Bagdad Falling

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf
[/quote]

‘According to a National Geographic survey, 77% of Americans believe “there are signs that aliens have visited the earth.”’

More Americans believe aliens have visited Earth than believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The troop surge largely stabilised Iraq.[/quote]

But was unsustainable–just like the war, just like the coffers, just like the political will. We were always going to draw down. Bush knew it, and he signed the piece of paper that made it reality.

Here is the movement that matters: The movement of the pen that signed the SOFA. Bush’s pen. Personal responsibility: Bush set the terms of the troop withdrawal. Bush set the dates. He did it by signing the SOFA. It’s that simple.

I was reluctant to cheat on my high school girlfriend. I did it anyway. Perhaps I could have blamed it on Obama.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf
[/quote]

‘According to a National Geographic survey, 77% of Americans believe “there are signs that aliens have visited the earth.”’

More Americans believe aliens have visited Earth than believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

[/quote]

Not good enough for your respect, but good enough to die for a people that hate them more than they hate each other.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Bush’s foreign policy was a sinister nightmare…[/quote]

Well at least there’s nothing sinister about Obama’s foreign policy. I’m sure there’s some innocent explanation for why every single move he makes appears calculated to benefit the enemy and harm the US and its allies.
[/quote]

I know! Like how he invaded that sandblown shithole of a country on bad intelligence, which created a power vacuum, which ignited a sectarian war, which claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of the said country’s civilians, which cost trillions of American dollars; and then signed a document agreeing to leave the country, which then happened on the dates specified in the said document, which then allowed ISIS to sweep in and start digging mass graves.

I wish Obama hadn’t done all that.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf
[/quote]

‘According to a National Geographic survey, 77% of Americans believe “there are signs that aliens have visited the earth.”’

More Americans believe aliens have visited Earth than believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

[/quote]

Not good enough for your respect, but good enough to die for a people that hate them more than they hate each other.
[/quote]

Admirably phrased, this was.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf
[/quote]

‘According to a National Geographic survey, 77% of Americans believe “there are signs that aliens have visited the earth.”’

More Americans believe aliens have visited Earth than believe that Jesus is the Son of God -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net

[/quote]

Not good enough for your respect, but good enough to die for a people that hate them more than they hate each other.
[/quote]

I think America is the second greatest country on earth. And regarding Iraq, I think the job should’ve been finished - to make the West safer so shit like 911 doesn’t happen again.

2nd? Who’s 1st?

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
2nd? Who’s 1st?[/quote]

Israel, I’m guessing.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
2nd? Who’s 1st?[/quote]

Damn! Got it wrong.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Damn! Got it wrong.[/quote]

I’m a nationalist first and foremost. And the people I have the closest affinity with outside Australians are people who are closest to me culturally: white South Africans/Rhodesians and to a lesser extent New Zealanders.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And also explain this:

That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?

I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.[/quote]

That article highlights two of the points I made: that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw troops. And that some of the pressure to withdraw came from the Iraqis.
[/quote]

Who you’d do what with in order to force our indefinite stay? Overthrow? The government we made sure got elected? Edit: We would’ve become, outright, in the open, under the light of the day, exactly what the Jihadis told everyone we were. Conquerors. Not security partners of a representative Iraqi government, but outright conquerors. The nation would have blown up even earlier had we pulled a stunt like that.
[/quote]

The Iraqi government would’ve allowed us to stay. By “pressure from the Iraqis” I was talking about the disenfranchised Sunnis and the Sadrists.[/quote]

Oh yes, by pulling a stunt in which our troops would obtain “diplomatic immunity” due to us going around the representative leaders of the Iraqis…That would’ve went over well with the public.

“Ways to drive up insurgent recruitment #1: Use technicalities to get around the wishes of the Iraqi public, as made clear through their representatives, of who are members of the government you made sure came about.”
[/quote]

There’s nothing to get around. The government was still in puppet phase. Ultimately they take orders.
It’s a given that they don’t like us or want us in the ME. There is no circumstance where they will voluntarily have Americans in their presence…until the shit hits the fan. Then they want us. They want us to come in, fix it and leave and come in and fix it and leave.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”[/quote]

The fact that eventually there was going to be a pull out was not. The tentative date set by Bush was first tentative, and second was subject to an assessment of the situation on the ground, and third was subject to “combat troops”, not all troops. There was to remain a remnant of troops for continued training and maintenance.

The idea of setting a public hard date, regardless of whether or not the job was done or not was not Bush’s idea. Bush always maintained that we would not pull out until Iraq was ready.

The idea of pulling up stakes regardless of the situation, making that date public and pulling all American troops was omaba’s decision alone.
You cannot hold Bush accountable for something he set in 2008 as a tentative date, for what obama did in 2011. Bush would not have done a hard pull out and he would not have publicized the date.
So yes, this was obama’s fault. He made all those decisions. He knew, everybody knew that the Iraqis were not ready to take sole control. He did it anyway. It was his mistake, and it was costly. It was as evidently a stupid decision then as it is now.

[/quote]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html#storylink=cpy

[quote]
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.

The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.

The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.[/quote]

That is not tentative, and it sets hard dates.

It is simply nonsense to pretend that this plan was not hatched under Bush.[/quote]

Who is responsible for troop deployment the sitting president or former president?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Bush’s foreign policy was a sinister nightmare…[/quote]

Well at least there’s nothing sinister about Obama’s foreign policy. I’m sure there’s some innocent explanation for why every single move he makes appears calculated to benefit the enemy and harm the US and its allies.
[/quote]

Innocent also smacks of naive and inept if it were so. The massive list of obama foreign policy failures in recent days is flat frightening. Russia, Arab spring, Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc. etc. and now the catastrophic failure over Iraq just to name a few.
Iraq has just flat pissed me off. This blunder is on scale and in some ways worse than going to war in Iraq was in the first place. Mainly because it was stupidly simple to prevent. Now we are on the precipice of war, once again, in Iraq.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The troop surge largely stabilised Iraq.[/quote]

But was unsustainable–just like the war, just like the coffers, just like the political will. We were always going to draw down. Bush knew it, and he signed the piece of paper that made it reality.

Here is the movement that matters: The movement of the pen that signed the SOFA. Bush’s pen. Personal responsibility: Bush set the terms of the troop withdrawal. Bush set the dates. He did it by signing the SOFA. It’s that simple.

I was reluctant to cheat on my high school girlfriend. I did it anyway. Perhaps I could have blamed it on Obama.[/quote]

Again, the sitting president makes decisions on troop deployment and presence, not the former one. Obama made the decision and not Bush, and he damn sure took credit for it, so let him get the credit he wanted. He pulled the troops out of iraq, before they were ready. Obama drew down the troops, Iraq descended in the chaos, which we predicted would happen right here on T-Nation.

Besides the decision to go in, the next biggest blunder was dismantling the Iraqi army and banning soldiers from occupying government positions under a de-Baathification program. They could have been assimilated and providing security right now rather than providing a ready-made force to march on Bagdad.

[quote]pat wrote:
Obama made the decision and not Bush[/quote]

This is literally factually inaccurate, and I have proved it so.

Obama followed the timetable passed by the Iraqi parliament and signed by Bush. Obama came into office with a SOFA signed and sealed, enumerating exact dates for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

You said this whole thing was “Obama’s idea.” That is pure fantasy. You said that Bush didn’t set dates. That is pure fantasy.

I am not talking about what I think is the best interpretation, or some nuance in the case. I am talking about things that are inarguable fact.

You could say “Obama should have reneged on the SOFA”–though that would have been a disaster. But you cannot say this whole thing was “Obama’s idea” or that Bush didn’t set dates. I have proved both of those claims wrong beyond the possibility of doubt.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Bush’s foreign policy was a sinister nightmare…[/quote]

Well at least there’s nothing sinister about Obama’s foreign policy. I’m sure there’s some innocent explanation for why every single move he makes appears calculated to benefit the enemy and harm the US and its allies.
[/quote]

Innocent also smacks of naive and inept if it were so. The massive list of obama foreign policy failures in recent days is flat frightening. Russia, Arab spring, Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc. etc. and now the catastrophic failure over Iraq just to name a few.
Iraq has just flat pissed me off. This blunder is on scale and in some ways worse than going to war in Iraq was in the first place. Mainly because it was stupidly simple to prevent. Now we are on the precipice of war, once again, in Iraq. [/quote]

I honestly believe that the Obama/Holder regime is deliberately trying to destroy the US. There simply isn’t any other explanation for their foreign and domestic policies. These guys have weaponised immigration and welfare to destroy the country. Obama’s foreign policy is designed to weaken the US. It’s been in the back of my mind for years. I kept telling myself, no that’s crazy. Obama is just an incompetent. But it’s now so obvious what he’s doing I can’t deny it anymore.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Obama made the decision and not Bush[/quote]

This is literally factually inaccurate, and I have proved it so.

Obama followed the timetable passed by the Iraqi parliament and signed by Bush. Obama came into office with a SOFA signed and sealed, enumerating exact dates for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

You said this whole thing was “Obama’s idea.” That is pure fantasy. You said that Bush didn’t set dates. That is pure fantasy.

I am not talking about what I think is the best interpretation, or some nuance in the case. I am talking about things that are inarguable fact.

You could say “Obama should have reneged on the SOFA”–though that would have been a disaster. But you cannot say this whole thing was “Obama’s idea” or that Bush didn’t set dates. I have proved both of those claims wrong beyond the possibility of doubt.[/quote]

Indeed. If anyone wants to continue to point fingers, they should direct them toward Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Perhaps it would also be more constructive to discuss possible solutions to the grave security threat that ISIS poses to Iraq rather than play partisan politics.

All this has been a great benefit to me financially. My solar stock portfolio went up 6 grand yesterday and another six grand today. I’m a big fan of symmetry so lets go for another 6 grand tomorrow.