Trump was right again...obama purged officer corps. and filled it with p.c. lackeys....

[IcebergSlim]

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

^^^A lie. The US had obligations to follow if the Iraqis would not give an adequate SOFA agreement. They did not, we left.

You did the funny button routine which means you've surrendered to facts.

If they are facts, you wouldn't need to rely EXCLUSIVELY on Bold Assertion.....

Rosh does not understand what is a fact.

Idiots like Rosh are a dime a dozen.........I'm lookin' for the guy who's supplyin' the dimes....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

If I'm "reality-challenged" why am I the one citing Scrub's own statement on Iraqnam, while you.......uh........prattle.......and re-bleat?

How could Iraqnam be a part of any quarantine of Iran if Shiites were running the government, and Scrub signed an agreement SPECIFICALLY precluding Iraqnam from being used to stage any kind of military action against Iran?

I'm guessing that you have spent much of your life being curb stomped by Reality.

The term iraqnam betrays your own lack of objectivity and demonstrates the mindset the hack was appeasing.
Setting a plan in stone without considering the consequences is the excuse the hack used to appease those who parrot left wing bullshit as you do.
No genuine leader would have abandoned Iraq the way the hack did and use paper terms as the excuse.
I repeat, go look at a map before you post again. And consider that overt military operations don't have to be applied in order to effect the isolation of Iran and Syria. Logistical (geographic) circumstances make it doable.

If it can be Boldly Asserted......

Iraqnam is appropriate to describe the historical blunder of epic proportions......and I do admire the way you dispense with the need to observe obligations to which we are signatory........

Why would ANYONE deal with us in such a case?

Seriously, you people are the dumbest mofos shuffling....

Iraqnam only applies if you consider the democrat protesting after the fact. Bush appeasing democrats created that effect. His ultimate decision to follow military advice led to success. Vietnam ended more like how the hack undermined Bush's success in Iraq.

You're an idiot......THE ISG recommended AGAINST an increased US involvement in Iraqnam......Reality puts its foot to your forehead again...

Although the final report was not released until December 6, 2006, media reports ahead of that date described some possible recommendations by the panel. Among them were the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq and direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group also found that the Pentagon has underreported significantly the extent of the violence in Iraq and that officials have obtained little information regarding the source of these attacks. The group further described the situation in Afghanistan as so disastrous that they may need to divert troops from Iraq in order to help stabilize the country. After these reports began surfacing, co-chair James Baker warned that the group should not be expected to produce a "magic bullet" to resolve the Iraqi conflict.[13]


According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report released on December 6, 2006 included 79 recommendations and was 160 pages in length.

Iraq Study Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it was the troop surge that proved to be the successful decision. You obviously are an ISIS supporter as you defend that result.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If I'm "reality-challenged" why am I the one citing Scrub's own statement on Iraqnam, while you.......uh........prattle.......and re-bleat?

How could Iraqnam be a part of any quarantine of Iran if Shiites were running the government, and Scrub signed an agreement SPECIFICALLY precluding Iraqnam from being used to stage any kind of military action against Iran?

I'm guessing that you have spent much of your life being curb stomped by Reality.

The term iraqnam betrays your own lack of objectivity and demonstrates the mindset the hack was appeasing.
Setting a plan in stone without considering the consequences is the excuse the hack used to appease those who parrot left wing bullshit as you do.
No genuine leader would have abandoned Iraq the way the hack did and use paper terms as the excuse.
I repeat, go look at a map before you post again. And consider that overt military operations don't have to be applied in order to effect the isolation of Iran and Syria. Logistical (geographic) circumstances make it doable.

If it can be Boldly Asserted......

Iraqnam is appropriate to describe the historical blunder of epic proportions......and I do admire the way you dispense with the need to observe obligations to which we are signatory........

Why would ANYONE deal with us in such a case?

Seriously, you people are the dumbest mofos shuffling....

Iraqnam only applies if you consider the democrat protesting after the fact. Bush appeasing democrats created that effect. His ultimate decision to follow military advice led to success. Vietnam ended more like how the hack undermined Bush's success in Iraq.

You're an idiot......THE ISG recommended AGAINST an increased US involvement in Iraqnam......Reality puts its foot to your forehead again...

Although the final report was not released until December 6, 2006, media reports ahead of that date described some possible recommendations by the panel. Among them were the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq and direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group also found that the Pentagon has underreported significantly the extent of the violence in Iraq and that officials have obtained little information regarding the source of these attacks. The group further described the situation in Afghanistan as so disastrous that they may need to divert troops from Iraq in order to help stabilize the country. After these reports began surfacing, co-chair James Baker warned that the group should not be expected to produce a "magic bullet" to resolve the Iraqi conflict.[13]


According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report released on December 6, 2006 included 79 recommendations and was 160 pages in length.

Iraq Study Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it was the troop surge that proved to be the successful decision. You obviously are an ISIS supporter as you defend that result.

Your head must hurt. We are not talking about the troop surge. We are talking about why the US troops were withdrawn. It was the refusal of the Iraqis to give the US a good SOFA.

 

[WillowTree]

The country was under control when they handed it to obama...that is what the surge accomplished.....then obama pulled the troops despite the reality on the ground...and isis came to power....

Under the control of whom?

The newly formed and elected Iraq government being protected by a US military presence.
You must live under a democrat rock.

You misspelled " pile of shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The country was under control when they handed it to obama...that is what the surge accomplished.....then obama pulled the troops despite the reality on the ground...and isis came to power....

Under the control of whom?

The newly formed and elected Iraq government being protected by a US military presence.
You must live under a democrat rock.

You misspelled " pile of shit.

2aguy? Yeah, he spelled it wrongly. The Iraqis would not give the US the SOFA agreement Bush wanted, who punted to Obama, who told the Iraqis to put up or shut up. The Iraqis were stupid and the USA left. The Alt Right version in this thread in simply wrong.

 

[2aguy]

The country was under control when they handed it to obama...that is what the surge accomplished.....then obama pulled the troops despite the reality on the ground...and isis came to power....

Under the control of whom?

The newly formed and elected Iraq government being protected by a US military presence.
You must live under a democrat rock.

You misspelled " pile of shit.

2aguy? Yeah, he spelled it wrongly. The Iraqis would not give the US the SOFA agreement Bush wanted, who punted to Obama, who told the Iraqis to put up or shut up. The Iraqis were stupid and the USA left. The Alt Right version in this thread in simply wrong.

Wrong...Obama wanted out of Iraq and didn't care about the consequences...and used the previous, but out of date, agreement as the lame excuse to pull the troops.......the realities on the ground for the U.S. And not an agreement that was not reflective of the needs of the U.S. Are how you decide troop levels and duration.....

And you guys just squawk back the lie, over and over again....

 

[2aguy]

The term iraqnam betrays your own lack of objectivity and demonstrates the mindset the hack was appeasing.
Setting a plan in stone without considering the consequences is the excuse the hack used to appease those who parrot left wing bullshit as you do.
No genuine leader would have abandoned Iraq the way the hack did and use paper terms as the excuse.
I repeat, go look at a map before you post again. And consider that overt military operations don't have to be applied in order to effect the isolation of Iran and Syria. Logistical (geographic) circumstances make it doable.

If it can be Boldly Asserted......

Iraqnam is appropriate to describe the historical blunder of epic proportions......and I do admire the way you dispense with the need to observe obligations to which we are signatory........

Why would ANYONE deal with us in such a case?

Seriously, you people are the dumbest mofos shuffling....

Iraqnam only applies if you consider the democrat protesting after the fact. Bush appeasing democrats created that effect. His ultimate decision to follow military advice led to success. Vietnam ended more like how the hack undermined Bush's success in Iraq.

You're an idiot......THE ISG recommended AGAINST an increased US involvement in Iraqnam......Reality puts its foot to your forehead again...

Although the final report was not released until December 6, 2006, media reports ahead of that date described some possible recommendations by the panel. Among them were the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq and direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group also found that the Pentagon has underreported significantly the extent of the violence in Iraq and that officials have obtained little information regarding the source of these attacks. The group further described the situation in Afghanistan as so disastrous that they may need to divert troops from Iraq in order to help stabilize the country. After these reports began surfacing, co-chair James Baker warned that the group should not be expected to produce a "magic bullet" to resolve the Iraqi conflict.[13]


According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report released on December 6, 2006 included 79 recommendations and was 160 pages in length.

Iraq Study Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it was the troop surge that proved to be the successful decision. You obviously are an ISIS supporter as you defend that result.

Your head must hurt. We are not talking about the troop surge. We are talking about why the US troops were withdrawn. It was the refusal of the Iraqis to give the US a good SOFA.

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

 

[IcebergSlim]

The country was under control when they handed it to obama...that is what the surge accomplished.....then obama pulled the troops despite the reality on the ground...and isis came to power....

Under the control of whom?

The newly formed and elected Iraq government being protected by a US military presence.
You must live under a democrat rock.

You misspelled " pile of shit.

2aguy? Yeah, he spelled it wrongly. The Iraqis would not give the US the SOFA agreement Bush wanted, who punted to Obama, who told the Iraqis to put up or shut up. The Iraqis were stupid and the USA left. The Alt Right version in this thread in simply wrong.

Wrong...Obama wanted out of Iraq and didn't care about the consequences...and used the previous, but out of date, agreement as the lame excuse to pull the troops.......the realities on the ground for the U.S. And not an agreement that was not reflective of the needs of the U.S. Are how you decide troop levels and duration.....

And you guys just squawk back the lie, over and over again....

No fucking way......

I offer citations from objective sources, and you show up with Bold Assertions?

Who saw THAT coming, eh?

 

[IcebergSlim]

If it can be Boldly Asserted......

Iraqnam is appropriate to describe the historical blunder of epic proportions......and I do admire the way you dispense with the need to observe obligations to which we are signatory........

Why would ANYONE deal with us in such a case?

Seriously, you people are the dumbest mofos shuffling....

Iraqnam only applies if you consider the democrat protesting after the fact. Bush appeasing democrats created that effect. His ultimate decision to follow military advice led to success. Vietnam ended more like how the hack undermined Bush's success in Iraq.

You're an idiot......THE ISG recommended AGAINST an increased US involvement in Iraqnam......Reality puts its foot to your forehead again...

Although the final report was not released until December 6, 2006, media reports ahead of that date described some possible recommendations by the panel. Among them were the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq and direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group also found that the Pentagon has underreported significantly the extent of the violence in Iraq and that officials have obtained little information regarding the source of these attacks. The group further described the situation in Afghanistan as so disastrous that they may need to divert troops from Iraq in order to help stabilize the country. After these reports began surfacing, co-chair James Baker warned that the group should not be expected to produce a "magic bullet" to resolve the Iraqi conflict.[13]


According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report released on December 6, 2006 included 79 recommendations and was 160 pages in length.

Iraq Study Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it was the troop surge that proved to be the successful decision. You obviously are an ISIS supporter as you defend that result.

Your head must hurt. We are not talking about the troop surge. We are talking about why the US troops were withdrawn. It was the refusal of the Iraqis to give the US a good SOFA.

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

They didn't?

They were the ones who insisted on a fixed timetable for withdrawal in 2008...........to which the POTUS at that time agreed....


What is it with you people?

 

[westwall]

Yes....obama purged the U.S. army of officers who are actually war fighters.....

Blog: Obama purged military of those who sought victory

As Investor's Business Daily editorialized:

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week – Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given.

Retired four-star general and Fox News analyst Jack Keane, architect of the Iraq surge that produced the victory Obama threw away, recently spoke on Kilmeade and Friends about Obama's ongoing purge of the military of officers who oppose his isolationist and defeatist policies:

It's also a fact that a number of our general officers, not all of them but a number of them, were asked to leave before what would normally be accepted as the routine tenure for that particular position, and General Mattis is a case in point who had very strong views on Iran. Most of us agree with those views but I know the administration did not agree with them. General Flynn, who you know very well and had on your show, was an outspoken proponent for understand radical Islam, how dangerous this particular threat was and was trying to communicate that, he was not able to server out his full tenure. So yes, that's another fact that we can substantiate, that there were generals who did leave earlier than what their tenure would be and the characteristic they all shared together is they did disagree with the administration on various points.

Yes. This has been well known amongst the soldiers who are defending this country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

So we would have ignored the agreements we signed that we were going to leave? You are the biggest Statist and Imperialist on the Board.

 

[2aguy]

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

So we would have ignored the agreements we signed that we were going to leave? You are the biggest Statist and Imperialist on the Board.

Moron.....the agreement was in place but the actual situation on the ground was more important....moron........and when he was told we needed to stay, he didn't fucking care.........

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

So we would have ignored the agreements we signed that we were going to leave? You are the biggest Statist and Imperialist on the Board.

Moron.....the agreement was in place but the actual situation on the ground was more important....moron........and when he was told we needed to stay, he didn't fucking care.........

So you want to break international law and agreements, subject our troops to Iraqi courts, but, if Obama was told to stay (which you have only Boldly Asserted), then you still wanted us to act like the biggest Statists and Imperialists in the West. No, 2aguy, people like you are never going to hold power in America and make policy.

 

[IcebergSlim]

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

So we would have ignored the agreements we signed that we were going to leave? You are the biggest Statist and Imperialist on the Board.

Moron.....the agreement was in place but the actual situation on the ground was more important....moron........and when he was told we needed to stay, he didn't fucking care.........

So you want to break international law and agreements, subject our troops to Iraqi courts, but, if Obama was told to stay (which you have only Boldly Asserted), then you still wanted us to act like the biggest Statists and Imperialists in the West. No, 2aguy, people like you are never going to hold power in America and make policy.

which you have only Boldly Asserted



Well put! The mot juste.....

 

[2aguy]

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

So we would have ignored the agreements we signed that we were going to leave? You are the biggest Statist and Imperialist on the Board.

Moron.....the agreement was in place but the actual situation on the ground was more important....moron........and when he was told we needed to stay, he didn't fucking care.........

So you want to break international law and agreements, subject our troops to Iraqi courts, but, if Obama was told to stay (which you have only Boldly Asserted), then you still wanted us to act like the biggest Statists and Imperialists in the West. No, 2aguy, people like you are never going to hold power in America and make policy.

No moron...you tell the morons in Iraq we need a new agreement because the facts on the ground are changing or the current levels needed to stay the same because of the actual facts on the ground.....

So moron...we are the ones who freed Iraq, we are the ones protecting it....and the security or our forces and our country come first...twit......he didn't care what was going to happen ...because he is a clueless child.....he still doesn't care...

 

[IcebergSlim]

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

So we would have ignored the agreements we signed that we were going to leave? You are the biggest Statist and Imperialist on the Board.

Moron.....the agreement was in place but the actual situation on the ground was more important....moron........and when he was told we needed to stay, he didn't fucking care.........

So you want to break international law and agreements, subject our troops to Iraqi courts, but, if Obama was told to stay (which you have only Boldly Asserted), then you still wanted us to act like the biggest Statists and Imperialists in the West. No, 2aguy, people like you are never going to hold power in America and make policy.

No moron...you tell the morons in Iraq we need a new agreement because the facts on the ground are changing or the current levels needed to stay the same because of the actual facts on the ground.....

So moron...we are the ones who freed Iraq, we are the ones protecting it....and the security or our forces and our country come first...twit......he didn't care what was going to happen ...because he is a clueless child.....he still doesn't care...

you tell the morons in Iraq we need a new agreement because the facts on the ground are changing

That was the purpose of the negotiations which anticipated the termination of the 2008 SOFA.......the Iraqnamese apparently didn't feel strongly enough about what you take to be the "facts on the ground" to compromise on the issue of legal immunity....

for fuck sake, READ SOMETHINGS......SOMETIME!


we are the ones who freed Iraq, we are the ones protecting it

You really are a fucking idiot....Scrub spent 25 billion dollars, over several years, training and equipping Iraqnamese to assume responsibility for the security of Iraqnam......in 2008, he announced that they would be ready to assume it in entirety by Aug 2010.....


.and the security or our forces and our country come first


Hence the unwavering insistence on legal immunity for US troops stationed in Iraqnam....

Have you met Bripat?

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if you fire high ranking officers, you are left to replace them with those below (or perhaps across from them) on the ladder....

were there cadres of "pc lackeys" ready to go? PC lackey moles planted decades ago for this very purpose?

Are the OP's parents siblings?

Perhaps these people aren't so much "deplorable" as they are "fucking brick stupid".

I'm gonna keep an open mind.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Iraqis didn't have a say.......we were the ones providing security and if Obama wanted to stay we would have stayed....he wanted out and just didn't care.

So we would have ignored the agreements we signed that we were going to leave? You are the biggest Statist and Imperialist on the Board.

Moron.....the agreement was in place but the actual situation on the ground was more important....moron........and when he was told we needed to stay, he didn't fucking care.........

So you want to break international law and agreements, subject our troops to Iraqi courts, but, if Obama was told to stay (which you have only Boldly Asserted), then you still wanted us to act like the biggest Statists and Imperialists in the West. No, 2aguy, people like you are never going to hold power in America and make policy.

No moron...you tell the morons in Iraq we need a new agreement because the facts on the ground are changing or the current levels needed to stay the same because of the actual facts on the ground.....So moron...we are the ones who freed Iraq, we are the ones protecting it....and the security or our forces and our country come first...twit......he didn't care what was going to happen ...because he is a clueless child.....he still doesn't care...

When the security agreement lapsed, our authority elapsed. If we stayed, Big Statist fools like you would seen the world's outrage against us and a major panArab insurgency against US. THAT would have created ISIS en masse. And the American electorate would have swept Obama out of the primaries, and we would have got someone you Alt Right hated even more. Bush would not have supported your side. The Alt Right completely does not understand the world.