Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[SassyIrishLass]

So you have conceded that you were wrong to have asked me this question?

eagl 11216400,

My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation? #3671

I see now you wish to shift the discussion back to blaming Obama solely for the Sunni Daesh terrorist scum taking over much of Sunni inhabited Iraq by adhering to Bush's withdrawal plan of 2008. But before we go there your argument on Iran has fallen apart because I do not accept your characterization of what I 'fathom' or don't fathom'.

NF 11217027

Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' {the} veracity of those official governmental reports? I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas. My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out. . #3675

Do you concede that your 'frist response' in #3671 was invalid and wholly distorting my position on that topic? How do we have an intelligent discussion when you distort my position on such matters?

Wanting to jump over to blaming Obama for Daesh when you've been caught making something up regarding this thread is just not going to cut it.

How's Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran doing under your Messiah, Foo?

You've been beating the same dead horse since 2004, it stinks Foo, it stinks to high heaven....let it go

 

[whutTHEYsay]

SIL 11219789

How's Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran doing under your Messiah, Foo?

There is not one country you mentioned where Obama decided to start a war by air and ground invasion in order to find WMD's that did not exist that left 4484 American soldiers dead is there? Iraq is defeating ISIS - what's wrong with Egypt? What's wrong with Iran helping to defeat ISIS?

Iran has been under severe sanctions that Obama solidified in 2010 and a moderate replaced Ahmadinanutjob. Bad Maliki is gone,

 

[SassyIrishLass]

SIL 11219789

How's Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran doing under your Messiah, Foo?

There is not one country you mentioned where Obama decided to start a war by air and ground invasion in order to find WMD's that did not exist that left 4484 American soldiers dead is there? Iraq is defeating ISIS - what's wrong with Egypt? What's wrong with Iran helping to defeat ISIS?

Iran has been under severe sanctions that Obama solidified in 2010 and a moderate replaced Ahmadinanutjob. Bad Maliki is gone,

Of course he won't "start a war" pussies with no balls don't do that, meanwhile civilians (you know the ones you leftist assholes whine and moan about) are getting slaughtered. Well done, Foo....you're backing a limp wrist asshole. But I expected nothing less for someone that refused to serve.

 

[eagle1462010]

So you have conceded that you were wrong to have asked me this question?

eagl 11216400,

My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation? #3671

I see now you wish to shift the discussion back to blaming Obama solely for the Sunni Daesh terrorist scum taking over much of Sunni inhabited Iraq by adhering to Bush's withdrawal plan of 2008. But before we go there your argument on Iran has fallen apart because I do not accept your characterization of what I 'fathom' or don't fathom'.

NF 11217027

Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' {the} veracity of those official governmental reports? I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas. My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out. . #3675

Do you concede that your 'first response' in #3671 was invalid and wholly distorting my position on that topic? How do we have an intelligent discussion when you distort my position on such matters?

Wanting to jump over to blaming Obama for Daesh when you've been caught making something up regarding this thread is just not going to cut it.

The only thing I concede to you is that you are an ignorant Fool, which is pretty standard for the liberal brigade members.
You are pushing excuses for the inept handling of Foreign affairs by Obama. It is under his command that Northern Iraq was lost, not Bushes.................Because he didn't even have the gonads to at least leave a command and control element in Iraq for intel to help the Iraqi's with finding and killing their enemies.

In short his policy was cut and run, without regard for the consequences until it was thrust on him when ISIL was on Bagdad's doorstep. All of Northern Iraq, paid for in blood, was lost. And no matter how you spin it, that FAILURE RESTS WITH HIM.

To the OP, as you deflect....................Obama is making a bad policy decision again and the GOP is attempting to thwart him..............from a deal that he can't even get signed anyway...............Iran will not honor it anyway, even if he does get them to sign something............ which he is hell bent to do for political rather than strategic motives.

Anyway, whatever Nat..............you are full of it as always and refuse to see the danger of dealing with Iran. Your purpose is the norm of Obama. Leading by making EXCUSES.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Eagl 11217860

Hakim was an Iraqi forced to flee to Iran. He returned to help govern Iraq and was friendly to the U.S. in the open.................. #3678

So coming into Iraq with Bush's blessing, Hakim brings an Iranian, Qud's force trained, army (many born in Iran) into Iraq that had a mission to drive Sunni families and Sunni businesses out of the area surrounding Bagdad.- and you call that helping the US to govern the new Iraq. And do you think Bush had all this Sunni Shiite conflict resolved when he left his Iraq mess to President Obama? .

 

[whutTHEYsay]

eagl 11221076

The only thing I concede to you is that you are an ignorant Fool, which is pretty standard for the liberal brigade members. #3684

So when you get caught in a lie your reaction is to get your foul mouth involved and revert to the only argument rightwingers can rely upon. Liberals are bad. That is not an argument. That is a cop out in the first degree.

 

[eagle1462010]

Eagl 11217860

Hakim was an Iraqi forced to flee to Iran. He returned to help govern Iraq and was friendly to the U.S. in the open.................. #3678

So coming into Iraq with Bush's blessing, Hakim brings an Iranian, Qud's force trained, army (many born in Iran) into Iraq that had a mission to drive Sunni families and Sunni businesses out of the area surrounding Bagdad.- and you call that helping the US to govern the new Iraq. And do you think Bush had all this Sunni Shiite conflict resolved when he left his Iraq mess to President Obama? .

I think you got dropped on your head at birth.

Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office. It was his measures that brought us to where we are today. It was lost under his term.

BUT BUSH.....and blaming Bush for Obama's policy failures dumb ass. The Qud's were there when Bush was in office giving insurgent Shiites IED's and it led to U.S. deaths...................as the IED's were 70% of Fatalities. Why would we want a deal with the asshats that sent our people home in boxes.

Under Bush our troops were killing Quds there...............You really are a boot licking liberal.

But please continue with the BS.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Are you calling Bush a liar. This is what he said in 2004.

"One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America."

Yet you say Northern Iraq was lost 'under his command'. How can you state something so utterly preposterous and expect anyone to take you seriously?.

eagl 11221076

It is under his command that Northern Iraq was lost, not Bushes #3684

Obama has never been in command of Northern Iraq. Bush gave Iraq it's sovereignty in 2004.

Here's what Bush said about Iraq's sovereignty:


Bush statement on Iraq April 14, 2004 US President George W Bush's address to nation at White House press conference.

America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly reviewing their needs. Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.

One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. America's objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.

Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a larger audience and gain a stronger hand. We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.

Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future. Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks. In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city. These leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary. They're also insisting that those who killed and mutilated four American contract workers be handed over for trial and punishment. In addition, members of the Governing Council are seeking to resolve the situation in the south. Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia.

Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country. The transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we have that confidence.

Bush also said in that excerpt: "Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future. Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks"


Yet you are saying that 8 years later it is President Barack Obama of the United States of American is responsible for Iraq's future. Are you nuts?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

eagl 11221216

Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687

No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile.

US forces withdrawing from Iraqi cities will move instead to encircle them - The troops will form 'belts' around volatile cities like Mosul, where some fear gains in stability will be lost when US troops pull out on June 30. By Jane Arraf, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor June 26, 2009

Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadline for US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.

Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30


Gen Rober Caslen explains why:

Concerns raised over withdrawal from Mosul

US and Iraqi forces are believed to have severely disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq's network, but as the military surge in 2007 and 2008 pushed AQI fighters and other insurgents out of Baghdad, they moved north to Ninevah and

Diyala Provinces.

While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops from populated areas under a wide-ranging security agreement might set back hard-won gains in those cities.
[/QUOTE

Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from sighing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. They could have but they didn't . Sorry Bush's fault not Obama's

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 11221216

Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687

No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile.

US forces withdrawing from Iraqi cities will move instead to encircle them - The troops will form 'belts' around volatile cities like Mosul, where some fear gains in stability will be lost when US troops pull out on June 30. By Jane Arraf, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor June 26, 2009

Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadline for US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.

Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30


Gen Rober Caslen explains why:

Concerns raised over withdrawal from Mosul

US and Iraqi forces are believed to have severely disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq's network, but as the military surge in 2007 and 2008 pushed AQI fighters and other insurgents out of Baghdad, they moved north to Ninevah and

Diyala Provinces.

While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops from populated areas under a wide-ranging security agreement might set back hard-won gains in those cities.
[/QUOTE

Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from sighing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. They could have but they didn't . Sorry Bush's fault not Obama's

From your own quote..............."might set back hard won gains in those cities."

aka the military saying it's a bad idea. They withdrew from those cities under Obama's watch, and there were Iraqi Forces in those cities. This isn't a full withdrawal either, but turning over these cities to Iraqi military control. Forces should have been kept in Iraq as recommended by the military...................

Back at you.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

SIL 11220034

Of course he won't "start a war" pussies with no balls don't do that, meanwhile civilians (you know the ones you leftist assholes whine and moan about) are getting slaughtered. Well done, Foo....you're backing a limp wrist asshole. But I expected nothing less for someone that refused to serve. #3681

You wanted Obama to think with his balls to start a new war in Iraq to combat Daesh terrorist scum early last year by re-invasion of US ground combat troops in order to support Maliki's continued oppression of all Sunnis and his incompetence at maintaining a competent and ready-to-fight Iraqi army.

Iraq did not and still does not want US ground troops involved in the direct fight against Daesh.

Sending US ground troops to fight and forced back into Iraq by invasion against Iraq's sovereignty would have been horrible news for Iraq's civilian population.

Here's the facts in numbers, since numbers don't lie and they cannot be twisted into lies.

Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around 33,000 Iraq civilians killed. Perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh terrorist scum attacks and bombings. Perhaps you do not understand numbers SassyIrishLass?

However most body counting organizations count at least 120,000 Iraqis were killed when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011.

So it was about four times worse when US troops were killing and dying in Iraq than since they left when all US troops were pulled out on Bush's deadline date.

So you are arguing for more civilian deaths by wanting a US president to a have his brain located in his balls instead of where it belongs like you conservatives prefer.

Your argument that Iraq would be better off with US ground troops is belied by this reality. But being a conservative "reality" is none of your concern when it comes to Obama bashing.

 

[eagle1462010]

SIL 11220034

Of course he won't "start a war" pussies with no balls don't do that, meanwhile civilians (you know the ones you leftist assholes whine and moan about) are getting slaughtered. Well done, Foo....you're backing a limp wrist asshole. But I expected nothing less for someone that refused to serve. #3681

You wanted Obama to think with his balls to start a new war in Iraq to combat Daesh terrorist scum early last year by re-invasion of US ground combat troops in order to support Maliki's continued oppression of all Sunnis and his incompetence at maintaining a competent and ready-to-fight Iraqi army.

Iraq did not and still does not want US ground troops involved in the direct fight against Daesh.

Sending US ground troops to fight and forced back into Iraq by invasion against Iraq's sovereignty would have been horrible news for Iraq's civilian population.

Here's the facts in numbers, since numbers don't lie and they cannot be twisted into lies.

Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around 33,000 Iraq civilians killed. Perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh terrorist scum attacks and bombings. Perhaps you do not understand numbers SassyIrishLass?

However most body counting organizations count at least 120,000 Iraqis were killed when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011.

So it was about four times worse when US troops were killing and dying in Iraq than since they left when all US troops were pulled out on Bush's deadline date.

So you are arguing for more civilian deaths by wanting a US president to a have his brain located in his balls instead of where it belongs like you conservatives prefer.

Your argument that Iraq would be better off with US ground troops is belied by this reality. But being a conservative "reality" is none of your concern when it comes to Obama bashing.

Your 4 times as worse probably shows your math skills...........2 times would be the better assessment.

120,000 deaths over 8 years. 15,000 per year

33,000 deaths over 4 years. 8.250 a year.

Less than double the average per year.........so 4 times is an overstatement, and it doesn't take into account the initial War and assaults taking the country by force. During this time more civilian deaths will occur. It also doesn't take into account who's killing who.

Iraq Body Count

A more accurate way to determine the deaths per year and who killed who.............The Insurgents were doing almost all the killing.............Not the coalition troops.........Click it and see for yourself about who was killing..........In the surge and increased combat operations 2006 and 2007 civilian casualties increased about 2.5 times normal average due to increased fighting to drive Insurgents out of the country. Under Petraeus the U.S. forces increased in size and scope during these years to counter the Insurgents.......During this time U.S. forces stayed in place after battles to hold ground instead of retreating to safe zones to ensure the Insurgents didn't harm civilians and plant new explosives after they were gone. This strategy reduced the violence over time as Insurgent losses increased due to the Strategy..........

Yet this was the man that MEDIA MATTERS DAMNED CALLING HIM BETRAY US..............Later to be
shown as the Great Strategist under Obama..........The same damned HYPOCRITES from the LEFT THRASHED THE MAN UNDER BUSH, and PRAISED HIM UNDER OBAMA............and he is exactly why the death tolls dropped in Iraq...............

Yet your side now claims how Obama did it. HYPOCRITES ONE AND ALL.

 

[eagle1462010]

Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2006 election[edit]
Polls showed that after the 2006 general election, “A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they [won] control of Congress”.[12] This view of the election as a referendum on the war was endorsed by Democratic leaderNancy Pelosi who in the final days of the campaign said, “This election is about Iraq. If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on.”[13] The news media viewed the Democratic victory in both houses of the US Congress as “punishing President George W. Bush and his Republicans over ethics scandals in Washington and a failing war in Iraq.”[14]

Democratic position[edit]
After her party's victory then House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (who would a month later make clear her disdain for the "surge proposal"[15]) wrote an article entitled "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker". The article explained that after visiting wounded Iraq War veterans at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center, "I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end. I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq. ...When the House reconvenes on January 4, 2007, Democrats will take power and I will take the gavel knowing the responsibility we have to you and to the country. The new Democratic Congress will live up to the highest ethical standard... [we] are prepared to lead and ready to govern. We will honor the trust of the American people; we will not disappoint."[16]

Republican position[edit]
Following the 2006 United States midterm elections where the Republicans lost control of the House and Senate, aHeritage Foundation conference was chaired by Republican whip Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) under the title "The New Way Forward: Refocusing the Conservative Agenda" on November 9, 2006 to analyze "setbacks" from the election results. Blunt bemoaned the fact Republicans had "become the defenders rather than the challengers of business as usual."[17]

Blunt opened his speech listing the oft voiced explanations of his party's defeat which included that the results were in part “a referendum on the war in Iraq”. He dismissed the notion that any one single reason explained the loss, saying “Different candidates lost for different reasons”. He saw a bright side in events saying “The good news is that even with these shortcomings, low presidential approval numbers, and uncertainty about Iraq, our candidates saw, even with all those things happening, their ideas taking hold in the final days of their campaigns. A shift of 78,000 votes in the entire country would have changed the outcome. Our ideas didn’t get beat; in fact, we did.” He applauded the Constitutional system saying the defeat proves “that no one party has a permanent claim to power…This means any viable political movement, such as ours, can never afford to become stagnant or complacent. We must constantly refresh our ideas, assess our performance, and make corrections when necessary. This is a great moment to do all three of those things. For a generation Reagan conservatives have consistently demonstrated an ability to do just that. Nowhere has this been more evident than in our response to the threats of Islamic totalitarianism and the fight with our terrorist enemies.” He said “While the threats of Islamic totalitarianism at times require different tactics, we are approaching those challenges with the same resolve that allowed us to defeat communism. I am convinced that in this fight we will also prevail because the American people understand the need to win. We must continue to lead the fight against Islamic totalitarianism and sustain the will to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. …[On the war and on domestic issues] Our plan must avoid the mistakes of the past several years. …I am confident that we will successfully move forward.”[18]

 

[eagle1462010]

Contrast in Strategies in Iraq................

In 2006, Pelosi backed by Dems were saying it FAILED...............and that they would just give the **** Up. Had they Won in 2006 they would have withdrawn the forces back then. They were openly stating this.........

In other words, the Democratic Strategy WAS CUT TAIL AND RUN.............not DIG IN AND FIGHT and try to WIN THE WAR...................During this time they were using Propaganda like this..............

Your side proved what it wanted under Obama...........FULL WITHDRAWAL and BE DAMNED THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACTION.

If the Dems would have Won in 2006...............Iraq would have been lost by the next election..........Instead Petraeus took control and limited the violence there.........even though the Civil War there was still ongoing..................

Dem strategy............

 

[eagle1462010]

iCasualties Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan

Shows coalition losses......including the names of those killed in action and from what country.

In Afghanistan our losses increased under the Surge in Afghanistan. As Obama used the surge strategy there because it was working in Iraq...............aka following in the foot steps of Petraeus strategy in Iraq...........since it was working there, they were ready to go forward with it in Afghanistan.

I don't see you complaining about the surge there Natty............Why............because it happened under Obama and suddenly increased U.S. force deployment is Righteous to your side......................

HYPOCRITES.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Eagl 11222600

From your own quote..............."might set back hard won gains in those cities."

I know. You started another line of argument here:

eagl 11221216 ↑Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687.

That is why I told you the truth: "No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile.

As proof Mosul was not secure I cited the commander of the 25th Infantry Division, here:

Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadlinefor US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.

Then I pointedly asked you this question: "Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30"

So apparently you still do not know why and I gave you the answer. Gen Robert Caslen explains why:

Diyala Provinces. While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops from populated areas under a wide-ranging security agreement might set back hard-won gains in those cities. [/QUOTE]

Then I followed up with this: "Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from signing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. "

So if Obama violated the terms of the SOFA and sent combat troops back into Mosul - the Iraqis would have accused Obama of breaking the 2008 agreement and violating Iraq's sovereignty and therefore demand all US troops leave within one year. Such was the deal that Bush signed.

But Mosul was definitely not stable. So you lied again. You got a pretty good string of lies going on here. I shall put them all on your record.

 

[eagle1462010]

Eagl 11222600

From your own quote..............."might set back hard won gains in those cities."

I know. You started another line of argument here:

eagl 11221216 ↑Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687.

That is why I told you the truth: "No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile.

As proof Mosul was not secure I cited the commander of the 25th Infantry Division, here:

Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadlinefor US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.

Then I pointedly asked you this question: "Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30"

So apparently you still do not know why and I gave you the answer. Gen Rober Caslen explains why:

Diyala Provinces. While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops from populated areas under a wide-ranging security agreement might set back hard-won gains in those cities.

Then I followed up with this: "Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from sighing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. "

So if Obama violated the terms if the SOFA and sent combat troops back into Mosul - the Iraqis would have accused Obama of breaking the 2008 agreement and violating Iraq's sovereignty and there for demand all US troops leave within one year. Such was the deal that Bush signed.

But Mosul was definitely not stable. So you lied again. You got a pretty good string of lies going on here. I shall put them all on your record.[/QUOTE]
You can file those complaints at the office.............check the 3rd port-o-let on the right and drop off your complaints at the basement.

Your main complaint is that these areas were unstable............... My main point was that they WERE UNDER IRAQI AND U.S. CONTROL..................The Sectretarian violence there was still ongoing but had lessened under the Petraeus Plan...................

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't still be fighting between Shiite and Sunni...........not by a long shot.....................and whether you like it or not these areas were TAKEN by our forces and still held when our people were withdrawn....................Full withdrawal under SOFA has been the RALLYING CRY of people like you on why the place went to shit under Obama................

Saying Obama was only doing the BUSH STRATEGY...............It was SOFA.........A SOFA........A SOFA OF BUSH

BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH

Here's a suggestion for you Natty me boy..............Why don't you elect someone who stands on his own instead of making EXCUSES FOR HIS OWN DECISIONS................Obama and the DEMS didn't want a NEW SOFA AGREEMENT................IRAQ KNEW Obama wanted a FULL WITHDRAWAL................which is why no damned new agreement was ever drawn.

Your side wanted to capitulate in 2006.

Your side said the surge would never work.

Your side slammed Petraeus and the Pentagon for a surge strategy that later worked............

The surrender flag is your sides solution to WINNING A WAR..............and it happened under Obama's watch.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Listen to Obama...........Immediately remove the troops.

aka CAPITULATE



You can't hide from the Dem strategies before and after your side took the WH...........

and given that they felt this way, why would they surge in Afghanistan...............

Because there is Civil War style violence there as well..............

 

[eagle1462010]

YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK CAMPAIGN SPEECH................OBAMA