Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I've shown the exact opposite to be the case.

 

[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?

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

That means I win, huh?

Three out of every four Iraqis (who were not US puppets) wanted ALL of the US troops out of their country permanently UNLESS the troops were willing to submit to Iraqi laws. You lost when you supported the conservative draft dodgers who launched the illegal invasion/occupation in 2003. Maybe Lebanon will turn out better? You should lace up your boots and find out

 

[Dot Com]

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?

Three out of every four Iraqis (who were not US puppets) wanted ALL of the US troops out of their country permanently UNLESS the troops were willing to submit to Iraqi laws. You lost when you supported the conservative draft dodgers who launched the illegal invasion/occupation in 2003. Maybe Lebanon will turn out better? You should lace up your boots and find out

^ that

I'm afraid OP is too much of a blind follower of the neocon world police ideology. Sad that. She won't change her mind because that $1.5 TRILLION $$$ (conservative estimate) foreign policy blunder cost us MORE THAN just BORROWED taxpayer money. I've never seen someone more partisan than OP. She must have drank the kool aid

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9858241

.

9858168.

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

I've shown the exact opposite to be the case.

You have shown nothing with respect to majority opinion among Iraqis. You cannot even substantiate that Maliki wanted troops to remain. We do know for a fact that members of Maliki's own governing party in the legislature would not approve any new SOFA for 2012. Knock yourself out in defiance of reality and common knowledge, but doing so makes you a joke. You are a conservative buffoon.

 

[tinydancer]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.

To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

Oh good grief get a grip. Obama's part of a greater group of western leaders along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey actively trying to overthrow Assad.

Here. Get up to speed. And check out the dates.

Obama's favorite guys the Muslim Brotherhood are right smack dab in the center of it all. Gee, letting them smuggle weapons to the faux rebels wasn't such a great idea after all.

I guess no one thought ahead that if you let the MB vet who the good rebels were vs the bad rebels that nothing could go wrong.

Like letting the weapons fall into the wrong hands. Nah, the MB would never ever let that happen.



C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: June 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...rms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Oh and if this doesn't say Obama's administration has been cherry picking who they hope to make up Syria's new government after they depose Assad I don't know what would.

Nothing like Obama and regime change. As if he and others haven't screwed up Egypt, Libya and the Ukraine enough they're going for fucking up another country. They're still working on Syria.

U.S. Will Grant Recognition to Syrian Rebels, Obama Says
By MARK LANDLER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ANNE BARNARD
Published: December 11, 2012 193 Comments

"The United States has played an active role behind the scenes in shaping the opposition, insisting that it be broadened and made more inclusive. But until Mr. Obama’s announcement, the United States had held off on formally recognizing the opposition, asserting that it wanted to use the lure of recognition to encourage the rebel leaders to flesh out their political structure and fill important posts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/w...involvement-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[dilloduck]

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?

Three out of every four Iraqis (who were not US puppets) wanted ALL of the US troops out of their country permanently UNLESS the troops were willing to submit to Iraqi laws. You lost when you supported the conservative draft dodgers who launched the illegal invasion/occupation in 2003. Maybe Lebanon will turn out better? You should lace up your boots and find out

^ that

I'm afraid OP is too much of a blind follower of the neocon world police ideology. Sad that. She won't change her mind because that $1.5 TRILLION $$$ (conservative estimate) foreign policy blunder cost us MORE THAN just BORROWED taxpayer money. I've never seen someone more partisan than OP. She must have drank the kool aid

Obviously Obama can afford it. Look at that neocon go.

 

[tinydancer]

9858241

.

9858168.

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

I've shown the exact opposite to be the case.

You have shown nothing with respect to majority opinion among Iraqis. You cannot even substantiate that Maliki wanted troops to remain. We do know for a fact that members of Maliki's own governing party in the legislature would not approve any new SOFA for 2012. Knock yourself out in defiance of reality and common knowledge, but doing so makes you a joke. You are a conservative buffoon.

PC's proven in this thread along with many other posters that Obama had no intention of leaving any troops in Iraq whatsoever. Nor did he negotiate in good faith.

Reputable links have been given. Those at the bargaining table have come forward and said unequivocably that the White House AKA the Home of the Whopper are lying their asses off over Maliki not wanting more troops.

I just crawled thru this whole thread. The data is out there.

Like this. From his own lips.

Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq


"But during the 2012 foreign policy presidential debate, Obama told the American people that he didn't support leaving any troops in Iraq.

"Every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong," Obama told GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day."

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.

Now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East."

Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard

 

[BillyP]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.

To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

Oh good grief get a grip. Obama's part of a greater group of western leaders along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey actively trying to overthrow Assad.

Here. Get up to speed. And check out the dates.

Obama's favorite guys the Muslim Brotherhood are right smack dab in the center of it all. Gee, letting them smuggle weapons to the faux rebels wasn't such a great idea after all.

I guess no one thought ahead that if you let the MB vet who the good rebels were vs the bad rebels that nothing could go wrong.

Like letting the weapons fall into the wrong hands. Nah, the MB would never ever let that happen.



C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: June 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...rms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Oh and if this doesn't say Obama's administration has been cherry picking who they hope to make up Syria's new government after they depose Assad I don't know what would.

Nothing like Obama and regime change. As if he and others haven't screwed up Egypt, Libya and the Ukraine enough they're going for fucking up another country. They're still working on Syria.

U.S. Will Grant Recognition to Syrian Rebels, Obama Says
By MARK LANDLER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ANNE BARNARD
Published: December 11, 2012 193 Comments

"The United States has played an active role behind the scenes in shaping the opposition, insisting that it be broadened and made more inclusive. But until Mr. Obama’s announcement, the United States had held off on formally recognizing the opposition, asserting that it wanted to use the lure of recognition to encourage the rebel leaders to flesh out their political structure and fill important posts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/w...involvement-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The CIA gives weapons to everyone, I even posted somewhere else that no doubt the CIA helped all the arab springs, including Syria. But neither the CIA, nor the US were instrumental in destabilizing Syria.

 

[dilloduck]

Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.

To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

Oh good grief get a grip. Obama's part of a greater group of western leaders along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey actively trying to overthrow Assad.

Here. Get up to speed. And check out the dates.

Obama's favorite guys the Muslim Brotherhood are right smack dab in the center of it all. Gee, letting them smuggle weapons to the faux rebels wasn't such a great idea after all.

I guess no one thought ahead that if you let the MB vet who the good rebels were vs the bad rebels that nothing could go wrong.

Like letting the weapons fall into the wrong hands. Nah, the MB would never ever let that happen.



C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: June 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...rms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Oh and if this doesn't say Obama's administration has been cherry picking who they hope to make up Syria's new government after they depose Assad I don't know what would.

Nothing like Obama and regime change. As if he and others haven't screwed up Egypt, Libya and the Ukraine enough they're going for fucking up another country. They're still working on Syria.

U.S. Will Grant Recognition to Syrian Rebels, Obama Says
By MARK LANDLER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ANNE BARNARD
Published: December 11, 2012 193 Comments

"The United States has played an active role behind the scenes in shaping the opposition, insisting that it be broadened and made more inclusive. But until Mr. Obama’s announcement, the United States had held off on formally recognizing the opposition, asserting that it wanted to use the lure of recognition to encourage the rebel leaders to flesh out their political structure and fill important posts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/w...involvement-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The CIA gives weapons to everyone, I even posted somewhere else that no doubt the CIA helped all the arab springs, including Syria. But neither the CIA, nor the US were instrumental in destabilizing Syria.

You wanna link that up for me or is that just something you wanna claim to be true without have anything to back it up with? Arming a faction opposed to Assad can't be a real stabilizing factor.

 

[georgephillip]

Snowden alleges US complicit in creation of Islamic State:

"Edward Snowden’s 2013 leak of classified NSA documents is perfect fodder for conspiracy theorists -- it has intrigue, still-unreleased documents, and the NSA as 'Big Brother.'

"So it’s no surprise to see Snowden’s name attached to the increasingly popular idea that America and Israel created ISIS.

"On July 16, Bahrain’s Gulf Daily News reported that 'Edward Snowden has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad (Israel’s intelligence agency) worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).'

"This operation, they said, was codenamed 'Hornet’s Nest.'

And as recently as Aug. 18, the Palestinian Authority insisted that the Islamic State is a Zionist plot by the United States and Israel. The United States, though, has been bombing the Islamic State in Iraq for more than a week; not quite ally behavior."

Maybe the Kurds (and Kissinger) understand such ally behavior should never be confused with missionary work?

Bloggers Edward Snowden leaked NSA documents show U.S. Israel created Islamic State PunditFact