troops heading to Iraq to aid the beleaguered government will be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts for any alleged offenses committed while serving there.

The inability to strike an agreement giving American troops immunity was one of the big reasons why a residual force did not stay behind after 2011.

Now that hundreds of U.S. troops and military advisers are being sent back into Iraq to secure U.S. facilities and assist Iraqi security forces, some lawmakers wonder whether a "double standard" is being applied -- one that could potentially jeopardize American troops.

 

[Spare_change]

NF 10270933

Post-2011 Military Presence in Iraq Falters on Question of Immunity
Published on October 10th, 2011
Written by: Editor.

SC 10272366

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ability to misinterpret reality

SC is reduced to hurling meaningless childish insults as he flees the scene of one of the most disastrous conservative flurries of anti-Obama posts in recent memory. He/she has surpassed EconChick in public displays of ignorance and flat out dishonesty on the subject of why US troops were forced to leave Iraq after midnight on December 31 2011. That set date in time was George Bush's exit date for US troops, not President Obama's.

The entire world knows (incuding the editor of "Veterans News" cited again above) that the main and perhaps only reason a new SOFA could not be negotiated and signed and passed by Iraq's Parliament was because the Iraqis refused to continue the policy of granting immunity to US troops as they did for the 2009 through 2011 Bush/Maliki SOFA.


A more untrue statement on the critical issue of immunity within the SOFA negotiations of 2011 could not be made than this one by Soare_Change in post number 10268419:

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity ...

Had you bothered to actually read the posts, you would have seen that I said that one of the primary purposes of a SOFA agreement is to establish the liability of American troops during their stay in the host country. This would include, naturally, exclusion from charges for crimes supposedly committed during war action, but not include commission of crimes while not acting in a military capacity - for example, rape or murder.

Once I made that statement, all your drivel about immunity became nonsensical. So, quit looking so stupid ... and focus on the real issue.

You, of course, are confusing the extension with the new SOFA. The extension was intended to extend the then-current SOFA for three years until Dec 1, 2014. During that time, supposedly, the new SOFA would be negotiated. It was felt that, by that time, the Iraqi government would be stabilized (either under Maliki or another leader), and the discussion of removing troops (the internal DoD timetable was aimed at Dec 1, 2016).

"Jim Jeffrey, the former US Ambassador to Iraq during Status of Forces negotiations didn't necessarily support the larger troop footprint envisioned by military leaders at the time, which reportedly ranged from 8,000 to 16,000 to 24,000 troops, depending on the military official. But he said he firmly believed that troops in Iraq past 2011 were needed and wanted by the Iraqi government.
...
Jeffrey was a key player on both the Washington and Baghdad sides of the 2011 negotiations that were meant to agree on a follow on force to extend the Bush administration's Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) after it was set to expire last December. Those negotiations ultimately failed. The White House has said the Iraqis refused to grant immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011 and submit a new SOFA through their own parliament, two things the United States needed to extend the troops' mission.

Jeffrey said that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki personally discussed the idea of extending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq via an executive agreement, which would not have to go through the Iraqi parliament.

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threa...aqi_politicians_backed_into.php#ixzz3Kj1Vmz8J

Of course, there never was one signed - that is the plug that Obama pulled. He did it deliberately - sabotaged the whole negotiation process. Obama refused the concept of an 'executive agreement' extension, and insisted that the new SOFA be consummated - which, he knew, was not politically feasible at that point in time.

Condeleeza Rice said there was an expectation of signing an extension; Ambassador Jeffery said there was an expectation of signing an extension (the executive agreement he mentioned); I said there was an expectation; and, several Iraqi officials said there was an expectation. None of that seems to be good enough for you. You foolishly demand proof of a document that never existed.

Then, you want to claim that all the military supported Obama's sabotage - of course, that is what you do. You sell out your boss knowing you are going to have to work for him for the next four years. What the hell did you expect him to say?

Now, quit your whining - and go study the history of it. Then, come back when you're ready to discuss FACTS - rather than posing.

 

[Spare_change]

Let me see if I can figure this out --- you claim that Fox News said that "... ONE of the big reasons.. " for withdrawal was the expiration of the SOFA agreement.

Duh!

THAT has zero-zilch-nothing-nada to do with the discussion about an interim extension. Get your shit together. It would seem logical that if 1) the original agreement expired, 2) efforts to extend it through 'executive agreement' failed, and 3) Obama now had troops who were unprotected in Iraq from civilian prosecution, that we would pull out.

The problem is - Obama sabotaged Item no. 2.

Moving on -

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2) efforts to extend it through 'executive agreement' failed, and 3) Obama now had troops who were unprotected in Iraq from civilian prosecution, that we would pull out.

The problem is - Obama sabotaged Item no. 2.

I'm glad you brought up Amb Jeffrey. He explained in the WSJ that Obama did not sabotage anything. He offered to roll over the 2009 through 2011 SOFA but Iraqis insisted on not granting the legal immunity.

It is Iraq's Constitution that required Parliament to grant immunity not Obama.

Ste 10152022

Obama required full immunity, not only this, demanded it from Parliament, and wouldn't accept an executive memorandum from Maliki.

Apparently if you are citing someone, you have not fact-checked him.

The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. -James Franklin Jeffrey - WSJ - Updated Nov. 2, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET

If Obama was willing to roll over the terms of the 2008 SOFA then you are wrong. You are wrong in your post 10152022.

And you are wrong about the Maliki memo being valid if such a memo even exists.

In a constitutional democracy it requires parliament to waive its own laws. An agreement signed by Mr. Maliki without parliamentary approval, as he suggested, would not suffice. . - James Franklin Jeffrey - WSJ - Updated Nov. 2, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET

Your guy wrote, " White House lawyers rejected that offer, arguing that for any such agreement to be legally binding, it would have to be formally ratified by the Iraqi parliament.". But you make it sound like Obama was supposedly being unreasonable. And there is no discussion from what I read that Maliki could even get away with simply writing a memo. Do you think the Sadrists would have not wondered why US troops were staying in Iraq after January 1, 2012?

Amb Jeffrey was much more close to the action that your source who cites anonymous officials in the meeting etc.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10272661

Jeffrey said that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki personally discussed the idea of extending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq via an executive agreement, which would not have to go through the Iraqi parliament.

Do you agree with Amb Jeffrey that "the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash"

Could a residual force have prevented ISIS’s victories? With troops we would have had better intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS, a more attentive Washington, and no doubt a better-trained Iraqi army. But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash. The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints

Do you agree with this? "The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints"

Keeping US Troops in Iraq Wouldn 8217 t Have Stopped the Rise of ISIS LobeLog

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10272661

Jeffrey was a key player on both the Washington and Baghdad sides of the 2011 negotiations that were meant to agree on a follow on force to extend the Bush administration's Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) after it was set to expire last December. Those negotiations ultimately failed. The White House has said the Iraqis refused to grant immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011 and submit a new SOFA through their own parliament, two things the United States needed to extend the troops' mission.

Do you agree with this?

.
Given the success in winning a SOFA in 2008, what led to this failure?

First, the need for U.S. troops was not self-evident in 2011.

Iraq appeared stable, with oil exports of two million barrels a day at about $90 a barrel, and security much improved.

Second, politics had turned against a troop presence; the bitterly anti-U.S. Sadrists were active in Parliament, the Sunni Arabs more ambivalent toward the U.S., and polls indicated that less than 20% of the Iraqi population wanted U.S. troops.

Could the administration have used more leverage, as many have asserted?

Again, the main hurdle was immunities. The reality is that foreign troops in any land are generally unpopular and granting them immunity is complicated. In a constitutional democracy it requires parliament to waive its own laws.

An agreement signed by Mr. Maliki without parliamentary approval, as he suggested, would not suffice

Keeping US Troops in Iraq Wouldn 8217 t Have Stopped the Rise of ISIS LobeLog


Do you agree with this? "An agreement signed by Mr. Maliki without parliamentary approval, as he suggested, would not suffice"

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10268419

Nobody ever questioned a minor point like immunity ...

The above is what you are wrong about, not what you posted below.

SC 10272661

... I said that one of the primary purposes of a SOFA agreement is to establish the liability of American troops during their stay in the host country.

I agree fully with post 10272661 cited above.

What you wrote in post 10268419 (cited above) has been demonstrated to be absolutely false. And that statement being so wrong totally demolishes your entire argument that it was Obama who caused the SOFA negotiations to fail.

You can't admit that it was the Iraqis that caused the negotiations and an extension to US troop presence to fail because that is an admission that Obama was correct to not extend our troop's stay if they were not given immunity in a proper and legal way under Iraq's Constitution..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You, of course, are confusing the extension with the new SOFA. The extension was intended to extend the then-current SOFA for three years until Dec 1, 2014.

What extension?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10272674

Let me see if I can figure this out --- you claim that Fox News said that "... ONE of the big reasons.. " for withdrawal was the expiration of the SOFA agreement.

No.

Fox News states in their report that "The inability to strike an agreement giving American troops immunity was one of the big reasons why a residual force did not stay behind after 2011. "

The expiration date (midnight December 31, 2011) was set in stone by Bush and Maliki in 2008. The inability to strike any new agreement that would give troops immunity was because the Iraqis would not grant any immunity.

Immunity was not a minor issue as you have so erroneously claimed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Condeleeza Rice said there was an expectation of signing an extension; Ambassador

Her expectation did not foresee the reality in 2011 that Iraqis were not going give Obama the same immunity for our troops that they agreed to in 2008.

Bill O'Reilly explained the reality to Condi pretty well:

RICE: .. Now, as to the immunity clause, we actually did manage to negotiate an immunity clause with the Iraqis so that our forces…

O'REILLY: But they wouldn't…

RICE: …could stay.

O'REILLY: …they wouldn't give Obama the same clause.

RICE: Well, we…

O'REILLY: That's what he said.

RICE: …we don't – well…

O'REILLY: Is he lying?

RICE: …all that I know is I -- I have no idea. I wasn't inside the negotiations. But I know this. A residual force would have been preferable for all…

Condoleezza Rice Discusses Iraq Invasion Cheney Clashes Fox News

If a residual force was preferable to Rice she should not have accepted a 2011 end of immunity.

She can have all the "expectations" she wants. She needed to get an extension in writing:


Do you know what Bush's opening position was on keeping troops in Iraq?

. In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Read more:

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal
By Gareth Porter • WASHINGTON, (IPS) • December 16, 2011

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the U.S. on Troop Withdrawal Inter Press Service


Then:

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

And then:

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

And then:

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

And bad news for the Bushies:

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

And the finale of over 4000 dead Americans in Iraq:

"
The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

re: "Wrong to blame Bush for invading Iraq - Right to blame Obama for ISIS invading Iraq" being debunked:

• "...with the help of U.S.-led coalition airstrikes."
• "Warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition circled overhead as peshmerga troops... "
• "Peshmerga fighters were fighting their way into Sinjar and nearby areas in coordination with allied air support."

Kurdish Fighters Push Back ISIS In Syria's Kobani

| By BASSEM MROUE Updated: 12/20/2014 8:59 pm EST

Kurdish forces have gradually pushed the extremist group back in recent weeks with the help of U.S.-led coalition airstrikes.

The push in Kobani came a day after YPG fighters opened a corridor between their positions in northeastern Syria and Mount Sinjar in neighboring Iraq where Iraqi peshmerga fighters have been on the offensive as well. Earlier this week, Iraqi peshmerga fighters were also able to open another corridor to Mount Sinjar.

Iraq's Kurdistan Region Security Council said peshmerga fighters launched a new offensive on Saturday toward Mount Sinjar and were able to capture the nearby area of Mushrefa.

The statement said that early Saturday, 32 truckloads of food, water and other aid departed from the northern Iraqi city of Erbil to Mount Sinjar through the "corridor established by the courageous Peshmerga forces."

Warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition circled overhead as peshmerga troops returning from the front said the city was full of roadside bombs and snipers. The peshmerga had set up a base overlooking the city on the summit of Mount Sinjar, which included a makeshift hospital, they added.

Spokesman Jabbar Yawar said Peshmerga fighters were fighting their way into Sinjar and nearby areas in coordination with allied air support.

Do you see the first sentence in the second to last cited paragraph? It says, "Warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition circled overhead as peshmerga troops returning from the front said the city was full of roadside bombs and snipers."

So why would an American sitting comfortably far from any of the fighting want Obama to put 'boots on the ground' that are being worn by American troops in direct combat with the enemy where they could be killed or wounded?

What does that American have against the local Syrian fighters and Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga wearing the only 'boots on the ground' In the fight. Why on god's green and blue and sand colored earth would any American want our men in uniform to be marching in their 'boots on the ground' into a city full of roadside bombs and snipers when they don' have to?

Didn't Spare_Change get his fill of hearing about Americans' with their boots on the ground coming home in flag-draped coffins from the unnecessary war in Iraq?

I hope all the whiny nonsense from a couple of months back is finally over. God that was right up there in the 'Republican dumb as it gets' category.

SC 10138527 November 09, 2014

Why has he only authorized a laughably incompetent 'air war'? Why has he refused to put 'boots on the ground', despite the recommendations of the military, only to trickle troops into the fight?

It's a laughably incompetent air war that Spare_Change calls the mission in which our fighter pilots are currently engaged. They are flying over a sniper and roadside bomb-filled city seeing to it that the local fighters get the best shot at killing and maiming every last one of those IS terrorists on the ground in Kobani.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Re: "Wrong to blame Bush for invading Iraq - Right to blame Obama for ISIS invading Iraq" being debunked!

Camp 10142153

Perhaps the continued loss and casualties of American military personnel in Iraq at the 2008 rate and the continued live of luxury Bin Laden was living are not priorities or of worthy concern to you, but their are others who consider those things to have been pretty darn important to put an end to.

SC 10143047 re: Appalling horrible deaths of US soldiers are not sufficient justification to determine US national policy

You know, it seems kinda unfair to me to use the dead bodies of soldiers to forward a political position ... the deaths of soldiers, while appalling and horrible, are not sufficient justification to determine national policy.

Actually every US President should determine as the utmost of his or her responsibility whether a pending war or any anti-terrorist policy of engagement puts the lives of our precious US soldiers at risk. This thread begins to explain why Spare_Change has decidedly chosen to ignore several question in a Feb/March 2003 NYT/CBS Iraq invasion poll that we have been discussing here:

NF 10411820 re: Polls: 70% in favor of going into Iraq

"35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?"

I'll ask another question based upon there being the fact that Obama's current policy in the new war against the IS terrorists includes what is commonly referred to as "military action" in both Syria and Iraq which does not include putting US troops into a combat role or direct engagement on the ground with the terrorists.

I am in favor of that limited engagement of ground forces 100%. This policy has been decided to avoid risk of death and injury to our troops. So why on earth would Spare_Change declare that such presidential consideration for the lives and safety of our troops is bad policy?

*Camp makes a lot of sense.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10135037

Obama is the biggest fuck up since I dont know when.

Why because he has not got Americans dying in the fight to liberate Kobane?

. By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News Wednesday, 31 December 2014 The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group has lost ground in the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobane, where Kurdish forces have now regained control of about 70 percent of territory, a group monitoring the war said on Wednesday.

The People’s Protection Units (YPG), backed by U.S.-led air strikes, were able to push back ISIS fighters after months of besiege, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

YPG made significant advances overnight on Tuesday after violent clashes with ISIS in the south of town.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ish-forces-gain-control-of-70-of-Kobane-.html


Have you offered a better way to do this?

 

[Spare_change]

re: "Wrong to blame Bush for invading Iraq - Right to blame Obama for ISIS invading Iraq" being debunked:

• "...with the help of U.S.-led coalition airstrikes."
• "Warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition circled overhead as peshmerga troops... "
• "Peshmerga fighters were fighting their way into Sinjar and nearby areas in coordination with allied air support."

Kurdish Fighters Push Back ISIS In Syria's Kobani

| By BASSEM MROUE Updated: 12/20/2014 8:59 pm EST

Kurdish forces have gradually pushed the extremist group back in recent weeks with the help of U.S.-led coalition airstrikes.

The push in Kobani came a day after YPG fighters opened a corridor between their positions in northeastern Syria and Mount Sinjar in neighboring Iraq where Iraqi peshmerga fighters have been on the offensive as well. Earlier this week, Iraqi peshmerga fighters were also able to open another corridor to Mount Sinjar.

Iraq's Kurdistan Region Security Council said peshmerga fighters launched a new offensive on Saturday toward Mount Sinjar and were able to capture the nearby area of Mushrefa.

The statement said that early Saturday, 32 truckloads of food, water and other aid departed from the northern Iraqi city of Erbil to Mount Sinjar through the "corridor established by the courageous Peshmerga forces."

Warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition circled overhead as peshmerga troops returning from the front said the city was full of roadside bombs and snipers. The peshmerga had set up a base overlooking the city on the summit of Mount Sinjar, which included a makeshift hospital, they added.

Spokesman Jabbar Yawar said Peshmerga fighters were fighting their way into Sinjar and nearby areas in coordination with allied air support.

Do you see the first sentence in the second to last cited paragraph? It says, "Warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition circled overhead as peshmerga troops returning from the front said the city was full of roadside bombs and snipers."

So why would an American sitting comfortably far from any of the fighting want Obama to put 'boots on the ground' that are being worn by American troops in direct combat with the enemy where they could be killed or wounded?

What does that American have against the local Syrian fighters and Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga wearing the only 'boots on the ground' In the fight. Why on god's green and blue and sand colored earth would any American want our men in uniform to be marching in their 'boots on the ground' into a city full of roadside bombs and snipers when they don' have to?

Didn't Spare_Change get his fill of hearing about Americans' with their boots on the ground coming home in flag-draped coffins from the unnecessary war in Iraq?

I hope all the whiny nonsense from a couple of months back is finally over. God that was right up there in the 'Republican dumb as it gets' category.

SC 10138527 November 09, 2014

Why has he only authorized a laughably incompetent 'air war'? Why has he refused to put 'boots on the ground', despite the recommendations of the military, only to trickle troops into the fight?

It's a laughably incompetent air war that Spare_Change calls the mission in which our fighter pilots are currently engaged. They are flying over a sniper and roadside bomb-filled city seeing to it that the local fighters get the best shot at killing and maiming every last one of those IS terrorists on the ground in Kobani.

You will find that I have consistently said that the current 'air mission' is a military joke, but a successful political PR campaign. Relative to the number of missions flown, we have already had a greater loss of life, material, and money than the whole Iraq war. We have amateurs playing 'war' in the dirt in their backyard. People are unnecessarily dying because of our military strategy. But, what the hell ... it ain't our people, right? It's just those brown people, so what do we care?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10453923

You will find that I have consistently said that the current 'air mission' is a military joke, but a successful political PR campaign. Relative to the number of missions flown, we have already had a greater loss of life, material, and money than the whole Iraq war. We have amateurs playing 'war' in the dirt in their backyard. People are unnecessarily dying because of our military strategy. But, what the hell ... it ain't our people, right? It's just those brown people, so what do we care?

You are comparing casualties from the civil war in Syria that was not of our doing, to the civil war in Iraq that was caused by the US invasion in 2003 to find find WMD that were not there.

How absurd can you get?

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10453923

You will find that I have consistently said that the current 'air mission' is a military joke, but a successful political PR campaign. Relative to the number of missions flown, we have already had a greater loss of life, material, and money than the whole Iraq war. We have amateurs playing 'war' in the dirt in their backyard. People are unnecessarily dying because of our military strategy. But, what the hell ... it ain't our people, right? It's just those brown people, so what do we care?

You are comparing casualties from the civil war in Syria that was not of our doing, to the civil war in Iraq that was caused by the US invasion in 2003 to find find WMD that were not there.

How absurd can you get?

I am saying that our failure to take action has resulted in more deaths ... the same is true for the Kurds. But, what the hell ... it ain't our people, right? It's just those brown people, so what do we care?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Re: "failure to take action resulting in deaths versus taking action causing deaths"

SC 10471708

I am saying that our failure to take action has resulted in more deaths

Do you have confidence in your ability to guarantee that taking US military action (including massive ground invasion - with tons of chemical weapons available to the offending regime) early in the outbreak of civil war in Syria would have caused fewer deaths than what you attribute to be be deaths caused by non-action?

Should US casualties be a factor in the decision of what is to be done?

 

[Spare_change]

Re: "failure to take action resulting in deaths versus taking action causing deaths"

SC 10471708

I am saying that our failure to take action has resulted in more deaths

Do you have confidence in your ability to guarantee that taking US military action (including massive ground invasion - with tons of chemical weapons available to the offending regime) early in the outbreak of civil war in Syria would have caused fewer deaths than what you attribute to be be deaths caused by non-action?

Should US casualties be a factor in the decision of what is to be done?

Yep --- I have every confidence.

Should US casualties be a factor? Only when measured against the benefit of success.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10476170

Yep --- I have every confidence

So you didn't learn anything at all from the invasion of Iraq did you?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yep --- I have every confidence

But perhaps you didn't grasp the question:

Do you have confidence in your ability to guarantee that taking US military action (including massive ground invasion - with tons of chemical weapons available to the offending regime) early in the outbreak of civil war in Syria would have caused fewer deaths than what you attribute to be be deaths caused by non-action?

How many US ground troops did you project at the start of the civil war in Syria would be needed to secure and defend the anti-government population from the government?