Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[NotfooledbyW]

Did you see this Eagle1


NF 9830646

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News

 

[eagle1462010]

This is why I don't like Politicians from either side in a War...............They attack people like Petraeus over and over again...........Calling him a Traitor from the Far Left.............Saying his strategy would never work before it even started...............

Ask him to organize strategy for a War on Two fronts.........aka giving orders and commands to subordinates in both Iraq and Afghanistan while being grilled by Congress over and over again, day in and day out..............To answer the same questions usually over and over again...........

Until he can't take the burning of the candles at both ends and finally actually PASSES OUT DURING QUESTIONING........................

Generals strive to WIN WARS.............Politicians strive for Politics............the Dem side is to cut and run at all costs...............

The Dems strategy was to leave...............PERIOD...........BACK IN 2006, and not even give the surge strategy a CHANCE AT ALL............Their words..........CUT OUR LOSSES AND LEAVE.

anyway.......here's the video of the General passing out.

 

[eagle1462010]

Did you see this Eagle1


NF 9830646

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News

Yeah, I know about these...............look at the date.....................

We hauled ass in Iraq under Obama...............COMPLETELY.............didn't offer to help when the North started falling...................came in late in the game ONLY AFTER we witnessed Atrocities under ISIL.............and only started bombing after it became political.............

In 2014 the Shiites didn't want us there because we had already ABANDONED THEM...........they had no reason to trust us anymore.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Did you see this Eagle1?

NF 9830646

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News

You want Obama to negotiate with these guys. You are not really knowledgeable about Iraq are you. You ought to admit it and give up making a fool out of yourself more each day that passes.

You need to listen to Obama and let the grown ups and the Shiites themselves deal with it.



I see nothing wrong with Iraqis fighting their own fight on the ground an not one spec of a US soldier's blood should be spilled on the ground. I have no problem with the world's finest fighter pilots giving all kinds of an assist from a mile up...

If IS terrorists want to fight an American let him learn to fly a fighter plane and come on up and see how they do. #449 [/QUOTE]

It shows that your claim about Northern Iraq being stable when Bush left his mess to Obama is false.

Even after ISIS tore across Northern Iraq in September 2014 The Shiites that lived there would have fought against US troops if they attempted to get involved. You have no line of logic through your entire argument that blames Obama for the Daesh terrorist scum reaping havoc in northern and western Iraq last summer. You have no clue whatsoever as to what is going on. And you still have not diverted me away from your failed argument on the topic of this thread. I'll get back to that when I get back from a fifty mile bike ride.

Try thinking during these gaps that I am allowing you to have.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

They attack people like Petraeus over and over again...........Calling him a Traitor from the Far Left.............

I supported General Petraeus from the day I heard him testify in the US Sentate in September 2007. He said to get out of Iraq we had to sit down and negotiate with Muqtada al Sadr even though his fighters had American blood on their hands. And that is what happened. Sadr was an Iraqi nationalist that stayed in Iraq although his father was killed by Saddam Hussein. Sadr was relentlessly against the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and found a way with Petraeus to force Bush to sign the agreement in December 2008 that all US troops were to leave Iraq cities by June 2009 and all US troops were to be gone by the end of 2011. That was the smartest thing Bush ever did in Iraq. Petraeus said we cannot kill or capture are way out of Iraq and he was right and Bush listened to him.

Interview: General David Petraeus | Kill/Capture ... - PBS
PBS Public Broadcasting Service › FRONTLINE › Afghanistan / Pakistan › Kill/Capture

Jun 14, 2011 - “And the best way to do something about it is to use every tool ... Of course it's often said, and I often say, you don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency, ..... #3705

 

[eagle1462010]

Did you see this Eagle1?

NF 9830646

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)

Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News

You want Obama to negotiate with these guys. You are not really knowledgeable about Iraq are you. You ought to admit it and give up making a fool out of yourself more each day that passes.

You need to listen to Obama and let the grown ups and the Shiites themselves deal with it.



I see nothing wrong with Iraqis fighting their own fight on the ground an not one spec of a US soldier's blood should be spilled on the ground. I have no problem with the world's finest fighter pilots giving all kinds of an assist from a mile up...

If IS terrorists want to fight an American let him learn to fly a fighter plane and come on up and see how they do. #449

It shows that your claim about Northern Iraq being stable when Bush left his mess to Obama is false.

Even after ISIS tore across Northern Iraq in September 2014 The Shiites that lived there would have fought against US troops if they attempted to get involved. You have no line of logic through your entire argument that blames Obama for the Daesh terrorist scum reaping havoc in northern and western Iraq last summer. You have no clue whatsoever as to what is going on. And you still have not diverted me away from your failed argument on the topic of this thread. I'll get back to that when I get back from a fifty mile bike ride.

Try thinking during these gaps that I am allowing you to have.[/QUOTE]
1. This OP is about Iran.
2. This OP has been diverted to but BUSH.
3. This situation in Iraq is because we withdrew from the region under Obama.
4. My posts are putting the blame where they belong, to Obama and the Dems.
5. Iran's influence in Iraq has grown because we left.
6. Iraqi's don't want us there anymore because we ditched them and they don't trust us anymore.
7. The only reason they had a Northern territory to lose was because of the surge in 2006/2007.
8. Iran's strategy of supplying insurgents in Iraq was to get us to leave.
9. Iran's strategy worked, we left under Obama.
10. Iran's strategy is to gain control of the region. Pushing violence in the region on both sides. It's purpose..
to get us out of there and gain control.
11. Iran's strategy worked..........now Iranian and Iraqi forces are fighting side by side.
12. Iran and Iraq's populations are primarily Shiite.
13. ISIL is primarily Sunni.
14. Our strategy has guaranteed more Iranian influence in the region.
15. Iran wants a Nuclear bomb.
16. The west doesn't want them having one.
17. Iran has a history of Lying........will not honor a deal.
18. Useless to cut a deal when the Sanctions are our best hope to stop them short of attacking them.
19. The United States has NO TRADE WITH IRAN ANYWAY..........It's BANNED..........So any Sanctions
that are meaningful require other countries to stop trading.
20. Russia, China, North Korea..............are already disregarding the Sanctions.....supplying and selling
Nuclear tech and weapons tech to Iran anyway.
21. Our options.........Try to get countries to Sanction Iran.......primarily the one's already mentioned....
which has a snow balls chance in hell of happening.............get Iran to sign a deal that says..........We'll be
nice...........honest..............given the history of Lying and their stated goals..........has a snow balls chance in
hell as well................military options.............allow and support Israel in strikes against the Nuclear sites
and then Veto the UN bitching over it..............or directly hit the sites with U.S. airstrikes or missiles........

The military options are the only viable options to stop them from getting the bomb. Unless Unicorns and ferries go to countries selling tech to Iran and spread PIXIE DUST ON THEM..............

History will show..............just like Clinton...........that Obama's legacy was Iran getting the bomb........even if it happens a short time after he leaves office..............this deal.......if it happens..............will be the final straw towards that path.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 11223196

In 2014 the Shiites didn't want us there because we had already ABANDONED THEM...........they had no reason to trust us anymore. #3703

In 2008 it was the largest elected Shiite political bloc in parliament (the Sadrists) th. at wanted US troops to leave immediately. They even opposed the deal that Bush signed allowing US troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq cities almost immediately and withdraw completely by the end of 2011. It was the Shiite Sadrists that put and kept Maliki in power.

So you got another lie going. The majority of Shiites did not want us in Iraq most of the time we were there and specifically in 2008 when matters got put to a vote. Had they wanted us there Bush could have gotten a long term SOFA and all the bases that Bush originally wanted to keep there. Bush had to settle to what amounted to a surrender with a three year drawdown period because of Shiite opposition to the US occupation of Iraq under Bush.

You are getting worse and worse with your knowledge of the facts about Iraq.

 

[eagle1462010]

They attack people like Petraeus over and over again...........Calling him a Traitor from the Far Left.............

I supported General Petraeus from the day I heard him testify in the US Sentate in September 2007. He said to get out of Iraq we had to sit down and negotiate with Muqtada al Sadr even though his fighters had American blood on their hands. And that is what happened. Sadr was an Iraqi nationalist that stayed in Iraq although his father was killed by Saddam Hussein. Sadr was relentlessly against the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and found a way with Petraeus to force Bush to sign the agreement in December 2008 that all US troops were to leave Iraq cities by June 2009 and all US troops were to be gone by the end of 2011. That was the smartest thing Bush ever did in Iraq. Petraeus said we cannot kill or capture are way out of Iraq and he was right and Bush listened to him.

Interview: General David Petraeus | Kill/Capture ... - PBS
PBS Public Broadcasting Service › FRONTLINE › Afghanistan / Pakistan › Kill/Capture

Jun 14, 2011 - “And the best way to do something about it is to use every tool ... Of course it's often said, and I often say, you don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency, ..... #3705

Cherry picking his strategy...........he said that primarily about Afghanistan.

His plan to win in Iraq...........was a surge..............more intel..............and to hold ground once taken and not leave..................Past strategy was to move in, kill insurgents and then go back to safe zones.................He stated why should the population help us if we leave them to be killed at night once we leave..............

His forces took and held these places, no longer going to safe zones.............gaining some trust from the locals because they were no longer leaving them to the wolves at night...........

because of this, they started coming forward with info to help intel find and kill the enemy.............

You need to look at the new attacks on insurgents once it started working..........

You say he said you can't kill or capture your way out of insurgency...............Well under his strategy we were killing insurgents at a far greater rate than ever before...........as they died the violence went down.............

Now to the future.................The Generals, Pentagon, CENTCOM, warned Obama............about what would happen with a full withdrawal from Iraq................They were RIGHT AGAIN...........AND OBAMA WAS WRONG.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 11223196

In 2014 the Shiites didn't want us there because we had already ABANDONED THEM...........they had no reason to trust us anymore. #3703

In 2008 it was the largest elected Shiite political bloc in parliament (the Sadrists) th. at wanted US troops to leave immediately. They even opposed the deal that Bush signed allowing US troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq cities almost immediately and withdraw completely by the end of 2011. It was the Shiite Sadrists that put and kept Maliki in power.

So you got another lie going. The majority of Shiites did not want us in Iraq most of the time we were there and specifically in 2008 when matters got put to a vote. Had they wanted us there Bush could have gotten a long term SOFA and all the bases that Bush originally wanted to keep there. Bush had to settle to what amounted to a surrender with a three year drawdown period because of Shiite opposition to the US occupation of Iraq under Bush.

You are getting worse and worse with your knowledge of the facts about Iraq.

Facts...............BS..................you only look at anything that defends the one..........OBAMA...

You say you supported Petraeus...................that means you must have supported the surge...............hmmmm

Which means you were against Obama, Biden, Hillary, Reid, and the rest because they all said NO...............

I don't believe you..............that is an opinion.................didn't see your posts back then................but I imagine from your posts here...............that you were YELLING HITLER BUSH with all the rest and laughing at Petraeus ads.........................I think you are Lying to me.

Yes I calling you a Liar......................

Obama and the Dems didn't support the strategy............challenged Petraus over and over again.......shouting down that IT WOULD NEVER WORK...........DAMNING PETRAEOUS IN SOME......................

Then when it worked....................WE LOVE YOU MAN...............WE LOVE YOU PETRAUS...........

HYPOCRITES...............and the ones whose policy caused the loss of Northern Iraq.............and the same DUMB ASSES WHO WILL LET IRAN GET THE BOMB.

 

[eagle1462010]

whether you like it or not..........Bush was correct in 2007............predicted what would happen should we leave early or not honor or word...........

spot on.......happening today.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2. This OP has been diverted to but BUSH.

Chronological order of "Bush" being brought up in this thread:

No Stat...if Bush did something like what Obama is doing - ALL of you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers. <> "U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference--the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. " See PBS Link below: <> It's too bad what Bush did to that relationship:

During the Iraq War..................under Bush...........they got the Iranians to agree to stop giving the IED weapons and tech...........to the insurgents ........................ Didn't work........... they kept doing it...................

QUOTE="Slyhunter, post: 11182750, member: 49398"]Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush.[/QUOTE]

If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it? <> And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports. .

eagl 11216400,

...........BUT BUSH..............again deflection to defend Obama as the Iranians are still doing this.................. #3671

Eagl 11217860

<> Your position is BUT BUSH............When Bush left office Iraq was intact..............wasn't it. #3678

You are the one who diverted it to "But Bush" if we do not count Slyhunter's 'whine' .

 

[eagle1462010]

2. This OP has been diverted to but BUSH.

Chronological order of "Bush" being brought up in this thread:

No Stat...if Bush did something like what Obama is doing - ALL of you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers. <> "U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference--the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. " See PBS Link below: <> It's too bad what Bush did to that relationship:

During the Iraq War..................under Bush...........they got the Iranians to agree to stop giving the IED weapons and tech...........to the insurgents ........................ Didn't work........... they kept doing it...................

QUOTE="Slyhunter, post: 11182750, member: 49398"]Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush.

If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it? <> And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports. .

eagl 11216400,

...........BUT BUSH..............again deflection to defend Obama as the Iranians are still doing this.................. #3671

Eagl 11217860

<> Your position is BUT BUSH............When Bush left office Iraq was intact..............wasn't it. #3678

You are the one who diverted it to "But Bush" if we do not count Slyhunter's 'whine' .[/QUOTE]
Whatever.............who ever started it doesn't matter...........It is your side that usually brings it up...........

It's one of your favorite catch all lines................and you never replied to the video's of your side ditching Petraus arguing against the surge.........................You said you supported it..............

Which by default means you were against the position of Dems at the time....................

Which I have stated that I don't believe you....................I could post the reports and recomendations from the Generals, Pentagon, Centcom..............saying DON'T LEAVE IRAQ or this will happen..............and you will ignore them or divert to something else trying to change the subject..................

Squirming would be a more appropriate term.........................Obama not listening to the Generals are why we are here today............and why Iran now has a greater influence there...................because the Politicians yet again ditched the military's opinions and recommendations and chose Politics over strategy to win...............or at least stop what is happening today.............

Then your side, and you...................say it's BUSH'S FAULT..........BUT BUSH and NOT OBAMA'S fault because of deals he was pushing when in office...............

Perhaps then Obama should have INVITED BUSH BACK TO THE WH TO ASK HIM HOW TO LEAD.........................Because OBVIOUSLY your side blames someone NO LONGER IN OFFICE for the decisions of the ones making the decisions....................

Perhaps your side needs to pick someone that is better at Golf than Military decisions.............as Obama is incompetent................

 

[eagle1462010]

Bottom line.............I've given the 4 possible options with Iran...............I've ditched 2 as I believe they will never work..................

and have stated yet again...............that if you want to prevent Iran from getting the bomb..........then the sites will have to be taken out.............either by Israel or the United States..........................

Otherwise..............history will show who's right and whose wrong...............You will unfortunately lose that argument in time...................and I HOPE THE HELL I'M WRONG.........................

I actually HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT...............Realism over FANTASY is my position..............Now proceed with your unicorns and pixie dust.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

not going to kill or capture - Petraeus

"You're not going to kill or capture all of the Sadr militia anymore than we are going to kill or capture all the insurgents in Iraq," Petraeus said. "Some of this is a little bit distasteful. It's not easy sitting across the table, let's say, or drinking tea with someone whose tribal members may have shot at our forces or in fact drawn the blood -- killed our forces."

eagl 11223566

Cherry picking his strategy...........he said that primarily about Afghanistan. . #3708

No you are sadly mistaken once again. Now that I show you the truth, if you repeat what you said, you will be lying. I posted this in September 2007 when Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times wrote this report on September 12, 2007:

U.S. seeks pact with Shiite militia <> The military is in talks with elements of cleric Sadr's powerful group, which is accused of attacks against soldiers but which holds sway in much of Baghdad and parts of Iraq. By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 12, 2007 <> BAGHDAD -- -- U.S. diplomats and military officers have been in talks with members of the armed movement loyal to Muqtada Sadr, a sharp reversal of policy and a grudging recognition that the radical Shiite cleric holds a dominant position in much of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq <> The secret dialogue <*1}}has been going on since at least early 2006, <*1}} but appeared to yield a tangible result only in the last week -- with relative calm in an area of west Baghdad that has been among the capital's most dangerous sections. <> The discussions have been complicated by divisions within Sadr's movement as well as the cleric's public vow never to meet with Iraq's occupiers. Underlying the issue's sensitivity, Sadrists publicly deny any contact with the Americans or British -- fully aware the price of acknowledging such meetings would be banishment from the movement or worse. <> The dialogue represents a drastic turnaround in the U.S. approach to Sadr and his militia, <*1}}the Mahdi Army. The military hopes to negotiate the same kind of marriage of convenience it has reached in other parts of Iraq with former insurgent groups, many Saddam Hussein loyalists, and the Sunni tribes that supported them. Both efforts are examples of how U.S. officials have sought to end violence by cooperating with groups they once considered intractable enemies. <> In 2004, U.S. officials branded Sadr an outlaw and demanded his arrest, sparking two major Shiite revolts in Baghdad and in the southern shrine city of Najaf that left more than a thousand dead. Last year, as the Bush administration developed its "surge" strategy, military planners said the campaign would a so target Shiite militias involved in sectarian killings. U.S. commanders later accused Iranian-backed elements of the Mahdi Army of carrying out deadly bomb attacks against U.S. forces and spearheading sectarian violence. <> U.S. officials now feel they have no choice but to talk to the militia Despite its internal rifts, the Sadr movement is widely seen as the most powerful force in Baghdad. The Mahdi Army's grip is absolute on most of the capital's Shiite neighborhoods, where it sells fuel and electricity and rents houses, and it has reached deep inside the army and police. U.S. soldiers have marveled at the movement's ability to generate new leaders to replace almost every fighter they lock up. <> U.S. officials fear that failure to reach a political compromise with the Sadrists could have severe consequences once U.S. forces begin to pull back from their current high levels. <> "If there are no American troops and there is no American deal, the Mahdi Army seizes control of Baghdad. That's the vision. It's not a pleasant vision. It's a really bad vision. In situations like this, the most extreme elements tend to predominate," said a U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. <> In his testimony to Congress on Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, underscored the importance of reaching out to the Mahdi Army, deflecting a suggestion that the U.S. declare the movement a terrorist group. <> "You're not going to kill or capture all of the Sadr militia anymore than we are going to kill or capture all the insurgents in Iraq," Petraeus said. "Some of this is a little bit distasteful. It's not easy sitting across the table, let's say, or drinking tea with someone whose tribal members may have shot at our forces or in fact drawn the blood -- killed our forces." <> The White House is keen for a breakthrough. "There's a part of the Sadrist camp that is extremist and dedicated to killing us, and we need to kill them instead. But there are others who we think we might be able to work with," said an administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. <> Officials point to their negotiations with Sunni insurgents as a model. The Sunnis, however, cooperated in large part because they had split with Al Qaeda in Iraq militants and needed U.S. help to battle them. By contrast, the Sadrists have yet to decide that they want a clear break from their more radical and lawless elements. <> Contacts with Sadr's followers have included clandestine meetings with U.S. Embassy officials in the fortified Green Zone and encounters on the street between low-level militia commanders and U.S. captains. <> This month's breakthrough came when Lt. Col. Patrick Frank, responsible for west Baghdad's dangerous Bayaa, Jihad and Amal neighborhoods, met Sept. 3 with tribal leaders belonging to the Mahdi Army at Camp Falcon, a sprawling U.S. base. <> To preserve the movement's posture of not negotiating with Americans, the tribal leaders did not discuss their affiliation, but their identity was well known. "The organization we are extending our hand to is the Jaish al Mahdi," Frank said, using the group's Arabic name. A Sadr follower in west Baghdad confirmed that Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders were in negotiations with the Americans for a truce in the area. <> The session, which brought together commanders, community officials and mostly Shiite leaders, was the fruit of talks initiated by the Sadrists in late July, Frank said in an interview. <> Moderate Sadrists involved in the Mahdi Army's social service network contacted U.S. forces through intermediaries, Frank said. The region was largely Sunni until the Mahdi Army began driving out residents and replacing them with Shiites last year. <> Since then, residents had grown unhappy that their neighborhood was the stage for shootouts and bombings. Some Sadr loyalists started passing tips to the Americans on militants. <> An opening for wider talks came with Sadr's announcement nearly two weeks ago that his militia would halt operations for six months to give it time to weed out alleged rogue elements. That call was in response to fighting between Sadr's followers and another Shiite militia in the holy city of Karbala that left 52 dead. <> "Once Muqtada Sadr issued his call for six months of nonviolence, we thought that went hand in hand with the initiative we were attempting to start," Frank said. "It did give us an opportunity that was very helpful to the discussion effort." (Msg Id: 529805:877787) 2007 September 12 (PM) at 10:09 (09/12/07 10:09 PM) (Msg Id 522007 264660) by NotfooooldbyW end!!

I have supported and been impressed with Petraeus ever since this report came out. Some of us seek all sources to be informed about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is how I knew Bush was beginning to surrender in Iraq rather than try to kill and capture the US's way out of the mess in Iraq that Bush started. Obama was right first. Invading Iraq and taking the eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

I was not cherry picking. You owe me another apology for misrepresenting my point which was exactly true as I said.

 

[Care4all]

whether you like it or not..........Bush was correct in 2007............predicted what would happen should we leave early or not honor or word...........

spot on.......happening today.

Actually this is what President Bush said on Iraq in the first week or so of January 2007.


president bush iraq speech ....I think he was trying to convince us that the ''Surge'' was necessary?

ByAlfonso SerranoCBSJanuary 10, 2007, 5:58 PM
Full Transcript Of Bush's Iraq Speech

Below is the text of President Bush's speech on Iraq that he delivered on Wednesday night:

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort.

The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort — along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: To help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units — and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army — and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders — and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan — and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors — and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region — to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists — or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States — and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Sen. Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas — where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary — and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American, and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you, and good night.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"Good evening: Man and Fish can cohabitate together without misunderstimateding each other. Thank you, and now, watch this shot!"

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 11222804

Your 4 times as worse probably shows your math skills...........2 times would be the better assessment.

Go back and try to read what I wrote. Here is what you need to focus upon:

"Here's the facts in numbers, since numbers don't lie and they cannot be twisted into lies. <>. Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around 33,000 Iraq civilians killed. Perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh terrorist scum attacks and bombings. Perhaps you do not understand numbers SassyIrishLass? <>. However most body counting organizations count at least 120,000 Iraqis were killed when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011. <> So it was about four times worse when US troops were killing and dying in Iraq than since they left when all US troops were pulled out on Bush's deadline date."


You are quite clueless aren't you? It is obvious that my comparison of numbers of civilians killed since Bush started his dumb war was about the results from US troop combat role presence versus no presence in a combat role.

You can't do your average method because the US troop presence was not a constant after 2011. Like I wrote:

"120,000 Iraqis were killed when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011." Versus "Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around 33,000 Iraq civilians killed. "

Before US troops were ordered into Iraq there were few civilian deaths due to civil war or sectarian strife. Certainly no Americans were on the ground killing any Iraqis.,

My point to Sassy was that she did not give a crap about civilian deaths when US troops were tuck in the quagmire there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 11222836

If the Dems would have Won in 2006...............Iraq would have been lost by the next election..........Instead Petraeus took control and limited the violence there.........even though the Civil War there was still ongoing................. #3964

Are you declaring the surge worked when it only limited the violence to a lower level than the peak of violence from 2004 through 2005? It did not lower the violence to pre-war levels nor did it resolve the political and sectarian severe adversarial divide that also did not exist prior to March 20 2003 throughout the years when the two No Fly Zones were in effect.

It is a very low standard that you've accepted in declaring the surge a success when you admit it left an ongoing civil war that did not exist prior to the massive and deadly US invasion that was launched to find WMD that Bush declared were being hidden from UN inspectors that Bush agreed to send in there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why do some Obama haters use this argument?

eagl 11223763

..I could post the reports and recomendations from the Generals, Pentagon, Centcom..............saying DON'T LEAVE IRAQ or this will happen..............

And other Obama haters use this argument?

Vigi 9806599

Obama wanted to keep 10 000 troops in Iraq ABC s Raddatz claims PunditFact

The truth is that it does not matter what Obama wanted or what the Generals wanted and recommended. It only matters what the Iraqis involved in their very own sovereign nation wanted - and that was no troops staying in Iraq beyond 2011 if they needed to be granted immunity from Iraqi courts.

Why does one who cannot be accused of being a "liberal" easily grasp the truth of the matter as to why Obama had to pull all US troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011?

RGS 9806605

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

Eagle1 still argues that the generals recommended keeping troops in Iraq without the protections that RetiredGySgt explains that it was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why do some Obama haters use this argument?

eagl 11223763

..I could post the reports and recomendations from the Generals, Pentagon, Centcom..............saying DON'T LEAVE IRAQ or this will happen..............

And other Obama haters use this argument?

Vigi 9806599

Obama wanted to keep 10 000 troops in Iraq ABC s Raddatz claims PunditFact

The truth is that it does not matter what Obama wanted or what the Generals wanted and recommended. It only matters what the Iraqis involved in their very own sovereign nation wanted - and that was no troops staying in Iraq beyond 2011 if they needed to be granted immunity from Iraqi courts.

Why does one who cannot be accused of being a "liberal" easily grasp the truth of the matter as to why Obama had to pull all US troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011?

RGS 9806605

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

Eagle1 still argues that the generals recommended keeping troops in Iraq without the protections that RetiredGySgt explains that it was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

And Of course, as I've said on many threads, you NEGOTIATE THESE TERMS, not a all or nothing deal. Of course we will not allow them to charge our troops in local courts.

But on your side, like Obama, THEY SAID NOT LET'S GO..................BS the terms could have been negotiated down to acceptable terms..................Obama had no intentions of negotiating Jack Squat. He wanted out Katie Bar the Door and everyone with half a brain cell know's that.