Trump was right again...obama purged officer corps. and filled it with p.c. lackeys....

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The country was under control when they handed it to obama...that is what the surge accomplished.....then obama pulled the troops despite the reality on the ground...and isis came to power....

Under the control of whom?

The newly formed and elected Iraq government being protected by a US military presence.
You must live under a democrat rock.

This would be the protective "military presence" from whom they demanded a fixed withdrawal schedule?

You ain't much of a thinker, is you?

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not only was Iraq a success, it provided, along with the involvement in Afghanistan, a geographic surrounding and cutting-off of Iran and Syria. Obama didn't like that for some stupidly dangerous reason.

You make this crap up as you go along, don't you?

Scrub abandoned the effort in Afghanistan......which left it in such dire straights that he was obliged to draw up plans for another Serge....

You didn't respond to my post. You made up a bullshit deflection.

You asserted something which is demonstrably false.......The Narrative isn't Reality based, so it doesn't require anything more than contradiction.

If you actually DEMONSTRATED something, we could be in business.

Go look at a map and then respond.

I know that you are wed to The Narrative, but Iraq was essentially turned over to Iran with the election of Maliki....

Iraq wasn't in a position to enforce any "blockade" of either Syrian or Afghanistan.....Even with the $25 billion dollar, 800,000 strong Legion of the Inarticulate Deserter, they couldn't rebuff 500 Toyota jockeys charging for Mosul....

I've heard a lot of idiotic justifications for the mess Scrub made in the ME, but this is the first time that I've seen this ridiculous hypothesis...

Take it up with a biased media who trashed bush at every step without considering the geopolitical advantages. It was Iran and Syria who were strategically surrounded and at least Condaleeza Rice made mention of that even if a corrupt media wouldn't.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Under the control of whom?

The newly formed and elected Iraq government being protected by a US military presence.
You must live under a democrat rock.

This would be the protective "military presence" from whom they demanded a fixed withdrawal schedule?

You ain't much of a thinker, is you?

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Retired four-star general and Fox News analyst Jack Keane, architect of the Iraq surge that produced the victory Obama threw away, recently spoke on Kilmeade and Friendsabout Obama's ongoing purge of the military of officers who oppose his isolationist and defeatist policies:" is the cancer in the OP. Iraq would not give the US the SOFA agreement to protect US soldiers from Iraqi courts.

"2aguy wants our soldiers subject to local courts in other countries" is the real OP. The agreement prior was to end in near the last of 2011, and the Iraqis would not budge.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You make this crap up as you go along, don't you?

Scrub abandoned the effort in Afghanistan......which left it in such dire straights that he was obliged to draw up plans for another Serge....

You didn't respond to my post. You made up a bullshit deflection.

You asserted something which is demonstrably false.......The Narrative isn't Reality based, so it doesn't require anything more than contradiction.

If you actually DEMONSTRATED something, we could be in business.

Go look at a map and then respond.

I know that you are wed to The Narrative, but Iraq was essentially turned over to Iran with the election of Maliki....

Iraq wasn't in a position to enforce any "blockade" of either Syrian or Afghanistan.....Even with the $25 billion dollar, 800,000 strong Legion of the Inarticulate Deserter, they couldn't rebuff 500 Toyota jockeys charging for Mosul....

I've heard a lot of idiotic justifications for the mess Scrub made in the ME, but this is the first time that I've seen this ridiculous hypothesis...

Take it up with a biased media who trashed bush at every step without considering the geopolitical advantages. It was Iran and Syria who were strategically surrounded and at least Condaleeza Rice made mention of that even if a corrupt media wouldn't.

How could Iraqnam "surround" Syria?

The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA)—the joint Shiite list that competed in the January 2005 and December 2005 parliamentary elections—included ISCI, the Badr Organization, Dawa, the Sadrist Trend, the Islamic Fadhila Party, and other small Iraqi Shiite parties that have enjoyed varying levels of support from Iran. The UIA was able to garner the majority of the vote in both elections, and consequently played a major role in framing the Iraqi constitution, and in the governments that were formed following these elections. The UIA was also backed in the January 2005 elections by Iraq’s most revered Shiite religious authority, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, despite his differences with the Qom-based religious establishment regarding the
doctrine of clerical rule (velayat-e faqih).
The UIA-led governments always had the tricky task of balancing their own interests with those of their Iranian patron. For instance, Iran opposed a security agreement between Iraq and the United States. By contrast, the Iraqi government clearly believed that an agreement was in its interest. In the end, Iraq signed a security agreement with the United States in November 2008, though the deal included language ensuring that Iraq would not be used as a springboard or corridor for attacks on Iran and established a timetable for a U.S. military withdrawal, in accordance with Iranian demands.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus111.pdf


Don't let that cast any shade on The Narrative, or anything...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You didn't respond to my post. You made up a bullshit deflection.

You asserted something which is demonstrably false.......The Narrative isn't Reality based, so it doesn't require anything more than contradiction.

If you actually DEMONSTRATED something, we could be in business.

Go look at a map and then respond.

I know that you are wed to The Narrative, but Iraq was essentially turned over to Iran with the election of Maliki....

Iraq wasn't in a position to enforce any "blockade" of either Syrian or Afghanistan.....Even with the $25 billion dollar, 800,000 strong Legion of the Inarticulate Deserter, they couldn't rebuff 500 Toyota jockeys charging for Mosul....

I've heard a lot of idiotic justifications for the mess Scrub made in the ME, but this is the first time that I've seen this ridiculous hypothesis...

Take it up with a biased media who trashed bush at every step without considering the geopolitical advantages. It was Iran and Syria who were strategically surrounded and at least Condaleeza Rice made mention of that even if a corrupt media wouldn't.

How could Iraqnam "surround" Syria?

The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA)—the joint Shiite list that competed in the January 2005 and December 2005 parliamentary elections—included ISCI, the Badr Organization, Dawa, the Sadrist Trend, the Islamic Fadhila Party, and other small Iraqi Shiite parties that have enjoyed varying levels of support from Iran. The UIA was able to garner the majority of the vote in both elections, and consequently played a major role in framing the Iraqi constitution, and in the governments that were formed following these elections. The UIA was also backed in the January 2005 elections by Iraq’s most revered Shiite religious authority, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, despite his differences with the Qom-based religious establishment regarding the
doctrine of clerical rule (velayat-e faqih).
The UIA-led governments always had the tricky task of balancing their own interests with those of their Iranian patron. For instance, Iran opposed a security agreement between Iraq and the United States. By contrast, the Iraqi government clearly believed that an agreement was in its interest. In the end, Iraq signed a security agreement with the United States in November 2008, though the deal included language ensuring that Iraq would not be used as a springboard or corridor for attacks on Iran and established a timetable for a U.S. military withdrawal, in accordance with Iranian demands.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus111.pdf


Don't let that cast any shade on The Narrative, or anything...

Consult a map before you post more drivel.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The newly formed and elected Iraq government being protected by a US military presence.
You must live under a democrat rock.

This would be the protective "military presence" from whom they demanded a fixed withdrawal schedule?

You ain't much of a thinker, is you?

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

 

[IcebergSlim]

This would be the protective "military presence" from whom they demanded a fixed withdrawal schedule?

You ain't much of a thinker, is you?

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

If I'm "reality-challenged" why am I the one citing Scrub's own statement on Iraqnam, while you.......uh........prattle.......and re-bleat?

How could Iraqnam be a part of any quarantine of Iran if Shiites were running the government, and Scrub signed an agreement SPECIFICALLY precluding Iraqnam from being used to stage any kind of military action against Iran?

I'm guessing that you have spent much of your life being curb stomped by Reality.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

If I'm "reality-challenged" why am I the one citing Scrub's own statement on Iraqnam, while you.......uh........prattle.......and re-bleat?

How could Iraqnam be a part of any quarantine of Iran if Shiites were running the government, and Scrub signed an agreement SPECIFICALLY precluding Iraqnam from being used to stage any kind of military action against Iran?

I'm guessing that you have spent much of your life being curb stomped by Reality.

The term iraqnam betrays your own lack of objectivity and demonstrates the mindset the hack was appeasing.
Setting a plan in stone without considering the consequences is the excuse the hack used to appease those who parrot left wing bullshit as you do.
No genuine leader would have abandoned Iraq the way the hack did and use paper terms as the excuse.
I repeat, go look at a map before you post again. And consider that overt military operations don't have to be applied in order to effect the isolation of Iran and Syria. Logistical (geographic) circumstances make it doable.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

If I'm "reality-challenged" why am I the one citing Scrub's own statement on Iraqnam, while you.......uh........prattle.......and re-bleat?

How could Iraqnam be a part of any quarantine of Iran if Shiites were running the government, and Scrub signed an agreement SPECIFICALLY precluding Iraqnam from being used to stage any kind of military action against Iran?

I'm guessing that you have spent much of your life being curb stomped by Reality.

The term iraqnam betrays your own lack of objectivity and demonstrates the mindset the hack was appeasing.
Setting a plan in stone without considering the consequences is the excuse the hack used to appease those who parrot left wing bullshit as you do.
No genuine leader would have abandoned Iraq the way the hack did and use paper terms as the excuse.
I repeat, go look at a map before you post again. And consider that overt military operations don't have to be applied in order to effect the isolation of Iran and Syria. Logistical (geographic) circumstances make it doable.

If it can be Boldly Asserted......

Iraqnam is appropriate to describe the historical blunder of epic proportions......and I do admire the way you dispense with the need to observe obligations to which we are signatory........

Why would ANYONE deal with us in such a case?

Seriously, you people are the dumbest mofos shuffling....

 

[JakeStarkey]

This would be the protective "military presence" from whom they demanded a fixed withdrawal schedule?

You ain't much of a thinker, is you?

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

^^^A lie. The US had obligations to follow if the Iraqis would not give an adequate SOFA agreement. They did not, we left.

 

[namvet]

scared shitless of being canned they kiss ass. great career move.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

If I'm "reality-challenged" why am I the one citing Scrub's own statement on Iraqnam, while you.......uh........prattle.......and re-bleat?

How could Iraqnam be a part of any quarantine of Iran if Shiites were running the government, and Scrub signed an agreement SPECIFICALLY precluding Iraqnam from being used to stage any kind of military action against Iran?

I'm guessing that you have spent much of your life being curb stomped by Reality.

The term iraqnam betrays your own lack of objectivity and demonstrates the mindset the hack was appeasing.
Setting a plan in stone without considering the consequences is the excuse the hack used to appease those who parrot left wing bullshit as you do.
No genuine leader would have abandoned Iraq the way the hack did and use paper terms as the excuse.
I repeat, go look at a map before you post again. And consider that overt military operations don't have to be applied in order to effect the isolation of Iran and Syria. Logistical (geographic) circumstances make it doable.

If it can be Boldly Asserted......

Iraqnam is appropriate to describe the historical blunder of epic proportions......and I do admire the way you dispense with the need to observe obligations to which we are signatory........

Why would ANYONE deal with us in such a case?

Seriously, you people are the dumbest mofos shuffling....

Iraqnam only applies if you consider the democrat protesting after the fact. Bush appeasing democrats created that effect. His ultimate decision to follow military advice led to success. Vietnam ended more like how the hack undermined Bush's success in Iraq.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

^^^A lie. The US had obligations to follow if the Iraqis would not give an adequate SOFA agreement. They did not, we left.

That was an obama bs excuse to appease sheeple like you.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're parroting the left wing propaganda. That was the obama excuse for premature withdrawal. ISIS is the proof of that failed decision.

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

^^^A lie. The US had obligations to follow if the Iraqis would not give an adequate SOFA agreement. They did not, we left.

You did the funny button routine which means you've surrendered to facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rosh has no sensible response to the fact the Iraqis would not give a sensible SOFA to the US.

Thus, Rosh wanted American troops tried in Iraqi courts.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

If I'm "reality-challenged" why am I the one citing Scrub's own statement on Iraqnam, while you.......uh........prattle.......and re-bleat?

How could Iraqnam be a part of any quarantine of Iran if Shiites were running the government, and Scrub signed an agreement SPECIFICALLY precluding Iraqnam from being used to stage any kind of military action against Iran?

I'm guessing that you have spent much of your life being curb stomped by Reality.

The term iraqnam betrays your own lack of objectivity and demonstrates the mindset the hack was appeasing.
Setting a plan in stone without considering the consequences is the excuse the hack used to appease those who parrot left wing bullshit as you do.
No genuine leader would have abandoned Iraq the way the hack did and use paper terms as the excuse.
I repeat, go look at a map before you post again. And consider that overt military operations don't have to be applied in order to effect the isolation of Iran and Syria. Logistical (geographic) circumstances make it doable.

If it can be Boldly Asserted......

Iraqnam is appropriate to describe the historical blunder of epic proportions......and I do admire the way you dispense with the need to observe obligations to which we are signatory........

Why would ANYONE deal with us in such a case?

Seriously, you people are the dumbest mofos shuffling....

Iraqnam only applies if you consider the democrat protesting after the fact. Bush appeasing democrats created that effect. His ultimate decision to follow military advice led to success. Vietnam ended more like how the hack undermined Bush's success in Iraq.

You're an idiot......THE ISG recommended AGAINST an increased US involvement in Iraqnam......Reality puts its foot to your forehead again...

Although the final report was not released until December 6, 2006, media reports ahead of that date described some possible recommendations by the panel. Among them were the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq and direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group also found that the Pentagon has underreported significantly the extent of the violence in Iraq and that officials have obtained little information regarding the source of these attacks. The group further described the situation in Afghanistan as so disastrous that they may need to divert troops from Iraq in order to help stabilize the country. After these reports began surfacing, co-chair James Baker warned that the group should not be expected to produce a "magic bullet" to resolve the Iraqi conflict.[13]


According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report released on December 6, 2006 included 79 recommendations and was 160 pages in length.

Iraq Study Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IcebergSlim]

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

^^^A lie. The US had obligations to follow if the Iraqis would not give an adequate SOFA agreement. They did not, we left.

You did the funny button routine which means you've surrendered to facts.

If they are facts, you wouldn't need to rely EXCLUSIVELY on Bold Assertion.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

^^^A lie. The US had obligations to follow if the Iraqis would not give an adequate SOFA agreement. They did not, we left.

You did the funny button routine which means you've surrendered to facts.

If they are facts, you wouldn't need to rely EXCLUSIVELY on Bold Assertion.....

Rosh does not understand what is a fact.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You are ignorant.....


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

Renewal in Iraq

• 
  
  
  • The Security Agreement also sets a date of December 31, 2011, for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This date reflects the increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces as demonstrated in operations this year throughout Iraq, as well as an improved regional atmosphere towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi economy, and an increasingly confident Iraqi government.
  • These dates therefore are based on an assessment of positive conditions on the ground and a realistic projection of when U.S. forces can reduce their presence and return home without a sacrificing the security gains made since the surge.

Now people who didn't huff from the Font of Scrub Junta koolaid understood that the principal objective of Serge was to spare Scrub the humiliation of seeing US troops return from the clusterfuck he engineered under his watch.

That timetable bullshit was flexible and ultimately used as an excuse and opportunity for shithead to appease his kumbaya, anti-vietnam-war constituent sheeple. ISIS is tangible proof of that decision being catastrophically wrong.

I give you the Record, and you come back with...........Bold Assertion....

That's unusual........it's as if you have convinced yourself that what you "think' matters....

It doesn't

You provide propaganda and Google searches and I post reality. Iraq was stable. Insert Obama and he destabilizes Iraq and ISIS grows onto a major threat. You are reality-challenged, blinded by partisanship.

^^^A lie. The US had obligations to follow if the Iraqis would not give an adequate SOFA agreement. They did not, we left.

That was an obama bs excuse to appease sheeple like you.

Even if the Obama administration attributed its diplomatic failure as residing with Baghdad, it always had a bipartisan trump card: no one wanted U.S. troops to remain without the customary parliamentary-enshrined immunity protections that were a sticking point in the negotiations. So once it became clear that Maliki could not or would not win a parliamentary vote on providing immunity, then it was simply impossible to have a large U.S. military presence.The small contingent of Marines protecting the embassy could be covered by other measures, but anything larger required an immunity agreement and the immunity agreement required a parliamentary vote. There was broad bipartisan agreement that it was folly to leave a sizable U.S. presence in Iraq without immunity protections, and although some critics argued that Maliki had the authority to grant immunity without a parliamentary vote, the unanimous position of U.S. government lawyers was that such protections required the formal vote of the Iraqi parliament.

What Happened to Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq?