Please tell us what your sand table troop movements told you the appropriate troop levels were or are to pacify Iraq. Please?
I'm sorry but I asked you a question first. Where did you come up with the number 170,000?
You have repeatedly advocated for a surge level troop presence in Iraq. A number approximately north of 150,000. Now, you tell me what the surge level was. Talk about moving goal posts?
Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue to fire on US ships. Most people consider attacks on the Navy an act of war. I wonder where these rebels got those missles. Just a little Iranian seed money via the US government.
Perhaps, as a concerned citizen of Canada, you could call Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan and ask them to ask for a declaration of war. Seeing that you neocons want to do things by the constitution and all.
Please tell us what your sand table troop movements told you the appropriate troop levels were or are to pacify Iraq. Please?
I'm sorry but I asked you a question first. Where did you come up with the number 170,000?
You have repeatedly advocated for a surge level troop presence in Iraq. A number approximately north of 150,000. Now, you tell me what the surge level was. Talk about moving goal posts?
See this is where your inattention to detail gets you into trouble. You mash up a whole bunch of conversations and topics without being able to maintain focus. You would not do well in one of my classes but on this point I am willing to slow down and make everyone in class wait for you to catch up.
1) At the time of the surge there was about 110,000 or so troops in Iraq 2) In the years prior to withdrawal those numbers came down to about 45-50000 troops 3) At the time of withdrawal WHICH IS WHAT THIS GOSH DARN THREAD IS ABOUT the generals only wanted about 28000 troops to remain to maintain the peace. This is a number less then what is in South Korea today. Obama refused that number and considered maybe allowing 10000 to stay but decided against that during the SOFA fiasco.
So nobody, no general, not me ever said a troop presence of 170000 was necessary to preserve the peace. A much "lighter footprint" of somewhere between 10000 - 28000 was argued for. Do you get that? Do you? Please say you do? If you cannot get the argument then you will have to go back and take reading comprehension 101 prior to enrolling in this course again. The other students cannot continue to wait for you to figure this material out.
Now the second point which I hope doesn't confuse you but of course will...In terms of the surge force I argued for that was in reference to post-collapse Iraq more specifically around the time of when the Jordanian pilot was burned in January 2015. Now that death occured in Syria but it generated enough outrage that if the administration wanted to reengage it could have been an appropriate time. There was something still to salvage at that point. That window of opportunity was missed however and things are now so far gone that I am not even sure if there is any decent result left to salvage. In addition other powers such as Russia, Iran and Turkey are so entrenched that to reengage at this moment with a surge may in fact be an impossibility. The facts on the ground have changed. What hasn't change though is the argument that a small residual force could have prevented the horror that we see today.
Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue to fire on US ships. Most people consider attacks on the Navy an act of war. I wonder where these rebels got those missles. Just a little Iranian seed money via the US government.
Perhaps, as a concerned citizen of Canada, you could call Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan and ask them to ask for a declaration of war. Seeing that you neocons want to do things by the constitution and all.
At this point I'll probably just ask them to stop Obama from giving Iran all that cash.
Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue to fire on US ships. Most people consider attacks on the Navy an act of war. I wonder where these rebels got those missles. Just a little Iranian seed money via the US government.
Perhaps, as a concerned citizen of Canada, you could call Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan and ask them to ask for a declaration of war. Seeing that you neocons want to do things by the constitution and all.
At this point I'll probably just ask them to stop Obama from giving Iran all that cash.
Actually this made me realize what a track record this administration now has:
1) They lose track of guns in the Fast and Furious scandal which end up being used against US border agents 2) They lose track of weapons being sent to rebels in syria which come back in the hands of ISIS to Libya and result in the loss of US servicemen there 3) They give money back to Iran which ends up backstopping Houthi rebels that like to fire missiles at US sailors
It's all working!
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,709
Tomorrow I start digging into Ryszard Kapuściński's book Shah of Shahs. Will be good to get some historical perspective on the middle east that does not come from a rock and roll fan site, haha!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Tomorrow I start digging into Ryszard Kapuściński's book Shah of Shahs. Will be good to get some historical perspective on the middle east that does not come from a rock and roll fan site, haha!
The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright is a must read for perspective on al qaeda/ISIS etc and Circle in the Sand: Why We Went Back to Iraq by Christian Alfonsi is also pretty good on the subject of Iraq itself.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,709
Tomorrow I start digging into Ryszard Kapuściński's book Shah of Shahs. Will be good to get some historical perspective on the middle east that does not come from a rock and roll fan site, haha!
The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright is a must read for perspective on al qaeda/ISIS etc and Circle in the Sand: Why We Went Back to Iraq by Christian Alfonsi is also pretty good on the subject of Iraq itself.
Don't recall seeing those but will watch for them. Thanks BS.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Please tell us what your sand table troop movements told you the appropriate troop levels were or are to pacify Iraq. Please?
I'm sorry but I asked you a question first. Where did you come up with the number 170,000?
You have repeatedly advocated for a surge level troop presence in Iraq. A number approximately north of 150,000. Now, you tell me what the surge level was. Talk about moving goal posts?
See this is where your inattention to detail gets you into trouble. You mash up a whole bunch of conversations and topics without being able to maintain focus. You would not do well in one of my classes but on this point I am willing to slow down and make everyone in class wait for you to catch up.
1) At the time of the surge there was about 110,000 or so troops in Iraq 2) In the years prior to withdrawal those numbers came down to about 45-50000 troops 3) At the time of withdrawal WHICH IS WHAT THIS GOSH DARN THREAD IS ABOUT the generals only wanted about 28000 troops to remain to maintain the peace. This is a number less then what is in South Korea today. Obama refused that number and considered maybe allowing 10000 to stay but decided against that during the SOFA fiasco.
So nobody, no general, not me ever said a troop presence of 170000 was necessary to preserve the peace. A much "lighter footprint" of somewhere between 10000 - 28000 was argued for. Do you get that? Do you? Please say you do? If you cannot get the argument then you will have to go back and take reading comprehension 101 prior to enrolling in this course again. The other students cannot continue to wait for you to figure this material out.
Now the second point which I hope doesn't confuse you but of course will...In terms of the surge force I argued for that was in reference to post-collapse Iraq more specifically around the time of when the Jordanian pilot was burned in January 2015. Now that death occured in Syria but it generated enough outrage that if the administration wanted to reengage it could have been an appropriate time. There was something still to salvage at that point. That window of opportunity was missed however and things are now so far gone that I am not even sure if there is any decent result left to salvage. In addition other powers such as Russia, Iran and Turkey are so entrenched that to reengage at this moment with a surge may in fact be an impossibility. The facts on the ground have changed. What hasn't change though is the argument that a small residual force could have prevented the horror that we see today.
The end.
Got a link? A source? You making shit up again? Revising history to justify your misadventure? What date does your surge begin? What source are you relying upon for your troop count? And why are you yelling? If you repeat it enough, or scream it, it doesn't make it true.
The most naive rationale for expanding a misadventurous war? One Jordanian pilot? That's your argument? That was the act that would have turned the tide? You're desperate. And lack an understanding of the region. Your western arrogance rearing its ugly head again. Does 1953 mean anything to you? Let me guess? Reagan and Beruit was right?
"A number less than what is in South Korea." After 60 fucking years! You're laughable. Since you're comparing South Korea to Iraq, what was the US troop commitment to South Korea in an equivelant passage of time? And what "generals?"
Who started this mess again I forget & since you're teaching history I need a refresher on this point ? Thanks
This current mess or the initial mess?
C'mon you're the teacher you know exactly what I'm asking you ...
It's easy just write it out ...
Well there were two separate "messes". These are facts you choose not to accept. The first "mess" which begun under George W Bush was predominantly solved as per Joe Biden.
Mosul was not held by ISIS when US forces left. The second "mess" where an attempted clean up in under way now is due to the Obama withdrawal against the recommendations of pretty much everybody.
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Well it didn't help that the US created and armed ISIS to fight Assad in Syria. The US needs the bogeyman to have a sound, strong, secure foreign policy.
Who started this mess again I forget & since you're teaching history I need a refresher on this point ? Thanks
This current mess or the initial mess?
C'mon you're the teacher you know exactly what I'm asking you ...
It's easy just write it out ...
Well there were two separate "messes". These are facts you choose not to accept. The first "mess" which begun under George W Bush was predominantly solved as per Joe Biden.
Mosul was not held by ISIS when US forces left. The second "mess" where an attempted clean up in under way now is due to the Obama withdrawal against the recommendations of pretty much everybody.
No no you know damn well Obama just followed the plan that was in place for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq that was set up by the previous administration .
Ryan Crocker's signature but the same thing. Give Turd Blossom credit for politicizing the SOFA for the 2012 election. Nothing like taking a nice big shit on America and wiping your ass with Iraq.
Who started this mess again I forget & since you're teaching history I need a refresher on this point ? Thanks
This current mess or the initial mess?
C'mon you're the teacher you know exactly what I'm asking you ...
It's easy just write it out ...
Well there were two separate "messes". These are facts you choose not to accept. The first "mess" which begun under George W Bush was predominantly solved as per Joe Biden.
Mosul was not held by ISIS when US forces left. The second "mess" where an attempted clean up in under way now is due to the Obama withdrawal against the recommendations of pretty much everybody.
No no you know damn well Obama just followed the plan that was in place for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq that was set up by the previous administration .
No. That claim has already been awarded a number of pinnochios. See the washington post article and podesta emails linked above. Sorry buddy.
Trump said in the debate last night that Mosul will be great. I'm sure you've made an early registration for a long weekend at Trump Tower Mosul.
Yea, the war your neocon heroes started ain't over but the American footprint is drastically reduced and the Iraqis are taking the lead. Obama should be applauded for that but You neocons won't give him any credit.
Please let me know when Canada commits as much blood and treasure to Iraq as the US has. Save us the US combat deaths are a sign the war isn't over yet posts. It's like you relish in this shit storm of wasted lives.
Trump said in the debate last night that Mosul will be great. I'm sure you've made an early registration for a long weekend at Trump Tower Mosul.
Yea, the war your neocon heroes started ain't over but the American footprint is drastically reduced and the Iraqis are taking the lead. Obama should be applauded for that but You neocons won't give him any credit.
Please let me know when Canada commits as much blood and treasure to Iraq as the US has. Save us the US combat deaths are a sign the war isn't over yet posts. It's like you relish in this shit storm of wasted lives.
Yes. Keep applauding Obama for the success that now is Iraq. Obama lied. People died.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1) At the time of the surge there was about 110,000 or so troops in Iraq
2) In the years prior to withdrawal those numbers came down to about 45-50000 troops
3) At the time of withdrawal WHICH IS WHAT THIS GOSH DARN THREAD IS ABOUT the generals only wanted about 28000 troops to remain to maintain the peace. This is a number less then what is in South Korea today. Obama refused that number and considered maybe allowing 10000 to stay but decided against that during the SOFA fiasco.
So nobody, no general, not me ever said a troop presence of 170000 was necessary to preserve the peace. A much "lighter footprint" of somewhere between 10000 - 28000 was argued for. Do you get that? Do you? Please say you do? If you cannot get the argument then you will have to go back and take reading comprehension 101 prior to enrolling in this course again. The other students cannot continue to wait for you to figure this material out.
Now the second point which I hope doesn't confuse you but of course will...In terms of the surge force I argued for that was in reference to post-collapse Iraq more specifically around the time of when the Jordanian pilot was burned in January 2015. Now that death occured in Syria but it generated enough outrage that if the administration wanted to reengage it could have been an appropriate time. There was something still to salvage at that point. That window of opportunity was missed however and things are now so far gone that I am not even sure if there is any decent result left to salvage. In addition other powers such as Russia, Iran and Turkey are so entrenched that to reengage at this moment with a surge may in fact be an impossibility. The facts on the ground have changed. What hasn't change though is the argument that a small residual force could have prevented the horror that we see today.
The end.
1) They lose track of guns in the Fast and Furious scandal which end up being used against US border agents
2) They lose track of weapons being sent to rebels in syria which come back in the hands of ISIS to Libya and result in the loss of US servicemen there
3) They give money back to Iran which ends up backstopping Houthi rebels that like to fire missiles at US sailors
It's all working!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/16/iraqi-pm-announces-start-military-offensive-to-retake-mosul-from-isis.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/iraq-braces-wave-displaced-15-million-threatened-battle/story?id=42852314
Where'd you go antiwar left?
It's easy just write it out ...
Mosul was not held by ISIS when US forces left. The second "mess" where an attempted clean up in under way now is due to the Obama withdrawal against the recommendations of pretty much everybody.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/21/president-obama-has-ended-war-iraq
It's easy but I just wrote it out for you anyway.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/middleeast/mosul-iraq-isis.html
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/20/first-u-s-combat-death-in-fight-for-mosul/?utm_content=buffer1c51c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The war isn't over
Yea, the war your neocon heroes started ain't over but the American footprint is drastically reduced and the Iraqis are taking the lead. Obama should be applauded for that but You neocons won't give him any credit.
Please let me know when Canada commits as much blood and treasure to Iraq as the US has. Save us the US combat deaths are a sign the war isn't over yet posts. It's like you relish in this shit storm of wasted lives.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©