Looks like Baghdad imploding

[NotfooledbyW]

. ChrL 11023435

Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.

NF 11024796

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?

ChrL 11024802

Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.

.

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too?

So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.

US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?

 

[ChrisL]

. ChrL 11023435

Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.

NF 11024796

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?

ChrL 11024802

Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.

.

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too?

So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.

US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?

Yes. That would have been best for us AND for the Iraqi people.

 

[ChrisL]

. ChrL 11023435

Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.

NF 11024796

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?

ChrL 11024802

Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.

.

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too?

So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.

US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?

Oh, and BTW, I don't have a global militaristic dream world, you fool. Acknowledging that having troops remaining in Iraq would have prevented what is happening TODAY is not a militaristic dream world, you idiot. I can't stand you. You're a partisan hack and a dumb ass.

 

[ChrisL]

. ChrL 11023435

Politicians have no business running wars. Important decisions should be left to the generals who KNOW what they are doing.

NF 11024796

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too, in your militaristic dream world?

ChrL 11024802

Are kidding with this bullcrap? You must be. Of course they should!!! Duh. Look what has happened, Fool.

.

Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too?

So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.

US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?

^^^

This jerk . . . he cannot refute that generals, who KNOW what's happening on the ground and who know how to run a war, should listen to Obama, the community organizer, lawyer and politician. What an effing idiot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said."

ChrL11024862

Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. What bullshit are you going to come up with now? OCS.

Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says his old boss, President Barack Obama, erred when he failed to leave a residual military force in Iraq – and when he didn't opt to arm the Free Syrian Army earlier.

I see no mention of immunity in Panetta's book tour quote.

I see immunity mentioned when Panetta was Sec of defense and in a position to be advising Obama to reject the Iraqis anti-immunity position,

NF 10908353

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

. After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

 

[ChrisL]

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said."

ChrL11024862

Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. What bullshit are you going to come up with now? OCS.

Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says his old boss, President Barack Obama, erred when he failed to leave a residual military force in Iraq – and when he didn't opt to arm the Free Syrian Army earlier.

I see no mention of immunity in Panetta's book tour quote.

I see immunity mentioned Panetta was Sec of defense and in a position to be advising Obama to reject the Iraqis anti-immunity position,

NF 10908353

"On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

. After months of preparations on both sides for a complete pullout by Dec. 31 of more than 40,000 remaining U.S. troops, the Iraqi government said in recent days that several thousand could stay on as military trainers. The condition, however, is that they lose the legal immunity they now enjoy. It is, an Iraqi government spokesman said this week, the primary dispute preventing an agreement.

On Thursday at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said.

There are overwhelming practical reasons to demand that, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on national security and intelligence with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iraq ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, Cordesman said, a problem that extends to its police and judicial systems. The political and religious conflicts that divide the nation increase the risk for U.S. troops, he said. Some groups might bid for popular support among Iraqis, still smarting from well-documented civilian killings and cases of abuse by troops and contractors, by provoking violence and bringing malicious prosecutions.

Experts Immunity dispute won t end U.S.-Iraq cooperation - News - Stripes

Well, then you didn't read the link, because it is specifically talked about. Again, Obama insists that he couldn't do anything, but I'm not buying it. WHERE is his diplomacy? A leader needs to be able to LEAD.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11024941

Acknowledging that having troops remaining in Iraq would have prevented what is happening TODAY is not a militaristic dream world, you idiot.

Acknowledging that having troops remaining in Iraq is acknowledging that an impossible and unrealistic outcome was first going to happen in order to maybe have the possibility of preventing what happened last summer. It is ignoring the Maliki factor and the rancid political climate that could have actually made the situation worse by having American troops stationed on the ground fully supporting a Shiite dominated government - friendly toward Iran helping to carry out military action against the indigenous Sunni population. Americans would have been seen as Maliki's Army and Air Force.

You are ignoring the issue of legal immunity not being available for troops that many wanted to leave behind. It's as if you believe in little pixies dropping fairy dust in Iraqi politicians eyes to get them to reverse entrenched convictions to never grant immunity to US troops ever again.

Republican pixie dust foreign policy is in full swing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This jerk . . . he cannot refute that generals, who KNOW what's happening on the ground and who know how to run a war, should listen to Obama, the community organizer, lawyer and politician. What an effing idiot.

I am not refuting the fact that US generals know how and advise the US President on how to conduct a war.

I am refuting your absurd and ignoramus pronouncement that you live in a militaristic dream world where US Generals get to tell Iraqi politicians including the Prime Minister who has a close relationship with Iran what they are permitted to do or not do and specifically with regard to granting immunity to US troops.

You ran away from another post by not responding to one but not to its context.

Here it is again:

.
Do US generals get to make all the important decisions for politicians and spiritual leaders in Iraq too?

So you are saying that US Generals get to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister and all the politicians in the Iraqi Legislature important military matters such how many American troops get to stay on base or engage in combat on Iraq soil. They will tell them that they have no choice on the matter of immunity - you courts must approve it.

US generals get to do that in your global militaristic dream world. Is that correct?

Will you keep running or provide a direct response? It all up to you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11024996n

Again, Obama insists that he couldn't do anything, but I'm not buying it. WHERE is his diplomacy? A leader needs to be able to LEAD.

It's more 'talked about' the fact that the Iraqis were immovable on the issue of legal immunity for remaking troops, And you cant use the word 'immunity' in a response to me can you?

It took Bush 150,000 troops to achieve and maintain a 2008 environment that you admitted was not stable. Yet you expect Bush's successor to maintain the level of instability with much less troops all committed to being down to zero in three years.

Where was Bush's leadership and diplomacy to keep military bases in Iraq for decades like he wanted?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11024862

Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.

Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians

Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.

If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.

NF 11024987

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said."

I realize you can't discuss the immunity issue since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:

NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:

U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11024582

Yes, more than ONE general recommended ..... that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable

I have never argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ... "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."

It's that they all also recommended that any troops that did not leave had to be granted immunity by the Iraqis or they could not remain. The Iraqis would not give up on their opposition to immunity. So they all had to leave when Bush's deadline arrived.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11024862

Oh . . .what's this? Another person, who probably knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, who thought it was a bad idea. OCS.

Panetta Obama Wrong on Iraq Pullout Failure to Arm Syrians

Of course Panetta thought it was a bad idea to keep troops in Iraq without legal immunity.

If Panetta knows a hell of a lot more than Obama, don't you have to agree with everything the man had to say and specifically what he had to say during the negotiations and as Secretary of Defense.

NF 11024987

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot back, saying U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system. “I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” he said."

I realize you can't discuss the immunity issue since it explains exactly why the Bush Maliki deadline could never have been extended. Unless of course Obama was inclined to disregard the advice of Panetta and every general giving the same advice:

NF 10908353 Panetta said in 2011:

U.S. troops would not remain in Iraq if they were to be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

​

Are you now saying that Obama knows more than Leon Panetta? Good Lord. You really do have OCS.

I don't have to agree with everything a person says to agree with some of the things they say. DUH.

He also stated that he feels Obama could have applied pressure to Al-Maliki.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11024582

Yes, more than ONE general recommended ..... that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable

I have never argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ... "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."

It's that they all also recommended that any troops that did not leave had to be granted immunity by the Iraqis or they could not remain. The Iraqis would not give up on their opposition to immunity. So they all had to leave when Bush's deadline arrived.

Yes, you did. Obama could have done more. That is the point. He didn't want to. Why? Because he wanted to please his liberal base. Stop being so dishonest.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11031694

I don't have to agree with everything a person says to agree with some of the things they say.

Are going on record disagreeing with this no matter who says it?

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, you did.

That is a lie. I have never....

. ... argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ... "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."

If you think I did - post it -.or if you can't - well then, run as you usually do.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11031694

I don't have to agree with everything a person says to agree with some of the things they say.

Are going on record disagreeing with this no matter who says it?

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,”

You misunderstand, as usual.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, you did.

That is a lie. I have never....

. ... argued against the fact "that more than ONE general recommended" ... to Obama ... "that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable."

If you think I did - post it -.or if you can't - well then, run as you usually do.

Yup, you did. You said that you didn't believe it. Stop lying and just admit that you will say anything to defend your lover, Obama. OCS syndrome.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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?

Obama's decisions continue to look better every day as experts reveal more about the Daesh terrorist scum that overran parts of Sunni inhabited Iraq last summer. Obama has the policy right. This has to remain a ground war between modern day Muslims and this cult of end of times medieval murderous goons that I refer to as Daesh terrorist scum because that is what they truly are.

The 2003 - 2011 war to save the world from S.Hussein's WMD instead of peaceful inspection is over. This is a new war and part of the revived (*a ) (in 2003) Sunni Shiite Ideological and religious split that has now become even more exacerbated by a distinctive and ancient version of Islam that has established a murderous cult-like hermit kingdom that the vast majority of most modern day Muslims reject. It is a cult that needs to control territory without regard to borders which is necessarily required to be large enough to bring forth a serious army that will take on the army of Rome in a final end of times battle. This battle is to be won when the army of the eighth caliphate ruled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi gets trapped and cornered in Jerusalem and finally down to its last 5000 fighters when Jesus Christ the Prophet himself comes floating down from the heavens with a sword and slays an anti-prophet (*b Dajjal vs Jesus) and the world is then ruled by pure Sharia Law.

Apparently the Koran mentions "the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” *c

All this must matter to those who prefer to be informed on issues where the leaders of all civilized nations must decide how best to deal with such a large murderous cult and specifically all nations that are predominately Islamic and opposed to Daesh's creation of chaos as a medieval end of time cult that cannot have its objective be fulfilled unless you believe Jesus will actually come back to slay Dajjal.

*a Daesh propaganda quoting Zarqawi:

. “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify … until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” A recent propaganda video shows clips from Hollywood war movies set in medieval times—perhaps because many of the prophecies specify that the armies will be on horseback or carrying ancient weapons.

*b Dajjal vs Jesus

. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

*c signs

. “Only God knows” whether the Islamic State’s armies are the ones foretold, Cerantonio said. But he is hopeful. “The Prophet said that one sign of the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” he said. “If you go to the mosques now, you’ll find the preachers are silent about this subject.” On this theory, even setbacks dealt to the Islamic State mean nothing, since God has preordained the near-destruction of his people anyway. The Islamic State has its best and worst days ahead of it.

*a b & c source: What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

Obama's pulling troops out according to Bush's hard deadline had nothing to do with the creation of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Daesh and self-anointment as caliph number eight causing all kinds of cult minded psychopaths and thieves and murderers to have a cause to join him.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11033743

Yup, you did. You said that you didn't believe it. OCS syndrome.

If you think I did - post it - or if you can't - well then, keeping running as you just did again right there in post# 11033743.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Obama's decisions continue to look better every day as experts reveal more about the Daesh terrorist scum that overran parts of Sunni inhabited Iraq last summer. Obama has the policy right. This has to remain a ground war between modern day Muslims and this cult of end of times medieval murderous goons that I refer to as Daesh terrorist scum because that is what they truly are.

The 2003 - 2011 war to save the world from S.Hussein's WMD instead of peaceful inspection is over. This is a new war and part of the revived (*a ) (in 2003) Sunni Shiite Ideological and religious split that has now become even more exacerbated by a distinctive and ancient version of Islam that has established a murderous cult-like hermit kingdom that the vast majority of most modern day Muslims reject. It is a cult that needs to control territory without regard to borders which is necessarily required to be large enough to bring forth a serious army that will take on the army of Rome in a final end of times battle. This battle is to be won when the army of the eighth caliphate ruled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi gets trapped and cornered in Jerusalem and finally down to its last 5000 fighters when Jesus Christ the Prophet himself comes floating down from the heavens with a sword and slays an anti-prophet (*b Dajjal vs Jesus) and the world is then ruled by pure Sharia Law.

Apparently the Koran mentions "the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” *c

All this must matter to those who prefer to be informed on issues where the leaders of all civilized nations must decide how best to deal with such a large murderous cult and specifically all nations that are predominately Islamic and opposed to Daesh's creation of chaos as a medieval end of time cult that cannot have its objective be fulfilled unless you believe Jesus will actually come back to slay Dajjal.

*a Daesh propaganda quoting Zarqawi:

. “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify … until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” A recent propaganda video shows clips from Hollywood war movies set in medieval times—perhaps because many of the prophecies specify that the armies will be on horseback or carrying ancient weapons.

*b Dajjal vs Jesus

. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

*c signs

. “Only God knows” whether the Islamic State’s armies are the ones foretold, Cerantonio said. But he is hopeful. “The Prophet said that one sign of the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” he said. “If you go to the mosques now, you’ll find the preachers are silent about this subject.” On this theory, even setbacks dealt to the Islamic State mean nothing, since God has preordained the near-destruction of his people anyway. The Islamic State has its best and worst days ahead of it.

*a b & c source: What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

Obama's pulling troops out according to Bush's hard deadline had nothing to do with the creation of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Daesh and self-anointment as caliph number eight causing all kinds of cult minded psychopaths and thieves and murderers to have a cause to join him.

Just a year ago, Barry was citing Yemen as a shining example of how his Middle East strategy against terror was succeeding. Now the whole country is on fire and embroiled in civil war. Everything Barack Obama touches turns to shit. You're simply too much of blinders wearing sycophant to admit it!