Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:10:34 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:145655dc-a2b9-4eb3-b752-b61f682835dc@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:39:35 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:bfc50e01-494d-436c-8b6e-20c7bdf54d59@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:46:01 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner
of the IRS. It is simply not true.



It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum
failure-to-file penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns
required to be filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be
shown on the return."


So even if you've paid enough in withholding and/or estimated
tax payments, if you fail to file, it's a $210 penalty. I'm
surprised it's that low.


What you fail to note is that they rarely levy the fine.


And your cite for that is?

I have done taxes for people before, you fucking piece of shit
putz.

Sure, and it took you so long that they were over 60 days late.
Yeah, I believe that.

Or are you such a deadbeat that you
know from personal experience?

That is the second time you made a huge tell of your total retard
psychosis.


I suspect the cite is in the same
place as the cite for all the B1 bomber crashes you claimed were
caused by fly-by-wire failure.


I never said that all of the B1 crashes were from fly-by-wire
failures. I said that at least one was attributed as such.

That's a lie, you never said at least one. You claimed that there
were crashes caused by fly-by-wire, calling into question it's
reliability across all kinds of aircraft. So, I asked for cites.
You responded and claimed there were B1 crashes due to fly-by-wire.
So, I asked for cites. And as of now, a week later, I'm still
waiting because you've provided nothing other than the usual
childish insults. If there is even one B1 crash caused by fly-by-wire,
just post it.

 

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:38:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:36:42 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

The surge pushed the occupying army up to 180,000 men, not 300,000.

Irrelevant of course, it worked.

In the sense of suppressing the larger insurrections. It didn't stop terrorist actions and other smaller scale stuff.

IDK where the 300,000 number even comes
from, you just tossed it out.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, it was the Joint Chief's of Staff estimate of the size of the army required to occupy Irak and keep it under control after a successful invasion.

No, that number came from one place, Shinseki, who was the head of the
Army. He did not speak for the Joint Chiefs. It was his personal opinion,
based on his experience and guesstimates, in response to persistent
questioning by Carl Levin during a hearing.

If he wasn't speaking for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, why would Congress have been listening to him?

Because he's the head of the Army, obviously. And Levin pushed him for
what number he, Shenseki thought was needed. Levin didn't ask what is
the consensus within the Joint Chiefs or even what the consensus, what
the recommended number from Army planners was.

George W Bush and his clown car had been informed of this before the invasion, and chose not to believe it. The post-invasion insurrections made the point a lot more clearly than the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been able to manage, and Dubbya was eventually persuaded to negotiate a gradual withdrawal, with a reconstituted Iraqi progressively taking over more of the business of suppressing insurrections and stopping terrorist attacks.

Like almost anything else, all the estimates, all the opinions were
discussed.

And the well-informed opinions from the military professionals were ignored.

They were not ignored, they were considered, debated
and then a final decision was made. They didn't go with the low
number that most in the administration wanted, they didn't go with
Shinseki's 300K, they chose a number in between, about in the middle.
Welcome to the real world. No one was clairvoyant and knew the right
number. And it's all irrelevant anyway, because you change the number
based on the conditions. Hello? That is the argument you can make,
that Bush should have INCREASED the number of troops sooner, when it
was clear Iraq was full of trouble. Bush wasn't bound to 160K or 300K,
he could adjust at any time. And that failure is EXACTLY what OBama
later did, he withdrew regardless of the conditions and possible
consequences. The problem with you is it has to be Bush, Bush, Bush,
Obama is off limits and golden.

No one knew for sure what the right number was.

The army was pretty confident about their estimates. Dubbya and his crew really wanted to invade Irak, and decided to ignore the advice of the professionals.

And in the end a decision was made.

A remarkably foolish decision.

BS. It's easy for you to say it was foolish, sitting here 20 years
later in hindsight.

It wasn't a static, forever decision
and Bush changed it when it was clear that more troops were needed.

After a lot of money had been spent and a lot of people killed for no useful
purpose.

This is what idiotic decisions look like.

snip

--
Bill Sloman, Syney

That may be true, but it's also true that after it was corrected and
we had a stable Iraq, a functioning govt, Obama ignored it all and let
it descend right back into chaos. And today, we're back to where we
were in 2011. Had Obama kept troops there, the second disaster never
would have happened, ISIS would not have taken over the place.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 11:50:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:38:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:36:42 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

And in the end a decision was made.

A remarkably foolish decision.

BS. It's easy for you to say it was foolish, sitting here 20 years
later in hindsight.

It was discussed here at the time, and I though that it was foolish and dishonest back then. You could probably dig out the relevant posts if you had the appropriate skills.

It wasn't a static, forever decision
and Bush changed it when it was clear that more troops were needed.

After a lot of money had been spent and a lot of people killed for no useful
purpose.

This is what idiotic decisions look like.

snip

That may be true, but it's also true that after it was corrected and
we had a stable Iraq, and a functioning government

You didn't. As you have pointed out, Maliki ruled for the Shiites and oppressed the Sunni's from the start. That isn't a recipe for a stable country. And Maliki didn't have a particularly functional government, as was demonstrated when ISIS walked over large chunks of Irak in 2104

> Obama ignored it all and let it descend right back into chaos.

It survived four years of Obama without falling apart, but ISIS tore it up in weeks.

You may feel an emotional need to blame Obama, but it doesn't make an entirely convincing story.

And today, we're back to where we were in 2011.

Had Obama kept troops there, the second disaster never
would have happened, ISIS would not have taken over the place.

Dubbya negotiated the deal that got the US troops out at the end of 2011, not Obama, and they wouldn't have been doing anything all that useful in 2012 and 2013.

And you had 50,000 troops in Irak for most of 2011, and you haven't got anything like that there now - roughly 5,000.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-questions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file >penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be >filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the >return."

You don't get it. It has been and will be again PROVEN that there is actually no law that says you have to pay income tax. Want to stop ? I can make that happen, but you have to have balls. The process by which a few people I know got out of the system, and I mean one as a contractor making $300K a year. I SAW THE PAPERWORK WITH MY OWN EYES, he got classified as a non-taxpayer. This is not the same as being tax exempt like a 501(c). This is for foreign nationals who might get a citizenship here to facilitate their business. We found it.

Also, when you get done with the process you can actually have a lien against the IRS ! Just understand that this is not fucking easy.

And this is not the silver bullet either. The NATIONAL Constitution is lacking in its definition of income and this and that. State Constitutions vary, same have it well defined, but the biggest bite is the federal taxes. And you do not get out of the 15% social security, unless you opt out of that, and that is another cool thing.

Their website claims that social security is mandatory. It is not. Never was. Another one of those you can't get your money back but you can stop paying them. Not too many people realize that. Myself, after they turned me down when I was really disabled back in 17/18 why the fuck should I pay them ?

I know I make Ayn Rand look like Angela Merkel. It is not that I reject charity, I just want it put out when it is DESERVED. A hand up not a hand out.

Every motherfucking welfare office in this country should have a MANDATORY place you go and they find out if you got any skills and if not teach you. NO, you are not going out there and fuck every nigger in the world (of any color) and expect us to support your kids. THAT IS YOUR FUCKING JOB.

You know I am not on top of the mountain here. I have taken from the government but I tell you this - if I really make it I will pay it back. I actually tried to get a number and they don't seem to be able to supply it. I estimate it is around a hundred grand. People got mortgages of ten times that amount. If I am REALLY making it, no problem.

And in the end, when I do pay taxes again I won't really mind. If this economy holds up enough I WILL make it. Then my few grand in taxes go to the good and not the bad.

I am getting pretty serious about improving the world and leaving my mark. I dunno. Whatever.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:d9639f15-3eb9-4182-8dd6-
ad5f9c7c51b0@googlegroups.com:

Experience? What a punk fuck like you needs to experience is a
nice hot hunk of fast moving lead, right between the eyes.


Gee, I wonder what the monitor of free speech here, your buddy
Bill
thinks about that one?

About what one?

What do you think Bill, should I take this
threat to the local police?

There was no threat, you pussified dumbfuck. Me telling you what
I THINK "you need" is not any kind of threat you retarded 4-F know
nothing piece of shit.

You won't see Bill making a post about
this.

You have no clue what Bill may or may not post about, you retarded
subhuman dumbfuck.

But Ann Coulter or Condi Rice, now that's dangerous, offensive
speech. ROFL.

Figure out that there was no threat yet, pussy boy?

Go ahead and take it to the police, jackass. They will laugh in
your face as they tell you that *I* know exactly what does and does
not consitute a threat.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:d9639f15-3eb9-4182-8dd6-
ad5f9c7c51b0@googlegroups.com:

So, do you have experience filing more than 60 days late or not?
You told us there is no penalty. Seems there are two ways you'd
know. Either with a cite online which I asked for and you have
not provided or from personal experience.

And tell us, you dippy fucktard, how does being a late filer make one
'a deadbeat'?

Can you really be that fucking retarded?

And no backpedalling twerp, you did say it.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0492f900-7e48-4946-b2e6-a8092c30da7b@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:10:34 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:145655dc-a2b9-4eb3-b752-b61f682835dc@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:39:35 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:bfc50e01-494d-436c-8b6e-20c7bdf54d59@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:46:01 PM UTC-4,
jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the
owner of the IRS. It is simply not true.



It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-
procedural
-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum
failure-to-file penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax
returns required to be filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax
required to be shown on the return."


So even if you've paid enough in withholding and/or
estimated tax payments, if you fail to file, it's a $210
penalty. I'm surprised it's that low.


What you fail to note is that they rarely levy the fine.


And your cite for that is?

I have done taxes for people before, you fucking piece of shit
putz.

Sure, and it took you so long that they were over 60 days late.
Yeah, I believe that.





Or are you such a deadbeat that you
know from personal experience?

That is the second time you made a huge tell of your total
retard
psychosis.


I suspect the cite is in the same
place as the cite for all the B1 bomber crashes you claimed
were caused by fly-by-wire failure.


I never said that all of the B1 crashes were from fly-by-wire
failures. I said that at least one was attributed as such.


That's a lie, you never said at least one. You claimed that there
were crashes caused by fly-by-wire, calling into question it's
reliability across all kinds of aircraft. So, I asked for cites.
You responded and claimed there were B1 crashes due to
fly-by-wire. So, I asked for cites. And as of now, a week later,
I'm still waiting because you've provided nothing other than the
usual childish insults. If there is even one B1 crash caused by
fly-by-wire, just post it.

It was more than a week you fucking putz, and you did not "ask for
cites" you "used it" as way to jab me with another of your daily
elementary school playground bully wannabe mentality prods.

Sorry, chump but fbw failures do occur.

You, motherfucker, deserve the insults, whether you deem them to
be childish or not. What you truly do not deserve is an audience
any longer.

 

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 8:28:18 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0492f900-7e48-4946-b2e6-a8092c30da7b@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:10:34 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:145655dc-a2b9-4eb3-b752-b61f682835dc@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:39:35 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:bfc50e01-494d-436c-8b6e-20c7bdf54d59@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:46:01 PM UTC-4,
jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the
owner of the IRS. It is simply not true.



It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-
procedural
-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum
failure-to-file penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax
returns required to be filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax
required to be shown on the return."


So even if you've paid enough in withholding and/or
estimated tax payments, if you fail to file, it's a $210
penalty. I'm surprised it's that low.


What you fail to note is that they rarely levy the fine.


And your cite for that is?

I have done taxes for people before, you fucking piece of shit
putz.

Sure, and it took you so long that they were over 60 days late.
Yeah, I believe that.





Or are you such a deadbeat that you
know from personal experience?

That is the second time you made a huge tell of your total
retard
psychosis.


I suspect the cite is in the same
place as the cite for all the B1 bomber crashes you claimed
were caused by fly-by-wire failure.


I never said that all of the B1 crashes were from fly-by-wire
failures. I said that at least one was attributed as such.


That's a lie, you never said at least one. You claimed that there
were crashes caused by fly-by-wire, calling into question it's
reliability across all kinds of aircraft. So, I asked for cites.
You responded and claimed there were B1 crashes due to
fly-by-wire. So, I asked for cites. And as of now, a week later,
I'm still waiting because you've provided nothing other than the
usual childish insults. If there is even one B1 crash caused by
fly-by-wire, just post it.


It was more than a week you fucking putz, and you did not "ask for
cites" you "used it" as way to jab me with another of your daily
elementary school playground bully wannabe mentality prods.

You're lying again. I asked you for cites many times. You finally
posted a link to wiki about the B1 bomber. Nothing in there about
crashes that were due to fly-by-wire. It was a poor attempt at
obfuscation. So, once again, where are your cites for B1 bomber
crashes due to fly-by-wire?

 

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 8:32:20 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:d9639f15-3eb9-4182-8dd6-
ad5f9c7c51b0@googlegroups.com:


So, do you have experience filing more than 60 days late or not?
You told us there is no penalty. Seems there are two ways you'd
know. Either with a cite online which I asked for and you have
not provided or from personal experience.

And tell us, you dippy fucktard, how does being a late filer make one
'a deadbeat'?

Can you really be that fucking retarded?

And no backpedalling twerp, you did say it.

You really have to ask that? You don't think there is a high correlation
between people not filing taxes and being a deadbeat? That skunk Michael
Avenatti is one example. He didn't file for years. Now he's been
indicted, not only for that, but for stealing money from clients.

 

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 2:15:33 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-questions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file >penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be >filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the >return."

You don't get it. It has been and will be again PROVEN that there is actually no law that says you have to pay income tax. Want to stop ?

Yes, because this is pure loony tunes. Guys like Wesley Snipes said
that too. He went to prison for years. A limo driver I use is one of
these nuts too. Every ride I'd hear some more BS that he found on the
internet. One time he told me he was looking into not paying his
mortgage, because he found out if the bank doesn't have the paperwork,
they can't make you pay and most banks lose it. Sure. Another time
he was perplexed that he went to the state capitol, to file paperwork
making himself a citizen of the real America, so he could avoid paying
US taxes. He said no one there knew WTF he was talking about. No
surprise there.





I can make that happen, but you have to have balls. The process by which a few people I know got out of the system, and I mean one as a contractor making $300K a year. I SAW THE PAPERWORK WITH MY OWN EYES, he got classified as a non-taxpayer. This is not the same as being tax exempt like a 501(c). This is for foreign nationals who might get a citizenship here to facilitate their business. We found it.

Then provide us links where we can read what this is all about. I refuse
to believe that you can be a US citizen and not be subject to income tax.

Also, when you get done with the process you can actually have a lien against the IRS ! Just understand that this is not fucking easy.

Sure, it just gets better.

And this is not the silver bullet either. The NATIONAL Constitution is lacking in its definition of income and this and that. State Constitutions vary, same have it well defined, but the biggest bite is the federal taxes. And you do not get out of the 15% social security, unless you opt out of that, and that is another cool thing.

Provide us the link for that, how you can opt out of SS.

Their website claims that social security is mandatory. It is not. Never was. Another one of those you can't get your money back but you can stop paying them. Not too many people realize that. Myself, after they turned me down when I was really disabled back in 17/18 why the fuck should I pay them ?

Show us the cites for how you can opt out.

 

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:57:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 11:50:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:38:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:36:42 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

And in the end a decision was made.

A remarkably foolish decision.

BS. It's easy for you to say it was foolish, sitting here 20 years
later in hindsight.

It was discussed here at the time, and I though that it was foolish and dishonest back then. You could probably dig out the relevant posts if you had the appropriate skills.

Who cares what you or anyone here thought at the time. You had no data
to make any analysis on and your opinion was worth spit. With billions
of people in the world, you could get any number you want, silly lib.

It wasn't a static, forever decision
and Bush changed it when it was clear that more troops were needed.

After a lot of money had been spent and a lot of people killed for no useful
purpose.

This is what idiotic decisions look like.

snip

That may be true, but it's also true that after it was corrected and
we had a stable Iraq, and a functioning government

You didn't. As you have pointed out, Maliki ruled for the Shiites and oppressed the Sunni's from the start.

That's another lie. Maliki wasn't arresting members of the govt, wasn't
having troops fire on Sunni protesters when Bush was in charge. He knew
Bush had balls, when Obama showed up, he saw a pussy. Which you've
documented yourself, with the poor widddle Obama defense. Obama was
helpless, Obama couldn't do anything, Obama could't even order some air
strikes to stop the ISIS convoys with looted US lethal gear. Poor,
widddle Obama. Maliki saw it and said, great, now I can do what I want.




That isn't a recipe for a stable country. And Maliki didn't have a particularly functional government, as was demonstrated when ISIS walked over large chunks of Irak in 2104

Obama ignored it all and let it descend right back into chaos.

It survived four years of Obama without falling apart, but ISIS tore it up in weeks.

You may feel an emotional need to blame Obama, but it doesn't make an entirely convincing story.

It's you libs who make decisions based on emotions and feelings. You're
the sensitive snowflakes that can't tolerate a conservative showing up
to speak at colleges. The story is convincing, and it was laid out
nicely in The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.

And today, we're back to where we were in 2011.

Had Obama kept troops there, the second disaster never
would have happened, ISIS would not have taken over the place.

Dubbya negotiated the deal that got the US troops out at the end of 2011, not Obama, and they wouldn't have been doing anything all that useful in 2012 and 2013.

Another lie. They would have assisted, monitored, and continued to train
the Iraqi army. And as soon as there were problems dealing with ISIS,
the correct response would have been to give more US support, starting
with air support.

And you had 50,000 troops in Irak for most of 2011, and you haven't got anything like that there now - roughly 5,000.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yeah, that coming from the silly lib that thought Bush was president in
2010 and 2011. Oh, and then the factual decline in Iraq was true,
because you thought you were pinning it on Bush. But when you found out
Obama was president, then the story shifted to the "poor widddle OBama"
defense. Which is also an interesting admission, because that indeed
is what Maliki saw, that OBama didn't care, was ignoring Iraq.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 1:00:33 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:57:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 11:50:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:38:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:36:42 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra....@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

And in the end a decision was made.

A remarkably foolish decision.

BS. It's easy for you to say it was foolish, sitting here 20 years
later in hindsight.

It was discussed here at the time, and I though that it was foolish and dishonest back then. You could probably dig out the relevant posts if you had the appropriate skills.

Who cares what you or anyone here thought at the time.

You were complaining that I was exploiting hindsight.

> You had no data to make any analysis on and your opinion was worth spit.

There was a lot of data being ventilated in the newspapers at time, and the general opinion was that Dubbya and Blair were basing their arguments on very dubious data - which later proved to be wrong.

My opinion - on its own - would definitely have been worth spit, but it was based on well-founded opinions, later proved to be entirely correct.

> With billions of people in the world, you could get any number you want, silly lib.

If I applied your approach of looking for the number you wanted this might well be be true. I have been trained to extract information from published claims, and I'm good at it. You are clearly hopeless at it, and seem to think that you can get away with claiming that everybody else is equally incompetent.

It wasn't a static, forever decision
and Bush changed it when it was clear that more troops were needed.

After a lot of money had been spent and a lot of people killed for no useful purpose.

This is what idiotic decisions look like.

snip

That may be true, but it's also true that after it was corrected and
we had a stable Iraq, and a functioning government

You didn't. As you have pointed out, Maliki ruled for the Shiites and oppressed the Sunni's from the start.

That's another lie. Maliki wasn't arresting members of the govt, wasn't
having troops fire on Sunni protesters when Bush was in charge.

How would you know?

> He knew Bush had balls, when Obama showed up, he saw a pussy.

He knew Bush was the kind of violent idiot who might shoot himself in the foot - he'd already done it once. He knew very little about Obama, and misinterpreted what he thought he saw.

> Which you've documented yourself, with the poor widddle Obama defense.

Bush didn't do anything about Maliki, whose partisan habits were already obvious before Obama took over, and Obama didn't either. Big deal.

> Obama was helpless, Obama couldn't do anything,

What - precisely - was he supposed to do?

> Obama could't even order some air strikes to stop the ISIS convoys with looted US lethal gear.

You can't get it into your head that the ISIS convoys would have got all the way from Irak to Syria - it isn't far - before the information that they were on the move would have got up the US command tree to anybody who could have ordered an air strike. The process of getting planes armed and into the air takes time, and then they have to fly wherever the convoy has got to by then.

Obama might - in theory - have been able to order airstrikes, but not fast enough to get the convoys before they had got were they were going

> Poor, widddle Obama.

Poor widdle trader4 doesn't know what he is talking about, as usual.

> Maliki saw it and said, great, now I can do what I want.

Maliki decided that he "could do what he wanted" which turned out to be to put incompetent and greedy people in charge of the bits of the army that fell apart when ISIS showed up. I doubt Obama going in for some kind of dominance dispaly would have changed Malikiki's mind - Maliki was getting money and political influence out of his bad choices from the start, and a wasn't going to change them because somebody gave him a serious talking to.

That isn't a recipe for a stable country. And Maliki didn't have a particularly functional government, as was demonstrated when ISIS walked over large chunks of Irak in 2104

Obama ignored it all and let it descend right back into chaos.

It survived four years of Obama without falling apart, but ISIS tore it up in weeks.

You may feel an emotional need to blame Obama, but it doesn't make an entirely convincing story.

It's you libs who make decisions based on emotions and feelings.

How would you know? You can't recognise a fact if it doesn't suit your argument, and reliably ignore inconvenient realities - like the difficulties of organising an air-strike on an unexpected convoy that is only going to take a few hours to get where it needs to go.

You're
the sensitive snowflakes that can't tolerate a conservative showing up
to speak at colleges. The story is convincing, and it was laid out
nicely in The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.

Except that this isn't what the actual article said. The authors would have liked Obama to have leaned harder on Maliki, but they didn't give a single concrete example of where or how he could have done it. Nor do they once mention Iran, which is just a Shiite as Maliki.

And today, we're back to where we were in 2011.

Had Obama kept troops there, the second disaster never
would have happened, ISIS would not have taken over the place.

Dubbya negotiated the deal that got the US troops out at the end of 2011, not Obama, and they wouldn't have been doing anything all that useful in 2012 and 2013.

Another lie. They would have assisted, monitored, and continued to train
the Iraqi army.

A few of them did. The Iraqis wanted the rest of them out.

And as soon as there were problems dealing with ISIS,
the correct response would have been to give more US support, starting
with air support.

Which is exactly what happened.

And you had 50,000 troops in Irak for most of 2011, and you haven't got anything like that there now - roughly 5,000.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah, that coming from the silly lib that thought Bush was president in
2010 and 2011. Oh, and then the factual decline in Iraq was true,
because you thought you were pinning it on Bush.

That isn't remotely what I said, and the gradual US withdrawal from Irak which was completed at the end of 2011 seems to have been exactly what was negotiated by Bush.

> But when you found out Obama was president, then the story shifted

<snip>

It didn't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 1:00:33 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:57:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 11:50:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:38:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:36:42 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra....@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

And in the end a decision was made.

A remarkably foolish decision.

BS. It's easy for you to say it was foolish, sitting here 20 years
later in hindsight.

It was discussed here at the time, and I though that it was foolish and dishonest back then. You could probably dig out the relevant posts if you had the appropriate skills.

Who cares what you or anyone here thought at the time.

You were complaining that I was exploiting hindsight.

You had no data to make any analysis on and your opinion was worth spit..

There was a lot of data being ventilated in the newspapers at time, and the general opinion was that Dubbya and Blair were basing their arguments on very dubious data - which later proved to be wrong.

My opinion - on its own - would definitely have been worth spit, but it was based on well-founded opinions, later proved to be entirely correct.

With billions of people in the world, you could get any number you want, silly lib.

If I applied your approach of looking for the number you wanted this might well be be true. I have been trained to extract information from published claims, and I'm good at it. You are clearly hopeless at it, and seem to think that you can get away with claiming that everybody else is equally incompetent.

It wasn't a static, forever decision
and Bush changed it when it was clear that more troops were needed.

After a lot of money had been spent and a lot of people killed for no useful purpose.

This is what idiotic decisions look like.

snip

That may be true, but it's also true that after it was corrected and
we had a stable Iraq, and a functioning government

You didn't. As you have pointed out, Maliki ruled for the Shiites and oppressed the Sunni's from the start.

That's another lie. Maliki wasn't arresting members of the govt, wasn't
having troops fire on Sunni protesters when Bush was in charge.

How would you know?

Because it's documented, fool.

He knew Bush had balls, when Obama showed up, he saw a pussy.

He knew Bush was the kind of violent idiot who might shoot himself in the foot - he'd already done it once. He knew very little about Obama, and misinterpreted what he thought he saw.

Maliki knew exactly what he saw in Obama. Just the fact that he's a lib,
pretty much tells you he's a wuss. And Maliki was right, Obama let him
run amok and did nothing. What misinterpretation? Even with ISIS running
convoys of US lethal military hardware back to Syria, Obama did nothing.
A few sorties would have ended it all.

Which you've documented yourself, with the poor widddle Obama defense.

Bush didn't do anything about Maliki, whose partisan habits were already obvious before Obama took over, and Obama didn't either. Big deal.

Bush didn't have to to anything, because Malike was not arresting the
opposition and shooting Sunni crowds, fool.

Obama was helpless, Obama couldn't do anything,

What - precisely - was he supposed to do?

Well, the best thing he could have done would have been not to run,
since obviously he wasn't up to the job. Poor widddle Obama. If he
was a strong president, he wouldn't have to do anything, Maliki wouldn't
pull anything. He didn't with Bush. So, Obama being one of those
sensitive lib snowflakes, Maliki already knew he could try to pull shit
and see what happens. what happened was OBama ignored it. And I
already told you what OBama was supposed to do. Tell Maliki if he
doesn't stop and fly right, that Obama would cut off the flow of money
going into Iraq. And if that didn't work, tell Maliki we have the CIA
available to solve problems like him. Also, Obama could have gone on
record publicly, denouncing what Maliki was doing. Instead, it was the
other way around, with Maliki rubbing Obama's nose in the dirt.

Obama could't even order some air strikes to stop the ISIS convoys with looted US lethal gear.

You can't get it into your head that the ISIS convoys would have got all the way from Irak to Syria - it isn't far - before the information that they were on the move would have got up the US command tree to anybody who could have ordered an air strike.

You lying asshole. It wasn't one convoy. It wasn't one day or one week.
It went on for weeks, it was on the fucking news many nights. The only
person that could order the stike was OBAMA and he didn't. And it looks
like the reason he didn't is that he wanted to arm ISIS.





The process of getting planes armed and into the air takes time, and then they have to fly wherever the convoy has got to by then.

Obama might - in theory - have been able to order airstrikes, but not fast enough to get the convoys before they had got were they were going

You lying fuckwit.

Poor, widddle Obama.

Poor widdle trader4 doesn't know what he is talking about, as usual.

Maliki saw it and said, great, now I can do what I want.

Maliki decided that he "could do what he wanted" which turned out to be to put incompetent and greedy people in charge of the bits of the army that fell apart when ISIS showed up. I doubt Obama going in for some kind of dominance dispaly would have changed Malikiki's mind - Maliki was getting money and political influence out of his bad choices from the start, and a wasn't going to change them because somebody gave him a serious talking to.

You start with a serious talking to. If that doesn't work, you threaten to
cut off the US money that's keeping his govt in power and lining his pockets
too. And if that doesn't work, you tell him we have the CIA to fix
problems like him. And if that doesn't work, you have the CIA do it.

That isn't a recipe for a stable country. And Maliki didn't have a particularly functional government, as was demonstrated when ISIS walked over large chunks of Irak in 2104

Obama ignored it all and let it descend right back into chaos.

It survived four years of Obama without falling apart, but ISIS tore it up in weeks.

You may feel an emotional need to blame Obama, but it doesn't make an entirely convincing story.

It's you libs who make decisions based on emotions and feelings.

How would you know? You can't recognise a fact if it doesn't suit your argument, and reliably ignore inconvenient realities - like the difficulties of organising an air-strike on an unexpected convoy that is only going to take a few hours to get where it needs to go.

You're
the sensitive snowflakes that can't tolerate a conservative showing up
to speak at colleges. The story is convincing, and it was laid out
nicely in The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.

Except that this isn't what the actual article said. The authors would have liked Obama to have leaned harder on Maliki, but they didn't give a single concrete example of where or how he could have done it. Nor do they once mention Iran, which is just a Shiite as Maliki.

You lying fuckwit:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.

For the Obama administration, however, tangling with Maliki meant investing time and energy in Iraq, a country it desperately wanted to pivot away from. A few months before the 2010 elections, according to Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker, “American diplomats in Iraq sent a rare dissenting cable to Washington, complaining that the U.S., with its combination of support and indifference, was encouraging Maliki’s authoritarian tendencies.”

The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.

On December 12, 2011, just days before the final U.S. troops departed Iraq, Maliki visited the White House. According to Nasr, he told Obama that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, an Iraqiya leader and the highest-ranking Sunni in his government, supported terrorism. Maliki, argues Nasr, was testing Obama, probing to see how the U.S. would react if he began cleansing his government of Sunnis. Obama replied that it was a domestic Iraqi affair. After the meeting, Nasr claims, Maliki told aides, “See! The Americans don’t care.”

In public remarks after the meeting, Obama praised Maliki for leading “Iraq’s most inclusive government yet.” Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq, another Sunni, told CNN he was “shocked” by the president’s comments. “There will be a day,” he predicted, “whereby the Americans will realize that they were deceived by al-Maliki … and they will regret that.”

And today, we're back to where we were in 2011.

Had Obama kept troops there, the second disaster never
would have happened, ISIS would not have taken over the place.

Dubbya negotiated the deal that got the US troops out at the end of 2011, not Obama, and they wouldn't have been doing anything all that useful in 2012 and 2013.

Another lie. They would have assisted, monitored, and continued to train
the Iraqi army.

A few of them did. The Iraqis wanted the rest of them out.

That's another lie. ALL the US troops left in 2011.

And as soon as there were problems dealing with ISIS,
the correct response would have been to give more US support, starting
with air support.

Which is exactly what happened.

That's another amazing BS lie! Obama did NOTHING until almost all of
Iraq had fallen! ISIS starting engaging IRaqi forces in July 2013
and the country started to fall one step at a time.
By December, Fallujah had fallen and parts of Ramadi too. June 2014
Mosul fell to ISIS. What did Obama do? NOTHING. In June 2014 Iraq
asked Obama for airstrikes, what did he do? NOTHING Finally, August 2014
ISIS captured Kurdish towns up north and the Mosul Dam. Only then did
Obama order the air strikes. So, he watched as Iraq fell, one city at
a time for over a fucking year before he did anything. I'll suppose
next you'll tell us it's because we had no aircraft carriers, no fighters,
nothing available.

And you had 50,000 troops in Irak for most of 2011, and you haven't got anything like that there now - roughly 5,000.

You really don't know what you are talkin...

That's right, you really don't know WTF you're talking about, as evidenced
again above.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 10:42:24 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 1:00:33 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:57:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 11:50:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:38:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:36:42 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

You didn't. As you have pointed out, Maliki ruled for the Shiites and oppressed the Sunni's from the start.

That's another lie. Maliki wasn't arresting members of the govt, wasn't
having troops fire on Sunni protesters when Bush was in charge.

How would you know?

Because it's documented, fool.

You have selectively read documents that you imagine support your point of view. You haven't been able to find them or provide links to them, which is wise on your part, because where you have provided links you've merely made obvious your capacity for taking facts out of context and using these misapprehensions as if they supported your point of view.

The foolishness is all yours.

<snipped loads more of the same>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

He knew Bush had balls, when Obama showed up, he saw a pussy.

He knew Bush was the kind of violent idiot who might shoot himself in the foot - he'd already done it once. He knew very little about Obama, and misinterpreted what he thought he saw.

Maliki knew exactly what he saw in Obama. Just the fact that he's a lib,
pretty much tells you he's a wuss. And Maliki was right, Obama let him
run amok and did nothing. What misinterpretation? Even with ISIS running
convoys of US lethal military hardware back to Syria, Obama did nothing.
A few sorties would have ended it all.




Which you've documented yourself, with the poor widddle Obama defense..

Bush didn't do anything about Maliki, whose partisan habits were already obvious before Obama took over, and Obama didn't either. Big deal.

Bush didn't have to to anything, because Malike was not arresting the
opposition and shooting Sunni crowds, fool.





Obama was helpless, Obama couldn't do anything,

What - precisely - was he supposed to do?

Well, the best thing he could have done would have been not to run,
since obviously he wasn't up to the job. Poor widddle Obama. If he
was a strong president, he wouldn't have to do anything, Maliki wouldn't
pull anything. He didn't with Bush. So, Obama being one of those
sensitive lib snowflakes, Maliki already knew he could try to pull shit
and see what happens. what happened was OBama ignored it. And I
already told you what OBama was supposed to do. Tell Maliki if he
doesn't stop and fly right, that Obama would cut off the flow of money
going into Iraq. And if that didn't work, tell Maliki we have the CIA
available to solve problems like him. Also, Obama could have gone on
record publicly, denouncing what Maliki was doing. Instead, it was the
other way around, with Maliki rubbing Obama's nose in the dirt.






Obama could't even order some air strikes to stop the ISIS convoys with looted US lethal gear.

You can't get it into your head that the ISIS convoys would have got all the way from Irak to Syria - it isn't far - before the information that they were on the move would have got up the US command tree to anybody who could have ordered an air strike.

You lying asshole. It wasn't one convoy. It wasn't one day or one week.
It went on for weeks, it was on the fucking news many nights. The only
person that could order the stike was OBAMA and he didn't. And it looks
like the reason he didn't is that he wanted to arm ISIS.





The process of getting planes armed and into the air takes time, and then they have to fly wherever the convoy has got to by then.

Obama might - in theory - have been able to order airstrikes, but not fast enough to get the convoys before they had got were they were going

You lying fuckwit.





Poor, widddle Obama.

Poor widdle trader4 doesn't know what he is talking about, as usual.

Maliki saw it and said, great, now I can do what I want.

Maliki decided that he "could do what he wanted" which turned out to be to put incompetent and greedy people in charge of the bits of the army that fell apart when ISIS showed up. I doubt Obama going in for some kind of dominance dispaly would have changed Malikiki's mind - Maliki was getting money and political influence out of his bad choices from the start, and a wasn't going to change them because somebody gave him a serious talking to.

You start with a serious talking to. If that doesn't work, you threaten to
cut off the US money that's keeping his govt in power and lining his pockets
too. And if that doesn't work, you tell him we have the CIA to fix
problems like him. And if that doesn't work, you have the CIA do it.





That isn't a recipe for a stable country. And Maliki didn't have a particularly functional government, as was demonstrated when ISIS walked over large chunks of Irak in 2104

Obama ignored it all and let it descend right back into chaos.

It survived four years of Obama without falling apart, but ISIS tore it up in weeks.

You may feel an emotional need to blame Obama, but it doesn't make an entirely convincing story.

It's you libs who make decisions based on emotions and feelings.

How would you know? You can't recognise a fact if it doesn't suit your argument, and reliably ignore inconvenient realities - like the difficulties of organising an air-strike on an unexpected convoy that is only going to take a few hours to get where it needs to go.

You're
the sensitive snowflakes that can't tolerate a conservative showing up
to speak at colleges. The story is convincing, and it was laid out
nicely in The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.

Except that this isn't what the actual article said. The authors would have liked Obama to have leaned harder on Maliki, but they didn't give a single concrete example of where or how he could have done it. Nor do they once mention Iran, which is just a Shiite as Maliki.

You lying fuckwit:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.

For the Obama administration, however, tangling with Maliki meant investing time and energy in Iraq, a country it desperately wanted to pivot away from. A few months before the 2010 elections, according to Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker, “American diplomats in Iraq sent a rare dissenting cable to Washington, complaining that the U.S., with its combination of support and indifference, was encouraging Maliki’s authoritarian tendencies.”

The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.

On December 12, 2011, just days before the final U.S. troops departed Iraq, Maliki visited the White House. According to Nasr, he told Obama that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, an Iraqiya leader and the highest-ranking Sunni in his government, supported terrorism. Maliki, argues Nasr, was testing Obama, probing to see how the U.S. would react if he began cleansing his government of Sunnis. Obama replied that it was a domestic Iraqi affair. After the meeting, Nasr claims, Maliki told aides, “See! The Americans don’t care.”

In public remarks after the meeting, Obama praised Maliki for leading “Iraq’s most inclusive government yet.” Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq, another Sunni, told CNN he was “shocked” by the president’s comments. “There will be a day,” he predicted, “whereby the Americans will realize that they were deceived by al-Maliki … and they will regret that.”





And today, we're back to where we were in 2011.

Had Obama kept troops there, the second disaster never
would have happened, ISIS would not have taken over the place.

Dubbya negotiated the deal that got the US troops out at the end of 2011, not Obama, and they wouldn't have been doing anything all that useful in 2012 and 2013.

Another lie. They would have assisted, monitored, and continued to train
the Iraqi army.

A few of them did. The Iraqis wanted the rest of them out.

That's another lie. ALL the US troops left in 2011.




And as soon as there were problems dealing with ISIS,
the correct response would have been to give more US support, starting
with air support.

Which is exactly what happened.

That's another amazing BS lie! Obama did NOTHING until almost all of
Iraq...