Turns out Obama was right again. Must suck to be the failed GOP leadership.

[NotfooledbyW]

1 am not going to forget my request that you back up your phony claim with a name and on record as follows.

.
OS 10741591

Did they not advise him to leave a force of 10,000 troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army?

NF 10745630

.Find me one adviser that advised Obama in 2011 to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq subject to Iraqi Sharia law without the immunity that they need and deserve.

So where is this military adviser to Obama who would subject 10,000 US troops to Sharia law under the Iraqi court system?

I'm waiting Oldstyle. You got nothing don't you?

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10749822

No choice? Dude, we gave BILLIONS to the Iraqis in aid. The "choice" we had was simply to tell them that if they didn't give us what we required...then that aid would not be forthcoming! You couldn't possibly have a bigger incentive to comply.

Name the US Federal aid going to Iraq in 2012 and the amount. Then tell us the billions in contracts for F16s and Abrams Tanks the was Iraqi money coming to the aid if the US.

The Iraqis didn't want YS troops in their country and they could not be bought. They could have gone elsewhere for the weapons systems they were spending their oil wealth on.

I believe we gave the Iraqis a little over 1.6 billion in aid for 2012.

As for your second question? I don't speak "idiot"...could you translate that sentence for me?

Your thinking that Iraqi leaders couldn't be "bought" shows how clueless you are about Iraq and it's leaders! I think you'd be hard pressed to find a place whose leaders are MORE for sale than Iraq!

 

[Oldstyle]

1 am not going to forget my request that you back up your phony claim with a name and on record as follows.

.
OS 10741591

Did they not advise him to leave a force of 10,000 troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army?

NF 10745630

.Find me one adviser that advised Obama in 2011 to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq subject to Iraqi Sharia law without the immunity that they need and deserve.

So where is this military adviser to Obama who would subject 10,000 US troops to Sharia law under the Iraqi court system?

I'm waiting Oldstyle. You got nothing don't you?

None of his military advisers wanted American troops to be in Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement. They rightly assumed that if we REALLY wanted one that Iraq would have caved on that issue because behind the scenes Maliki never wanted all the Americans pulled out because he knew what a dangerous vacuum that would create.

 

[rdean]

OS 10749822

No choice? Dude, we gave BILLIONS to the Iraqis in aid. The "choice" we had was simply to tell them that if they didn't give us what we required...then that aid would not be forthcoming! You couldn't possibly have a bigger incentive to comply.

Name the US Federal aid going to Iraq in 2012 and the amount. Then tell us the billions in contracts for F16s and Abrams Tanks the was Iraqi money coming to the aid if the US.

The Iraqis didn't want YS troops in their country and they could not be bought. They could have gone elsewhere for the weapons systems they were spending their oil wealth on.

I believe we gave the Iraqis a little over 1.6 billion in aid for 2012.

As for your second question? I don't speak "idiot"...could you translate that sentence for me?

Your thinking that Iraqi leaders couldn't be "bought" shows how clueless you are about Iraq and it's leaders! I think you'd be hard pressed to find a place whose leaders are MORE for sale than Iraq!

You said: I think you'd be hard pressed to find a place whose leaders are MORE for sale than Iraq!

That would be Republicans right here in the US. Remember, Republicans blocked a BP investigation after the Gulf Oil Spill to give BP time to hide or destroy evidence. Takes traitorous scum to do that to this country.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Great news! Oldstyle admits that none of Obama's military advisers "wanted American troops to be in Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement".

You can see it all right here:

.
OS 10741591

Did they not advise him to leave a force of 10,000 troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army?

NF 10745630

.Find me one adviser that advised Obama in 2011 to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq subject to Iraqi Sharia law without the immunity that they need and deserve.

OS 10754146

None of his military advisers wanted American troops to be in Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement.

.

So your post 10741591 was not true. And now your argument relies upon an assumption that Iraq would cave.

So your fabrications deepen. You claim to know what Maliki wanted 'behind the scenes' ... So I wonder what your facts based source for that 'whopper' is? EconRouteIrishChick?

Why was Maliki hiding 'behind the scenes' if Muqtada al Sadr was ready to cave? How do you presume to know that Iraq's legislature was ready to cave? Just who do you think you are?

Openly the Iraqis did not want to extend the Bush promised date for complete US troop withdrawal. I don't need to rely on behind the scenes fantasies and assumptions that the Iraqis thought opposite of what they said.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10754132

I believe we gave the Iraqis a little over 1.6 billion in aid for 2012

You ' believe' or you know? When you make a claim don't you base it on something in case someone asks you to back it up? So what was the aid for and by what entity granted it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10754132

Your thinking that Iraqi leaders couldn't be "bought" shows how clueless you are about Iraq and it's leaders!

The most clueless person has to be the one who thinks Maliki or Sadr or Sistani could be bought by Americans:

.
US Troops Would Have Withdrawn from Iraq With or Without Obama. by Wayne White

With the conflict in Iraq yet again dominating news headlines, it might come as a surprise to many Americans that it was Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cronies who wanted all US troops out of Iraq by the original deadline, set by the Bush administration, of December 2011. Two administrations failed to change Maliki’s mind, but a cottage industry continues to insist that the Obama administration undercut US interests by not working hard enough to leave troops behind to preserve the US “victory.” The fact is, however, that Maliki and many other Iraqis were not going to back down for various reasons.


No Choice

A key premise of misleading accounts of the US departure from Iraq is that President Barack Obama wanted to end the US mission there. He sure did, along with the majority of Americans at the time. Yet this fact is irrelevant to the issue at hand. On the advice of his advisors, Obama still tried to persuade Maliki to overturn his refusal to grant the immunity required to keep US troops in Iraq with the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which expired in December 2011. Those marketing the old saw that Obama threw away alleged US successes in Iraq by simply not pressing Maliki hard enough do not acknowledge the reality that Maliki was unrelenting.

Maliki’s uncompromising attitude was clear since the time of the Bush administration. His position was meanwhile overwhelmingly supported by much of the Iraqi leadership, populace, and religious authorities. Fierce Shi’a nationalists like Muqtada al-Sadr wanted US forces out before 2011. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the source of emulation for Iraqi Shi’a, ceased to oppose the SOFA only when immunity was removed and 2011 was set as the withdrawal deadline.

Nearly half the Iraqi parliament also either opposed or abstained in the vote on the existing SOFA even with immunity removed because of pressure for a pre-2011 withdrawal. Finally, a majority of Iraqis polled at the time believed that either the presence of US troops was causing the violence, that Iraqi “sovereignty” would not be complete until the Americans left, or both.

US Troops Would Have Withdrawn from Iraq With or Without Obama LobeLog

Maliki didn't need or want American bribes because if he did he would have done what Americans wanted him to do. Instead he did this:

More from the link:

.
The fundamental flaw in the deal was that it was only between Sunni Arab insurgents and US forces—not the Iraqi government. Maliki had taken over as prime minister; he bitterly opposed the deal. He even tried to scuttle it by sending the Iraqi Army to attack a large unit of former Sunni Arab insurgents working with US forces near Baghdad. In that instance, in late 2008, US soldiers shielding their new Sunni Arab allies prevented a bloodbath. Only after failing to scuttle the deal did Maliki accept it, under US pressure, though still not entirely.

Many US observers wrongly assumed the matter was closed. The Maliki government was, however, simply biding its time, waiting for US troops to leave so the deal could be undermined. Thus a desire to tear down much of the Awakening was another reason Iraqi-Shi’a powerbrokers wanted US troops out of the country. Maliki knew that as long as US troops remained on the scene, he would not have a free hand in dealing with the Awakening. To Shi’a leaders, Awakening cadres were still former insurgents. Sunni Arab reintegration also meant the return of greater (and unwanted) Sunni Arab political clout.

Starting in 2009, with the scheduled US withdrawal from cities, Maliki began to renege on his unwanted buy-in related to the Awakening. Security units loyal mainly to him and Shi’a militias began widespread arrests or assassinations of prominent Awakening members. In parallel, Maliki based his re-election campaign in 2010 on an anti-Sunni Arab platform, dredging up typically exaggerated Ba’th Party connections among Sunni Arab officials to rouse Shi’a voters.

From 2009-13, Maliki purged key Sunni Arabs from Iraqi ministries. Maliki’s anti-Sunni Arab campaign reached an extreme low in December 2011 when he charged Sunni Arab Deputy Prime Minister Tariq al-Hashimi with terrorism. Hashimi found refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan as the Kurds distanced themselves from Maliki’sdamaging policies.

From the link:

"Starting in 2009, with the scheduled US withdrawal from cities, Maliki began to renege on his unwanted buy-in related to the Awakening. Security units loyal mainly to him and Shi’a militias began widespread arrests or assassinations of prominent Awakening members."

And Oldstyle wanted Obama to try to "buy" this lawless assassin.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10754132

I believe we gave the Iraqis a little over 1.6 billion in aid for 2012

You ' believe' or you know? When you make a claim don't you base it on something in case someone asks you to back it up? So what was the aid for and by what entity granted it?

Would you like to tell me what YOU think the US gave to Iraq in aid for 2012? I've told you what I believe the total was. If you're so convinced that I'm wrong then show me the total that is correct.

 

[Oldstyle]

Great news! Oldstyle admits that none of Obama's military advisers "wanted American troops to be in Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement".

You can see it all right here:

.
OS 10741591

Did they not advise him to leave a force of 10,000 troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army?

NF 10745630

.Find me one adviser that advised Obama in 2011 to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq subject to Iraqi Sharia law without the immunity that they need and deserve.

OS 10754146

None of his military advisers wanted American troops to be in Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement.

.

So your post 10741591 was not true. And now your argument relies upon an assumption that Iraq would cave.

So your fabrications deepen. You claim to know what Maliki wanted 'behind the scenes' ... So I wonder what your facts based source for that 'whopper' is? EconRouteIrishChick?

Why was Maliki hiding 'behind the scenes' if Muqtada al Sadr was ready to cave? How do you presume to know that Iraq's legislature was ready to cave? Just who do you think you are?

Openly the Iraqis did not want to extend the Bush promised date for complete US troop withdrawal. I don't need to rely on behind the scenes fantasies and assumptions that the Iraqis thought opposite of what they said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm not surprised by your ignorance of what was going on in Iraq prior to the pull out of all our troops, Notfooled...you've never struck me as someone who pays attention to what's going on around him...you're too busy spouting partisan rhetoric.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I wanted Obama to do was to use the considerable clout that we DID have in Iraq to follow the advice of his military leaders and leave a minimum of 10,000 troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. Instead we had Biden and Clinton bungling the negotiations and getting nothing and then Barry deciding to walk away from Iraq as he declared it a "success".

In case you haven't noticed...a lot of the "successes" that were declared by the Obama Administration have been anything but! Yemen is just one more example of what Obama and his merry band of progressives have done with foreign policy.

 

[rdean]

What I wanted Obama to do was to use the considerable clout that we DID have in Iraq to follow the advice of his military leaders and leave a minimum of 10,000 troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. Instead we had Biden and Clinton bungling the negotiations and getting nothing and then Barry deciding to walk away from Iraq as he declared it a "success".

In case you haven't noticed...a lot of the "successes" that were declared by the Obama Administration have been anything but! Yemen is just one more example of what Obama and his merry band of progressives have done with foreign policy.

If you can't stabilize a country after a decade of occupation, you will never be able to stabilize it. That money needs to be spent here. Not in a country where the people want us dead.
Republicans keep saying they hate Muslims. They want to attach the religion to terrorism. Yet, they also want to spend America into oblivion supporting the very people who they say they hate who want us dead.

Only proves that Republicans ARE insane.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10754590.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm not surprised by your ignorance of what was going on in Iraq prior to the pull out of all our troops, Notfooled...you've never struck me as someone who pays attention to what's going on around him...you're too busy spouting partisan rhetoric.

Even your Mr Gordon (one of the lying reporters of Judith Miller fame) had to admit what Republican present day liars won't admit:

.
Another Obstacle

In a June 2 videoconference with Mr. Maliki, the president emphasized that any agreement would need to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. But not everybody in the American camp agreed with this stipulation.

Brett H. McGurk, a former Bush administration aide whom the Obama administration had asked to return to Baghdad to help with the talks, thought that a bruising parliamentary battle could be avoided by working out an understanding under an existing umbrella agreement on economic and security cooperation — an approach Mr. Maliki himself suggested several times. But the White House wanted airtight immunities for any troops staying in Iraq, which American government lawyers, the Iraqi chief justice and James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted would require a new agreement that was endorsed by the Iraqi Parliament.

You don't accept the truth from the very own link you provided.


FYI you ought to examine the bias and partisan pro-invasion record of your Michael Gordon:

Beware the New York Times's Michael R. Gordon « Antiwar.com Blog
antiwar.com/blog/2014/08/.../beware-the-new-york-timess-michaelr-gordo...

"Aug 3, 2014 - Judith Miller's co-author on false 2002 NYT “report” on Iraq WMD ... Principle among the purveyors of these bloodletting falsehoods is Michael R. Gordon, ... And so he went on to peddle ever more lies on Iraq, being the first ..."

 

[DriftingSand]

Even a broken clock is "right" twice a day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What I wanted Obama to do was to use the considerable clout that we DID have in Iraq to follow the advice of his military leaders and leave a minimum of 10,000 troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. Instead we had Biden and Clinton bungling the negotiations and getting nothing and then Barry deciding to walk away from Iraq as he declared it a "success".

In case you haven't noticed...a lot of the "successes" that were declared by the Obama Administration have been anything but! Yemen is just one more example of what Obama and his merry band of progressives have done with foreign policy.

If you can't stabilize a country after a decade of occupation, you will never be able to stabilize it. That money needs to be spent here. Not in a country where the people want us dead.
Republicans keep saying they hate Muslims. They want to attach the religion to terrorism. Yet, they also want to spend America into oblivion supporting the very people who they say they hate who want us dead.

Only proves that Republicans ARE insane.

Had Bush and Condi Rice known that Obama would be a Jihadist Supporter they would have locked up Iraq on a longterm agreement instead of giving their successor the ability to negotiate their own deal

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OS 10754590.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm not surprised by your ignorance of what was going on in Iraq prior to the pull out of all our troops, Notfooled...you've never struck me as someone who pays attention to what's going on around him...you're too busy spouting partisan rhetoric.

Even your Mr Gordon (one of the lying reporters of Judith Miller fame) had to admit what Republican present day liars won't admit:

.
Another Obstacle

In a June 2 videoconference with Mr. Maliki, the president emphasized that any agreement would need to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. But not everybody in the American camp agreed with this stipulation.

Brett H. McGurk, a former Bush administration aide whom the Obama administration had asked to return to Baghdad to help with the talks, thought that a bruising parliamentary battle could be avoided by working out an understanding under an existing umbrella agreement on economic and security cooperation — an approach Mr. Maliki himself suggested several times. But the White House wanted airtight immunities for any troops staying in Iraq, which American government lawyers, the Iraqi chief justice and James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted would require a new agreement that was endorsed by the Iraqi Parliament.

You don't accept the truth from the very own link you provided.


FYI you ought to examine the bias and partisan pro-invasion record of your Michael Gordon:

Beware the New York Times's Michael R. Gordon « Antiwar.com Blog
antiwar.com/blog/2014/08/.../beware-the-new-york-timess-michaelr-gordo...

"Aug 3, 2014 - Judith Miller's co-author on false 2002 NYT “report” on Iraq WMD ... Principle among the purveyors of these bloodletting falsehoods is Michael R. Gordon, ... And so he went on to peddle ever more lies on Iraq, being the first ..."

Obama fucked it up. He owns it.

Condi negotiated a deal with Maliki but Obama wanted to surrender Iraq to his Jihadist Muslim allies

 

[NotfooledbyW]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm not surprised by your ignorance of what was going on in Iraq prior to the pull out of all our troops, Notfooled...you've never struck me as someone who pays attention to what's going on around him...you're too busy spouting partisan rhetoric.

From your link in 2012 from the NYTimes:

. It is too soon to fully assess that prediction. But tensions have increased to the point that Mr. Barzani has insisted Mr. Maliki be replaced and Iraq’s lone Sunni vice president has fled to Turkey to avoid arrest.

So Oldstyle by providing that link to Michael Gordon's book promotion in the New York Times are you saying that president Obama should have financially and militarily directly aided Maliki's malicious Shiite assault against the Sunnis in Iraq.?

Perhaps Gordon's book is now outdated with the peaceful transfer of power in Iraq that ended Maliki's reign of error and yes terror against the Sunni population of Iraq. The same Sunni's that were not guilty of hiding WMD's from UN inspectors in March 2003 that Gordon helped Bush and Cheney start a war against them. A lot of Sunnis died because of the vacuum Bush created during the 2003 invasion when al Qaeda entered Iraq for the first time in 2003 and grew to such a menace even to the Sunnis.

But you have no recollection of that major vacuum do you Oldstyle?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

CF 10755407

Had Bush and Condi Rice known that Obama would be a Jihadist Supporter they would have locked up Iraq on a longterm agreement instead of giving their successor the ability to negotiate their own deal

How is Obama to be considered to be a Jihadist support when he is currently leading a coalition that has killed 8000 Daesh Jihadists in the past few months?

Condi and Dubya knew what Maliki was doing in 2008 that he could not be trusted to deal fairly with the Sunnis. Bush and Condi started SOFA negotiations with the intent to keep five bases in Iraq. But they both got their asses handed to them by Maliki and Sadr so they had to settle in the final minutes of the negotiating to a short term deal dictated by the Iraqi side. They barely got what they got.

 

[Oldstyle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm not surprised by your ignorance of what was going on in Iraq prior to the pull out of all our troops, Notfooled...you've never struck me as someone who pays attention to what's going on around him...you're too busy spouting partisan rhetoric.

From your link in 2012 from the NYTimes:

. It is too soon to fully assess that prediction. But tensions have increased to the point that Mr. Barzani has insisted Mr. Maliki be replaced and Iraq’s lone Sunni vice president has fled to Turkey to avoid arrest.

So Oldstyle by providing that link to Michael Gordon's book promotion in the New York Times are you saying that president Obama should have financially and militarily directly aided Maliki's malicious Shiite assault against the Sunnis in Iraq.?

Perhaps Gordon's book is now outdated with the peaceful transfer of power in Iraq that ended Maliki's reign of error and yes terror against the Sunni population of Iraq. The same Sunni's that were not guilty of hiding WMD's from UN inspectors in March 2003 that Gordon helped Bush and Cheney start a war against them. A lot of Sunnis died because of the vacuum Bush created during the 2003 invasion when al Qaeda entered Iraq for the first time in 2003 and grew to such a menace even to the Sunnis.

But you have no recollection of that major vacuum do you Oldstyle?

What's amusing is that even when I cite about as liberally biased a news source as The New York Times...you still question it. What do you cite? Some blog I've never heard of?

What Gordon pointed out...even way back then...was that the Obama Administration failed miserably at every diplomatic attempt to deal with what was happening in Iraq and then simply gave up and walked away while declaring the situation "stable". Diplomacy oft times takes hard work to accomplish. Hard work and this Administration are strangers to each other.

The "major vacuum" was caused by sending an idiot like Joe Biden to negotiate with the Iraqis. I wouldn't send Joe Biden to the Post Office to mail a package for me. He's THAT clueless!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CF 10755407

Had Bush and Condi Rice known that Obama would be a Jihadist Supporter they would have locked up Iraq on a longterm agreement instead of giving their successor the ability to negotiate their own deal

How is Obama to be considered to be a Jihadist support when he is currently leading a coalition that has killed 8000 Daesh Jihadists in the past few months?

Condi and Dubya knew what Maliki was doing in 2008 that he could not be trusted to deal fairly with the Sunnis. Bush and Condi started SOFA negotiations with the intent to keep five bases in Iraq. But they both got their asses handed to them by Maliki and Sadr so they had to settle in the final minutes of the negotiating to a short term deal dictated by the Iraqi side. They barely got what they got.

He's only killed the Jihadists who refuse to recognize him and Val Jarrett as their leaders

 

[Dana7360]

Truth is often funny, especially when telling the truth about the obomanation!

Have you ever actually read the constitution? Not just the second amendment but the WHOLE constitution?

America isn't a military monarchy dictatorship. In fact the constitution says that our president is a civilian who is the commander in chief of the military. America, that is the one our founders established, can never have a president who is in the military while serving as president nor can America be run as a monarchy. In fact, that's what the founders of America overthrew when they won their freedom from king george in England.

The fact that you and others like you want a military dictator shows how much you hate freedom, democracy and what America stands for. Which doesn't surprise me. I've been watching you people for decades, you all actually believe the British colony that the pilgrims established was the United States of America. It's not. You actually believe that America's constitution allows for a military monarchy dictatorship. It doesn't.

If you want to live in a military monarchy dictatorship, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations are already what you want and you won't have to do anything to live in the society you want.

All you have to do is move there.