• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

The title of this thread is slightly misleading. The Obama administration requested to stay, but were denied. We aren't "pulling" out. We were "kicked" out. However, this slight, but important nuance doesn't stop Obama from cashing in on an opportunity and pulling the wool over the eyes of his supporters.

Iraq rejects US request to maintain bases after troop withdrawal | World news | guardian.co.uk

What a snake oil salesman.
BBC reported a different account of what happened:

Iraqi leaders had wanted 5,000 US troops to remain in a training capacity. But those trainers would not have received immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

The Pentagon refused to accept that condition, with Defence Secretary Leon Panetta insisting that "we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers".

The decision to pull out all US troops suggests no deal could be reached, despite Iraq's desire for continued access to US military expertise, correspondents say.

BBC News - Barack Obama: All US troops to leave Iraq in 2011

It sounds to me like Obama considered staying (which does bother me), but didn't for whatever reason. Regardless, I'm happy and I could really care less why we're leaving.
 
BBC reported a different account of what happened:

It sounds to me like Obama considered staying (which does bother me), but didn't for whatever reason. Regardless, I'm happy and I could really care less why we're leaving.

probably to save face imo but was anything mention about the personnel leaving there or just the troops? To lazy to read the story atm.
 
One of the big problems I see with Ron Paul is his stance on legalizing drugs. He wants to legalize all drugs, which I personally don't have anything against it. Although, I would prefer to keep stuff like heroine illegal so we can still send people to rehab court mandated. That is besides the point though. He wants to legalize ONLY so corporations can take it over as a business. Someone told me on another forum that he would have it illegal for you to say grow pot in your house.

So yes, to answer your question, he is a corporate scum bag imho.

Someone told you wrong. Paul is staunchly anti corporatist. It's the reason why he'll never make it into office. As for him legalizing some of the harder drugs...eh, the president is not all powerful. Look at Obama, right now. How much stuff do you think he WANTS to do, but can't?
 
Now, that's not true. Most liberals did not support invading Iraq.

Bush did not engage in a war without the support of his government, IE, your elected officials. To say that "Well, regardless of what my elected official does or says, I, personally don't support the war" is hugely irresponsible. WE are the ones who are supposed to hold our public leaders accountable.
 
You have any evidence of this?

The...fact that it was allowed to happen? But, in actual fact, 60 % or something like that in the D party DID vote against it...

Of note, Ron Paul was one of only 6 republicans that voted against it.
 
Ron Paul is an interesting man. The one thing I like about him is he does NOT flip flop no matter what he says. I sometimes agree with this man 100%, then he goes off he rails and says something that just makes me shake my head.

Well, having gotten to know the man, his ideals, and his voting record, which, to my mind, is impeccable...I can say that his ideas are sound, in theory. Some of them, obviously, would people many people, just as it does you, shake their heads, wondering what kinda dope the dude is smoking. But if you actually look into it, most of what he says makes since. Well, unless you're a socialist...then you're probably not gonna like the man. In that case, vote Kucinich.
 
BBC reported a different account of what happened:



It sounds to me like Obama considered staying (which does bother me), but didn't for whatever reason. Regardless, I'm happy and I could really care less why we're leaving.

Without the immunity to local laws the US would not stay in Iraq or any country where US soldiers would be subject to local laws and punishement
 
probably to save face imo but was anything mention about the personnel leaving there or just the troops? To lazy to read the story atm.
Everybody's leaving except for the military members who are guarding the US embassy.
 
Bush gets us into a war, Obama gets us out of it. Well, well.

Oh and look at how he handled Libya.



large-scale American involvment. Dictator Qhaddafi dead.

not one American dead or injured. Good job Obama. :)

yep, and throw in sacking Bin Laden for good measure. The Republicans are tongue-tied trying to be critical of Obama foreign policy. In fact, Obama has been pretty effective in areas where he did not obstructionist Regressives trying to subvert American progress.
 
Last edited:
BBC reported a different account of what happened:



It sounds to me like Obama considered staying (which does bother me), but didn't for whatever reason. Regardless, I'm happy and I could really care less why we're leaving.

The Obama administration has been working hard since at least July 2011 to make sure that there was going to be a residual force left behind after the of 2011. They failed with their negotiation. Instead of being honest, Obama chalks this up as one of his campaign promises. This is flat-out dishonesty.
 
You can do better than to come up with such an old and lame argument. We all appreciate original thought and insight.

Announcing when you are going to withdraw troops from a combat zone s certainly an original thought and one that is quite modern.

At one time it was assumed that the troops would be withdrawn when the battle was won but now one side in the war apparently feels they can dictate the terms of when the fighting stops and everyone goes home. But as 9/11 demonstrated, with modern technology, things are seldom that easy.
 
But if we did that then how would those who hold stocks in companies of the defense industry maintain their profit margins?

here's how: they are sending employees over. whatever our troops were doing, defense contractors are taking over. my brother heads out this week.
 
Announcing when you are going to withdraw troops from a combat zone s certainly an original thought and one that is quite modern.

At one time it was assumed that the troops would be withdrawn when the battle was won but now one side in the war apparently feels they can dictate the terms of when the fighting stops and everyone goes home. But as 9/11 demonstrated, with modern technology, things are seldom that easy.
Heres the thing about winning a war. Once you have won the war you have to decide what role you are going to play. Are you a conqueror? then we should have populated Iraq and kicked them out. Where you at war to vanquish an enemy? In this case yes, so with the ouster of Saddam, we really have no choice but to either occupy or leave. We should leave when the country has had time to secure itself. We have done that. The now 'host' country wants us to leave. All is well. If they arent ready to take over their country then in short order they will be a giant smoking hole. that will be on them for squandering 8 years of post war cooperation and training.
 
The Obama administration has been working hard since at least July 2011 to make sure that there was going to be a residual force left behind after the of 2011. They failed with their negotiation. Instead of being honest, Obama chalks this up as one of his campaign promises. This is flat-out dishonesty.

But good politicing. Points to Obama.
 
Heres the thing about winning a war. Once you have won the war you have to decide what role you are going to play. Are you a conqueror? then we should have populated Iraq and kicked them out. Where you at war to vanquish an enemy? In this case yes, so with the ouster of Saddam, we really have no choice but to either occupy or leave. We should leave when the country has had time to secure itself. We have done that. The now 'host' country wants us to leave. All is well. If they arent ready to take over their country then in short order they will be a giant smoking hole. that will be on them for squandering 8 years of post war cooperation and training.

Admittedly this is a different war than previous wars because, more than ever, it relies on intelligence. Sometimes this intelligence is gleaned over months and sometimes minutes, but the military, in whatever arm it might be, needs time to respond. Having troops in the most problematic area of the world would seem to be a good thing but now the problem has been created of once removing them, how do you get them back in? Would Congress then need to have a vote, or would they avoid Congress and just act under presidential discretion, as what happened with Libya.

We can see the problem with the Kurds in the North and the Iraqi government unable to do much about it. This has allowed Iran to get involved, along with Turkey, and this will only escalate. Iran, once involved in Iraqi affairs, will not simply disappear. They'll be coveting all the mid east oil and the money and power that goes with it. Short term political decisions are so predictable and can have such long term negative consequences.
 
But good politicing. Points to Obama.

Actually it was first promised by George Bush and reiterated by BHO.

Telegraphing your date of departure to an enemy has never been a military strategy until very recent times. West Point would seem to have much to answer for.
 
Bush did not engage in a war without the support of his government, IE, your elected officials. To say that "Well, regardless of what my elected official does or says, I, personally don't support the war" is hugely irresponsible. WE are the ones who are supposed to hold our public leaders accountable.

Many people in gernal had the fever. True. Congress pasted the buck, and let Bush alone decide. Cowardly and showing incredible lack of responsibility, congress did not do it's job. But he limits his claim to liberals. Not democrats. Not the public on the whole. Liberals. I would love to see some actual evidence to support that.
 
Admittedly this is a different war than previous wars because, more than ever, it relies on intelligence. Sometimes this intelligence is gleaned over months and sometimes minutes, but the military, in whatever arm it might be, needs time to respond. Having troops in the most problematic area of the world would seem to be a good thing but now the problem has been created of once removing them, how do you get them back in? Would Congress then need to have a vote, or would they avoid Congress and just act under presidential discretion, as what happened with Libya.

We can see the problem with the Kurds in the North and the Iraqi government unable to do much about it. This has allowed Iran to get involved, along with Turkey, and this will only escalate. Iran, once involved in Iraqi affairs, will not simply disappear. They'll be coveting all the mid east oil and the money and power that goes with it. Short term political decisions are so predictable and can have such long term negative consequences.


Iran is already involved and over the last 7 years worked with Turkey on occasion regarding the PKK/Pjak. Last but not least Iran is and has been involved in Iraqi affairs over the last 8 years, generally ever since Bremer was removed. The last two Iraqi PM have spent time in Iran, and have been assosiated with Shia groups with ties to Iran. Even the Iraqi Kurds (Tallibani) have good ties to Iran with the exception of course of the PJAK and its supporters
 
Its good in the sense of a con artist selling a sno-cone to an Eskimo, which will surely wins points with Obama supporters.

To be fair, no US politician with the exception of Ron Paul would as president state


Our troops are coming home. We wanted to keep tens of thousands in Iraq. But the Iraqi government would not grant immunity to any crimes they committed while in Iraq. We couldnt allow that and as such are removing our troops from Iraq
 
It looks like Wikileaks played an important role in ending the occupation in Iraq and putting a kink in Obama's plan to stay longer.

The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported...

That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, “provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike...

In other words, whoever leaked that cable cast light on a heinous American war crime and, by doing so, likely played some significant role in thwarting an agreement between the Obama and Maliki governments to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and thus helped end this stage of the Iraq war
Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
 
He failed to honor the War Powers acts. The SC ruled that congrescritters did not have standing to challenge the matter though it should have led at least to a SC ruling about how the particulars were to be defined. And then the congresscritters failed to impeach him over it and have it ironed out that way.

What does this have to do with whether bringing our troops home is a good thing?
 
Iraq and the Iraqi government want us out of Iraq

/end thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom