McCain: Opponents lying about Iraq history Maliki wanted 20,000 troops

That is the point. Do you think that America would still be in Germany if Germans were setting off IEDs on a daily basis since 1945?

of course we would. so you're saying we should turn tail and run because of a few nutters? just let the country we torn down and built back up be torn down again?

now, if iraq told us to leave and take all troops, different story. that said, i always thought we would leave a base there like we did with japan etc...

You never built Iraq back up. It's a fourth-world shithole now instead of a third-world shithole.

Because the Bush administration lied to the American people and the world.
 
Well, well, well. Seek and ye shall find liberal bullshit. It turns out they wanted a continued US presence in Iraq.

Here's the deal from the man who was directly involved in the talks. McCain minces no words.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011. He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.

And here is the key to how the negotiations fell apart. And the problem wasn't the Iraqis.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were in direct talks with the Iraqi government at the time, McCain said, and Iraq was ready for a deal before the number of troops the United States proposed leaving fell sharply.

"What Senator Kaine is saying is just totally false," McCain said. "In fact, it's a lie, because Lindsey Graham and I were there."

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself said that the number of troops that we were proposing cascaded down to 3,000, when it had been recommended to be 20,000," McCain added.

He said Iraq, at that point, determined an agreement “wasn't worth the problem.”

https://thehill.com/policy/international/209887-mccain-opponents-lying-about-iraq-history
Obama wanted them OUT for the sake of politics. Simple as that...NOW he has to deal with his own idiocy listening to the leftists he's surrounded himself with while his followers place the Blame it on BUSH...and others.

What a tangled web Obama the idiotic/arrogant and unqualified...has weaved.
 
So the claim is that Maliki the Iranian puppet wanted a 20,000 man American bodyguard to prop up his regime,

and now we're realizing that in all likelihood his departure is necessary for any hope of progress?
 
not at all. having military bases in those countries not only helps protect them, but more importantly, it helps protect us and our global interests.

your last paragraph is bullshit. japan is 6th in the world in terms of defense budgets. south korea is number 11....

What interests are we protecting in South Korea?

And just to put your rankings into proper perspective:

defense_spending.jpg

but your claim is BS about those countries not spending on defense merely because we are there. further, the amount we spend on those bases is minuscule compared to our overall budget. and, if you want to be honest, our budget is so high because of our weaponry, ships, planes, testing advance weaponry. we have the highest number of fighter jets and bombers in the world, you think that is cheap?

are you kidding about SK? do you even know where that country is located or which country is north of it?

If South Korea is so threatened by its neighbor (which in reality is not an actual threat to us)

why doesn't South Korea at the very least spend a percentage of its GDP on defense comparable to what we spend,

and then use that extra spending to relieve American troops from having to be there?
 
So the claim is that Maliki the Iranian puppet wanted a 20,000 man American bodyguard to prop up his regime,

and now we're realizing that in all likelihood his departure is necessary for any hope of progress?

I am guessing that you do not care that those posing the threat now are those that our Boi King armed a very short time ago?
 
So the claim is that Maliki the Iranian puppet wanted a 20,000 man American bodyguard to prop up his regime,

and now we're realizing that in all likelihood his departure is necessary for any hope of progress?

I am guessing that you do not care that those posing the threat now are those that our Boi King armed a very short time ago?

What little arming was done was criticized by McCain as insufficient.
 
So the claim is that Maliki the Iranian puppet wanted a 20,000 man American bodyguard to prop up his regime,

and now we're realizing that in all likelihood his departure is necessary for any hope of progress?

I am guessing that you do not care that those posing the threat now are those that our Boi King armed a very short time ago?
:lol: But...but...that's different...somehow...
 
So the claim is that Maliki the Iranian puppet wanted a 20,000 man American bodyguard to prop up his regime,

and now we're realizing that in all likelihood his departure is necessary for any hope of progress?

I am guessing that you do not care that those posing the threat now are those that our Boi King armed a very short time ago?

What little arming was done was criticized by McCain as insufficient.

That might work for you in your bubble but not here.

The President armed those that we are about to fight.

Let that sink in......now I in no way EVER expect one of you to ever criticize the asshole in the Oval Office.....but with every passing day he makes you more stupid than the day before.
 
I am guessing that you do not care that those posing the threat now are those that our Boi King armed a very short time ago?

What little arming was done was criticized by McCain as insufficient.

That might work for you in your bubble but not here.

The President armed those that we are about to fight.

Let that sink in......now I in no way EVER expect one of you to ever criticize the asshole in the Oval Office.....but with every passing day he makes you more stupid than the day before.
Yes he did indeed...and now his idiocy has come calling in a place HE thought HE was done with and claimed victory (not his) over.

Obama is a self-deprecating amateur being advised by MORON Leftists.
 
And how many did the American people want to leave there?

Who cares? It is not the job of the president to blindly translate American public opinion into policy.

What?? Yes he is considering he is elected BY THE PEOPLE.

I love radical conservatives. Despite the fact that Bush signed the agreement that withdrew troops from Iraq, it's all the democrats fault. They somehow tricked republicans into doing it and the republicans are the greatest, perfect party ever.
 
Do you people know how in the US, school shootings take place with legally-purchased firearms that ended up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them?

That's the Middle East. One big school shooting with legally-supplied weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

That's what happens when you saturate the world with more weapons in the name of peace.
 
the truth about American troops in Iraq after 2011

Maliki wanted a SOFA that made American troops subject to Iraqi courts.

Obama rightfully said nope no way jose, and left town.
 
Here's the key. Maliki wanted troops to remain. He wanted training to continue. There was a hiccup over immunity but they wanted to continue talks.

Bottom line Obama bailed on negotiations. And bailed on Iraq.

Iraqi leaders announced in August that they were opening talks with the US on maintaining some sort of training presence in the country past this year.

But there has been little traction since then as the US military continues to draw down its forces.


Iraq denies immunity for US troops after 2011 - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
 
Here's the key. Maliki wanted troops to remain. He wanted training to continue. There was a hiccup over immunity but they wanted to continue talks.

Bottom line Obama bailed on negotiations. And bailed on Iraq.

Iraqi leaders announced in August that they were opening talks with the US on maintaining some sort of training presence in the country past this year.

But there has been little traction since then as the US military continues to draw down its forces.

Iraq denies immunity for US troops after 2011 - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
BINGO! And bravo!
 

Forum List

Back
Top