Looks like Baghdad imploding

[ChrisL]

You see, THIS is why you do NOT let politicians run wars. They don't know what's going on, nor do they understand war. And this is also why you must ignore liberals. Those bleeding heart hippies don't know anything either. They're just like, "oh, war is bad, war is bad." They don't give ANY thought to the consequences. NONE.

 

[ChrisL]

From my above link . . .

“As we pulled out of Iraq in 2011, just think of this: We had all our intelligence capability there. We knew where the enemy was. We were flying drones. We’re tracking them. We have signals intelligence pouring in, eavesdropping on phone conversations and the rest of it. We’re using our counterterrorism forces to bang against these guys. We’re passing that information to the Iraqis so their commandos can do the same,” the general said.

After several years of reduced violence in Iraq, the Americans left.

“On a given day in 2011, that screen went blank. The Iraqis went from a significant amount of intelligence on what was taking place, and the screen just went blank,” Gen. Keane said.

Mosul and Tikrit.



Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[konradv]

Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable. Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now. If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

Iraq was stable before we went in too. Sorry but that excuse doesn't cut it. If we wanted stability we should have left well enough alone and finished the job in Afghanistan.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable. Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now. If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

Iraq was stable before we went in too. Sorry but that excuse doesn't cut it. If we wanted stability we should have left well enough alone and finished the job in Afghanistan.

Do this for me Konradv...contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama. ISIS taking over vast parts of Iraq is on Barry's plate. He thought they were the "JV" and was asleep at the switch as they rolled across the open desert to attack major cities in Iraq. That's on Obama...not on Bush!

 

[konradv]

Do this for me Konradv...contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama. ISIS taking over vast parts of Iraq is on Barry's plate. He thought they were the "JV" and was asleep at the switch as they rolled across the open desert to attack major cities in Iraq. That's on Obama...not on Bush!

Everything about Iraq is on Bush. As Powell said, "You broke it; you bought it." Trying to justify what Obama may or may not have done implies that what Bush did was right. Sorry, but I was saying it was a mistake 12 years ago and haven't changed my mind. There were no good reasons for going in, just excuses.

 

[ChrisL]

Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable. Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now. If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

Iraq was stable before we went in too. Sorry but that excuse doesn't cut it. If we wanted stability we should have left well enough alone and finished the job in Afghanistan.

If you consider a man who has committed genocide being in control, always being in a thorn in the side of the world, who stole from his own people and allowed them to starve, who supported and allowed training facilities for terrorists, and also who had torture and rape brigades "stability," then yeah I guess they were "stable."

Crazy leftists.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do this for me Konradv...contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama. ISIS taking over vast parts of Iraq is on Barry's plate. He thought they were the "JV" and was asleep at the switch as they rolled across the open desert to attack major cities in Iraq. That's on Obama...not on Bush!

Everything about Iraq is on Bush. As Powell said, "You broke it; you bought it." Trying to justify what Obama may or may not have done implies that what Bush did was right. Sorry, but I was saying it was a mistake 12 years ago and haven't changed my mind. There were no good reasons for going in, just excuses.

So basically it's your position that even if Barack Obama's policy blunders make the problems in Iraq ten times worse than it ever was under Bush...that it's still Bush's fault? Gotcha!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11018129

I still say that Obama should have tried a little harder to keep troops there

Try "hard" all he could, the answer was still no on immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops gone. Iraq became a sovereign democracy and Iran Friendly Shiite control the central government in Baghdad. Maliki didn't want Americans around poking in his corrupt and partisan business. That thecIraq that Bush built. Stability was a facade.

 

[Unkotare]

Now we're tucking tail and running from Yemen as well because that's become to dangerous for us to have Special Forces troops there.

Because instead of a leader, we have a bumbling, arrogant idiot in the Oval Office making the entire world more dangerous.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11018129

I still say that Obama should have tried a little harder to keep troops there

Try "hard" all he could, the answer was still no on immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops gone. Iraq became a sovereign democracy and Iran Friendly Shiite control the central government in Baghdad. Maliki didn't want Americans around poking in his corrupt and partisan business. That thecIraq that Bush built. Stability was a facade.

You are grasping at straws to protect your "dear leader." Pathetic. The facts are that there WAS some semblance of stability in Iraq when we left, and now it is all falling apart. Bush might be blamed for starting the war, but you liberals are responsible for LOSING it and wasting all those lives and money.

 

[Unkotare]

When Iranian young people bravely took to the streets to demand democratic reform, obama played golf while they were shot dead in the street. When years of costly effort had set the groundwork for a stable, democratic Iraq, obama patted himself on the back while creating the vacuum ISIS would fill. At every turn, obama has proven himself incompetent, incapable, weak, and vacillating on the world stage. He has made the world a much more dangerous place through his incompetence, arrogance, and idiocy.

 

[MaryL]

Ever since March 2003 Iraq was totally disrupted. No WMD's we weren't on a nation building effort. So we disrupted the area, and what did we get out of it? Isis and Iranian involvement. Blowback anyone?

 

[ChrisL]

Ever since March 2003 Iraq was totally disrupted. No WMD's we weren't on a nation building effort. So we disrupted the area, and what did we get out of it? Isis and Iranian involvement. Blowback anyone?

Republicans started the war, but the liberals lost it. Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.

 

[Oldstyle]

ChrL 11018129

I still say that Obama should have tried a little harder to keep troops there

Try "hard" all he could, the answer was still no on immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops gone. Iraq became a sovereign democracy and Iran Friendly Shiite control the central government in Baghdad. Maliki didn't want Americans around poking in his corrupt and partisan business. That thecIraq that Bush built. Stability was a facade.

Did he really try "hard", Notfooled? Did he try at all? Why would he when his goal was to have all the troops out before running for reelection?

The truth is that Barack Obama never tried to get a new Status of Force agreement because he didn't intend to keep troops in Iraq DESPITE what his military advisers were telling him was the smart thing to do!

 

[Oldstyle]

Ever since March 2003 Iraq was totally disrupted. No WMD's we weren't on a nation building effort. So we disrupted the area, and what did we get out of it? Isis and Iranian involvement. Blowback anyone?

Ah, ISIS and Iranian involvement we got following Barry's ill advised decision to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq...taking responsibility for one's actions anyone?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11023097

contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama.

You don't get to go from barely a whiff of sectarian strife prior to March 2003 and produce the sectarian warfare that peaked in 2006 plus al Qaeda moving into the political vacuum that Bush created, and then use 2008 as some kind of baseline with 150,000 US troops still in country. Then take that baseline when Bush signs an agreement to withdraw all troops out of cities by June 2009 and use it as a club to beat on Obama's head. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush essentially agreed that after 2008 the Iraqis were empowered to decide every military operation US troops could carry out. Bush did not have that same restraint that he forced onto his successor. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush agreed to a final deadline for all troops to be out of Iraq before 2012. That meant his successor was required by the Bush agreement to start planning withdrawals and closing bases and all the logistics that coincide with leaving by a date certain.

Yes the calm in 2008 is not the proper baseline. The proper baseline is a time when zero US troops were on the ground in Iraq. That was when UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq the first 2.5 months of 2003.

Bush started the war and did not return Iraq to its 2003 stability. Then he agreed to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011. You want to bitch about Daesh in Iraq butch at Bush. They got their start Obama Bush's watch and he did not destroy them. Just like he did not kill Bin Ladin.

You may also recall the sorry shape of the US economy during Bush's final months in office. Do you know how much it costs to keep 150,000 US troops in a combat and supportive role in Iraq?

So you cluttered-with-hate-brained morons expect that Obama maintain the same level of stability after 2008 with far less troops and the ones still there were not permitted to go into cities or any other missions except the ones approved by Maliki - friend of Iran and Shiite partisan - a very shitty prime minister of Iraq who wanted US troops gone.

If it took Bush 150,000 US troops to achieve the 2008 level of stability and to maintain it, you cannot expect any President afterward to maintain that level of stability in a corrupt partisan governmental environment with a declining number of troops packing things up and preparing to leave on a timeline that Bush put in place.

But that is the absurd expectation by many a rightwing hater in America from sea to shining sea.

 

[ChrisL]

11023097

contrast the stability level as George W. Bush was leaving office and what it is now six years into Barack Obama.

You don't get to go from barely a whiff of sectarian strife prior to March 2003 and produce the sectarian warfare that peaked in 2006 plus al Qaeda moving into the political vacuum that Bush created, and then use 2008 as some kind of baseline with 150,000 US troops still in country. Then take that baseline when Bush signs an agreement to withdraw all troops out of cities by June 2009 and use it as a club to beat on Obama's head. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush essentially agreed that after 2008 the Iraqis were empowered to decide every military operation US troops could carry out. Bush did not have that same restraint that he forced onto his successor. You can't use the 2008 baseline when Bush agreed to a final deadline for all troops to be out of Iraq before 2012. That meant his successor was required by the Bush agreement to start planning withdrawals and closing bases and all the logistics that coincide with leaving by a date certain.

Yes the calm in 2008 is not the proper baseline. The proper baseline is a time when zero US troops were on the ground in Iraq. That was when UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq the first 2.5 months of 2003.

Bush started the war and did not return Iraq to its 2003 stability. Then he agreed to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011. You want to bitch about Daesh in Iraq butch at Bush. They got their start Obama Bush's watch and he did not destroy them. Just like he did not kill Bin Ladin.

You may also recall the sorry shape of the US economy during Bush's final months in office. Do you know how much it costs to keep 150,000 US troops in a combat and supportive role in Iraq?

So you cluttered-with-hate-brained morons expect that Obama maintain the same level of stability after 2008 with far less troops and the ones still there were not permitted to go into cities or any other missions except the ones approved by Maliki - friend of Iran and Shiite partisan - a very shitty prime minister of Iraq who wanted US troops gone.

If it took Bush 150,000 US troops to achieve the 2008 level of stability and to maintain it, you cannot expect any President afterward to maintain that level of stability in a corrupt partisan governmental environment with a declining number of troops packing things up and preparing to leave on a timeline that Bush put in place.

But that is the absurd expectation by many a rightwing hater in America from sea to shining sea.

That's nuts. Obviously, you are a partisan hack.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

More lies.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

You are the liar again. Your link to the Mooney Newspaper:

.
Around that time, Gen. Austin recommended a residual force of 23,000 troops, according to a second source familiar with the discussions.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command did not comment.

Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

You are lying because this is what I wrote:

No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?

You are lying because you did not produce a quote from General Austin giving advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline.

Go find that quote and then come back and call me a liar. You can't and I predict you will run.

 

[ChrisL]

More lies.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

You are the liar again. Your link to the Mooney Newspaper:

.
Around that time, Gen. Austin recommended a residual force of 23,000 troops, according to a second source familiar with the discussions.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command did not comment.

Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

You are lying because this is what I wrote:

No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?

You are lying because you did not produce a quote from General Austin giving advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline.

Go find that quote and then come back and call me a liar. You can't and I predict you will run.

If anyone is lying and is an Obama ass kisser, it would be you. THAT much is obvious. You will grasp at any straw to protect Obama. You are a pathetic excuse for a man.

 

[ChrisL]

More lies.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

You are the liar again. Your link to the Mooney Newspaper:

.
Around that time, Gen. Austin recommended a residual force of 23,000 troops, according to a second source familiar with the discussions.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command did not comment.

Read more: Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

You are lying because this is what I wrote:

No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?

You are lying because you did not produce a quote from General Austin giving advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline.

Go find that quote and then come back and call me a liar. You can't and I predict you will run.

You have OCS. Obama Cocksucker Syndrome.