NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,857
- 4,904
- 245
- Thread starter
- #181
Oldstyle, post: 17693309
Bush negotiated under Duress. Bush's starting point was to keep permanent bases in Iraq.
He negotiated that away.
The only reason the SOFA passed Iraq's Parliament was the Iraqis consented to grant immunity for two years as long as the 120,000 US Troops were being steadily withdrawn.
Obama had to abide by the SOFA and stradily and slowly withdraw Troops and equipment.
When it came to extending the SOFA after all but the last few troops were withdrawn, Iraq's Parliament, controlled by Muqtada al Sadr, there was no possibility of a political agreement on that extension.
What is your source that tells you that the political scene in Iraq was the same in 2008 and 2010?
All but a few thousand troops were already gone.
Obama kept 5000 in Kuwait to train and advise.
Iraq Denies Legal Immunity to U.S. Troops After 2011
I realize you have no sources for your claims, but I do.
I realize you don't give a crap about our troops and the immunity issue but I and Obama and every single top military adviser to this day do care. No adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq without immunity.
It was the deal breaker.
Maliki was corrupt anyway. We had no business keeping him in power by neglecting and oppressing the Sunni cities where and only where ISIS could get a foothold.
Those 5000 trainers would have been confined to bases not out patrolling Sunni cities.
Learn to read things other than rightwing Obama hating bullcrap.
The original SOFA was negotiated and approved by the Iraqi government. I
Bush negotiated under Duress. Bush's starting point was to keep permanent bases in Iraq.
He negotiated that away.
The only reason the SOFA passed Iraq's Parliament was the Iraqis consented to grant immunity for two years as long as the 120,000 US Troops were being steadily withdrawn.
Obama had to abide by the SOFA and stradily and slowly withdraw Troops and equipment.
When it came to extending the SOFA after all but the last few troops were withdrawn, Iraq's Parliament, controlled by Muqtada al Sadr, there was no possibility of a political agreement on that extension.
What is your source that tells you that the political scene in Iraq was the same in 2008 and 2010?
All but a few thousand troops were already gone.
Obama kept 5000 in Kuwait to train and advise.
.
By TIM ARANGO and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
OCTOBER 4, 2011
BAGHDAD — Iraq’s political leaders announced late Tuesday that they had agreed on the need to keep American military trainers in Iraq next year, but they declared that any remaining troops should not be granted immunity from Iraqi law, a point the United States has said would be a deal breaker.
Iraq Denies Legal Immunity to U.S. Troops After 2011
I realize you have no sources for your claims, but I do.
I realize you don't give a crap about our troops and the immunity issue but I and Obama and every single top military adviser to this day do care. No adviser to Obama told him to keep troops in Iraq without immunity.
It was the deal breaker.
Maliki was corrupt anyway. We had no business keeping him in power by neglecting and oppressing the Sunni cities where and only where ISIS could get a foothold.
Those 5000 trainers would have been confined to bases not out patrolling Sunni cities.
Learn to read things other than rightwing Obama hating bullcrap.
Last edited: