Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
DOesnt matter what Iraqis wanted
yep. stationing infidels in a muslim country does not endear them to you.. Many Righties here took the SeanRush brown acid.Mud 10102517The tile alone puts the lie to the premise of this thread.
You have apparently not read beyond the title since you are not addressing the premise of this thread.
The false claim made by EconChick is not refuted by what White House staff said and whatever it was. The OP-Ed did not make further comment on that headline or what it meant.
More knockdown of EconChick's fallacies and "Hogwash"
regarding Iraq from the WSJ oped:
"But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash"
Could a residual force have prevented ISIS’s victories? With troops we would have had better intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS, a more attentive Washington, and no doubt a better-trained Iraqi army. But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash. The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints..
The Iraqis wanted a significant force of 20,000.
Given the success in winning a SOFA in 2008, what led to this failure? First, the need for U.S. troops was not self-evident in 2011. Iraq appeared stable, with oil exports of two million barrels a day at about $90 a barrel, and security much improved. Second, politics had turned against a troop presence; the bitterly anti-U.S. Sadrists were active in Parliament, the Sunni Arabs more ambivalent toward the U.S., and polls indicated that less than 20% of the Iraqi population wanted U.S. troops.
No. Every statement by you fits that description.BB 10107637DOesnt matter what Iraqis wanted
That has to be one of the top most ignorant and arrogant statements about Iraq that could be stated.
Econochick was wrong in the mechaics. It wasn't obola demanding that the issue go to parliament. But he did get pissy over the issue going to parliament
The story begins in 2008, when the Bush administration and Iraq negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement granting U.S. troops in the country legal immunities—a sine qua non of U.S. basing everywhere—but with the caveat that they be withdrawn by the end of 2011.
Leadership means doing the right thing, not the popular thing. Bush understood that. Obama doesnt.
The story begins in 2008, when the Bush administration and Iraq negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement granting U.S. troops in the country legal immunities—a sine qua non of U.S. basing everywhere—but with the caveat that they be withdrawn by the end of 2011.
DOesnt matter what Iraqis wanted. And many key Iraqis understood we had to stay. All of this is written history, confirmed by Panetta and others. Your spin is laughable.
Leadership means doing the right thing, not the popular thing. Bush understood that. Obama doesnt.
NotfooledbyW said:The ten year SOFA with Afghanistan was signed yesterday - keeping 10 thousand US troops there through 2024.
No placeholder bullcrap going on there.
It follows the historic first democratic transfer of governmental power in Afghanistan's long war torn history.
Our troops along with those of the ISAF and the vast majority of Afghans made this historic achievement possible.
Politically here in the US how will the SOFA and the transfer of power be mocked and torn apart?
So where is the praise for Obama getting a long term SOFA deal with the new Afghan government?
