Why A Yes Vote For The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A No-Brainer

Second, there was no deception going on with regards to Malaki working with the Iranians. Although Malaki looked forward to the US pulling out, he was adamantly against the Iranians taking over for the US with regards to influence in Iraq. He wanted to consolidate power, after we left, to himself and his allies. This would not happen with the Iranians calling the shots. Originally Posted by herfacechair

You are so pitiful, can't you tell?

http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry...a/1627627.html

Third, this wasn't a case of President Bush signing under surprise. The Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq was signed leaving the option open to create a follow-on agreement with this agreement ran out. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Really?! Because Bush says so, or Maliki, or you? Unlike previous drafts which did specify ways to keep US military presence in Iraq after 2011, the final agreement eliminated that possibility altogether. That error made by Bush left Obama virtually no room to maneuver. So stop being such a gutless, spineless, unconscionable lackey of Bush. Would you?

http://www.ipsnews.net/2008/11/polit...n-us-military/

I operated under this Status of Forces Agreement. Any wrongdoing committed by any member of the US military was to be tried in a US military court, not in an Iraqi court. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Were you confined to the military base 24/7, or you were on duty 24/7? Caught you lying yet again. Now people will begin to see that your arguments are mere horseshits.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2108.htm

Here is another link to the same "conspiracy propaganda" you claim that is no longer there, herfacechair. Dismantle it! Look, I'm not taunting you. You, in your own words, guaranteed you will dismantle that article. So show me what you have left in you, I'll be waiting.

http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/why-obam...aliki-removed/

Little NAZI boy's arguments aren't even based on hindsight, just on conspiracy propaganda by other leftwing low information drones. Not only is Juan Cole a partisan hack, he had absolutely no clue about what he was talking about... Or, he could've read the memorandum, cherry picked it, then spread conspiracy propaganda to a readership he knew would lap up the turds that he fed them. What's even a bigger tragedy is that people believe him. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Now you sound just like COG. Am I getting under your skin, Pharaoh?

Another frantic harangue! Noticed you have removed my link yet again, but this time you didn't have the balls to even announce your sleazy move. Why? It's a serious question, so if you answer it, do it in like manner. Originally Posted by andymarksman

As usual, you are wrong with your "frantic harangue" description, quotation marks used strongly here. Also, as is the pattern that you have set on this thread, you consistently dismiss a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument as something other than what it is, a fact-based argument destroying your argument.

Regarding your links. They lead to propaganda conspiracy whack job articles that preach out-of-whack opinions, and distorted facts. You provided the links in your posts, I indicated those links as either a comment or something that I dressed in another post. The fact that you would ignore my rebutting your linked articles speaks volumes of your academic dishonesty in this debate. That is not a sleazy move on my part, it's a sleazy move on your part to insinuate that I'm trying to hide something while not addressing it. Anybody with half a brain would look at my replies and see that I addressed the inaccuracies indicated in all of your links.

Speaking of lack of balls, you consistently show that you like balls when it comes to trying to advance a debate against me. All you've done was ask questions, generate short posts that amount to you drawing a line in the sand and moving backwards, completely lying out of your ass, and any other tactics that I've seen the opposition use when they intellectually know that they've lost, but their arrogance pushes them forward.

There is no need for you to ask me why I did something under the auspices of what you are accusing me of doing. Go back, read my posts, and you will see that I addressed all but one of your links. The one that I did not address was one that led to a dead end. I clicked on that link, and I got a page that said that the article was not available. How could I address it when it's not there?

Quit asking me questions as a substitute for actually trying to debate your position. How about you debate your position, to include advancing FACTS to support your assumptions? I'm challenging you to do this, because I know for fact that you are not arguing based on the facts.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

[Removed: link to liberal hack Rachel Maddow's website, to an article by another liberal hack that obviously does not understand the documentations that he/she talks about in his/her article]

Will Femia, a Rachel Maddow Propagandist: Among the new revelations in tonight's documentary

My primary Military Occupational Specialty is Psychological Operations. A Part of My MOS is recognizing and countering enemy propaganda. One of the things that we are trained, to recognize with regards to enemy propaganda, is visible in the "documentary". This is a biased documentary, perpetrated by liberal hacks, to use cherry picked information to build a strawman to confuse and mislead the viewer. This has not been reviewed by credible, unbiased, experts, but by other liberal hacks interested in perpetrating propaganda. This is extremely similar to many of the tactics utilized by enemy propagandists, except they talk about different topics.

Will Femia, a Rachel Maddow Propagandist: about how the Bush administration convinced the American people to go to war

Instead of advancing a biased, one-sided, docmentary by liberal hacks, how about referencing actual statements made by then President Bush? The fact that you would embrace an opinion, simply because you agree with it, instead of reading the raw data yourself in order to come to your own conclusions, speaks volumes. You stated, in one of your previous replies, that your "facts" still "stood". If you don't see here, how you don't' even come close to advancing the facts, then you're as blind to your bias as I suspect.

As I stated in my previous replies, the Bush Administration advanced several themes for our going into Iraq, other than WMD. The arguments they made, in favor of going into Iraq, where consistent with statements that President Bush made with regards to the War on Terror.

Will Femia, a Rachel Maddow Propagandist: in Iraq are newly declassified talking points and handwritten notes from November, 2001 in which can be seen then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's team trying to find the most compelling reason to justify war.

Andy, do you even bother reading the information that your own biased information references? A reading of the PDF associated with the above propaganda article shows an obvious effort to refine a long-standing military strategy. Even prior to the first Gulf War, the Pentagon had war plans for how they would invade Iraq. Iraq was not the only country that was subject to these kinds of plans.

The Pentagon has more plans for every hotspot that could involve the United States in the world. I know that for fact. I was on units that trained for possible combat scenarios in selected regions of the world. We have trained for possible combat scenarios against Iran, or a hostile Third World country in the area we were deployed to. Those plans didn't just come about when we were there. They were long-standing plans drawn up as soon as hotspots showed a potential of involving US military forces.

The PDF documents, linked to in that site, is just an example of the leadership refining a plan that had been in existence long before President Bush got elected to president.

The PDF document first talks about focusing on WMD. You do realize that this is talking about a potential invasion, do you? Saddam had a reputation of utilizing chemical weapons against his enemies. The US military was prepared for that eventuality by entering the theater with chemical personal protective equipment. This was the case again during the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This was not a move to "invent" an argument about WMD. As the facts indicate, from various news articles, that WMD were in fact in Iraq post invasion.

The next point, about building momentum for regime change. You do realize that President Clinton argued regime change during his administration, do you?

"Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he will conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost as well. You will surmise that he has free reign to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and some day -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past." -- President Clinton, December 16, 1998

"The best way to and that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Really change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently." -- President Clinton, December 16, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Now, if you notice with the PDF in your link, you would see a bulletized list of targeting, ordered by the degree of threat to potential invasion forces. Yes, WMD sites were cited as the most threatening to ground operations. Next involved missile silos, and the backbone of the Iraqi military, the Republican Guards.

A lot of that was based on lesson learned from Desert Storm.

The next point, on how to start. Notice the question mark utilized in this section. In the military world, we consider these considerations as "trigger events". He is not making a case that we should invent an excuse. These are "if then" scenarios. They are not trying to invent an excuse, but show potential causes for an invasion that they could provide to the public that does not understand asymmetrical warfare.

The first point, about moving against the Kurds, was not an attempt to invent a story about them moving against the Kurds. However, they were talking about if a move against the Kurds were made. The second sentence was not something that they were pushing. It was another "if/then" scenario. If Saddam was discovered to be behind the 9/11 attacks, or the anthrax attacks, then we could use that as justification. Another scenario was if the disputed WMD inspections. But, notice how another sub sentence is added under that, which amounts to on "adjust fire" should they dispute WMD inspections. They're implementing diplomatic strategies even while brushing up on a military plan.

Keep in mind that the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War was not a declaration of peace but a suspension of war. Saddam's violation of that cease-fire agreement was all the reason we needed to invade Iraq.

It continues on to refine a military campaign plan that had been in place before President Bush was elected president. Yes, surprise, speed, and shock are tactical, operational, and strategic considerations in the combat theater. "Decapitation" of the enemy government is a tactic that had been utilized throughout history buy a majority of nations that engaged in war.

Again, this is working on one of the many war plans that the Pentagon has in place regarding hotspots around the world. They essentially took that one off the shelf and refined it. The rest of the attached PDF follows that theme. Nothing in there indicates that they were trying to make things up, or that they had their mind set on invading Iraq.

Video: It's so obvious now that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The attached PDF does not support that propagandist's opinion. The "Saddam to 9/11" consideration and PDF was a "What if" scenario, not a foregone conclusion. A review, of President Bush's speeches do not show a move to connect the two. They do show a trend of the need to remove Saddam, address the WMD issue, and address democracy.

Video: Afghanistan and Iraq are just two different wars two different issues and we forget that...

WRONG! The terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, bin Laden, Iraq under Saddam, etc., are symptoms of the real war being waged against the West.

They are not individually the reasons for going to war, but are symptom of the bigger reasons for going to war. This is asymmetrical warfare. I'm not making this up, this is based on hearing and reading statements from the very people that swore to destroy us. This is also based on an extensive study of history in that region related to terrorism. We have to see this through the eyes of our enemies, not through our Western perspectives.

The radical Islamists that we are struggling against do not recognize national boundaries. In their eyes, every country that is predominantly Muslim is part of the Muslim Nation. Iraq under Saddam, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Al Qaeda under bin Laden, are not separate and different entities. They are part of a bigger entity that is hell-bent on spreading radical Islam throughout the world. They are/were one, part of a unified front against the West. The terrorist attacks that they have perpetrated against the West, in addition to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, and elsewhere around the world are all part of a united front. They aren't separate or isolated incidents.

The idiot that is trying to make them two separate things has absolutely no clue about what he's talking about.

Video: he looked at the photo and said, "This is not Mohammed Atta".

The Czechoslovakian Ambassador, at that time, was adamant about that being a meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. This was not a close-up photo, but one taken from a distance, one where someone can't simply look at a picture, and decide within seconds whether it is someone or not. Especially when all you have of the person is selected close-up photos. The people that were trying to say it wasn't him were opposed to the war and were willing to lie about the information.

Video: The manipulations here are far worse...

Wrong. Nothing in the transcripts of the speeches made by the Bush administration, nor in the documentation's data been released surrounding this argument, supports the assumption that this was a manipulation. Collectively, the Bush administration arguments were spot on with regarding the asymmetrical threat that we faced from Iraq under Saddam.

Video: That nobody wants to talk about ... That the war should not of happened.

Knowing what I know now, I strongly believe, based on my extensive research regarding asymmetrical warfare in general, Iraq in particular, and on my first-hand experiences in Iraq, that the invasion of 2003 was the correct course of action. I know that for fact. In fact, if were President Bush back then, knowing what I know now, I would still order the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In fact, it is litmus test that I'm using against anybody that runs for president. If the Republican nominee happens to be someone that thinks otherwise, I will not vote for him/her.

Video: Secret intelligence can be manipulated

Yet, the attached PDF in the article link does not indicate manipulation. It's nothing more than a refinement of a war plan that had been in existence long before the Bush Administration came into being. However, his making that assumption, then extrapolating that to apply to the attached PDF amounts to academic dishonesty. It also amounts to outright propaganda.

If you can't see that I am rebutting the link that I didn't include, but that you included in your post, you're either blind or incapable of critical thought.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

andymarksman: "Absolutely no comparison?!" Because you state so?

Yes, absolutely no comparison. I state such because of the facts. You specifically compared my personal actions, as well as that of my comrade at arms, to that of two infamous World War II Germans. If you are that blind to the facts, I will be glad to list a side-by-side comparison of their actions to that of mine. Do you need me to spell it out for you?

andymarksman: There is no doubt that Gen. Franks conspired with Rumsfeld to plot a war against another sovereign nation,

No doubt? Proof of correspondence between Gen. Franks and Rumsfeld indicating a conspiracy? Or, is this a case where you want me to believe that simply because you say so? Cough up that proof, or admit that you're pulling crap out of your ass.

Again, there was no conspiracy to specifically plot or target a sovereign country without justification. Again, the cease-fire agreement that put a hold to the Persian Gulf War was not an agreement to initiate peace. It was an agreement to suspend war pending the signatories abiding by the agreements of the cease-fire. A violation of that cease-fire itself was grounds for an invasion, again, the cease-fire only put the war on hold, we remained technically at war with Iraq, thus we had every right to invade when they were in breach of that agreement.

That cease fire indicated that the United States was still technically at war with Iraq.

which constitutes a crime against peace under the provisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN Charters. Furthermore, the fore-mentioned act also constitutes a grave violation of the law of warfare cited by the US Army Field manual 27-10, Chapter 8, Sec. II, para. 500.

500. Conspiracy, Incitement, Attempts, and Complicity
Conspiracy, direct incitement, and attempts to commit, as well as complicity in
the commission of, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes are punishable. Originally Posted by andymarksman

First, under asymmetrical warfare, we had every right to invade Iraq under Saddam. The United Nations had no laws or regulations addressing asymmetrical warfare acts. No laws were broken. Therefore, the above is not applicable to any aspect of the Iraq War. Second, the United States was technically still at war with Iraq. Again, we signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq. A cease-fire does not establish permanent peace, nor does it end hostilities. It only puts a temporary hold on the war pending compliance for both sides:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-cease-fi...e-fire-1640288

The United Nations considers a cease-fire to be a type of agreement that is "more limited in scope" than an actual peace treaty or armistice. However, neither a cease-fire nor an armistice necessarily constitutes the end of the war. Depending on how long an armistice has been declared, the Hague Land War Regulations state that war may be resumed, if notice is given.

Did you read that? Saddam was given plenty of notification, as well as what he needed to do to avert an invasion. He failed to do it, thus continuing to be in violation of the cease-fire agreement. Hence, we had every right to invade based on that fact alone.

andymarksman: Thus, Gen. Franks violated the UCMJ, Subchapter X, Article 81, Section 881.

Again, proof? Where are the written correspondences between the two that allegedly supports your assumptions here?

As usual, you are wrong. Gen. Franks did not violate the UCMJ. I know for fact that the military will come down hard on people who violate the UCMJ on matters as serious as you are charging. In order for your assumptions to be true, then every single one of us would have to be subject to court marshals. Where is the international move to carry out a repeat of the Nuremburg trials, this time putting Gen. Franks and everybody in the military who participated in the Iraq war on trial?

Neither the military, nor the international community, agree with your assumption. If they did, those trials would've happened. So, how about coming up with that proof, actual correspondence between the two, not some liberal hack propaganda?

andymarksman: If he wasn't a US general, he would have been liable to the same justice meted out to Anton Dostler.

You're advancing a strawman argument. You're trying to find similarities where there is none. Again, there is no comparison between the two. Anton Dostler committed war crimes, which were clearly identified as war crimes. An investigation proved that. Gen. Franks did not. Again, neither the military nor the international community have brought them up on charges of crimes against humanity, or against what you claim he is guilty of. The fact of the matter is that Gen. Franks did nothing even remotely close to what Anton Dostler did.

Also remember that the rank-and-file German soldier couldn't use "because I received an order" as a defense against their crimes. So, in order for your ignorant assumptions to apply, every single one of us that participated in the Iraq War are also "guilty" of "war crimes". Again, I know for fact the military has put service members on trial after a valid investigation verified that they were involved in war crimes. Gen. Franks would not have been exempt.

You, having no evidence to support your assumption, automatically assume that he should've been administered the same justice as Anton Dostler. Do an Internet search of what a strawman argument is. You would recognize your tactics on this thread in the explanation of a strawman argument.

andymarksman: But at least Dostler could and did claim that he had merely carried out the secret "Commando Order" issued by Hitler.

That's because unlike Gen. Franks, Anton Dostler did in fact commit war crimes. General Franks didn't.

andymarksman: Where's the "Commando Order" the Gen. Franks "had to" obey?

Gen. Franks received no such order. Your question is equivalent to the question on where, in the United States, are all the flying horses and unicorns being held at. That order only exists in your head.

andymarksman: Oh! I almost forgot, you won't answer any of my questions from now on, right?

Until you answer all of the questions that I've asked you, on this thread, per the parameters that I set, you do not have a leg to stand on asking me questions, or demanding that I answer your questions. However, if you ask a question that is so stupid, that it destroys your credibility, I will answer, just like I did here. Even you would have to see the merit in my refusing to answer a good number of your questions, or even refusing to answer all of them, in the face of your refusal to answer my questions per the parameters that I set.

andymarksman: Then get your buddies from "This Ain't Hell" to join this board and spam this post with their tirades. Let's see what they are made of.

You bitched about how I should be conducting myself on this thread. I reminded you that I was nice to you in comparison to what I could be. I mentioned the "This Ain't Hell" community to remind you of the kind of treatment people like you would get for demonstrating the ignorance that you're demonstrating on this thread. I was letting you know that no matter what you thought of how I was treating you or others in this thread, I'm playing nice in comparison to what I could be doing.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

"It was verbal and made in an attempt to move people toward a written agreement."
Do you really want to know my thought on this statement? I won't even bother to comment on this BS. Maliki's words don't worth a damn, and apparently yours too. But at least Bush did give a damn. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Yes, show me your ignorance by providing your "thoughts" about that statement. That statement is a valid one, go ahead and give me a response that is ripe for me to dismantle. No, it's not BS, but fact. The fact of the matter is that both sides were moving toward a tentative agreement when your pretty boy upped the ante to make it hard for the military to get the kind of agreement it needed to leave a residual force behind after 2011. The only BS that I see on this exchange, between us, is the drivel that you are spewing on this thread.

The fact of the matter is that Malaki was communicating with the US side, regardless of what you may think of his words and what they mean. Also, my words are backed by facts, first-hand experiences, and extensive research related to this topic. My words mean a hell of a lot more than the drivel that you are spewing on this thread, which mean nothing.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

Removed: Andy's propaganda article from the Associated Press, a liberal hack "news" media. Rebuttal follows.

Propagandist Robert H. Reid: AMMAN, Jordan -- The Iraqi prime minister's seeming endorsement of Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan is part of Baghdad's strategy to play U.S. politics for the best deal possible over America's military mission.

Wrong. It was a move to play in to Iraqi politics. There were voices asking for the US to leave, but they were in the minority. By siding with Obama, he was trying to portray himself as being with the "opposition" that he had to work with. But, behind the scenes, he understood that he needed US military behind the Iraqi military in order for him to have any legitimacy. He was simply playing politics back home.

Propagandist Robert H. Reid: The goal is not necessarily to push out the Americans quickly, but instead give Iraqis a major voice in how long U.S. troops stay and what they will do while still there.

I combat deployed to Iraq under the SOFA agreement that the Bush Administration and Malaki's Administration agreed to. The conditions that we operated in the conditions that the Bush administration argued we should do. For example, the Iraqis wanted us out of urban areas. Yet, the agreement allowed us to operate in urban areas. I lost count of how many times we did operations in and around urban areas.

We were able to mature Iraqi military increasingly throughout the deployment, and shift to background support. This has been the plan all along. I could cite other examples of how we operated under conditions that President Bush wanted us to operate under. There was no trickery here.

Propagandist Robert H. Reid: With Obama due to visit Iraq soon, al-Maliki's spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh was quick to discredit the report, saying the prime minister's remarks were "not conveyed accurately." A top al-Maliki adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, insisted the Iraqi government does not intend to be "part of the electoral campaign in the United States."

This is accurate, and reflects what I observed regarding the Iraqis when I was there.

Propagandist Robert H. Reid: Already, the Iraqi strategy has succeeded in persuading the White House to agree to a "general time horizon" for removing U.S. troops -- long a goal of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.

Wrong. In May 1, 2003, President Bush laid out the conditions that were needed before we would leave Iraq. Those conditions showed evidence of being strong possibilities by the time that President Bush agreed to a timeline. In fact, we were well ahead of the milestones that were required to be accomplished prior to troops pulling out. As President Bush insisted, timetables for withdrawals were to be driven by conditions on the ground. It was the conditions on the ground and determined the nature of the agreement. This had nothing to do with pressures from the Shiite dominated Iraqi government. This had everything to do with us accomplishing our goals before ending all combat operations on our part.

Propagandist Robert H. Reid: The talks had bogged down over U.S. demands for extensive basing rights, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law for U.S. soldiers and private contractors.

And, during the period covered by the SOFA agreed to by the Bush and Maliki Administrations, we had extensive basing rights. We had combat outposts, contingency operating bases, and forward operating bases, all over Iraq. However, as we turned over security to the Iraqis, we closed down our combat outposts, contingency operating bases, and forward operating bases or operations in areas that the Iraqis took over.

By the way, we had immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. Throughout the entire time is combat deployed to Iraq during that period, we were solely under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and US federal law while we were carrying out our military duties. This is consistent with other SOFAs that we were subjected to when we were in other countries. During that time, we had tactical control of large areas of Iraqi airspace. Yes, President Bush got his way.

Propagandist Robert H. Reid: In the past, the Iraqis would have bowed to American pressure.

And they continued to "bow" to our pressure when we were there. The US ambassador in Iraq, while we were there, had teeth where Malaki was concerned. He wanted to do his BS games with consolidating powers with his cronies at the expense of inclusion, our ambassador put a stop to it. The Iraqi military had strong report with US military, Malaki was in a no-win situation when we were there.

Propagandist Robert H. Reid: Facing down the Americans on such a critical issue would have been unthinkable months ago, when the very survival of the Iraqi government depended on U.S. military support.

And it was unthinkable during the time I was there, and during the time the agreement was in effect. The Iraqis did not face us down when we were there, this was true whether we were dealing with military to military issues, or ambassador to Iraqi government issues. The Iraqi actions, during the negotiations, was more a play on the segment of the Iraqi populace that did not want us there. They were the minority.

Removed: Link to propaganda piece from an Iranian website, you know, those anti American people and their useful idiot libtard American and western contributors, that aren't just biased against our conservatives like the US media is, but they're also biased against the United States.

Gareth Porter: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signaled last week that all U.S. troops -- including those with non-combat functions -- must be out of the country by the end of 2011 under the agreement he is negotiating with the George W. Bush administration.

Yeah, after his people, in communication with the US military, got wind that the US was basing our presence on conditions on the ground... we pull out when conditions on the ground dictate it, and we reduce our forces as necessary, something that was already happening after the surge proved its success. Based on conditions on the ground in 2008, 2011 appeared to be the right time to pull out the number of forces we needed to sustain combat operations over there.

Gareth Porter: That pronouncement, along with other moves indicating that the Iraqi position was hardening rather than preparing for a compromise,

Wrong. They weren't hardening on us, as we were agreeing to conditions that we initially set prior to the invasion of Iraq. As President Bush stated on the flight deck of the CV that he landed on, when we were to eventually pull out, we'd leave an Iraq that could govern itself, that could defend itself, and that would be a democracy. That was the "end game." By 2008, it was evident that we were accomplishing just that. Taking credit for that is like taking credit for causing the sun to rise in the morning.

Gareth Porter: He added that the Iraqi government "could ask the Americans to withdraw before 2011 if we wish."

The conditions on the ground favored such a move LONG before the end of 2011. What did Maliki do? He DID NOT ask for us to leave before 2011.

Gareth Porter: appeared to doom the Bush administration's plan to leave tens of thousands of military support personnel in Iraq indefinitely.

President Bush didn't intend to leave US forces in Iraq indefinitely. The plan was to carry out a campaign that came to a close at the end of 2011, then leave a shrinking number of forces behind to shore up Iraqi training in other areas of military operations.

Gareth Porter: The new Iraqi moves raise the obvious question of how a leader who was considered a safe U.S. client could have defied his patron on such a central U.S. strategic interest.

He didn't. Again, we operated under conditions that President Bush argued for in the agreement that impacted us. Again, he was such a "client" that he didn't ask the US military to leave before 2011 when it was glaringly obvious that they were well ahead of the progress that we set them on. In the end, he acted in our best strategic interest.

Gareth Porter: The administration had assumed going into the negotiations that Maliki would remain a U.S. client for a few years because of the Iraqi government's dependence on the U.S. military to build a largely Shi'ite Iraqi army and police force and defeat the main insurgent threats to his regime.

And that assumption turned out to be accurate. No foreign Soldiers on their soil after 2011? Then what do you call the US forces in Iraq today then? Nonexistent? Not only are they there, they're there under an agreement that should've been in place after the old agreement ended after 2011. The Iraqis were warming up to us having such an agreement, but more time was needed for them to gather enough momentum in Iraqi politics to get a new one.

Gareth Porter: But that dependence has diminished dramatically over the past two years

If that were true, the Iraqis would've asked the US to leave well before 2011. They were ready to do that long before then. They didn't. Why? Reality dictated that they were still dependent on us, a fact that required a follow on agreement to allow a smaller number of US forces to remain behind to continue working with the Iraqi military.

Gareth Porter: as Iraqi security forces continued to grow, the Sunni insurgents found refuge under U.S. auspices, and the Shi'ites succeeded in largely eliminating Sunni political-military power from the Baghdad area.

Not quite true. The Iraqi military, while we were there, integrated Shiites and Sunni and other minorities. When it came to military operations, the Sunnis and Shiites work together in the Baghdad area and elsewhere. I know that for fact, as I witnessed it. Maliki tried to separate them and consolidate power among the Shiites and are there, but he couldn't. Although the Iraqi military was going stronger and taking over more areas, they had a good report with us and did not support his specific selfish plans.

Gareth Porter: Contrary to the administration's claims that it was helping the regime remain independent of Iran, Maliki was far closer to Tehran than to Washington from the beginning.

Not true. The Iranians were in Iraq supporting the insurgency against the US, but also supporting the insurgency against Iraq. That was a fact that Maliki was aware of, and he had no intention of replacing United States with Iran as an influencer or handler.

The rest of the article is chock-full of lies and propaganda and follow the same pattern of the comments that I rebutted here.

If you can't see that I am rebutting the link that I didn't include, but that you included in your post, you're either blind or incapable of critical thought.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

Is that all you got? Is this website anti-Bush or anti-Republican? Originally Posted by andymarksman

You should ask your question to yourself, with regards to "all that one has". Selectively quoting what I said, while leaving out the rest of what I said, then asking that question reeks of academic dishonesty. I followed that statement with a rebuttal of the link that you provided.

The links that you refer to lead to articles written by people that trend anti-conservative. President Bush, as a Republican, would be the target of their bias just as any other Republican would be. You consistently bring up opinionated commentary that argue against Republicans and their causes, in this case the Iraq war. You, claiming to be arguing from the facts, should not be referencing obviously biased opinion articles to back your opinions, then turning around and insinuate that the "facts" that you "hold" still "stand".

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

You are so pitiful, can't you tell? Originally Posted by andymarksman

Rejecting blatantly biased arguments, and biased and opinionated articles, as the propaganda that they are does not make me "pitiful", quotation marks used strongly. Don't assume that my insistence on standing by the facts makes me "pitiful", and that it should be "obvious" to me. You are blinded by liberal propaganda, the articles that you reference distort the facts and forward a story not supported by the facts.

What I can tell is that my rejection of your references, and my taking them apart, makes me qualified to continue remaining in my MOS, PSYOP/MISO. What I'm doing here, with regards to dismantling your arguments, as well as that of the opinionated articles that you linked to, is very similar to what I would be doing to enemy propaganda downrange.

Again, you should be asking yourself that question then follow that up by answering the following question:

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

Removed: Link to another propaganda piece that Andy posted to support his opinions.

Scott Stearns: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he pressed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to block Iran from using Iraq to resupply embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

First, what did you expect Maliki to do when the current leadership in the White House showed lack of leadership towards the Middle East? With Obama showing a trend of providing tailwinds to hostile forces in the region at the expense of our allies, our allies have no other choice but to turn to others to be allied with.

Second, where is Maliki, is he still in charge there? He paid the price for not cooperating with us with regards to those flights from Iran to Syria, didn't he? No, not the price that you spewed regarding a link to Obama's alleged anger of not getting an agreement. He was removed due to the reaction of the Iraqi people. Speaking of which, how many US forces do we have in Iraq right now? The answers to this question dismisses the attempted argument that you are making with this link.

Third, this is a reflection on Obama's failure at strategic leadership.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

andymarksman: Really?!

Yes, what I said still stands. The way the agreement is written opens the door for negotiations to maintain US military beyond 2011.

andymarksman: Because Bush says so, or Maliki, or you?

Because the text of the agreement, the way it is written, lefted loop holes open for a follow on agreement. That is a fact. This is one recognized by statements on the side made by both Bush and Maliki. My statements are based on fact. You may not like any of us, but you should not shut out the facts because they get into the way of your Kool-Aid driven opinions.

andymarksman: Unlike previous drafts which did specify ways to keep US military presence in Iraq after 2011, the final agreement eliminated that possibility altogether. That error made by Bush left Obama virtually no room to maneuver.

Wrong, from the actual agreement:

"This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."

This loophole is so large you could sail a super tanker through it. This is not an elimination of the possibility of keeping US forces in Iraq after 2011. It opens the door to extending this agreement, to coming up with a new agreement, or both. Pres. Obama had that opportunity, based on this provision alone, to extend our presence. He had plenty of room to maneuver.

andymarksman: So stop being such a gutless, spineless, unconscionable lackey of Bush. Would you?

How could I stop being something that I'm not in the first place? I'm not doing this for President Bush, or for Republicans. I'm doing this because I am a subject matter expert in this argument relative to those that I'm arguing against, including you. You are intoxicated with the liberal Kool-Aid forced down your throat by your liberal opinion masters.

You're so gutless, and spineless, that you would not double check the information sources that you are referring to. You are simply running with what these opinionated information sources say, regardless of whether they are using first-hand information or not. You referenced an article, in your post, that claimed that all loopholes were closed. Yet, when I looked at the actual agreement itself, I came across that statement that I quoted above, and others, that open the door for both countries to agree on leaving the US military there beyond 2011.

If anybody should stop being a gutless, spineless, unconscionable lackey of anybody, it's you. If your references were factually valid, I would not be able to argue against or to take them apart without utilizing your tactics that you're using here. My finding that one passage within the text of the agreement proves that entire article of yours incorrect.

Put the Kool-Aid and the bong down. Pull your head out of your azz and remove your horse blinders. You're the one that is harping propaganda in your posts, then hiding behind the argument of other propagandists via links to their opinion pieces.

How about you actually procure a spine and a gut and present your own arguments instead of hiding behind questions, one-liners, and other people's opinions? Quit being a coward and actually stand up and "put up your dukes".

[Removed: Gareth Porter link based on half-baked nonsense, misconstruing the facts, and outright deception. The actual agreement does not support his assumption. But Andy doesn't care, nor does he care about checking the original document. It appears that Andy does not like little things like the facts getting in the way of his opinion.]

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.