Looks like Baghdad imploding

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11079929

This is OBAMA'S responsibility. HE is the president. It is up to him to make the right decisions. Basically, what you are saying is that he is IMPOTENT as a POTUS.

Obama has no jurisdiction over Iraq or political clout against the Sadrist Bloc in Iraq's Parliament. He has a responsibility to respect Iraq'd sovereignty and constitution.

What you are saying is that Obama has "Potency" that no president will ever have over Iraq unless they invade and occupy it like Bush did. Is that what you want?

Why don't you face facts. Obama made a campaign promise to pull out of Iraq. THAT was what he was concerned with, pleasing the clueless people like yourself. He was never interested in trying to keep troops in Iraq.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable. Face facts, your boy lost Iraq[/QUOTE]


MsChrL 11080139

We had that place under control, then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game

Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?

 

[ChrisL]

MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable. Face facts, your boy lost Iraq

MsChrL 11080139

We had that place under control, then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game

Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?[/QUOTE]

We had it under control but left TOO soon. We should have occupied that country, but some of you don't understand or have any common sense apparently.

 

[ChrisL]

MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable. Face facts, your boy lost Iraq

MsChrL 11080139

We had that place under control, then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game

Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?[/QUOTE]

Will you learn how to quote? It's really quite simple. Use the "post reply" option. If you want to quote multiple posts, use the multiquote option.

 

[ChrisL]

MsChrL [11024582 QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 11024582, member: 50165"]Yes, more than ONE general recommended to your lover that we shouldn't leave Iraq because Iraq was not yet stable. Face facts, your boy lost Iraq

MsChrL 11080139

We had that place under control, then we threw it away because of people like YOU. We LOST the war in the end game

Will you make up your mind? Which one was it?

We had it under control but left TOO soon. We should have occupied that country, but some of you don't understand or have any common sense apparently.[/QUOTE]

Also, you don't have to put a name on the top. Post reply notifies me that you are responding to one of my posts. No need to add a name.

 

[Unkotare]

You're living in a fool's paradise, Neville.

You cannot contest the fact that Americans are living under the safest of times...

Of course you can, you nearsighted nitwit.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law."

MsChrL 11079968

Obama, nor America HAVE to abide by anything Iraq or Al-Maliki demanded. Right?

Wrong. Bush43 abided by exactly what the Iraqis told him to do even though Bush wanted so much more:

"U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq Drafting of U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement Began Nearly Five Years Ago. " - National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 252. Posted - June 13, 2008. U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq

Here is what Bush wanted:

. Washington D.C., June 13, 2008 - Recently declassified documents show that the U.S. military has long sought an agreement with Baghdad that gives American forces virtually unfettered freedom of action, casting into doubt the Bush administration's current claims that their demands are more limited in scope. News reports have indicated that the Bush administration is exerting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to accept a U.S.-Iraq security plan by the end of July 2008. According to these accounts, the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law. Growing awareness of the implications of the pact have fueled opposition by the Iraqi public – to the extent that Prime Minister al-Maliki announced today that discussions had deadlocked.

MsChrL 11079968

What would they do about it if we ignored them and stayed anyway?

They did exactly what they did to sad-sack Bush43 about it. They told him to take US troops (a) 'out of Iraq's cities in six months' and (b) 'out of Iraq in three years' . They told the all powerful war president that his troops would no longer have freedom of moment; they would have no bases; they could no longer arrest and detain Iraqi citizens; they needed to get approval from Maliki's government to conduct all military operations.

Your question shows your lack of basic knowledge of eight years of war and bloodshed in Bush's dumb war.


MsChrL 11079968

What are you so frightened of?

What was Bush43 frightened of should be your question. I was not involved in Bush's surrender agreement at the end of his term,


MsChrL 11079968

They held NO POWER over us. We have the power, we have the upper hand. There is absolutely NOTHING they could have done to us if we had decided to ignore them and stay. Idiot.

I asked earlier why there was an end to immunity by January 1 2012 in the first place and you ran away from that question too. They did what every sovereign nation has the right to do whether weak or strong - they told us to get the hell out and Bush put the USA's sacred word on a Status of Forces Agreement when he had 150,000 troops in the country,

Obama kept America's word and all you do is bitch about it.

 

[ChrisL]

"the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law."

MsChrL 11079968

Obama, nor America HAVE to abide by anything Iraq or Al-Maliki demanded. Right?

Wrong. Bush43 abided by exactly what the Iraqis told him to do even though Bush wanted so much more:

"U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq Drafting of U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement Began Nearly Five Years Ago. " - National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 252. Posted - June 13, 2008. U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq

Here is what Bush wanted:

. Washington D.C., June 13, 2008 - Recently declassified documents show that the U.S. military has long sought an agreement with Baghdad that gives American forces virtually unfettered freedom of action, casting into doubt the Bush administration's current claims that their demands are more limited in scope. News reports have indicated that the Bush administration is exerting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to accept a U.S.-Iraq security plan by the end of July 2008. According to these accounts, the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law. Growing awareness of the implications of the pact have fueled opposition by the Iraqi public – to the extent that Prime Minister al-Maliki announced today that discussions had deadlocked.

MsChrL 11079968

What would they do about it if we ignored them and stayed anyway?

They did exactly what they did to sad-sack Bush43 about it. They told him to take US troops (a) 'out of Iraq's cities in six months' and (b) 'out of Iraq in three years' . They told the all powerful war president that his troops would no longer have freedom of moment; they would have no bases; they could no longer arrest and detain Iraqi citizens; they needed to get approval from Maliki's government to conduct all military operations.

Your question shows your lack of basic knowledge of eight years of war and bloodshed in Bush's dumb war.


MsChrL 11079968

What are you so frightened of?

What was Bush43 frightened of should be your question. I was not involved in Bush's surrender agreement at the end of his term,


MsChrL 11079968

They held NO POWER over us. We have the power, we have the upper hand. There is absolutely NOTHING they could have done to us if we had decided to ignore them and stay. Idiot.

I asked earlier why there was an end to immunity by January 1 2012 in the first place and you ran away from that question too. They did what every sovereign nation has the right to whether weak or strong - they told us to get the hell out and Bush put the USA's sacred word on a Status of Forces Agreement when he had 150,000 troops in the country,

Obama kept America's word and all you do is bitch about it.

Hey, I'm not a partisan hack and I know that Bush made errors too. We should have ignored their threats and stayed. After all, we are the BIG EVIL United States who sets up dictatorships and all that jazz. Lol.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

MsChrL

We should have ignored their threats and stayed.

Territorial integrity means nothing to you then.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

MsChrL 11085658

Hey, I'm not a partisan hack and I know that Bush made errors too.

I do not consider 'complying with international law' at the end of Bush43's term to be an error.

 

[ChrisL]

MsChrL

We should have ignored their threats and stayed.

Territorial integrity means nothing to you then.

Not during wartime. Not if we sacrificed lives and tons of money. We had every right, IMO, to stay and maintain security for as long as necessary. Not to mention, those people would be MUCH better off, whether they realize it now or not.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11081574

Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department all advised Barack Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.

I'm sure they did. But Obama was not the Prime Minister of Iraq or any other office holder in Iraq. It was the Iraqis that needed convincing not Obama. Obama could have kept troops in Iraq in a non-combat role with a small amount of flak from the extremist anti-war crowd. The Iraqis would not extend the immunity - that is vividly clear and you still cannot utter the word because your argument is dead because of the Iraqis not granting it.

So much for your statement that no military leaders told Barry pulling all the troops out would destabilize Iraq...

So now that we've established that the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department ALL advised Barack Obama to leave a force of around 20,000 troops to stabilize Iraq...let's move on to the SOFA.

In his book, Panetta accuses Barack Obama of a number of missteps when it came to Iraq policy. He says that Obama seldom spoke with Maliki...unlike George W. Bush who held lengthy teleconferences with the Iraqi leader on a weekly basis...

Panetta also says that Obama never pushed for a new SOFA and his ambivalence about getting a new agreement was obvious. We didn't get a new SOFA because Barry didn't CARE if we got one or not since he was already committed to pulling out all American troops. That was the "fight" that Panetta detailed. Everyone else saw the need for a force to stay in Iraq...except a small group around Barack Obama in the White House who wanted them all out.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OS 11085820

So much for your statement that no military leaders told Barry pulling all the troops out would destabilize Iraq...

Since your lead paragraph is a lie since I never said that and you will find no quote where I said thst it is apparent that you have absolutely no argument at all and no defense of your Obana hatred other than to lie and misquote me.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

MsChrL 11085816

We had every right, IMO, to stay and maintain security for as long as necessary.

A "right" in international law is not a matter of your opinion. Your opinion is based upon biased interest and misinformation and lack of interest in the big picture.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11085820

So much for your statement that no military leaders told Barry pulling all the troops out would destabilize Iraq...

Since your lead paragraph is a lie since I never said that and you will find no quote where I said thst it is apparent that you have absolutely no argument at all and no defense of your Obana hatred other than to lie and misquote me.

Do you deny that all those military leaders DID advise Obama to leave a force of about 20,000 in Iraq?

Do you deny that Barry ignored that advice?

You've based your entire defense of Obama's Iraq policies on the false premise that it was impossible to get another SOFA. What Panetta's book illustrates is that the reason it was "impossible" is that Obama never tried!

His Secretary of Defense wanted to get it done. His Joint Chiefs wanted to get it done. His State Department wanted to get it done. They ALL wanted to get a new SOFA deal done. It's the Obama White House that refused. It's the Obama White House that fought against doing a new SOFA. It's the Obama White House that wanted out of Iraq no matter what. So we pulled out of Iraq with no force left behind to stabilize the country and everything that Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department warned Barry would happen...did happen!

 

[ChrisL]

MsChrL 11085816

We had every right, IMO, to stay and maintain security for as long as necessary.

A "right" in international law is not a matter of your opinion. Your opinion is based upon biased interest and misinformation and lack of interest in the big picture.

I don't think so. My opinions are based in common sense and truth.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

MsChrL 11080139

We LOST the war in the end game.

MsChrL 11088916

. My opinions are based in common sense and truth.

Your opinion that Americans had to stay as long as it takes is not worth diddly squat since Daesh terrorist scum will not ever take over Iraq or stay there much longer. Iraq was not "lost" and never will be "lost" Maliki has lost in his bid toward the Shia-fication of Iraq. Obama was right to refuse to provide Americans to be his Army and Air Force. It takes leadership to know when to hold-em and went to put those cards on the table.

MsChrL 11080139

We LOST the war in the end game.

MsChrL 11080035

You liberals LOST the war..

Reality is undoing your corroded with hatred opinions with every hour that passes.

There is no lost war except to losers

. Iraqi Forces Recapture Government HQ From ISIS in Tikrit
BY JACK MOORE 3/31/15 AT 7:32 AM

A member of the Iraqi security forces carries his weapon as he watches smoke rise from a scene of clashes between the Iraqi army and Islamic State militants in Tikrit March 30, 2015. REUTERS / ALAA AL-MARJAN
Iraqi forces have recaptured the provincial government headquarters from ISIS in Tikrit as the offensive to retake the city accelerates, officials have revealed.

After U.S. air strikes, requested by Baghdad, pounded ISIS positions in the city, Shia and Sunni militiamen rejoined Iraqi forces to advance on the encircled city from all sides after boycotting the offensive in protest at Washington’s involvement.

"Iraqi forces cleared the government complex in Tikrit," an Iraqi army major general said, speaking on condition of anonymity to AFP news agency. "The government buildings have been under our control since last night."

Regional and militia officials also confirmed to the agency that the Salah ad-Din provincial government headquarters were retaken. Salah ad-Din governor Raad al-Juburi said that the Iraqi flag was flying over the building while the spokesman for the Badr militia, Karim al-Nuri, revealed that fighters from the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), which consists mainly of Iranian-backed Shia militias, retook the compound alongside Iraqi police forces.

The capture of the compound represents a major success for the 30,000-strong Iraqi force and the biggest victory in the offensive launched on 2 March as it had almost ground to a halt due to the militia’s boycott and ISIS booby traps within the city.

Sajad Jiyad, Iraq expert and research director at the independent consultancy Integrity, says that the capture of the government complex will make the operation against ISIS easier for the Iraqi forces.

"This is significant progress and confines the remaining Daesh [the Arabic term for ISIS] fighters to even smaller areas in the city centre and therefore making them easier to target," he notes.

http://www.newsweek.com/iraqi-forces-recapture-government-hq-isis-tikrit-318217

Sorry to ruin your day with the Iraqi flag going up over the Salah ad-Din provincial government headquarters. That comes according to the spokesman for the Badr militia who also revealed according to Newsweek that fighters consisting mainly of Iranian-backed Shia militias, retook the compound alongside Iraqi police forces.

And if you don't like the Badr Militia helping to liberate Tikrit and you wanna blame Badr involvement on Obama you need to remember just exactly who it was that welcomed the BADR Brigades into Iraq from Iran in 2003:

NF 11078319

Bush43 got the 2008 amnesty through Parliament when Sadr went to Iran after Maliki disbanded Sadr's militia but Maliki kept the Badr militia intact because they were pro-American but also from Iran.

Bush held hands with the BADR leader in the White House .. The Badr militia was aligned with Hakim and Bush and Maliki in 2008;

Here's the photo; ↑President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper

Iraq is not "lost" MsChrisL Do you understand that yet? Your opinion on that ought to embarrass you.

Do you realize how stupid it was to declare Iraq lost when Daesh terrorist scum never could control the airspace over their ignorant scuzzball worm infested heads?

. Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi confirmed on Tuesday “The volunteers represents all Iraqi sects and it is tasked with defending all Iraqi lands against the terrorist attack of the terrorist ISIL,” noting that “The volunteers are not limited on a single Iraqi sect rather than other sects.”

Urgent - Volunteers not limited on single sect says Abadi - Iraqi News

There is a new PM in Iraq - you can throw your loser opinion in the trash.

Volunteers not limited on single sect, says Abadi. March 31, 2015 by Ahmed Hussein[/QUOTE]

 

[whutTHEYsay]

MsChrL 11088916

My opinions are based in common sense and truth.

Your opinion has been that Iraq was lost. There never was any sense or truth to such a ridiculous opinion. If you keep arguing that Daesh terrorist scum have defeated and took control of Iraq we will know that you have no sense or respect for the truth.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

More bad news for obstructionisRepublicans

Tough break for all those Obama haters hoping to see Baghdad implode, Daesh to capture Route Irish and the Baghdad Airport, an Iraq war to be lost by liberals, all of Iraq's oil to fall into terrorists hands, whatever idiot Bush43 predicted in 2007 if zuzs troops were pulled out too soon, and on and on and on.

. Ghaban visits Tikrit to open police stations
April 1, 2015 by Hawar Berwani No Comments

Salah-il-Din (IraqiNews.com) The Minister of Interior, Mohamed Salim al-Ghaban, arrived in Tikrit on Wednesday morning.

IraqiNews.com reporter said “Ghaban arrived in the city of Tikrit on Wednesday morning to open the police stations in the city to restore normal life.” /End

Ghaban visits Tikrit to open police stations - Iraqi News


Can we rename this thread Republicans Imploding - the Iraq war is not lost. their dream ISIS fantasy will not become true.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Saddam wouldn't have let that happen. Nice going, Dubya! Our interests lie in a stable world. Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it. At some point Rumsfeld understood that.

View attachment 31064

You do know that is a myth?
Saddam was anything but a stabling force in the mideast. Sure he did not allow radicalism within the core centers of Iraq, but he constantly waged wars and created grief for his neighbors on a regular basis.
After Saddam was removed, and after the surge, Iraq had three years of peace. Something that had not happened for 40 years.
After Obama remoced the troops in Iraq, despite the warnings from his Generals and every military adviser he has telling him it would cause turmoil - he did it anyway and this is why you see the havoc in Iraq.

I am not advocating the removal of Saddam...that is debatable with both sides having good points. What I am saying is once that was done - it was done, and Obama prematurely removing our forces knowing full well the HUUUGE vacuum of power and instability it would create - is what created the situation we have today.
Get it right konrad instead of repeating what Huffington Post and MSNBC tells you.