US General, Iraqis believe the US supports ISIS

who's dodging.... GWB cleaned up Clintons mess .. Clinton didnt prosecute the first WTC bombing as a war but "criminal" and Clintons was too much of loser to take UBL down.. so GWB had to do it.. also Obozo voted AGAINST EVERY EIM that got us the info to get UBL.. but of course the moron Kneyan fraud takes credit now that "HE got UBL"

whos; dodging what?.. too bad history and facts so far you have no shown to support any of your posts

 

too bad youve proven to not know what really was going on


his rejection of war decided the elections. Two months prior to election day the SPD was lagging far behind the Christian Democrats (CDU) in the polls. But the Social Democrats rapidly caught up after they took an anti-war stance. The SPD and the Greens ultimately won the election by a narrow margin.Since then, Schröder and Fischer have been gradually backing off from their former position. Before the elections Schröder announced there would be “no involveme
nt” of Germany in the war. After the elections this was amended to “no active involvement”.
[B]He then assured the US that, in the case of war, American bases in Germany would be available “as a matter of course” and his government would permit US war planes to use German airspace. Prior to the elections he dodged these questions.
Soon, even Schröder’s rejection of “active involvement” was withdrawn[/B]. The German government pledged that its special reconnaissance tanks in Kuwait, which are equipped to withstand chemical and biological weapons, would not be withdrawn, and that German personnel would remain aboard NATO AWACS reconnaissance planes. This meant that both arms of the German military would be actively involved in war operations. At the same time the German army is providing troops for the protection of US bases in Germany, so as to relieve German-based US troops in the event of war against Iraq.
When the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 last November, subjecting Iraq to intensive weapons inspections, the German government gave its full support. France has portrayed this resolution as a diplomatic success that supposedly forces the US to once again consult the Security Council before taking any military action. German Foreign Minister Fischer, on the other hand, declared in December that the resolution rendered the question of a further UN mandate prior to military action “yesterday’s debate.” He thus tacitly adopted the interpretation of the US government, according to which the resolution gives the US the right to launch a military attack on Iraq, without further sanction from the Security Council, if the Bush administration determines the Iraqi regime to have committed a “material breach” of any of the resolution’s provisions.
The German government is now hoping that the Security Council will not be presented with a new resolution explicitly endorsing a US military strike, because such a resolution would confront it with an insoluble dilemma. If the Germans voted in favour, there would be no way for Schröder and Fischer to continue to mask the breach of their election promises, and the governing coalition could very well break apart. However, if they abstained or voted against, they would be threatened with international isolation.
It is already becoming apparent that Russia, China and France—all of which, as permanent members of the Security Council, have veto powers—will support such a resolution, calculating that they cannot, in any event, prevent the US and Britain from going to war.
French President Jacques Chirac, who had repeatedly declared his preference for a peaceful solution, took a U-turn after the new year. He publicly confirmed for the first time that France would participate militarily in a war against Iraq.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/01/germ-j[/B]16.html

 

His anti-ISIS policy was defeated at Ramadi. What a loser! The world is kicking his rear end.

 

And ISIS lost Tikrit. They lost the center of Sunni Iraq and the gateway for the northern oil fields in exchange for a minor provincial capital.

 

the Kenyan fraud is doing what he said he would do.. " transform the USA to rubble".... It blow my mind people voted for this Solcialist Alinsky clione over a bright decent man like Romney or a hero like McCain..

- - - Updated - - -

yea.. sure.. did ISIS declare they "lost"?

 

They were driven out. Same as the Iraqi army in Ramadi, except that ISIS at Tikrit actually tried to hold the city.

 

and what force is going to hold them out?... all Obozo had to do was get a SOFA and he had no want to get one done as Obama was only worried about his election fallacy of " Im pulling all the troops out "...

Obozo.. what a loser.. a terrorists best friend...

 

I am so pissed at Mongolia. Why on earth have we not kicked Mongolias arse. I am tired of them kicking our arse.

 

You might want to review what happened in Ramadi and Fallujah very early in Bush's war when those Sunni cities didn't support Saddam and were NOT hostile towards Americans.

 

The Iraqis refused to agree to any SOFA unless they were allowed in o try US troops in Iraqi courts. Can I assume you support seeing US troops in Iraqi jails?

 

why dont you link us to some of this "amazement"?..so we all can read it ourselves..

 

the oldest canard in the book.. Obama told them he was "leaving" so why would Malaki agree to anything? Obama is a moron.. but Obama could have gotten one.. he didnt want one..

 

That was the Iraqi position before the election. They refused to give it up. So you supported a SOFA at all costs? Or do you think we should have refused to sign a SOFA unless Iraq backed down from their demand?

 

[MENTION=44318]BestViewedWithCable[/MENTION]

the american Secret agencies are so many and so big for any case exists a document who has foreseen any event, no wonder when you have + 250 000 writers.


I doubt ISIS is supported by the USA, since the begin of the the Syrian War, the US sended Black-Water Kill Commandos for Al Qaida groups...


in this region you have no conspiracy theory without Big Satan and Small Satan.

All hate deeply the US!


beeing allied with the US makes you a whore in the eyes of the people, so claim the US allies the ISIS is the true ally of the US so they can look in the mirror.

 

Now its Clinton's fault for Bush's lies to justify war in Iraq. LOL

I have justified my statements or rather refuted the nonsense you have been spewing. You tried to claim the UN gave approval. I proved this false.

You tried to claim there was a broad coalition ... I proved the coalition was a joke and that most of our significant allies refused to take part in the war.

Now you are talking about WTC and Clinton in order to dodge the fact that you were wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Both France and Germany refused to participate in the war. Did you forget "Freedom Fries" and restaurants pouring out bottles of French wine in anger.

You are spouting nonsense.

 

A normal SOFA with a host country usually allows the host country to try a U.S. serviceman if that serviceman commits a crime when off duty against a local national. Such as murder, rape, robbery, drugs etc against a local national. Anything done in the line of duty or on duty no matter what is handled by the U.S. So if I was driving my 5 ton on duty and run over a local, the U.S. would have jurisdiction, not the host country.

But these SOFA varies from country to country. But the above is usually the outline followed. What was proposed in Iraq by either country, I do not have the faintest idea.

 

Margot, you reported me. As a result no communication is possible between us.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no "we" or "our."

 

Iran gained Tikrit. Are you now a supporter of the Iranians?

Personally, I don't care about Iran. The only real enemy is the American left.

 

The Hawaiian fraud is hostile to traditional America.

 

The Iraqis wanted to have jurisdiction over any crimes committed by US troops against Iraqi nationals regardless of if the soldier was on duty or not.

 

I can understand not buying into that if that was the case. We usually are in a host country to help, advise, assist and protect, sometimes even to fight their wars. The standard SOFA is the least one could expect in return. It is in my opinion, Maliki who is more responsible than anyone for the current situation in Iraq. He was the one who replaced competent and experienced leaders in the military with nincompoops whose only asset was loyalty to him.

 

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That's why he was so diffident in negotiating the SOFA, and finally walked away. What about the US troops Obama reintroduced into Iraq. Can they be tried in Iraqi courts?

- - - Updated - - -

Obama is responsible. He wanted to be be president...and now he takes the blame for whatever goes wrong on his watch. That's the way American political culture works.

 

I very seriously do not see how US troops in Iraq could possibly be considered a good idea. The root of the problem is internal Iraqi politics. We're not going to change that with troops.

And, I don't see any reason to think that the nation of Iraq (especially under Maliki) would EVER allow us to have US troops carrying out military operations inside Iraq. They have said no in no uncertain terms

As for the rest of your idea, Bush signed us out. Now you want to blame Obama for not reversing that!!

And, you haven't said anything about why you think troops in Iraq under Obama would be more successful than troops in Iraq under Bush was.

Why is it that you think our military would be more successful under Obama?

 

You've misinterpreted my post. I am simply hostile to Obama and all of his supporters. Everything else is secondary.

 

Which form did these people use to make their decision visible? Referendum? Mass strikes? Or only the imagination of the media which is able to make false photos with a backup of armed criminals representing the US outside of its own borders and is also able to transmit this imagination to the heads of those who don't have their own?