When Obama first heard of SOFA do you think he understood the consequences???

[healthmyths]

in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008

Fact of the matter is President Obama inherited a signed agreement that President Bush was forced by the Iraqis to make. Furthermore President Bush had an entire year to forge an agreement that included a long term agreement on US Troop level in Iraq. So put the blame for that agreement where it belongs, on the decider himself.

WRONG!!! And remember I"M NOT SAYING IT!!! LIKE you personally felt... but had NO proof!
I'm NOT SAYING THIS OK???
Experts are! READ THE FACTS! NOT some made up in your insane brain!

"It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense,
when the Defense Department and others were proposing more.
Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him —
the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war.
In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.
The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated eventually, to provide a long-term presence with U.S. troops in a different role.
That’s why the Obama administration, however half-heartedly and with little regard for the fate of Iraq, did try to renegotiate it.
And it’s why the Maliki government was open to these negotiations — the situation on the ground was very different in 2011 than it had been when Bush signed the agreement in 2008.
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq

And ANOTHER SOURCE:
5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face
1) Setting a Timeline And Not Getting a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq:
George W. Bush may have had a tough time in Iraq overall, but his surge was wildly successful and the country had largely been pacified when he left office. In other words, Barack Obama didn't have to "win" the war in Iraq because it had already been won. All he had to do was not screw up the peace. Instead, for purely political reasons, he set a timeline for when we were going to pull out. Then he didn't even bother to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq, which would have helped to stabilize the country and improve its training with very minimal risk to American forces. Keep in mind that we STILL have soldiers in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, but none in Iraq, which desperately needed our help and advice to keep the country stable. Now, the entire nation is in danger of devolving into civil war and/or falling to Isis/Al-Qaeda outright because Barack Obama wanted to be able to tell his base that he got us "out" of Iraq. Well, we are "out" of Iraq, but now ISIS/Al-Qaeda is in because of Obama. Great job squandering all the sacrifices our soldiers made in that country, Obama!
John Hawkins - 5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face

AGAIN THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL OPINIONS!!!! THESE ARE THE EXPERTS!

It is an opinion piece... I don't think you get it...

Have you a fucks clue what a fact is...

Yon know when you spoke in school did all the other kids laugh, and you thought because you were a comedian...

Here is a FACT!!!! I don't know crap about SOFA! I depended on people who were EXPERTS and believe me YOU are no expert to criticize experts!

Obama the dick never wanted to have troops in Iraq. Regardless of the experts telling him they would be needed.

Here dummy something I am 100% confident you didn't know! The state of war with Germany didn't end in 1945!!!
End of state of war with Germany was declared by many former Western Allies in 1950. In the Petersberg Agreement of 22 November 1949, it was noted that the West German government wanted an end to the state of war, but the request could not be granted. The US state of war with Germany was being maintained for legal reasons, and though it was softened somewhat it was not suspended since "the US wants to retain a legal basis for keeping a US force in Western Germany".[34] At a meeting for the Foreign Ministers of France, the UK, and the US in New York from 12 September – 19 December 1950, it was stated that among other measures to strengthen West Germany's position in the Cold War that the western allies would "end by legislation the state of war with Germany".
End of World War II in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact I am 100% confident YOU don't even know what NATO or SEATO stands for because you are so dumb when it comes to history...thanks to your pitiful education!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Here is a FACT!!!! I don't know crap about SOFA! I depended on people who were EXPERTS and believe me YOU are no expert to criticize experts!

It's very telling you know nothing about the 2008 SOFA brokered by the Bush, Cheney & Co. cabal, and thanks for finally acknowledging that FACT! The opinions of your "EXPERTS" are nothing more than their fucking opinions based years after the fact with a definite degree of partisan bias thrown in, fool! If you want raw, unadulterated facts go to the original documents, shit for brains! You know, like the agreement signed by both the US and the al-Maliki government!

Here's a link to it; http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Start reading on page 19, Article 24;
"Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq

1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.


2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.


3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.


4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.


5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present."

That agreement was signed by both the US and Iraq on Nov 17, 2008, binding then President Elect Obama to the agreement and was stuck with the Bush, Cheney & Co. cabal's choice of puppet leader, al-Maliki, albeit an irrational and STUPID choice. And Al-Maliki was Shi'a with ties to Iran. Iran did not want another US puppet regime next door after their times with the Shah! Result, a refusal by al-Maliki and his "parliament" to even consider reasonable terms for a new SOFA to placate Iran! The Iraqi's poisoned pilled those negotiations in the summer and fall of 2011!

Read the agreement over, hotshot! Learn what conditions were placed on the President who had to deal with it all after being sworn in! It's only 24 pages of FACTS you could learn from rather that taking the OPINIONS of fucking partisan hacks as gospel like a bloody fish taking bait!

 

[healthmyths]

Here is a FACT!!!! I don't know crap about SOFA! I depended on people who were EXPERTS and believe me YOU are no expert to criticize experts!

It's very telling you know nothing about the 2008 SOFA brokered by the Bush, Cheney & Co. cabal, and thanks for finally acknowledging that FACT! The opinions of your "EXPERTS" are nothing more than their fucking opinions based years after the fact with a definite degree of partisan bias thrown in, fool! If you want raw, unadulterated facts go to the original documents, shit for brains! You know, like the agreement signed by both the US and the al-Maliki government!

Here's a link to it; http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Start reading on page 19, Article 24;
"Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq

1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.


2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.


3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.


4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.


5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present."

That agreement was signed by both the US and Iraq on Nov 17, 2008, binding then President Elect Obama to the agreement and was stuck with the Bush, Cheney & Co. cabal's choice of puppet leader, al-Maliki, albeit an irrational and STUPID choice. And Al-Maliki was Shi'a with ties to Iran. Iran did not want another US puppet regime next door after their times with the Shah! Result, a refusal by al-Maliki and his "parliament" to even consider reasonable terms for a new SOFA to placate Iran! The Iraqi's poisoned pilled those negotiations in the summer and fall of 2011!

Read the agreement over, hotshot! Learn what conditions were placed on the President who had to deal with it all after being sworn in! It's only 24 pages of FACTS you could learn from rather that taking the OPINIONS of fucking partisan hacks as gospel like a bloody fish taking bait!

I read the agreement.
FIRST.........
Here is what EXPERTS NOT YOU or me... as I unlike you never claim to know what the EXPERTS know!
Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but may be as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011.
Pentagon planners say those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned" and that their efforts could be redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.[40] Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has also said "three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time".[41]
In a letter to U.S. military personnel about new rules of engagement, Gen. Ray Odierno said that U.S. forces would reduce their visibility but that this does not mean "any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves". Odierno wrote that U.S. forces would coordinate "operations with the approval of the GoI (Government of Iraq), and we will conduct all operations by, with, and through the Iraqi Security Forces...Despite some adjustments to the way we conduct operations, the agreement simply reinforces transitions that are already underway, and I want to emphasize that our overarching principles remain the same", he further wrote.[42]
General Raymond Odierno said that some U.S. forces would remain at local security stations as training and mentoring teams past the June 2009 deadline specified in the status of forces agreement. In contrast, Robert Gates estimated U.S. troops will be "out of cities and populated areas" by June 30. "That's the point at which we will have turned over all 18 provinces to provincial Iraqi control", he predicted.[43] A spokesman for Odierno, Lt. Col. James Hutton, reiterated that the soldiers staying in cities would not be combat forces but rather "enablers," who would provide services such as medical care, air-traffic control and helicopter support that the Iraqis cannot perform themselves.[44] Odierno's comments sparked outrage among some Iraqi lawmakers who say the United States is paving the way for breaching the interim agreement.[45]
When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops”.[15]
U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SECOND!!!!!

In the agreement and you copied it!!!

3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.

NOTE NOT withdrawn entirely from Iraq but in designated areas!

YOUR idiot president who had NO experiences in negotiations........
"Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010. There were late-night meetings at the fortified compound of then Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in video conferences between Baghdad and Washington. In June 2011, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that President Obama had told Prime Minister Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies. Eventually, he gained authorization to continue talks with the U.S. on keeping troops in Iraq.[68] The Iraqi parliament returned from a recess in late November 2011 (shortly before the year-end withdrawal date) because of a concern that remaining U.S. troops would not be granted immunity by Iraqi courts. American field commanders were concerned about the Sadrist response if the troops remained and about Iraqi readiness for a transfer of power.[69]

In August 2011, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the U.S. settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 troop number. AN American official said intelligence assessments stated that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces, which was a factor in the decision.
U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I read the agreement.

Once I posted the fucking thing, you phony fuck!

Here is a FACT!!!! I don't know crap about SOFA!

Remember, you fucking idiot, you wrote the above that you didn't know shit about the 2008 Iraq SOFA, shit for brains so you hadn't read the damn thing before I posted it, you lying fuck!

As far as the rest of your deflecting Copy and Paste from Wiki Fucking Pedia, who gives a shit about it. It's irrelevant and not germane to the point that you knew nothing about the SOFA. Regarding Article 24 item #3 that you quoted, that pertained to the first withdrawal date of June 30, 2009. You fucking ignored item #1 you fucking IDIOT which stated;
"1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."

The reason the talks broke down in the fall of 2011 was that Iraq would not provide ANY immunity from Iraqi law in the NEW agreement. I brought that up in my post #16 but you fucking ignored it with another deflecting bullshit post! Here is a NY Times article from Oct 2011 in plain fucking English explaining why there was no continuing SOFA and why US forces were withdrawn from Iraq.

"This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

If Obama had accepted that condition and signed a new agreement with no protection for US forces in-country, you and your stupid fucking RW nut job cronies would have been deriding Obama for any service man being sent to prison or being executed by Iraqi's under their Law, you fruitcake!

 

[BluesLegend]

in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008

Fact of the matter is President Obama inherited a signed agreement that President Bush was forced by the Iraqis to make. Furthermore President Bush had an entire year to forge an agreement that included a long term agreement on US Troop level in Iraq. So put the blame for that agreement where it belongs, on the decider himself.

Obama had plenty of opportunity to negotiate a SOFA, fact is he wanted to cut and run which is what he did he bailed on Iraq at the first opportunity. Also you people blaming Bush for all Obama's failures is getting old. Obama said vote for me I'll correct all Bush mistakes, well?

 

[healthmyths]

I read the agreement.

Once I posted the fucking thing, you phony fuck!

Here is a FACT!!!! I don't know crap about SOFA!

Remember, you fucking idiot, you wrote the above that you didn't know shit about the 2008 Iraq SOFA, shit for brains so you hadn't read the damn thing before I posted it, you lying fuck!

As far as the rest of your deflecting Copy and Paste from Wiki Fucking Pedia, who gives a shit about it. It's irrelevant and not germane to the point that you knew nothing about the SOFA. Regarding Article 24 item #3 that you quoted, that pertained to the first withdrawal date of June 30, 2009. You fucking ignored item #1 you fucking IDIOT which stated;
"1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."

The reason the talks broke down in the fall of 2011 was that Iraq would not provide ANY immunity from Iraqi law in the NEW agreement. I brought that up in my post #16 but you fucking ignored it with another deflecting bullshit post! Here is a NY Times article from Oct 2011 in plain fucking English explaining why there was no continuing SOFA and why US forces were withdrawn from Iraq.

"This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

If Obama had accepted that condition and signed a new agreement with no protection for US forces in-country, you and your stupid fucking RW nut job cronies would have been deriding Obama for any service man being sent to prison or being executed by Iraqi's under their Law, you fruitcake!

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.
Oh some minor experts like
President Obama ignored general’s pleas to keep American military forces in Iraq
Ex-commander blames U.S. pullout for extremists’ advances
The last American commander in Iraq recommended to the Obama administration that 23,000 U.S. troops remain to cement the victory, but no deal was ever reached with Baghdad, and all combat forces went home. Retired ArmyGen. John M. Keane, who advised commanders in Iraq and helped devise the 2007 troop surge, remembers how the U.S. achieved victory by working hand in hand with Iraq’s military to conduct pinpoint strikes. The effort was so effective that the enemy, al Qaeda in Iraq, stopped sending killers into Iraq Obama ignored general’s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq

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.”
Obama vs. the generals

Curious about whether things had changed since then, I asked a dozen serving and recently retired senior military officers with high-level White House access, many of whom were not comfortable speaking on the record, if they knew of any military leaders with whom the president had a close and warm personal relationship. In every case, the initial response was a long silence. “That’s a great question,” said one retired senior officer, after a lengthy pause. “Good question. I don’t know,” said a second. “I don’t think he’s close to anyone,” commented a third. He just doesn’t seem to have any interest in “getting to know” the military, a retired general concluded.
No soldier in his right mind would guarantee ‘no boots on the ground,’” a retired senior commander told me. “You can never make such guarantees.”
Read more: Obama vs. the Generals
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

So you tell me an agreed upon ignoramus when it comes to military tactics,history,operations,etc. that I AM from someone with such distinguished Medal of Honor winner as YOU... that YOU and Obama knew better then the people that run the military. That do that for a living! That do that KNOWING they are sending people to their death!
And YOU of course loved this ROE which I'm sure you have expertise in knowing that acronym...
This came from your extremely knowledgeable CIC!!!
A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight; one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

 

[rightwinger]

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

Iraq wanted us out, the American public wanted us out, I wanted us out

We never should have entered that shit hole in the first part

 

[healthmyths]

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

Iraq wanted us out, the American public wanted us out, I wanted us out

We never should have entered that shit hole in the first part

Of course you are then OK with 2.8 million children starving to death if Saddam were still in power?
And you would be OK with Saddam developing WMDs and using them?
Remember (of course you don't because you are totally ignorant!!! Obviously!!) Saddam refused to admit that there were NO WMDs in spite of having allowed 576,000 kids to starve.. FACTS... I know they get in the way of your ignorant BIASED OPINIONS!!!

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
And of course being the course, uncaring, ignoramus that you are... you never ever heard about that did you?
Plus you never remember these people including Bill Clinton who signed the "1998 Liberation of Iraq ACT"!!!

ALL BEFORE the Liberation of Iraq occurred!!!

Oh one other MAJOR point you have forgotten about! Does the 1991 Cease Fire mean anything to you? Because it was an agreement! Saddam broke it!

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 *
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[rightwinger]

As with almost everything the devil is in the details that the vast majority of Americans NEVER take time to learn much less understand. So please be patient and read this entire post.
It was called "Status of Forces Agreement, "SOFA" Military has met SOFA deadline, top U.S. general in Iraq says And it according to the agreement required.
BUT Obama pushing to keep his pledge to remove ALL troops from Iraq did the following: When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011.
There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount.
(For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.

Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
Now to sum this up... SOFA was up for renegotiation under Obama.
Being the naive, non-believer in Iraq and more so the military experts that KNOWING Military HISTORY they knew NOT leaving a conquering force in place meant a VACCUM!
But Obama wouldn't listen!
He pledged ignorantly to bring all the troops back! So he did and NOW WE HAVE ISIS!!!

Iraq wanted us out, the American public wanted us out, I wanted us out

We never should have entered that shit hole in the first part

Of course you are then OK with 2.8 million children starving to death if Saddam were still in power?
And you would be OK with Saddam developing WMDs and using them?
Remember (of course you don't because you are totally ignorant!!! Obviously!!) Saddam refused to admit that there were NO WMDs in spite of having allowed 576,000 kids to starve.. FACTS... I know they get in the way of your ignorant BIASED OPINIONS!!!

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
And of course being the course, uncaring, ignoramus that you are... you never ever heard about that did you?
Plus you never remember these people including Bill Clinton who signed the "1998 Liberation of Iraq ACT"!!!

ALL BEFORE the Liberation of Iraq occurred!!!

Oh one other MAJOR point you have forgotten about! Does the 1991 Cease Fire mean anything to you? Because it was an agreement! Saddam broke it!

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 *
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

Don't see Barack Obama on your list for some reason. He is the subject of the OP

Sen. Barack Obama's speech against Iraq war

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

YOU claim to be the expert!

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

 

[healthmyths]

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

YOU claim to be the expert!

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

So as it was with Iraq... so to Vietnam! The people you should be pointing the finger at is the biased MSM that you obviously defend and ignorantly do SO!

Vietnam/Iraq when left alone by ignorant presidents, i.e. Obama, Johnson (he even personally called air strikes you dumb f...k) and letting the people
who know how to win wars alone... would have been successful.
YOU defending Obama and blaming the generals that WANTED and KNEW that SOFA needed to be extended is so stupid!
Get some smarts and reality as you don't seem to know shit about history or warfare!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

What the fuck are you going on about. I mentioned Vietnam to only show the similarities between the Military hierarchy then around 50 years ago and that just a few years ago. It's called a simile you fucking idiot! And if you understood a fucking thing about that comparison, you may have been able to avoid the obvious embarrassment a knowledgeable person would for looking so bloody vapid and STUPID.

I was deployed twice to that fucking armpit back in the day and was personally involved. Don't EVEN fucking pretend you have superior knowledge of those times and circumstances, asshole! What the quote about TET and LBJ has to do with fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism in Nam and Iraq is between you and your Fairy God Mother you ignorant fuck! What the comparison was about was the very same reaction among the military commanders similar reactions at the CLOSE OF BOTH CONFLICTS when both LBJ and Bush were no longer in office, dimwit. You were just too fucking clueless and to quick to dodge that point, shit for brains!

I bet you were good at dodge ball when you were a kid, but you're dealing with adults now lad, so cut the shit! So you obviously don't want to stay on topic because you know you're opinion is fucked and you can only post the opinions of others without substantiation based in FACT!

 

[rightwinger]

What were the consequences of SOFA?

Our soldiers were no longer coming home in body bags

Works for me

 

[rightwinger]

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

YOU claim to be the expert!

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

So as it was with Iraq... so to Vietnam! The people you should be pointing the finger at is the biased MSM that you obviously defend and ignorantly do SO!

Vietnam/Iraq when left alone by ignorant presidents, i.e. Obama, Johnson (he even personally called air strikes you dumb f...k) and letting the people
who know how to win wars alone... would have been successful.
YOU defending Obama and blaming the generals that WANTED and KNEW that SOFA needed to be extended is so stupid!
Get some smarts and reality as you don't seem to know shit about history or warfare!

You blame Vietnam on Cronkite?

Sure if only we had sent in 100,000 more troops they would be home by Christmas

It is morons like you that cost us 60,000 dead

 

[healthmyths]

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

YOU claim to be the expert!

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

So as it was with Iraq... so to Vietnam! The people you should be pointing the finger at is the biased MSM that you obviously defend and ignorantly do SO!

Vietnam/Iraq when left alone by ignorant presidents, i.e. Obama, Johnson (he even personally called air strikes you dumb f...k) and letting the people
who know how to win wars alone... would have been successful.
YOU defending Obama and blaming the generals that WANTED and KNEW that SOFA needed to be extended is so stupid!
Get some smarts and reality as you don't seem to know shit about history or warfare!

You blame Vietnam on Cronkite?

Sure if only we had sent in 100,000 more troops they would be home by Christmas

It is morons like you that cost us 60,000 dead

YES! Morons like you and the MSM HELPED prolong and encouragement to the enemy!
Here for example is what you traitors did in Iraq that prolonged and killed more troops!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
NOW here is a Harvard study that PROVED that traitor/idiots like the above and idiots like you caused more deaths!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

 

[rightwinger]

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

YOU claim to be the expert!

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

So as it was with Iraq... so to Vietnam! The people you should be pointing the finger at is the biased MSM that you obviously defend and ignorantly do SO!

Vietnam/Iraq when left alone by ignorant presidents, i.e. Obama, Johnson (he even personally called air strikes you dumb f...k) and letting the people
who know how to win wars alone... would have been successful.
YOU defending Obama and blaming the generals that WANTED and KNEW that SOFA needed to be extended is so stupid!
Get some smarts and reality as you don't seem to know shit about history or warfare!

You blame Vietnam on Cronkite?

Sure if only we had sent in 100,000 more troops they would be home by Christmas

It is morons like you that cost us 60,000 dead

YES! Morons like you and the MSM HELPED prolong and encouragement to the enemy!
Here for example is what you traitors did in Iraq that prolonged and killed more troops!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
NOW here is a Harvard study that PROVED that traitor/idiots like the above and idiots like you caused more deaths!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

I heard "our boys will be home by Christmas" from 65-70

The public was told, just give us a few more troops and we can win this thing

Fool me once......

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

YOU claim to be the expert!

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

So as it was with Iraq... so to Vietnam! The people you should be pointing the finger at is the biased MSM that you obviously defend and ignorantly do SO!

Vietnam/Iraq when left alone by ignorant presidents, i.e. Obama, Johnson (he even personally called air strikes you dumb f...k) and letting the people
who know how to win wars alone... would have been successful.
YOU defending Obama and blaming the generals that WANTED and KNEW that SOFA needed to be extended is so stupid!
Get some smarts and reality as you don't seem to know shit about history or warfare!

You blame Vietnam on Cronkite?

Sure if only we had sent in 100,000 more troops they would be home by Christmas

It is morons like you that cost us 60,000 dead

YES! Morons like you and the MSM HELPED prolong and encouragement to the enemy!
Here for example is what you traitors did in Iraq that prolonged and killed more troops!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
NOW here is a Harvard study that PROVED that traitor/idiots like the above and idiots like you caused more deaths!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

I heard "our boys will be home by Christmas" from 65-70

The public was told, just give us a few more troops and we can win this thing

Fool me once......

Yup! Westmoreland only wanted an additional ~200,000 more on top of the ~500,000 in early 1968 as I recall following TET. Nixon kept his secret plan to win the war so secret that nobody ever found out what it was. And Mona Lisa smiled while the troops paid the McNamara butcher's bill!

Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

R. Kipling

 

[healthmyths]

Hey I admitted it! I'm not the expert ... YOU claim to be the expert! I just as you say "copy and paste" what EXPERTS said.

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

YOU claim to be the expert!

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

So as it was with Iraq... so to Vietnam! The people you should be pointing the finger at is the biased MSM that you obviously defend and ignorantly do SO!

Vietnam/Iraq when left alone by ignorant presidents, i.e. Obama, Johnson (he even personally called air strikes you dumb f...k) and letting the people
who know how to win wars alone... would have been successful.
YOU defending Obama and blaming the generals that WANTED and KNEW that SOFA needed to be extended is so stupid!
Get some smarts and reality as you don't seem to know shit about history or warfare!

You blame Vietnam on Cronkite?

Sure if only we had sent in 100,000 more troops they would be home by Christmas

It is morons like you that cost us 60,000 dead

YES! Morons like you and the MSM HELPED prolong and encouragement to the enemy!
Here for example is what you traitors did in Iraq that prolonged and killed more troops!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
NOW here is a Harvard study that PROVED that traitor/idiots like the above and idiots like you caused more deaths!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

I heard "our boys will be home by Christmas" from 65-70

The public was told, just give us a few more troops and we can win this thing

Fool me once......

And it was people like you that encouraged the enemy! Again have you EVER been to a sporting event where the visiting team is CHEERED by the home team fans
and the HOME TEAM is BOOED by the HOME TEAM fans??? Ever been in a situation where people YOU thought wanted you to be alive cheered while a bad guy worked to kill you?

This is why we won WWII because people were for Americans to win. But after Korea, the MSM became propaganda tools for the bad guys!
Everything that was American was bad including our soldiers and idiots like YOU and these people were cheerleading for the bad guys to win and booing the good guys!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

You just don't have Americans rooting for the bad guys and expect to win anymore! With traitors like you and the above America will never be the leader of the free world!

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, you sure did quote what the "experts" said in your post #24 to which I responded...the "experts" you quoted at Wiki Fucking Pedia, and others from your cherry picked politically biased "sources" you bloody fool! When presented with the actual SOFA you had previously claimed you had not read you reversed yourself and claimed you had read it. You're as bad a liar as Trump!

Look asshole, there were generals that didn't want the US to pull out of Vietnam, wanted to terminate the Paris Peace talks and to go on to "victory" simply because America had never lost a fucking war and Nam was "winnable"! So much for fucking Generals as experts dealing with US adventurism and neocolonialism!

The fact you refuse to address, you dishonest piece of shit, is that 1. The Iraqi Shi'a parliament did not want further US presence in Iraq and al-Maliki's position was dependent upon keeping them happy; the Iran influence upon their fellow Persians was manifested within their ranks & 2. Refused legal immunity for all US forces re: Iraqi Law. I provided citations to those FACTS and linked them during our exchange, but you totally ignored them and offered non-authoritative opinions copied and pasted from Wiki Fucking Pedia and other "sources" such as National Review and the Washington Fucking Times with OPINIONS, colored by their far right wing bent of those purveyors of slanted horheshit , by those "experts" of yours not forced with making those necessary decisions to leave or stay in Iraq back in the Summer and Fall of 2011.

Another fucking lie. I've only claimed that I strive to perform due diligence when I do a bit of research, shit for brains. Due diligence is not in your partisan playbook, dummy!

NO VIETNAM was lost because idiots like you and the rest of the people that believe the MSM believed as Johnson did!
President Lyndon Johnson, watching live in the White House, reportedly then turned to aides and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” He would soon explain to the nation–accurately–that the Tet Offensive had been successfully repelled and was in fact a huge military failure for the Vietnamese communists. But it was too late. As Cronkite noted in his editorial, the public optimism of U.S. government and military officials about the progress of the Vietnam War was not in concert with the nagging realities of a quagmire. It was largely this credibility gap that destroyed Johnson’s presidency.
“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” – Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968 » IAN C. FRIEDMAN – WORDS MATTER

So as it was with Iraq... so to Vietnam! The people you should be pointing the finger at is the biased MSM that you obviously defend and ignorantly do SO!

Vietnam/Iraq when left alone by ignorant presidents, i.e. Obama, Johnson (he even personally called air strikes you dumb f...k) and letting the people
who know how to win wars alone... would have been successful.
YOU defending Obama and blaming the generals that WANTED and KNEW that SOFA needed to be extended is so stupid!
Get some smarts and reality as you don't seem to know shit about history or warfare!

You blame Vietnam on Cronkite?

Sure if only we had sent in 100,000 more troops they would be home by Christmas

It is morons like you that cost us 60,000 dead

YES! Morons like you and the MSM HELPED prolong and encouragement to the enemy!
Here for example is what you traitors did in Iraq that prolonged and killed more troops!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
NOW here is a Harvard study that PROVED that traitor/idiots like the above and idiots like you caused more deaths!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

I heard "our boys will be home by Christmas" from 65-70

The public was told, just give us a few more troops and we can win this thing

Fool me once......

And it was people like you that encouraged the enemy! Again have you EVER been to a sporting event where the visiting team is CHEERED by the home team fans
and the HOME TEAM is BOOED by the HOME TEAM fans??? Ever been in a situation where people YOU thought wanted you to be alive cheered while a bad guy worked to kill you?

This is why we won WWII because people were for Americans to win. But after Korea, the MSM became propaganda tools for the bad guys!
Everything that was American was bad including our soldiers and idiots like YOU and these people were cheerleading for the bad guys to win and booing the good guys!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

You just don't have Americans rooting for the bad guys and expect to win anymore! With traitors like you and the above America will never be the leader of the free world!

Actually. it was more targets and more American dead that encouraged the enemy

They knew America wouldn't withstand 60,000 dead fighting for a country we didn't care about...they were right

 

[BlindBoo]

in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008

Fact of the matter is President Obama inherited a signed agreement that President Bush was forced by the Iraqis to make. Furthermore President Bush had an entire year to forge an agreement that included a long term agreement on US Troop level in Iraq. So put the blame for that agreement where it belongs, on the decider himself.

Obama had plenty of opportunity to negotiate a SOFA, fact is he wanted to cut and run which is what he did he bailed on Iraq at the first opportunity. Also you people blaming Bush for all Obama's failures is getting old. Obama said vote for me I'll correct all Bush mistakes, well?

According to President Bushes SOFA Obama's first opportunity to leave was in 2009. Not only did he follow Bushes SOFA to the T but also he was completely willing to leave a force behind after 2011.