Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD!

[Londoner]

[

I'm so tired of hearing this out of you libs. So did Hitler's iron handed leadership.

Actually Germany had an extremely cohesive and longstanding culture. This is why it was able to stand on its own after Hitler died.

The modern state of Iraq - a hodgepodge manufactured by postwar Britain - had none of Germany's unity. It was being held together through violence whereas Hitler had the support of many Germans, who saw him as a savior of German culture whose borders language and culture was under siege by a manufactured Jewish demon.

But I agree with you. Nothing justifies leaving Hussein in power, save the possibility of even greater violence with his removal. All of this is made more tragic by the fact that Hussein's consolidation of power is impossible to imagine without the support of Reagan and B41.

 

[hipeter924]

The original Iraqi army was fine, along with Saddam's security forces.

Um no. I disagreed with Bremmer's dismantling of the Army to remove Baathists but that doesn't mean the original Iraqi army was fine. It wasn't.

Any decision Bremmer made with regard to the Army was going to have negative consequences. But thanks for playing the MMQing game.

It was fine at keeping the extremists at bay, had been for decades till we went looking for weapons of mass destruction and took Saddam out, as one cartoon in a newspaper put it (to paraphrase) after a decade we have found the weapons of mass destruction: "ISIS".

I didn't suggest that those guilty of human rights violations should not have been removed, and that the Iraqi army didn't need to be restructured and be given better weaponry and improved training.

Also I don't agree with you that any decision Bremmer made was going to have negative consequences, as whether Bremmer had been in or not, the actual reality on the ground at the time had no substantial evidence whatsoever to support the premise that removing or replacing in whole or part the Iraqi military would have negative consequences. They weren't able to anticipate the role of foreign fighters in Iraqi, and their capacity to undermine stability in a short space of time.

 

[EconChick]

The original Iraqi army was fine, along with Saddam's security forces.

Um no. I disagreed with Bremmer's dismantling of the Army to remove Baathists but that doesn't mean the original Iraqi army was fine. It wasn't.

Any decision Bremmer made with regard to the Army was going to have negative consequences. But thanks for playing the MMQing game.

It was fine at keeping the extremists at bay, had been for decades till we went looking for weapons of mass destruction and took Saddam out, as one cartoon in a newspaper put it (to paraphrase) after a decade we have found the weapons of mass destruction: "ISIS".

I didn't suggest that those guilty of human rights violations should not have been removed, and that the Iraqi army didn't need to be restructured and be given better weaponry and improved training.

Also I don't agree with you that any decision Bremmer made was going to have negative consequences, as whether Bremmer had been in or not, the actual reality on the ground at the time had no substantial evidence whatsoever to support the premise that removing or replacing in whole or part the Iraqi military would have negative consequences. They weren't able to anticipate the role of foreign fighters in Iraqi, and their capacity to undermine stability in a short space of time.

You seriously can't think of even one little downside to keeping Saddam loyalists in power in the Army? It was very complicated. I disagreed with Bremmer but MMQ backers make it sound so black and white.

 

[hipeter924]

Um no. I disagreed with Bremmer's dismantling of the Army to remove Baathists but that doesn't mean the original Iraqi army was fine. It wasn't.

Any decision Bremmer made with regard to the Army was going to have negative consequences. But thanks for playing the MMQing game.

It was fine at keeping the extremists at bay, had been for decades till we went looking for weapons of mass destruction and took Saddam out, as one cartoon in a newspaper put it (to paraphrase) after a decade we have found the weapons of mass destruction: "ISIS".

I didn't suggest that those guilty of human rights violations should not have been removed, and that the Iraqi army didn't need to be restructured and be given better weaponry and improved training.

Also I don't agree with you that any decision Bremmer made was going to have negative consequences, as whether Bremmer had been in or not, the actual reality on the ground at the time had no substantial evidence whatsoever to support the premise that removing or replacing in whole or part the Iraqi military would have negative consequences. They weren't able to anticipate the role of foreign fighters in Iraqi, and their capacity to undermine stability in a short space of time.

You seriously can't think of even one little downside to keeping Saddam loyalists in power in the Army? It was very complicated. I disagreed with Bremmer but MMQ backers make it sound so black and white.

Saddam and his supporters in the army were terrible, but those that replaced them haven't been proven to be any better at upholding human rights.

 

[EconChick]

Saddam and his supporters in the army were terrible, but those that replaced them haven't been proven to be any better at upholding human rights.

We're in agreement on that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Saddam and his supporters in the army were terrible, but those that replaced them haven't been proven to be any better at upholding human rights.

Are you talking specifically about 'army' replacements? When did you realize the new Iraqi army was as bad as when Saddam was in power?

 

[hipeter924]

Are you talking specifically about 'army' replacements? When did you realize the new Iraqi army was as bad as when Saddam was in power?

I opposed the war in Iraq from day one, so I would say when someone got the idea into their head that removing Saddam would spontaneously lead to a 'democratic' or 'united' Iraq.

We helped kill off the Iraqi democrats by telling them we would support them by radio, only to just let them be wiped out by Saddam right after the first gulf war. Iraq could have been 'united' and 'democratic' after the first gulf war, but by the time Bush 2.0 made his mark that brief window had long gone.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I love how you libs show half a page of the SOFA when it's about 26 pages long.

If the rest of the SOFA bolsters your argument, by all means post it and make your case. Otherwise your complaint has no merit.

I asked you for language to support your 'placeholder' claims but you cannot provide it. You should be worried about your lack of facts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

-- there was a 2008 SOFA, and there was the outline of the 2011/2012 SOFA being negotiated. The 2011 SOFA is what had the poison pills you idiot.

The issue being debated was whether Obama 'inserted' the poison pills into negotiations for the extension of the 2008 SOFA immunity question and other issues. You've been given the FACT that Iraqi's Chief Justice affirms that the any negotiated SOFA had to pass the Parliament. You lied to all the readers here that Obama inserted that requirement into the negotiations and poisoned them. That is a lie. You lied because you said that the poison pill of needing to be passed by Iraq's Parliament had not happened before and that would include 2008. Yet you've been advised that the 2008 SOFA had to be passed by Iraq's parliament.

 

[paulitician]

Should have stayed gone.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Should have stayed gone.

The FACTS bother you too, I see.

 

[paulitician]

Should have stayed gone.

The FACTS bother you too, I see.

Only fact bothering me is the fact we're going to war there again. We should oblige Maliki and stay gone.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Only fact bothering me is the fact we're going to war there again. We should oblige Maliki and stay gone.

Today at 12:13 AM 08/21


What do you mean we are going to war in Iraq again? It is not the same war. You need to leave the 'again' out. Despite the fact that the IS terrorists have no air force or ground to air defenses, the better terminology is that we are going back to enforcing the No Fly Zone in the north of Iraq, The NFZs should not have ended by ground invasion in 2003. However this time the No Moving Terrorist Zone NMTZ is conducted to destroy IS terrorists. That is a worthwhile cause to say the least. The US and Brits flew NFZ missions in Iraq for a decade and hardly anyone considered that "a war" as most people recognize war. I think you are being a bit over dramatic here.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iraq Wants the U.S. Out
BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.
Mr. Maliki spoke with The Wall Street Journal in a two-hour interview, his first since Iraq ended nine months of stalemate and seated a new government after an inconclusive election, allowing Mr. Maliki to begin a second term as premier.
A majority of Iraqis—and some Iraqi and U.S. officials—have assumed the U.S. troop presence would eventually be extended, especially after the long government limbo. But Mr. Maliki was eager to draw a line in his most definitive remarks on the subject. "The last American soldier will leave Iraq" as agreed, he said, speaking at his office in a leafy section of Baghdad's protected Green Zone.

"This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

The bottom line is that Maliki could not get the backing of the Iraqi Parliament (including his own Shiite faction) to extend the troops.

It doesn't matter what McCain and Graham said, those two weren't ever going to change Iraq's Parliament's mind. If Maliki couldn't change their mind, what makes you think two senators from a foreign country could?

Above is reality. Here is reality in the WSJ No less.

""This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ"

In the face of reality the propagandists will defer to ambiguity. The friend of liars.

Libs on these threads are what we call single-threaders. Can't think in complex, ambiguous ways, just linear EITHER -- OR paradigms.

Doesn't occur to them it could be both at the same time. And in that case you have to "weight" each sub variable..

.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We helped kill off the Iraqi democrats by telling them we would support them by radio, only to just let them be wiped out by Saddam right after the first gulf war. Iraq could have been 'united' and 'democratic' after the first gulf war, but by the time Bush 2.0 made his mark that brief window had long gone.

Not Really. Those that were slaughtered after the first Gulf War were not democrats in favor of deposing the Baathists in power. They were Shiites. They were Shiite having independent and a nationalistic attitude about being Iraqi. But being the majority in Iraq a successful Shiite US backed overthrow of Hussein would definitely have swung Iraq to the Shiite camp, thus - advantage Iran in geo-political terms.

Bush 43 must have not learned that lesson from his daddy when he sent US ground troops into Iraq to find stockpiles of WMD that were not there.

The situation between Sunni and Shiite had relatively stabilized a decade after Bush 41 made his blunder that harmed so many Shiites. But then came along Lil Dubby 43. And what a colossal blunder that was.

The only potential externally induced means to establish a more democratic Iraq was to allow the peaceful process of UN disarmament and long term monitoring to go into effect and let the Iraqis decide their future on their own.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Any decision Bremmer made with regard to the Army was going to have negative consequences.

I was looking for Obama's options on negotiating an extended SOFA but finding none. Surely they would be in this thread.

But if you knew what you said about nothing but negative consequence why didn't you advise the Bushies prior to the non-intelligent decision to kick UN inspectors out and start a war?

Why did all your intelligence go to waste? You coulda saved thousands of lives and the US taxpayers trillions. And defeating the Taliban could have proceeded much more effectively had not US military resources been diverted to Iraq.

 

[frigidweirdo]

History repeats itself.

Britain invades Iraq. Britain makes Iraq with a puppet Saudi king. The Iraqis kick out the Saudi king and put in the Ba'ath party.
Britain and the US invade Iraq with a puppet Iraqi leadership. The Iraqis are trying to kick out the puppet and want to put in something else.
When will Britain and the US invade Iraq again and put in another puppet?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

History repeats itself.

Britain invades Iraq. Britain makes Iraq with a puppet Saudi king. The Iraqis kick out the Saudi king and put in the Ba'ath party.
Britain and the US invade Iraq with a puppet Iraqi leadership. The Iraqis are trying to kick out the puppet and want to put in something else.
When will Britain and the US invade Iraq again and put in another puppet?

Never. Even if they wanted to in 2003 they couldn't and didn't. Its a false concern at this point.

 

[Oldstyle]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

Ah yes...another Deanie post proving that you ARE the most naive person on the US Message Board!

Bottom line is this, little buddy...if the President of the United States had insisted on keeping a force of 10,000 US troops in Iraq as was the plan under Bush and what our military leaders were advising...then Maliki would not have had a choice but to comply. Maliki postured on the status of force agreement and Obama gladly used it as an excuse to withdraw ALL American troops from Iraq which was what he wanted in the first place. For Obama supporters to now turn around and blame Barry's fuck-up solely on Maliki is laughable. The decision to pull out all of the US troops from Iraq was Barack Obama's. The consequences of that decision fall solely upon him. He wanted to be known as the President that ends wars and so he chose to do something that he...and he alone...bears responsibility for.

 

[Misty]

Maliki promised he wouldn't let what's happening happen and now they want the USA back.