Victory in Mosul, Daesh dead!

[Call Sign Chaos]

Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.

Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force. It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.

Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq

This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, the democrats were very cowardly. But still Bush's decision to go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us.

Everytime they fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone they violated the armistice and committed an act of war and they fired on us hundreds of times.

The no-fly zone were set up after the armistice. Furthermore, we killed more coalition forces in those zones than Iraq did.

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.

Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force. It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.

Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq

This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.

Not only did you miss it at the time in 2011 but in the article I linked to as well.

"Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq."

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Yes, the democrats were very cowardly. But still Bush's decision to go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us.

Everytime they fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone they violated the armistice and committed an act of war and they fired on us hundreds of times.

The no-fly zone were set up after the armistice. Furthermore, we killed more coalition forces in those zones than Iraq did.

Irrelevant on both points the zones were established to enforce compliance with the armistice in accordance with UNSC resolution 688, every time fired on us was an act of war.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.

Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force. It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.

Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq

This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.

Not only did you miss it at the time in 2011 but in the article I linked to as well.

"Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq."

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

What a load of crap, so now according to your article the National Security Advisor and his deputy are the commanders in chief not the POTUS:


Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.


But Obama really really wanted to keep a contingent force in Iraq but his own cabinet strong armed him, pinky promise.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, the democrats were very cowardly. But still Bush's decision to go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us.

Everytime they fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone they violated the armistice and committed an act of war and they fired on us hundreds of times.

The no-fly zone were set up after the armistice. Furthermore, we killed more coalition forces in those zones than Iraq did.

Irrelevant on both points the zones were established to enforce compliance with the armistice in accordance with UNSC resolution 688, every time fired on us was an act of war.

They were not established by the armistice nor by a vote from the UNSC. They were established by three nations. Weren't the SAM sites and radar stations appropriately targeted and fired on in response?

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.

Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force. It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.

Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq

This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.

Not only did you miss it at the time in 2011 but in the article I linked to as well.

"Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq."

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

What a load of crap, so now according to your article the National Security Advisor and his deputy are the commanders in chief not the POTUS:


Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.


But Obama really really wanted to keep a contingent force in Iraq but his own cabinet strong armed him, pinky promise.

Recall the purpose was to demonstrate that there were negotiations between Obama and Maliki on keeping a residual US force in the country, not who the Commander in Chief delegated the process to.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.

Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force. It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.

Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq

This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.

Not only did you miss it at the time in 2011 but in the article I linked to as well.

"Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq."

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

What a load of crap, so now according to your article the National Security Advisor and his deputy are the commanders in chief not the POTUS:


Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.


But Obama really really wanted to keep a contingent force in Iraq but his own cabinet strong armed him, pinky promise.

Recall the purpose was to demonstrate that there were negotiations between Obama and Maliki on keeping a residual US force in the country, not who the Commander in Chief delegated the process to.

No the point in the end is that Obama DID NOT attempt to renogotiate it even though Maliki wanted to and had support from the opposition in doing so, in the end it was Obama who torpedoed any chances of keeping troops in Iraq the buck stops with him not the National Security Advisor or his deputy.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Yes, the democrats were very cowardly. But still Bush's decision to go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us.

Everytime they fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone they violated the armistice and committed an act of war and they fired on us hundreds of times.

The no-fly zone were set up after the armistice. Furthermore, we killed more coalition forces in those zones than Iraq did.

Irrelevant on both points the zones were established to enforce compliance with the armistice in accordance with UNSC resolution 688, every time fired on us was an act of war.

They were not established by the armistice nor by a vote from the UNSC.

They were authorized under UNSC 688 so spare me. Regardless 1441 itself found Saddam in material breach of the armistice.

 

[BlindBoo]

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.

Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force. It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.

Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq

This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.

Not only did you miss it at the time in 2011 but in the article I linked to as well.

"Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq."

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

What a load of crap, so now according to your article the National Security Advisor and his deputy are the commanders in chief not the POTUS:


Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.


But Obama really really wanted to keep a contingent force in Iraq but his own cabinet strong armed him, pinky promise.

Recall the purpose was to demonstrate that there were negotiations between Obama and Maliki on keeping a residual US force in the country, not who the Commander in Chief delegated the process to.

No the point in the end is that Obama DID NOT attempt to renogotiate it even though Maliki wanted to and had support from the opposition in doing so, in the end it was Obama who torpedoed any chances of keeping troops in Iraq the buck stops with him not the National Security Advisor or his deputy.

"But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.


This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.

Not only did you miss it at the time in 2011 but in the article I linked to as well.

"Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq."

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

What a load of crap, so now according to your article the National Security Advisor and his deputy are the commanders in chief not the POTUS:


Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.


But Obama really really wanted to keep a contingent force in Iraq but his own cabinet strong armed him, pinky promise.

Recall the purpose was to demonstrate that there were negotiations between Obama and Maliki on keeping a residual US force in the country, not who the Commander in Chief delegated the process to.

No the point in the end is that Obama DID NOT attempt to renogotiate it even though Maliki wanted to and had support from the opposition in doing so, in the end it was Obama who torpedoed any chances of keeping troops in Iraq the buck stops with him not the National Security Advisor or his deputy.

"But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.

 

[theHawk]

I agree. I have a hard time wanting to high five over any "victories" in the ME. "Democracy" doesn't stand a chance in any Islamic country. In a few years they'll just vote in some hard core Jihadist type(s). Just look at where "moderate" Turkey is headed. The Turks were put in check by a secular military every decade or so, but that is now gone and now they are turning into batshit crazy Sunnis like the rest of the ME.

Democracy isn't the issue here. It's that they don't want to accept the political institutions we have.

That's kind of their business, not ours.

Also, after 2016, when a guy most of us voted against became president because the founding slave rapists didn't trust the people any more than the Turkish military trusts theirs, we don't have any business lecturing anyone.

The founding fathers, whom obviously you hate, created the EC because they didn't trust corruption often found in "democratic" elections where ballot stuffing wins. Back then there wasn't even a popular vote since there was no way to verify that meany votes. Over two hundred years later we still can't verify every voter and vote because democrats keep blocking voter ID laws.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm very well read. Neither the Taliban nor AQ existed in 1985.

You were fooled by fake news again, jackass.

Okay, Dummy, what they were calling their little clubhouse in 1985 doesn't take away form the fact it was the same people in the club- Namely Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

Pro Islamo-fascist propaganda from an Islamist Erdogan shill, the PKK demand equal rights and democracy and no longer even demands an independent state.

They are willing to use ethnic cleansing and terror against Turks to get it.

But here's the thing, buddy. None of this is our problem. So in a couple of years, when these Kurds are blowing up Americans because we are allied with Turkey through NATO, you'll be right back here saying "Muzzies are EEEEEEvil" because we stuck our dicks in the hornet's nest... again.

 

[JoeB131]

The founding fathers, whom obviously you hate, created the EC because they didn't trust corruption often found in "democratic" elections where ballot stuffing wins. Back then there wasn't even a popular vote since there was no way to verify that meany votes. Over two hundred years later we still can't verify every voter and vote because democrats keep blocking voter ID laws.

Naw, guys who said, "All men are created equal" and then went home and raped their slaves, are totally worthy of our respect.

I'm not sure how an electoral college would prevent "ballot stuffing". I think it's more likely there were 80,000 fraudelent voters in MI, WI and PA than there was 3 million across the whole country.

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan was a private citizen when AQ broke off from the Mujahideen.

Read a book

Again.

1985- Bin Laden was killing Russians because they didn't accept Islam.

1998- Bin Laden was killing Americans because they didn't accept Islam.

Same asshole, different victims, same reason.

Just remember, in 1985, he was a "Freedom Fighter".

In 1998, he was a "Terrorist"

 

[Desperado]

Victory in Mosul
Its about time! Now can we leave?

 

[Auld Phart]

Reagan was a private citizen when AQ broke off from the Mujahideen.

Read a book

Again.

1985- Bin Laden was killing Russians because they didn't accept Islam.

1998- Bin Laden was killing Americans because they didn't accept Islam.

Same asshole, different victims, same reason.

Just remember, in 1985, he was a "Freedom Fighter".

In 1998, he was a "Terrorist"

AGAIN...

AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.

LOOK IT UP

 

[JoeB131]

AGAIN...

AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.

LOOK IT UP

So the same assholes called themselves something else.

"Hey, didn't you guys used to be the Muhajadeen Freedom fighters?"

"Nope, now we are calling ourselves Al Qaeda!!!"

What do you think Bin Laden was doing in 1985?

 

[Auld Phart]

AGAIN...

AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.

LOOK IT UP

So the same assholes called themselves something else.

"Hey, didn't you guys used to be the Muhajadeen Freedom fighters?"

"Nope, now we are calling ourselves Al Qaeda!!!"

What do you think Bin Laden was doing in 1985?

Minor soldier in the Mujahideen.

Lets try it this way...

joe smith is a football player.

He plays for Cleveland Brown.

He doesn't like the way Cleveland is doing things.

He quits, and goes to Pittsburg Steelers.

Is he a Brown, or a Steeler?

 

[JoeB131]

Minor soldier in the Mujahideen.

Hardly minor, given the fact that his family resources provided massive amounts of logistics, support and recruitment of Arab Volunteers.

You see, here was the ugly little secret of Reagan's stupid support of rebels in Afghanistan. THe CIA didn't understand the Pushtans and the Tajiks and the Uzbeks and the other ethnic groups and their tribal customs. But Arabs who wanted to go over and kill infidels, the CIA had plenty of guys who spoke Arabic and could work with them.

Again, read a book, Stupid.

https://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Con...oject/dp/0805075593&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20