WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - The United States and its coalition partners targeted Islamic State militants with 13 air strikes in Syria and Iraq in a 24-hour period ending Sunday, a statement from the Combined Joint Task Force.
Twelve of the strikes were in Iraq, hitting tactical units, sniper positions, weapons, vehicles and buildings near the cities of Bayji, Fallujah, Kirkuk, Ramad and Sinjar.
Near the Syrian city of al Hasakah, an air strike destroyed an Islamic State fighting position, the statement said. (Writing by Bill Trott; Editing by Jon Boyle)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3045765/U-S--allies-focus-Iraq-latest-air-strikes-task-force-statement.html#ixzz3XlMRzssq Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Chances are, Ash, that those are militiamen that support Assad, they being in Damascus and fighting Daesh. The US does not provide air support for those folks.
Baghdad: Iraqi forces backed by US-led air strikes cleared the country's largest oil refinery of the Islamic State group, the international coalition helping Baghdad fight the jihadists said on Sunday.
IS has repeatedly attempted over the past 10 months to capture the Baiji refinery north of Baghdad, most recently seizing parts of the facility and holding out for days.
Iraqi forces "regained full control of the Baiji Oil Refinery after having successfully cleared the massive facility of any remaining (IS) fighters," the US-led coalition said in a statement.
The coalition carried out 47 air strikes in the Baiji area over nine days and Iraq has deployed reinforcements to the refinery and is fortifying the facility, it said.
The refinery -- some 200 kilometres (120 miles) north of . . . . . .
It is interesting that the Kurds of Iraq were able to secure their own defense, without US troops on the ground.
This despite Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson assuring us that they were not capable of providing for their own defense. He knew they would lose to Daesh, even if the US provided them close air support. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson also assured us that Daesh would take Kobane and, failing that, would maintain their control of the area around the Syrian city.
It seems quite clear, now, that he was totally wrong on both counts.
The Daesh push into Ramadi seems to have come up empty. The Daesh have lost the fight for the oil refineries in Baiji.
The Saudi are now being exposed in Yemen as the power behind al-Qeada in the Arabian Peninsula. The Sauds, like the ISraeli, are flying close air support for al-Qeada. The ISraeli fighting with Daesh in Syria, the Saudi in Yemen.
The US is providing the minimum support to their backstabbing 'allies', while the Main Stream Media in the US tries to keep the public in the dark as to the goings on in the desert.
When the second largest stockholder of FOX News is a Saudi prince, the idea that there would be honest reporting on the activities of the Saudi, laughable.
As comical as the idea that Ben-Guion's nephew would be honest about ISrael.
What is interesting, that even with the built-in biases, the truth is finding its way into the the "Marketplace of Ideas".
When the folks at YNet are telling the world that that Bibi "Jumped the Shark", chances are that he has. When they report that the US Jewry, and more importantly, their money men are abandoning the Likud, while the GOP is embracing it ... creates an interesting dynamic.
General Dynamics is still flying high. Closing at 131.27, up substantially from the 36.49 it was at when Mr Obama took control of the White House.
SodaStream, still bouncing along the bottom, at 20.17. Its trading range basically static since October of 2014, when it entered the basement. A little more than a year after it traded at 72.82, in June of 2013, right before it was.targeted by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement.
A tale of two economies ... or just of effective vs ineffectual political management.
Referencing the claim that there are Islamic State compounds in northern Mexico ...
Alex Jones, at InfoWars, sent a small plane on a recon flight in the area. The video of the flight was posted. The reporter/pilot seems shocked to discover that there are lots of 'compounds' in northern Mexico.
Lots of large walled estates in that part of the world.
But no evidence of any presence of the Islamic State
ISrael supports al-Qeada, which is the Islamic State, ISrael would accept them running Syria and has assisted them with airstrikes, material and medical support.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.
“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Iraqis forced out of Ramadi by ISIL as exodus continues
"They forced us to leave our homes. We are peaceful people. We were forced to leave our city"
Thousands of Iraqis have been continuing to flee the city of Ramadi to escape the extremists from the so-called Islamic State.
>>>>Local officials have warned the city is about to fall after the militants captured several surrounding villages.<<<<
Late last week many were settling in Baghdad suburbs, awaiting tents and food.
ISIL forces have been closing in on the capital of Anbar province – and setting about imposing their idea of the law.
‘‘They forced us to leave our homes. We are peaceful people. We were forced to leave our city,” said one woman.
In a setback for the militants, officials said Iraqi forces retook from ISIL most of Baiji refinery – the country’s largest – which had been attacked by the insurgents a week ago.
Clashes are said to have continued on Saturday, with ISIL militants fighting elite army divisions and paramilitaries.
The Iraqi 'government' has been able to hold on to the oil refinery.
As for the Kurds, they can defend themselves if given the weapons, which they have been begging for, and Obama has, last I read, been with holding up to now, for reasons known only to his ignoble self.
Memorial Day draws ever closer, rat o.
You have, once again, made a fool out of yourself, predicting Iraq would be ISIS free by Memorial Day 2015.
Some 'military expert'.
You are a hoot, is what you are, with your 'rat doctrine' and your bullshit.
Memorial Day.
yuppers
Say, how is that super secret project coming along off the coasts of Panama ?
The Islamic State is the progeny of al-Qeada, the only enemy which the United State Congress considers worthy of an Authorization for Use of Military Force against.
The 14Sep2001 AUMF stands as valid. Despite the fact that ISrael supports al-Qeada, would accept al-Qeada taking power in Syria, the United States does not.
The seperation between the US and ISrael is best illustrated by the differing view of al-Qeada.
ISrael finds them an acceptable alternative to Assad. The United States does not.
As this reality becomes more known, the ISraeli will find themselves ever more isolated from the support they have historically come to expect from the people of the United States.
Iran may be many things, but they are not considered, by the people of the United States, to be as evil as al-Qeada. The Iranians have not attacked the United States, did not take down the 'Twin Towers', al-Qeada did.
The US will never accept al-Qeada taking power, not in Syria, not anywhere.
$1,000.00 to anyone that can show a picture of ISIL patrolling the streets of Ramadi.
Save your energy; you can't do it. ISIS took 3 villages on the outskirts of Ramadi, and briefly, perhaps, got a few headcutters inside the city limits, before they were driven back out.
You ISIS-lovers are 0 for 3 this month. Learn to love it; it's going to be worse in May.
As to Rufus's bet, November of 2014 does not qualify, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
Patrol A detachment of ground, sea or air forces sent out for the purposes of gathering information or carrying out a destructive, harassing, mopping-up, or security mission
It is interesting that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson raises to the call for lovers of the Islamic State to respond.
I knew he was a sympathizer, but now Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson acknowledges going well beyond sympathy for the Islamic State. He has a soft spot in his heart for them
(IraqiNews.com) Baghdad – On Sunday, Baghdad Operations Command announced that 59 terrorists have been either killed or injured by army forces during the military operation ‘Fajr al-Karma’ in the district of al-Karma, located in east of Fallujah.
Baghdad Operations Command said in a statement obtained by IraqiNews.com “Our forces, with direct and field supervision from the commander of Baghdad Operations, conducted a number of counter operations to liberate the rest of al-Karma district and its surrounding areas for the 5th day in a row during the military operation ‘Fajr al-Karma,’”
“The operations resulted in killing 54 terrorists and wounding 5 others, in addition to treating 25 booby-trapped houses and destroying an armored vehicle that carried a machine-gun.”
Hmmm....thinking on that......I doubt I could find a picture 'From TODAY' immediately as the wire services etc might not have any yet.
But surely you mean from today or sometime in the more or less near future ?
That sounds fair enough. Two weeks, a month - I will do my best.
It is hard to get a feel for what is going on in Ramadi. One report I posted had ISIS near the center of the city. Others have had them in the city...other reports have other info.....
Just recently - rat'sass will recall - our blog's pathological liar was resisting paying on the Zimmerman bet on the grounds that the Feds had not returned Zimmerman's gun to Zimmerman.
Now however we have it very clearly announced by the Justice Department that they are not pursuing an indictment against Z for any civil rights violations for lack of any evidence whatsoever.
Soon, rat'sass will be denying his World Famous Iraq ISIS free by Memorial Day 2015 Prediction.
Pathological lying is listed as a psychopathology by the the folks that are in the psychology business.
Rufus is honest. He has admitted Iraq is not going to be ISIS free by the 4th of July, 2015. He still maintains Iraq will be ISIS free sometime in the future. He may be right about that. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I see it in the cards but who knows.
Now Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson just provide the link to this supposed exchange concerning Zimmerman.
You are correct about our discussing the weapon, wrong about the bet. Prove yourself, or don't, but it is on you to provide the proof that there was a wager made.
bob Thu May 27, 12:52:00 AM EDT But I did rip off the bank for $7500 hundred dollars, when I was on my knees, and fighting for my economic life, on my aunt's credit card. But that wasn't really stealing, just payback. … ... They couldn't do a damn thing about it, I put her in the rest home, age 96. What you going to do, when she is institutionalized?
SalaadMon May 02, 02:22:00 AM EDT When I watched the aircraft crash into the WTC I was horrified. All my sympathies were with the people of America. If the USA had been able to destroy Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden then and there I would felt that justice had been done and would have been delighted. Today when I hear of the assasination of Osama Bin Laden I feel that this leader of an evil terrorist group deserved his fate, but I feel very flat.
The reason I don't feel overjoyed is that in the intervening years USA has become an even bigger and more ruthless terrorist organisation than Al Qaeda. USA roams the world killing anyone, anywhere with impunity. The USA and it's compliant allies have caused a thousand times more deaths than Al Qaeda.
What we are hearing about is the displacement of one terrorist group by another, worse, evil.
So we have now bombed Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon
"The situation in Ramadi remains fluid and, as with earlier assessments, the security situation in the city is contested. >>>>The ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] continue to conduct clearing operations against ISIL-held areas in the city<<<<< and in the surrounding areas of Al Anbar province,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Army Major Curt Kellogg said in a statement, using the government’s preferred acronym for ISIS. The coalition continues to coordinate with ISF forces and provide operational support as requested.”
>>>>The ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] continue to conduct clearing operations against ISIL-held areas in the city<<<<<
Alas, no photos in this report !
But surely one can see from this report that there must be ISIS fighters in Ramadi or the ISF would not be trying to conduct clearing operations against them.
Upside Down 04.15.158:00 PM ET ISIS’ Attack on Ramadi Just Upended U.S. War Plans
As with your claims that 'Generals' advised against US fulfilling MR GW Bush's Executive Agreement with the government of Iraq concerning US combat troops in Iraq and their being subject to Sharia Law if those troops remained in Iraq.
Without names, dates, form and forum, the reports are just unverified rumors.
Iraq is famous for providing unreliable reporting to the US media. From reports of Saddam's WMDs, to Mr Cheney saying that US troops would be met as liberators.
No report with evidence can be taken at face value, you have to supply the evidence. That's the bet.
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war • Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons • Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime • Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion
Where is the timestamped link, evidencing that Obumble put up the claim you reference here, rat?
As with your claims that 'Generals' advised against US fulfilling MR GW Bush's Executive Agreement with the government of Iraq concerning US combat troops in Iraq and their being subject to Sharia Law if those troops remained in Iraq.
As someone once said,
Without names, dates, form and forum, the reports are just unverified rumors.
and I would like to see if anyone is stupid enough to say that US generals would say that 'US combat troops should be subject to Sharia Law while in Iraq'. Pictures would be nice too, if available.
And I don't see where Rufus has designated rat-o his spokesman on this challenge. If he were to do so, that would be one thing, but I don't see where he has, so rat-o is really being uncouth, as is his habit in all things, in just assuming the position.
Here it is, Legionnaire Q. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson claiming that "the Generals advised us that US troops should have remained in Iraq.
That Mr Obama should not have carried out the Executive Agreement that Mr GW Bush signed with the Iraqi government. By fulfilling Mr Bush's agreement he claims Mr Obama became one of the worse Presidents, ever.
Idaho BobSun Apr 19, 06:19:00 AM EDT
O'bozo has made The National Interest's list of 5 Worst USA Wartime Presidents -
It occurs to me that the Pope, and Rufus, are pretty much on the same page here. Both are calling for actions against ISIS. The Pope might even be more militant, in fact. We seem to have a 'fighting Pope' here. Nothing wrong in that.
These are strange bedfellows.
While Q doesn't want to be involved at all, if I read him right, and Ash and I are against ground troops, and Deuce's opinion I don't know, and am uncertain about that of WiO.
I hold out for helping the Kurds if they should need it, and the providing them with arms.
And according to d. rat's prediction, the whole thing will be over by Memorial Day, just about one month from now, anyway. There will be no more ISIS in Iraq after that blessed date due to the magic of the 'rat Doctrine'.
ROME — People may still be trying to parse Pope Francis’ ambivalent language about U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in a recent press conference, but Iraq’s Vatican ambassador says the pope has put his weight behind military action where it really counted.
Without Francis, says Al-Sadr Habeeb Mohammed Hadi Ali, it’s possible nobody would have stepped up at all.
“If it wasn’t for the pope’s insistent call to the international community, no one would have moved into stopping ISIS,” said Al-Sadr, who’s been his country’s envoy to the pope since 2010.
He spoke in an exclusive interview with Crux.
On his way home from South Korea in mid-August, Francis delivered a mixed verdict on the current U.S. offensive, saying it’s “legitimate” to stop an unjust aggressor, but warning this doesn’t necessarily mean dropping bombs and expressing a preference for U.N. authorization.
Al-Sadr, however, argued that the big picture is Francis’ “repeated call to the international community to intervene and to support the country in the midst of the present plight.”
Advertisement
“This group is an international danger, and the world will suffer if they are not stopped,” he said. “It’s good that the pope is speaking up.”
The ambassador said both the Iraqi government and the country’s religious leaders appreciate the firmness of Pope Francis, as well as his spiritual support.
In the wake of recent media reports that Pope Francis himself might be an ISIS target, al-Sadr didn’t play down those concerns.
“I have no doubt that a terrorist organization as ISIS, with such a criminal record of destruction, murdering, ethnic ‘purification,’ that considers human trafficking as a norm, can be a threat to His Holiness,” he said.
“They believe all Christians are infidels,” he said. “Their destruction and violation of holy and sacred shrines in Iraq confirms their [capacity for] atrocity"...............
Now, I did ask Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson to reference his remarks about the Generals and the advise they supposedly gave ...
Typical of Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson he never did provide us with that reference, because I do not think that the Generals ever provided that advise. I do believe that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson was merely making it up.
But since, Legionnaire Q, you asked for the timestamped reference, there it is. Jut the most current rendition of Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson claims that the US should not have fulfilled President GW Bush's Executive Agreement with the Iraqi and withdrawn US combat forces from Iraq. Which, by extension, means that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson thinks that Mr Obama should have acquiesced to the Iraqi demand that if US combat troops remained in Iraq that they be subject to Iraqi law.
Iraqi law, which since Iraq is an Islamic Republic means Sharia Law.
The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq began in December 2007 with the end of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and was completed by December 2011, bringing an end to the Iraq War. The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq peaked at 170,300 in November 2007. ... The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory"
...
2008 U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
In 2008 the American and Iraqi governments signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, after being sought by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government. It included a specific date, 30 June 2009, by which American forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities, and a complete withdrawal date from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011.
On 14 December 2008 then-President George W. Bush signed the security agreement with Iraq. In his fourth and final trip to Iraq, President Bush appeared in a televised news conference with Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to celebrate the agreement and applauded security gains in Iraq saying that just two years ago "such an agreement seemed impossible"
The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1]
U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity.
If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.
Those "undecided procedures" were, at the time, referred to as "Iraqi criminal law", which is Sharia Law since Iraq is an Islamic Republic.
Which Generals, from what countries, at what time, in what form and forum advised that the US should not have fulfilled Mr Bush's agreement with the Iraqi government?
That was the question put to Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, it remains the question.
April 20, 2015 Media Ignoring ISIS in Mexico By Brian C Joondeph
ISIS is operating training bases just across the US southern border according to a report last week in Judicial Watch. Specifically the base is about 8 miles from the Texas border near Ciujad Juaraz in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Mexican officials found documents in Arabic, schematic plans for the US Army’s Fort Bliss, and Muslim prayer rugs.................
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/media_ignoring_isis_in_mexico.html#ixzz3Xr3BoVUo Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
US media ignoring what is not happening, what there is no evidence of. An unconfirmed report, citing unnamed Mexican sources is not evidence, plain and simple.
Your regular posting of AM articles highlights your naiveté and your apparent willingness to swallow what they say whole cloth emphasizes your lack of critical thinking skills. AM has been shown to be categorically wrong to you yet you persist in believing them - why?
Here is a little bit of research done regarding those 'ISIS base in Mexico' claims:
Yeah, Judicial Watch cites two anonymous sources, AM Thinker cites Judicial Watch and you sop it up demonstrating, yet again, your critical thinking skills.
And if you don't, Mr. President, I may be forced to go behind your back and have you impeached. I have friends in high places, many of them. Then I will be President. How will you like them apples ?
Unless you can tell us which Generals Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson was referring to, Legionnaire, why bother?
Why bother?
Merely to, once again, point out the bullshit you throw around this blog everyday. Yesterday, you put up numerous posts arguing that sources weren't adequate, that they weren't real time, that there were no pictures. Then you give us this,
As with your claims that ‘Generals’ advised against US fulfilling MR GW Bush’s Executive Agreement with the government of Iraq concerning US combat troops in Iraq and their being subject to Sharia Law if those troops remained in Iraq.
At that point, I asked you to back up your comment with Obumble's post showing the claim you allege. In response, you give us this,
Taking the troops out of Iraq way too soon, against the advice of the Generals.
I see nothing in Bob's statement about Sharia law. And anyone who has been here for any length of time, understands Bob's comment referred to a new SOFA under Obama that would have extended beyond 2011 and not to the SOFA negotiated by Bush.
I can only assume you are once again just pulling this argument out of your ass to stir the pot, that you are misrepresenting Bob's statement for your own ends, that you just haven't been following the arguments here that closely, or once again, that your reading and comprehension skills suffer from the English-as-a-second-language syndrome.
As of last month, about 46,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq. Unless the two governments agree to a continuing U.S. troop presence, all but a few will be withdrawn by year's end under a 2008 agreement reached with the Iraqis by the George W. Bush administration.
As the deadline nears, some senior U.S. and Iraqi officials warn that Iraq's army and police, despite billions of dollars in aid from Washington and its allies, will be unable to contain sectarian violence or prevent neighboring Iran from expanding its operations if U.S. forces are drawn down too far.
Pentagon officials had presented the White House with proposals to leave a larger force with greater responsibilities. But Obama's aides have rebuffed those plans, arguing that Washington can maintain influence in Baghdad through arms sales and diplomatic engagement, rather than a large troop presence.
Privately, some commanders worry about an increase in violence if U.S. and Iraqi special operations forces are made to scale back joint raids against militants, a strategy that has helped lower violence since the bloodiest period of the war in 2006 and 2007.
In 2011, the arguments between the White House and the generals weren't about whether a residual force of US troops should stay in Iraq after 2011, they were about how many should stay and what their mission should be. Until the 11th hour, everyone assumed there would be troops staying. The Pentagon, the military, the White House, and even the Iraqis thought there would be troops staying.
It was only at the 11th hour that negotiations were cut off and that for political reasons.
The comments yesterday were in reference to Rufus's bet, Legionnaire Q.
It had nothing to do with anything else, but the bet.
You are correct, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson does not speak of the consequences of his statements, nor the background to the policies implemented by the United States.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson has stated that Mr Obama made a great error by adhering to the Executive Agreement made by President GW Bush with the Iraqi government. He has made that clear, starting back in August of 2014 and the ISIL assault on Iraq.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson ignores the realities of the negotiations that the Bush administration had with the Iraqi government. Ignores and will not address that US troops would have been subject to Sharia Law if the policy he advocates for had been followed.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson refuses to name the Generals he says advised that the United States should have abrogated the Executive Agreement entered into by GW Bush with the Iraqi government.
I have argued right along that Obumble is wrong in his assertion that troops should have been left behind in Iraq. In my opinion they would have had no influence on what happened in Iraq subsequent to 2011 especially at the levels the White House was talking about, 3,000 troops for training purposes.
That is still my opinion.
However, there is no reason to believe that Obama couldn't have negotiated a SOFA with Iraq. His excuse that he couldn't do it because to do so would have exposed them to Iraqi law is lame. First, we already have SOFA's with a number of other countries that allow for the host countries trials of servicemen who commit off-duty crimes although sometimes, as with the Bush's SOFA, it allows the US to keep the serviceman in US custody until time of trial. And second, at the small number of troops Obama was considering he could have simply put them under State Department control thus giving them diplomatic immunity. Besides, most of these agreements are written in such general and indeterminate terms that it gives the flexibility for the countries to avoid any major diplomatic conflicts.
That being said, though I don't blame Obama for not keeping troops in Iraq, I do blame him to some extent for not standing up to Malawi and in fact giving tacit approval to the moves Malawi made that strengthened the sectarian divide in Iraq. After 2011, Obama pretty much washed his hands of what was going in Iraq although some of it was blatant.
It was my impression the Iraq wanted US troops out and they were firm in their demand that if any remained they be subject to Iraqi law. I don't believe Obama used that as a "lame" excuse but rather it was the case and, I also believe, it suited Obama's desire to get the troops out of Iraq.
If the Iraqi would not renegotiate the terms, then US troops would have been subject to Sharia Law. This is the position that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson is continually advocating Mr Obama should have acquiesced to.
But negotiations ultimately broke down over the issue of legal immunity for any remaining troops, which was an imperative for the Pentagon and a deal-breaker for the Iraqis, who after nearly nine years of U.S. military presence wanted no more infringements on their sovereignty.
As a result, Obama had no choice but to make the announcement he did on October 21. "As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," he said.
However, while I fully agree with the second part of your statement, as I noted above there were ways to get around immunity issue if it was necessary and the Pentagon still works for the President as far as I know.
As I've stated numerous times, I'm glad Obama didn't keep troops in Iraq, however, in IMO, his excuses for not doing it are a bit self-serving. On the one hand, he uses the 'I ended the war in Iraq' as a campaign talking point and on the other he now says he had no choice but to pull the troops out. You can't have it both ways.
Both Obama and al Maliki had political problems in negotiating the SOFA; however, if either really wanted it, they could have managed the negotiations and got one. Obama wanted to wash his hands of Iraq and he did so.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson remains steadfast in his claim that the Generals advised against the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq.
Yet Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson cannot provide us with the name of a single General . Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson refuses to tell us the names of these Generals, what country they were from, what form and forum the advise was given in.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson is either being purposefully obtuse, delusional or is flat out lying when he makes that claim.
Yet Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson cannot provide us with the name of a single General
Bullshit.
Until October 21, 2011, the generals all expected that there would be troops left in Iraq. It wasn't a specific general speaking, it was the Pentagon speaking, Panetta (and Gates before him) and the Joint Chiefs. They were arguing for a new SOFA and more residual troops than Obama was pushing for. When the negotiations were ended, there were only a couple months left on the original SOFA. It was dead as of the end of 2011.
The arguments weren't over whether troops would remain in Iraq. That was assumed. The argument was over how many. The link I provided above describes some of the arguments that were going on at the time.
Maj. Gen. W.E. Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province
Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division
>>>>"The Army generals in Iraq believe that it is only now that they are implementing the right strategy for securing the country, so they deserve more time to do the job right, despite the four years of failure," said Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.<<<<
Unless you can tell us which Generals Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson was referring to, Legionnaire, why bother?
Why bother?
Merely to, once again, point out the bullshit you throw around this blog everyday. Yesterday, you put up numerous posts arguing that sources weren't adequate, that they weren't real time, that there were no pictures.
***********
QuirkMon Apr 20, 01:13:00 PM EDT
.
Yet Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson cannot provide us with the name of a single General
Bullshit.
Until October 21, 2011, the generals all expected that there would be troops left in Iraq. It wasn't a specific general speaking, it was the Pentagon speaking, Panetta (and Gates before him) and the Joint Chiefs.
The Pentagon does not speak, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
If there was a spokesperson for the Department of Defense that said the Generals advised Mr Bush not sign the SOFA with Iraq, and advised Mr Obama not to adhere to it, there would be a record of that.
Please provide it, if it exists.
Panetta was no General, so he does not qualify under your statement. If the Joint Chiefs issued a statement, provide a link to it, or quote it.
But you cannot do that, can you? It does not exist, you are delusional, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
Provide a quote from a single General, stating that Mr Bush and Mr Obama were wrong. A quote that says they advised the President to not adhere to the Executive Agreement that Mr Bush signed.
Legionnaire Q, because he feels a "Responsibility to Protect" Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson because he is delusional and is doing all he can to grasp that last straw of self respect.
As early as 2009, various generals were trying to convince Obama to change his plans for withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2011.
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision...
It does not say that they were advising Mr Obama to not adhere to the SOFA signed by Mr Bush.
Now, if this is an accurate report, the mobilization effort, by this supposed network of senior military officers should be available. Let's see it.
If it is not available, then it is another indication that the report is false. Since the Huffington piece is from 2009 you ought to be able to access whatever effort was made, not just a report of an effort going to be made.
The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".
So, at the time of the article General Odierno had not provided any advise, he states quite clearly that they were still developing 'the plan'.
Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account.
Obviously Woodward's account does not jibe with history, because in 2008 Mr Bush signed the SOFA timetable with the Iraqi government. That signature cancelled whatever 'guarantee' he had made that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted.
Rat, now you are being argumentative and childish. Next, you will be asking for pictures and signed affidavits.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday during her regular daily briefing that the U.S. 'didn’t have the requirements needed to leave our troops there' at the time.'
The administration, she said, 'was certainly committed to doing everything we could to secure the requirements needed to have forces there. Obviously, we were unable to do that.'
Panetta disagrees, writing that the administration ignored 'leverage' the U.S. had over al-Maliki in the form of reconstruction aid dollars.
'My fear, as I voiced to the President and others,' he writes, 'was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S.'
'I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.'
But although the Joint Chiefs of Staff and military commanders on the ground in Iraq agreed, 'the president’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated.'
'Those on our side,' Panetta says, 'viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2778923/Former-Pentagon-chief-says-Defense-State-Departments-argued-troops-stay-Iraq-Obama-White-House-eager-rid-war.html#ixzz3XubXmfBU Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Panetta, at the time, was Secretary of Defense. The Joint Chiefs and the other military in DOD were under him. If you don't know who the Joint Chiefs or the military commanders in Iraq were at the time, look it up. Also, look up their responsibilities. Among those for the Joint Chiefs, for instance, is to act as advisers to the SOD. If you want specific quotes from the military commanders look up their testimony at their confirmation hearings before Congress.
No advise from a General, just reports about what they were thinking.
That is the only way you will get information on presidential staff meetings and what was said in them. It took decades to get confidential info about earlier presidencies from official sources. The only way we usually get this information earlier is when something is leaked, or released through Congressional inquires, or when one of the participants writes a book, ala Panetta.
>>>I have argued right along that Obumble is wrong in his assertion that troops should have been left behind in Iraq. In my opinion they would have had no influence on what happened in Iraq subsequent to 2011<<<
If we had followed the advice of the Generals we won't be in the current pickle, where a good portion of Iraq is becoming a satrap of Iran.
The evidence for the effectiveness of troops in Iraq is the fact that there was peace (relative peace if you insist, but nothing like today) for three years after the Surge.
No troops = no peace
Ash will have difficulty understanding this, no doubt.
It was only after the troops were taken out that things went south.
Things did not go south until after the ISraeli began supporting ISIL, in Syria. Began flying bombing operations in support of Daesh, began providing medical and material support to the radicals, in their attempt to usurp Assad.
No, Robt "Draft Dodger" Peterson, the Jews had nothing to do with it. The government of ISrael did, though.
That you continue to conflate the two, a case of extreme antisemitism, on your part. You need to learn that Judaism and ISrael are two different things, entirely.
John 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
The evidence for the effectiveness of troops in Iraq is the fact that there was peace (relative peace if you insist, but nothing like today) for three years after the Surge.
Mysterious 'supervoid' in space is largest object ever discovered, scientists claim
A supervoid has been discovered in the universe which is too big to fit into current models
A strange empty hole has been found in the universe Sarah Knapton
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
7:09PM BST 20 Apr 20
Astronomers have discovered a curious empty section of space which is missing around 10,000 galaxies.
The ‘supervoid’, which is 1.8 billion light-years across, is the largest known structure ever discovered in the universe but scientists are baffled about what it is and why it is so barren.
It sits in a region of space which is much colder than other parts of the universe and although it is not a vacuum, it seems to have around 20 per cent less matter than other regions.
Although the Big Bang theory allows for areas that are cooler and hotter, the size of the void does not fit with predicted models. Simply put, it is too big to exist.
István Szapudi, of University of Hawaii at Manoa, described the object as possibly “the largest individual structure ever identified by humanity”.
It was picked up using Hawaii’s Pan-STARRS1 (PS1) telescope located on Haleakala, Maui, and Nasa’s Wide Field Survey Explorer (WISE) satellite.
Mars may hold liquid water raising hopes of alien life
The latest study suggests that the ‘supervoid’ may be draining energy from light travelling through, which is why the area around it is so cold.
Getting through such a big hole takes hundreds of millions of years, even at the speed of light, and photons of light slow down as they cross because the universe – and therefore the void - is continually expanding.
However the scientists claim that the void can only account for around 10 per cent the temperature drop in the cold spot.
“It just pushed the explanation one layer deeper,” said Dr Roberto Trotta, a cosmologist at Imperial College London.
Dark matter may not be completely dark after all
The supervoid is only about 3 billion light-years away from Earth, a relatively short distance in the cosmic scheme of things.
“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest.
“This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”
The researchers report their findings in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
If you fellas are going to trot out the supposed position of General P, without even a direct quote ...
Petraeus has always shied away from politics, but in a new book he is quoted lavishing so much praise on Hillary Clinton, he seems to be endorsing her as a candidate for President.
"She'd make a tremendous president," Petraeus says in the new book "HRC" by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes.
And for Petraeus, Exhibit A in why she would be a tremendous president is the very thing for which Republicans most aggressively attack Clinton: her performance as Secretary of State when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked.
"Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times," Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes. "In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled."
We saw what happened the last time a military commander went public with his disagreements with his Commander-in Chief. Stan McChrystal no doubt regrets his moment of public honesty.
As for Petraeus, he is still acting as adviser to Obama. I doubt he will go public with criticism of Obama until Obama is out of office.
Panetta has nothing to lose at this time and what he was talking about just isn't that controversial. In 2011, there were nearly 1,000 generals and flag officers in the US military. To assume that none of these were advising that a residual force be left in Iraq after 2011 is to my mind crazy. Others noted above, have said the same things Panetta claims. Obama has never denied it. He merely states the Iraqis refused to negotiate a deal.
As for ... Gareth Porter (@GarethPorter) is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published in February 2014.
If Mr Porter is now an acknowledge 'expert', you best read what he has written about Iran and the "Untold Story". Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson will not approve ...
Western news media has feasted on Prime Minister Netanyahu's talk and the reactions to it as a rare political spectacle rich in personalities in conflict. But the real story of Netanyahu's speech is that he is continuing a long tradition in Israeli politics of demonising Iran to advance domestic and foreign policy interests.
The history of that practice, in which Netanyahu has played a central role going back nearly two decades, shows that it has been based on a conscious strategy of vastly exaggerating the threat from Iran.
Washington - Western diplomats have reportedly faulted Iran in recent weeks for failing to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with information on experiments on high explosives intended to produce a nuclear weapon, according to an intelligence document the IAEA is investigating.
But the document not only remains unverified but can only be linked to Iran by a far-fetched official account marked by a series of coincidences related to a foreign scientist that that are highly suspicious.
The original appearance of the document in early 2008, moreover, was not only conveniently timed to support Israel's attack on a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran in December that was damaging to Israeli interests, but was leaked to the news media with a message that coincided with the current Israeli argument.
The IAEA has long touted the document, which came from an unidentified member state, as key evidence justifying suspicion that Iran has covered up past nuclear weapons work.
In its September 2008 report the IAEA said the document describes "experimentation in connection with symmetrical initiation of a hemispherical high explosive charge suitable for an implosion type nuclear device."
But an official Iranian communication to the IAEA Secretariat challenged its authenticity, declaring, "There is no evidence or indication in this document regarding its linkage to Iran or its preparation by Iran."
The IAEA has never responded to the Iranian communication.
Jeremiah 2:5 This is what the LORD says: "What fault did your ancestors find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves.
For the last couple of weeks, the rat has been quoting the Bible a lot. Is this an indication that he is finally gone one toad over the line and is completely off the rails or, perhaps, that he was so lonely he actually invited in those Jehovah's Witnesses that came to his door and 'wanted to talk'?
Looks like everyone is his own 1st Sergeant.
ReplyDeleteNice neighborhoods.
:) I would sure hate to have to pay for their ammo.
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeleteSeems like they aim pretty high a lot of the time.
Going to an auction this morning, tata....
Cheers !
WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - The United States and its coalition partners targeted Islamic State militants with 13 air strikes in Syria and Iraq in a 24-hour period ending Sunday, a statement from the Combined Joint Task Force.
ReplyDeleteTwelve of the strikes were in Iraq, hitting tactical units, sniper positions, weapons, vehicles and buildings near the cities of Bayji, Fallujah, Kirkuk, Ramad and Sinjar.
Near the Syrian city of al Hasakah, an air strike destroyed an Islamic State fighting position, the statement said. (Writing by Bill Trott; Editing by Jon Boyle)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3045765/U-S--allies-focus-Iraq-latest-air-strikes-task-force-statement.html#ixzz3XlMRzssq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Daid Headcutters
Yesterday, California obtained 23% of its electricity from Renewables (does not include large hydro.)
ReplyDeleteCa OSO
The title says "capture if Isis fighter" so that video shows 'our side' -- grrrrreaaat!!!
ReplyDeletesend more air support for ou boyz
Those are Militiamen. We don't support them with air strikes unless an approved military source calls it in.
ReplyDeleteThey're an unorganized bunch, but they can be helpful (sometimes.)
Chances are, Ash, that those are militiamen that support Assad, they being in Damascus and fighting Daesh.
ReplyDeleteThe US does not provide air support for those folks.
Those guys are 'them', not US.
DeleteWe just have mutual enemies.
Baghdad: Iraqi forces backed by US-led air strikes cleared the country's largest oil refinery of the Islamic State group, the international coalition helping Baghdad fight the jihadists said on Sunday.
DeleteIS has repeatedly attempted over the past 10 months to capture the Baiji refinery north of Baghdad, most recently seizing parts of the facility and holding out for days.
Iraqi forces "regained full control of the Baiji Oil Refinery after having successfully cleared the massive facility of any remaining (IS) fighters," the US-led coalition said in a statement.
The coalition carried out 47 air strikes in the Baiji area over nine days and Iraq has deployed reinforcements to the refinery and is fortifying the facility, it said.
The refinery -- some 200 kilometres (120 miles) north of . . . . . .
Daid Men Can't Pump Oil
The score is, now, well over
DeleteObama - 10,000
Bibi's Headcutters - 0
Headcutter activity report for April:
DeleteTikrit - fail
Baiji - fail
Ramadi - fail
Big-time butt-hurt in Idaho posse-land
It is interesting that the Kurds of Iraq were able to secure their own defense, without US troops on the ground.
DeleteThis despite Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson assuring us that they were not capable of providing for their own defense.
He knew they would lose to Daesh, even if the US provided them close air support.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson also assured us that Daesh would take Kobane and, failing that, would maintain their control of the area around the Syrian city.
It seems quite clear, now, that he was totally wrong on both counts.
The Daesh push into Ramadi seems to have come up empty.
The Daesh have lost the fight for the oil refineries in Baiji.
The Saudi are now being exposed in Yemen as the power behind al-Qeada in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Sauds, like the ISraeli, are flying close air support for al-Qeada. The ISraeli fighting with Daesh in Syria, the Saudi in Yemen.
The US is providing the minimum support to their backstabbing 'allies', while the Main Stream Media in the US tries to keep the public in the dark as to the goings on in the desert.
There's a lot of money in covering a horse race - not so much in a slow, quiet win.
DeleteWhen the second largest stockholder of FOX News is a Saudi prince, the idea that there would be honest reporting on the activities of the Saudi, laughable.
DeleteAs comical as the idea that Ben-Guion's nephew would be honest about ISrael.
What is interesting, that even with the built-in biases, the truth is finding its way into the the "Marketplace of Ideas".
When the folks at YNet are telling the world that that Bibi "Jumped the Shark", chances are that he has.
When they report that the US Jewry, and more importantly, their money men are abandoning the Likud, while the GOP is embracing it ... creates an interesting dynamic.
General Dynamics is still flying high.
Closing at 131.27, up substantially from the 36.49 it was at when Mr Obama took control of the White House.
SodaStream, still bouncing along the bottom, at 20.17.
Its trading range basically static since October of 2014, when it entered the basement.
A little more than a year after it traded at 72.82, in June of 2013, right before it was.targeted by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement.
A tale of two economies ... or just of effective vs ineffectual political management.
Referencing the claim that there are Islamic State compounds in northern Mexico ...
ReplyDeleteAlex Jones, at InfoWars, sent a small plane on a recon flight in the area. The video of the flight was posted.
The reporter/pilot seems shocked to discover that there are lots of 'compounds' in northern Mexico.
Lots of large walled estates in that part of the world.
But no evidence of any presence of the Islamic State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROWOCsFHE-0
DeleteDid he think the DEA got bought by poor people? :)
DeleteISIS is Hamas is HeZbollah is Revolutionary Guard
ReplyDeleteMay they all die
Islamic Jihad is fatah is force 17 is isil is pa
Deletethey are all cut from the same cloth
.
DeleteThey are merely representative of the culture prevalent in ME countries.
Reason #3 the US should not be there.
.
ISrael supports al-Qeada, which is the Islamic State, ISrael would accept them running Syria and has assisted them with airstrikes, material and medical support.
DeleteISrael helped to found and now funds Hamas.
They are all cut from the same clothe.
Israel prefers Daesh (al-Qeada) in Syria, over the Alawites, Christians and their Kurdish allies
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.
“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”
Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328.
Even Caroline Glick has written about how the Zionists of ISrael have formed an alliance with the radical Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia.
Understanding the Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi alliance
Jack, you are a retarded moron...
DeleteWhat the hell are you talking about Rufus ?
ReplyDeleteIraqis forced out of Ramadi by ISIL as exodus continues
"They forced us to leave our homes. We are peaceful people. We were forced to leave our city"
Thousands of Iraqis have been continuing to flee the city of Ramadi to escape the extremists from the so-called Islamic State.
>>>>Local officials have warned the city is about to fall after the militants captured several surrounding villages.<<<<
Late last week many were settling in Baghdad suburbs, awaiting tents and food.
ISIL forces have been closing in on the capital of Anbar province – and setting about imposing their idea of the law.
‘‘They forced us to leave our homes. We are peaceful people. We were forced to leave our city,” said one woman.
In a setback for the militants, officials said Iraqi forces retook from ISIL most of Baiji refinery – the country’s largest – which had been attacked by the insurgents a week ago.
Clashes are said to have continued on Saturday, with ISIL militants fighting elite army divisions and paramilitaries.
http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/19/iraqis-forced-out-of-ramadi-by-isil-as-exodus-continues/
And Tikrit was taken by the Iranians.
Rufus, you aren't cogent these days.
The Iraqi 'government' has been able to hold on to the oil refinery.
As for the Kurds, they can defend themselves if given the weapons, which they have been begging for, and Obama has, last I read, been with holding up to now, for reasons known only to his ignoble self.
Memorial Day draws ever closer, rat o.
You have, once again, made a fool out of yourself, predicting Iraq would be ISIS free by Memorial Day 2015.
Some 'military expert'.
You are a hoot, is what you are, with your 'rat doctrine' and your bullshit.
Memorial Day.
yuppers
Say, how is that super secret project coming along off the coasts of Panama ?
bwaha
Wife and I are now going to an outdoor concert.
You guys need to get out more.
Later
Cheers !!
O yes, and I forgot the Zimmerman Prediction.
DeleteAccording to rat o the Feds were certain to prosecute Zimmerman for civil rights violations.
I said no chance.
We even had a bet on it. $5 as I recall.
rat o doesn't know squat about either military affairs or legal procedures or evidence or a damn thing really.
He is just a bullshitter, he is just a sad sad Jew hater, who claims to have some super secret high value project going off the coasts of Panama.
Bwabwabwabwabwahahahahahhaha
Memorial Day is just a little over a month away.
DeleteSomebody better kick start that 'rat doctrine' into high gear, and pronto.
Bwabwabwahahahahaha
QuirkSun Apr 19, 03:36:00 PM EDT
ReplyDelete.
They are merely representative of the culture prevalent in ME countries.
Reason #3 the US should not be there.
Representative of Islamic Nations of the world.
And meanwhile America is bombing, daily ISIS while supporting Assad and Iran's mass genocide of Sunnis...
ISIS is NOT a clear and present danger to the USA.
The Islamic State is the progeny of al-Qeada, the only enemy which the United State Congress considers worthy of an Authorization for Use of Military Force against.
DeleteThe 14Sep2001 AUMF stands as valid.
Despite the fact that ISrael supports al-Qeada, would accept al-Qeada taking power in Syria, the United States does not.
That is the Law, as applied, today.
That there is a clear line of organizational progression from al-Qeada to the Islamic State, not even debated in the halls of the US Congress.
Delete.
DeleteNeither are the Palestinians or the Iranians for that matter.
There is no one there that is a clear and present danger to the US.
So what?
.
The seperation between the US and ISrael is best illustrated by the differing view of al-Qeada.
DeleteISrael finds them an acceptable alternative to Assad.
The United States does not.
As this reality becomes more known, the ISraeli will find themselves ever more isolated from the support they have historically come to expect from the people of the United States.
Iran may be many things, but they are not considered, by the people of the United States, to be as evil as al-Qeada.
The Iranians have not attacked the United States, did not take down the 'Twin Towers', al-Qeada did.
The US will never accept al-Qeada taking power, not in Syria, not anywhere.
Jack HawkinsSun Apr 19, 11:52:00 AM EDT
DeleteThose guys are 'them', not US.
We just have mutual enemies.
But the USA does support the Sunnis....
Jack have you forgotten the 60 year old alliance with Saudi Arabia and friendship with Turkey?
America plays both sides of the field...
It's in Reagan plan...
Support both Iran and the Wahabbis...
Create chaos.
You remember when you worked on that plan
DeleteNo, I have no such memories, "O"rdure.
How convenient
Delete$1,000.00 to anyone that can show a picture of ISIL patrolling the streets of Ramadi.
ReplyDeleteSave your energy; you can't do it. ISIS took 3 villages on the outskirts of Ramadi, and briefly, perhaps, got a few headcutters inside the city limits, before they were driven back out.
You ISIS-lovers are 0 for 3 this month. Learn to love it; it's going to be worse in May.
For $1,000 dollars you are sure to come up with some objection, but here -
Deletehttp://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/10/islamic_state_pictur.php
From TODAY, Dipshit.
Deletehttp://militaryvideos.com/isis-battle-of-ramadi/
DeleteWhat is the definition of 'patrol', and what are the boundaries of Ramadi ?
Rufus is, basically, honest, unlike rat o, who is dishonest to the core and slinked away from his losing bet on the Zimmerman Affair.
But we need some definitions in this challenge.
What bet was that, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson?
DeletePlease post a link to it.
As to Rufus's bet, November of 2014 does not qualify, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
DeletePatrol
A detachment of ground, sea or air forces sent out for the purposes of gathering information or carrying out a destructive, harassing, mopping-up, or security mission
http://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=4014
Definition of the United States Department of Defense military term "patrol ".
DeleteAnd, of course, the "boundaries" would be the "city limits" of Ramadi.
Delete
DeleteIt is interesting that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson raises to the call for lovers of the Islamic State to respond.
I knew he was a sympathizer, but now Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson acknowledges going well beyond sympathy for the Islamic State. He has a soft spot in his heart for them
As does Turkey, Arabia and the USA
DeleteRufus IISun Apr 19, 08:47:00 PM EDT
ReplyDeleteFrom TODAY, Dipshit.
**************
From today. Good, and that clarifies that, Dipshit.
Not knowing where the City Limits of Ramadi might be, I wonder if Your Honor will accept a photo that says 'taken in Ramadi' ?
I'll work on it, but probably not tonight. I have no idea what I might find.
Still need a working definition of 'patrol', though.
Dipshit rat's definition there indicates any ground forces moving around, basically.
But the challenge is from you, Rufus, and not rat'sass.
Why rat'sass is intruding into your challenge that way is hard to understand.......until one becomes familiar with rat'sass.
And no, as I've said 10 times, I have no sympathy whatsoever for ISIS.
If I could electrocute them all, I would.
Go fuck yourself, rat'sass.
A lot going on in Al-Karma, also.
ReplyDelete(IraqiNews.com) Baghdad – On Sunday, Baghdad Operations Command announced that 59 terrorists have been either killed or injured by army forces during the military operation ‘Fajr al-Karma’ in the district of al-Karma, located in east of Fallujah.
Baghdad Operations Command said in a statement obtained by IraqiNews.com “Our forces, with direct and field supervision from the commander of Baghdad Operations, conducted a number of counter operations to liberate the rest of al-Karma district and its surrounding areas for the 5th day in a row during the military operation ‘Fajr al-Karma,’”
“The operations resulted in killing 54 terrorists and wounding 5 others, in addition to treating 25 booby-trapped houses and destroying an armored vehicle that carried a machine-gun.”
Mo' Daid
From TODAY.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....thinking on that......I doubt I could find a picture 'From TODAY' immediately as the wire services etc might not have any yet.
But surely you mean from today or sometime in the more or less near future ?
That sounds fair enough. Two weeks, a month - I will do my best.
It is hard to get a feel for what is going on in Ramadi. One report I posted had ISIS near the center of the city. Others have had them in the city...other reports have other info.....
But I will work on it.
And if I prove you wrong, the payment is hereby forgiven in advance.
DeleteYou are overly optimistic, most of the time.
This is the reason you get licked at poker at Doyle's.
Just recently - rat'sass will recall - our blog's pathological liar was resisting paying on the Zimmerman bet on the grounds that the Feds had not returned Zimmerman's gun to Zimmerman.
ReplyDeleteNow however we have it very clearly announced by the Justice Department that they are not pursuing an indictment against Z for any civil rights violations for lack of any evidence whatsoever.
Soon, rat'sass will be denying his World Famous Iraq ISIS free by Memorial Day 2015 Prediction.
Pathological lying is listed as a psychopathology by the the folks that are in the psychology business.
Rufus is honest. He has admitted Iraq is not going to be ISIS free by the 4th of July, 2015. He still maintains Iraq will be ISIS free sometime in the future. He may be right about that. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I see it in the cards but who knows.
Everyone has your number, ratass.
ReplyDeleteWe all know you are a liar.
How's that super secret project off the coasts of Panama coming along ?
Now Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson just provide the link to this supposed exchange concerning Zimmerman.
DeleteYou are correct about our discussing the weapon, wrong about the bet.
Prove yourself, or don't, but it is on you to provide the proof that there was a wager made.
Jack, we all know you are incapable of admitting any error of consequence. It's your personality defect...
DeleteBut you make so many errors, everyday, it's hard to keep up with them all....
We went to Handel's Israel in Egypt today. Really well sung. Wasn't outside, was in a very nice older Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteGreat music, if you like that sort of thing.
I'd rather listen to country/western day in and day out, though.
As to the moral character of our contributors ...
Deletebob Thu May 27, 12:52:00 AM EDT
But I did rip off the bank for $7500 hundred dollars, when I was on my knees, and fighting for my economic life, on my aunt's credit card. But that wasn't really stealing, just payback. …
...
They couldn't do a damn thing about it, I put her in the rest home, age 96. What you going to do, when she is institutionalized?
I notice no link....
Deleteno link?
no proof...
why not put the entire quote with link up?
scared?
Blast from the past...
ReplyDeleteSalaadMon May 02, 02:22:00 AM EDT
When I watched the aircraft crash into the WTC I was horrified. All my sympathies were with the people of America. If the USA had been able to destroy Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden then and there I would felt that justice had been done and would have been delighted. Today when I hear of the assasination of Osama Bin Laden I feel that this leader of an evil terrorist group deserved his fate, but I feel very flat.
The reason I don't feel overjoyed is that in the intervening years USA has become an even bigger and more ruthless terrorist organisation than Al Qaeda. USA roams the world killing anyone, anywhere with impunity. The USA and it's compliant allies have caused a thousand times more deaths than Al Qaeda.
What we are hearing about is the displacement of one terrorist group by another, worse, evil.
So we have now bombed Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon
How many terrorists have we created?
Who do you mean by "we", "O"rdure?
DeleteIf by 'we' you mean the Zionists of ISrael, a few hundred thousand, at a minimum.
DeleteThere is no other group you have stated any public allegiance to.
Jack, you know I am an American, after all you stalked me for a decade...
Deletethat is the WE...
America has created millions of newly minted terrorists....
:)
It's amazing to see how stupid you can be, year after year....
Here's a report from four days ago -
ReplyDelete"The situation in Ramadi remains fluid and, as with earlier assessments, the security situation in the city is contested. >>>>The ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] continue to conduct clearing operations against ISIL-held areas in the city<<<<< and in the surrounding areas of Al Anbar province,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Army Major Curt Kellogg said in a statement, using the government’s preferred acronym for ISIS. The coalition continues to coordinate with ISF forces and provide operational support as requested.”
>>>>The ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] continue to conduct clearing operations against ISIL-held areas in the city<<<<<
Alas, no photos in this report !
But surely one can see from this report that there must be ISIS fighters in Ramadi or the ISF would not be trying to conduct clearing operations against them.
Upside Down 04.15.158:00 PM ET
ISIS’ Attack on Ramadi Just Upended U.S. War Plans
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/15/isis-attack-on-ramadi-just-upended-u-s-war-plans.html
Four day ago, that's ancient history in combat, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
DeleteThe bet is for TODAY in the city, not the areas around it.
Photographic evidence is required, not nonconfirmable verbal reports.
Or we would have to believe that the Islamic State is overrunning El Paso, TX.
Which they are not.
Another workin' day for me tomorrow, got to be up early.
DeleteI'm turning in.
Cheers !!
As with your claims that 'Generals' advised against US fulfilling MR GW Bush's Executive Agreement with the government of Iraq concerning US combat troops in Iraq and their being subject to Sharia Law if those troops remained in Iraq.
DeleteWithout names, dates, form and forum, the reports are just unverified rumors.
Iraq is famous for providing unreliable reporting to the US media.
From reports of Saddam's WMDs, to Mr Cheney saying that US troops would be met as liberators.
No report with evidence can be taken at face value, you have to supply the evidence.
That's the bet.
No report without evidence can be taken at face value, you have to supply the evidence.
Delete
DeleteDefector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
• Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons
• Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime
• Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war
You have to provide photographic evidence, Robert "Draft dodger" Peterson, not unconfirmed reporting...
changing the terms of the bet, after the fact...
Deletethere was no mention of "today"
typical of jack, changing the words after the fact when caught in a jam...
liar liar pants on fire...
jack, the readers are giggling at your amateurish shenanigans...
Just laughing at you...
what a putz they say..
fool
braggart
liar...
lol
Jack "Putz" Hawkins, fool, braggart, liar......
DeleteI like it.
Jack "Putz" Hawkins, fool, braggart, liar with nose long as a telephone wire...
DeleteI like it.
.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the timestamped link, evidencing that Obumble put up the claim you reference here, rat?
As with your claims that 'Generals' advised against US fulfilling MR GW Bush's Executive Agreement with the government of Iraq concerning US combat troops in Iraq and their being subject to Sharia Law if those troops remained in Iraq.
As someone once said,
Without names, dates, form and forum, the reports are just unverified rumors.
and I would like to see if anyone is stupid enough to say that US generals would say that 'US combat troops should be subject to Sharia Law while in Iraq'. Pictures would be nice too, if available.
.
:):)
Deleterat - o doesn't deal in unverified rumors, only in facts, like for instance that the entire US Congress is run by the Jews.
Deletebwabwahaha
And I don't see where Rufus has designated rat-o his spokesman on this challenge. If he were to do so, that would be one thing, but I don't see where he has, so rat-o is really being uncouth, as is his habit in all things, in just assuming the position.
DeleteWell I'll keep working on this challenge, though it won't be today.
DeleteThe real world calls.
Anyone else want in on the challenge ?
Ruf says there's a cool thousand $$$$ out there for anyone can find a picture of ISIS folk in Ramadi after yesterday.
Definitely might worth your time.
Why sure enough, Legionnaire, I can find where Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson said that Mr Obama pulled the troops out to soon. No problem with that.
DeleteI can find where he said that the Generals advised that.
No problem with that.
The rest, he never provided, because the "Generals" never said it.
That is the point.
Here it is, Legionnaire Q.
DeleteRobert "Draft Dodger" Peterson claiming that "the Generals advised us that US troops should have remained in Iraq.
That Mr Obama should not have carried out the Executive Agreement that Mr GW Bush signed with the Iraqi government. By fulfilling Mr Bush's agreement he claims Mr Obama became one of the worse Presidents, ever.
Idaho BobSun Apr 19, 06:19:00 AM EDT
O'bozo has made The National Interest's list of 5 Worst USA Wartime Presidents -
America's 5 Worst Wartime Presidents
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-5-worst-wartime-presidents-12668
Reply
Idaho BobSun Apr 19, 06:22:00 AM EDT
Mostly, though not totally, for the same reason I've cited:
Taking the troops out of Iraq way too soon, against the advice of the Generals.
So that now we have seven devils worse than the first.
.
DeleteNo pictures?
I see nothing about him saying the generals say that the troops should be under Sharia law.
And as for that point, maybe you should go back and look at what the Bush SOFA actually says before mouthing off.
.
Follow the thread, below, Legionnaire Q.
Delete.
DeleteI'll get into the rest of your statement when I get back from the car dealership.
.
Unless you can tell us which Generals Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson was referring to, Legionnaire, why bother?
DeleteIt occurs to me that the Pope, and Rufus, are pretty much on the same page here. Both are calling for actions against ISIS. The Pope might even be more militant, in fact. We seem to have a 'fighting Pope' here. Nothing wrong in that.
ReplyDeleteThese are strange bedfellows.
While Q doesn't want to be involved at all, if I read him right, and Ash and I are against ground troops, and Deuce's opinion I don't know, and am uncertain about that of WiO.
I hold out for helping the Kurds if they should need it, and the providing them with arms.
And according to d. rat's prediction, the whole thing will be over by Memorial Day, just about one month from now, anyway. There will be no more ISIS in Iraq after that blessed date due to the magic of the 'rat Doctrine'.
Seems a very strange blend of opinions.
ROME — People may still be trying to parse Pope Francis’ ambivalent language about U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in a recent press conference, but Iraq’s Vatican ambassador says the pope has put his weight behind military action where it really counted.
ReplyDeleteWithout Francis, says Al-Sadr Habeeb Mohammed Hadi Ali, it’s possible nobody would have stepped up at all.
“If it wasn’t for the pope’s insistent call to the international community, no one would have moved into stopping ISIS,” said Al-Sadr, who’s been his country’s envoy to the pope since 2010.
He spoke in an exclusive interview with Crux.
On his way home from South Korea in mid-August, Francis delivered a mixed verdict on the current U.S. offensive, saying it’s “legitimate” to stop an unjust aggressor, but warning this doesn’t necessarily mean dropping bombs and expressing a preference for U.N. authorization.
Al-Sadr, however, argued that the big picture is Francis’ “repeated call to the international community to intervene and to support the country in the midst of the present plight.”
Advertisement
“This group is an international danger, and the world will suffer if they are not stopped,” he said. “It’s good that the pope is speaking up.”
The ambassador said both the Iraqi government and the country’s religious leaders appreciate the firmness of Pope Francis, as well as his spiritual support.
In the wake of recent media reports that Pope Francis himself might be an ISIS target, al-Sadr didn’t play down those concerns.
“I have no doubt that a terrorist organization as ISIS, with such a criminal record of destruction, murdering, ethnic ‘purification,’ that considers human trafficking as a norm, can be a threat to His Holiness,” he said.
“They believe all Christians are infidels,” he said. “Their destruction and violation of holy and sacred shrines in Iraq confirms their [capacity for] atrocity"...............
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/04/iraq-envoy-francis-call-for-action-against-isis-was-critical/
Now, I did ask Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson to reference his remarks about the Generals and the advise they supposedly gave ...
ReplyDeleteTypical of Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson he never did provide us with that reference, because I do not think that the Generals ever provided that advise. I do believe that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson was merely making it up.
But since, Legionnaire Q, you asked for the timestamped reference, there it is.
Jut the most current rendition of Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson claims that the US should not have fulfilled President GW Bush's Executive Agreement with the Iraqi and withdrawn US combat forces from Iraq. Which, by extension, means that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson thinks that Mr Obama should have acquiesced to the Iraqi demand that if US combat troops remained in Iraq that they be subject to Iraqi law.
Iraqi law, which since Iraq is an Islamic Republic means Sharia Law.
Delete{;-)
The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq began in December 2007 with the end of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and was completed by December 2011, bringing an end to the Iraq War. The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq peaked at 170,300 in November 2007.
Delete...
The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory"
...
2008 U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
In 2008 the American and Iraqi governments signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, after being sought by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government. It included a specific date, 30 June 2009, by which American forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities, and a complete withdrawal date from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011.
On 14 December 2008 then-President George W. Bush signed the security agreement with Iraq. In his fourth and final trip to Iraq, President Bush appeared in a televised news conference with Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to celebrate the agreement and applauded security gains in Iraq saying that just two years ago "such an agreement seemed impossible"
I put up a whole long list of articles for you to read on the subject, you pathological liar.
DeleteGo fuck yourself.
Why Deuce allows you to hang around this place is beyond me.
The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1]
DeleteU.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity.
If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.
Those "undecided procedures" were, at the time, referred to as "Iraqi criminal law", which is Sharia Law since Iraq is an Islamic Republic.
Which Generals, from what countries, at what time, in what form and forum advised that the US should not have fulfilled Mr Bush's agreement with the Iraqi government?
DeleteThat was the question put to Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, it remains the question.
The rodent having arrived, and it being 6 a.m., I am heading to the showers, then off to work.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the rodent is here nothing will be seriously discussed.
Cheers !!
Robert "Draft dodger" Peterson, once again refuses to provide the answer.
DeleteWhat Generals advised that Mr Obama should not have fulfilled the US-Iraqi Agreement signed by GW Bush?
Which Generals advised that Mr Obama should not have fulfilled the US-Iraqi Agreement signed by GW Bush?
DeleteOne word or the other should suffice.
The question was first asked yesterday, there is no "long list" of articles posted since then which provide an answer.
DeleteRobert "Draft Dodger" Peterson is in the throes of delusional hallucinations, again.
Thinking he has done something that, obviously, was not done.
April 20, 2015
ReplyDeleteMedia Ignoring ISIS in Mexico
By Brian C Joondeph
ISIS is operating training bases just across the US southern border according to a report last week in Judicial Watch. Specifically the base is about 8 miles from the Texas border near Ciujad Juaraz in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Mexican officials found documents in Arabic, schematic plans for the US Army’s Fort Bliss, and Muslim prayer rugs.................
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/media_ignoring_isis_in_mexico.html#ixzz3Xr3BoVUo
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
US media ignoring what is not happening, what there is no evidence of.
DeleteAn unconfirmed report, citing unnamed Mexican sources is not evidence, plain and simple.
But it is true that confirmed reports of beheadings, riots and even civil insurrection in Mexico goes unreported in the US media.
DeleteEven if true, a prayer rug is not evidence of the Islamic State operating in Mexico, it is evidence of a Muslim that quit praying.
DeleteBob,
DeleteYour regular posting of AM articles highlights your naiveté and your apparent willingness to swallow what they say whole cloth emphasizes your lack of critical thinking skills. AM has been shown to be categorically wrong to you yet you persist in believing them - why?
Here is a little bit of research done regarding those 'ISIS base in Mexico' claims:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/apr/17/judicial-watch/judicial-watch-says-isis-has-camp-mexico-and-near-/
Mexico, Shemexico....
DeleteIn Ohio, this is the most recent of a dozens of arrests
http://nypost.com/2015/04/16/isis-trained-ohio-man-was-ordered-to-attack-us-feds/
We've had our malls targeted, our schuls, our schools.....
There are "camps" "compounds" and safe houses across the USA, Mexico and CANADA....
denial aint just a river in Egypt....
The report comes from Judicial Watch, Ash, not American Thinker.
DeleteI just posted it. As did American Thinker.
Being unable to distinguish these nuances highlights your naivete' and your lack of thinking skills.
American Thinker has some wonderful writers, many of them black and Hispanic, lots of women, the whole Smorgasbord.
None there have been so stupid as to predict Iraq to be ISIS free by Memorial Day 2015, by the way, or even the 4th of July, 2015.
Neither are they anti-semitic, which is always refreshing after coming from this bar.
A hot shower feels great in the morning.
Yeah, Judicial Watch cites two anonymous sources, AM Thinker cites Judicial Watch and you sop it up demonstrating, yet again, your critical thinking skills.
Deleteand to top it off you moan about the main stream media "ignoring' the story. It makes one laugh and one isn't laughing with you.
DeleteI haven't moaned about the main stream media ignoring the story.
DeleteYou are the one that is moaning because I posted something about it twice.
Quit moaning, and grow up.
Stop it.
Or, as my daddy used to say, PIPE DOWN.
And if you don't, Mr. President, I may be forced to go behind your back and have you impeached. I have friends in high places, many of them. Then I will be President. How will you like them apples ?
DeleteHave a great day.
DeleteOut the door.....
Cheers !!
.
ReplyDeleteJack HawkinsMon Apr 20, 09:46:00 AM EDT
Unless you can tell us which Generals Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson was referring to, Legionnaire, why bother?
Why bother?
Merely to, once again, point out the bullshit you throw around this blog everyday. Yesterday, you put up numerous posts arguing that sources weren't adequate, that they weren't real time, that there were no pictures. Then you give us this,
As with your claims that ‘Generals’ advised against US fulfilling MR GW Bush’s Executive Agreement with the government of Iraq concerning US combat troops in Iraq and their being subject to Sharia Law if those troops remained in Iraq.
At that point, I asked you to back up your comment with Obumble's post showing the claim you allege. In response, you give us this,
Taking the troops out of Iraq way too soon, against the advice of the Generals.
I see nothing in Bob's statement about Sharia law. And anyone who has been here for any length of time, understands Bob's comment referred to a new SOFA under Obama that would have extended beyond 2011 and not to the SOFA negotiated by Bush.
I can only assume you are once again just pulling this argument out of your ass to stir the pot, that you are misrepresenting Bob's statement for your own ends, that you just haven't been following the arguments here that closely, or once again, that your reading and comprehension skills suffer from the English-as-a-second-language syndrome.
.
.
DeleteAs to the generals,
As of last month, about 46,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq. Unless the two governments agree to a continuing U.S. troop presence, all but a few will be withdrawn by year's end under a 2008 agreement reached with the Iraqis by the George W. Bush administration.
As the deadline nears, some senior U.S. and Iraqi officials warn that Iraq's army and police, despite billions of dollars in aid from Washington and its allies, will be unable to contain sectarian violence or prevent neighboring Iran from expanding its operations if U.S. forces are drawn down too far.
Pentagon officials had presented the White House with proposals to leave a larger force with greater responsibilities. But Obama's aides have rebuffed those plans, arguing that Washington can maintain influence in Baghdad through arms sales and diplomatic engagement, rather than a large troop presence.
Privately, some commanders worry about an increase in violence if U.S. and Iraqi special operations forces are made to scale back joint raids against militants, a strategy that has helped lower violence since the bloodiest period of the war in 2006 and 2007.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/world/la-fg-iraq-troops-20110907
In 2011, the arguments between the White House and the generals weren't about whether a residual force of US troops should stay in Iraq after 2011, they were about how many should stay and what their mission should be. Until the 11th hour, everyone assumed there would be troops staying. The Pentagon, the military, the White House, and even the Iraqis thought there would be troops staying.
It was only at the 11th hour that negotiations were cut off and that for political reasons.
.
The comments yesterday were in reference to Rufus's bet, Legionnaire Q.
DeleteIt had nothing to do with anything else, but the bet.
You are correct, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson does not speak of the consequences of his statements, nor the background to the policies implemented by the United States.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson has stated that Mr Obama made a great error by adhering to the Executive Agreement made by President GW Bush with the Iraqi government. He has made that clear, starting back in August of 2014 and the ISIL assault on Iraq.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson ignores the realities of the negotiations that the Bush administration had with the Iraqi government. Ignores and will not address that US troops would have been subject to Sharia Law if the policy he advocates for had been followed.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson refuses to name the Generals he says advised that the United States should have abrogated the Executive Agreement entered into by GW Bush with the Iraqi government.
Have a great day, Legionnaire.
.
DeleteI have argued right along that Obumble is wrong in his assertion that troops should have been left behind in Iraq. In my opinion they would have had no influence on what happened in Iraq subsequent to 2011 especially at the levels the White House was talking about, 3,000 troops for training purposes.
That is still my opinion.
However, there is no reason to believe that Obama couldn't have negotiated a SOFA with Iraq. His excuse that he couldn't do it because to do so would have exposed them to Iraqi law is lame. First, we already have SOFA's with a number of other countries that allow for the host countries trials of servicemen who commit off-duty crimes although sometimes, as with the Bush's SOFA, it allows the US to keep the serviceman in US custody until time of trial. And second, at the small number of troops Obama was considering he could have simply put them under State Department control thus giving them diplomatic immunity. Besides, most of these agreements are written in such general and indeterminate terms that it gives the flexibility for the countries to avoid any major diplomatic conflicts.
That being said, though I don't blame Obama for not keeping troops in Iraq, I do blame him to some extent for not standing up to Malawi and in fact giving tacit approval to the moves Malawi made that strengthened the sectarian divide in Iraq. After 2011, Obama pretty much washed his hands of what was going in Iraq although some of it was blatant.
.
.
Deletes/b al Maliki
.
It was my impression the Iraq wanted US troops out and they were firm in their demand that if any remained they be subject to Iraqi law. I don't believe Obama used that as a "lame" excuse but rather it was the case and, I also believe, it suited Obama's desire to get the troops out of Iraq.
DeleteMr Bush had already signed an agreement, what reason did Mr Obama have to renegotiate it?
DeleteWhat evidence was there that the Iraqi wanted US troops in their country and would have renegotiated the terms?
What was the US national interest in having US combat troops remain there, especially when the Iraqi did not want US there?
If the Iraqi would not renegotiate the terms, then US troops would have been subject to Sharia Law.
DeleteThis is the position that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson is continually advocating Mr Obama should have acquiesced to.
Putting US troops under Sharia Law.
.
DeleteThat is the meme pushed by Obama and his supporters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html
But negotiations ultimately broke down over the issue of legal immunity for any remaining troops, which was an imperative for the Pentagon and a deal-breaker for the Iraqis, who after nearly nine years of U.S. military presence wanted no more infringements on their sovereignty.
As a result, Obama had no choice but to make the announcement he did on October 21. "As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," he said.
However, while I fully agree with the second part of your statement, as I noted above there were ways to get around immunity issue if it was necessary and the Pentagon still works for the President as far as I know.
As I've stated numerous times, I'm glad Obama didn't keep troops in Iraq, however, in IMO, his excuses for not doing it are a bit self-serving. On the one hand, he uses the 'I ended the war in Iraq' as a campaign talking point and on the other he now says he had no choice but to pull the troops out. You can't have it both ways.
Both Obama and al Maliki had political problems in negotiating the SOFA; however, if either really wanted it, they could have managed the negotiations and got one. Obama wanted to wash his hands of Iraq and he did so.
.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson remains steadfast in his claim that the Generals advised against the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq.
DeleteYet Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson cannot provide us with the name of a single General
.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson refuses to tell us the names of these Generals, what country they were from, what form and forum the advise was given in.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson is either being purposefully obtuse, delusional or is flat out lying when he makes that claim.
.
DeleteI was responding to Ash's post.
.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson has not provided us with a "long list of articles" that provide that information, as he says he did.
DeleteRobert "Draft Dodger" Peterson is either delusional or is flat out lying when he makes that claim.
.
DeleteYet Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson cannot provide us with the name of a single General
Bullshit.
Until October 21, 2011, the generals all expected that there would be troops left in Iraq. It wasn't a specific general speaking, it was the Pentagon speaking, Panetta (and Gates before him) and the Joint Chiefs. They were arguing for a new SOFA and more residual troops than Obama was pushing for. When the negotiations were ended, there were only a couple months left on the original SOFA. It was dead as of the end of 2011.
The arguments weren't over whether troops would remain in Iraq. That was assumed. The argument was over how many. The link I provided above describes some of the arguments that were going on at the time.
.
Maj. Gen. W.E. Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province
ReplyDeleteGen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division
>>>>"The Army generals in Iraq believe that it is only now that they are implementing the right strategy for securing the country, so they deserve more time to do the job right, despite the four years of failure," said Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.<<<<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072100259.html
Looks like Quirk has you figured, rathole.
All you do is pass gas.
Jack HawkinsMon Apr 20, 09:46:00 AM EDT
DeleteUnless you can tell us which Generals Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson was referring to, Legionnaire, why bother?
Why bother?
Merely to, once again, point out the bullshit you throw around this blog everyday. Yesterday, you put up numerous posts arguing that sources weren't adequate, that they weren't real time, that there were no pictures.
***********
QuirkMon Apr 20, 01:13:00 PM EDT
.
Yet Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson cannot provide us with the name of a single General
Bullshit.
Until October 21, 2011, the generals all expected that there would be troops left in Iraq. It wasn't a specific general speaking, it was the Pentagon speaking, Panetta (and Gates before him) and the Joint Chiefs.
*************
Yup, ratass is just full of bullshit, that's all.
The Pentagon does not speak, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
DeleteIf there was a spokesperson for the Department of Defense that said the Generals advised Mr Bush not sign the SOFA with Iraq, and advised Mr Obama not to adhere to it, there would be a record of that.
Please provide it, if it exists.
Panetta was no General, so he does not qualify under your statement.
If the Joint Chiefs issued a statement, provide a link to it, or quote it.
But you cannot do that, can you?
It does not exist, you are delusional, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute Did not speak for the Pentagon, is not an Army General.
DeleteYou two provide a quote that is not germain to the question, is not a General and did not speak for them in any official manner.
Just more spin, from a person who you did not reference, who is not, in any form or function, a US General.
Legionnaire Q falls short, as is his wont.
You two provide a quote that is not germain to the question, from a person that is not a General and did not speak for them in any official manner
DeleteA quote fro a civilian about what they project as the opinions of others...
DeleteThat is just spin, or in the parlance of the Elephant Bar ...
... BULLSHIT
Provide a quote from a single General, stating that Mr Bush and Mr Obama were wrong.
DeleteA quote that says they advised the President to not adhere to the Executive Agreement that Mr Bush signed.
Either Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson or Legionnaire Q can provide that quote, if it exists.
DeleteAn dollar to a doughnut that neither of them can.
They are just blowing smoke ...
DeleteLegionnaire Q, because he feels a "Responsibility to Protect"
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson because he is delusional and is doing all he can to grasp that last straw of self respect.
Come on, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, gives us a quote from a single US General that confirms your claim.
DeleteJust one ...
You cannot do it, Legionnaire could not do it ...
We do not need the opinion of civilians to tell us what the Generals are thinking ...
That is not what you told us, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
You said the Generals advised ...
Prove it, or admit you are delusional.
On another note ...
ReplyDeleteAnother day has gone by, Ramadi is still in the hands of the Iraqi government.
.
ReplyDeleteAs early as 2009, various generals were trying to convince Obama to change his plans for withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2011.
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html
.
There are indications ...
DeleteThat is not a quote, Legionnaire.
It does not say that they were advising Mr Obama to not adhere to the SOFA signed by Mr Bush.
Now, if this is an accurate report, the mobilization effort, by this supposed network of senior military officers should be available.
Let's see it.
If it is not available, then it is another indication that the report is false.
Since the Huffington piece is from 2009 you ought to be able to access whatever effort was made, not just a report of an effort going to be made.
Find the quotes fro the Generals.
DeleteFind the quotes from the Generals.
You are still just providing spinmiester BS, Legionnaire.
No advise from a General, just reports about what they were thinking.
Gareth Porter is not a General.
DeleteWas not in 2009, is not today.
Where is the supposed report?
DeleteWhat was the title?
When was it delivered to the President?
What were the recommendations made in the report, if there really was one?
DeleteReports of what is going to happen, they are hardly ever accurate, after the fact.
DeleteThe report, if it was written, contained the advise of the Generals to the President.
DeleteThe Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".
DeleteSo, at the time of the article General Odierno had not provided any advise, he states quite clearly that they were still developing 'the plan'.
No statement at all, by either General, that they had advised Mr Obama to abandon the SOFA signed by Mr Bush.
Delete"... slower than the campaign timetable ..."
DeleteThat does not reference the SOFA, either.
Does not state that the US should abandon the SOFA timetable, agreed to by Mr Bush and the Iraqi government.
Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account.
DeleteObviously Woodward's account does not jibe with history, because in 2008 Mr Bush signed the SOFA timetable with the Iraqi government. That signature cancelled whatever 'guarantee' he had made that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted.
Jack ratass, you are exhausting yourself.
DeleteYou are distraught.
It is time for some 'beauty sleep'.
Stop it.
Pipe down now, go to your room, and go to bed.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, you should address the issue you brought up, or leave the forum.
Delete.
DeleteRat, now you are being argumentative and childish. Next, you will be asking for pictures and signed affidavits.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday during her regular daily briefing that the U.S. 'didn’t have the requirements needed to leave our troops there' at the time.'
The administration, she said, 'was certainly committed to doing everything we could to secure the requirements needed to have forces there. Obviously, we were unable to do that.'
Panetta disagrees, writing that the administration ignored 'leverage' the U.S. had over al-Maliki in the form of reconstruction aid dollars.
'My fear, as I voiced to the President and others,' he writes, 'was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S.'
'I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.'
But although the Joint Chiefs of Staff and military commanders on the ground in Iraq agreed, 'the president’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated.'
'Those on our side,' Panetta says, 'viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2778923/Former-Pentagon-chief-says-Defense-State-Departments-argued-troops-stay-Iraq-Obama-White-House-eager-rid-war.html#ixzz3XubXmfBU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Panetta, at the time, was Secretary of Defense. The Joint Chiefs and the other military in DOD were under him. If you don't know who the Joint Chiefs or the military commanders in Iraq were at the time, look it up. Also, look up their responsibilities. Among those for the Joint Chiefs, for instance, is to act as advisers to the SOD. If you want specific quotes from the military commanders look up their testimony at their confirmation hearings before Congress.
You act like a six year old.
.
.
DeleteNo advise from a General, just reports about what they were thinking.
That is the only way you will get information on presidential staff meetings and what was said in them. It took decades to get confidential info about earlier presidencies from official sources. The only way we usually get this information earlier is when something is leaked, or released through Congressional inquires, or when one of the participants writes a book, ala Panetta.
I would have thought you would have know that.
.
Here is where I part company from Quirk -
ReplyDelete>>>I have argued right along that Obumble is wrong in his assertion that troops should have been left behind in Iraq. In my opinion they would have had no influence on what happened in Iraq subsequent to 2011<<<
If we had followed the advice of the Generals we won't be in the current pickle, where a good portion of Iraq is becoming a satrap of Iran.
The evidence for the effectiveness of troops in Iraq is the fact that there was peace (relative peace if you insist, but nothing like today) for three years after the Surge.
No troops = no peace
Ash will have difficulty understanding this, no doubt.
It was only after the troops were taken out that things went south.
Wrong, again, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.
DeleteThings did not go south until after the ISraeli began supporting ISIL, in Syria.
Began flying bombing operations in support of Daesh, began providing medical and material support to the radicals, in their attempt to usurp Assad.
Which we know was well under way in September of 2013, according to Mr Oren, the ISraeli Ambassador to the US.
DeleteLess than a year after Mr Oren made ISrael's position clear, those radicals, supported by the ISraeli, were attacking Iraq.
DeleteAh, 'twas the Jews !!
DeleteGo fuck yourself.
You are a screwball.
A "supervoid".
Leave the Bar in peace from your bullshit for a few hours a day.
Go to bed.
For Christ's sake.
No, Robt "Draft Dodger" Peterson, the Jews had nothing to do with it.
DeleteThe government of ISrael did, though.
That you continue to conflate the two, a case of extreme antisemitism, on your part.
You need to learn that Judaism and ISrael are two different things, entirely.
I am sure that Christ would agree, with me.
DeleteJohn 8:44
DeleteYe are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
.
DeleteThe evidence for the effectiveness of troops in Iraq is the fact that there was peace (relative peace if you insist, but nothing like today) for three years after the Surge.
Nonsense,
1,000 Americans died during that 3 years.
.
ReplyDeleteMysterious 'supervoid' in space is largest object ever discovered, scientists claim
A supervoid has been discovered in the universe which is too big to fit into current models
A strange empty hole has been found in the universe
Sarah Knapton
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
7:09PM BST 20 Apr 20
Astronomers have discovered a curious empty section of space which is missing around 10,000 galaxies.
The ‘supervoid’, which is 1.8 billion light-years across, is the largest known structure ever discovered in the universe but scientists are baffled about what it is and why it is so barren.
It sits in a region of space which is much colder than other parts of the universe and although it is not a vacuum, it seems to have around 20 per cent less matter than other regions.
Although the Big Bang theory allows for areas that are cooler and hotter, the size of the void does not fit with predicted models. Simply put, it is too big to exist.
István Szapudi, of University of Hawaii at Manoa, described the object as possibly “the largest individual structure ever identified by humanity”.
It was picked up using Hawaii’s Pan-STARRS1 (PS1) telescope located on Haleakala, Maui, and Nasa’s Wide Field Survey Explorer (WISE) satellite.
Mars may hold liquid water raising hopes of alien life
The latest study suggests that the ‘supervoid’ may be draining energy from light travelling through, which is why the area around it is so cold.
Getting through such a big hole takes hundreds of millions of years, even at the speed of light, and photons of light slow down as they cross because the universe – and therefore the void - is continually expanding.
However the scientists claim that the void can only account for around 10 per cent the temperature drop in the cold spot.
“It just pushed the explanation one layer deeper,” said Dr Roberto Trotta, a cosmologist at Imperial College London.
Dark matter may not be completely dark after all
The supervoid is only about 3 billion light-years away from Earth, a relatively short distance in the cosmic scheme of things.
“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest.
“This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”
The researchers report their findings in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11550868/Giant-mysterious-empty-hole-found-in-universe.html
Names have been suggested by star watchers for the supervoid.
Among those mentioned:
Mosul
Saudi Arabia
Detroit
Philly
The Rat's Mind
The Blog-o-Sphere
Mississippi
And last but not least -
Democratic Party Headquarters
Feel free to make your own creative contribution to the Name The Supervoid Contest !
DeleteIf you fellas are going to trot out the supposed position of General P, without even a direct quote ...
ReplyDeletePetraeus has always shied away from politics, but in a new book he is quoted lavishing so much praise on Hillary Clinton, he seems to be endorsing her as a candidate for President.
"She'd make a tremendous president,"
Petraeus says in the new book "HRC" by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes.
And for Petraeus, Exhibit A in why she would be a tremendous president is the very thing for which Republicans most aggressively attack Clinton: her performance as Secretary of State when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked.
"Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times," Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes.
"In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/did-petraeus-just-endorse-hillary-clinton/
So, if we are to take the 'advise' of General P, then we need to what he said.
He may be an authority, so what did he have to say ...
DeleteGeneral P does not seem to be shy about letting his 'feelings' known.
If he gave Mr Obama advise, it surely is in print.
His feelings about Mrs Clinton competency certainly are.
.
DeleteMore nonsense.
We saw what happened the last time a military commander went public with his disagreements with his Commander-in Chief. Stan McChrystal no doubt regrets his moment of public honesty.
As for Petraeus, he is still acting as adviser to Obama. I doubt he will go public with criticism of Obama until Obama is out of office.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/16/politics/david-petraeus-isis-white-house-adviser/
Panetta has nothing to lose at this time and what he was talking about just isn't that controversial. In 2011, there were nearly 1,000 generals and flag officers in the US military. To assume that none of these were advising that a residual force be left in Iraq after 2011 is to my mind crazy. Others noted above, have said the same things Panetta claims. Obama has never denied it. He merely states the Iraqis refused to negotiate a deal.
You are just beating a dead horse, rat.
.
.
As for ...
ReplyDeleteGareth Porter (@GarethPorter) is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published in February 2014.
If Mr Porter is now an acknowledge 'expert', you best read what he has written about Iran and the "Untold Story".
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson will not approve ...
But he has committed himself to Mr Porter, now.
{;-)
Articles by Gareth Porter
Deletehttp://www.truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/44886
Western news media has feasted on Prime Minister Netanyahu's talk and the reactions to it as a rare political spectacle rich in personalities in conflict. But the real story of Netanyahu's speech is that he is continuing a long tradition in Israeli politics of demonising Iran to advance domestic and foreign policy interests.
DeleteThe history of that practice, in which Netanyahu has played a central role going back nearly two decades, shows that it has been based on a conscious strategy of vastly exaggerating the threat from Iran.
The Long History of Israel Gaming the "Iranian Threat"
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29551-the-long-history-of-israel-gaming-the-iranian-threat
DeleteHistory of Key Document in IAEA Probe Suggests Israeli Forgery
Washington - Western diplomats have reportedly faulted Iran in recent weeks for failing to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with information on experiments on high explosives intended to produce a nuclear weapon, according to an intelligence document the IAEA is investigating.
But the document not only remains unverified but can only be linked to Iran by a far-fetched official account marked by a series of coincidences related to a foreign scientist that that are highly suspicious.
The original appearance of the document in early 2008, moreover, was not only conveniently timed to support Israel's attack on a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran in December that was damaging to Israeli interests, but was leaked to the news media with a message that coincided with the current Israeli argument.
The IAEA has long touted the document, which came from an unidentified member state, as key evidence justifying suspicion that Iran has covered up past nuclear weapons work.
In its September 2008 report the IAEA said the document describes "experimentation in connection with symmetrical initiation of a hemispherical high explosive charge suitable for an implosion type nuclear device."
But an official Iranian communication to the IAEA Secretariat challenged its authenticity, declaring, "There is no evidence or indication in this document regarding its linkage to Iran or its preparation by Iran."
The IAEA has never responded to the Iranian communication.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27030-history-of-key-document-in-iaea-probe-suggests-israeli-forgery
DeleteIf this Gareth Porter is an expert, he certainly is a "God Send".
DeleteHamas Rocket Launches Don't Explain Israel's Gaza Destruction
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26095-hamas-rocket-launches-dont-explain-israels-gaza-destruction
Shroud of Turin to be on public display - I'd sure love to see it -
ReplyDeleteWhy Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science
As the venerated relic goes on public exhibition, its origin remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/
Good summary of the issues of the Shroud of Turin.
Jeremiah 2:5
DeleteThis is what the LORD says: "What fault did your ancestors find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves.
Jonah 2:8
Delete"Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God's love for them"
Again, rat 0 shows his illiteracy.
ReplyDeleteNo one worships the Shroud of Turin.
The Catholic Church doesn't even take a position on its authenticity.
It is an interesting historical artifact of some kind.
That's all the church or anyone else says about it.
.
Delete:o)
For the last couple of weeks, the rat has been quoting the Bible a lot. Is this an indication that he is finally gone one toad over the line and is completely off the rails or, perhaps, that he was so lonely he actually invited in those Jehovah's Witnesses that came to his door and 'wanted to talk'?
.