Defeat of ISIS marks a major foreign policy win for Trump

It's fun watching 0zombies flop around in their death throes! 2018 will be even better!!!

Clownboy, your hero Bush43 set the date for when the USA was suppose to leave IRAQ. Bush43 should have never invaded Iraq in the first place... Originally Posted by flghtr65

Yeah flighty, it's funny how your favorite Veep Joe Biden was eager to take full ownership of Iraq back in 2010. He went on the Larry King show to boast about how leaving behind a stable Iraq would be "one of the great achievements" of the Odumbo administration. Then after the country went to shit again a few years later, all of a sudden you dim-retards claim you have no ownership - instead you whine and say it's all Bush's fault! What an honest, stand-up guy you are, flighty!

Your fucking party used to be capable of producing a few men of character. After the Bay of Pigs debacle, JFK famously said "success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan". Now your party only produces cowards and hypocrites who are quick to claim the successes of others for themselves, and equally quick to pin their own failures on everyone else.





You dim-retards have no fucking integrity when it comes to foreign policy. You will sacrifice the lives of our soldiers in a heartbeat to advance your own narrow and selfishly perceived domestic partisan political interests. Actions speak louder than words, flighty. The fact that odumbo had to send troops back into Iraq in 2014 (less than 3 years after pulling them out) is an embarrassing admission and demonstrable PROOF that he had blundered badly in 2011, when all he cared about was his re-election calendar.

Here are the details of what really happened back in 2011, as recorded by Max Boot, who knows a lot more about foreign policy than hyper-partisan, talking-point yokels like you. He called it a major blunder AT THE TIME, not in retrospect. Note the date on his analysis is October 31, 2011.


Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal

The president says we're leaving because of Iraqi intransigence—but he never took negotiations seriously.

By MAX BOOT
October 31, 2011

Friday afternoon is a traditional time to bury bad news, so at 12:49 p.m. on Oct. 21 President Obama strode into the White House briefing room to "report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year—after nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." He acted as though this represented a triumph, but it was really a defeat. The U.S. had tried to extend the presence of our troops past Dec. 31. Why did we fail?

The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq's laws. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself said: "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008 during the negotiation of the last Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time because there were so many more U.S. personnel in Iraq—nearly 150,000, compared with fewer than 50,000 today. So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate. The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

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 of talks.

There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq's nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

Iraq will increasingly find itself on its own, even though its air forces still lack the capability to defend its own airspace and its ground forces cannot carry out large-scale combined arms operations. Multiple terrorist groups also remain active.

So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Since we are discussing how dim-retards like flighty keep trying to re-write history to cover up their chronic foreign policy blundering, we might as well remind everyone how the fucking Democrats have gotten it wrong on every important war vote/decision over the past 30 years.

Let's recap the history, shall we?

First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the 1990/91 Persian Gulf War. Ooops! That one (Operation Desert Storm) turned out to be a success, liberating Kuwait and making the Dems look stupid and unpatriotic.

To compensate for this mistake, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for Saddam's ouster and was signed into law by Slick Willy. And when Bush Jr. decided to follow through on this legislation and actually oust Saddam 5 years later, many Dems (including a majority of Senators) voted in favor of the 2003 invasion. Ooops again!

When the Iraq war started to go sour, the Dems naturally wanted to cut and run, as they always do when the going gets tough. So they came out against Bush's 2007 surge in troop levels – just in time to see it succeed in pacifying Iraq. Ooops a third time!

Then soon after Odumbo got elected, they tried to take credit for ushering in a “stable” and “representative” Iraq. Our far-sighted Veep Joe Biden even called it “one of the great accomplishments of this administration” (see post above)... but then they stupidly failed to leave any troops behind to keep it that way. Ooops a fourth time!

So the Democrats have consistently gotten it wrong on Iraq. And they have been wrong in a flip-flopping way that makes it obvious they view our military servicemen and women as cynical pawns whose sacrifices in lives and limbs are secondary to their political ambitions. In a nutshell, Democrats have amply demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the nation's foreign policy or security. They have no guiding principles beyond political expediency and doing what the polls say will help them get elected.

Here is a revealing conversation recounted by former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in his book "Duty":

“....Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

The maps are Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Our own generals admitted that most of the enemy were killed during Obama's term you fucking moron. Mosul was the second largest city and that fell under Obama's term. Raqqa was the last city to capture most of the work had already been done before Trump was elected. It's all there in the link in post #7. There was very little left to do after Trump came into office the link in post #7 confirms that. You don't like the link because it does not tell you what you want hear. From the link in post #7.

In August 2016, Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, who was the ground commander for the fight against ISIS, said the US-led coalition had killed an estimated 45,000 ISIS fighters.
About a year later, at the Aspen Security Forum in July 2017, the commander of the US Special Operations Command, Gen. Raymond "Tony" Thomas, said that an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 ISIS fighters had been killed since the US-led campaign against the terror group began in August 2014.

Our own generals admitted that most of the enemy were killed during Obama's term you fucking moron. Mosul was the second largest city and that fell under Obama's term. Raqqa was the last city to capture most of the work had already been done before Trump was elected. It's all there in the link in post #7. There was very little left to do after Trump came into office the link in post #7 confirms that. You don't like the link because it does not tell you what you want hear. From the link in post #7.

In August 2016, Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, who was the ground commander for the fight against ISIS, said the US-led coalition had killed an estimated 45,000 ISIS fighters.
About a year later, at the Aspen Security Forum in July 2017, the commander of the US Special Operations Command, Gen. Raymond "Tony" Thomas, said that an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 ISIS fighters had been killed since the US-led campaign against the terror group began in August 2014. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You're citing Clinton News Network as your source, you disingenuous jackass. CNN was caught in bed with the dim-retard party, flighty. Their every story on Trump since before the election has had a negative spin, you lying, lib-retarded Odumbo sycophant. The maps show the reality, flighty. ISIS lost the the greater part of its territorial holdings under Trump ... not Odumbo, flighty.

Oh, look at the hooker board Homo. Posting in bold italics. You must be really pissed off. Did you kick your pet raccoon again. Loser. Originally Posted by bambino

I guess those dicks you suck have gave you dementia. If my original post is not in italics then why would someone believe it when you say it was. All they have to do is see you changed it in the quote and it is not in the original font. Just like all Conservatives, you are getting brazen in your lying. LOL! If you are having to go for stupid shit like that then I think we know who is " really pissed off" What a joke you have become. Don't worry I am sure there are a few that will still let you blow them. Lying bet welshing dotard!

Actually, it's not a "trailer park" silly, it's more properly called an RV Park and they don't need the dialup at the park they have satellite access on their RV they are enjoying in their retirement as they travel about the country seeing and doing what they desire when they desire. Oh, it's my understanding they prepay for the year. Thank you, though, for thinking of them.

Now, when are you going to grow up? Originally Posted by LexusLover

It all makes sense now. Your parents travel with the Circus LOL!
So is your mom the bearded lady?
We all know you are a "sword swallower" I thought it was just in your personal life, didn't know you were famous for it.

You don't like the link because it does not tell you what you want hear. From the link in post #7... Originally Posted by flghtr65

Even the CNN link you keep citing gives Trump credit, flighty. Arming the Kurds should have been a no-brainer in terms of our Syrian strategy. Yet odumbo waffled out of fear of offending the Turks. Without Trump's decision to lift odumbo's ban and arm the Kurdish fighters allied with the SDF, Raqqa could not have been liberated.

"Significantly, in May, Trump approved a plan to arm the Kurdish forces fighting ISIS in Syria. Turkey strenuously objected to this plan because of its restive Kurdish population, but the Trump administration went ahead anyway. These are the Kurdish forces that helped to liberate Raqqa on Tuesday."

Is that what you wanted to hear, flighty?

You've had your ass handed to you in this thread by all sides, including the liberal New York Times, whose columnist Ross Douthat in a fit of honesty explained the absence of media coverage of Trump's achievement as...

"...a press failure, a case where the media is not adequately reporting an important success because it does not fit into the narrative of Trumpian disaster in which our journalistic entities are all invested."


Your fruitless efforts to either ignore or rewrite history are making you look even stupider than usual, flighty.

Your fruitless efforts to either ignore or rewrite history are making you look even stupider than usual, flighty. Originally Posted by lustylad

and YOURS are "fruity?"

of course they are!

Even the CNN link you keep citing gives Trump credit, flighty. Arming the Kurds should have been a no-brainer in terms of our Syrian strategy. Yet odumbo waffled out of fear of offending the Turks. Originally Posted by lustylad

Clownboy, this was in the CNN link about Trump. Did you skip over it? Was it what you wanted to hear? I did not rewrite history. The author of the CNN link is a professor who has a book on Jihad. Nice of you to leave this out.

Under Obama, ISIS also lost significant Iraqi cities such as Falluja, Ramadi and Tikrit.
To be sure, Trump loosened the "rules of engagement" for the US military, enabling ground commanders to more easily carry out operations without having to seek permission up the chain of command, but these are tactical changes -- not strategic game changers.

Did you read that Clownboy? Trumps changes were not strategic game changers.

You and IB idiot did not hand anybody anything. Case Closed!

Clownboy, this was in the CNN link about Trump. Did you skip over it? Was it what you wanted to hear? I did not rewrite history. The author of the CNN link is a professor who has a book on Jihad. Nice of you to leave this out.

Under Obama, ISIS also lost significant Iraqi cities such as Falluja, Ramadi and Tikrit.
To be sure, Trump loosened the "rules of engagement" for the US military, enabling ground commanders to more easily carry out operations without having to seek permission up the chain of command, but these are tactical changes -- not strategic game changers.

Did you read that Clownboy? Trumps changes were not strategic game changers.

You and IB idiot did not hand anybody anything. Case Closed! Originally Posted by flghtr65

The maps vividly illustrate how the case was closed before you opened your lying-ass mouth, flighty.

The maps vividly illustrate how Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This is from the same CNN link that Clownboy quoted from.

Trumps changes were not strategic game changers.

The problem is you're a Bush worshiper and you don't know the difference between tactical and stategic.

This is from the same CNN link that Clownboy quoted from.

Trumps changes were not strategic game changers.

The problem is you're a Bush worshiper and you don't know the difference between tactical and stategic. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Nearly thirty years in the military means I certainly do know the difference between "tactical" and "strategic", flighty. And I damn well know that Odumbo's back benching from D.C. impaired rather than facilitated combat operations against ISIS, flighty. So, you can take your brown-nosing for Odumbo and shove it up your ignorant, lib-retard ass, flighty, because the maps tell all there needs to be known about what happened and when, flighty.

Since we are discussing how dim-retards like flighty keep trying to re-write history to cover up their chronic foreign policy blundering, we might as well remind everyone how the fucking Democrats have gotten it wrong on every important war vote/decision over the past 30 years.

Let's recap the history, shall we?

First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the 1990/91 Persian Gulf War. Ooops! That one (Operation Desert Storm) turned out to be a success, liberating Kuwait and making the Dems look stupid and unpatriotic.

To compensate for this mistake, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for Saddam's ouster and was signed into law by Slick Willy. And when Bush Jr. decided to follow through on this legislation and actually oust Saddam 5 years later, many Dems (including a majority of Senators) voted in favor of the 2003 invasion. Ooops again!

When the Iraq war started to go sour, the Dems naturally wanted to cut and run, as they always do when the going gets tough. So they came out against Bush's 2007 surge in troop levels – just in time to see it succeed in pacifying Iraq. Ooops a third time!

Then soon after Odumbo got elected, they tried to take credit for ushering in a “stable” and “representative” Iraq. Our far-sighted Veep Joe Biden even called it “one of the great accomplishments of this administration” (see post above)... but then they stupidly failed to leave any troops behind to keep it that way. Ooops a fourth time!

So the Democrats have consistently gotten it wrong on Iraq. And they have been wrong in a flip-flopping way that makes it obvious they view our military servicemen and women as cynical pawns whose sacrifices in lives and limbs are secondary to their political ambitions. In a nutshell, Democrats have amply demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the nation's foreign policy or security. They have no guiding principles beyond political expediency and doing what the polls say will help them get elected.

Here is a revealing conversation recounted by former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in his book "Duty":

“....Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.” Originally Posted by lustylad

And they have been wrong in flip-flopping....." . So does that mean they actually have to make a choice between being a ' bottom man " like the ECCIE lying liberal EUNUCH posters are, or a ' top man " like their HEROES in political office are ON THEM ? ! Slamming it to them and they beg for MORE !!!

I guess those dicks you suck have gave you dementia. If my original post is not in italics then why would someone believe it when you say it was. All they have to do is see you changed it in the quote and it is not in the original font. Just like all Conservatives, you are getting brazen in your lying. LOL! If you are having to go for stupid shit like that then I think we know who is " really pissed off" What a joke you have become. Don't worry I am sure there are a few that will still let you blow them. Lying bet welshing dotard! Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Soooo, Mr. WK FLUFFER, that SURE looks like YOU are speculating on someone's MEDICAL CONDITION !