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

[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.

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.

Dillo, they're not all gone from Syria. Come on bud, you know not to trust Putin and Assad.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama didn't disengage- that was the great idiot Booosh's pal/a-hole Maliki. Now gone thanks to his stupidity and Obama's cool....now Iraq may unite and all arabs may be sick of fundies...

 

[Plasmaball]

Zero was the amount we should have ever put there.

troops do what they are told. this isnt part of the conversation.

Plenty of us volunteered to keep going back to get the job done. I wasn't in the military at that time.

And we handed over a relatively stable situation to Obama.

in the end you are told what to do. Volunteer or not is irrelevant.
Yeah you just want to blame Obama on this. Thats the basic concept and nothing more.

LOL, I can be pretty rogue.

Did it ever occur to you you just want to protect Obama, and nothing more?

I started out as a flaming liberal when I was in college and after joining the military and traveling the world I changed my outlook. You have probably always been a liberal.

i already blame Obama for taking a hands off approach on iraq, but thats only a third of the story on Iraq with the three leaders and why Iraq failed.

I have no interest in protecting Obama. I have zero interest in wanting to be in Iraq. ISIL is playing you all and you dont even see it.

Ok, I think I understand you better. Are you pretty much taking the libertarian view? If so, I have respect for the opinions of libertarians on this topic. The ones I have no respect for are far left big government statists.

I can at least have a discussion with Libertarians even though we don't see eye to eye. Big govt types, on the other hand are just ******* insane.

Pls confirm which one you are, LOL.

I haven't totally made up my mind yet, but i lean towards letting this all play out.
I'm not against a broad collection of nations going against them, but that's what they want.
Remember isil is no different from Saddam in the ways of being evil towards other people.

 

[Plasmaball]

Obama didn't disengage- that was the great idiot Booosh' pal/a-hole Maliki. Now gone thanks to his stupidity and Obama's cool....now Iraq may unite and all arabs may be sick of fundies...

No this is wrong. Obama pulled out government aids that where guiding the Iraqi government. Obama wanted out and nothing less.

 

[American Horse]

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 ?

Dillo, the Kurds asked for heavy and high tech equipment and aircraft, as well as intel.

Obama wants all that to be channeled through Baghdad so as to keep up the pretense of a united Iraq, IOW the status-quo-ante.. But the Kurds would take support any way they can get it. They did not ask for American troops (aka "boots on the ground") however.

But in the greater conflict, Kurdistan is looking after Kurdistan, not the whole of Iraq, that is the purview of Iraq, in particular now that they have a new government.

But al Maliki destroyed the effectiveness of the Iraqi army by removing the competent Sunni officer corps and putting in their place crony Shia officers. That's why the Iraqi army in northern Iraq dissolved when ISIS came across the border from Syria in spite of all their training by the US military. Even good troops cannot perform without competent leadership.

Had we finalized a Status Of Forces Agreement for a sufficient force to protect our investment - as we did with 50,000 in Japan, 50,000 in S. Korea, 50,000 in Germany - ISIS would never have crossed the Syrian/Iraqi border.

Obama says a SOFA wasn't signed because the Iraqi government would not indemnify American troops against any criminal actions they might commit on Iraqi territory, but we didn't get that kind of indemnification from Japan, Korea, and Germany, and besides that indemnification only applies to acts committed while off duty. (I recall several instances of US Marines standing trial in Japan for rape of Japanese women, an example of that type of violation we wanted to preemptively indemnify with Iraq)

But if we stuck with that, than a alternative solution would be a soldier's or Marine's tour of duty could've been limited to 6 months and home again, and they could've been required to spend their liberty time on-base, perhaps with a 20 day leave back home to the states in the middle of the 6-month tour.

If Obama had wanted it he could've had a SOFA, with an air base and a operating base, but he announced before the election that he would bring all the troops home from Iraq and that was his overriding obsession to complete.

Why is Obama engaging in Iraq. Because there is a huge billion dollar embassy in Baghdad, and he in the worse way doesn't want another Benghazi or a scene like we witnessed in Saigon and the evacuation of the embassy there in 1975.

He'll string things out and let the Republican's take the blame It's Bush's fault.

 

[EconChick]

Plenty of us volunteered to keep going back to get the job done. I wasn't in the military at that time.

And we handed over a relatively stable situation to Obama.

in the end you are told what to do. Volunteer or not is irrelevant.
Yeah you just want to blame Obama on this. Thats the basic concept and nothing more.

LOL, I can be pretty rogue.

Did it ever occur to you you just want to protect Obama, and nothing more?

I started out as a flaming liberal when I was in college and after joining the military and traveling the world I changed my outlook. You have probably always been a liberal.

i already blame Obama for taking a hands off approach on iraq, but thats only a third of the story on Iraq with the three leaders and why Iraq failed.

I have no interest in protecting Obama. I have zero interest in wanting to be in Iraq. ISIL is playing you all and you dont even see it.

Ok, I think I understand you better. Are you pretty much taking the libertarian view? If so, I have respect for the opinions of libertarians on this topic. The ones I have no respect for are far left big government statists.

I can at least have a discussion with Libertarians even though we don't see eye to eye. Big govt types, on the other hand are just ******* insane.

Pls confirm which one you are, LOL.

I haven't totally made up my mind yet, but i lean towards letting this all play out.
I'm not against a broad collection of nations going against them, but that's what they want.
Remember isil is no different from Saddam in the ways of being evil towards other people.

Both equally evil, yes, but ISIS is serious about spreading this throughout the world. Saddam was satisfied at just the Middle East.

 

[EconChick]

Obama didn't disengage- that was the great idiot Booosh' pal/a-hole Maliki. Now gone thanks to his stupidity and Obama's cool....now Iraq may unite and all arabs may be sick of fundies...

No this is wrong. Obama pulled out government aids that where guiding the Iraqi government. Obama wanted out and nothing less.

Exactly, Plasma.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

9807746

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

The only lie here is yours when you claim there were two SOFA's in Iraq one in 2008 and one in 2011. Its a lie because there was no SOFA in 2011. If there was you could easily produce a copy of it on line and prove me wrong. But you can't. Because there is none. Why you keep arguing a obviously false point is beyond me. It must be that you don't care about your credibility because you think a foul mouth trumps facts. Here's a clue for you. It doesn't.

 

[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 ?

Dillo, the Kurds asked for heavy and high tech equipment and aircraft, as well as intel.

Obama wants all that to be channeled through Baghdad so as to keep up the pretense of a united Iraq, IOW the status-quo-ante.. But the Kurds would take support any way they can get it. They did not ask for American troops (aka "boots on the ground") however.

But in the greater conflict, Kurdistan is looking after Kurdistan, not the whole of Iraq, that is the purview of Iraq, in particular now that they have a new government.

But al Maliki destroyed the effectiveness of the Iraqi army by removing the competent Sunni officer corps and putting in their place crony Shia officers. That's why the Iraqi army in northern Iraq dissolved when ISIS came across the border from Syria in spite of all their training by the US military. Even good troops cannot perform without competent leadership.

Had we finalized a Status Of Forces Agreement for a sufficient force to protect our investment - as we did with 50,000 in Japan, 50,000 in S. Korea, 50,000 in Germany - ISIS would never have crossed the Syrian/Iraqi border.

Obama says a SOFA wasn't signed because the Iraqi government would not indemnify American troops against any criminal actions they might commit on Iraqi territory, but we didn't get that kind of indemnification from Japan, Korea, and Germany, and besides that indemnification only applies to acts committed while off duty. (I recall several instances of US Marines standing trial in Japan for rape of Japanese women, an example of that type of violation we wanted to preemptively indemnify with Iraq)

But if we stuck with that, than a alternative solution would be a soldier's or Marine's tour of duty could've been limited to 6 months and home again, and they could've been required to spend their liberty time on-base, perhaps with a 20 day leave back home to the states in the middle of the 6-month tour.

If Obama had wanted it he could've had a SOFA, with an air base and a operating base, but he announced before the election that he would bring all the troops home from Iraq and that was his overriding obsession to complete.

Why is Obama engaging in Iraq. Because there is a huge billion dollar embassy in Baghdad, and he in the worse way doesn't want another Benghazi or a scene like we witnessed in Saigon and the evacuation of the embassy there.

Exactly.

I'm gonna keep bumping this post. Well said.

 

[Plasmaball]

in the end you are told what to do. Volunteer or not is irrelevant.
Yeah you just want to blame Obama on this. Thats the basic concept and nothing more.

LOL, I can be pretty rogue.

Did it ever occur to you you just want to protect Obama, and nothing more?

I started out as a flaming liberal when I was in college and after joining the military and traveling the world I changed my outlook. You have probably always been a liberal.

i already blame Obama for taking a hands off approach on iraq, but thats only a third of the story on Iraq with the three leaders and why Iraq failed.

I have no interest in protecting Obama. I have zero interest in wanting to be in Iraq. ISIL is playing you all and you dont even see it.

Ok, I think I understand you better. Are you pretty much taking the libertarian view? If so, I have respect for the opinions of libertarians on this topic. The ones I have no respect for are far left big government statists.

I can at least have a discussion with Libertarians even though we don't see eye to eye. Big govt types, on the other hand are just ******* insane.

Pls confirm which one you are, LOL.

I haven't totally made up my mind yet, but i lean towards letting this all play out.
I'm not against a broad collection of nations going against them, but that's what they want.
Remember isil is no different from Saddam in the ways of being evil towards other people.

Both equally evil, yes, but ISIS is serious about spreading this throughout the world. Saddam was satisfied at just the Middle East.

Meh...they wouldn't get beyond the middle east.

 

[EconChick]

9807746

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

The only lie here is yours when you claim there were two SOFA's in Iraq one in 2008 and one in 2011. Its a lie because there was no SOFA in 2011. If there was you could easily produce a copy of it on line and prove me wrong. But you can't. Because there is none. Why you keep arguing a obviously false point is beyond me. It must be that you don't care about your credibility because you think a foul mouth trumps facts. Here's a clue for you. It doesn't.

Let me sloww,wwwwwwwwwwww way down for you, Not Fooled.

I've told you this a million times.

They were rolling negotiations. There were verbal agreements that kept changing. In 2008, that written document captured what could be negotiated up to that point in time. After it was signed, negotiations resumed and kept changing all the time.

The 2008 SOFA was not meant to be final. You agree with that, right?????

I'm calling what the final SOFA was supposed to be the 2011 SOFA....it was the verbal agreements but were never finalized and never signed.

 

[EconChick]

LOL, I can be pretty rogue.

Did it ever occur to you you just want to protect Obama, and nothing more?

I started out as a flaming liberal when I was in college and after joining the military and traveling the world I changed my outlook. You have probably always been a liberal.

i already blame Obama for taking a hands off approach on iraq, but thats only a third of the story on Iraq with the three leaders and why Iraq failed.

I have no interest in protecting Obama. I have zero interest in wanting to be in Iraq. ISIL is playing you all and you dont even see it.

Ok, I think I understand you better. Are you pretty much taking the libertarian view? If so, I have respect for the opinions of libertarians on this topic. The ones I have no respect for are far left big government statists.

I can at least have a discussion with Libertarians even though we don't see eye to eye. Big govt types, on the other hand are just ******* insane.

Pls confirm which one you are, LOL.

I haven't totally made up my mind yet, but i lean towards letting this all play out.
I'm not against a broad collection of nations going against them, but that's what they want.
Remember isil is no different from Saddam in the ways of being evil towards other people.

Both equally evil, yes, but ISIS is serious about spreading this throughout the world. Saddam was satisfied at just the Middle East.

Meh...they wouldn't get beyond the middle east.

Completely disagree. Even if you were right, you can't plan for best case. Our open southern border ups the probability here too much but in England and France an attack is actually likely IMO.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama didn't disengage- that was the great idiot Booosh' pal/a-hole Maliki. Now gone thanks to his stupidity and Obama's cool....now Iraq may unite and all arabs may be sick of fundies...

No this is wrong. Obama pulled out government aids that where guiding the Iraqi government. Obama wanted out and nothing less.

Exactly, Plasma.

"Pulled out gov't aids"? WTF? Obama the evil lol...

 

[whutTHEYsay]

9807875

Obama pulled out government aids that where guiding the Iraqi government. Obama wanted out and nothing less.

Yes he pulled them just before the Bush deadline said they had to go. They had to go unless the Iraqis and their parliament decided they would grant immunity just like they did up until 2012. They decided not to grant immunity and no one thought it would pass.

Anyway General Petraeus does not agree with your assessment. I will take his word over yours and EconChick who didn't even know that Iraq's Parliament approved the 2008 SOFA.

 

[Plasmaball]

i already blame Obama for taking a hands off approach on iraq, but thats only a third of the story on Iraq with the three leaders and why Iraq failed.

I have no interest in protecting Obama. I have zero interest in wanting to be in Iraq. ISIL is playing you all and you dont even see it.

Ok, I think I understand you better. Are you pretty much taking the libertarian view? If so, I have respect for the opinions of libertarians on this topic. The ones I have no respect for are far left big government statists.

I can at least have a discussion with Libertarians even though we don't see eye to eye. Big govt types, on the other hand are just ******* insane.

Pls confirm which one you are, LOL.

I haven't totally made up my mind yet, but i lean towards letting this all play out.
I'm not against a broad collection of nations going against them, but that's what they want.
Remember isil is no different from Saddam in the ways of being evil towards other people.

Both equally evil, yes, but ISIS is serious about spreading this throughout the world. Saddam was satisfied at just the Middle East.

Meh...they wouldn't get beyond the middle east.

Completely disagree. Even if you were right, you can't plan for best case. Our open southern border ups the probability here too much but in England and France an attack is actually likely IMO.

All you can do is plan, but isil is made up of different groups that would break up long before anything major like that happened.

You never answered my original question.

 

[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 ?

.

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 ?

Dillo, the Kurds asked for heavy and high tech equipment and aircraft, as well as intel.

Obama wants all that to be channeled through Baghdad so as to keep up the pretense of a united Iraq, IOW the status-quo-ante.. But the Kurds would take support any way they can get it. They did not ask for American troops (aka "boots on the ground") however.

But in the greater conflict, Kurdistan is looking after Kurdistan, not the whole of Iraq, that is the purview of Iraq, in particular now that they have a new government.

But al Maliki destroyed the effectiveness of the Iraqi army by removing the competent Sunni officer corps and putting in their place crony Shia officers. That's why the Iraqi army in northern Iraq dissolved when ISIS came across the border from Syria in spite of all their training by the US military. Even good troops cannot perform without competent leadership.

Had we finalized a Status Of Forces Agreement for a sufficient force to protect our investment - as we did with 50,000 in Japan, 50,000 in S. Korea, 50,000 in Germany - ISIS would never have crossed the Syrian/Iraqi border.

Obama says a SOFA wasn't signed because the Iraqi government would not indemnify American troops against any criminal actions they might commit on Iraqi territory, but we didn't get that kind of indemnification from Japan, Korea, and Germany, and besides that indemnification only applies to acts committed while off duty. (I recall several instances of US Marines standing trial in Japan for rape of Japanese women, an example of that type of violation we wanted to preemptively indemnify with Iraq)

But if we stuck with that, than a alternative solution would be a soldier's or Marine's tour of duty could've been limited to 6 months and home again, and they could've been required to spend their liberty time on-base, perhaps with a 20 day leave back home to the states in the middle of the 6-month tour.

If Obama had wanted it he could've had a SOFA, with an air base and a operating base, but he announced before the election that he would bring all the troops home from Iraq and that was his overriding obsession to complete.

Why is Obama engaging in Iraq. Because there is a huge billion dollar embassy in Baghdad, and he in the worse way doesn't want another Benghazi or a scene like we witnessed in Saigon and the evacuation of the embassy there in 1975.

He'll string things out and let the Republican's take the blame It's Bush's fault.

BUMP

BUMP

 

[Plasmaball]

9807875

Obama pulled out government aids that where guiding the Iraqi government. Obama wanted out and nothing less.

Yes he pulled them just before the Bush deadline said they had to go. They had to go unless the Iraqis and their parliament decided they would grant immunity just like they did up until 2012. They decided not to grant immunity and no one thought it would pass.

Anyway General Petraeus does not agree with your assessment. I will take his word over yours and EconChick who didn't even know that Iraq's Parliament approved the 2008 SOFA.

Um it's well known Obama wanted out and didn't care about dealing with malaki.
Yes Iraq wasn't going to grant that, but there is more to that story that you left out.

 

[American Horse]

9807875

Obama pulled out government aids that where guiding the Iraqi government. Obama wanted out and nothing less.

Yes he pulled them just before the Bush deadline said they had to go. They had to go unless the Iraqis and their parliament decided they would grant immunity just like they did up until 2012. They decided not to grant immunity and no one thought it would pass.

Anyway General Petraeus does not agree with your assessment. I will take his word over yours and EconChick who didn't even know that Iraq's Parliament approved the 2008 SOFA.

In addition to all that, Obama specified to al Maliki that any SOFA had to be passed by the full Iraqi parliament, something never before required.

Heck, it's almost as if Obama didn't really want a SOFA . . . lol.

 

[francoHFW]

Are you talking about gov't aides? The ignorance here is about chest high...

 

[EconChick]

9807875

Obama pulled out government aids that where guiding the Iraqi government. Obama wanted out and nothing less.

Yes he pulled them just before the Bush deadline said they had to go. They had to go unless the Iraqis and their parliament decided they would grant immunity just like they did up until 2012. They decided not to grant immunity and no one thought it would pass.

Anyway General Petraeus does not agree with your assessment. I will take his word over yours and EconChick who didn't even know that Iraq's Parliament approved the 2008 SOFA.

For the umpteenth ******* time idiot I was talking about the FINAL SOFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!