US Unaware Iran Leading Iraq Fight for Tikrit

[Roudy]

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” Panetta said in October 2011.

eagl 10908034

Looks like 3 wack attacks so far................On his 4th...............

Name the three generals that were whacked for advising Obama to keep troops in Iraq after 2011 without having immunity from Iraqi courts. And who is the fourth?

Show where and when they advised Obama to accept a SOFA with Iraq that did not give our troops immunity and protection for prosecution in Iraqi courts. Subject to Sharia law.

Talk is cheap - provide some facts for a change.

He was talking about Secretaries of State, and I believe at least one of them Gates, was a general.

 

[eagle1462010]

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” Panetta said in October 2011.

eagl 10908034

Looks like 3 wack attacks so far................On his 4th...............

Name the three generals that were whacked for advising Obama to keep troops in Iraq after 2011 without having immunity from Iraqi courts. And who is the fourth?

Show where and when they advised Obama to accept a SOFA with Iraq that did not give our troops immunity and protection for prosecution in Iraqi courts. Subject to Sharia law.

Talk is cheap - provide some facts for a change.

Do you understand the difference between the Secretary of Defense and the commanding Generals of Centcom.............As that was the quote.

Roudy already provided sources for 2 that are no longer in that position and their statements of disagreement with Obama's policies.

To the SOFA statement, no one wanted or would accept our troops under Iraqi Law and prosecution, yet Obama wanted out very badly and didn't negotiate for other terms earnestly in my opinion.

Then he waited until Northern Iraq was gone to act at all. At the same time, Iraqi forces deserted in Mass.....which is a crying ******* shame.

 

[eagle1462010]

Obama relieves McChrystal of command - US news - Military NBC News

In the magazine article, McChrystal called the period last fall when the president was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the president appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position. McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan.

He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so,'" McChrystal told the magazine. And he was quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden.

 

[eagle1462010]

Typical politicians..............ask for the General in charge of combat operations for a plan...........they submit it...........and then don't give them the manpower to implement the plan.............and then later they would say his plan was a failure after ******* it up from the start.

His off air talk to a reporter showed his resentment of Obama............Later forced to resign for his comments...........

In military cycles, he broke the code for respecting the position for the CnC............as the military is not supposed to make comments ditching their CNC..........but that doesn't mean they don't privately think Obama is an IDIOT.

He slipped and let some of his true feelings out and HURT OBAMA'S FEEELINGS...........POOR THING.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Eagl 10909906

To the SOFA statement, no one wanted or would accept our troops under Iraqi Law and prosecution, yet Obama wanted out very badly and didn't negotiate for other terms earnestly in my opinion.

So we are in agreement that Roudy and others are lying when they state as fact that president Obama defied or ignored his generals and Pentagon official that were recommending to keep anywhere from three thousand to 30,000 troops in Iraq after the Bush SOFA expired in 2012. Those statements are all lies thank you for admitting that in writing.

 

[eagle1462010]

Eagl 10909906

To the SOFA statement, no one wanted or would accept our troops under Iraqi Law and prosecution, yet Obama wanted out very badly and didn't negotiate for other terms earnestly in my opinion.

So we are in agreement that Roudy and others are lying when they state as fact that president Obama defied or ignored his generals and Pentagon official that were recommending to keep anywhere from three thousand to 30,000 troops in Iraq after the Bush SOFA expired in 2012. Those statements are all lies thank you for admitting that in writing.

BS Mr. Strawman. Everyone knows we'd never except that agreement as did Iraq........which is why other offers were needed without that requirement....

It's called NEGOTIATION...........as you cherry pick your points to defend Obama.

They all stated a residual force was needed to ensure the country didn't fall into disarray.......Many quoting the intel aspect that went cold turkey when we left..........

These deals were never brokered because Obama had no intention of a deal anyway. He wanted out period and he didn't even leave the intel resources the Iraqi's needed to help maintain the country after leaving.

That has been criticized by many unless you are an Obama sheeple which you most definitely are.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

eagl 10910157

Everyone knows we'd never except that agreement as did Iraq........which is why other offers were needed without that requirement.... It's called NEGOTIATION......

The discussion has been focused on accusations that Obama defied and ignored his military advisers recommendations to leave troops after 2011. You have correctly admitted that Roudy's rightwing story line is not true. No one advised Obama to leave troops in Iraq under Iraqi demands to deny our troops immunity. And you have no convincing argument that Iraq was willing to concede that demand and more importantly ever be able to pass the granting of immunity through parliament.

There is your honesty problem. You refuse to accept Iraq's unrelenting yobstinance and defiance on the immunity issue. You are full of partisan non-objective what ifs and pure unfounded conjecture as you try to pass the possibility of Iraq concessions off as fact and reasonable discussion.

You know the truth but you continue to defend Roudy who has been no where near the truth that no one ever advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq subject to exactly what yis on all public record as to what the Iraqis were demanding and not wiling to do.



Roud 10908234

Read what I posted. His own defense secretaries were against Obama's troop withdrawal. Gates And Panetta Criticize Obama On Iraq And Syria - Business Insider

Roud 10909686

Because a few years after being whacked because behind the scenes they didn't agree with Obama's policies, all three of his defense secretaries are singing the same song about Obama, like canaries. Wake up.

Roud 10909691

I guess it doesn't matter to you that Obama gave up all those territories gained by the blood and toil of US forces, and now Iran our enemy is taking over all those regions, one by one.

Roud 10909698

He was talking about Secretaries of State, and I believe at least one of them Gates, was a general.

Roud 10908010

Are you kidding? Everybody knows how Obama operates...he is like a Mafia leader. If you go against his policies you're fired. How many defense secretaries has he whacked so fa

Roud 10908141

Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’

Roud 10908166.

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

eagl 10909906.

Roudy already provided sources for 2 that are no longer in that position and their statements of disagreement with Obama's policies. To the SOFA statement, no one wanted or would accept our troops under Iraqi Law and prosecution, yet Obama wanted out very badly and didn't negotiate for other terms earnestly in my opinion.

eagl 10910157.

They all stated a residual force was needed to ensure the country didn't fall into disarray.......Many quoting the intel aspect that went cold turkey when we left........

Roud 10902022

Yup, so after all the gains and American lives lost in Iraq, Bush handed DUFUS Obama a stable country with an elected govt., which Obama then proceeded to throw away everything that had been achieved and destabilized Iraq allowing terrorists like ISIS to control of entire regions, to the point that we now have the Iranians in Iraq fighting to take over cities the Americans had liberated.

Roud 10903842

Fast forward to Obama's presidency, despite the insistence and pleading by the generals, Obama removed the US forces too early, the Iraqi army collapsed and many of the cities fought and won by American blood were regained by Islamic terrorists. The media which has of course become a propoganda arm of the Democrst party fails to mention that what is now happening in Iraq is all Obama's fault, as usual. In fact most of the turmoil we see in the ME today and one nation after another falling under Islamist control, with the region about to explode, is a direct or indirect result of Obama's failures.

Roud 10905795

Bullshit. Iraq was a stable nation when Obama came to power. There were Sunnis in the newly formed democratic govt. Genocide? Hardly, not even close, and a blatant lie. Sunni's were upset that they no longer totally control all of Iraq and get to oppress and persecute, like it was before when Sadam was in Power. Iraq as one of the Sunni Caliphates has a special meaning for Muslims and in Islamic history.

Obama pulled the rug from under Iraq which allowed Iran to have more and more influence in the Iraqi affairs. And now Iran has invaded Iraq and fighting to commit ethnic cleansing on the Sunnis in Tikrit.

Roud 10905807

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that. The great humanitarian Nobel prize winner sent the enitre region into turmoil and caused half a million deaths so far.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

U.S. to pull out of Iraq after nearly 9 years of war Reuters

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Roud 10905795

Iraq as one of the Sunni Caliphates has a special meaning for Muslims and in Islamic history.

Iraq was much more secular and stable in 2003 than it was as left behind by Bush in 2009. That crap about a Iraq as one of the Sunni Caliphates under Saddam is utter nonsense.


You really have to run away from these two maps don't you?

The first set of maps show what Bush's invasion did to Baghdad:

There are few grimmer symbols for the devastation of the Iraq War than what it did to Baghdad's once-diverse neighborhoods. The map on the left shows the city's religious make-up in 2005. Mixed neighborhoods, then the norm, are in yellow. The map on right shows what it looked like by 2007, after two awful years of Sunni-Shia killing: bombings (shown with red dots), death squads, and militias. Coerced evictions and thousands of deaths effectively cleansed neighborhoods, to be mostly Shia (blue) or mostly Sunni (red). Since late 2012, the sectarian civil war has ramped back up, in Baghdad and nationwide.

The 2005 map

 

[Roudy]

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” Panetta said in October 2011.

eagl 10908034

Looks like 3 wack attacks so far................On his 4th...............

Name the three generals that were whacked for advising Obama to keep troops in Iraq after 2011 without having immunity from Iraqi courts. And who is the fourth?

Show where and when they advised Obama to accept a SOFA with Iraq that did not give our troops immunity and protection for prosecution in Iraqi courts. Subject to Sharia law.

Talk is cheap - provide some facts for a change.

Do you understand the difference between the Secretary of Defense and the commanding Generals of Centcom.............As that was the quote.

Roudy already provided sources for 2 that are no longer in that position and their statements of disagreement with Obama's policies.

To the SOFA statement, no one wanted or would accept our troops under Iraqi Law and prosecution, yet Obama wanted out very badly and didn't negotiate for other terms earnestly in my opinion.

Then he waited until Northern Iraq was gone to act at all. At the same time, Iraqi forces deserted in Mass.....which is a crying ******* shame.

He seems confused that Obama's secretaries of defense didn't publicly speak against him while they were serving. That never happens, they are either fired or resign, which is what has happened. The latest casualty is Chuck Hagel. We'll find out why later.

 

[Roudy]

Roud 10905795

Iraq as one of the Sunni Caliphates has a special meaning for Muslims and in Islamic history.

Iraq was much more secular and stable in 2003 than it was as left behind by Bush in 2009. That crap about a Iraq as one of the Sunni Caliphates under Saddam is utter nonsense.


You really have to run away from these two maps don't you?

The first set of maps show what Bush's invasion did to Baghdad:

There are few grimmer symbols for the devastation of the Iraq War than what it did to Baghdad's once-diverse neighborhoods. The map on the left shows the city's religious make-up in 2005. Mixed neighborhoods, then the norm, are in yellow. The map on right shows what it looked like by 2007, after two awful years of Sunni-Shia killing: bombings (shown with red dots), death squads, and militias. Coerced evictions and thousands of deaths effectively cleansed neighborhoods, to be mostly Shia (blue) or mostly Sunni (red). Since late 2012, the sectarian civil war has ramped back up, in Baghdad and nationwide.

The 2005 map

Iraq was "stable" under stable Sadam because he was a brutal dictator, who oppressed, tortured and killed those who stood in his way. It was a fragile yet stable democracy, after the Bush surge, which Obama was vehemently against. Iraq is a 60% Shiite nation so naturally the Shiites would want to regain their power, after decades of being oppressed by Sadam. Obama proceeded to pull the plug on Iran which paved the way for terrorists and Iran to step in.

Never said anything about the Caliphate under Sadam, I was talking about it's meaning for Muslims and Islam. You should learn a little about the history of the region:

Abbasid Dynasty - Islamic History Religion Facts

The Abbasids in Islamic history
14.9K45123Google +24

In Islamic history, Abbasid was the dynastic name generally given to the caliphs of Baghdad, the second of the two great Sunni dynasties of the Muslim empire, that overthrew the Umayyad caliphs. It seized power in 758, when it finally defeated the Umayyads in battle, and flourished for two centuries, but slowly went into eclipse with the rise to power of the Turkish army they had created, the Mamluks. Their claim to power was finally ended in 1258, when Hulagu Khan, the Mongol general, sacked Baghdad. While they continued to claim authority in religious matters from their base in Egypt, their dynasty was ended.

 

[Roudy]

eagl 10910157

Everyone knows we'd never except that agreement as did Iraq........which is why other offers were needed without that requirement.... It's called NEGOTIATION......

The discussion has been focused on accusations that Obama defied and ignored his military advisers recommendations to leave troops after 2011. You have correctly admitted that Roudy's rightwing story line is not true. No one advised Obama to leave troops in Iraq under Iraqi demands to deny our troops immunity. And you have no convincing argument that Iraq was willing to concede that demand and more importantly ever be able to pass the granting of immunity through parliament.

There is your honesty problem. You refuse to accept Iraq's unrelenting yobstinance and defiance on the immunity issue. You are full of partisan non-objective what ifs and pure unfounded conjecture as you try to pass the possibility of Iraq concessions off as fact and reasonable discussion.

You know the truth but you continue to defend Roudy who has been no where near the truth that no one ever advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq subject to exactly what yis on all public record as to what the Iraqis were demanding and not wiling to do.



Roud 10908234

Read what I posted. His own defense secretaries were against Obama's troop withdrawal. Gates And Panetta Criticize Obama On Iraq And Syria - Business Insider

Roud 10909686

Because a few years after being whacked because behind the scenes they didn't agree with Obama's policies, all three of his defense secretaries are singing the same song about Obama, like canaries. Wake up.

Roud 10909691

I guess it doesn't matter to you that Obama gave up all those territories gained by the blood and toil of US forces, and now Iran our enemy is taking over all those regions, one by one.

Roud 10909698

He was talking about Secretaries of State, and I believe at least one of them Gates, was a general.

Roud 10908010

Are you kidding? Everybody knows how Obama operates...he is like a Mafia leader. If you go against his policies you're fired. How many defense secretaries has he whacked so fa

Roud 10908141

Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’

Roud 10908166.

Funny, the Mafia boss' own defense secretaries are repeating EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, but of course the leftist media and Obama ass kissers keep giving Obama a pass:

eagl 10909906.

Roudy already provided sources for 2 that are no longer in that position and their statements of disagreement with Obama's policies. To the SOFA statement, no one wanted or would accept our troops under Iraqi Law and prosecution, yet Obama wanted out very badly and didn't negotiate for other terms earnestly in my opinion.

eagl 10910157.

They all stated a residual force was needed to ensure the country didn't fall into disarray.......Many quoting the intel aspect that went cold turkey when we left........

Roud 10902022

Yup, so after all the gains and American lives lost in Iraq, Bush handed DUFUS Obama a stable country with an elected govt., which Obama then proceeded to throw away everything that had been achieved and destabilized Iraq allowing terrorists like ISIS to control of entire regions, to the point that we now have the Iranians in Iraq fighting to take over cities the Americans had liberated.

Roud 10903842

Fast forward to Obama's presidency, despite the insistence and pleading by the generals, Obama removed the US forces too early, the Iraqi army collapsed and many of the cities fought and won by American blood were regained by Islamic terrorists. The media which has of course become a propoganda arm of the Democrst party fails to mention that what is now happening in Iraq is all Obama's fault, as usual. In fact most of the turmoil we see in the ME today and one nation after another falling under Islamist control, with the region about to explode, is a direct or indirect result of Obama's failures.

Roud 10905795

Bullshit. Iraq was a stable nation when Obama came to power. There were Sunnis in the newly formed democratic govt. Genocide? Hardly, not even close, and a blatant lie. Sunni's were upset that they no longer totally control all of Iraq and get to oppress and persecute, like it was before when Sadam was in Power. Iraq as one of the Sunni Caliphates has a special meaning for Muslims and in Islamic history.

Obama pulled the rug from under Iraq which allowed Iran to have more and more influence in the Iraqi affairs. And now Iran has invaded Iraq and fighting to commit ethnic cleansing on the Sunnis in Tikrit.

Roud 10905807

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that. The great humanitarian Nobel prize winner sent the enitre region into turmoil and caused half a million deaths so far.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times

U.S. to pull out of Iraq after nearly 9 years of war Reuters

Yeah sure, he was warned not to pull out early just to perform a political stunt and he did it anyhow. We all remember the discussions. It's not a right wing line. You are obsessed with justifying and explaining all of Obama's screw ups.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Roud 10910607

He seems confused that Obama's secretaries of defense didn't publicly speak against him while they were serving. .

What's confusing is that your entire argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Above you say without merit that Panetta in particular was in favor of keeping troops in Iraq without the immunity our troops deserve which was the opposite of his public statements at the time of the negotiations. Below you say Obama defied what Panetta secretly told Obama even though Panetta has never said he supported keeping troops in Iraq without immunity.

Roud 10905807

Hah! Obama went against the advice of his generals and pulled out the troops just to score some campaign points. We all remember that.

So you embarrass yourself by making up a story about one of your star witnesses against the President which is actually making the false case that Panetta is the liar and not Obama.

Eagle has explained why you are the one lying here so why not just accept the fact that you are lying that Obama was advised to keep troops in Iraq without immunity from Iraqi law and courts? Why not?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Yeah sure, he was warned not to pull out early just to perform a political stunt and he did it anyhow

Warned by whom knowing that Iraq was not going to back down on the immunity issue for our brave men and women in uniform?

You have not cited one person who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq without having the immunity they deserve.


He was not warned to any degree that the situation was so bad he had to relent on the immunity issue. You are continuing to make a false statement that even Eagle recognizes as such. So cut the left winger crap.

Are you denying that Panetta said this:

NF 10908529

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” Panetta said in October 2011.

Are you claiming Panetta has reversed that statement anywhere anytime in any way?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Roud 10910631

Iraq was "stable" under stable Sadam

That is the point. There was only one question to be resolved with regard to a Iraq after the attacks on September 11, 2001 on Bash's watch. That was, did Saddam have a secret active WMD program that was militarily ready with stockpiles of WMD that could end up it in the hands of terrorists? The question was being resolved in a stable Iraq by the UNSC at Bush's request and UNSC Resolution 1441.

Bush bombed and invaded and destabilized Iraq and the WMD did not exist.

Then Bush agreed with Iraq's demands to pull troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011. That is what caused the current situation in full. The stability of 2002 through March 19 2003 was never restored.

 

[Roudy]

Yeah sure, he was warned not to pull out early just to perform a political stunt and he did it anyhow

Warned by whom knowing that Iraq was not going to back down on the immunity issue for our brave men and women in uniform?

You have not cited one person who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq without having the immunity they deserve.


He was not warned to any degree that the situation was so bad he had to relent on the immunity issue. You are continuing to make a false statement that even Eagle recognizes as such. So cut the left winger crap.

Are you denying that Panetta said this:

NF 10908529

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” Panetta said in October 2011.

Are you claiming Panetta has reversed that statement anywhere anytime in any way?

You are either a liar and propagandist or, ignorant and delusional.

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

.....

Retired Army Brig. Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, a former deputy operations chief in Baghdad and a policymaker at the Pentagon, said the effectiveness of Iraq’s counterinsurgency operations against Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq may drop as much as 50 percent.

The Pentagon’s progress report on Iraq in June 2010 said its counterterrorism service was “highly trained and effective” but lacked the ability on its own to go after an entire terrorist network as opposed to a single individual.

“At the operational level, it’s going to make a significant change because for years the Iraqi security forces have depended on us for counterterrorism support, for counterintelligence support, for logistical support,” Gen. Kimmittsaid.

“We are now pulling all that out, and they will have to go it alone. By their own admission they are not ready to do it. They had not planned to do it by 2012. Their plans went all the way out to 2020 before they thought they were going to be ready to do this independently.”

Iraq’s top military officer, Lt. Gen. Babaker Zebari, said last summer that the security forces would not be fully capable for another eight years.

....

Leading Republicans shared Gen. Keane’s criticism of the withdrawal.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona called the move “a serious mistake.”

“I’m very, very concerned about increased Iranian influence in Iraq,” Mr. McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told ABC’s “This Week.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said Mr. Obama made a dangerous decision that ignored U.S. military recommendations to keep some troops in Iraq next year.

.....

The top brass had wanted to keep a force of quick-reaction commandos, trainers and aviators in Iraq past the 2011 deadline set in 2008 by Mr. Bush in what is called a status-of-forces agreement. Washington always viewed the date as flexible if Baghdad requested a longer presence.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed at his confirmation hearing to a senator’s statement that it would be wise to keep troops in Iraq next year.

“I don’t know the number, Senator, but it would be a number where we could provide the capability that they would request, that we would be able to protect ourselves, and it would have to meet both of our nations’ mutual interests,” he said.

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the Army chief of staff who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq, also told senators that Iraq needed a continued U.S. aviation presence to protect its airspace. But he later told reporters that Iraqi security was as good as it had ever been.

....


“Strategically, it’s obvious. This is a big win for Tehran,” Gen. Kimmitt said.

“I believe there is a lot of concern [in Gulf Arab states]. We have said one of reasons for keeping American forces in Iraq was to continue a very strong signal to Iran to draw a line between Persian Iran and the rest of the region.

“The Iraqis themselves have to make a decision whether they want to lean toward the West or lean toward the East. Iran has a very aggressive program inside Iraq to spread their influence.”

He said Iran, which now aids Syria, and the terrorist groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, would love to have a pathway through Iraq to increase its influence among those groups.

“Removing U.S. troops only enables that,” Gen. Kimmitt said.

Gen. Keane added, “We’re losing the peace because the No. 1 strategic enemy we have in the region is Iran. And as a result of us pulling away from Iraq, we’re losing our influence in Iraq. And the Iranians are gaining influence in Iraq. And that strategically should be unacceptable to us.”

....

So, still think nobody was telling Oblahblah that removing all the troops at this time was going to be a disaster?

 

[Roudy]

Roud 10910631

Iraq was "stable" under stable Sadam

That is the point. There was only one question to be resolved with regard to a Iraq after the attacks on September 11, 2001 on Bash's watch. That was, did Saddam have a secret active WMD program that was militarily ready with stockpiles of WMD that could end up it in the hands of terrorists? The question was being resolved in a stable Iraq by the UNSC at Bush's request and UNSC Resolution 1441.

Bush bombed and invaded and destabilized Iraq and the WMD did not exist.

Then Bush agreed with Iraq's demands to pull troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011. That is what caused the current situation in full. The stability of 2002 through March 19 2003 was never restored.

Nope, Bush's surge worked, by all estimations, even the Democrats said it was successful. When Obama was handed the presidency he was given a stable Iraq, Afghanistan, and Middle East in general. And then the dufus proceeded to stomp all over the region.

 

[eagle1462010]

Yeah sure, he was warned not to pull out early just to perform a political stunt and he did it anyhow

Warned by whom knowing that Iraq was not going to back down on the immunity issue for our brave men and women in uniform?

You have not cited one person who advised Obama to keep troops in Iraq without having the immunity they deserve.


He was not warned to any degree that the situation was so bad he had to relent on the immunity issue. You are continuing to make a false statement that even Eagle recognizes as such. So cut the left winger crap.

Are you denying that Panetta said this:

NF 10908529

“I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers,” Panetta said in October 2011.

Are you claiming Panetta has reversed that statement anywhere anytime in any way?

You are either a liar and propagandist or, ignorant and delusional.

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

.....

Retired Army Brig. Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, a former deputy operations chief in Baghdad and a policymaker at the Pentagon, said the effectiveness of Iraq’s counterinsurgency operations against Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq may drop as much as 50 percent.

The Pentagon’s progress report on Iraq in June 2010 said its counterterrorism service was “highly trained and effective” but lacked the ability on its own to go after an entire terrorist network as opposed to a single individual.

“At the operational level, it’s going to make a significant change because for years the Iraqi security forces have depended on us for counterterrorism support, for counterintelligence support, for logistical support,” Gen. Kimmittsaid.

“We are now pulling all that out, and they will have to go it alone. By their own admission they are not ready to do it. They had not planned to do it by 2012. Their plans went all the way out to 2020 before they thought they were going to be ready to do this independently.”

Iraq’s top military officer, Lt. Gen. Babaker Zebari, said last summer that the security forces would not be fully capable for another eight years.

....

Leading Republicans shared Gen. Keane’s criticism of the withdrawal.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona called the move “a serious mistake.”

“I’m very, very concerned about increased Iranian influence in Iraq,” Mr. McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told ABC’s “This Week.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said Mr. Obama made a dangerous decision that ignored U.S. military recommendations to keep some troops in Iraq next year.

.....

The top brass had wanted to keep a force of quick-reaction commandos, trainers and aviators in Iraq past the 2011 deadline set in 2008 by Mr. Bush in what is called a status-of-forces agreement. Washington always viewed the date as flexible if Baghdad requested a longer presence.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed at his confirmation hearing to a senator’s statement that it would be wise to keep troops in Iraq next year.

“I don’t know the number, Senator, but it would be a number where we could provide the capability that they would request, that we would be able to protect ourselves, and it would have to meet both of our nations’ mutual interests,” he said.

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the Army chief of staff who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq, also told senators that Iraq needed a continued U.S. aviation presence to protect its airspace. But he later told reporters that Iraqi security was as good as it had ever been.

....


“Strategically, it’s obvious. This is a big win for Tehran,” Gen. Kimmitt said.

“I believe there is a lot of concern [in Gulf Arab states]. We have said one of reasons for keeping American forces in Iraq was to continue a very strong signal to Iran to draw a line between Persian Iran and the rest of the region.

“The Iraqis themselves have to make a decision whether they want to lean toward the West or lean toward the East. Iran has a very aggressive program inside Iraq to spread their influence.”

He said Iran, which now aids Syria, and the terrorist groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, would love to have a pathway through Iraq to increase its influence among those groups.

“Removing U.S. troops only enables that,” Gen. Kimmitt said.

Gen. Keane added, “We’re losing the peace because the No. 1 strategic enemy we have in the region is Iran. And as a result of us pulling away from Iraq, we’re losing our influence in Iraq. And the Iranians are gaining influence in Iraq. And that strategically should be unacceptable to us.”

....

So, still think nobody was telling Oblahblah that removing all the troops at this time was going to be a disaster?

Here he is discussing the region.................Including stating there is no regional strategy under the current administration.

He was a KEY 4 Star General with 37 years of service..............He assisted Petraus in both Iraq and Afghanistan...........He was highly critical of the withdrawal from Iraq...........and has stated that the SOFA issue was not the KEY ISSUE in our withdrawal.............He basically stated that the Iraqi's didn't believe we were serious under Obama to stay the course there anyway, so they looked elsewhere........

Primarily Iran.

Of course any comments will be ignored by the left and current bs artists in this thread.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Retirement speech.....................Jokingly.........needs 40,000 troops to deal with his wife and counter insurgency..............

He knows a Rolling Stones reporter..................

Early retirement because he hurt Obama's feelings.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Roud 10912154

The top brass had wanted to keep a force of quick-reaction commandos, trainers and aviators in Iraq past the 2011 deadline set in 2008 by Mr. Bush in what is called a status-of-forces agreement. Washington always viewed the date as flexible if Baghdad requested a longer presence.

Do you have any idea what if means?