Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thanks for the links, but they offer a lot of subjective opinions and nothing to really back up the allegation that Obama did not negotiate in good faith. In fact, the first link points out that it was the politics of the Iraqi Parliament that prevented an agreement from being reached. Actually, that first link could be used to support my opinion as well as yours.Malaki did not have authority to extend the SOFA. It needed the Iraqi Parlairlements approval and they were not budging on their insistence that the US withdrawal stayed on schedule. If you have a link and more information about the one-year extension offer claim I would be glad to read it and stand corrected.No, I meant what I posted, which you can not refute because it is accurate. The agreement signed by Bush a month before he left office lacked a SOFA, status of forces agreement, which protects in country US forces from legal consequences and prosecution of alleged crimes and incidents while serving in a country.You mean when your Obama surrendered....The deal was struck when Bush signed an agreement with Iraq to pull out US troops and a time schedule a month before Obama came into office
Let's be careful about selective history ---
What you say is true. However, you are only telling half the story. Khalaki had agreed to a SOFA arrangement, but was taking internal political heat for being an "American puppet". The agreement was signed in order to give him political cover.
The agreement contained a clause that allowed continued negotiation on a SOFA agreement. Obama "attempted" to negotiate, but was unable to make a deal. (Those of us involved at DoD believe he didn't 'negotiate', and wasn't interested in closing the deal - he was only interested in using SOFA as an excuse to meet his campaign promise).
Further, three days prior to Obama's announcement, Khalaki offered a 1 year extension of the then current SOFA so they could continue to negotiate. Obama turned down the extension, and pulled the troops out, creating a vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS.
Obama had delusions of going down in history as the great peacemaker, but he forgot that peace only comes thru strength. Instead, he is going down in history as a pacifistic fuck up.
Amazing.
U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave
Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq, by Patrick Brennan, National Review
I used to work at Foggy Bottom, and the word in the break room was that Obama agreed to sign the extension, and then changed his mind, and pulled the plug. That, of course, has never been officially confirmed.
Ya Frank, that has about as much validity as your goofy one about Condi Rice" negotiating an agreement in 2004. In 2004 Irag's military had been destroyed and what was left disbanded, the police and other public safety forces had been disbanded also. In addition, leftovers from the Saddam regime were still fighting both the US and struggeling new Iraqi government, a civil war had started between the Shite and Sunni tribes, al Qaeda had joined the warfare as an opportunity to kill American troops and what passed as an Iraqi government could barely get started. Not only did the Iraqi's not ask or want US and allied troops to leave, they welcomed an increase of those forces.Malaki did not have authority to extend the SOFA. It needed the Iraqi Parlairlements approval and they were not budging on their insistence that the US withdrawal stayed on schedule. If you have a link and more information about the one-year extension offer claim I would be glad to read it and stand corrected.No, I meant what I posted, which you can not refute because it is accurate. The agreement signed by Bush a month before he left office lacked a SOFA, status of forces agreement, which protects in country US forces from legal consequences and prosecution of alleged crimes and incidents while serving in a country.You mean when your Obama surrendered....The deal was struck when Bush signed an agreement with Iraq to pull out US troops and a time schedule a month before Obama came into office
Let's be careful about selective history ---
What you say is true. However, you are only telling half the story. Khalaki had agreed to a SOFA arrangement, but was taking internal political heat for being an "American puppet". The agreement was signed in order to give him political cover.
The agreement contained a clause that allowed continued negotiation on a SOFA agreement. Obama "attempted" to negotiate, but was unable to make a deal. (Those of us involved at DoD believe he didn't 'negotiate', and wasn't interested in closing the deal - he was only interested in using SOFA as an excuse to meet his campaign promise).
Further, three days prior to Obama's announcement, Khalaki offered a 1 year extension of the then current SOFA so they could continue to negotiate. Obama turned down the extension, and pulled the troops out, creating a vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS.
Obama had delusions of going down in history as the great peacemaker, but he forgot that peace only comes thru strength. Instead, he is going down in history as a pacifistic fuck up.
You might want to have read the article first where the Iraqi Parliament OVERWHELMINGLYNCH supported the first SOFA
Thanks for the links, but they offer a lot of subjective opinions and nothing to really back up the allegation that Obama did not negotiate in good faith. In fact, the first link points out that it was the politics of the Iraqi Parliament that prevented an agreement from being reached. Actually, that first link could be used to support my opinion as well as yours.Malaki did not have authority to extend the SOFA. It needed the Iraqi Parlairlements approval and they were not budging on their insistence that the US withdrawal stayed on schedule. If you have a link and more information about the one-year extension offer claim I would be glad to read it and stand corrected.No, I meant what I posted, which you can not refute because it is accurate. The agreement signed by Bush a month before he left office lacked a SOFA, status of forces agreement, which protects in country US forces from legal consequences and prosecution of alleged crimes and incidents while serving in a country.You mean when your Obama surrendered....
Let's be careful about selective history ---
What you say is true. However, you are only telling half the story. Khalaki had agreed to a SOFA arrangement, but was taking internal political heat for being an "American puppet". The agreement was signed in order to give him political cover.
The agreement contained a clause that allowed continued negotiation on a SOFA agreement. Obama "attempted" to negotiate, but was unable to make a deal. (Those of us involved at DoD believe he didn't 'negotiate', and wasn't interested in closing the deal - he was only interested in using SOFA as an excuse to meet his campaign promise).
Further, three days prior to Obama's announcement, Khalaki offered a 1 year extension of the then current SOFA so they could continue to negotiate. Obama turned down the extension, and pulled the troops out, creating a vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS.
Obama had delusions of going down in history as the great peacemaker, but he forgot that peace only comes thru strength. Instead, he is going down in history as a pacifistic fuck up.
Amazing.
U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave
Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq, by Patrick Brennan, National Review
I used to work at Foggy Bottom, and the word in the break room was that Obama agreed to sign the extension, and then changed his mind, and pulled the plug. That, of course, has never been officially confirmed.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, arguments have very limited value in discussions about history.
I'm not weaseling out of anything.Thanks for the links, but they offer a lot of subjective opinions and nothing to really back up the allegation that Obama did not negotiate in good faith. In fact, the first link points out that it was the politics of the Iraqi Parliament that prevented an agreement from being reached. Actually, that first link could be used to support my opinion as well as yours.Malaki did not have authority to extend the SOFA. It needed the Iraqi Parlairlements approval and they were not budging on their insistence that the US withdrawal stayed on schedule. If you have a link and more information about the one-year extension offer claim I would be glad to read it and stand corrected.No, I meant what I posted, which you can not refute because it is accurate. The agreement signed by Bush a month before he left office lacked a SOFA, status of forces agreement, which protects in country US forces from legal consequences and prosecution of alleged crimes and incidents while serving in a country.
Let's be careful about selective history ---
What you say is true. However, you are only telling half the story. Khalaki had agreed to a SOFA arrangement, but was taking internal political heat for being an "American puppet". The agreement was signed in order to give him political cover.
The agreement contained a clause that allowed continued negotiation on a SOFA agreement. Obama "attempted" to negotiate, but was unable to make a deal. (Those of us involved at DoD believe he didn't 'negotiate', and wasn't interested in closing the deal - he was only interested in using SOFA as an excuse to meet his campaign promise).
Further, three days prior to Obama's announcement, Khalaki offered a 1 year extension of the then current SOFA so they could continue to negotiate. Obama turned down the extension, and pulled the troops out, creating a vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS.
Obama had delusions of going down in history as the great peacemaker, but he forgot that peace only comes thru strength. Instead, he is going down in history as a pacifistic fuck up.
Amazing.
U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave
Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
No, U.S. Troops Didn't Have to Leave Iraq, by Patrick Brennan, National Review
I used to work at Foggy Bottom, and the word in the break room was that Obama agreed to sign the extension, and then changed his mind, and pulled the plug. That, of course, has never been officially confirmed.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, arguments have very limited value in discussions about history.
LOL --- if Obama himself chiseled it in stone, you would still try to weasel out of it.
Just accept the reality, and let it go ... you will sleep ever so much better at night.
(Psst: Go back and read the first link again - and then get back with us.)
Further, three days prior to Obama's announcement, Khalaki offered a 1 year extension of the then current SOFA so they could continue to negotiate. Obama turned down the extension, and pulled the troops out, creating a vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS.
You might want to have read the article first where the Iraqi Parliament OVERWHELMINGLYNCH supported the first SOFA
CrusaderFrank, post: 16647509You might want to have read the article first where the Iraqi Parliament OVERWHELMINGLYNCH supported the first SOFA
So you admit Iraq's Parliament had to approve the first Bush's weak three year surrender SOFA IN December 2008.
You lose your argument because they did not have the votes for new SOFA in 2011.
You know, sometimes I wonder why I choose to do battle with the incredibly stupid.Spare_change, post: 16645649Further, three days prior to Obama's announcement, Khalaki offered a 1 year extension of the then current SOFA so they could continue to negotiate. Obama turned down the extension, and pulled the troops out, creating a vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS.
You are full of shit. Iraq's Parliament in no way would accept any extended stay if US troops in Iraq. Muqtada al Sadr was Maliki's power base in Parliament.
Sadr pledged war against US troops had they remained after Bysh's deadline. Bush told Iraqis three years earlier they were ready to defend themselves.
Maliki could not cut a deal and most experts agree Maluku was corrupt and didn't want US oversight.
You can end your fake news now and for good.
Obama is gone. I hear Trump was awol the night our Special ops got killed on Trump's first publicity stunt raid.
Maliki offered Obama a six month "extension" because they, nor the Parliament, wanted the US troops to leave.
. The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament.
Iraqi party leaders repeatedly reviewed the SOFA terms but by October 2011 were at an impasse. All accepted a U.S. troop presence—with the exception of the Sadrist faction, headed by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which held some 40 of Iraq’s 325 parliamentary seats. But on immunities only the Kurdish parties, with some 60 seats, would offer support. Neither Mr. Maliki, with some 120 seats, nor former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the leader of the largely Sunni Arab Iraqiya party with 80 more, would definitively provide support. With time running out, given long-standing U.S. policy that troops stationed overseas must have legal immunity, negotiations ended and the troop withdrawal was completed.
OBABBLE read my post...major air response underway...somewhere near four bombs dropped on eastern portion of city....goats seen fleeing westward...naked muzzies in pursuit.
But,hey ... what do i know? I was just there.
Do they have immunity now? If it doesn't matter now...why did it matter when the Magic Neeeeeegro folded like a cheap suit?Spare_change, post: 16649849But,hey ... what do i know? I was just there.
Are you General David Petraeus. he was there. He has confirmed the truth I have been telling you. I believe him, not some rightwing lying fantasy maker.
Would Iraq's Parliament approve immunity for US troops staying after Bush's surrender agreement deadline came to pass.
No one says they would have. No one.
Do they have immunity now? If it doesn't matter now...why did it matter when the Magic Neeeeeegro folded like a cheap suit?
Mohamed Mostafa.
Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has proposed a roadmap for the period following the anticipated liberation of Mosul from Islamic State, setting the withdrawal of foreign troops as a condition.
In a statement by his office on Monday, the firebrand cleric set out a 29-point roadmap for political and social co-existence in Iraq following the recapture of Iraq’s second largest city from the extremist group. Among those points was a demand for the Iraqi government to urge “occupier troops, even the so-called friendly ones, from Iraqi territories so as to preserve the state’ prestige and sovereignty,” as he put it.
Obama decided to hand over the real estate to his brothers in Jihad, his flaccid attempt to get the Iraqi Parliament agreement was just a cheap excuse
"But on immunities only the Kurdish parties, with some 60 seats, would offer support. Neither Mr. Maliki, with some 120 seats, nor former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the leader of the largely Sunni Arab Iraqiya party with 80 more, would definitively provide support. "
Spare_change, post: 16649849Maliki offered Obama a six month "extension" because they, nor the Parliament, wanted the US troops to leave.
. The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament.
Iraqi party leaders repeatedly reviewed the SOFA terms but by October 2011 were at an impasse. All accepted a U.S. troop presence—with the exception of the Sadrist faction, headed by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which held some 40 of Iraq’s 325 parliamentary seats. But on immunities only the Kurdish parties, with some 60 seats, would offer support. Neither Mr. Maliki, with some 120 seats, nor former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the leader of the largely Sunni Arab Iraqiya party with 80 more, would definitively provide support. With time running out, given long-standing U.S. policy that troops stationed overseas must have legal immunity, negotiations ended and the troop withdrawal was completed.
Behind the U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq
Give me a reason to believe a liar who says he was there but says Iraq's Parliament wanted US troops to stay with immunity after 2011 or should I believe James F. Jeffrey, the Philip Solondz Distinguished Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute who served as former U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2010-2012 who says Iraq's Parliment would have nothing to do with granting troops immunity as they did in 2008.
How come Obabble got no credit for negotiating your myth of immunity you insufferable twit?deltex1, post: 16650464.Do they have immunity now? If it doesn't matter now...why did it matter when the Magic Neeeeeegro folded like a cheap suit?
Yes they do have immunity. But once Mosul is liberated Sadr is calling for all US troops to get out.
Sadr caused Bush to surrender in 2008 by forcing all troops out within three years. He will do the same to spineless trump.
Sadr proposes post-Mosul roadmap, conditions U.S. troops pullout
by
.
Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has proposed a roadmap for the period following the anticipated liberation of Mosul from Islamic State, setting the withdrawal of foreign troops as a condition.
In a statement by his office on Monday, the firebrand cleric set out a 29-point roadmap for political and social co-existence in Iraq following the recapture of Iraq’s second largest city from the extremist group. Among those points was a demand for the Iraqi government to urge “occupier troops, even the so-called friendly ones, from Iraqi territories so as to preserve the state’ prestige and sovereignty,” as he put it.
Sadr proposes post-Mosul roadmap, conditions U.S. troops pullout
Since you were a silo sitter you didn't have to worry about immunity on foreign soil. That's why you are a know nothing on the subject.
Of course troops sent in since 2014 have immunity you moron.
Why did Bush surrender with a three year agreement after lying us into the Iraq quagmire as Trump told you.
Obama got a ten year SOFA in Afghanistan so now asshole Trump won't have to worry about it while fighting terrorism there. That's what Bush could not do in Iraq.
So go run away and hide. Your are still stupid as you always have been.
Now you have a stupid president that stupids can be proud of.
. reporter just back from battle says he saw three ISIS tanks out in the open. No airstrikes by the Unprecedented Coalition. Unprecedented stupidity on the part of the administration.
Kurdish fighter ISIS has entered Syrian city of Kobani - CNN.com
That article was written before the first 300 advisors were sent to Iraq. By the time they were sent an immunity agreement was reached which gave diplomatic immunity in a formal Diplomatic Note.
Either way it shows what could have been done....diplomatically or by threat of death...neither of which was doable by Obabble.That article was written before the first 300 advisors were sent to Iraq. By the time they were sent an immunity agreement was reached which gave diplomatic immunity in a formal Diplomatic Note.
