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

[idb]

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.....

Contrary to the neo-conservatard dogma you Wrongpublican bigots love so much, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Until you can prove Saddam moved nukes to another country--and until you are able to name the specific country they allegedly went to--we enlightened lybyryls must assume that you're blowing smoke.

Or maybe it's not smoke, but rather the steam shooting from your ears after being wrong about Iraq for over a decade.

Really shiphead? You wanna throw the first punch, you freak? Go ahead. I just want to make a note for the record.

Now....back to the real topic. Yes, I expect people of your intellectual disability to do exactly that.

To an intelligent person, there are three potential explanations. Even 10 yr olds can brainstorm this.


They were there but haven't been found in the country we sent troops in to search.
They were not there in the first place.
They were there but were moved.

Let me say this again for you slow dullards.

They were there but haven't been found in the country we sent troops in to search.
They were not there in the first place.
They were there but were moved.

An intelligent person would exhaust all three explanations before shutting the case.

You...being the intellectually challenged that you are...do not follow laws of logic. You follow laws of deceit.

The only steam coming from anyone's ears is you libtards hysterically freaking out as your dumdum hero crashes and burns in the polls and destroys your party for years to come.

No-one's shutting the case.
You're still free to find some WMDs there and show them to the world.

Since you're so keen on logic - only one of your possibilities includes WMDs actually being in Iraq.
One out of three.
It was worthwhile invading a country, destroying it, losing thousands of American lives, spending trillions of dollars, causing the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, setting off a Middle East conflagration that has generally made the world a less safe place for a one in three chance?

Before invading wouldn't it have been better if...maybe...how did YOU put it..."An intelligent person would exhaust all...explanations..."?

How's that for logic?

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

this is the problem with righties like you. Too ******* stupid because their ego gets in the way and they need to win. You state there is no they and then proclaim that there is a they.

The other point is that Germany is not the middle east and thus we can assume they won't act the same.
Furthermore picking the word "they" as if its some sort of issue in terms is stupid.

Typically when saying they, you mean the leaders. Its really not that complex of an issue. Of course we could also look at polls in Iraq that showed a majority wanted America out. The Iraqi Government wanted us out, America wanted out and thus the negotiation failed.

Bush failed because we went into a region we shouldnt have.
Bush failed because he put Maliki in charge, he hand picked him.
Obama failed because he washed his hands of Iraq the moment he got in there and thus didnt bother to guide the Iraqi government like Bushed tried.

Iraqi did what always happens. You remove a bigger power and they fall into tribal wars. You were told it would happen, It happened, and now everyone is trying to blame everyone else because some didnt want to listen.

 

[idb]

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?
...?

That's exactly why it's so complex. I talked to people in every Province. You have to be able to absorb conflicting information from a large number of people. Which is why none of you libs ...on the Board at least....would ever pass the test it would take to get the job.

It's like talking to people who don't know that lawyers actually negotiate behind the scenes.

Wow, someone on the left finally grasped Diplomacy 101.

You still haven't said who you would talk to...would you take a poll?

 

[kiwiman127]

Bullshit. I was there at the time. You libs who have absolutely no real world experience say the dumbest shit. There were plenty of people that still wanted us there. I worked with them all the time. Then there were those who wanted us there privately but couldn't say it publicly.

How many times do I have to suggest you libs keep talking in black and white....and how stupid that makes you sound.

One, I'm not a lib,,I'm not a partisan period and I am proud of it. That way I don't have to walk around being led by the ring in my nose. Nor do I have to repeat word for word talking points.
And "I was there" makes you an expert? Don't try to "wow" me with that. I know quite a few people "who were there". I've read your posts and I know exactly where you are coming from.
Lastly, I would appreciate that you don't put words in my mouth. I never said people didn't want us there. That is intellectual dishonesty. I did however point out that the Iraqi Parliament did not want to give immunity to our troops from the Iraqi judicial system, which led to Bush giving up and agreeing to a total pullout and I supported that decision like a majority of Americans including most conservatives.
Interestingly, all of a sudden the Iraqi Parliament decided they would give immunity on the eve of the US offering 300 "advisers". Funny how things change when it became clear that ISIS is a serious threat to the Shiite governmental power.

 

[Geaux4it]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

Obama was just to lazy to try and negotiate SOFA. He's a loser

-Geaux

 

[idb]

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.

this is the problem with righties like you. Too ******* stupid because their ego gets in the way and they need to win. You state there is no they and then proclaim that there is a they.

The other point is that Germany is not the middle east and thus we can assume they won't act the same.
Furthermore picking the word "they" as if its some sort of issue in terms is stupid.

Typically when saying they, you mean the leaders. Its really not that complex of an issue. Of course we could also look at polls in Iraq that showed a majority wanted America out. The Iraqi Government wanted us out, America wanted out and thus the negotiation failed.

Bush failed because we went into a region we shouldnt have.
Bush failed because he put Maliki in charge, he hand picked him.
Obama failed because he washed his hands of Iraq the moment he got in there and thus didnt bother to guide the Iraqi government like Bushed tried.

Iraqi did what always happens. You remove a bigger power and they fall into tribal wars. You were told it would happen, It happened, and now everyone is trying to blame everyone else because some didnt want to listen.

Dick Cheney correctly predicted it back in Bush The Elder's day.

 

[Plasmaball]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

Obama was just to lazy to try and negotiate SOFA. He's a loser

-Geaux

and yet he did try...

 

[kiwiman127]

And so it continues,,,,
Power struggle on Baghdad streets as Maliki replaced but refuses to go
BAGHDAD, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Iraq's president named a new prime minister to end Nuri al-Maliki's eight year rule on Monday, but the veteran leader refused to go after deploying militias and special forces on the streets, creating a dangerous political showdown in Baghdad.
<snip>
A Shi'ite Muslim Islamist, Maliki is blamed by his erstwhile allies in Washington and Tehran for driving the alienated Sunni minority into a revolt that threatens to destroy the country. Leaders of Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish communities have demanded he go, and many fellow Shi'ites have turned against him.
Power struggle on Baghdad streets as Maliki replaced but refuses to go

 

[dilloduck]

If the real plan was to destroy the idiotic notion that Iraq could exist as a single entity as defined by Sykes-Picot it's been a smashing success.

 

[EconChick]

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.

Is that with your extensive understanding of how the intelligence world works? No, dum dum, I'm the one with extensive understanding of how the intel world works.

Trust me, you don't know the first thing.

 

[edthecynic]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay passed the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

To this day they don't want us there.

Bullshit. They were asking for air strikes against ISIS a year ago. Obama wouldn't help them.

Just another MessiahRushie lie. Maliki did not ask for air strikes until May of THIS year. Last year Maliki was positioning himself for reelection did not formally request them because the nationalist sentiment in the country would turn against him in the upcoming election.

 

[LiberalMedia]

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.....

Contrary to the neo-conservatard dogma you Wrongpublican bigots love so much, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Until you can prove Saddam moved nukes to another country--and until you are able to name the specific country they allegedly went to--we enlightened lybyryls must assume that you're blowing smoke.

Or maybe it's not smoke, but rather the steam shooting from your ears after being wrong about Iraq for over a decade.

Really shiphead? You wanna throw the first punch, you freak? Go ahead. I just want to make a note for the record.

Now....back to the real topic. Yes, I expect people of your intellectual disability to do exactly that.

To an intelligent person, there are three potential explanations. Even 10 yr olds can brainstorm this.


They were there but haven't been found in the country we sent troops in to search.
They were not there in the first place.
They were there but were moved.

An intelligent person would exhaust all three explanations before shutting the case.

You...being the intellectually challenged that you are...do not follow laws of logic. You follow laws of deceit.

How is not investigating a theory which has absolutely no evidence behind it being deceitful?

 

[EconChick]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

Obama was just to lazy to try and negotiate SOFA. He's a loser

-Geaux

and yet he did try...

Bullshit. It's well known he didn't try. He never tries. This guy never bargains with world leaders. He doesn't bargain with people in Congress. He's not president material.

He's just good at the microphone playing on people's emotions but not good at executing anything.

 

[Plasmaball]

Obama was just to lazy to try and negotiate SOFA. He's a loser

-Geaux

and yet he did try...

Bullshit. It's well known he didn't try. He never tries. This guy never bargains with world leaders. He doesn't bargain with people in Congress. He's not president material.

He's just good at the microphone playing on people's emotions but not good at executing anything.

well no, he did try and there is proof. Had you watched that PBS frontline Doc you would have seen pictures and everything of him trying.

I guess you actually didnt watch it and only wanted to use some out of context snip in order to be the hack that you are.

 

[edthecynic]

I just can't believe how you left wingers can just keep on blatantly lying. Here's the NYT.

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, last year floated the idea that armed American-operated Predator or Reaper drones might be used to respond to the expanding militant network in Iraq. American officials dismissed that suggestion at the time, saying that the request had not come from Mr. Maliki.

By March, however, American experts who visited Baghdad were being told that Iraq’s top leaders were hoping that American air power could be used to strike the militants’ staging and training areas inside Iraq, and help Iraq’s beleaguered forces stop them from crossing into Iraq from Syria.

“Iraqi officials at the highest level said they had requested manned and unmanned U.S. airstrikes this year against ISIS camps in the Jazira desert,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former C.I.A. analyst and National Security Council official, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and who visited Baghdad in early March. ISIS is the acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as the militant group is known.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/w...rstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html?_r=0

they wanted us out, and then when they saw a threat, some wanted us back. There is no lye jizzstain

It's a complete lie that Maliki wanted all the troops gone.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011.

He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.


McCain: Opponents lying about Iraq history | TheHill

Sore loser McCain is lying, as usual. Maliki takes full credit, HIMSELF, for booting the Americam military out of Iraq.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

The last American combat troops departed Iraq on December 18, 2011. Some U.S. officials believe that Maliki never intended to allow soldiers to remain; in a recent e-mail, he denied ever supporting such a plan, saying, “I am the owner of the idea of withdrawing the U.S. troops.”

 

[Ibentoken]

Obama said the intelligence was faulty. Bush said the same thing and Bush is called a liar. Guess what.

 

[Ibentoken]

they wanted us out, and then when they saw a threat, some wanted us back. There is no lye jizzstain

It's a complete lie that Maliki wanted all the troops gone.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said opponents are lying when they say the Iraqi government did not want a continued troop presence in the country when U.S. combat missions ended in 2011.

The Arizona senator has blamed the current militant Sunni uprising in Iraq on the failure of the United States to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011.

He said some Democrats are trying to explain that away by inaccurately claiming the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want troops to remain.

"Opponents and those who want to justify this colossal failure that has caused the greatest threat to United States's national security since the end of the Cold War, they're trying to justify it by saying that Maliki didn't want American troops there," he told PBS on Wednesday night.


McCain: Opponents lying about Iraq history | TheHill

Sore loser McCain is lying, as usual. Maliki takes full credit, HIMSELF, for booting the Americam military out of Iraq.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

The last American combat troops departed Iraq on December 18, 2011. Some U.S. officials believe that Maliki never intended to allow soldiers to remain; in a recent e-mail, he denied ever supporting such a plan, saying, “I am the owner of the idea of withdrawing the U.S. troops.”

So Obama was lying during the debate.
Obama, Romney Clash Over Status of Forces Agreeme…: [ame=http://youtu.be/wSTnaSqP-KE]Obama, Romney Clash Over Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Iraq asked for air strikes last year against ISIS. Obama owns this bloody mess in Iraq.

Just a flat out MessiahRushie lie.

If that isn't a lie you will have no trouble posting a link to Maliki's formal request for air strikes dated 2013. Bush puppet Maliki owns the bloody mess in HIS country.

 

[Ibentoken]

Iraq asked for air strikes last year against ISIS. Obama owns this bloody mess in Iraq.

Just a flat out MessiahRushie lie.

If that isn't a lie you will have no trouble posting a link to Maliki's formal request for air strikes dated 2013. Bush puppet Maliki owns the bloody mess in HIS country.

So according to you, Obama is lying here.
Obama, Romney Clash Over Status of Forces Agreeme…: [ame=http://youtu.be/wSTnaSqP-KE]Obama, Romney Clash Over Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CaféAuLait]

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"?

How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????

What is it that Right wingers don't get?

We couldn't stay.

That was the agreement.

And why couldn't we agree to stay? Because Maliki wanted US troops under Iraqi law. US troops could be prosecuted on a whim. That would never happen. Think about the disaster that would cause our soldiers.

They wouldn't back down because they wanted us gone.

Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq didn't want us there.

We couldn't stay past the agreement they made with Bush.

Is this so hard to understand? Seriously?

So, what your sayin' is Obama did not end the war in Iraq, right? Maliki and Bush did?

Okay!