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

Would ISIS exist if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

 

No. It's precursor was defeated by the surge.

 

The invasion of Iraq and the surge are not the same thing.

 

Read the Beinart/TheAtlantic article. It details the foreign policy disaster of Obama's making.

ISIS rose from the dead because we left. And encouraged Al Maliki to brutally crackdown against the Sunnis. While he was committing atrocities, Obama was heaping praise on him. The Sunnis turned to ISIS for self defense. That's what the Sunnis say, in their own words, at the PBS link.

 

Your question is plain stupid.

al Qaeda was defeated. There was no ISIS. Until Obama surrendered.

The battle and the war was won. As it stood, the peace needed to be won. It's not how I would have done it, but those were the cards to be played. Full house against ten high and he folded. Stepped out of bounds at the 1 yard line. Need any more metaphors?

 

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.

 

The Sunni were on our side. Obama turned them against us and the Iraqi state and to ISIS. Hence, MVP is spot on.

 

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.

 

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.”

 

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.”

 

Convenient excuse.

And not honest at all.

 

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

 

#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.