Was the right, right all along about ISIS?

[Synthaholic]

Nice sources lol, But then I didn't say he never golfed, I said he made a point of not being seen doing it. Obama don't give a ****.

so it's ok that Bush didn't keep his word because he tried to hide his dishonesty.

Got it.

 

[Synthaholic]

A president /secretary of state worth his/her salt would have been able to work that agreement into something we could sign.

don't be a moron. That was the issue that broke the agreement.

 

[Genevieve]

A president /secretary of state worth his/her salt would have been able to work that agreement into something we could sign.

don't be a moron. That was the issue that broke the agreement.

Don't be a moron yourself.
I'm sorry that Kerry and Obama aren't apt at negotiation.
That's not my problem.

 

[Synthaholic]

A president /secretary of state worth his/her salt would have been able to work that agreement into something we could sign.

don't be a moron. That was the issue that broke the agreement.

Don't be a moron yourself.
I'm sorry that Kerry and Obama aren't apt at negotiation.
That's not my problem.

Which side was supposed to give in? Us? No ******* way. US military are tried by US law - period.

What you are too stupid to get through your thick wingnut head is that the Iraqis were not going to give on this issue BECAUSE they wanted us out of the country. They didn't want to come to agreement on a SOFA so they insisted on the one thing they knew we would not negotiate on.

Get your head out of your ass.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The right was right about ISLAM!

 

[Genevieve]

A president /secretary of state worth his/her salt would have been able to work that agreement into something we could sign.

don't be a moron. That was the issue that broke the agreement.

Don't be a moron yourself.
I'm sorry that Kerry and Obama aren't apt at negotiation.
That's not my problem.

Which side was supposed to give in? Us? No ******* way. US military are tried by US law - period.

What you are too stupid to get through your thick wingnut head is that the Iraqis were not going to give on this issue BECAUSE they wanted us out of the country. They didn't want to come to agreement on a SOFA so they insisted on the one thing they knew we would not negotiate on.

Get your head out of your ass.

It's obvious to me that you get all bent out of shape and lose it way too easily.
I don't think you are the sort of person I would choose to converse with.
tah-tah

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Won't bombing one terrorist group make the other terrorist groups stronger?

No. The IS desire for a barbaric Caliphate over the long term is not possible. They cannot defend an established state for themselves without an Air Force or air defense systems.

Other terrorist groups understand that reality. They need to cower in cities behind innocent victims or be spread out in rugged terrain where bombs and ground forces can't get to them.

So IS terrorists should be bombed in Syria when sure targets can be identified mostly to disrupt their supply lines. They will certainly abandon military type vehicles or any thing with heavy weapons mounted on them.

The bombing won't stop them but it should weaken their military capability enough to give local opponents on the ground the ability to resist and overwhelm them.

they have sold oil to fund themselves.

That is crude oil not from a large refinery like the one in Bajii.

ISIS thirst for oil could lead to global catastrophe if unchecked experts say Fox News

They're selling it NOW

But they are not operating refinery for its intended purpose to produce gasoline. There is something unusual that Turkey, a NATO member would allow those black market sales go through Turkey.

A president /secretary of state worth his/her salt would have been able to work that agreement into something we could sign.

That is pure nonsense. Obama and the US had no options to force anything on Maliki.

... but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believed Iraq was not stable enough.

Do you know what "if" means? Maliki is in the WSJ saying exactly that he thought Iraq was stable enough.
It dies not matter if he was right or wrong or in between, the 2008 SOFA expressly in your own words too, gives the decision to Maliki and not a future US President. You just shot yourself in the foot again.

Obama had no options but to accept Maliki's decision that he believed Iraq was stable enough in 2012 for all US troops to vacate Iraqi sovereign soil as agreed by he and Lil Dubby in 2008. That is all pure fact.


And the facts don't fit into your fiction.

What they tend to do if they don't understand is to call people crazy. They figure, "It can't be me so it must be them".

Yepp. EconChick is right about nothing and acts as if everyone is crazy who call her out for her multitude of wrongness.

 

[Synthaholic]

A president /secretary of state worth his/her salt would have been able to work that agreement into something we could sign.

don't be a moron. That was the issue that broke the agreement.

Don't be a moron yourself.
I'm sorry that Kerry and Obama aren't apt at negotiation.
That's not my problem.

Which side was supposed to give in? Us? No ******* way. US military are tried by US law - period.

What you are too stupid to get through your thick wingnut head is that the Iraqis were not going to give on this issue BECAUSE they wanted us out of the country. They didn't want to come to agreement on a SOFA so they insisted on the one thing they knew we would not negotiate on.

Get your head out of your ass.

It's obvious to me that you get all bent out of shape and lose it way too easily.
I don't think you are the sort of person I would choose to converse with.
tah-tah

Enjoy your evening.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Obozo did the only thing he could do by getting us out of that mess caused by the vote of a libercrat controlled congress.

In October 2002 there was a Republican President, a Republican House, and Dem Senate by a majority of one when Jim Jeffords switched parties and caucused with the Dems,

With the many Blue Dogs in the Senate It was far from being anywhere's near a liberal Congres in any way shape or form. But the vote was correct in 2002 because Saddam Hussein did not allow UN inspections proceed as required by international law.

Just the facts.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

There was an expiring SOFA in 2008.

What I meant was that there was no new SOFA in 2008, because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to US justice for US servicemen.

Bush wouldn't sign it.
Obama wouldn't sign it.
No president would sign it.

Iraqi insistence on Sharia/Iraqi law for U.S. military ensured we would leave. Which is exactly what they wanted.

So let them deal with ISIS.

Iraqis do need to deal with ISIS and now that Maliki is out of the way, they likely will, with our air support and nothing on the ground on the front lines.

What was expiring at the end if 2008 was the UNSC authorization to the CPA coalition provisional authority which the US controlled and did not subject US troops to Iraqi law among many other military occupation powers.

Maliki in 2007 requested the UN to let the CPA expired at the end of 2008 and the UN did. So Bush had to negotiate the 2008 SOFA which he did sign and it did not expire until Jan 1 2012.

I hope what you meant to say was this:


What I meant was that there was no new SOFA in 2012 because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to US justice for US servicemen.

And that is true - Bush would not have signed a non-immunity agreement just as Obama wouldn't.

The Iraqis chose to send US troops packing and there was nothing the US could do to stop them.

EconChick knows no facts in this matter. Only her precious little ambiguities that she thinks are in there.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obozo did the only thing he could do by getting us out of that mess caused by the vote of a libercrat controlled congress.

In October 2002 there was a Republican President, a Republican House, and Dem Senate by a majority of one when Jim Jeffords switched parties and caucused with the Dems,

With the many Blue Dogs in the Senate It was far from being anywhere's near a liberal Congres in any way shape or form. But the vote was correct in 2002 because Saddam Hussein did not allow UN inspections proceed as required by international law.

Just the facts.

Until he did. Hans Blix.

 

[Synthaholic]

Iraqis do need to deal with ISIS and now that Maliki is out of the way, they likely will, with our air support and nothing on the ground on the front lines.

What was expiring at the end if 2008 was the UNSC authorization to the CPA coalition provisional authority which the US controlled and did not subject US troops to Iraqi law among many other military occupation powers.

Maliki in 2007 requested the UN to let the CPA expired at the end of 2008 and the UN did. So Bush had to negotiate the 2008 SOFA which he did sign and it did not expire until Jan 1 2012.

I hope what you meant to say was this:


What I meant was that there was no new SOFA in 2012 because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to US justice for US servicemen.

And that is true - Bush would not have signed a non-immunity agreement just as Obama wouldn't.

The Iraqis chose to send US troops packing and there was nothing the US could do to stop them.

EconChick knows no facts in this matter. Only her precious little ambiguities that she thinks are in there.

Yes. Thank you for the correction.

The part I bolded is the simple truth of the matter. And the reason is sovereignty. Bush gave it back to Iraq in June, 2004. We were no longer an occupying conqueror at that point, able to dictate terms.

It was only one of a myriad of Bush ****-ups in that quagmire.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Yes. Thank you for the correction.

The part I bolded is the simple truth of the matter. And the reason is sovereignty. Bush gave it back to Iraq in June, 2004. We were no longer an occupying conqueror at that point, able to dictate terms.

It was only one of a myriad of Bush ****-ups in that quagmire.

Yes Bush gave up sovereignty in 2004 and Maliki used that sovereignty in 2007 to force an end the CPA's authority in Iraq by the end of 2008.

No US President could force Iraqis to do or sign anything after 2007 if they did not agree with it.

Obama had no options during the 2011 negotiations for a SOFA starting in 2012.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Until he did. Hans Blix.

Yes Saddam did let the inspectors back in during November 2002. And in Mid-December Saddam's liaison to the UNSC read a letter from SH that offered Bush a chance to send the CIA FBI and US military WMD experts in tto hunt for the WMD firsthand that was not there.

I'll bet EconoChick is not aware of that critical fact.

The Bush White House response to that offer was 'let the UN handle it'. ...

And then they did not let the UN handle it. They stupidly started a war after turning down the chance to peaceably send the CIA in to verify what they suspected might be there without blowing peopie up and shooting at them - Really dumb. Totally dumb. No excuse for not looking into SH's offer.

 

[dilloduck]

Won't bombing one terrorist group make the other terrorist groups stronger?

No. The IS desire for a barbaric Caliphate over the long term is not possible. They cannot defend an established state for themselves without an Air Force or air defense systems.

Other terrorist groups understand that reality. They need to cower in cities behind innocent victims or be spread out in rugged terrain where bombs and ground forces can't get to them.

So IS terrorists should be bombed in Syria when sure targets can be identified mostly to disrupt their supply lines. They will certainly abandon military type vehicles or any thing with heavy weapons mounted on them.

The bombing won't stop them but it should weaken their military capability enough to give local opponents on the ground the ability to resist and overwhelm them.

they have sold oil to fund themselves.

That is crude oil not from a large refinery like the one in Bajii.

ISIS thirst for oil could lead to global catastrophe if unchecked experts say Fox News

They're selling it NOW

But they are not operating refinery for its intended purpose to produce gasoline. There is something unusual that Turkey, a NATO member would allow those black market sales go through Turkey.

A president /secretary of state worth his/her salt would have been able to work that agreement into something we could sign.

That is pure nonsense. Obama and the US had no options to force anything on Maliki.

... but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believed Iraq was not stable enough.

Do you know what "if" means? Maliki is in the WSJ saying exactly that he thought Iraq was stable enough.
It dies not matter if he was right or wrong or in between, the 2008 SOFA expressly in your own words too, gives the decision to Maliki and not a future US President. You just shot yourself in the foot again.

Obama had no options but to accept Maliki's decision that he believed Iraq was stable enough in 2012 for all US troops to vacate Iraqi sovereign soil as agreed by he and Lil Dubby in 2008. That is all pure fact.


And the facts don't fit into your fiction.

What they tend to do if they don't understand is to call people crazy. They figure, "It can't be me so it must be them".

Yepp. EconChick is right about nothing and acts as if everyone is crazy who call her out for her multitude of wrongness.

they have sold oil to fund themselves.

It's still oil and it still brings in the bucks. Given more time they can make more bucks.

 

[EconChick]

LMAO @ NotFooled and Synthaholic. Thanks for making it unequivocally clear that you have no interest in the facts. You're just here as party hacks (paid perhaps?) to dish out pure disinformation. Thanks for finally making that crystal clear. (Oh, and you keep tripping over each other's dicks with contradictions so you may want to coordinate a little better.)

Now that I know that, I'm not going to spend much time going into detail until just before the election, when people are most a-tuned.

It's fun watching two basement dwellers who have never been to Iraq, never been in intelligence, never been in the military, never worked closely with the White House, never worked for NGOs, never.....well the list is so long it would take awhile to type......but independent thinkers can easily get the picture of what kind of propagandists we're dealing with here. It's people who wouldn't have the first clue about which they speak.

Oh, and btw, I have done of all the above.

To readers.....if you are an independent or undecided who is still left confused by NotFooled and Synthaholic's deliberate misinformation campaign on this thread and others on the issue of Iraq, PM me and I'll be glad to explain my credentials and clear up any confusion they're deliberately trying to create.

 

[candycorn]

LMAO @ NotFooled and Synthaholic. Thanks for making it unequivocally clear that you have no interest in the facts. You're just here as party hacks (paid perhaps?) to dish out pure disinformation. Thanks for finally making that crystal clear. (Oh, and you keep tripping over each other's dicks with contradictions so you may want to coordinate a little better.)

Now that I know that, I'm not going to spend much time going into detail until just before the election, when people are most a-tuned.

It's fun watching two basement dwellers who have never been to Iraq, never been in intelligence, never been in the military, never worked closely with the White House, never worked for NGOs, never.....well the list is so long it would take awhile to type......but independent thinkers can easily get the picture of what kind of propagandists we're dealing with here. It's people who wouldn't have the first clue about which they speak.

Oh, and btw, I have done of all the above.

To readers.....if you are an independent or undecided who is still left confused by NotFooled and Synthaholic's deliberate misinformation campaign on this thread and others on the issue of Iraq, PM me and I'll be glad to explain my credentials and clear up any confusion they're deliberately trying to create.

Sure, list your credentials...

 

[paulitician]

Looks like the Dear Leader thinks so. He just gave himself permission to bomb Syria too. And they all screech "YAY OBOMBA!!" As this permanent state of war drags on.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Sure, list your credentials...

Does EconChick think credentialed people can't be wrong or lie? I'd rather see her list some facts. The 2008 SOFA is written clear in black ink on white paper that Iraq had the final decision on whether US troops could remain in Iraq beyond 2011.

EconChick could be the Queen of Sheeba but she cannot change what is written and is law by flashing around some insignificant credentials.

 

[EconChick]

Sure, list your credentials...

Does EconChick think credentialed people can't be wrong or lie? I'd rather see her list some facts. The 2008 SOFA is written clear in black ink on white paper that Iraq had the final decision on whether US troops could remain in Iraq beyond 2011.

EconChick could be the Queen of Sheeba but she cannot change what is written and is law by flashing around some insignificant credentials.

LOL, you do entertain me, StillObsessedWithBush.

If law were so black and white there'd be no need for lawyers to interpret law or courts to interpret legislation, would there, genius? It would all be so self-evident, we'd never need courts, judges, or lawyers.

Now have I met people with brains so small and rigid they believe the words found in all laws, legislation, agreements, treaties, and declarations possess NO ambiguity?

Yep. They fit somewhere in that category of nut jobs that think martians invaded our planet and are running the country.