Posts: 54
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2014
Where is written that President Obama had to keep soldiers in Iraq to keep the previous president's pet project going?
Their government didn't want to keep American troops, so we left. The President isn't emperor of the world. The USA leaving is on Iraq government, and that's a good thing. They can take personal responsibility for the fate of their own country.
Posts: 4,015
Threads: 153
Joined: Jun 2010
06-16-2014, 05:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2014, 06:01 PM by Hugo. Edited 1 time in total.)
(06-16-2014, 05:15 PM)claunde Wrote: Where is written that President Obama had to keep soldiers in Iraq to keep the previous president's pet project going?
Their government didn't want to keep American troops, so we left. The President isn't emperor of the world. The USA leaving is on Iraq government, and that's a good thing. They can take personal responsibility for the fate of their own country.
Not so fast....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...eturn.html
Quote:Obama announces 275 US troops WILL be sent to Iraq to protect American embassy days after saying they would not return.
It's Obama's War, now.
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
06-16-2014, 06:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2014, 06:38 PM by PonderThis. Edited 1 time in total.)
(06-16-2014, 02:22 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: (06-16-2014, 11:35 AM)PonderThis Wrote: I don't want to see them either, but I think it's important to remember that Iraq had a functioning, intact government and infrastructure before we invited ourselves in and proceeded to dismantle it.
I also think is important to remember that American lives and treasure was spent in an attempt to help free the Iraqi people a remove a vicious dictator. Obama was handed over a fairly pacified Iraq when he became president. It was his duty to protect those gains, whether he personally agree with going to war there or not. It was his duty to maintain what was gained. Things were going so well that they even tried to claim credit for it:
Quote:I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.
I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences..... Joe Biden 2010
Obama failed to negotiate an agreement that allowed a residue US force in Iraq. That decision like all his decisions, was not a strategic decision it was based on politics. He needed the "i got our troops out of Iraq" soundbite for his 2012 re-election run. He refused to listen to his generals, instead choosing the advice of his political advisers.
You're right, it sounds like Obama himself is acting like a vicious dictator.
Say, that gives me an idea here. You don't suppose China and Russia could be blamed if they got together and swapped out our government and infrastructure, do you???
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
I hear Putin had a dream where God told him to invade us, anyway. Just like in George's dream.
Posts: 4,926
Threads: 34
Joined: Nov 2013
(06-16-2014, 05:59 PM)Hugo Wrote: Not so fast....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...eturn.html
Quote:Obama announces 275 US troops WILL be sent to Iraq to protect American embassy days after saying they would not return.
It's Obama's War, now.
Nope. Our embassy has extraterritorial status like any other embassy. So we are sort'a sending troops to our "other house" which happens to be overseas.
Besides, weren't you one of the folks that got all exersized because troops weren't sent to Benghazi? You're pretty hard to please.
Posts: 4,015
Threads: 153
Joined: Jun 2010
06-16-2014, 07:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2014, 08:18 PM by Hugo. Edited 3 times in total.)
Let's put the post I was responding to in here for context:
Quote:Claunde said: Where is written that President Obama had to keep soldiers in Iraq to keep the previous president's pet project going?
Their government didn't want to keep American troops, so we left. The President isn't emperor of the world. The USA leaving is on Iraq government, and that's a good thing. They can take personal responsibility for the fate of their own country.
(06-16-2014, 07:12 PM)Cuzz Wrote: (06-16-2014, 05:59 PM)Hugo Wrote: Not so fast....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...eturn.html
Quote:Obama announces 275 US troops WILL be sent to Iraq to protect American embassy days after saying they would not return.
It's Obama's War, now.
Nope. Our embassy has extraterritorial status like any other embassy. So we are sort'a sending troops to our "other house" which happens to be overseas.
Besides, weren't you one of the folks that got all exersized because troops weren't sent to Benghazi? You're pretty hard to please.
Wow. I find the position you have put me in to be an uncomfortable one.
While I understand that you are comparing the fact that both involved embassies, I am uncomfortable with having to tell you how stupid you are to compare Benghazi with Baghdad.
Perhaps calling you stupid is premature, and I have no need to feel uncomfortable that I have to explain something so obvious. Perhaps you are just ignorant, and don't know any better.
We have embassies all over the world, and some of them are relatively safe, while others are in need of Marines. We have been exercising a WAR in Iraq, and our President proclaimed it OVER and removed protective forces. We were NOT at WAR in Libya, but had forces near enough to help out if anything bad happened. In Libya, the available forces were ORDERED to stand down and NOT help American citizens, who subsequently died.
In Iraq, the decision to leave an embassy UNPROTECTED in a WAR ZONE is at least an ignorant decision, one that he is trying to correct BEFORE it becomes another Benghazi. See, he learned.......
I am not against him sending in troops to our embassy in Baghdad, in order to retrieve our people and get the hell out. I wish he would have done the same in Benghazi.
So you see, the conflict of ideas on these two subjects is not MY conflict, but your own.
Posts: 4,926
Threads: 34
Joined: Nov 2013
(06-16-2014, 07:28 PM)Hugo Wrote: (06-16-2014, 07:12 PM)Cuzz Wrote: (06-16-2014, 05:59 PM)Hugo Wrote: Not so fast....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...eturn.html
Quote:Obama announces 275 US troops WILL be sent to Iraq to protect American embassy days after saying they would not return.
It's Obama's War, now.
Nope. Our embassy has extraterritorial status like any other embassy. So we are sort'a sending troops to our "other house" which happens to be overseas.
Besides, weren't you one of the folks that got all exersized because troops weren't sent to Benghazi? You're pretty hard to please.
We have embassies all over the world, and some of them are relatively safe, while others are in need of Marines. We have been exercising a WAR in Iraq, and our President proclaimed it OVER and removed protective forces.
Actually, the Iraqi's proclaimed it over, for us anyway. They no longer wanted us there. I'm OK with that. We shouldn't have been there to start with.
(06-16-2014, 07:28 PM)Hugo Wrote: We were NOT at WAR in Libya, but had forces near enough to help out if anything bad happened. In Libya, the available forces were ORDERED to stand down and NOT help American citizens, who subsequently died.
Took about a minute to find that is false.
"One allegation was that U.S. officials told the CIA to “stand down” and not go to the aid of the Americans. Top CIA and Defense and State Department officials have denied that."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...z34rZojjG5
(06-16-2014, 07:28 PM)Hugo Wrote: In Iraq, the decision to leave an embassy UNPROTECTED in a WAR ZONE is at least an ignorant decision, one that he is trying to correct BEFORE it becomes another Benghazi. See, he learned.......
I doubt very much if it is unprotected altogether. Though in the current circumstances reinforcements are curtainly called for. The only other option would be to abandon the embassy.
(06-16-2014, 07:28 PM)Hugo Wrote: I am not against him sending in troops to our embassy in Baghdad, in order to retrieve our people and get the hell out. I wish he would have done the same in Benghazi.
So, your prefered solution is to abandon the embassy?
(06-16-2014, 07:28 PM)Hugo Wrote: So you see, the conflict of ideas on these two subjects is not MY conflict, bur your own.
I don't have any conflict. How about you?
Posts: 5,103
Threads: 262
Joined: May 2013
(06-16-2014, 05:15 PM)claunde Wrote: Where is written that President Obama had to keep soldiers in Iraq to keep the previous president's pet project going?
Their government didn't want to keep American troops, so we left. The President isn't emperor of the world. The USA leaving is on Iraq government, and that's a good thing. They can take personal responsibility for the fate of their own country.
Claude. Does your mommy know you are on the computer? Your first statement is beyond stupid Not even worth commenting on.
Your second statement continues to show your ignorance. It was the presence of the US military that helped keep the peace in Iraq. Under Saddam the Sunni minority ruled the Shiite majority. After Saddam was given the boot the Shiites took over and admittedly did a poor job of sharing power with the Sunnis. It was a work in progress. The government run by PM Nouri al-Maliki wanted our troops there but he was under political pressure to have our troops under Iraqi jurisdiction if they committed crimes against the Iraqi people. This was brought on my the killing of civilians by the Army Sqt. Bales who murdered 16 people. Obama rightfully balked at this and threatened to pull all our troops if they could not come to an agreement. Obama's generals urged continual negotiations to reach a status of force deal. They knew to importance of having a military presence in Iraq. The figure was approx. 10,000 troops. Instead of listening to his generals Obama listened to his political advisers. They wanted all our troops out so Obama could go on the campaign trial and say he ended the Iraq War and brought all our troops home. The war was already over and he used Maliki's demands as an excuse to pull out all our troops leaving a void, a void that everyone knew was going to be filled by someone. The fear was Iran would fill the void and they still ultimately might as they like current government in Iraq are fellow Shiites, are starting to send troops to fight ISIS, a Sunni terror group intent on making Syria and Iraq a Sunni Caliphate. To say that the Iraqi government did not want our troops there is plain ignorance on your part.
Posts: 54
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2014
Oh man there are Benghazi-truthers here, spewing debunked commentary. Ugh.
Posts: 54
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2014
06-16-2014, 09:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2014, 09:18 PM by claunde. Edited 1 time in total.)
Asking if my "mommy" knows if I'm the computer. OH HO HO. What great sophomoric humor. Where can I attend one of your stand-up routines?
The idea that one President has some kind of duty to continue a pet project of another is absurd. If I'm wrong, tell me how, if I'm right give me some more commentary about how it's not worthy of a response.
Some people in the Iraqi government did want us to stay, but the majority in the Iraqi parliament did not. There weren't enough votes to pass the SOFA. That shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend for you.
Posts: 18,101
Threads: 859
Joined: Feb 2009
(06-16-2014, 01:21 PM)csrowan Wrote: Naked bodies are true, too. Ain't that the truth?
We used to post warnings with a link that had to be clicked to see the gore. What's wrong with doing that?
Posts: 18,298
Threads: 867
Joined: Mar 2011
Why can't we just let those people kill each other, in peace.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(06-16-2014, 10:12 PM)chuck white Wrote: Why can't we just let those people kill each other, in peace.
Obviously the two or three groups aren't capable of governing the country together so why can't they just divide it up and be done with it. They are barely civilized and reject anything modern as western hedonism.
Posts: 18,101
Threads: 859
Joined: Feb 2009
06-16-2014, 10:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2014, 10:40 PM by cletus1. Edited 1 time in total.)
(06-16-2014, 10:26 PM)Valuesize Wrote: (06-16-2014, 10:12 PM)chuck white Wrote: Why can't we just let those people kill each other, in peace.
Obviously the two or three groups aren't capable of governing the country together so why can't they just divide it up and be done with it. They are barely civilized and reject anything modern as western hedonism.
Kurdistan, Sunniraqistan, and shiitiraqistan.
If the US starts bombing the ISIS terrorists, the Iranian leaders and Iran's hard liners will stop chanting death to America. Cool.
Posts: 18,298
Threads: 867
Joined: Mar 2011
(06-16-2014, 10:40 PM)cletus1 Wrote: (06-16-2014, 10:26 PM)Valuesize Wrote: (06-16-2014, 10:12 PM)chuck white Wrote: Why can't we just let those people kill each other, in peace.
Obviously the two or three groups aren't capable of governing the country together so why can't they just divide it up and be done with it. They are barely civilized and reject anything modern as western hedonism.
Kurdistan, Sunniraqistan, and shiitiraqistan.
If the US starts bombing the ISIS terrorists, the Iranian leaders and Iran's hard liners will stop chanting death to America. Cool. We could bomb them all and let Allah sort it out.
Posts: 5,103
Threads: 262
Joined: May 2013
Obama should have listened to Bush, but Obama knows best..
Quote:To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. G.W. Bush 2007
Posts: 18,101
Threads: 859
Joined: Feb 2009
(06-17-2014, 09:32 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Obama should have listened to Bush, but Obama knows best..
Quote:To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. G.W. Bush 2007
You are still unable to think clearly on your own aren't you? The nonsense you are posting is right out of Fox News. It appears that your desire to blame Obama for everything requires you to turn off the critical thinking part of your brain in to satisfy this need.
Do you think that the US is going to change 1,200 years of Sunni Muslim domination of Iraq by having left a few more troops there for a while longer? Don't you know that unless the US permanently occupies Iraq, the Sunnis will never accept rule by the Shiite majority.
George Bush got the US involved in this mess and it is a mess. We need to get out and quit sacrificing American lives on the altar of stupidity.
Posts: 5,103
Threads: 262
Joined: May 2013
(06-17-2014, 11:53 AM)cletus1 Wrote: (06-17-2014, 09:32 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Obama should have listened to Bush, but Obama knows best..
Quote:To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. G.W. Bush 2007
You are still unable to think clearly on your own aren't you? The nonsense you are posting is right out of Fox News. It appears that your desire to blame Obama for everything requires you to turn off the critical thinking part of your brain in to satisfy this need.
Do you think that the US is going to change 1,200 years of Sunni Muslim domination of Iraq by having left a few more troops there for a while longer? Don't you know that unless the US permanently occupies Iraq, the Sunnis will never accept rule by the Shiite majority.
George Bush got the US involved in this mess and it is a mess. We need to get out and quit sacrificing American lives on the altar of stupidity.
Question: Did or did not Obama withdraw all US troops from Iraq against the advice of his generals when he walked away from status of force negotiations with the Iraqi government?
This isn't Bush, this is all Obama. He is the reason that Iraq is coming apart at the seems.
Posts: 41,856
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
(06-16-2014, 11:35 AM)PonderThis Wrote: I don't want to see them either, but I think it's important to remember that Iraq had a functioning, intact government and infrastructure before we invited ourselves in and proceeded to dismantle it.
There were tribes at war with each other then, before then, and there still are... OBVIOUSLY.
WE tried to help. Our soldiers paid a heavy price.You know the ones you think are beneath you. It was an honest effort.
You should grow a ragged beard and wear a dirty a rag on your head.
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
|