Wonderful news for Christian haters. Suicide bombers kill 14 people outside Pakistani churches

[peach174]

Why are Christians in Pakistan?

They live there?

Okay, then I assume they accept the risk.

They accept that we are in end times and all Christians will be persecuted and murdered throughout the whole world. This is just the beginning.

Why do think that killing of Christians is funny?
They have been murdered all throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa and it is starting to spread now into Pakistani.

No one thinks any killings are 'funny' or that any killing of Christians is "wonderful news"...

Ironic, Christians in Iraq were allowed to practice their faith under Saddam Hussein. NOW, they are being killed or fleeing their home country...

Because this administration decided not help to fight ISIS before they started crossing over into Iraq.

 

[Bfgrn]

They live there?

Okay, then I assume they accept the risk.

They accept that we are in end times and all Christians will be persecuted and murdered throughout the whole world. This is just the beginning.

Why do think that killing of Christians is funny?
They have been murdered all throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa and it is starting to spread now into Pakistani.

No one thinks any killings are 'funny' or that any killing of Christians is "wonderful news"...

Ironic, Christians in Iraq were allowed to practice their faith under Saddam Hussein. NOW, they are being killed or fleeing their home country...

Because this administration decided not help to fight ISIS before they started crossing over into Iraq.

Bullshit...In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement

 

[peach174]

Okay, then I assume they accept the risk.

They accept that we are in end times and all Christians will be persecuted and murdered throughout the whole world. This is just the beginning.

Why do think that killing of Christians is funny?
They have been murdered all throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa and it is starting to spread now into Pakistani.

No one thinks any killings are 'funny' or that any killing of Christians is "wonderful news"...

Ironic, Christians in Iraq were allowed to practice their faith under Saddam Hussein. NOW, they are being killed or fleeing their home country...

Because this administration decided not help to fight ISIS before they started crossing over into Iraq.

Bullshit...In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement

What has that got to do with Obama and the Dem's not wanting to help to arm the fighters that are against ISIS in Syria four years ago or sending arms to the Kurds in the North of Iraq? If we had done that ISIS would not have gotten so big.

 

[Bfgrn]

ISIS Terrorists Credit the Iraq War for Their Success

New ISIS Magazine Takes Aim at McCain Promotes Stoning Mass Executions - Breitbart

The Islamic terrorist group known as the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) … just released an online magazine called “Dabiq” for its English readership for Ramadan. In the magazine … ISIS goes after only one American politician—Senator John McCain (R-AZ), for a June 12 floor speech of he delivered about ISIS:

“…the crusader John McCain came to the Senate floor to rant irritably about the victories the Islamic State was achieving in Iraq. He forgot that he himself participated in the invasion of Iraq that led to the blessed events unfolding today by Allah’s bounty and justice.”

ISIS


ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Walid Shoebat – the self-described former Islamic terrorist who converted to Christianity – says:

It is true, the war in Iraq that was started by Bush led to the enabling ISIS to commit the massacres and violence it is doing now. ISIS knows that Saddam would have not tolerated them, and would have without hesitated cut them to pieces, as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar would have done.….

All I can say is, I miss Saddam.

 

[peach174]

The events happened because Obama refused to negotiate with the leader of Iraq to keep our troops there.
He wanted them out no matter what. He could have easily done a deal to keep our troops under American Control but all he wanted was to fulfill his campaign promise.
This was all the terrorists was waiting for, when America would pull the troops out.

 

[Bfgrn]

They accept that we are in end times and all Christians will be persecuted and murdered throughout the whole world. This is just the beginning.

Why do think that killing of Christians is funny?
They have been murdered all throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa and it is starting to spread now into Pakistani.

No one thinks any killings are 'funny' or that any killing of Christians is "wonderful news"...

Ironic, Christians in Iraq were allowed to practice their faith under Saddam Hussein. NOW, they are being killed or fleeing their home country...

Because this administration decided not help to fight ISIS before they started crossing over into Iraq.

Bullshit...In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement

What has that got to do with Obama and the Dem's not wanting to help to arm the fighters that are against ISIS in Syria four years ago or sending arms to the Kurds in the North of Iraq? If we had done that ISIS would not have gotten so big.

More bullshit...even neocon Michael Rubin disagrees...

There’s a conceit in Washington that holds that debates can continue endlessly and that the rest of the world will remain frozen in time until a decision is made. The reality, of course, is that the world revolves neither around the White House nor Congress. While intervention in Syria might have tipped the balance against Assad in the first weeks of conflict, it was not long before both Assad’s foreign allies came to his rescue and the opposition radicalized. Politicians and partisan, meanwhile, cling stubbornly to positions hashed out when the Syrian civil war was in its infancy.

Arming the opposition was never wise. Most of those with whom U.S. engages diplomatically have no control over ground in Syria. Even if moderates – for the sake of argument, let’s define them as those who do not engage in cannibalism – outnumber radicals, numbers mean less than dedication to the fight. Moderates might defect to the radicals or be conquered by them, losing their weaponry in the process. Think the Islamic State in Mosul.

Nor does the opposition simply want guns and ammunition; rather, they seek a qualitative military edge – for example, surface-to-air missiles, drones and tanks. Whatever proponents of direct assistance say, the U.S. government has little proven capacity to vet accurately: If U.S. officials could not figure out what two Chechen brothers in Boston were up to, how can they realistically claim to have the ability to vet those speaking no English and living in a war zone? It would be foolish to trust the Syrian opposition with such technologies and assume no blowback.

 

[Preacher]

Who gives a shit? How many kids did the IDF kill today?

 

[Plasmaball]

Why are Christians in Pakistan?

They live there?

Okay, then I assume they accept the risk.

They accept that we are in end times and all Christians will be persecuted and murdered throughout the whole world. This is just the beginning.

end times...hahahhahahahahahhhaahahhahahahaha

 

[Bfgrn]

The events happened because Obama refused to negotiate with the leader of Iraq to keep our troops there.
He wanted them out no matter what. He could have easily done a deal to keep our troops under American Control but all he wanted was to fulfill his campaign promise.
This was all the terrorists was waiting for, when America would pull the troops out.

No, IRAQ was not going to negotiate a SOFA that gave American troops immunity from Iraqi laws. The SOFA Bush signed sold out our remaining sons and daughters.

Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

John Bruhns is an Iraq war veteran

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

Time Magazine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sgt-john-bruhns/iraq-is-the-sofa-viable_b_150893.html

 

[peach174]

Why do think that killing of Christians is funny?
They have been murdered all throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa and it is starting to spread now into Pakistani.

No one thinks any killings are 'funny' or that any killing of Christians is "wonderful news"...

Ironic, Christians in Iraq were allowed to practice their faith under Saddam Hussein. NOW, they are being killed or fleeing their home country...

Because this administration decided not help to fight ISIS before they started crossing over into Iraq.

Bullshit...In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement

What has that got to do with Obama and the Dem's not wanting to help to arm the fighters that are against ISIS in Syria four years ago or sending arms to the Kurds in the North of Iraq? If we had done that ISIS would not have gotten so big.

More bullshit...even neocon Michael Rubin disagrees...

There’s a conceit in Washington that holds that debates can continue endlessly and that the rest of the world will remain frozen in time until a decision is made. The reality, of course, is that the world revolves neither around the White House nor Congress. While intervention in Syria might have tipped the balance against Assad in the first weeks of conflict, it was not long before both Assad’s foreign allies came to his rescue and the opposition radicalized. Politicians and partisan, meanwhile, cling stubbornly to positions hashed out when the Syrian civil war was in its infancy.

Arming the opposition was never wise. Most of those with whom U.S. engages diplomatically have no control over ground in Syria. Even if moderates – for the sake of argument, let’s define them as those who do not engage in cannibalism – outnumber radicals, numbers mean less than dedication to the fight. Moderates might defect to the radicals or be conquered by them, losing their weaponry in the process. Think the Islamic State in Mosul.

Nor does the opposition simply want guns and ammunition; rather, they seek a qualitative military edge – for example, surface-to-air missiles, drones and tanks. Whatever proponents of direct assistance say, the U.S. government has little proven capacity to vet accurately: If U.S. officials could not figure out what two Chechen brothers in Boston were up to, how can they realistically claim to have the ability to vet those speaking no English and living in a war zone? It would be foolish to trust the Syrian opposition with such technologies and assume no blowback.

I was referring to the Kurds who wanted modern day weapons to fight with because ISIS had stolen all of ours that we had left behind.
All the Kurds have is out dated weapons from Russia.
Kurds Ask for Western Weapons - The American Interest

 

[peach174]

The events happened because Obama refused to negotiate with the leader of Iraq to keep our troops there.
He wanted them out no matter what. He could have easily done a deal to keep our troops under American Control but all he wanted was to fulfill his campaign promise.
This was all the terrorists was waiting for, when America would pull the troops out.

No, IRAQ was not going to negotiate a SOFA that gave American troops immunity from Iraqi laws. The SOFA Bush signed sold out our remaining sons and daughters.

Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

John Bruhns is an Iraq war veteran

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

Time Magazine

Obama s Ongoing Betrayal of America s Sacrifices in Iraq FrontPage Magazine
The disintegration of Iraq may have been preventable were it not for President Obama’s politically-motivated premature withdrawal of American troops in December 2011, against the advice of military advisors. Now, al-Qaeda in Iraq is surging and slaughtering civilians dozens at a time, while the enormous sacrifices of thousands of American soldiers have been made into a mockery.

In July, more than 1,000 Iraqis were killed by bombs and gunfire, marking the deadliest month since violence between Sunni and Shi’ite sects reached its apex between 2006 and 2008. Kenneth Katzman, an analyst of Middle Eastern affairs for the Congressional Research Service, illuminated the fundamental problem. “The growing Sunni rebellion in Iraq has fueled the resurgence [of al-Qaeda in Iraq], as has the fact that the U.S. isn’t there providing intelligence, backstopping the Iraqi security forces or continuing to train and keep up their skill levels,” he explained.


The U.S. isn’t there because Obama failed to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq’s nascent government. Obama claimed Iraqi intransigence was to blame for the failure, because they wouldn’t grant U.S. troops legal immunity if they were breaking Iraqi law. Yet as Max Boot explained in a 2011 Wall Street Journal article, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other government officials had expressed the same reservation in 2008, when there were far more American troops in the country. Nevertheless, President Bush was able to secure an agreement.

Boot explains the contrast. “Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not,” he wrote. “Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.”

Boot further notes that Obama’s constant bragging about ending the war, which culminated in his decision to keep only 5000 troops in Iraq (as opposed to the 20,000 initially requested by military commanders or even the 10,000 that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen judged to be the absolute minimum to maintain security) convinced Iraqis they would be left to fend for themselves.

Once our troops withdrew, Maliki moved to consolidate power. Crackdowns were undertaken again Sunni and Kurdish leaders, and other opposition forces. Those crackdowns reached a critical point on April 23, when government forces killed dozens of Sunni protesters in the city of al-Hawijah. The protesters were demonstrating against government policies, including Maliki’s increasing alignment with Iran. A week later, former Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker characterized the crackdown as a turning point, noting that Sunni and Shi’ite leaders who had previously opted to solve their differences without violence were no longer inclined to do so. “Now Sunni Arab sheikhs who had been urging restraint are calling for war,” he wrote. “Some reports say that the tribes are gathering former insurgents and preparing to fight.” In April, 712 Iraqis were killed, a figure that represented the highest number of monthly casualties since 2008.

It hasn’t been that low ever since.

Bush was able to secure an agreement with the same excuse that they said to Obama.
Obama just wanted the troops out of Iraq and now we are paying the price for it.

 

[Bfgrn]

House looks ready to kill Syria strike resolution

September 5, 2013

When President Obama decided to ask Congress for authorization to strike Syria, he put the mission at the mercy of both public opinion and congressional Republicans.

House Republicans are not inclined to back President Obama on Syria. "Several lawmakers and aides who have been canvassing support say that nearly 80 percent of the House Republican Conference is, to some degree, opposed to launching strikes in Syria. Informal counts by Obama allies show that support in Congress for Obama’s plans is in the low dozens."

Washington Post

 

[peach174]

House looks ready to kill Syria strike resolution

September 5, 2013

When President Obama decided to ask Congress for authorization to strike Syria, he put the mission at the mercy of both public opinion and congressional Republicans.

House Republicans are not inclined to back President Obama on Syria. "Several lawmakers and aides who have been canvassing support say that nearly 80 percent of the House Republican Conference is, to some degree, opposed to launching strikes in Syria. Informal counts by Obama allies show that support in Congress for Obama’s plans is in the low dozens."

Washington Post

Doing Strikes in Syria would not have stopped them from crossing into Iraq.
If our troops had remained in Iraq they never would have been able to take the cities in Iraq.
If our troops had remained in Iraq then ISIS would not have been able to become so strong in Syria to begin with.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Suicide bombers kill more Christians than Muslims.
Suicide bombers kill more Muslims than Christians.

Which of the above statements is true?

 

[Bfgrn]

The events happened because Obama refused to negotiate with the leader of Iraq to keep our troops there.
He wanted them out no matter what. He could have easily done a deal to keep our troops under American Control but all he wanted was to fulfill his campaign promise.
This was all the terrorists was waiting for, when America would pull the troops out.

No, IRAQ was not going to negotiate a SOFA that gave American troops immunity from Iraqi laws. The SOFA Bush signed sold out our remaining sons and daughters.

Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

John Bruhns is an Iraq war veteran

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

Time Magazine

Obama s Ongoing Betrayal of America s Sacrifices in Iraq FrontPage Magazine
The disintegration of Iraq may have been preventable were it not for President Obama’s politically-motivated premature withdrawal of American troops in December 2011, against the advice of military advisors. Now, al-Qaeda in Iraq is surging and slaughtering civilians dozens at a time, while the enormous sacrifices of thousands of American soldiers have been made into a mockery.

In July, more than 1,000 Iraqis were killed by bombs and gunfire, marking the deadliest month since violence between Sunni and Shi’ite sects reached its apex between 2006 and 2008. Kenneth Katzman, an analyst of Middle Eastern affairs for the Congressional Research Service, illuminated the fundamental problem. “The growing Sunni rebellion in Iraq has fueled the resurgence [of al-Qaeda in Iraq], as has the fact that the U.S. isn’t there providing intelligence, backstopping the Iraqi security forces or continuing to train and keep up their skill levels,” he explained.


The U.S. isn’t there because Obama failed to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq’s nascent government. Obama claimed Iraqi intransigence was to blame for the failure, because they wouldn’t grant U.S. troops legal immunity if they were breaking Iraqi law. Yet as Max Boot explained in a 2011 Wall Street Journal article, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other government officials had expressed the same reservation in 2008, when there were far more American troops in the country. Nevertheless, President Bush was able to secure an agreement.

Boot explains the contrast. “Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not,” he wrote. “Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.”

Boot further notes that Obama’s constant bragging about ending the war, which culminated in his decision to keep only 5000 troops in Iraq (as opposed to the 20,000 initially requested by military commanders or even the 10,000 that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen judged to be the absolute minimum to maintain security) convinced Iraqis they would be left to fend for themselves.

Once our troops withdrew, Maliki moved to consolidate power. Crackdowns were undertaken again Sunni and Kurdish leaders, and other opposition forces. Those crackdowns reached a critical point on April 23, when government forces killed dozens of Sunni protesters in the city of al-Hawijah. The protesters were demonstrating against government policies, including Maliki’s increasing alignment with Iran. A week later, former Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker characterized the crackdown as a turning point, noting that Sunni and Shi’ite leaders who had previously opted to solve their differences without violence were no longer inclined to do so. “Now Sunni Arab sheikhs who had been urging restraint are calling for war,” he wrote. “Some reports say that the tribes are gathering former insurgents and preparing to fight.” In April, 712 Iraqis were killed, a figure that represented the highest number of monthly casualties since 2008.

It hasn’t been that low ever since.

Bush was able to secure an agreement with the same excuse that they said to Obama.
Obama just wanted the troops out of Iraq and now we are paying the price for it.

The truth is Max Boot wants WAR and could care less about our troops. Boot "has a reputation as a fire-breathing polemicist and unabashed imperialist." He is a self-described neo-conservative.

The SOFA Bush SIGNED in 2008 DOES NOT grant U.S. troops legal immunity if they were breaking Iraqi law.

So Bush was willing to sell out our troops and our nation for his own 'legacy'

 

[Bfgrn]

House looks ready to kill Syria strike resolution

September 5, 2013

When President Obama decided to ask Congress for authorization to strike Syria, he put the mission at the mercy of both public opinion and congressional Republicans.

House Republicans are not inclined to back President Obama on Syria. "Several lawmakers and aides who have been canvassing support say that nearly 80 percent of the House Republican Conference is, to some degree, opposed to launching strikes in Syria. Informal counts by Obama allies show that support in Congress for Obama’s plans is in the low dozens."

Washington Post

Doing Strikes in Syria would not have stopped them from crossing into Iraq.
If our troops had remained in Iraq they never would have been able to take the cities in Iraq.
If our troops had remained in Iraq then ISIS would not have been able to become so strong in Syria to begin with.

WHAT don't you understand? ANY American troops in Iraq after the 2008 SOFA Bush signed must get the approval of the Iraqi government for any mission...

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

 

[peach174]

The events happened because Obama refused to negotiate with the leader of Iraq to keep our troops there.
He wanted them out no matter what. He could have easily done a deal to keep our troops under American Control but all he wanted was to fulfill his campaign promise.
This was all the terrorists was waiting for, when America would pull the troops out.

No, IRAQ was not going to negotiate a SOFA that gave American troops immunity from Iraqi laws. The SOFA Bush signed sold out our remaining sons and daughters.

Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

John Bruhns is an Iraq war veteran

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

Time Magazine

Obama s Ongoing Betrayal of America s Sacrifices in Iraq FrontPage Magazine
The disintegration of Iraq may have been preventable were it not for President Obama’s politically-motivated premature withdrawal of American troops in December 2011, against the advice of military advisors. Now, al-Qaeda in Iraq is surging and slaughtering civilians dozens at a time, while the enormous sacrifices of thousands of American soldiers have been made into a mockery.

In July, more than 1,000 Iraqis were killed by bombs and gunfire, marking the deadliest month since violence between Sunni and Shi’ite sects reached its apex between 2006 and 2008. Kenneth Katzman, an analyst of Middle Eastern affairs for the Congressional Research Service, illuminated the fundamental problem. “The growing Sunni rebellion in Iraq has fueled the resurgence [of al-Qaeda in Iraq], as has the fact that the U.S. isn’t there providing intelligence, backstopping the Iraqi security forces or continuing to train and keep up their skill levels,” he explained.


The U.S. isn’t there because Obama failed to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq’s nascent government. Obama claimed Iraqi intransigence was to blame for the failure, because they wouldn’t grant U.S. troops legal immunity if they were breaking Iraqi law. Yet as Max Boot explained in a 2011 Wall Street Journal article, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other government officials had expressed the same reservation in 2008, when there were far more American troops in the country. Nevertheless, President Bush was able to secure an agreement.

Boot explains the contrast. “Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not,” he wrote. “Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.”

Boot further notes that Obama’s constant bragging about ending the war, which culminated in his decision to keep only 5000 troops in Iraq (as opposed to the 20,000 initially requested by military commanders or even the 10,000 that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen judged to be the absolute minimum to maintain security) convinced Iraqis they would be left to fend for themselves.

Once our troops withdrew, Maliki moved to consolidate power. Crackdowns were undertaken again Sunni and Kurdish leaders, and other opposition forces. Those crackdowns reached a critical point on April 23, when government forces killed dozens of Sunni protesters in the city of al-Hawijah. The protesters were demonstrating against government policies, including Maliki’s increasing alignment with Iran. A week later, former Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker characterized the crackdown as a turning point, noting that Sunni and Shi’ite leaders who had previously opted to solve their differences without violence were no longer inclined to do so. “Now Sunni Arab sheikhs who had been urging restraint are calling for war,” he wrote. “Some reports say that the tribes are gathering former insurgents and preparing to fight.” In April, 712 Iraqis were killed, a figure that represented the highest number of monthly casualties since 2008.

It hasn’t been that low ever since.

Bush was able to secure an agreement with the same excuse that they said to Obama.
Obama just wanted the troops out of Iraq and now we are paying the price for it.

The truth is Max Boot wants WAR and could care less about our troops. Boot "has a reputation as a fire-breathing polemicist and unabashed imperialist." He is a self-described neo-conservative.

The SOFA Bush SIGNED in 2008 DOES NOT grant U.S. troops legal immunity if they were breaking Iraqi law.

So Bush was willing to sell out our troops and our nation for his own 'legacy'

While off duty.

Ratification by Iraqi Parliament
On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough. The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.U.S. contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.
U.S. Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some anonymous U.S. officials and specialists who follow the war have argued they believe that parts of the agreement may be circumvented and that other parts may be open to interpretation, including: the parts giving Iraqi legal jurisdiction over United States soldiers who commit crimes off base and off duty, the part requiring for US troops to obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and the part banning the United States from staging attacks on other countries from Iraq. For example, administration officials have argued that Iraqi prosecution of U.S. soldiers could take three years, by which time the U.S. will have withdrawn from Iraq under the terms of the agreement. In the interim, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of America's Uniform Code of Military Justice. Michael E. O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution research group, said there are "these areas that are not as clear cut as the Iraqis would like to think."

 

[Bfgrn]

The events happened because Obama refused to negotiate with the leader of Iraq to keep our troops there.
He wanted them out no matter what. He could have easily done a deal to keep our troops under American Control but all he wanted was to fulfill his campaign promise.
This was all the terrorists was waiting for, when America would pull the troops out.

No, IRAQ was not going to negotiate a SOFA that gave American troops immunity from Iraqi laws. The SOFA Bush signed sold out our remaining sons and daughters.

Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

John Bruhns is an Iraq war veteran

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

Time Magazine

Obama s Ongoing Betrayal of America s Sacrifices in Iraq FrontPage Magazine
The disintegration of Iraq may have been preventable were it not for President Obama’s politically-motivated premature withdrawal of American troops in December 2011, against the advice of military advisors. Now, al-Qaeda in Iraq is surging and slaughtering civilians dozens at a time, while the enormous sacrifices of thousands of American soldiers have been made into a mockery.

In July, more than 1,000 Iraqis were killed by bombs and gunfire, marking the deadliest month since violence between Sunni and Shi’ite sects reached its apex between 2006 and 2008. Kenneth Katzman, an analyst of Middle Eastern affairs for the Congressional Research Service, illuminated the fundamental problem. “The growing Sunni rebellion in Iraq has fueled the resurgence [of al-Qaeda in Iraq], as has the fact that the U.S. isn’t there providing intelligence, backstopping the Iraqi security forces or continuing to train and keep up their skill levels,” he explained.


The U.S. isn’t there because Obama failed to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq’s nascent government. Obama claimed Iraqi intransigence was to blame for the failure, because they wouldn’t grant U.S. troops legal immunity if they were breaking Iraqi law. Yet as Max Boot explained in a 2011 Wall Street Journal article, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other government officials had expressed the same reservation in 2008, when there were far more American troops in the country. Nevertheless, President Bush was able to secure an agreement.

Boot explains the contrast. “Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not,” he wrote. “Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.”

Boot further notes that Obama’s constant bragging about ending the war, which culminated in his decision to keep only 5000 troops in Iraq (as opposed to the 20,000 initially requested by military commanders or even the 10,000 that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen judged to be the absolute minimum to maintain security) convinced Iraqis they would be left to fend for themselves.

Once our troops withdrew, Maliki moved to consolidate power. Crackdowns were undertaken again Sunni and Kurdish leaders, and other opposition forces. Those crackdowns reached a critical point on April 23, when government forces killed dozens of Sunni protesters in the city of al-Hawijah. The protesters were demonstrating against government policies, including Maliki’s increasing alignment with Iran. A week later, former Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker characterized the crackdown as a turning point, noting that Sunni and Shi’ite leaders who had previously opted to solve their differences without violence were no longer inclined to do so. “Now Sunni Arab sheikhs who had been urging restraint are calling for war,” he wrote. “Some reports say that the tribes are gathering former insurgents and preparing to fight.” In April, 712 Iraqis were killed, a figure that represented the highest number of monthly casualties since 2008.

It hasn’t been that low ever since.

Bush was able to secure an agreement with the same excuse that they said to Obama.
Obama just wanted the troops out of Iraq and now we are paying the price for it.

The truth is Max Boot wants WAR and could care less about our troops. Boot "has a reputation as a fire-breathing polemicist and unabashed imperialist." He is a self-described neo-conservative.

The SOFA Bush SIGNED in 2008 DOES NOT grant U.S. troops legal immunity if they were breaking Iraqi law.

So Bush was willing to sell out our troops and our nation for his own 'legacy'

While off duty.

Ratification by Iraqi Parliament
On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough. The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.U.S. contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.
U.S. Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some anonymous U.S. officials and specialists who follow the war have argued they believe that parts of the agreement may be circumvented and that other parts may be open to interpretation, including: the parts giving Iraqi legal jurisdiction over United States soldiers who commit crimes off base and off duty, the part requiring for US troops to obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and the part banning the United States from staging attacks on other countries from Iraq. For example, administration officials have argued that Iraqi prosecution of U.S. soldiers could take three years, by which time the U.S. will have withdrawn from Iraq under the terms of the agreement. In the interim, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of America's Uniform Code of Military Justice. Michael E. O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution research group, said there are "these areas that are not as clear cut as the Iraqis would like to think."

Just as I said...Bush sold out our troops and our nation

 

[Katzndogz]

obumble sold Iraq out to Iran because he always intended to do so.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Always great to see the Children of God, slaughtering each other. The solution, Liberalism.

Liberalism is a tool of satan, you tool.