Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD!

[idb]

Gawd dam you liberals are some gullible dumbasses.

If Saddam had moved WMD to another country, do you think we would've invaded again to go get them?

Of course not. You would never be told.

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's a good job that the invading forces managed to find all those WMDs and get them away from the murderous Al Qaeda-affiliated Hussein government!
You've convinced me.

Notice how the "other" country isn't named? Just "another" country?

Funny, when Bush said they had WMD's, right wingers believed him. When he said they didn't, they call him a liar. So how do they know which time he was lying?

It's a dilemma all right...they are shameless about changing their angle depending on the situation though.

 

[kiwiman127]

I don't think a single person is saying Bush didn't have a part in troops leaving Iraq. I have on these boards for years now been saying Bush ended the war, that Obama tried to keep the US there and that the Democrat voters are now part of the biggest war party... Liberals claim Obama ended the war because it ended under his watch, now these same people claim it was Bush's fault.... making the issue about why Obama failed to deliver on his promise to end the war if it ended because of Bush, and why Obama took credit for ending the war when it ended and Obama bots gave it to him.

My post #60 basically covers your correct assessment of the above post.
However, there are posters trying to pin everything on Obama, that is partisan hackery. Both Bush and Obama have some responsibility in regards to what is going on in Iraq but Maliki bears a most of the responsibility with his actions/reaction/inaction to the Sunnis within the government.

What was the combat situation when Bush agreed to the pull out?

What was the combat situation when Obama executed the pull out?

If Obama executed the pull out despite indications the conditions on the ground were antsy it should be HIS responsibility.

The US may have stayed longer but the was a huge hang up:

The war pre-Obama

Despite the goals Obama met, most of the timetable for leaving Iraq was in place before he took office.
The prevailing document, the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, was negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. That’s what set the deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
"He essentially implemented the plan that he inherited," said Chris Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, compared Obama taking credit to saying "because of Truman we were victorious in World War II, without mentioning Roosevelt."
Even when the deadline was set, news reports say, it was considered somewhat soft -- more a political symbol establishing Iraq’s sovereignty than a concrete date. The Obama administration held to that line and planned to keep several thousand troops in Iraq beyond 2011 as a "residual force."
Administration officials negotiated with Iraqis all year to amend the withdrawal plan. The breakdown: immunity for American troops in Iraqi courts. The Iraqi parliament refused to approve it, and American officials wouldn’t leave U.S. forces in place without it.
"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October news conference. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."
Ad says Obama is reason for Iraq pullout | PolitiFact

So, there we have it. It all boiled down to immunity for our troops from the Iraqi justice system. The Bush Administration, rightfully would not let our troops be subject to the Iraqi courts. Iraq was not to budge from that decision. That demand was unacceptable to Bush and Obama.
But go right ahead and let your partisanship warp historical facts.
Or, are you implying that the US accept Iraq's demand regarding US troops and waving immunity?

 

[EconChick]

Gawd dam you liberals are some gullible dumbasses.

If Saddam had moved WMD to another country, do you think we would've invaded again to go get them?

Of course not. You would never be told.

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's a good job that the invading forces managed to find all those WMDs and get them away from the murderous Al Qaeda-affiliated Hussein government!
You've convinced me.

Notice how the "other" country isn't named? Just "another" country?

Funny, when Bush said they had WMD's, right wingers believed him. When he said they didn't, they call him a liar. So how do they know which time he was lying?

That's right. THEY didn't dumbass. Iraq is the only place the lib media can correctly say WMD was not found. Can the lib media guarantee you they didn't go somewhere else?

I'll wait for the answer to that.

Crickets.....

 

[tinydancer]

With the Sunnis establishing a caliphate up north they might be resistant to working with the new Iraqi president.

No freaking guff. I just can't see ISIS getting a warm and fuzzy for whoever takes over the Iraq government.

It's amazing to witness the left wing whackos try to turn the invasion and that's what it was into some sort of political protest.

They are completely insane. It was an invasion. And by anyone's standard a lightning fast takeover of a lot of Iraq. But they are trying to portray it as a rebellion.

I guess they have to. Obama has monumentally fucked up again and they are pulling out all stops to blame everyone else for his failure in dealing with ISIS.

He can order drone strikes on wedding parties in Yemen but hell's bells he wouldn't help out last year when the Iraqis were pleading for drone strikes to contain ISIS.

An 'invasion' that was facilitated by the dis-satisfaction of the Sunnis.
If the country had been united ISIS/L would never have gained a foothold and the army would have fought them off.

The Iraq army is pitiful. They ran from their posts. It's a fact jack. ISIS overpowered them.

It is not a Sunni uprising to take more power in the Iraq government. ISIS has set up their dream of a Caliphate. Mission accomplished jihadist style.

 

[dilloduck]

What are you talking about?
Where's the equivalence?

Sheesh!

Telling a sovereign nation what they can or cannot due under threat of attack.

You said that spilling US blood in a country gave the US the right to dictate to that government.
How does this apply to Syria?

No I didn't. I merely pointed out an instance where Obama completely ignored the rights of a sovereign country and threatened them with an attack if they didn't comply.

 

[EconChick]

Once a new government in Germany was established post-war as per the treaties signed and agreed to, have they ever asked us to leave?

If they did, we would.....like we left the Philippines.

Who is THEY???? This is the liberal problem when you have a small brain. There's no they. There wasn't even any THEY with the Soviet Union. Not even with China.

There are many factions. They change their opinions. And they change their minds during different time frames. There are thousands of variables to take into account and once again you libs think in MONOLITH.

Umm, huh? That didn't make sense. Not even for you.

Thanks for data point #4000 that libs can't grasp a complex statement. Idiot.

 

[dilloduck]

My post #60 basically covers your correct assessment of the above post.
However, there are posters trying to pin everything on Obama, that is partisan hackery. Both Bush and Obama have some responsibility in regards to what is going on in Iraq but Maliki bears a most of the responsibility with his actions/reaction/inaction to the Sunnis within the government.

What was the combat situation when Bush agreed to the pull out?

What was the combat situation when Obama executed the pull out?

If Obama executed the pull out despite indications the conditions on the ground were antsy it should be HIS responsibility.

The US may have stayed longer but the was a huge hang up:

The war pre-Obama

Despite the goals Obama met, most of the timetable for leaving Iraq was in place before he took office.
The prevailing document, the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, was negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. That’s what set the deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
"He essentially implemented the plan that he inherited," said Chris Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, compared Obama taking credit to saying "because of Truman we were victorious in World War II, without mentioning Roosevelt."
Even when the deadline was set, news reports say, it was considered somewhat soft -- more a political symbol establishing Iraq’s sovereignty than a concrete date. The Obama administration held to that line and planned to keep several thousand troops in Iraq beyond 2011 as a "residual force."
Administration officials negotiated with Iraqis all year to amend the withdrawal plan. The breakdown: immunity for American troops in Iraqi courts. The Iraqi parliament refused to approve it, and American officials wouldn’t leave U.S. forces in place without it.
"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October news conference. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."
Ad says Obama is reason for Iraq pullout | PolitiFact

So, there we have it. It all boiled down to immunity for our troops from the Iraqi justice system. The Bush Administration, rightfully would not let our troops be subject to the Iraqi courts. Iraq was not to budge from that decision. That demand was unacceptable to Bush and Obama.
But go right ahead and let your partisanship warp historical facts.
Or, are you implying that the US accept Iraq's demand regarding US troops and waving immunity?

Fine----then it was Maliki who used his power to kick US troops out of Iraq. Obama didn't do shit.

 

[idb]

We got the same treatment after we liberated Europe but we still have Troops in Germany. Remember the old saying (Americans are) "overpaid, oversexed and over here". Harry Truman ordered Troops to Korea without consulting congress and by an executive order so Korea was his baby and he screwed it up badly. We turned victory to an embarasing truce in three years at a cost of 50,000 American lives and old Harry is still a democrat icon. Shows you how far the media is willing to go to protect the legacy of one of their own.

Once a new government in Germany was established post-war as per the treaties signed and agreed to, have they ever asked us to leave?

If they did, we would.....like we left the Philippines.

Who is THEY???? This is the liberal problem when you have a small brain. There's no they. There wasn't even any THEY with the Soviet Union. Not even with China.

There are many factions. They change their opinions. And they change their minds during different time frames. There are thousands of variables to take into account and once again you libs think in MONOLITH.

Then, how do you decide who to talk to on any matter?
Why would the US sign a trade treaty with a faction - let's call them...ooooh...I don't know..."The Government" - of another country when there might be another group in that country that opposes it?
Why isn't the US still shooting at Germans when there was sure to be a group that didn't want to sign the surrender?
Why is the US building a base in Australia when...?

 

[tinydancer]

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's a good job that the invading forces managed to find all those WMDs and get them away from the murderous Al Qaeda-affiliated Hussein government!
You've convinced me.

Notice how the "other" country isn't named? Just "another" country?

Funny, when Bush said they had WMD's, right wingers believed him. When he said they didn't, they call him a liar. So how do they know which time he was lying?

That's right. THEY didn't dumbass. Iraq is the only place the lib media can correctly say WMD was not found. Can the lib media guarantee you they didn't go somewhere else?

I'll wait for the answer to that.

Crickets.....

It's unreal with these left wing whackos. They have to find blame with anybody and everybody except with Obama. The default to Bush is insane. Blaming Maliki for ISIS is insane.

I'm waiting for a "Reagan is to blame" game to start any day now. I'm sure they'll find a way to blame him too.

The left are nuts. Every time I read a thread started by rdean the Almond Joy song starts playing in my head.

 

[kiwiman127]

What was the combat situation when Bush agreed to the pull out?

What was the combat situation when Obama executed the pull out?

If Obama executed the pull out despite indications the conditions on the ground were antsy it should be HIS responsibility.

The US may have stayed longer but the was a huge hang up:

The war pre-Obama

Despite the goals Obama met, most of the timetable for leaving Iraq was in place before he took office.
The prevailing document, the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, was negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. That’s what set the deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
"He essentially implemented the plan that he inherited," said Chris Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, compared Obama taking credit to saying "because of Truman we were victorious in World War II, without mentioning Roosevelt."
Even when the deadline was set, news reports say, it was considered somewhat soft -- more a political symbol establishing Iraq’s sovereignty than a concrete date. The Obama administration held to that line and planned to keep several thousand troops in Iraq beyond 2011 as a "residual force."
Administration officials negotiated with Iraqis all year to amend the withdrawal plan. The breakdown: immunity for American troops in Iraqi courts. The Iraqi parliament refused to approve it, and American officials wouldn’t leave U.S. forces in place without it.
"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October news conference. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."
Ad says Obama is reason for Iraq pullout | PolitiFact

So, there we have it. It all boiled down to immunity for our troops from the Iraqi justice system. The Bush Administration, rightfully would not let our troops be subject to the Iraqi courts. Iraq was not to budge from that decision. That demand was unacceptable to Bush and Obama.
But go right ahead and let your partisanship warp historical facts.
Or, are you implying that the US accept Iraq's demand regarding US troops and waving immunity?

Fine----then it was Maliki who used his power to kick US troops out of Iraq. Obama didn't do shit.

"Obama didn't do shit" No not quite, he did take credit for ending the Iraq War!

 

[dilloduck]

The US may have stayed longer but the was a huge hang up:

The war pre-Obama

Despite the goals Obama met, most of the timetable for leaving Iraq was in place before he took office.
The prevailing document, the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, was negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. That’s what set the deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
"He essentially implemented the plan that he inherited," said Chris Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, compared Obama taking credit to saying "because of Truman we were victorious in World War II, without mentioning Roosevelt."
Even when the deadline was set, news reports say, it was considered somewhat soft -- more a political symbol establishing Iraq’s sovereignty than a concrete date. The Obama administration held to that line and planned to keep several thousand troops in Iraq beyond 2011 as a "residual force."
Administration officials negotiated with Iraqis all year to amend the withdrawal plan. The breakdown: immunity for American troops in Iraqi courts. The Iraqi parliament refused to approve it, and American officials wouldn’t leave U.S. forces in place without it.
"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October news conference. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."
Ad says Obama is reason for Iraq pullout | PolitiFact

So, there we have it. It all boiled down to immunity for our troops from the Iraqi justice system. The Bush Administration, rightfully would not let our troops be subject to the Iraqi courts. Iraq was not to budge from that decision. That demand was unacceptable to Bush and Obama.
But go right ahead and let your partisanship warp historical facts.
Or, are you implying that the US accept Iraq's demand regarding US troops and waving immunity?

Fine----then it was Maliki who used his power to kick US troops out of Iraq. Obama didn't do shit.

"Obama didn't do shit" No not quite, he did take credit for ending the Iraq War!

LOL

 

[rdean]

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's a good job that the invading forces managed to find all those WMDs and get them away from the murderous Al Qaeda-affiliated Hussein government!
You've convinced me.

Notice how the "other" country isn't named? Just "another" country?

Funny, when Bush said they had WMD's, right wingers believed him. When he said they didn't, they call him a liar. So how do they know which time he was lying?

That's right. THEY didn't dumbass. Iraq is the only place the lib media can correctly say WMD was not found. Can the lib media guarantee you they didn't go somewhere else?

I'll wait for the answer to that.

Crickets.....

After Desert Storm, the entire country was watched by overhead satellites. We had spies there. The country was under sanctions.

Yet, they could move massive amounts of WMD's to, to, uh, to where? And they money they had to pay for them? Oh wait, they didn't have money. Um, what else?

Hey, if you want to play that game, prove to me the center of the moon isn't made from soft, gooey cheese.

 

[idb]

Gawd dam you liberals are some gullible dumbasses.

If Saddam had moved WMD to another country, do you think we would've invaded again to go get them?

Of course not. You would never be told.

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's a good job that the invading forces managed to find all those WMDs and get them away from the murderous Al Qaeda-affiliated Hussein government!
You've convinced me.

If they were moved somewhere else do you think Bush would've run out and told you dumbass?????????????????

No. Because he would have to invade THAT place be able to prove existence.

You libs aren't even honest enough to ponder that in the abstract.

So, is that the best defence you've got for the deceptions by the Bush administration that lead to the war?

"Oh, they probably had WMDs, we had to go in and smash the place up to make sure. We didn't find any which proves that they moved them".

 

[EconChick]

Does the RW posters here believe that Iraq does not have the RIGHT to tell the U.S. to leave their country?

The more you talk the more naïve I see that you are. You seem nice but not very bright.

You ask things that 17 yr olds ask.

 

[dilloduck]

Notice how the "other" country isn't named? Just "another" country?

Funny, when Bush said they had WMD's, right wingers believed him. When he said they didn't, they call him a liar. So how do they know which time he was lying?

That's right. THEY didn't dumbass. Iraq is the only place the lib media can correctly say WMD was not found. Can the lib media guarantee you they didn't go somewhere else?

I'll wait for the answer to that.

Crickets.....

After Desert Storm, the entire country was watched by overhead satellites. We had spies there. The country was under sanctions.

Yet, they could move massive amounts of WMD's to, to, uh, to where? And they money they had to pay for them? Oh wait, they didn't have money. Um, what else?

Hey, if you want to play that game, prove to me the center of the moon isn't made from soft, gooey cheese.

Sanctions like food for oil ????

 

[EconChick]

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's a good job that the invading forces managed to find all those WMDs and get them away from the murderous Al Qaeda-affiliated Hussein government!
You've convinced me.

If they were moved somewhere else do you think Bush would've run out and told you dumbass?????????????????

No. Because he would have to invade THAT place be able to prove existence.

You libs aren't even honest enough to ponder that in the abstract.

So, is that the best defence you've got for the deceptions by the Bush administration that lead to the war?

"Oh, they probably had WMDs, we had to go in and smash the place up to make sure. We didn't find any which proves that they moved them".

Just like I said!

You weren't honest enough to even ponder the question abstractly.

What do I mean by that?

Replace the scenario with a president you like. Would that president be able to tell you if they were moved somewhere else. No, he would not.

I'm not saying you have to believe it. I'm saying you can't claim they never existed AT ALL because you can't account for other places they may be.

And in the end analysis, it doesn't matter. Bush handed over a stable Iraq.

Obama fucked it up.

 

[idb]

No freaking guff. I just can't see ISIS getting a warm and fuzzy for whoever takes over the Iraq government.

It's amazing to witness the left wing whackos try to turn the invasion and that's what it was into some sort of political protest.

They are completely insane. It was an invasion. And by anyone's standard a lightning fast takeover of a lot of Iraq. But they are trying to portray it as a rebellion.

I guess they have to. Obama has monumentally fucked up again and they are pulling out all stops to blame everyone else for his failure in dealing with ISIS.

He can order drone strikes on wedding parties in Yemen but hell's bells he wouldn't help out last year when the Iraqis were pleading for drone strikes to contain ISIS.

An 'invasion' that was facilitated by the dis-satisfaction of the Sunnis.
If the country had been united ISIS/L would never have gained a foothold and the army would have fought them off.

The Iraq army is pitiful. They ran from their posts. It's a fact jack. ISIS overpowered them.

It is not a Sunni uprising to take more power in the Iraq government. ISIS has set up their dream of a Caliphate. Mission accomplished jihadist style.

The Iraqi army is full of Sunnis - they didn't want to fight their own.
Maliki made no effort to pull all the factions together into one cohesive country.
Sunnis in the army had no interest in defending a country they had no influence in, or allegiance to.

 

[kiwiman127]

Notice how the "other" country isn't named? Just "another" country?

Funny, when Bush said they had WMD's, right wingers believed him. When he said they didn't, they call him a liar. So how do they know which time he was lying?

That's right. THEY didn't dumbass. Iraq is the only place the lib media can correctly say WMD was not found. Can the lib media guarantee you they didn't go somewhere else?

I'll wait for the answer to that.

Crickets.....

After Desert Storm, the entire country was watched by overhead satellites. We had spies there. The country was under sanctions.

Yet, they could move massive amounts of WMD's to, to, uh, to where? And they money they had to pay for them? Oh wait, they didn't have money. Um, what else?

Hey, if you want to play that game, prove to me the center of the moon isn't made from soft, gooey cheese.

Actually, if you recall we had a poor pre-invasion spy network in Iraq, thus we used people like Curveball. Look where that got us!

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh piss off that this is a Sunni uprising. It's a blatant lie. And piss off that ISIS is Maliki's fault. It's a blatant lie. And Bush has nothing at all to do with the "new and improved" ISIS.

Talk about partisan freaking hackery. You're a poster child for it.

well no its not a Lie. Maliki started removing Sunni people from The military and the government. Thus The sunni's feel they dont have a place to voice their opinion on things. Isis is mostly Sunni.

Once we where gone from Iraq Maliki acted on removing these people.

Unless you feel General Petraeus is a lair? Because thats his version of things.

But then again you are a ******* moron.

Well hell this is easy then---the new Iraqi PM will just tell ISIS to chill and everything will be cool.

no what done is done.

 

[dilloduck]

An 'invasion' that was facilitated by the dis-satisfaction of the Sunnis.
If the country had been united ISIS/L would never have gained a foothold and the army would have fought them off.

The Iraq army is pitiful. They ran from their posts. It's a fact jack. ISIS overpowered them.

It is not a Sunni uprising to take more power in the Iraq government. ISIS has set up their dream of a Caliphate. Mission accomplished jihadist style.

The Iraqi army is full of Sunnis - they didn't want to fight their own.
Maliki made no effort to pull all the factions together into one cohesive country.
Sunnis in the army had no interest in defending a country they had no influence in, or allegiance to.

Nor will they when a new president takes over.