Putin kills 298 people while r-wingers admire him here and elect him President.

[EconChick]

You are in the wrong forum/thread it seems.

You're paperrosey friend tried to make some usual propagandaa point by citing an international survey. I explained why the poll is faulty.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.

Title/subject of thread is...

Putin kills 298 people while r-wingers admire him here and elect him President.

LOL, are you the same dude I used to argue with on a special ops site. You act just like him.

Ok, here's the answer: STAYING IN YOUR LANE/RIGIDLY ON TOPIC IS THE ANTITHESIS OF CONNECTING THE DOTS.

 

[EconChick]

So tell me, why did President Bush agree to pull our troops out by 2012? Was there a particular point that prevented him from agreeing to keep a residual force behind?

It's very easy. It was meant to put as much diplomatic pressure on Maliki to attempt to "scare" him if he didn't "give" in the negotiations.

People don't seem to realize....just as we do in our every day lives with family, coworkers and friends, it was a negotiating ploy.

It was a THROW AWAY. Meaning, he wasn't going to be in power once the agreement took place so he could afford to use it to help the US bargaining position without having to follow up on it.

It's mind-boggling that people actually believe a president can lock a policy in stone for actions that will take place AFTER HE LEAVES POWER without it being subject to renegotiation. We see it every day with Congress and WH.

I know because I didn't work far from the Ambassador's Office, that the Bush people of course wanted to leave a residual force....a pretty substantial one....but they knew it wasn't going to be their call.

It was also meant to be used as a tool to help Maliki with his own public opinion about having US troops there.

But first Bush, then Obama, failed to convince Maliki. The major stumbling block for these leaders was the standard US demand that its forces be immune from local prosecution. Maliki wouldn't budge on the issue, and probably couldn't have gotten parliament to go along anyway.

Obama isn't the problem in Iraq. It's Maliki ? and Iraqi politics - CSMonitor.com

You gotta be kidding me Boo. You seem like a nice enough gent. Do you not know what Obama finally pulled off a few weeks ago after he had to send in 300 specops?????

The very thing he said couldn't be done in 2012!! His whole SOFA lie went out the window two weeks ago. Isn't anyone pontificating about this subject paying attention?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Putin's goons shoot down an airliner and kill 298 people while R-wingers man crush on Putin continues unabated on this board and elsewhere. Carry on Comrades!








U.S. accuses Russia in downing of plane - CNN.com

Kiev, Ukraine (CNN) -- A senior U.S. diplomat pointed the finger Friday at pro-Russian rebels in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in Ukraine, an act that killed 298 people.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council that the plane was "likely downed by a surface-to-air missile ... operated from a separatist-held location in eastern Ukraine." If pro-Russian separatists are responsible for shooting down the plane with a missile, investigators can't rule out the possibility that Russia offered help to operate the system, she said.

Show us the specific posts where someone is admiring him for shooting down the airliner.

 

[paperview]

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

Fine, don't trust them,.

As for you comparing the American president to the Australian Prime Minister, as to how foreigners view them and America, it's just ridiculous.

The major counties on that list are UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc... You going to tell me the superpower that we are, the huge footprint in the world, the media, we have etc... --and those countries, the citizens of those countries view it like we do the Aussie PM ?? Geezez

As for China / Asia ??
(numbers have remained flat for the last 12 years)

I guess all those years they must have been doing something wrong -- or right, or they are just fucked up. Either way, who knows, huh?

Middle East didn't like us then, they don't now, but less so since GW is gone. Wow. Big ******* news, eh? Do we need all kinds of statical mumbo jumbo to deduce whether they know if there was a new president in office -- or maybe they're just too stupid to know enough there, eh?

Some of the smaller countries? sure it's spotty...whoopdefucking do. The crosstabs and questions are supplied and viewable.

It doesn't ******* matter. Anyone with half a brain knows our standing in the world shot up -- and remains up after that loser GWB left office, and whether polling company after polling company confirms it or not in your eyes -- the US and Obama is still popular around the world.

so stick that in your big fat fluffy underroos and smoke it.

Well actually I have to thank you for making some of my points.

Anyone with half a brain knows it shot up around the world the same way it shot up here with all the airheads thinking he was a rock star.

You happen to notice the current polling in the U.S.????? He's crashing and burning. That rock star is now a cowardly empty suit.....now even in the eyes of some of the dumbest dumbasses.

Same around the world. That's the number one reason I know the poll is full of shit.

But it's fun watching you drowning libs in denial.

You guys have been saying he's crashing and burning for years now. lol

Gallup has him at 44%, Rasmussen at 47%.

Granted second term presidents are always prone to sluggishness and fatigue. Meanwhile that Do Nothing Congress gets a 9% approval rating.

But no, you know the world hates him, and the Pew poll is bogus because -- well, because you think you're some kind of smart shit.

But you're not. Have a nice day, E-Chick.


New Pew Global Poll just out last week:

WASHINGTON — Widespread global opposition to U.S. electronic surveillance since the revelations by onetime National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden has not badly tarnished the overall image of the United States, and it remains far more popular around the world than rising power China, according to a poll released Monday.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center of nearly 50,000 respondents in 44 countries also found that despite low public approval ratings at home, President Barack Obama is still largely popular around the world. A median 56 percent across those nations said they have confidence that Obama will do the right thing in world affairs — an approval rating little changed from last year.

The biggest declines in his standings, globally, since last year were found in two nations Germany and Brazil, where the U.S. was reported to have listened to the private phone conversations of national leaders.

Overall, a median of 65 percent expressed a positive opinion of the U.S., although the rating was just 30 percent in the Middle East. Among 35 countries around the world that were surveyed both in 2014 and 2013, the U.S. rating was unchanged at 62 percent. "

Poll: US global image survives spying concerns |

 

[Faun]

Seriously???? I don't give a **** who's administering the poll on an international question. There are too many variables to control for. Whether conservative or liberal.

I've helped notable companies compete for bids for international polling....I don't blame them for chasing the dollars but I WOULDN'T TRUST ANY OF THEM ON ANY INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

If you don't know what I mean by there being too many variables to control for, then you're beyond help.

Just for starters, my meaning of the word bobby is different from a foreigners meaning of bobby.

We barely get polls right in the US where we fully understand the language and coloquialisms. I sit and tear apart most polls here in the US for the same reason. Every single one of them are suspect.

Fine, don't trust them,.

As for you comparing the American president to the Australian Prime Minister, as to how foreigners view them and America, it's just ridiculous.

The major counties on that list are UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc... You going to tell me the superpower that we are, the huge footprint in the world, the media, we have etc... --and those countries, the citizens of those countries view it like we do the Aussie PM ?? Geezez

As for China / Asia ??
(numbers have remained flat for the last 12 years)

I guess all those years they must have been doing something wrong -- or right, or they are just fucked up. Either way, who knows, huh?

Middle East didn't like us then, they don't now, but less so since GW is gone. Wow. Big ******* news, eh? Do we need all kinds of statical mumbo jumbo to deduce whether they know if there was a new president in office -- or maybe they're just too stupid to know enough there, eh?

Some of the smaller countries? sure it's spotty...whoopdefucking do. The crosstabs and questions are supplied and viewable.

It doesn't ******* matter. Anyone with half a brain knows our standing in the world shot up -- and remains up after that loser GWB left office, and whether polling company after polling company confirms it or not in your eyes -- the US and Obama is still popular around the world.

so stick that in your big fat fluffy underroos and smoke it.

Well actually I have to thank you for making some of my points.

Anyone with half a brain knows it shot up around the world the same way it shot up here with all the airheads thinking he was a rock star.

You happen to notice the current polling in the U.S.????? He's crashing and burning. That rock star is now a cowardly empty suit.....now even in the eyes of some of the dumbest dumbasses.

Same around the world. That's the number one reason I know the poll is full of shit.

But it's fun watching you drowning libs in denial.

To the part I highlighted ... are you're saying their polling WAS right but now it's not?

 

[BlindBoo]

It's very easy. It was meant to put as much diplomatic pressure on Maliki to attempt to "scare" him if he didn't "give" in the negotiations.

People don't seem to realize....just as we do in our every day lives with family, coworkers and friends, it was a negotiating ploy.

It was a THROW AWAY. Meaning, he wasn't going to be in power once the agreement took place so he could afford to use it to help the US bargaining position without having to follow up on it.

It's mind-boggling that people actually believe a president can lock a policy in stone for actions that will take place AFTER HE LEAVES POWER without it being subject to renegotiation. We see it every day with Congress and WH.

I know because I didn't work far from the Ambassador's Office, that the Bush people of course wanted to leave a residual force....a pretty substantial one....but they knew it wasn't going to be their call.

It was also meant to be used as a tool to help Maliki with his own public opinion about having US troops there.

But first Bush, then Obama, failed to convince Maliki. The major stumbling block for these leaders was the standard US demand that its forces be immune from local prosecution. Maliki wouldn't budge on the issue, and probably couldn't have gotten parliament to go along anyway.

Obama isn't the problem in Iraq. It's Maliki ? and Iraqi politics - CSMonitor.com

You gotta be kidding me Boo. You seem like a nice enough gent. Do you not know what Obama finally pulled off a few weeks ago after he had to send in 300 specops?????

The very thing he said couldn't be done in 2012!! His whole SOFA lie went out the window two weeks ago. Isn't anyone pontificating about this subject paying attention?

Kidding you? About what? The thing both administrations tried for but neither succeeded?

"The ambassador said no new security agreement would be needed to give immunity to additional U.S. advisers or trainers in Iraq — the main sticking point that led to U.S. withdrawal. And he said Iraq would pay for the additional weapons or other assistance."

2 years after US military departure, Iraq asking for new help to battle al-Qaida | Fox News

 

[EconChick]

Yes, they got immunity, regardless of what your liberal rag sources say. You libs really need to stop being so gullible. Obama is totally busted in this hypocracy. And for his idiocy of not leaving a residual force based on his BS lies.

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there was a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. Two weeks ago, the White House spokesman said those promises were provided in an exchange of diplomatic notes.

Here - from one of Libs' fav sources - NPR.

Under Attack By ISIS, Iraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity : The Two-Way : NPR



Remember last week when President Obama said he planned to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq?

Well, the U.S. couldn't do it until the Iraqi government gave U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution, through what's called a "diplomatic note." If those U.S. soldiers committed any crimes or had any legal troubles while advising Iraqis, the U.S. wanted to handle any prosecutions.

Here's what Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had to say today:



"Many of you have asked today about the status of legal protections for the small number of military advisors that will be working inside Iraq.

"I can confirm for you that Iraq has provided acceptable assurances on the issue of protections for these personnel via the exchange of diplomatic note. Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams."

That was fast! Back in 2011, the U.S. plan to have thousands of U.S. military trainers in Iraq fell apart because there was no Status of Forces Agreement, which included the vital "immunity from prosecution." After many months of wrangling, the Iraqis wouldn't agree to it. So the U.S. just left. Now with Iraq under attack from ISIS, it's a different story.

 

[EconChick]

Fine, don't trust them,.

As for you comparing the American president to the Australian Prime Minister, as to how foreigners view them and America, it's just ridiculous.

The major counties on that list are UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc... You going to tell me the superpower that we are, the huge footprint in the world, the media, we have etc... --and those countries, the citizens of those countries view it like we do the Aussie PM ?? Geezez

As for China / Asia ??
(numbers have remained flat for the last 12 years)

I guess all those years they must have been doing something wrong -- or right, or they are just fucked up. Either way, who knows, huh?

Middle East didn't like us then, they don't now, but less so since GW is gone. Wow. Big ******* news, eh? Do we need all kinds of statical mumbo jumbo to deduce whether they know if there was a new president in office -- or maybe they're just too stupid to know enough there, eh?

Some of the smaller countries? sure it's spotty...whoopdefucking do. The crosstabs and questions are supplied and viewable.

It doesn't ******* matter. Anyone with half a brain knows our standing in the world shot up -- and remains up after that loser GWB left office, and whether polling company after polling company confirms it or not in your eyes -- the US and Obama is still popular around the world.

so stick that in your big fat fluffy underroos and smoke it.

Well actually I have to thank you for making some of my points.

Anyone with half a brain knows it shot up around the world the same way it shot up here with all the airheads thinking he was a rock star.

You happen to notice the current polling in the U.S.????? He's crashing and burning. That rock star is now a cowardly empty suit.....now even in the eyes of some of the dumbest dumbasses.

Same around the world. That's the number one reason I know the poll is full of shit.

But it's fun watching you drowning libs in denial.

To the part I highlighted ... are you're saying their polling WAS right but now it's not?

Where did I say that? All one had to do was watch the rock concerts and the size of the crowds in Europe when Obama first started rolling around on his apology tour. That had nothing to do with polls. Those rock concert crowds are now long gone.

 

[Faun]

Yes, they got immunity, regardless of what your liberal rag sources say. You libs really need to stop being so gullible. Obama is totally busted in this hypocracy. And for his idiocy of not leaving a residual force based on his BS lies.

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there was a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. Two weeks ago, the White House spokesman said those promises were provided in an exchange of diplomatic notes.

Here - from one of Libs' fav sources - NPR.

Under Attack By ISIS, Iraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity : The Two-Way : NPR



Remember last week when President Obama said he planned to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq?

Well, the U.S. couldn't do it until the Iraqi government gave U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution, through what's called a "diplomatic note." If those U.S. soldiers committed any crimes or had any legal troubles while advising Iraqis, the U.S. wanted to handle any prosecutions.

Here's what Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had to say today:



"Many of you have asked today about the status of legal protections for the small number of military advisors that will be working inside Iraq.

"I can confirm for you that Iraq has provided acceptable assurances on the issue of protections for these personnel via the exchange of diplomatic note. Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams."

That was fast! Back in 2011, the U.S. plan to have thousands of U.S. military trainers in Iraq fell apart because there was no Status of Forces Agreement, which included the vital "immunity from prosecution." After many months of wrangling, the Iraqis wouldn't agree to it. So the U.S. just left. Now with Iraq under attack from ISIS, it's a different story.

They got immunity now. The reason Obama pulled all of the troops out, in accordance with Bush's peace agreement, was because Iraq wouldn't agree to immunity then.

I'm not seeing the hypocrisy of which you speak.

 

[BlindBoo]

Confirming exactly what I said. They (Iraqis) refused to give US soldiers immunity in 2008 when the Bush Administration tried and in 2011 when the Obama Administration tried as well.

This is another one of the conz stealing the ball after it is down, then running it into the End Zone and claiming TOUCHDOWN!

Yes, they got immunity, regardless of what your liberal rag sources say. You libs really need to stop being so gullible. Obama is totally busted in this hypocracy. And for his idiocy of not leaving a residual force based on his BS lies.

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there was a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. Two weeks ago, the White House spokesman said those promises were provided in an exchange of diplomatic notes.

Here - from one of Libs' fav sources - NPR.

Under Attack By ISIS, Iraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity : The Two-Way : NPR



Remember last week when President Obama said he planned to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq?

Well, the U.S. couldn't do it until the Iraqi government gave U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution, through what's called a "diplomatic note." If those U.S. soldiers committed any crimes or had any legal troubles while advising Iraqis, the U.S. wanted to handle any prosecutions.

Here's what Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had to say today:



"Many of you have asked today about the status of legal protections for the small number of military advisors that will be working inside Iraq.

"I can confirm for you that Iraq has provided acceptable assurances on the issue of protections for these personnel via the exchange of diplomatic note. Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams."

That was fast! Back in 2011, the U.S. plan to have thousands of U.S. military trainers in Iraq fell apart because there was no Status of Forces Agreement, which included the vital "immunity from prosecution." After many months of wrangling, the Iraqis wouldn't agree to it. So the U.S. just left. Now with Iraq under attack from ISIS, it's a different story.

 

[EconChick]

Fine, don't trust them,.

As for you comparing the American president to the Australian Prime Minister, as to how foreigners view them and America, it's just ridiculous.

The major counties on that list are UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc... You going to tell me the superpower that we are, the huge footprint in the world, the media, we have etc... --and those countries, the citizens of those countries view it like we do the Aussie PM ?? Geezez

As for China / Asia ??
(numbers have remained flat for the last 12 years)

I guess all those years they must have been doing something wrong -- or right, or they are just fucked up. Either way, who knows, huh?

Middle East didn't like us then, they don't now, but less so since GW is gone. Wow. Big ******* news, eh? Do we need all kinds of statical mumbo jumbo to deduce whether they know if there was a new president in office -- or maybe they're just too stupid to know enough there, eh?

Some of the smaller countries? sure it's spotty...whoopdefucking do. The crosstabs and questions are supplied and viewable.

It doesn't ******* matter. Anyone with half a brain knows our standing in the world shot up -- and remains up after that loser GWB left office, and whether polling company after polling company confirms it or not in your eyes -- the US and Obama is still popular around the world.

so stick that in your big fat fluffy underroos and smoke it.

Well actually I have to thank you for making some of my points.

Anyone with half a brain knows it shot up around the world the same way it shot up here with all the airheads thinking he was a rock star.

You happen to notice the current polling in the U.S.????? He's crashing and burning. That rock star is now a cowardly empty suit.....now even in the eyes of some of the dumbest dumbasses.

Same around the world. That's the number one reason I know the poll is full of shit.

But it's fun watching you drowning libs in denial.

You guys have been saying he's crashing and burning for years now. lol

Gallup has him at 44%, Rasmussen at 47%.

Granted second term presidents are always prone to sluggishness and fatigue. Meanwhile that Do Nothing Congress gets a 9% approval rating.

But no, you know the world hates him, and the Pew poll is bogus because -- well, because you think you're some kind of smart shit.

But you're not. Have a nice day, E-Chick.


New Pew Global Poll just out last week:

WASHINGTON — Widespread global opposition to U.S. electronic surveillance since the revelations by onetime National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden has not badly tarnished the overall image of the United States, and it remains far more popular around the world than rising power China, according to a poll released Monday.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center of nearly 50,000 respondents in 44 countries also found that despite low public approval ratings at home, President Barack Obama is still largely popular around the world. A median 56 percent across those nations said they have confidence that Obama will do the right thing in world affairs — an approval rating little changed from last year.

The biggest declines in his standings, globally, since last year were found in two nations Germany and Brazil, where the U.S. was reported to have listened to the private phone conversations of national leaders.

Overall, a median of 65 percent expressed a positive opinion of the U.S., although the rating was just 30 percent in the Middle East. Among 35 countries around the world that were surveyed both in 2014 and 2013, the U.S. rating was unchanged at 62 percent. "

Poll: US global image survives spying concerns |

Umm, darlin, you have the intellect of a bean. You just contradicted yourself about Obama's popularity at home by first saying he's got 44% as if that's high (it's not) and then posting a poll that states how low his approval ratings are at home.

It's as if all the statistical fallacies I posted and discussed went poof and you went back to the same dumbass useless poll.

It's comical watching how as the smarter ones peel off, how low the IQ of O's remaining supporters keep dropping to....

 

[Faun]

Well actually I have to thank you for making some of my points.

Anyone with half a brain knows it shot up around the world the same way it shot up here with all the airheads thinking he was a rock star.

You happen to notice the current polling in the U.S.????? He's crashing and burning. That rock star is now a cowardly empty suit.....now even in the eyes of some of the dumbest dumbasses.

Same around the world. That's the number one reason I know the poll is full of shit.

But it's fun watching you drowning libs in denial.

To the part I highlighted ... are you're saying their polling WAS right but now it's not?

Where did I say that? All one had to do was watch the rock concerts and the size of the crowds in Europe when Obama first started rolling around on his apology tour. That had nothing to do with polls. Those rock concert crowds are now long gone.

And back then, his poll numbers showed that. Seems you don't even realize what you said. But you're saying Pew's poll numbers were accurate in 2009 but not now.

 

[EconChick]

Confirming exactly what I said. They (Iraqis) refused to give US soldiers immunity in 2008 when the Bush Administration tried and in 2011 when the Obama Administration tried as well.

This is another one of the conz stealing the ball after it is down, then running it into the End Zone and claiming TOUCHDOWN!

Yes, they got immunity, regardless of what your liberal rag sources say. You libs really need to stop being so gullible. Obama is totally busted in this hypocracy. And for his idiocy of not leaving a residual force based on his BS lies.

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there was a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. Two weeks ago, the White House spokesman said those promises were provided in an exchange of diplomatic notes.

Here - from one of Libs' fav sources - NPR.

Under Attack By ISIS, Iraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity : The Two-Way : NPR



Remember last week when President Obama said he planned to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq?

Well, the U.S. couldn't do it until the Iraqi government gave U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution, through what's called a "diplomatic note." If those U.S. soldiers committed any crimes or had any legal troubles while advising Iraqis, the U.S. wanted to handle any prosecutions.

Here's what Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had to say today:



"Many of you have asked today about the status of legal protections for the small number of military advisors that will be working inside Iraq.

"I can confirm for you that Iraq has provided acceptable assurances on the issue of protections for these personnel via the exchange of diplomatic note. Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams."

That was fast! Back in 2011, the U.S. plan to have thousands of U.S. military trainers in Iraq fell apart because there was no Status of Forces Agreement, which included the vital "immunity from prosecution." After many months of wrangling, the Iraqis wouldn't agree to it. So the U.S. just left. Now with Iraq under attack from ISIS, it's a different story.

Do you people not know the first thing about diplomacy?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

It's a ******* negotiation.

Nothing is in stone in a negotiation.

If Barry actually wanted a good agreement, he would've negotiated one using some other carrot and/or stick. Just like the way ALL foreign relations are negotiated. Jesus, no wonder we wound up with the biggest idiot in the White House in our country's history.

Your point proves nothing but your enormous lack of sophistication in anything requiring complex thinking.

 

[EconChick]

To the part I highlighted ... are you're saying their polling WAS right but now it's not?

Where did I say that? All one had to do was watch the rock concerts and the size of the crowds in Europe when Obama first started rolling around on his apology tour. That had nothing to do with polls. Those rock concert crowds are now long gone.

And back then, his poll numbers showed that. Seems you don't even realize what you said. But you're saying Pew's poll numbers were accurate in 2009 but not now.

My assessment of his rock star status was by watching the TV, not reading the Pew Poll numbers in 2009. Like I said over and over I don't trust international polls at any time by any source.

Polls in general have a value when used in addition to other information or patterns of information, but not as a stand alone, and internat'l ones are much worse than domestic ones.

 

[Faun]

Confirming exactly what I said. They (Iraqis) refused to give US soldiers immunity in 2008 when the Bush Administration tried and in 2011 when the Obama Administration tried as well.

This is another one of the conz stealing the ball after it is down, then running it into the End Zone and claiming TOUCHDOWN!

Yes, they got immunity, regardless of what your liberal rag sources say. You libs really need to stop being so gullible. Obama is totally busted in this hypocracy. And for his idiocy of not leaving a residual force based on his BS lies.

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there was a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. Two weeks ago, the White House spokesman said those promises were provided in an exchange of diplomatic notes.

Here - from one of Libs' fav sources - NPR.

Under Attack By ISIS, Iraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity : The Two-Way : NPR



Remember last week when President Obama said he planned to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq?

Well, the U.S. couldn't do it until the Iraqi government gave U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution, through what's called a "diplomatic note." If those U.S. soldiers committed any crimes or had any legal troubles while advising Iraqis, the U.S. wanted to handle any prosecutions.

Here's what Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had to say today:



"Many of you have asked today about the status of legal protections for the small number of military advisors that will be working inside Iraq.

"I can confirm for you that Iraq has provided acceptable assurances on the issue of protections for these personnel via the exchange of diplomatic note. Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams."

That was fast! Back in 2011, the U.S. plan to have thousands of U.S. military trainers in Iraq fell apart because there was no Status of Forces Agreement, which included the vital "immunity from prosecution." After many months of wrangling, the Iraqis wouldn't agree to it. So the U.S. just left. Now with Iraq under attack from ISIS, it's a different story.

Do you dullards not know the first thing about diplomacy?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

It's a ******* negotiation.

Nothing is in stone in a negotiation.

If Barry actually wanted a good agreement, he would've negotiated one using some other carrot and/or stick. Just like the way ALL foreign relations are negotiated. Jesus, no wonder we wound up with the biggest idiot in the White House in our country's history.

Your point proves nothing but your enormous lack of sophistication in anything requiring complex thinking.

You seem wildly unhinged and appear to be one of those righties who criticize Obama no matter what he does. The "carrot" dangling now for Iraq is ISIS posing a serious threat to take over. A couple of years ago, there was no such "carrot" to motivate Iraq into agreeing to immunity.

I still don't see the hypocrisy you claim is there?

 

[Faun]

Where did I say that? All one had to do was watch the rock concerts and the size of the crowds in Europe when Obama first started rolling around on his apology tour. That had nothing to do with polls. Those rock concert crowds are now long gone.

And back then, his poll numbers showed that. Seems you don't even realize what you said. But you're saying Pew's poll numbers were accurate in 2009 but not now.

My assessment of his rock star status was by watching the TV, not reading the Pew Poll numbers in 2009. Like I said over and over I don't trust international polls at any time by any source.

Polls in general have a value when used in addition to other information or patterns of information, but not as a stand alone, and internat'l ones are much worse than domestic ones.

You seem thoroughly confused. You point out how popular Obama was internationally back then and the polls show that. Whether you understand it or not that means you're agreeing with the polls back then insofar that both you and the polls indicate Obama was popular internationally.

The translation of your words is that you are saying the polls were correct back then but they're not correct now.

Is any of this getting through to you?

 

[EconChick]

In other words, he didn't get it because he didn't really want it. We have agreements with 40 other countries but only in the Iraq one did he insert the poison pill to require the Iraqi Legislature to sign off on it. Something that couldn't realistically be done.

Wake up folks. HE.DID.NOT.WANT.IT.

 

[Faun]

In other words, he didn't get it because he didn't really want it. We have agreements with 40 other countries but only in the Iraq one did he insert the poison pill to require the Iraqi Legislature to sign off on it. Something that couldn't realistically be done.

Wake up folks. HE.DID.NOT.WANT.IT.

Nope, not "in other words." There was nothing motivating Iraq into agreeing to immunity back then as there is now. The circumstances now are completely different as they were back then.

Again ... where's the hypocrisy?? For some odd reason, you're not saying?

 

[BlindBoo]

Confirming exactly what I said. They (Iraqis) refused to give US soldiers immunity in 2008 when the Bush Administration tried and in 2011 when the Obama Administration tried as well.

This is another one of the conz stealing the ball after it is down, then running it into the End Zone and claiming TOUCHDOWN!

Yes, they got immunity, regardless of what your liberal rag sources say. You libs really need to stop being so gullible. Obama is totally busted in this hypocracy. And for his idiocy of not leaving a residual force based on his BS lies.

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there was a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. Two weeks ago, the White House spokesman said those promises were provided in an exchange of diplomatic notes.

Here - from one of Libs' fav sources - NPR.

Under Attack By ISIS, Iraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity : The Two-Way : NPR



Remember last week when President Obama said he planned to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq?

Well, the U.S. couldn't do it until the Iraqi government gave U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution, through what's called a "diplomatic note." If those U.S. soldiers committed any crimes or had any legal troubles while advising Iraqis, the U.S. wanted to handle any prosecutions.

Here's what Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had to say today:



"Many of you have asked today about the status of legal protections for the small number of military advisors that will be working inside Iraq.

"I can confirm for you that Iraq has provided acceptable assurances on the issue of protections for these personnel via the exchange of diplomatic note. Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams."

That was fast! Back in 2011, the U.S. plan to have thousands of U.S. military trainers in Iraq fell apart because there was no Status of Forces Agreement, which included the vital "immunity from prosecution." After many months of wrangling, the Iraqis wouldn't agree to it. So the U.S. just left. Now with Iraq under attack from ISIS, it's a different story.

Do you people not know the first thing about diplomacy?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

It's a ******* negotiation.

Nothing is in stone in a negotiation.

If Barry actually wanted a good agreement, he would've negotiated one using some other carrot and/or stick. Just like the way ALL foreign relations are negotiated. Jesus, no wonder we wound up with the biggest idiot in the White House in our country's history.

Your point proves nothing but your enormous lack of sophistication in anything requiring complex thinking.

One could say the same thing about President Bush. But that would be just as stupid considering it was the Iraqis who forced his hand with the UN to begin the process of kicking the US forces out of Iraq.

 

[EconChick]

And back then, his poll numbers showed that. Seems you don't even realize what you said. But you're saying Pew's poll numbers were accurate in 2009 but not now.

My assessment of his rock star status was by watching the TV, not reading the Pew Poll numbers in 2009. Like I said over and over I don't trust international polls at any time by any source.

Polls in general have a value when used in addition to other information or patterns of information, but not as a stand alone, and internat'l ones are much worse than domestic ones.

You seem thoroughly confused. You point out how popular Obama was internationally back then and the polls show that. Whether you understand it or not that means you're agreeing with the polls back then insofar that both you and the polls indicate Obama was popular internationally.

The translation of your words is that you are saying the polls were correct back then but they're not correct now.

Is any of this getting through to you?

Your post commits a number of fallacies. Remember the ones I listed??

Correlation does not mean causation for one. Besides there was no numerical number given on the TV when anyone could intuitively see he was welcomed like a rock star. The spread could have been enormous in comparison to the Pew Polls.

You keep comparing apples to oranges to grapes in a sense.

There could be dozens of different variables in the Pew Polls that Pew didn't capture. I keep saying that over and over.

Look you libs can believe he's popular overseas if you want. It doesn't matter. They're not the ones who elect him. If you think by posting dumbass polls with little credibility - when clearly the world is also disappointed with him - is going to help in the elections or his sagging polls or credibility, it won't.

That's the problem. Who is THEY? The people that matter overseas are governments or any number of entities with power. That's not who Pew Polls get their data from.