|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 18, 2014 7:25:01 GMT -8
You made me laugh. Do you have any idea what really happened? We wanted to leave 23K troops. Maliki would have taken that deal and Iran would have been held at bay. Biden who was in charge of that exchange on behalf of Obummer reduced the number down to where it was not viable and Maliki could not go along. This is on the head of Obama and Biden. We could have had a stable Iraq but for the stupid Obummer desire to leave just 1K troops behind. Show me.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 18, 2014 15:37:12 GMT -8
Do you have any idea what really happened? We wanted to leave 23K troops. Maliki would have taken that deal and Iran would have been held at bay. Biden who was in charge of that exchange on behalf of Obummer reduced the number down to where it was not viable and Maliki could not go along. This is on the head of Obama and Biden. We could have had a stable Iraq but for the stupid Obummer desire to leave just 1K troops behind. Show me. online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577003931424188806"He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed. The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis. When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown in talks."
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 18, 2014 16:00:18 GMT -8
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577003931424188806"He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed. The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis. When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown in talks." Those are not facts. That is an opinion piece. Please stop confusing opinion for facts.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2014 11:41:53 GMT -8
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577003931424188806"He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed. The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis. When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown in talks." Those are not facts. That is an opinion piece. Please stop confusing opinion for facts. Same thing from another source. www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/17/Senator-Graham-Obama-Administration-Lying-About-Iraq-Status-of-Forces-Agreement"Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a "follow up force" being left in theater and it was the Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal." How many more sources do you need to accept that Obama is entirely to blame for the current state of affairs in Iraq? You lefties are pretty funny. It is almost like you worship turds.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2014 11:47:03 GMT -8
A little while ago I listened to Obama talking about his meeting with his National Security Advisors on what to do in Iraq. I got distracted a little by how little Obama is apparently engaged in what is going on. He referred to ISIS as ISO and ISIL repeatedly. The guy just is incredibly distracted, disengaged, or maybe even stupid. To make it worse he has surrounded himself with like people.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 19, 2014 17:33:43 GMT -8
How about this for why there is no SOFA in Iraq. First, Iraq insisted that our troops be subject to the Iraqi justice system. That, as I am sure you know, is very unusual. No one on our side of the table wanted that. The Iraqis did, though. Second, al-Sadir was dead set against US forces remaining in Iraq. The government of al-Maliki would fall with the support of al-Sadr. Iraq did not want a SOFA. They wanted us gone.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 20, 2014 5:04:24 GMT -8
How about this for why there is no SOFA in Iraq. First, Iraq insisted that our troops be subject to the Iraqi justice system. That, as I am sure you know, is very unusual. No one on our side of the table wanted that. The Iraqis did, though. Second, al-Sadir was dead set against US forces remaining in Iraq. The government of al-Maliki would fall with the support of al-Sadr. Iraq did not want a SOFA. They wanted us gone. Nope! Maliki would have gone for our proposal if it had been for 23K troops. When the Obama dimwits cut the size of the remaining force to a number that was not viable things changed. The government would fall because the residual force was not enough to provide the needed support.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 20, 2014 6:19:38 GMT -8
How about this for why there is no SOFA in Iraq. First, Iraq insisted that our troops be subject to the Iraqi justice system. That, as I am sure you know, is very unusual. No one on our side of the table wanted that. The Iraqis did, though. Second, al-Sadir was dead set against US forces remaining in Iraq. The government of al-Maliki would fall with the support of al-Sadr. Iraq did not want a SOFA. They wanted us gone. Nope! Maliki would have gone for our proposal if it had been for 23K troops. When the Obama dimwits cut the size of the remaining force to a number that was not viable things changed. The government would fall because the residual force was not enough to provide the needed support. So you would have been happy for those 23k troops to be subject to the Iranian justice system?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 20, 2014 19:50:42 GMT -8
Nope! Maliki would have gone for our proposal if it had been for 23K troops. When the Obama dimwits cut the size of the remaining force to a number that was not viable things changed. The government would fall because the residual force was not enough to provide the needed support. So you would have been happy for those 23k troops to be subject to the Iranian justice system? Of course not, but that would not have been the case if we would have left 23K. That was all part of the bargaining.
|
|