Trump surrenders to the Taliban

I remember when conservatives and Republicans were saying that we should never negotiate with terrorists. And now, Trump is doing negotiations with the Taliban.

And I remember a time when Democrats were against being the 'world's policeman', were against going ...and staying in...war.

Obama's daddy was an anti-American / anti-Colonialist who wanted to see the US eliminated as a world power and world influence. I wonder what he would have thought about Barry injecting himself into numerous world elections, about Barry pimping out the US military to help Al Qaeda kill a world leader and take over their own country, and about Barry invading another sovereign country.... He must be so ashamed of how lil' Barak grew up...
 
sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.


Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.
Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal


Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President keep troops in a country under those conditions.
What you have shown is that Obama did not have to pull the troops out because of the SoFA as you had previously claimed. The SoFA did not change the conditions under which US troops would serve, so Obama must have set new conditions which the Iraqis found unacceptable. The fact remains, US could have continued to serve under the same conditions they had been serving and Maliki wanted them to stay, but Obama wanted to leave for purely political reasons, so he lied to the American people, saying Iraq no longer needed US troops and now his supporters like you continue to lie about why he left because the truth, that it was a purely cynical political move and he knew the horror it would create is more than you can handle.

Yes it did. It told them they were leaving before 2012. The compromise the Iraqis and Bush made on immunity for the troops lasted until the SOFA ran out at the end of 2011, when the US troops were scheduled to withdraw. Without an immunity agreement into 2012 and beyond, no president would have kept troops there. Remember what the PM said

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.":
 
sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.


Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.
Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal


Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President keep troops in a country under those conditions.
What you have shown is that Obama did not have to pull the troops out because of the SoFA as you had previously claimed. The SoFA did not change the conditions under which US troops would serve, so Obama must have set new conditions which the Iraqis found unacceptable. The fact remains, US could have continued to serve under the same conditions they had been serving and Maliki wanted them to stay, but Obama wanted to leave for purely political reasons, so he lied to the American people, saying Iraq no longer needed US troops and now his supporters like you continue to lie about why he left because the truth, that it was a purely cynical political move and he knew the horror it would create is more than you can handle.

Yes it did. It told them they were leaving before 2012. The compromise the Iraqis and Bush made on immunity for the troops lasted until the SOFA ran out at the end of 2011, when the US troops were scheduled to withdraw. Without an immunity agreement into 2012 and beyond, no president would have kept troops there. Remember what the PM said

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.":
dude, your story keeps changing.
 
Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

Territory%20Dec%202017-L.jpg

Nope that was the government in Baghdad's fault for not living up to their promises to the Sunnis tribes. Two years after we left. There was no massive redeployment of US combat troops to fight ISIS.

Of course Obama left it up to the Generals to develop a plan on how to destroy the ISIS Caliphate without re-invading and getting a lot more American kids killed.
Still more lies to try to defend Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq because he thought it would be better for his reelection campaign.

As a part of the surge, Petraeus had organized Sunni militia to fight al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups. Under the plan, the US paid the troops, armed and trained them and provided logistical support but did not engage in the fighting. When Obama withdrew from Iraq, he also cut the funding and support the US had been giving to these militia and they quickly fell apart and the terrorists grew in number and power and ISIS was formed.

At the same time, Obama abandoned the close political support the Bush administration had given to the Iraqi government as a counterweight to Iranian influence. When Obama pulled out of Iraq, he also ended this close support for the Iraqi government so Maliki was weakened and yielded to Iranian influence, purging the armed forces of Sunni and Kurdish officers and appointing new officers on the basis of loyalty rather than training or competence, so when ISIS struck, the Iraqi army the US had trained and built, no longer existed.

When Obama decided to return US troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, he continued his destruction of Iraq by forming an unofficial partnership with Iran by allowing the Iraqi government to make militias loyal to Iran part of the Iraqi armed forces, effectively giving full control of Iraq to Iran and helping to build the land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. Had US forces remained in Iraq as Maliki had asked, none of this would have happened. The Pentagon had told Obama what would happen if he pulled out, but Obama was never anything but a cynical politician and he just didn't care as long as it got him a second term.
 
sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.


Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.
Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal


Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President keep troops in a country under those conditions.
What you have shown is that Obama did not have to pull the troops out because of the SoFA as you had previously claimed. The SoFA did not change the conditions under which US troops would serve, so Obama must have set new conditions which the Iraqis found unacceptable. The fact remains, US could have continued to serve under the same conditions they had been serving and Maliki wanted them to stay, but Obama wanted to leave for purely political reasons, so he lied to the American people, saying Iraq no longer needed US troops and now his supporters like you continue to lie about why he left because the truth, that it was a purely cynical political move and he knew the horror it would create is more than you can handle.

Yes it did. It told them they were leaving before 2012. The compromise the Iraqis and Bush made on immunity for the troops lasted until the SOFA ran out at the end of 2011, when the US troops were scheduled to withdraw. Without an immunity agreement into 2012 and beyond, no president would have kept troops there. Remember what the PM said

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.":
If the US had remained in response to the PM's request, the terms of the SoGA would have continued unless a new SoFA was negotiated, so clearly Obama was trying to set conditions impossible for Maliki to agree to.
 
Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

Territory%20Dec%202017-L.jpg

Nope that was the government in Baghdad's fault for not living up to their promises to the Sunnis tribes. Two years after we left. There was no massive redeployment of US combat troops to fight ISIS.

Of course Obama left it up to the Generals to develop a plan on how to destroy the ISIS Caliphate without re-invading and getting a lot more American kids killed.
Still more lies to try to defend Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq because he thought it would be better for his reelection campaign.

As a part of the surge, Petraeus had organized Sunni militia to fight al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups. Under the plan, the US paid the troops, armed and trained them and provided logistical support but did not engage in the fighting. When Obama withdrew from Iraq, he also cut the funding and support the US had been giving to these militia and they quickly fell apart and the terrorists grew in number and power and ISIS was formed.

At the same time, Obama abandoned the close political support the Bush administration had given to the Iraqi government as a counterweight to Iranian influence. When Obama pulled out of Iraq, he also ended this close support for the Iraqi government so Maliki was weakened and yielded to Iranian influence, purging the armed forces of Sunni and Kurdish officers and appointing new officers on the basis of loyalty rather than training or competence, so when ISIS struck, the Iraqi army the US had trained and built, no longer existed.

When Obama decided to return US troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, he continued his destruction of Iraq by forming an unofficial partnership with Iran by allowing the Iraqi government to make militias loyal to Iran part of the Iraqi armed forces, effectively giving full control of Iraq to Iran and helping to build the land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. Had US forces remained in Iraq as Maliki had asked, none of this would have happened. The Pentagon had told Obama what would happen if he pulled out, but Obama was never anything but a cynical politician and he just didn't care as long as it got him a second term.

Who signed the SOFA that led to our withdrawal from Iraq?
 
Is there a pattern here?

In December 2018 Trump lost his most capable secretary of defense, Marine General James Mattis. Trump had ordered a retreat in Syria. Mattis failed in one last attempt at persuading the President to reverse his decision about Syria, which Trump had announced on Wednesday of that week over the objections of his senior advisers. Mattis subsequently resigned. Eventually, the Pentagon overruled Trump, and the retreat order was cancelled.

In October 2019, Trump ordered the withdrawal of American forces from northern Syria, a decision that effectively ceded control of the area to the Syrian government and Russia. Hundreds of our allies responsible for the destruction of the ISIS caliphate were killed, and thousands more were forced to flee their homes in Syria.

In February 2020 Trump struck a deal with the Taliban that will have the United States withdraw from the country in 14 months if the rogue regime meets certain criteria, including stopping attacks on U.S. forces in the country (huh?). Trump, who avoided military service, is apparently ignorant of the meaning of war.

The U.S. removed the Taliban from power in October 2001 because it sponsored Al Qaeda. On 9/11 Al Qaeda was responsible for the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans. The Taliban is responsible for the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans.

Now Trump is surrendering to the Taliban. There is little doubt that once American troops leave, the Taliban will regain power in Kabul, and Afghanistan will once again become a haven for Islamic terrorism thanks to Trump. The Taliban are Islamic fundamentalists.

Is there a pattern here? Most definitely. Trump is placating his patron, Vladimir Putin. He has done so throughout his Presidency. He causes consternation with our allies abroad and chaos at home. From Putin's viewpoint, what's not to like?

"Bush got us into two unnecessary wars!"

"Trump is going to start world war 3!"

(Trump forges peace deal with Taliban in Afghanistan)

"TRUMP IS SURRENDERING!"

"TRUMP IS LEAVING A WAR UNFINISHED!"


Trump really should proclaim support for rain, just so we can see left-wingers come out in opposition to rain. Maybe we can get Jessie Smollett get on TV and claim he was mugged by a MAGA Hat wearing water droplet.
 
Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.
Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal


Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President keep troops in a country under those conditions.
What you have shown is that Obama did not have to pull the troops out because of the SoFA as you had previously claimed. The SoFA did not change the conditions under which US troops would serve, so Obama must have set new conditions which the Iraqis found unacceptable. The fact remains, US could have continued to serve under the same conditions they had been serving and Maliki wanted them to stay, but Obama wanted to leave for purely political reasons, so he lied to the American people, saying Iraq no longer needed US troops and now his supporters like you continue to lie about why he left because the truth, that it was a purely cynical political move and he knew the horror it would create is more than you can handle.

Yes it did. It told them they were leaving before 2012. The compromise the Iraqis and Bush made on immunity for the troops lasted until the SOFA ran out at the end of 2011, when the US troops were scheduled to withdraw. Without an immunity agreement into 2012 and beyond, no president would have kept troops there. Remember what the PM said

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.":
If the US had remained in response to the PM's request, the terms of the SoGA would have continued unless a new SoFA was negotiated, so clearly Obama was trying to set conditions impossible for Maliki to agree to.

Yes, the condition of immunity for our troops was something that Maliki would not agree too with Bush or Obama.
 
Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

Territory%20Dec%202017-L.jpg

Nope that was the government in Baghdad's fault for not living up to their promises to the Sunnis tribes. Two years after we left. There was no massive redeployment of US combat troops to fight ISIS.

Of course Obama left it up to the Generals to develop a plan on how to destroy the ISIS Caliphate without re-invading and getting a lot more American kids killed.
Still more lies to try to defend Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq because he thought it would be better for his reelection campaign.

As a part of the surge, Petraeus had organized Sunni militia to fight al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups. Under the plan, the US paid the troops, armed and trained them and provided logistical support but did not engage in the fighting. When Obama withdrew from Iraq, he also cut the funding and support the US had been giving to these militia and they quickly fell apart and the terrorists grew in number and power and ISIS was formed.

At the same time, Obama abandoned the close political support the Bush administration had given to the Iraqi government as a counterweight to Iranian influence. When Obama pulled out of Iraq, he also ended this close support for the Iraqi government so Maliki was weakened and yielded to Iranian influence, purging the armed forces of Sunni and Kurdish officers and appointing new officers on the basis of loyalty rather than training or competence, so when ISIS struck, the Iraqi army the US had trained and built, no longer existed.

When Obama decided to return US troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, he continued his destruction of Iraq by forming an unofficial partnership with Iran by allowing the Iraqi government to make militias loyal to Iran part of the Iraqi armed forces, effectively giving full control of Iraq to Iran and helping to build the land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. Had US forces remained in Iraq as Maliki had asked, none of this would have happened. The Pentagon had told Obama what would happen if he pulled out, but Obama was never anything but a cynical politician and he just didn't care as long as it got him a second term.

Who signed the SOFA that led to our withdrawal from Iraq?
The SoFA didn't lead to the withdrawal, Obama's political strategy for his reelection campaign did. As you saw, Article 27 paragraph 1 allows the Iraqi PM to ask the US to stay and Maliki did. Obama refused for purely political reasons.
 
Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal


Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President keep troops in a country under those conditions.
What you have shown is that Obama did not have to pull the troops out because of the SoFA as you had previously claimed. The SoFA did not change the conditions under which US troops would serve, so Obama must have set new conditions which the Iraqis found unacceptable. The fact remains, US could have continued to serve under the same conditions they had been serving and Maliki wanted them to stay, but Obama wanted to leave for purely political reasons, so he lied to the American people, saying Iraq no longer needed US troops and now his supporters like you continue to lie about why he left because the truth, that it was a purely cynical political move and he knew the horror it would create is more than you can handle.

Yes it did. It told them they were leaving before 2012. The compromise the Iraqis and Bush made on immunity for the troops lasted until the SOFA ran out at the end of 2011, when the US troops were scheduled to withdraw. Without an immunity agreement into 2012 and beyond, no president would have kept troops there. Remember what the PM said

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.":
If the US had remained in response to the PM's request, the terms of the SoGA would have continued unless a new SoFA was negotiated, so clearly Obama was trying to set conditions impossible for Maliki to agree to.

Yes, the condition of immunity for our troops was something that Maliki would not agree too with Bush or Obama.
But Maliki and Bush did agree to it. It is set out in the SoFA.
 
This is really no different than Obama's premature yanking of the troops out of Iraq, and this is another reason I WILL NEVER AGAIN support sending troops to fight.
Unless it's here on our own soil, I will be against it. I'm sick to death of waging politically correct wars. If you're not willing to carpet bomb an entire nation until the inhabitants surrender and scream for mercy, then just stay the fuck home !!!!!!!!!!
 
Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

Territory%20Dec%202017-L.jpg

Nope that was the government in Baghdad's fault for not living up to their promises to the Sunnis tribes. Two years after we left. There was no massive redeployment of US combat troops to fight ISIS.

Of course Obama left it up to the Generals to develop a plan on how to destroy the ISIS Caliphate without re-invading and getting a lot more American kids killed.
Still more lies to try to defend Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq because he thought it would be better for his reelection campaign.

As a part of the surge, Petraeus had organized Sunni militia to fight al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups. Under the plan, the US paid the troops, armed and trained them and provided logistical support but did not engage in the fighting. When Obama withdrew from Iraq, he also cut the funding and support the US had been giving to these militia and they quickly fell apart and the terrorists grew in number and power and ISIS was formed.

At the same time, Obama abandoned the close political support the Bush administration had given to the Iraqi government as a counterweight to Iranian influence. When Obama pulled out of Iraq, he also ended this close support for the Iraqi government so Maliki was weakened and yielded to Iranian influence, purging the armed forces of Sunni and Kurdish officers and appointing new officers on the basis of loyalty rather than training or competence, so when ISIS struck, the Iraqi army the US had trained and built, no longer existed.

When Obama decided to return US troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, he continued his destruction of Iraq by forming an unofficial partnership with Iran by allowing the Iraqi government to make militias loyal to Iran part of the Iraqi armed forces, effectively giving full control of Iraq to Iran and helping to build the land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. Had US forces remained in Iraq as Maliki had asked, none of this would have happened. The Pentagon had told Obama what would happen if he pulled out, but Obama was never anything but a cynical politician and he just didn't care as long as it got him a second term.

Who signed the SOFA that led to our withdrawal from Iraq?
The SoFA didn't lead to the withdrawal, Obama's political strategy for his reelection campaign did. As you saw, Article 27 paragraph 1 allows the Iraqi PM to ask the US to stay and Maliki did. Obama refused for purely political reasons.

The term "as mutually agreed upon" appears in both 1 and 2. Maliki said that there was no agreement on immunity. Which is the same reason there was no residual force article in the SOFA in the first place. It may have played into Obama's re-election strategy well, but it was not his main consideration.
 
Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Trump did unequivocally surrender, but Obama tried to surrender to the Taliban as well.
 
Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

Territory%20Dec%202017-L.jpg

Nope that was the government in Baghdad's fault for not living up to their promises to the Sunnis tribes. Two years after we left. There was no massive redeployment of US combat troops to fight ISIS.

Of course Obama left it up to the Generals to develop a plan on how to destroy the ISIS Caliphate without re-invading and getting a lot more American kids killed.
Still more lies to try to defend Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq because he thought it would be better for his reelection campaign.

As a part of the surge, Petraeus had organized Sunni militia to fight al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups. Under the plan, the US paid the troops, armed and trained them and provided logistical support but did not engage in the fighting. When Obama withdrew from Iraq, he also cut the funding and support the US had been giving to these militia and they quickly fell apart and the terrorists grew in number and power and ISIS was formed.

At the same time, Obama abandoned the close political support the Bush administration had given to the Iraqi government as a counterweight to Iranian influence. When Obama pulled out of Iraq, he also ended this close support for the Iraqi government so Maliki was weakened and yielded to Iranian influence, purging the armed forces of Sunni and Kurdish officers and appointing new officers on the basis of loyalty rather than training or competence, so when ISIS struck, the Iraqi army the US had trained and built, no longer existed.

When Obama decided to return US troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, he continued his destruction of Iraq by forming an unofficial partnership with Iran by allowing the Iraqi government to make militias loyal to Iran part of the Iraqi armed forces, effectively giving full control of Iraq to Iran and helping to build the land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. Had US forces remained in Iraq as Maliki had asked, none of this would have happened. The Pentagon had told Obama what would happen if he pulled out, but Obama was never anything but a cynical politician and he just didn't care as long as it got him a second term.

Who signed the SOFA that led to our withdrawal from Iraq?
The SoFA didn't lead to the withdrawal, Obama's political strategy for his reelection campaign did. As you saw, Article 27 paragraph 1 allows the Iraqi PM to ask the US to stay and Maliki did. Obama refused for purely political reasons.

The term "as mutually agreed upon" appears in both 1 and 2. Maliki said that there was no agreement on immunity. Which is the same reason there was no residual force article in the SOFA in the first place. It may have played into Obama's re-election strategy well, but it was not his main consideration.
lol His election strategy was his only consideration. The SoFA leaves the issue of a residual force at the PM's discretion and the issue of immunity was settled between Bush and Maliki amd was set out in the SoFA but Maliki found it wasn't possible to reach an agreement with Obama. That's because Obama had already made the decision to withdraw for political reasons.

Late in 2011 Obama's job approval ratings were well below 50% and withdrawal from Iraq was the major promise he had made in 2008. US troops were no longer fighting at that time and were just providing support to Iraqi forces who were keeping the peace. The Pentagon had told Obama that all this would collapse if he withdrew and the consequences would be catastrophic, as they were. There was simply no rational reason for withdrawing the troops at that time other than his reelection strategy.
 
Nope that was the government in Baghdad's fault for not living up to their promises to the Sunnis tribes. Two years after we left. There was no massive redeployment of US combat troops to fight ISIS.

Of course Obama left it up to the Generals to develop a plan on how to destroy the ISIS Caliphate without re-invading and getting a lot more American kids killed.

As you know and said, yes, failed former President Barack Hussein Obama was forced to return troops to Iraq. It was President Donald Trump, with his Rules of Engagement replacing Obama's and Trump eliminated the caliphate.

As you know too, President Trump reduced the Caliphate was reduced to the red areas by December 2017 and since then the Caliphate is totally gone.

ISIS%20map%20post%202017-L.jpg
 
The generals were not pleased with Trump's surrender to the Taliban.

Fox News reports, "The U.S. military conducted a “defensive” airstrike against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, less than a week after signing a historic peace deal with the militant group.

"U.S. military spokesman Col. Sonny Leggett said in a tweet that the airstrike Wednesday was conducted against four Taliban fighters in Nahr-e Saraj, in the Helmand province, who he said were “actively attacking” an Afghan National Defense and Security Force (ANDSF) checkpoint."

It is hoped that the air strike will kill Trump's surrender/defeatist treaty.
 
It is hoped that the air strike will kill Trump's surrender/defeatist treaty.

In another moment of inspirational diplomacy, Trump killed the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) that permanently barred Iran from making a nuke.

Fact check: Trump's claim that Iran could build nuclear weapons in seven years - Chicago Tribune

He replaced it with economic sanctions, harsh language, and threats. Iran has responded with bombing ships, seizing ships, destroying an oil refinery, shooting down s sophisticated American aircraft, and attacking a military base housing American troops, wounding over a hundred of our people.

And that is not all.

Fox News reports, "VIENNA — Iran has nearly tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November in violation of its deal with world powers, U.N. atomic watchdog agency said Tuesday, while raising new questions about possible nuclear-related activities and undeclared nuclear material at three locations."

The current stockpile puts Iran within reach of the amount needed to produce a nuclear weapon, which it insists it doesn't want to do.

Fox continues, "The nuclear deal that Iran signed in 2015 with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, allows Iran only to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms.

"The JCPOA promised Iran economic incentives in return for the curbs on its nuclear program, but since President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal unilaterally in 2018, Iran has been slowly violating the deal's restrictions."

Thank you, Mr. President, brilliant strategy.
 
Is there a pattern here?

In December 2018 Trump lost his most capable secretary of defense, Marine General James Mattis. Trump had ordered a retreat in Syria. Mattis failed in one last attempt at persuading the President to reverse his decision about Syria, which Trump had announced on Wednesday of that week over the objections of his senior advisers. Mattis subsequently resigned. Eventually, the Pentagon overruled Trump, and the retreat order was cancelled.

In October 2019, Trump ordered the withdrawal of American forces from northern Syria, a decision that effectively ceded control of the area to the Syrian government and Russia. Hundreds of our allies responsible for the destruction of the ISIS caliphate were killed, and thousands more were forced to flee their homes in Syria.

In February 2020 Trump struck a deal with the Taliban that will have the United States withdraw from the country in 14 months if the rogue regime meets certain criteria, including stopping attacks on U.S. forces in the country (huh?). Trump, who avoided military service, is apparently ignorant of the meaning of war.

The U.S. removed the Taliban from power in October 2001 because it sponsored Al Qaeda. On 9/11 Al Qaeda was responsible for the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans. The Taliban is responsible for the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans.

Now Trump is surrendering to the Taliban. There is little doubt that once American troops leave, the Taliban will regain power in Kabul, and Afghanistan will once again become a haven for Islamic terrorism thanks to Trump. The Taliban are Islamic fundamentalists.

Is there a pattern here? Most definitely. Trump is placating his patron, Vladimir Putin. He has done so throughout his Presidency. He causes consternation with our allies abroad and chaos at home. From Putin's viewpoint, what's not to like?

Clearly the OP wants more war and body bags. Sick and disgusting.
 
The generals were not pleased with Trump's surrender to the Taliban.

Fox News reports, "The U.S. military conducted a “defensive” airstrike against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, less than a week after signing a historic peace deal with the militant group.

"U.S. military spokesman Col. Sonny Leggett said in a tweet that the airstrike Wednesday was conducted against four Taliban fighters in Nahr-e Saraj, in the Helmand province, who he said were “actively attacking” an Afghan National Defense and Security Force (ANDSF) checkpoint."

It is hoped that the air strike will kill Trump's surrender/defeatist treaty.
Oh stfu
 
In another moment of inspirational diplomacy, Trump killed the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) that permanently barred Iran from making a nuke.

Fact check: Trump's claim that Iran could build nuclear weapons in seven years - Chicago Tribune

He replaced it with economic sanctions, harsh language, and threats. Iran has responded with bombing ships, seizing ships, destroying an oil refinery, shooting down s sophisticated American aircraft, and attacking a military base housing American troops, wounding over a hundred of our people.

And that is not all.

Fox News reports, "VIENNA — Iran has nearly tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November in violation of its deal with world powers, U.N. atomic watchdog agency said Tuesday, while raising new questions about possible nuclear-related activities and undeclared nuclear material at three locations."

The current stockpile puts Iran within reach of the amount needed to produce a nuclear weapon, which it insists it doesn't want to do.

Fox continues, "The nuclear deal that Iran signed in 2015 with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, allows Iran only to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms.

"The JCPOA promised Iran economic incentives in return for the curbs on its nuclear program, but since President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal unilaterally in 2018, Iran has been slowly violating the deal's restrictions."

Thank you, Mr. President, brilliant strategy.

Cute try, a FACT piece from the Chicago Tribune, home of President Barack Hussein Obama.

What was conveniently left out is the fact that inspections could only be made, with notice, at sites approved by Iran. What do you think the odds are that Iran would lie, use the $150 BILLION released to them to set up centrifuges in sites, not on the list or known by anyone other than...Iran?

There was no meaningful agreement nor had it been approved by the Senate.
 

Forum List

Back
Top