Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

[LoneLaugher]

^^^Does the person who posted this understand it? ^^^

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sure very few elected Republicans AND Democrats will raise the issue in spite of the CIA's four decade-long history of funding, training, and arming some of the most viscous, rabid fundamentalists in all of Islam.

"ISIS, Iranian leaders have been saying for a long time, is made-in-the-U.S.A., a tool of terror intended by the world’s superpower to divide and conquer the energy-rich Middle East and to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/w...an-believe-is-an-american-invention.html?_r=0

Such a statement by the overtly liberal NYTimes is a testament to the liberal revulsion to the US dependence on oil, plus their staunch positions on climate change. The fact the NYTimes has to cite the words of the enemy means they are purely desperate.

Oh yeah, if that were true, Obama is apart of that vicious cycle; as he wishes to arm the Syrian Free Army and train them. Looks like he is doing the same exact thing.

Obama's plan calls for Saudi Arabia to train "moderate" Syrian resistance fighters; do you believe SA is less of an enemy to Democracy than Iran? BTW, Obama and every other elected Republican AND Democrat in DC is part of that vicious circle of eternal war and debt.

How quickly a 'moderate resistance fighter,' when given a weapon of war, will turn into a jihadist. All they need is to be empowered, and each day we are falling into that trap. Anyone who declares their own caliphate over the territory of another sovereign nation is a threat to democracy. Anyone who arms terrorists is a threat to democracy.

Obama may be part of that cycle, but we aren't talking about what past presidents have done. Obama made promises he wouldn't start wars, but he would end them. That's what makes this new war so ironic.

 

[georgephillip]

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

go ahead, blame it on Obama.

Perhaps you should reread the OP. It was because Obama rejected the SOFA that he is there "bombing the shit out of ISIS as we speak." His own complacency caused this situation to spiral out of control.

Newsflash: Nouri al-Maliki asked the US to leave 5-10,000 residual troops in Iraq, yet Obama refused.

On a side note, when Bush wages war, Bush bad, when Obama wages war, Obama good! Give me a freaking break:

Did you notice a majority of Iraqis were sick to death of US boots on the ground killing their children, maiming their old people, and incarcerating their young men, or do you trust in American Exceptionalism?

Is there something wrong with American Exceptionalism? When the President of Iraq asks the most powerful man on Earth to keep some residual troops on the ground in his own country, it wasn't because of American Exceptionalism, it was a man trying to keep his people safe. So, why did Obama resist the pleas of President Maliki? The man clearly wanted to keep some troops there.

Can you for the life of you prove that our troops were doing any of those things you mentioned? Seriously? ISIS does those very same things to the civilians in Iraq and Syria, yet you don't speak out against it. Why is that?

Spare me the hypocrisy, george.

The President of Iraq was a US puppet asking his master to violate the will of 75% of the Iraqi population who wanted ALL US troops out of Iraq PERMANENTLY.

If you're honestly confused about the misery the US has inflicted upon the people of the Middle East, Google Fallujah, Hiroshima, and cancer rates.

Fallujah is now controlled by ISIS, Hiroshima is irrelevant to this discussion.

If you're honestly confused about the misery ISIS has inflicted upon the people of the Middle East, look no further than the thousands of people who died by their hands.

Would a US puppet willfully set terms for the SOFA? No. Maliki was dictating terms to the US for possibly retaining troops in his country. That means he was in full control of his government at that time.

You Democrats claim to be people of compassion, but when it comes to helping our allies, you are whining about how bad the US is. Give me a break. When someone, anyone, asks for our help, do we sit there and say no? Do we let our politics get in the way of our obligations to help people in need?

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study."

US politics have little to do with "helping" the vast majority of those living in the Middle East or the US, for that matter.

All you have to do is compare the level of violence across Iraq and Syria today with levels of thirty years ago, and ask yourself which country is responsible for the change?

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah worse than Hiroshima - Middle East - World - The Independent

 

[georgephillip]

I'm sure very few elected Republicans AND Democrats will raise the issue in spite of the CIA's four decade-long history of funding, training, and arming some of the most viscous, rabid fundamentalists in all of Islam.

"ISIS, Iranian leaders have been saying for a long time, is made-in-the-U.S.A., a tool of terror intended by the world’s superpower to divide and conquer the energy-rich Middle East and to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/w...an-believe-is-an-american-invention.html?_r=0

Such a statement by the overtly liberal NYTimes is a testament to the liberal revulsion to the US dependence on oil, plus their staunch positions on climate change. The fact the NYTimes has to cite the words of the enemy means they are purely desperate.

Oh yeah, if that were true, Obama is apart of that vicious cycle; as he wishes to arm the Syrian Free Army and train them. Looks like he is doing the same exact thing.

Obama's plan calls for Saudi Arabia to train "moderate" Syrian resistance fighters; do you believe SA is less of an enemy to Democracy than Iran? BTW, Obama and every other elected Republican AND Democrat in DC is part of that vicious circle of eternal war and debt.

How quickly a 'moderate resistance fighter,' when given a weapon of war, will turn into a jihadist. All they need is to be empowered, and each day we are falling into that trap. Anyone who declares their own caliphate over the territory of another sovereign nation is a threat to democracy. Anyone who arms terrorists is a threat to democracy.

Obama may be part of that cycle, but we aren't talking about what past presidents have done. Obama made promises he wouldn't start wars, but he would end them. That's what makes this new war so ironic.

I know Obama promised to end wars instead of starting wars, but I don't think he ever had the slightest intention of honoring that pledge either. The US economy is so dependent upon "defense spending" any candidate for president who honestly believes less war is what the country needs will never raise enough money to win his/her party's nomination, much less a general election.

 

[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.

That's a lie as proven so in post # 252

Both statement are facts and nothing in post 252 proves otherwise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure very few elected Republicans AND Democrats will raise the issue in spite of the CIA's four decade-long history of funding, training, and arming some of the most viscous, rabid fundamentalists in all of Islam.

"ISIS, Iranian leaders have been saying for a long time, is made-in-the-U.S.A., a tool of terror intended by the world’s superpower to divide and conquer the energy-rich Middle East and to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/w...an-believe-is-an-american-invention.html?_r=0

Such a statement by the overtly liberal NYTimes is a testament to the liberal revulsion to the US dependence on oil, plus their staunch positions on climate change. The fact the NYTimes has to cite the words of the enemy means they are purely desperate.

Oh yeah, if that were true, Obama is apart of that vicious cycle; as he wishes to arm the Syrian Free Army and train them. Looks like he is doing the same exact thing.

Obama's plan calls for Saudi Arabia to train "moderate" Syrian resistance fighters; do you believe SA is less of an enemy to Democracy than Iran? BTW, Obama and every other elected Republican AND Democrat in DC is part of that vicious circle of eternal war and debt.

How quickly a 'moderate resistance fighter,' when given a weapon of war, will turn into a jihadist. All they need is to be empowered, and each day we are falling into that trap. Anyone who declares their own caliphate over the territory of another sovereign nation is a threat to democracy. Anyone who arms terrorists is a threat to democracy.

Obama may be part of that cycle, but we aren't talking about what past presidents have done. Obama made promises he wouldn't start wars, but he would end them. That's what makes this new war so ironic.

Obama made a promise he wouldn't use military force under any circumstances? When?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

 

[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?

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.

That's a lie as proven so in post # 252

Both statement are facts and nothing in post 252 proves otherwise.

That would be true if one were a congenital moron and/or committed Liberal.

You?

 

[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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

"...Maliki didn't want us there."


Gee.....this is a toughie....

Who to believe.....a constant liar, you.....

...or a general who was there?



BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took 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



"...And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay."

 

[georgephillip]

I'm sure very few elected Republicans AND Democrats will raise the issue in spite of the CIA's four decade-long history of funding, training, and arming some of the most viscous, rabid fundamentalists in all of Islam.

"ISIS, Iranian leaders have been saying for a long time, is made-in-the-U.S.A., a tool of terror intended by the world’s superpower to divide and conquer the energy-rich Middle East and to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/w...an-believe-is-an-american-invention.html?_r=0

Such a statement by the overtly liberal NYTimes is a testament to the liberal revulsion to the US dependence on oil, plus their staunch positions on climate change. The fact the NYTimes has to cite the words of the enemy means they are purely desperate.

Oh yeah, if that were true, Obama is apart of that vicious cycle; as he wishes to arm the Syrian Free Army and train them. Looks like he is doing the same exact thing.

Obama's plan calls for Saudi Arabia to train "moderate" Syrian resistance fighters; do you believe SA is less of an enemy to Democracy than Iran? BTW, Obama and every other elected Republican AND Democrat in DC is part of that vicious circle of eternal war and debt.

How quickly a 'moderate resistance fighter,' when given a weapon of war, will turn into a jihadist. All they need is to be empowered, and each day we are falling into that trap. Anyone who declares their own caliphate over the territory of another sovereign nation is a threat to democracy. Anyone who arms terrorists is a threat to democracy.

Obama may be part of that cycle, but we aren't talking about what past presidents have done. Obama made promises he wouldn't start wars, but he would end them. That's what makes this new war so ironic.

Obama made a promise he wouldn't use military force under any circumstances? When?

Obama pledged no more "dumb" wars, didn't he? If you knew for a fact his CIA has been building IS into a formidable enemy over the past 13 months, would you object or follow your leader?

 

[georgephillip]

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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

"...Maliki didn't want us there."


Gee.....this is a toughie....

Who to believe.....a constant liar, you.....

...or a general who was there?



BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took 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



"...And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay."

How much were "they" paid to say "you must stay?"
Roughly three of every four Iraqis wanted the US hired killers out of their country; how does that factor into your conservative moral calculus?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sure very few elected Republicans AND Democrats will raise the issue in spite of the CIA's four decade-long history of funding, training, and arming some of the most viscous, rabid fundamentalists in all of Islam.

"ISIS, Iranian leaders have been saying for a long time, is made-in-the-U.S.A., a tool of terror intended by the world’s superpower to divide and conquer the energy-rich Middle East and to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/w...an-believe-is-an-american-invention.html?_r=0

Such a statement by the overtly liberal NYTimes is a testament to the liberal revulsion to the US dependence on oil, plus their staunch positions on climate change. The fact the NYTimes has to cite the words of the enemy means they are purely desperate.

Oh yeah, if that were true, Obama is apart of that vicious cycle; as he wishes to arm the Syrian Free Army and train them. Looks like he is doing the same exact thing.

Obama's plan calls for Saudi Arabia to train "moderate" Syrian resistance fighters; do you believe SA is less of an enemy to Democracy than Iran? BTW, Obama and every other elected Republican AND Democrat in DC is part of that vicious circle of eternal war and debt.

How quickly a 'moderate resistance fighter,' when given a weapon of war, will turn into a jihadist. All they need is to be empowered, and each day we are falling into that trap. Anyone who declares their own caliphate over the territory of another sovereign nation is a threat to democracy. Anyone who arms terrorists is a threat to democracy.

Obama may be part of that cycle, but we aren't talking about what past presidents have done. Obama made promises he wouldn't start wars, but he would end them. That's what makes this new war so ironic.

Obama made a promise he wouldn't use military force under any circumstances? When?

Obama pledged no more "dumb" wars, didn't he? If you knew for a fact his CIA has been building IS into a formidable enemy over the past 13 months, would you object or follow your leader?

I will follow no leader who does not abide by constitutional principles. Obama is again openly defying congress, well, at least he told them about it. All I know is that you are a kook with his/her tin foil hat on. Why would we intentionally build threats to ourselves? That is like shooting yourself in the foot, with a machine gun.

Isn't this not a 'dumb war'? I mean he goes over there to bomb ISIS, yet when we run out of targets to hit, the natural flow of this type of warfare is to commit troops to finish the job. He is only fighting half a war.

 

[georgephillip]

Such a statement by the overtly liberal NYTimes is a testament to the liberal revulsion to the US dependence on oil, plus their staunch positions on climate change. The fact the NYTimes has to cite the words of the enemy means they are purely desperate.

Oh yeah, if that were true, Obama is apart of that vicious cycle; as he wishes to arm the Syrian Free Army and train them. Looks like he is doing the same exact thing.

Obama's plan calls for Saudi Arabia to train "moderate" Syrian resistance fighters; do you believe SA is less of an enemy to Democracy than Iran? BTW, Obama and every other elected Republican AND Democrat in DC is part of that vicious circle of eternal war and debt.

How quickly a 'moderate resistance fighter,' when given a weapon of war, will turn into a jihadist. All they need is to be empowered, and each day we are falling into that trap. Anyone who declares their own caliphate over the territory of another sovereign nation is a threat to democracy. Anyone who arms terrorists is a threat to democracy.

Obama may be part of that cycle, but we aren't talking about what past presidents have done. Obama made promises he wouldn't start wars, but he would end them. That's what makes this new war so ironic.

Obama made a promise he wouldn't use military force under any circumstances? When?

Obama pledged no more "dumb" wars, didn't he? If you knew for a fact his CIA has been building IS into a formidable enemy over the past 13 months, would you object or follow your leader?

I will follow no leader who does not abide by constitutional principles. Obama is again openly defying congress, well, at least he told them about it. All I know is that you are a kook with his/her tin foil hat on. Why would we intentionally build threats to ourselves? That is like shooting yourself in the foot, with a machine gun.

Isn't this not a 'dumb war'? I mean he goes over there to bomb ISIS, yet when we run out of targets to hit, the natural flow of this type of warfare is to commit troops to finish the job. He is only fighting half a war.

Did we not create al-Qa'ida during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? There are persistent rumors being put forth from both sides of the aisle claiming fighters and arms were transmitted from Libya through Turkey into Syria. The speed at which the Iraqi Army collapsed last June leads me to believe key officers were bribed in advance to desert, thereby making IS into the Next Great Threat. You don't need a tinfoil hat to hear the sound of Class War.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama's plan calls for Saudi Arabia to train "moderate" Syrian resistance fighters; do you believe SA is less of an enemy to Democracy than Iran? BTW, Obama and every other elected Republican AND Democrat in DC is part of that vicious circle of eternal war and debt.

How quickly a 'moderate resistance fighter,' when given a weapon of war, will turn into a jihadist. All they need is to be empowered, and each day we are falling into that trap. Anyone who declares their own caliphate over the territory of another sovereign nation is a threat to democracy. Anyone who arms terrorists is a threat to democracy.

Obama may be part of that cycle, but we aren't talking about what past presidents have done. Obama made promises he wouldn't start wars, but he would end them. That's what makes this new war so ironic.

Obama made a promise he wouldn't use military force under any circumstances? When?

Obama pledged no more "dumb" wars, didn't he? If you knew for a fact his CIA has been building IS into a formidable enemy over the past 13 months, would you object or follow your leader?

I will follow no leader who does not abide by constitutional principles. Obama is again openly defying congress, well, at least he told them about it. All I know is that you are a kook with his/her tin foil hat on. Why would we intentionally build threats to ourselves? That is like shooting yourself in the foot, with a machine gun.

Isn't this not a 'dumb war'? I mean he goes over there to bomb ISIS, yet when we run out of targets to hit, the natural flow of this type of warfare is to commit troops to finish the job. He is only fighting half a war.

Did we not create al-Qa'ida during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? There are persistent rumors being put forth from both sides of the aisle claiming fighters and arms were transmitted from Libya through Turkey into Syria. The speed at which the Iraqi Army collapsed last June leads me to believe key officers were bribed in advance to desert, thereby making IS into the Next Great Threat. You don't need a tinfoil hat to hear the sound of Class War.

No, that was the Taliban. At any rate we foolishly did not attach conditions when we armed the mujahedin against Soviet invaders. Yes, we are at fault for that one. It was a case of casting pearls before swine. But I can't help but notice what Obama is doing, arming Syrian rebels with little regard to how those weapons will be used when and if the war is over. He armed the Egyptians with tanks and jets, knowing full well the Muslim Brotherhood held sway in the Egyptian government.

And how can Iraqi commanders be bribed? There was a horde of barbarians rampaging across Iraq, it is a tactic called intimidation. They laid down their arms before the barbarity that is ISIS. They fell before the might of our military without firing a shot. Nobody was bribed then either. They are simply cowards who won't even defend their own country in the face of a superior enemy. No soldier in the Iraqi army would risk capture, since it is assured that they will be beheaded. It is a case of pure ambivalence..

You don't need a tin foil hat to understand the basic tactics of war. Be smarter than your enemy, be bolder than your enemy, and instill fear in your enemy. They will fall each and every time.

 

[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.

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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

"...Maliki didn't want us there."


Gee.....this is a toughie....

Who to believe.....a constant liar, you.....

...or a general who was there?



BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took 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



"...And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay."

How much were "they" paid to say "you must stay?"
Roughly three of every four Iraqis wanted the US hired killers out of their country; how does that factor into your conservative moral calculus?

yep. Put zany OP in their shoes and she'd change her zany tune

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

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

go ahead, blame it on Obama.

Perhaps you should reread the OP. It was because Obama rejected the SOFA that he is there "bombing the shit out of ISIS as we speak." His own complacency caused this situation to spiral out of control.

Newsflash: Nouri al-Maliki asked the US to leave 5-10,000 residual troops in Iraq, yet Obama refused.

On a side note, when Bush wages war, Bush bad, when Obama wages war, Obama good! Give me a freaking break:

Did you notice a majority of Iraqis were sick to death of US boots on the ground killing their children, maiming their old people, and incarcerating their young men, or do you trust in American Exceptionalism?

Is there something wrong with American Exceptionalism? When the President of Iraq asks the most powerful man on Earth to keep some residual troops on the ground in his own country, it wasn't because of American Exceptionalism, it was a man trying to keep his people safe. So, why did Obama resist the pleas of President Maliki? The man clearly wanted to keep some troops there.

Can you for the life of you prove that our troops were doing any of those things you mentioned? Seriously? ISIS does those very same things to the civilians in Iraq and Syria, yet you don't speak out against it. Why is that?

Spare me the hypocrisy, george.

Leon Panetta:

"Nouri al-Maliki was the elected prime minister. He didn't want the U.S. troops."

The Islamic State On the ground in Iraq - CBS News

btw, it was good we got out and we should stay out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

"...Maliki didn't want us there."


Gee.....this is a toughie....

Who to believe.....a constant liar, you.....

...or a general who was there?



BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took 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



"...And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay."

Leon Panetta just the other day:

Nouri al-Maliki was the elected prime minister. He didn't want the U.S. troops.

The Islamic State On the ground in Iraq - CBS News

 

[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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

"...Maliki didn't want us there."


Gee.....this is a toughie....

Who to believe.....a constant liar, you.....

...or a general who was there?



BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took 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



"...And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay."

How much were "they" paid to say "you must stay?"
Roughly three of every four Iraqis wanted the US hired killers out of their country; how does that factor into your conservative moral calculus?

So.....you're trying to change the subject?

That means I win, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

"...Maliki didn't want us there."


Gee.....this is a toughie....

Who to believe.....a constant liar, you.....

...or a general who was there?



BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took 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



"...And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay."

How much were "they" paid to say "you must stay?"
Roughly three of every four Iraqis wanted the US hired killers out of their country; how does that factor into your conservative moral calculus?

So.....you're trying to change the subject?

That means I win, huh?

No, you lose because the Iraqis wanted us out of Iraq and the American people wanted us out of Iraq.

 

[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

It was not 'negotiable'. Maliki didn't want us there. The only alternative was a forced occupation, which even someone as ignorant as you can't make a case for.

"...Maliki didn't want us there."


Gee.....this is a toughie....

Who to believe.....a constant liar, you.....

...or a general who was there?



BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took 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



"...And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay."

Leon Panetta just the other day:

Nouri al-Maliki was the elected prime minister. He didn't want the U.S. troops.

The Islamic State On the ground in Iraq - CBS News

1. Leon Edward Panetta (born June 28, 1938) is the 23rd and current United States Secretary of Defense, serving in the administration of President Barack Obama since 2011.
Leon Panetta - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. Panetta is a radical, leftist internationalist. This ‘globalists’ would subscribe to some planetary constitutional power and governmental system.

3. Institute for Policy Studies: Marxist.

4. Pro-Soviet congressman in the 1980’s
Panetta keynoted pro-Soviet group 8217 s conference

5. An activist; Panetta Initiative- Joint Ocean Initiative….cede American Oceans to UN governance.

6. Center for American Progress. Marxist

7. Partner in Citizens for Global Solutions…builds the will for a globalist one-world government.

8. The responsibility to protect (RtoP or R2P) is a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.
\Panetta caught in one-world scheme


9. Leon Panetta is a leftist radical who should never have headed the CIA, period, much less be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. He poses a massive security risk and he has never been vetted – at all. For background on Panetta’s radical communist ties, visit the following research by Trevor Loudon and Cliff Kincaid
:Leon Panetta and The Manchurian Approach to National Security Romanticpoet s Weblog

10. Also, the group’s parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. It is a coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect, the controversial military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.As WND reported, billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the main organization pushing the doctrine. The center includes the World Federalist Movement as one of its members and coordinators.
Panetta caught in one-world scheme



You don't suppose he'd say whatever Obama wanted him to say......do you?