How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should've Left There?

[EconChick]

Obama had different positions at different times. Just like he's done with ISIS in the past few weeks. Haven't you been watching tht?

I got that; I'm quoting his last position before SOFA was declared a failure. I don't believe he will get any backing from congress because he's shown himself to be an unwilling leader - and that's why his "broad coalition" will fail to win members; for lack of trust. Unlike Bush II which fielded troops from 38 countries, he can only claim the Kurds, a reconstituted Iraqi contingent, and some folks from the Free Syrian Army.

Nothing's going to happen and it's better that it doesn't. Leave it for a real leader in 2017. The American people don't trust him to fulfill a military mission and that's reflected by congress .

Holy shit.... a post I almost agree with. I agree that no matter what O does, it will only embolden ISIS because they don't fear him. And I agree we have to wait for the real leader in 2017.

The only problem is we can't just do nothing. Just since June they've tripled their recruits. Our weakness only emboldens them. Doing nothing at all is even worse then O doing little.

Trouble is he can do worse than nothing. He can get Americans killed by doing too little. He can get some American military's heads lopped off through bad policy in not following his military advisors.

We really can't conduct a proper air attack on ISIS unless and until thye become concentrated for such attack, and even then that will take Americans to provide accurate intel which as of now can only be provided by Special Forces units.

The Kurds won't leave their own territory I defended to go into Syria .

We can trust the Kurds but can we trust our people in the field with Iraqi or FSA troops with the possibilities of green on blue attacks?

Like it or not - and I suspect Obama prefers it to not get off the ground - Obama hopes nothing will materialize from his call to action.

We can't even use our USAF air base in Incirlik, Turkey because the Turks disallow it. We'll need to build an air base in Kurdistan - aka north east Iraq.

Great post, American Horse. Finally a poster that knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing you're military?

I thought you were another poster that goes by the name Mustang on this Board. He's dumb as dirt...and a naïve leftie.

I just realized you aren't Mustang on this Board.

Is that correct, LOL? Just want to be clear on who I'm talking to.

I use "Mustang" as a knick-name; that being the cause of your confusion. I'm ex military, but only a Vietnam era Cpl. USMC.

Roger, got it. Just know there's a Mustang on here that uses a horse as an avatar.

Now that I know you're not him.....thanks, we can proceed.

Your last post is almost exactly how I look at the situation, which is why Obama will not succeed. And I agree he's going to get people killed.


But doing nothing is allowing them to grow exponentially. I've known moderate female Muslims here in the states that have slipped and told me in the past they admired UBL. The reasons why are what concern me about ISIS.

My concern is that many of these people will go with the winner, even if they don't agree with them. They logically assess who will cut them off at the knees or abandon them......Obama....and then say the other side is the lesser of the evils. A lot of people find these nuts attractive for various reasons.

 

[EconChick]

9807465

When I was briefing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a member of the military, I was working on the first of my two master's at the time just for fun.

Was your other masters in BS? When you briefed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did you tell him that Iraq's legislature did not have to approve the Bush/Malkik SOFA of 2008? Did you tell him it would be fine to pull all troops out of cities by June 2009 and all out by 2011 years end? Did you tell him that Iraq was relatively stable by the end of 2008?

You're so fucking stupid. What fucking planet do you come from retard?????????????

 

[EconChick]

9807465

When I was briefing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a member of the military, I was working on the first of my two master's at the time just for fun.

Was your other masters in BS? When you briefed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did you tell him that Iraq's legislature did not have to approve the Bush/Malkik SOFA of 2008? Did you tell him it would be fine to pull all troops out of cities by June 2009 and all out by 2011 years end? Did you tell him that Iraq was relatively stable by the end of 2008?

Yes to everything. Now go play with yourself, shit for brains.








Now watch you repeat my words because you're too FUCKING stupid to understand sarcasm when you see it.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh, and American Horse....I meant you had a great grasp of details and I somewhat agree with you except for the key point that we can't afford to do nothing.....

Iraq is the only country in the entire region that has asked for our help in dealing with ISIS. The Kurds and Syria appear to be the only ones directly engaged in fighting them.

OP- $1000

This hands off approach has convinced the area that fundie terrorists suq and Iraq that to pander to one religion is a bad idea. No drama Obama scores again, hater dupe ugly American jingoist/isolationist dumbells...

Then why is Obama re engaging in Iraq ?

 

[American Horse]

Obama wants in the worse way to stand down from this. He intended to be the president who ended wars, not one more president who wages wars; particularly new wars in the land of Islam.

He needs a way out of this. In his Syrian escapade he used the canard of lack of congressional support.

Now he says he only wants the congress to sign on - in the words if his press sec. Josh Earnest. So what he's saying is he wants to diffuse the blame, but congress knows that from that not very nuanced statement by Earnest, so congress will not take that bait, IMO.

This is all just one more political game for our dysfunctional president...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

With all your brains and experience, why couldn't you figure out that Michael Gordon was lying. To you believe everything Judith Miller's co-writer writes? You shouldn't if you were smart.

9495796

Here ya go. From Michael Gordon of the NY Times in fact. You know.....that bastion of conservatism?
Reporting by The New York Times' Michael Gordon paints a more complicated picture of U.S. incompetence and disengagement. Most notably, the Obama administration's insistence that any Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by Iraq's parliament set the stage for the inevitable failure of any agreement.

Simply put, while a number of Iraqi political leaders may have privately wished for continued American involvement to serve as a buffer and broker between both domestic rivals and neighboring regimes, far fewer were willing to support this position in a public, contentious debate. No one wants to be regarded as an American stooge in the prideful arena of Iraqi politics. Backing parliamentarians into a corner by demanding public ratification doomed a new SOFA to failure.

Don't you read sources you cite for accuracy. Obama did not insist that it be ratified by Iraq's Parliament. Iraq's Chief Justice and the Iraqis themselves did.

 

[deltex1]

The US invasion and occupation to find the WMD that were supposedly hidden from UN inspectors in March 2003 was over in 2008 when Bush announced the Iraqis were ready to defend themselves and no WMD were ever found. So that means that zero US troops should have been left in Iraq after the deadline that Bush and Maliki agreed to came to pass. What is going on now is a new war against the IS terrorists.


They were found, Foo...but that is not the only, nor the prime reason,we went to war there. ISIS would not be there had not lib fools put in the weak dick Obabble.


And No US troops will be needed for direct combat in Iraq so your question is as wrong and stupid as the statement you made a couple months ago.

The job is not only Iraq...it is Syria and beyond...a task your boy is simply not equipped to accomplish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the neo-cons had power, the heavy units never would have left.

Kissinger's article Time explains why the neo-cons are bit players now.

 

[EconChick]

Oh, and American Horse....I meant you had a great grasp of details and I somewhat agree with you except for the key point that we can't afford to do nothing.....

Iraq is the only country in the entire region that has asked for our help in dealing with ISIS. The Kurds and Syria appear to be the only ones directly engaged in fighting them.

OP- $1000

This hands off approach has convinced the area that fundie terrorists suq and Iraq that to pander to one religion is a bad idea. No drama Obama scores again, hater dupe ugly American jingoist/isolationist dumbells...

Then why is Obama re engaging in Iraq ?

Hey Dill, that's because no one wants to follow such a weak leader as Zobama. Oops that was a typo but good name for him.

IOW, they feel damned if they do and damned if they don't. And they KNOW Obama will not succeed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9807659

Obama wants in the worse way to stand down from this. He intended to be the president who ended wars, not one more president who wages wars; particularly new wars in the land of Islam.

Didn't you get the RW Obama hater talking points that this is not a new war. This is the 'old war' to find WMD that didn't exist that Bush started and won. Its not a new war according to the haters. Will you stick to your point here that this is a 'new war'? Since it is a 'new war' it means EconChick's entire propaganda effort is tossed into the dumpster.''

Bush said the MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED in May 2003 so how can this be the same war.

 

[EconChick]

With all your brains and experience, why couldn't you figure out that Michael Gordon was lying. To you believe everything Judith Miller's co-writer writes? You shouldn't if you were smart.

9495796

Here ya go. From Michael Gordon of the NY Times in fact. You know.....that bastion of conservatism?
Reporting by The New York Times' Michael Gordon paints a more complicated picture of U.S. incompetence and disengagement. Most notably, the Obama administration's insistence that any Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by Iraq's parliament set the stage for the inevitable failure of any agreement.

Simply put, while a number of Iraqi political leaders may have privately wished for continued American involvement to serve as a buffer and broker between both domestic rivals and neighboring regimes, far fewer were willing to support this position in a public, contentious debate. No one wants to be regarded as an American stooge in the prideful arena of Iraqi politics. Backing parliamentarians into a corner by demanding public ratification doomed a new SOFA to failure.

Don't you read sources you cite for accuracy. Obama did not insist that it be ratified by Iraq's Parliament. Iraq's Chief Justice and the Iraqis themselves did.

Jesus Christ you fucking idiot. I have been telling you in 5 threads for two months there are two different SOFAs. How many fucking times you have to be told ????????

It's like telling you I wore a red dress to a party for 2 months and you purposely distorting the truth by telling everyone I said it was blue.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK YOURSELFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

You're just a fucking Tokyo Rose here to obfuscate. Go play with yourself.

The Dem Party has sent you do repost lie after lie after lie after lie. I will stay on your ass till the election mother fucker.

 

[EconChick]

If the neo-cons had power, the heavy units never would have left.

Kissinger's article Time explains why the neo-cons are bit players now.

Patently false idiot. No one wanted to keep 140,000 troops there IDIOT. The generals suggested about 30K so as to not squander the peace. (Even 10k could have helped.)

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace.

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

One more time, Fakey, not squander the peace like Obama has done.

 

[EconChick]

Obama wants in the worse way to stand down from this. He intended to be the president who ended wars, not one more president who wages wars; particularly new wars in the land of Islam.

He needs a way out of this. In his Syrian escapade he used the canard of lack of congressional support.

Now he says he only wants the congress to sign on - in the words if his press sec. Josh Earnest. So what he's saying is he wants to diffuse the blame, but congress knows that from that not very nuanced statement by Earnest, so congress will not take that bait, IMO.

This is all just one more political game for our dysfunctional president...

It's definitely a political game for this dysfunctional president. Totally agree with that. But he won't stand down.

 

[dilloduck]

9807659

Obama wants in the worse way to stand down from this. He intended to be the president who ended wars, not one more president who wages wars; particularly new wars in the land of Islam.

Didn't you get the RW Obama hater talking points that this is not a new war. This is the 'old war' to find WMD that didn't exist that Bush started and won. Its not a new war according to the haters. Will you stick to your point here that this is a 'new war'? Since it is a 'new war' it means EconChick's entire propaganda effort is tossed into the dumpster.''

Bush said the MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED in May 2003 so how can this be the same war.

Putin already helped Assad lose his WMDs. This is merely a continuation of the same Neocon plan that Bush used in Iraq. Obama thinks he's going to use going after ISIS as a cover. No one is buying it because he lies to much.

 

[francoHFW]

Oh, and American Horse....I meant you had a great grasp of details and I somewhat agree with you except for the key point that we can't afford to do nothing.....

Iraq is the only country in the entire region that has asked for our help in dealing with ISIS. The Kurds and Syria appear to be the only ones directly engaged in fighting them.

OP- $1000

This hands off approach has convinced the area that fundie terrorists suq and Iraq that to pander to one religion is a bad idea. No drama Obama scores again, hater dupe ugly American jingoist/isolationist dumbells...

Then why is Obama re engaging in Iraq ?

Because they begged us, we left them no air force, and we like being heroes, like before chickenhawk greedy Pubs took over...

 

[dilloduck]

Oh, and American Horse....I meant you had a great grasp of details and I somewhat agree with you except for the key point that we can't afford to do nothing.....

Iraq is the only country in the entire region that has asked for our help in dealing with ISIS. The Kurds and Syria appear to be the only ones directly engaged in fighting them.

OP- $1000

This hands off approach has convinced the area that fundie terrorists suq and Iraq that to pander to one religion is a bad idea. No drama Obama scores again, hater dupe ugly American jingoist/isolationist dumbells...

Then why is Obama re engaging in Iraq ?

Because they begged us, we left them no air force, and we like being heroes, like before chickenhawk greedy Pubs took over...

Yes---Obama is indeed a hero for disengaging and then re engaging. Btw--which moderate rebel group is it that he plans to arm and train ? Hopefully not the same one who just called a truce with ISIS.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9807440

I agree that no matter what O does, it will only embolden ISIS because they don't fear him. And I agree we have to wait for the real leader in 2017.

Just today:

U.S. officials said the Iraqi forces requested assistance when they came under fire from militants. <> Central Command said the Sinjar strike destroyed six vehicles belonging to Islamic State militants.

First U.S. airstrikes in expanded Iraq fight

I'll take six vehicles wiped out today... At least a dozen of the bastards are dead. You haters can wait until 2017 giving aid and comfort to the enemy with all your lies and propaganda, but it might be over by then, but then you wouldn't have a clue on what to do if its not. Your main enemy is Obama not the terrorists anyway.

Anyone who proposes that 'we wait' to kill the terrorists is giving comfort to the terrorists.

 

[EconChick]

9807659

Obama wants in the worse way to stand down from this. He intended to be the president who ended wars, not one more president who wages wars; particularly new wars in the land of Islam.

Didn't you get the RW Obama hater talking points that this is not a new war. This is the 'old war' to find WMD that didn't exist that Bush started and won. Its not a new war according to the haters. Will you stick to your point here that this is a 'new war'? Since it is a 'new war' it means EconChick's entire propaganda effort is tossed into the dumpster.''

Bush said the MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED in May 2003 so how can this be the same war.

This is like watching you twist four years worth of data during WWII to say America lost that war.

You're pathetic. Tokyo Rose.

Chem WMD is sitting in Syria as we speak for starters dumb ass.

 

[francoHFW]

Oh, and American Horse....I meant you had a great grasp of details and I somewhat agree with you except for the key point that we can't afford to do nothing.....

Iraq is the only country in the entire region that has asked for our help in dealing with ISIS. The Kurds and Syria appear to be the only ones directly engaged in fighting them.

OP- $1000

This hands off approach has convinced the area that fundie terrorists suq and Iraq that to pander to one religion is a bad idea. No drama Obama scores again, hater dupe ugly American jingoist/isolationist dumbells...

Then why is Obama re engaging in Iraq ?

Because they begged us, we left them no air force, and we like being heroes, like before chickenhawk greedy Pubs took over...

Yes---Obama is indeed a hero for disengaging and then re engaging. Btw--which moderate rebel group is it that he plans to arm and train ? Hopefully not the same one who just called a truce with ISIS.

 

[EconChick]

9807440

I agree that no matter what O does, it will only embolden ISIS because they don't fear him. And I agree we have to wait for the real leader in 2017.

Just today:

U.S. officials said the Iraqi forces requested assistance when they came under fire from militants. <> Central Command said the Sinjar strike destroyed six vehicles belonging to Islamic State militants.

First U.S. airstrikes in expanded Iraq fight

I'll take six vehicles wiped out today... At least a dozen of the bastards are dead. You haters can wait until 2017 giving aid and comfort to the enemy with all your lies and propaganda, but it might be over by then, but then you wouldn't have a clue on what to do if its not. Your main enemy is Obama not the terrorists anyway.

Anyone who proposes that 'we wait' to kill the terrorists is giving comfort to the terrorists.

Wow, I FINALLY agreed with you on something.

But darlin, if you had the first clue, you'd know that's like making the very first down in the first play of the first quarter of the first game in the playoffs.