Trump supporters, what would he have to say before you would not vote for him?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

1. It was Bush who set the date we left.

2. Obama tried to negotiate with Maliki to keep some troops there. Maliki wanted us to agree to allow them to prosecute our troops for crimes and criminal activity. We said fuck you and left.

3. We left their army rearmed. We spent billions rearming them. In 2011 the Iraq military had 2 million members and 1.8 million reserves. In 2011 Isis size was put at 10,000. 2 million couldn't handle 10,000?!?

You keep wanting to put the blame for Isis on the US and Obama. Fuck Iraq. Fuck Iraq and their shitty president, their shitty military, their shitty leadership. Why you and so many others are so anxious to have either stayed or now return to that shit hole of a country is beyond me. Fuck Iraq. We have sent enough Americans to die there.

We need to stay the fuck out of the middle east. We need to stay the fuck out of Iraq, Syria and when the civil war comes to Saudi Arabia, and trust me, it is, we need to stay the fuck out of there. Why we feel the need to swing our big American dick in the middle east is just dumb.

So sure, blame Obama, blame Hillary, blame the democrats, blame everyone that you can think of that we don't have more Americans dying for bullshit in the middle east.

1. Read the Beinart article. If Obama wanted to stay, he would have made it happen. He went against the advice of his advisors.

2. Just wrong. He was interested in surrender at all costs. He didn't have a clue.

3. We armed the Shi'ia to brutalize the Sunni. The Sunni were on our side. ISIS was all they had left. And we surrendered all that equipment, in the end, to ISIS.

I have laid out a solid case that it is Obama's doing. My sources are unimpeachable. Beinart, PBS, Obama in his own words.

Then there's you asking a silly question, like, would Honda be in business if we ended our occupation of Japan prematurely.
 
I'm on record numerous times that we should have taken Saddam out and left. In 2003.

When our leaders, military and diplomats, urged nation building, we were stuck going that route. It was the hand Obama was dealt, and he outright quit. In his own words, it was a winning hand.

From what I've read, the Bush administration wanted out almost right away. They stuck it out because those were the cards and how they had to be played.
 
1. Read the Beinart article. If Obama wanted to stay, he would have made it happen. He went against the advice of his advisors.

2. Just wrong. He was interested in surrender at all costs. He didn't have a clue.

3. We armed the Shi'ia to brutalize the Sunni. The Sunni were on our side. ISIS was all they had left. And we surrendered all that equipment, in the end, to ISIS.

I have laid out a solid case that it is Obama's doing. My sources are unimpeachable. Beinart, PBS, Obama in his own words.

Then there's you asking a silly question, like, would Honda be in business if we ended our occupation of Japan prematurely.

Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s secretary of state, wrote in her 2011 book, “No Higher Honor,” that Bush did not want to set a deadline “in order to allow conditions on the ground to dictate our decisions.” She wrote that she met with Maliki in August 2008 and secured what she thought was an agreement for a residual force of 40,000 U.S. troops. But she said Maliki soon “reneged” and insisted on “the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011.” She said Bush “swallowed hard” and agreed to what she called “suitable language” to do just that.

So, President Bush reluctantly agreed to a withdrawal deadline without leaving behind a residual force because of Maliki’s strong objections.

Still, Obama had three years to negotiate a new agreement prior to the Dec. 31, 2011, withdrawal date to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, a day before Bush signed the agreement, Gen. Ray Odierno — the former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq and current Army chief of staff — said the agreement might be renegotiated depending on conditions on the ground. “Three years is a very long time,” Odierno told the New York Times.


Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.


But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”
 
You act like Obama influences these whack jobs....they turned themselves against us Denny..free will and all that
Of course he has influence.

al Maliki was in power because of us.

Read the Beinart piece.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...mas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Since the president took office, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has grown ever more tyrannical and ever more sectarian, driving his country’s Sunnis toward revolt. Since Obama took office, Iraq watchers—including those within his own administration—have warned that unless the United States pushed hard for inclusive government, the country would slide back into civil war. Yet the White House has been so eager to put Iraq in America’s rearview mirror that, publicly at least, it has given Maliki an almost-free pass. Until now, when it may be too late.

...

By that fall, to its credit, the U.S. had helped craft an agreement in which Maliki remained prime minister but Iraqiya controlled key ministries. Yet as Ned Parker, the Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad, later detailed, “Washington quickly disengaged from actually ensuring that the provisions of the deal were implemented.” In his book, The Dispensable Nation, Vali Nasr, who worked at the State Department at the time, notes that the “fragile power-sharing arrangement … required close American management. But the Obama administration had no time or energy for that. Instead it anxiously eyed the exits, with its one thought to get out. It stopped protecting the political process just when talk of American withdrawal turned the heat back up under the long-simmering power struggle that pitted the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds against one another.”

GET THIS !

Under an agreement signed by George W. Bush, the U.S. was to withdraw forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. American military officials, fearful that Iraq might unravel without U.S. supervision, wanted to keep 20,000 to 25,000 troops in the country after that. Obama now claims that maintaining any residual force was impossible because Iraq’s parliament would not give U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution. Given how unpopular America’s military presence was among ordinary Iraqis, that may well be true.

But we can’t fully know because Obama—eager to tout a full withdrawal from Iraq in his reelection campaign—didn’t push hard to keep troops in the country. As a former senior White House official told Peter Baker of The New York Times, “We really didn’t want to be there and [Maliki] really didn’t want us there.… [Y]ou had a president who was going to be running for re-election, and getting out of Iraq was going to be a big statement.”
 
Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s secretary of state, wrote in her 2011 book, “No Higher Honor,” that Bush did not want to set a deadline “in order to allow conditions on the ground to dictate our decisions.” She wrote that she met with Maliki in August 2008 and secured what she thought was an agreement for a residual force of 40,000 U.S. troops. But she said Maliki soon “reneged” and insisted on “the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011.” She said Bush “swallowed hard” and agreed to what she called “suitable language” to do just that.

So, President Bush reluctantly agreed to a withdrawal deadline without leaving behind a residual force because of Maliki’s strong objections.

Still, Obama had three years to negotiate a new agreement prior to the Dec. 31, 2011, withdrawal date to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, a day before Bush signed the agreement, Gen. Ray Odierno — the former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq and current Army chief of staff — said the agreement might be renegotiated depending on conditions on the ground. “Three years is a very long time,” Odierno told the New York Times.


Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.


But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”

Convenient excuse.

And not honest at all.
 
He would have to say two things in one sentence for me to stop supporting him:

"I strongly condemn the NRA as a racist organization of zealots and terrorists. And today, I am announcing my support of Black Lives Matter."

If he does that, I'm voting Libertarian.
 
The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.

On December 12, 2011, just days before the final U.S. troops departed Iraq, Maliki visited the White House. According to Nasr, he told Obama that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, an Iraqiya leader and the highest-ranking Sunni in his government, supported terrorism. Maliki, argues Nasr, was testing Obama, probing to see how the U.S. would react if he began cleansing his government of Sunnis. Obama replied that it was a domestic Iraqi affair. After the meeting, Nasr claims, Maliki told aides, “See! The Americans don’t care.”

OBAMA ENCOURAGED MALIKI TO PUNISH THE SUNNI.

In public remarks after the meeting, Obama praised Maliki for leading “Iraq’s most inclusive government yet.” Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq, another Sunni, told CNN he was “shocked” by the president’s comments.
 
Total number of American military killed in Iraq per year.

2003 - 486
2004 - 849
2005 - 846
2006 - 823
2007 - 904
2008 - 314
2009 - 149
2010 - 60
2011 - 54
2012 - 1
2013 - 0
2014 - 3
2015 - 6
2016 - 9

/close thread
 
Total number of American military killed in Iraq per year.

2003 - 486
2004 - 849
2005 - 846
2006 - 823
2007 - 904
2008 - 314
2009 - 149
2010 - 60
2011 - 54
2012 - 1
2013 - 0
2014 - 3
2015 - 6
2016 - 9

/close thread

#AmericanLivesMatter
 
No matter how you want to spin it, the media is absolutely wrong about Trump on this one, and they know it. Obama is the founder of ISIS. In the sense he surrendered, abdicated his duties, and encouraged al Maliki to punish our allies, the Sunni. We spent a lot of blood and treasure to get to that point and it was pissed away for a bumper sticker slogan.

Binders of women! ISIS was kept out of the news. The storyline was Obama's foreign policy was brilliant, yet in Benghazi and Syria and Iraq, there was a major dumpster fire in his wake.

The media has made a 180 degree about face and is outright misreported and misrepresenting events, past and current.

As I've said, there's plenty of legit stuff to pin on him. The goon squads he envisions to evict my neighbors.

Instead, they're running 24/7 attack ads on behalf of a candidate.
 
Total number of American military killed in Iraq per year.

2003 - 486
2004 - 849
2005 - 846
2006 - 823
2007 - 904
2008 - 314
2009 - 149
2010 - 60
2011 - 54
2012 - 1
2013 - 0
2014 - 3
2015 - 6
2016 - 9

/close thread

the blood of ISIS victims on Obama's hands:

2014graph.png


17,049 civilians have been recorded killed in Iraq during 2014 (up to Dec 30). This is roughly double the number recorded in 2013 (9,743), which in turn was roughly double the number in 2012 (4,622). These numbers do not include combatant deaths, which even by the most cautious tallies have also seen a sharp rise in 2014.

Too easy, and fucking sad.
 
the blood of ISIS victims on Obama's hands:

2014graph.png


17,049 civilians have been recorded killed in Iraq during 2014 (up to Dec 30). This is roughly double the number recorded in 2013 (9,743), which in turn was roughly double the number in 2012 (4,622). These numbers do not include combatant deaths, which even by the most cautious tallies have also seen a sharp rise in 2014.

Too easy, and fucking sad.

No, that's on Iraq. Iraq didn't want us there. Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq has a similar population to California and Texas. 33 million people. Their military is 2 million strong. They need to handle it themselves.

Look how quickly you are escalating things, you want American troops in not only Iraq but now Syria and Libya. Where does it end? We need to stay the fuck out of the middle east not jump in there with more troops.
 
Another NPR article not friendly to Obama's handling of Iraq.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/45985...draw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow

Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn't done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.

Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.

"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."

The State Department's lawyers said troops couldn't stay in Iraq unless the Iraqi parliament authorized them to do so, including granting them immunity from Iraqi law. The Iraqi parliamentarians would never OK such a decision, with Iraqi popular opinion staunchly against U.S. troops staying.

Sowell saw State's decision as a deliberately insurmountable obstacle.
 
Back then, in 2011, there was no ISIS. The group didn't exist under that name yet. There was just their predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, which had been at the forefront of the terrible insurgency in Iraq. But many thought it was licked.

"All of the intelligence that we had gathered, all of the results of the surge, all of the detainees we had in our detention system, all of the information we had coming to us from people on the ground, from the tribes indicated that al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated," said Ret. Col. Peter Mansoor, who served in Iraq.

That surge was the influx of American soldiers, and the way the U.S. military organized Sunni tribes to fight against insurgents. The Americans paid them, helped arm them and gave them air cover.

One of those tribal leaders, Sheikh Hamid Taees, told me: "In May of 2006, I worked closely with the American side to rid Anbar of terrorism and al Qaeda, and actually we killed a large number of al Qaeda fighters."

But by the time of that comment, early in 2014, al Qaeda was beginning to get a grip on Sunni areas again, including that province of Anbar.

Many Sunni sheikhs say once the American soldiers left, the minority Sunni population of Iraq suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority. That government stopped paying most of them, and even arrested many.

(As an aside, we should note that there was a political, as well as a military, dimension to American influence in Iraq: Obama continued to support the government even as Sunni fear and anger grew. "We were encouraged," he said in 2013, "by the work that Prime Minister Maliki has done in the past to ensure that all people inside of Iraq — Sunni, Shia and Kurd — feel that they have a voice in their government."

(But they did not feel that. Sheikh Zeidan al-Jabri led a series of Sunni protests and sit-ins in Anbar, which were eventually violently dispersed by security forces at the end of 2013.

("For a year, we did not attack anyone; we were an example of democracy on an international level," he told me from exile in Jordan. "And what did the world do? The world simply turned its face from us and gave Maliki the permission to attack the demonstrations and kill hundreds of innocent demonstrators.")

So some Sunnis were drawn back to the insurgency. ISIS found supporters and gained ground. And, yes, much of that could have been prevented by a big U.S. troop presence.
 
No, that's on Iraq. Iraq didn't want us there. Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq has a similar population to California and Texas. 33 million people. Their military is 2 million strong. They need to handle it themselves.

Look how quickly you are escalating things, you want American troops in not only Iraq but now Syria and Libya. Where does it end? We need to stay the fuck out of the middle east not jump in there with more troops.

Bad dog!

We spilled all that blood and spent all that treasure and it went for nothing because Obama surrendered.
 
No, that's on Iraq. Iraq didn't want us there. Iraq wanted us gone.

Iraq has a similar population to California and Texas. 33 million people. Their military is 2 million strong. They need to handle it themselves.

Look how quickly you are escalating things, you want American troops in not only Iraq but now Syria and Libya. Where does it end? We need to stay the fuck out of the middle east not jump in there with more troops.
I don't want troops in Syria or Libya. We should never have intervened in those places. Hiliar foreign policy on display: bomb the people into the stone age and do nothing to help. It wasn't our fight. Ridding Iraq of Saddam was our fight.
 
Bad dog!

We spilled all that blood and spent all that treasure and it went for nothing because Obama surrendered.

It was for nothing because it was a fucking stupid thing to do in the first place. Staying there forever after wouldn't have made it all peaches and rainbows.

barfo
 
Did you think about that before you posted?

That's the nice thing about this country, you are free to leave and help the Iraqis all you want. If Obama won't send Americans then Americans can send themselves. I'm sure you can get a couple of guns once you get there.
 
Last edited:
That's the nice thing about this country, you are free to leave and help the Iraqis all you want. If Obama won't send Americans then Americans can send themselves. I'm sure you can get a couple of guns once you get there.

denny-crane.jpg


DennyCrane3.jpg
 
But then, on the other hand, Iraq is probably a mistake. It only worked with a strong man in control and we fucked that up. I think we need to let it shake out as it will, probably can't make a country out of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds, at least it sure as hell is not our job. But some one has to eliminate ISIS. We can't leave them to recruit for jihad to run free will on us. We have already allow too many attacks in this country.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top