Christian Leader: ISIS is Beheading Children[W:131]

Dittohead not! said:

Oh, I see. The Bush Administration was gonna negotiate for them to stay. When Obama took credit for pulling them out, he was taking credit for something the Bush Administration already did, but now that things have gone (predictably) bad there, he wuzgonna change his mind.

Click to expand...

Not quite. Some anonymous U.S. officials and specialists who follow the war have argued they believe that parts of the agreement may be circumvented and that other parts may be open to interpretation, including: the parts giving Iraqi legal jurisdiction over United States soldiers who commit crimes off base and off duty, the part requiring for US troops to obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and the part banning the United States from staging attacks on other countries from Iraq.[38] For example, administration officials have argued that Iraqi prosecution of U.S. soldiers could take three years, by which time the U.S. will have withdrawn from Iraq under the terms of the agreement. In the interim, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of America's Uniform Code of Military Justice. Michael E. O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution research group, said there are "these areas that are not as clear cut as the Iraqis would like to think."[16]

U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said. He continued that "two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament".[39]

Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011. Pentagon planners say those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned" and that their efforts could be redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.[40] Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has also said "three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time".[41]

In a letter to U.S. military personnel about new rules of engagement, Gen. Ray Odierno said that U.S. forces would reduce their visibility but that this does not mean "any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves". Odierno wrote that U.S. forces would coordinate "operations with the approval of the GoI (Government of Iraq), and we will conduct all operations by, with, and through the Iraqi Security Forces...Despite some adjustments to the way we conduct operations, the agreement simply reinforces transitions that are already underway, and I want to emphasize that our overarching principles remain the same", he further wrote.[42]

General Raymond Odierno said that some U.S. forces would remain at local security stations as training and mentoring teams past the June 2009 deadline specified in the status of forces agreement. In contrast, Robert Gates estimated U.S. troops will be "out of cities and populated areas" by June 30. "That's the point at which we will have turned over all 18 provinces to provincial Iraqi control", he predicted.[43] A spokesman for Odierno, Lt. Col. James Hutton, reiterated that the soldiers staying in cities would not be combat forces but rather "enablers," who would provide services such as medical care, air-traffic control and helicopter support that the Iraqis cannot perform themselves.[44] Odierno's comments sparked outrage among some Iraqi lawmakers who say the United States is paving the way for breaching the interim agreement.[45]

When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops”.[15]

Click to expand...

TobyOne said:

These are the guys that Al Qaeda considers too extreme. What did Obama think would happen if he withdrew? What an ass.

Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:

:doh
Gahh the deal to withdraw was finalized before Obama. Hell the Bush admin bragged about it.

But anyways if we stayed around how would we know this wouldnt of happened either?

Click to expand...

When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops”.

Click to expand...

274ina said:

On WW1 so I am correct. thanks! LMAO!

OPPS! Lies to enter the war are lies all over agian. WMD's anyone! "Although the Germans had reasons for treating Lusitania as a naval vessel, including that the ship was carrying war munitions and that the British had also been breaching the Cruiser Rules" And that Britannia sailed the Lusitania dispite a WAR ZONE DECLARATION. (MH 17 anyone????)

On WW2 - I am correct! Thanks! LMAO. And WW 2 started much earlier than that...............WIKI "The Japanese invasion of Manchuria began on September 19, 1931, when the Kwantung Army of the Empire of Japan invaded Manchuria immediately following the Mukden Incident. The Japanese established a puppet state, called Manchukuo, and their occupation lasted until the end of World War II." ( sorry one year off, not bad for off the top of my head)

Terrorists only attack USA when we attack them...............or use proxies like Israel.

Look at the History of Switzerland, and THINK!!!

Click to expand...

Grant said:

The Bush Administration expected troops to stay.

Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:

And we were already involved in those conflicts, just not militarily. BTW, the invasion and start of Japan taking over Korea goes back to 1876.

Prior to Japan becoming an ally of Germany, it was the Second Sino-Japanese War, not WWII.

You also have a strange view about us supporting our friends and allies. If that pisses someone else off, tough ****. Isolationism never works. Kind of like socialism, something else you seem to support and believe in. Maybe you should ask Santa Claus or the Tooth Faerie to help you out.

Click to expand...

TobyOne said:

These are the guys that Al Qaeda considers too extreme. What did Obama think would happen if he withdrew? What an ass.

Click to expand...

274ina said:

Using military force crosses a line. Smart nations dont cross it.

Well its really just the World War. part 1 and part 2 with wars in the middle.

funny isolation worked for USA from 1776 to 1914.......Or maybe 1900.

Socialism works in every other western nation in the world too. Socialism works in USA too, Police, Fire, Roads, library, Obamacare, etc etc etc .

Friends and allies is what turned an assignation of one inbreed idiot, into a world war. Time to end all "entanglements". Notice how we can take action against Russia, and
NOT BE PART OF THE Ukraine WAR.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

Obama's fault huh? of course.

Permanent U.S. bases for every country Republicans wish to invade and destroy! wooohoooo!!!11111!!!!!

Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:

Sure, lets start with the Socialist Republics of New York and California.

Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:

Sure, lets start with the Socialist Republics of New York and California.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

Obama's fault huh? of course.

Permanent U.S. bases for every country Republicans wish to invade and destroy! wooohoooo!!!11111!!!!!

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

Is it possible for you to stay on topic rather than constantly posting about socialism which has about nothing to do with this thread?

Click to expand...

Thrilla said:

I know right?... it's like peoiple actaully believe Obama is the President or something.... bufoons!

good thing we have you ultraloyal Democrats to set those 'tards straight on things

Click to expand...

Mr. Invisible said:

Technically speaking, genocide cannot be committed against them as Christianity is a religion, not an ethnicity. However, I do understand where you are coming from.

EDIT: This isn't to downplay the horror of what is going on. IS is a serious problem, however I do not think that air strikes are the solution. It seems to me that the main problem is the Iraqi government and the ethnic problems in Iraq more generally. The only group that seems to really have its stuff together are the Kurds.

Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:

Hey. Your the one that brought up "countries that republicans would want to invade."

Click to expand...

TobyOne said:

These are the guys that Al Qaeda considers too extreme. What did Obama think would happen if he withdrew? What an ass.

Click to expand...

upsideguy said:

What was Bush thinking when he went in (to a pseudo nation of three factions that hated each other, but were held together by a dictator). What an ass.

Sorry, but Bush is the guy that just had to kick the hornet's nest. He broke it; he owns it.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Lol !

6 years in and " Bush owns it " ?? Wow...

Isis wasn't marching around Iraq killing Christians and threatening Genocide when Bush was in office.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

ultraloyal eh?

Click to expand...

upsideguy said:

What was Bush thinking when he went in (to a pseudo nation of three factions that hated each other, but were held together by a dictator). What an ass.

Sorry, but Bush is the guy that just had to kick the hornet's nest. He broke it; he owns it.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

The person I quoted was pissing and moaning about withdrawing. The alternative to that would be staying. We should have never gone in in the first place. So pissing and moaning about withdrawing is being blind to the real source of the problem... which was being stupid enough to go in there in the first place.

Click to expand...

NIMBY said:

With your reasoning, who "owns" Vietnam ?

Click to expand...

Paleocon said:

I love it how people use the word technically and think they're being smart, while in fact they are incorrect.

Click to expand...