Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

[Synthaholic]

Obama still isn't listening to military advice. Boys with toys is insulting and ignorant.

Very few military top brass advocate diplomacy over giving them permission to use the toys.

That was a remarkably stupid thing to say.

Care to explain why?

I'm guessing no.

 

[Ibentoken]

Obama still isn't listening to military advice. Boys with toys is insulting and ignorant.

Very few military top brass advocate diplomacy over giving them permission to use the toys.

That was a remarkably stupid thing to say.

Care to explain why?

I'm guessing no.

Our military defense is not a bunch of boys with toys. If that is how you see it then explaining it to you is a waste of time because you're obviously more confused than a drunk termite in a yo yo.

 

[Unkotare]

Obama still isn't listening to military advice. Boys with toys is insulting and ignorant.

Very few military top brass advocate diplomacy over giving them permission to use the toys.

That was a remarkably stupid thing to say.

Care to explain why?

I'm guessing no.

Did you base that on the actual words of "military top brass"? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you based it on the cartoonish, 1980s movie image of "military top brass" that you are childishly lugging around all these years later. You are juvenile, illogical, and asinine.

 

[tinydancer]

Oh my gosh....okey dokey

 

[Spoonman]

how's that arab spring going libs? Obama opened the door and these guys walked right in.

What did Obama do to open any doors? Let democracy flourish? Isn't that what Bush/Cheney claimed they were bringing to the Middle East?

only a lib could call a terroist regime gaining control, beheading americans, calling for attacks on america democracy flourishing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama still isn't listening to military advice. Boys with toys is insulting and ignorant.

Very few military top brass advocate diplomacy over giving them permission to use the toys.

That was a remarkably stupid thing to say.

Care to explain why?

I'm guessing no.

How many times must the Left be reminded that they were warned that Obama was never ready to be President?


Here, from one who understood foreign policy, and the words of his military advisers....

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen says all these predictions have come true.

“Every single thing that President Bush said there in that statement is happening today,” he told Fox News."
Bush in 2007 delivered eerily accurate warning about Iraq unrest Fox News




Unless Obama actually understood....and this development was his plan all along.....

 

[Dot Com]

Everything that vietraq has become, Obama predicted.

\end thread AKA- threadFAIL.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everything that vietraq has become, Obama predicted.

\end thread AKA- threadFAIL.

"end thread"???

What are you afraid of?

Why is silencing opposing voices so essential for Liberals?

IF Obama 'predicted' what has happened....then he must want radical Islamism to rule the Middle East.

Yup....that very well could be.

 

[Dot Com]

Obama advised against Bu$hCo invading vietraq for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it would divert enormous amts of taxpayer resources (which it did) to def contractor coffers and their congress critter pockets (wealth redistribution upwards) and away from investments in infrastructure, education, nutrition, Research & Development, ect..., etc...

what don't you "get" about that OP ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama advised against Bu$hCo invading vietraq for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it would divert enormous amts of taxpayer resources (which it did) to def contractor coffers and their congress critter pockets (wealth redistribution upwards) and away from investments in infrastructure, education, nutrition, Research & Development, ect..., etc...

what don't you "get" about that OP ?

Who is the President.....and has been for six loooooonnnng years?

Who refused to leave enough American troops in Iraq to counterbalance Iran, to stop ISIS?

What don't you 'get' about the vision for the future that one should expect in a President?

Either he is incompetent....or he is a force behind groups like ISIS.
Which is it?

 

[Dot Com]

shit stain!!!

Malaki (Bu$h's guy") refused to let forces stay there unless they were under local Iraqi law. The President rightly refused to accede to that. Where is Malaki now Sugar Shorts?

 

[PoliticalChic]

shit stain!!!

Malaki (Bu$h's guy") refused to let forces stay there unless they were under local Iraqi law. The President rightly refused to accede to that. Where is Malaki now Sugar Shorts?

Of course, the vulgarity is what I reduce you to when you have lost the argument.

And, no, it was Obama who decided not to negotiate a status of forces agreement.

Watch, as I disembowel you:


1. Bush made sure that the community organizer had until 2012 to work out an agreement:
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. "
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



2." BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, andtook it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay.And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though."
CNN.com - Transcripts



3. "Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."
Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard



4. And this:
"This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.



Now....don't ever let me catch you lying about Obama's culpability again!

 

[Dot Com]

ha ha. Add to that the fact that we spent how much training their troops ($17,000,000,000 as in "B" for "BILLION") using high-paid (taxpayer funded [not that we could afford it anyway]) mercs.

The Iraqi army the US spent billions building is a disaster video - CSMonitor.com

Why does hack OP feel the need to lead other countries by the hand, at taxpayer expense mind you EVEN AFTER they prove that they won't stand on their own two feet.

I know another country that can use some nation-building OP The United States

\end FAILThread.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Instead of explaining Isis in terms of extremely partisan U.S. politics, why not explain them in terms of the culture that gave rise to them? If it is Obama's fault for getting out of Iraq, it is also Dubya's fault for removing the strong armed leader in the first place.

The real problem here is that when you take a backwards people who are so thoroughly inbred that half of them are married to their own family members, there are some extreme limitations in the forms of governance that can result. Without a strong-armed leader to keep a lid on things, what results is exactly this sort of chaos.

Naive people assume that democracy leads to liberalization. It doesn't. Liberalization leads to democracy, and when you take profoundly illiberal people and turn them loose, they act upon their culture, and not some pie in the sky western notion that is alien to them. .

 

[Dot Com]

Instead of explaining Isis in terms of extremely partisan U.S. politics, why not explain them in terms of the culture that gave rise to them? If it is Obama's fault for getting out of Iraq, it is also Dubya's fault for removing the strong armed leader in the first place.

The real problem here is that when you take a backwards people who are so thoroughly inbred that half of them are married to their own family members, there are some extreme limitations in the forms of governance that can result. Without a strong-armed leader to keep a lid on things, what results is exactly this sort of chaos.

Naive people assume that democracy leads to liberalization. It doesn't. Liberalization leads to democracy, and when you take profoundly illiberal people and turn them loose, they act upon their culture, and not some pie in the sky western notion that is alien to them. .

I think a big part is they place religious sectarianism above all else, like was done in the West a few hundred years ago. This is what one gets when we let access to cheap oil dictate our foreign policy (propping up dictators & monarchs).

 

[PoliticalChic]

ha ha. Add to that the fact that we spent how much training their troops ($17,000,000,000 as in "B" for "BILLION") using high-paid (taxpayer funded [not that we could afford it anyway]) mercs.

The Iraqi army the US spent billions building is a disaster video - CSMonitor.com

Why does hack OP feel the need to lead other countries by the hand, at taxpayer expense mind you EVEN AFTER they prove that they won't stand on their own two feet.

I know another country that can use some nation-building OP The United States

\end FAILThread.

Cliff Notes version:
1. Bush left Iraq with an agreement that allowed US troops to remain until 2012.

2. The windbag, Obama took charge in 2009

3. Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement that would have left troops, and he actually removed same before he had to.

4. Political landscapes, like nature, abhor a vacuum.

5. Therefore, through Obama's efforts, ISIS had free reign.

QEDIsis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama advised against Bu$hCo invading vietraq for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it would divert enormous amts of taxpayer resources (which it did) to def contractor coffers and their congress critter pockets (wealth redistribution upwards) and away from investments in infrastructure, education, nutrition, Research & Development, ect..., etc...

what don't you "get" about that OP ?

Who is the President.....and has been for six loooooonnnng years?

Who refused to leave enough American troops in Iraq to counterbalance Iran, to stop ISIS?

What don't you 'get' about the vision for the future that one should expect in a President?

Either he is incompetent....or he is a force behind groups like ISIS.
Which is it?

President Bush is the one who signed the SOFA that removed all our troops. It can't be denied.

His invasion and occupation of Iraq was a monumental strategic blunder. Epic blunder.

 

[Unkotare]

I think a big part is they place religious sectarianism above all else, like was done in the West a few hundred years ago. .

Was done where in the West "a few hundred years ago"?

 

[francoHFW]

Obama "didn't really want to stay", "refused to negotiate SOFA"- ABSOLUTE BULLSHYTTE gossip, not news. Change the gd channel, hater dupe.

"Obama never said he was going to end war, hater dupes and just plain dupes (Indies and Dems too), just the Iraq and Afghan ones. This is not our old war in Iraq, this is a new one- we're being begged to help, we're the heroes AGAIN rushing to help the defenseless against a-holes- and now Arabs are on our side period, the Iraq gov't now reaches out to Sunnis, Obama treats them with respect, not chickenhawk bs- ie Arabs are LEARNING, and the a-holes are on the run. That too is Peace prize stuff." - me

 

[Siete]

ISIS is getting the shit bombed out of them as we speak because of Obama ..

go ahead, blame it on Obama.