New WSJ/NBC poll - Donald losing more ground

But continued violence across Iraq, coupled with growing influence by the Shiite power Iran over the government in Baghdad, prompted the Obama administration earlier this year to push to keep thousands of U.S. troops here for years to come. updated 10/22/2011

October 2011? Continued violence spread across Iraq? You said Bush left s peaceful and stable Iraq. Why did you lie about that too?

Roudy, post: 19825773
Wrong again, it was understood that once the agreement ended a new one would be easily negotiated with much less troops still remaining. Obama's failure to do that caused Iraq to fall.

It was not "understood" in any other way than the way it was written.

Bush did not, and I repeat, did not reach an understanding or forecast (for extended presence with immunity) when he agreed to terms in December 2008 that set dates for US troops to be out of Iraq cities within six months, and entirely out by the end of 2011.

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

Story: Obama: All US troops out of Iraq by end of year

Nearly 40,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, all of whom will withdraw by Dec. 31 — a deadline set in a 2008 security agreement between Baghdad and Washington.

But continued violence across Iraq, coupled with growing influence by the Shiite power Iran over the government in Baghdad, prompted the Obama administration earlier this year to push to keep thousands of U.S. troops here for years to come. The two nations negotiated for months over whether U.S. forces should stay — a politically delicate issue for Obama and al-Maliki, both of whom faced widespread opposition from their respective publics to continue a war that was never popular in either nation.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

There was no 2008 understanding on immunity once the Bush/Maliki SOFA expired. More lies coming from the hate Obama side. That is all that is. More damned rightwing lies.
 
Markle, post: 19825736
It simply had to be negotiated

If it was so 'simple' and Bush knew that Iraq needed US troops in a combat role for many years to come, why did he not 'simply' get a SOFA that included immunity for our troops for a period of let's say ten years instead of three.

Obama negotiated a ten year deal with Afghanistan that includes immunity.

That tells me Obama is three times the negotiator on SOFAs than Bush. Yet you never question/attack Bush. And Bush started both wars and could not finish them.

When Bush invaded Iraq it was supposed to take weeks, not months and Iraq's oil was expected to fund it. And you think the same fools that forecast that could forecast for Obama that future negotiations in volatile, hyper-ethnic intensified war torn Iraq would be simple. That Sovereign Iraq would give up 'no immunity' for foreign troops - simple simple simple.

The only thing simple here is you are a simpleton if you actually believe the crap you write.

My God, you are deplorable.

I see that both you and Roudy are unable to address the impasse issue of immunity. You cannot even type the word. Do you hope the very real impasse that ended the 'simple' negotiations will evaporate from reality and history?

If you cannot refute that immunity determined the outcome of the negotiations regarding a continued presence of a few thoussnd trainers in Iraq, then you have zero credibility in this discussion.

At least say you would have put troops in harms way because you care about Iraqi troops that won't fight more than you care about our own.

That is your current argument by default.
 
Roudy, post: 19825773
Wrong again, it was understood that once the agreement ended a new one would be easily negotiated with much less troops still remaining. Obama's failure to do that caused Iraq to fall.

Iraq has not fallen, idiot. What alternative reality planet do you live on?
 
Markle, post: 19825772
No advisers told Obama to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush deadline without immunity. Not one single one,

There was an impasse in negotiations over that issue.

Nothing short of over throwing the Maliki Shiite government could have broken that impasse.

Do you think Republican US members of Congress would have given Obama an AUMF to restart an Iraq invasion to topple the Shiite Iran backed government that Bush put in there?

Do you really think that when Bush left telling us that the Maliki government was strong enough to defend the 'new democracy' that got 4400 US troops needlessly killed in the making, Obama would have been able to remove it it?

You are insane if you believe that.

You're too easy. Do you have someone who can step up for you? You know, like the designated hitter?

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight "another ground war in Iraq"
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
7:13 PM BST 17 Sep 2014

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

Obama vs. the generals

By Marc A. Thiessen September 15, 2014

Pity poor Gen. Lloyd Austin, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Rarely has a U.S. general given his commander in chief better military advice, only to see it repeatedly rejected.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

President Barack Obama today decisively silenced speculation by America's generals that US ground troops could return to Iraq in a rare example of the White House publicly overruling the military.
[...]
Obama vs. the generals

More?
Why would we have the need to leave troops? Iraq convinced us they could stand up on their own.
Our generals and military professionals predicted that the premature pullout would be a disaster, and it was. Ever wonder why everything Obama touched somehow magically turned to shit?
Actually, what was posted was one general expressed concern. Meanwhile, we had the former president, Bush, telling America for years that we will stand down when Iraq can stand up.

Then, according to Bush, Iraq could stand up as he made the deal with Iraq to stand down. Obama followed Bush's timetable. Even worse, the deal between the U.S. and Iraq was already made before Obama became president. The only way Obama could have left troops was to break our word with them and they didn't want that as they flat out refused to ensure immunity for our troops -- a necessary agreement to keep our troops there which Iraq would not give.

keep-calm-baby-girl-you-look-desperate-S.png

You are posting cartoons now. Are we expected to revert to being nine years old?

Not seeing any opposition to the fact that it was the issue of immunity that ended negotiations for extending the Bush/Maliki deadline for all US military troops to leave Iraq.

Also not seeing you cite one single military adviser, officer, pentagon official, making a recommendation to Obama that a few thousand US MILITARY trainers, confined to bases in Iraq, stay beyond the December 2011 deadline WITHOUT IMMUNITY.
 
Markle, post: 19825736
It simply had to be negotiated

If it was so 'simple' and Bush knew that Iraq needed US troops in a combat role for many years to come, why did he not 'simply' get a SOFA that included immunity for our troops for a period of let's say ten years instead of three.

Obama negotiated a ten year deal with Afghanistan that includes immunity.

That tells me Obama is three times the negotiator on SOFAs than Bush. Yet you never question/attack Bush. And Bush started both wars and could not finish them.

When Bush invaded Iraq it was supposed to take weeks, not months and Iraq's oil was expected to fund it. And you think the same fools that forecast that could forecast for Obama that future negotiations in volatile, hyper-ethnic intensified war torn Iraq would be simple. That Sovereign Iraq would give up 'no immunity' for foreign troops - simple simple simple.

The only thing simple here is you are a simpleton if you actually believe the crap you write.

My God, you are deplorable.

I see that both you and Roudy are unable to address the impasse issue of immunity. You cannot even type the word. Do you hope the very real impasse that ended the 'simple' negotiations will evaporate from reality and history?

If you cannot refute that immunity determined the outcome of the negotiations regarding a continued presence of a few thoussnd trainers in Iraq, then you have zero credibility in this discussion.

At least say you would have put troops in harms way because you care about Iraqi troops that won't fight more than you care about our own.

That is your current argument by default.
Obama intentionally sabotaged the peace in Iraq so his brothers in Jihad could win back hundreds of miles of real estate from Aleppo to Baghdad.

We still have troops in Korea and Germany. Obama decided that keeping troops in Iran was unfair to ISIL
 
CrusaderFrank, post: 19826429
Obama intentionally sabotaged the peace in Iraq so his brothers in Jihad could win back hundreds of miles of real estate from Aleppo to Baghdad.

And then put together a coalition that assisted the Iraqi government to take all those cities and hundreds of miles of real estate back.

Another absolute fool enters the discussion.

How did Obama intentionally sabotage the peace again?
 
Last edited:
Markle, post: 19825736
It simply had to be negotiated

If it was so 'simple' and Bush knew that Iraq needed US troops in a combat role for many years to come, why did he not 'simply' get a SOFA that included immunity for our troops for a period of let's say ten years instead of three.

Obama negotiated a ten year deal with Afghanistan that includes immunity.

That tells me Obama is three times the negotiator on SOFAs than Bush. Yet you never question/attack Bush. And Bush started both wars and could not finish them.

When Bush invaded Iraq it was supposed to take weeks, not months and Iraq's oil was expected to fund it. And you think the same fools that forecast that could forecast for Obama that future negotiations in volatile, hyper-ethnic intensified war torn Iraq would be simple. That Sovereign Iraq would give up 'no immunity' for foreign troops - simple simple simple.

The only thing simple here is you are a simpleton if you actually believe the crap you write.

My God, you are deplorable.

I see that both you and Roudy are unable to address the impasse issue of immunity. You cannot even type the word. Do you hope the very real impasse that ended the 'simple' negotiations will evaporate from reality and history?

If you cannot refute that immunity determined the outcome of the negotiations regarding a continued presence of a few thoussnd trainers in Iraq, then you have zero credibility in this discussion.

At least say you would have put troops in harms way because you care about Iraqi troops that won't fight more than you care about our own.

That is your current argument by default.
Obama intentionally sabotaged the peace in Iraq so his brothers in Jihad could win back hundreds of miles of real estate from Aleppo to Baghdad.

We still have troops in Korea and Germany. Obama decided that keeping troops in Iran was unfair to ISIL
:cuckoo:
 
Interesting how these Libtard coolaid drinkers try to cover up for Obama's catastrophic foreign policy. Literally everything he touched fell apart and turned to shit. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Arab Spring, North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Arab Spring, Ben Ghazi, you name it the incompetent inept moron fucked it up.
 
Roudy, post: 19827490
Interesting how these Libtard coolaid drinkers try to cover up for Obama's catastrophic foreign policy. Literally everything he touched fell apart and turned to shit. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Arab Spring, North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Arab Spring, Ben Ghazi, you name it the incompetent inept moron fucked it up.


What's to cover up? Obama did not initiate cause, or drive policies that were catastrophic for Iraq, Syria, Libya, Arab Spring, North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Arab Spring, Ben Ghazi. Catastrophic events took place, but your broad brush complaint contains no explanation as to why you believe Obama was behind every bad thing that happened in the world while he was president.

A good example of what you need to cite would be akin to Bush lying about Iraq's WMD (per Trumpo) and forcing inspectors out so he could invade.

Look at all the catastrophic results that decision by Bush unleashed on the world.
 
Markle, post: 19830335
How many times do you need to see the facts?

You are confused about what is fact and what is fiction. It is a fact that ISIS unleashed terror horror and tragedy for people in Iraq and Syria starting in 2014. It is not a fact to declare that pulling the last few thousand US troops out out of Iraq is was what enabled and created ISIS in the first place.

You have liars on your side claiming Obama deliberately and intentionally pulled all troops out of Iraq to help ISIS take over Iraq and Syria.

Are you including that truthless garbage in your list of facts Markle?

You are still unable to use the word immunity in all this blame Obama bless Bush trash.

There was no other choice but to pull all troops out of Iraq because of the immunity deal and Bush unable to get a long term deal.

Trump blames the invasion of Iraq for all the mess. So do most who know real facts from partisan hate and propaganda.
 
Markle, post: 19830335
How many times do you need to see the facts?

You are confused about what is fact and what is fiction. It is a fact that ISIS unleashed terror horror and tragedy for people in Iraq and Syria starting in 2014. It is not a fact to declare that pulling the last few thousand US troops out out of Iraq is was what enabled and created ISIS in the first place.

You have liars on your side claiming Obama deliberately and intentionally pulled all troops out of Iraq to help ISIS take over Iraq and Syria.

Are you including that truthless garbage in your list of facts Markle?

You are still unable to use the word immunity in all this blame Obama bless Bush trash.

There was no other choice but to pull all troops out of Iraq because of the immunity deal and Bush unable to get a long term deal.

Trump blames the invasion of Iraq for all the mess. So do most who know real facts from partisan hate and propaganda.

Liar%20too-S.jpg
 
Markle, post: 19830335
How many times do you need to see the facts?

You are confused about what is fact and what is fiction. It is a fact that ISIS unleashed terror horror and tragedy for people in Iraq and Syria starting in 2014. It is not a fact to declare that pulling the last few thousand US troops out out of Iraq is was what enabled and created ISIS in the first place.

You have liars on your side claiming Obama deliberately and intentionally pulled all troops out of Iraq to help ISIS take over Iraq and Syria.

Are you including that truthless garbage in your list of facts Markle?

ppYou are still unable to use the word immunity in all this blame Obama bless Bush trash.

There was no other choice but to pull all troops out of Iraq because of the immunity deal and Bush unable to get a long term deal.

Trump blames the invasion of Iraq for all the mess. So do most who know real facts from partisan hate and propaganda.

Liar%20too-S.jpg

What lies?

Trumpo has blamed the invasion of Iraq for the mess in the Middle East.

There was no other choice but to pull all troops out of Iraq because of the immunity deal and Bush was in fact unable to get a long term SOFA deal.

You are unable to use the word immunity in a post.


All those are true.
 
Markle, post: 19830335
How many times do you need to see the facts?

Did you bring up (post below) the 500 tonnes of yellowcake because it was a critical 'fact' that justified Bush's decision to invade Iraq? And do you think it proves Trump is lying when he says that the Bush adinstration lied about WMD and none were found?

Markle, post: 14888505
There WERE WMD's in Iraq along with 500 tonnes of yellowcake which the U.S. shipped to Canada for safe storage.

Do you know the status if the yellowcake prior to Bush's decision to kick inspectors out the n ordere to start a war?
 

Forum List

Back
Top