• 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!

Top Marine to Obama: Get in the Fight

poweRob said:
That didn't even come close to what I was saying about they "why." Neither have you attempted to broach the topic of why they vote they way they did.
Click to expand...

I believe it's because there is a lot of sympathy for the goals of these radical groups. It's true they have the better organization going in, (partly because we weren't willing to back more secular parties) but it's also true that they had a lot of support from the general population. That answer the question?
 
Russia versus Obama, a laugher.
China versus Obama, a laugher.
We are because of democrats becoming the yellow chicken laughing stock of the world. Early withdrawal has never been a formula for success.
 
rhinefire said:
Russia versus Obama, a laugher.
China versus Obama, a laugher.
We are because of democrats becoming the yellow chicken laughing stock of the world. Early withdrawal has never been a formula for success.
Click to expand...

Nor has premature engagement!
 
rhinefire said:
Russia versus Obama, a laugher.
China versus Obama, a laugher.
We are because of democrats becoming the yellow chicken laughing stock of the world. Early withdrawal has never been a formula for success.
Click to expand...

Montecresto said:
Nor has premature engagement!
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, your both probably right. The ME overall would of been in a better situation with Saddam still in power, and Iraq would of been better off if we had kept a residual force and been an honest power broker.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Funny thing is, your both probably right. The ME overall would of been in a better situation with Saddam still in power, and Iraq would of been better off if we had kept a residual force and been an honest power broker.
Click to expand...

In Iraq I believe we made a mistake with our earl withdrawal....we shold have at the very least leave 10,000 troops there just like we have in South Korea and Germany.
 
Navy Pride said:
In Iraq I believe we made a mistake with our earl withdrawal....we shold have at the very least leave 10,000 troops there just like we have in South Korea and Germany.
Click to expand...

What if the only way to do that was to give the ability for the Iraqis to try Americans for crimes if they were limited to after the occupation?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Funny thing is, your both probably right. The ME overall would of been in a better situation with Saddam still in power, and Iraq would of been better off if we had kept a residual force and been an honest power broker.
Click to expand...

Oh Kay HB, I'll say we have neutral ground. ;)
 
Navy Pride said:
In Iraq I believe we made a mistake with our earl withdrawal....we shold have at the very least leave 10,000 troops there just like we have in South Korea and Germany.
Click to expand...

At least HB is being reasonable enough to meet in the middle. Go the other half NP.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
What if the only way to do that was to give the ability for the Iraqis to try Americans for crimes if they were limited to after the occupation?
Click to expand...

And SOFA could have been made or protection given just like for the troops there are given now.
 
Navy Pride said:
And SOFA could have been made or protection given just like for the troops there are given now.
Click to expand...

I thought the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to SOFA?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Do not mistake acceptance for wanting. The Egyptians made their choice and we knew we had to make the best of it. Tell me something, why do think that after all this time, the Obama white house hasn't cut funding to Egypt's military. It's because while they couldn't openly do it, they did support the decision to remove the government.
Click to expand...

The Obama Administration hasn't, as far as I can tell, cut aid to anyone anywhere.

Recall that the election of the MB was mired in controversy and the Egyptian people rose up soon after.
 
Navy Pride said:
You got to love this guy, he tells it like it is......we should have more senior officers like him..........


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-marine-obama-fight-191600744.html
Click to expand...

Yeah! MORE WAR!!!! Just what the American people want!!!!

Let's send MORE people over there to fight ISIS...which btw is a major part of the SAME rebel groups that those on the American Right were wanting us to ARM in their fight against Syria!

"Let's help ISIS - they're the good guys!"
"Oh! NOW let's bomb ISIS - they're the bad guys!"

Sorta reminds me of something, doesn't it? From the same side of the political spectrum:

"Let's help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran - he's the good guy!"
"Oh! NOW let's invade Iraq - Saddam Hussein's the bad guy!"
 
Montecresto said:
I thought the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to SOFA?
Click to expand...

It depends how much they pushed it.....There doesn't seem to be a problem now........We have close to 1,000 troops in Iraq now.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah! MORE WAR!!!! Just what the American people want!!!!

Let's send MORE people over there to fight ISIS...which btw is a major part of the SAME rebel groups that those on the American Right were wanting us to ARM in their fight against Syria!

"Let's help ISIS - they're the good guys!"
"Oh! NOW let's bomb ISIS - they're the bad guys!"

Sorta reminds me of something, doesn't it? From the same side of the political spectrum:

"Let's help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran - he's the good guy!"
"Oh! NOW let's invade Iraq - Saddam Hussein's the bad guy!"
Click to expand...

We have 1,000 people in Iraq and counting at the moment. I will repeat and old saying that you lefties always forget...."Freedome isn't Free" my left wing friend.
 
Navy Pride said:
It depends how much they pushed it.....There doesn't seem to be a problem now........We have close to 1,000 troops in Iraq now.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question. And these 700 troops that are there are to protect our embassy and diplomats coming and going from the airport etc. Iraq doesn't want regular soldiers stationed in their country long term with immunity to prosecution when they commit crimes. A quite reasonable expectation.
 
Navy Pride said:
We have 1,000 people in Iraq and counting at the moment. I will repeat and old saying that you lefties always forget...."Freedome isn't Free" my left wing friend.
Click to expand...

Remember, I am retired Navy. I did my time, and I'm proud of my service. Been there, done that, helped make the doggone t-shirt.

Freedom indeed isn't free...but one also has to remember that just because we can go into some foreign nation and do something doesn't mean that we should do so. Bush 41 knew the difference and made the right decision when the Right (which included me at the time) was strongly in favor of driving on to Baghdad. Bush 43 did not know the difference, and made the wrong decision.
 
Where were all these "we must stay in Iraq for all eternity" Republicans when Bush signed the treaty to leave Iraq?

Were they too busy focusing on the political theatre of that shoe throwing incident to realize what was actually being announced at said shoe throwing announcement? Yes I think they were indeed being suckered by that bit of political theatre.
 
rhinefire said:
Russia versus Obama, a laugher.
China versus Obama, a laugher.
We are because of democrats becoming the yellow chicken laughing stock of the world. Early withdrawal has never been a formula for success.
Click to expand...

Throwing stones as an armchair strategist is the easy part. Actually postulating a plan is much more difficult.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I believe it's because there is a lot of sympathy for the goals of these radical groups. It's true they have the better organization going in, (partly because we weren't willing to back more secular parties) but it's also true that they had a lot of support from the general population. That answer the question?
Click to expand...

I partially disagree with you but I appreciate you mustering up a decent answer.
 
Montecresto said:
That doesn't answer my question. And these 700 troops that are there are to protect our embassy and diplomats coming and going from the airport etc. Iraq doesn't want regular soldiers stationed in their country long term with immunity to prosecution when they commit crimes. A quite reasonable expectation.
Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:
It depends how much they pushed it.....There doesn't seem to be a problem now........We have close to 1,000 troops in Iraq now.
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to accept help from US Troops when half your country is controlled by psychopathic killers.

The truth of the matter is that Maliki and the rest of their government would of liked US troops to stay. Obama however wasn't open to the possibility of any more than a few thousand at most. When Maliki and others weighed that number of troops with the political consequences of allowing US troops to stay, they weren't willing to take the political hit for it. And so if the Right wants to blame Obama because he didn't want to commit 20,000 troops, then they can and there probably right. If the Left wants to say that the Iraqis didn't want to troops there, then their right too. Guess that's politics.
 
Grant said:
The Obama Administration hasn't, as far as I can tell, cut aid to anyone anywhere.

Recall that the election of the MB was mired in controversy and the Egyptian people rose up soon after.
Click to expand...

In this case though, Obama is technically (or did as I think they have had their elections already) breaking the law.

Law says the U.S. is required to cut aid after coups.

I guess just chock up another law that Obama refused to follow I guess.
 
Montecresto said:
We didn't cut off aid to Ukraine after the coup last winter either. But I suspect that you're ok with it there.
Click to expand...

The law states we can't support a military coup, Ukraine wasn't. Neither was Egypt the first time around. But when the military took over, then that's when aid (according to law) should of been cut.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The law states we can't support a military coup, Ukraine wasn't. Neither was Egypt the first time around. But when the military took over, then that's when aid (according to law) should of been cut.
Click to expand...

I'm having a bit of a chuckle on that one HB. Since when has law interfered with the US support of a coup that would serve US political or economic interest. Are you even aware of the numbers of coups our government has sponsored?

Here's one, there's plenty more, too.




The era of CIA-supported coups dawned in dramatic fashion: An American general flies to Iran and meets with "old friends"; days later, the Shah orders Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh to step down. When the Iranian military hesitates, millions of dollars are funneled into Tehran to buy off Mossadegh's supporters and finance street protests. The military, recognizing that the balance of power has shifted, seizes the prime minister, who will live the rest of his life under house arrest. It was, as one CIA history puts it, "an American operation from beginning to end," and one of many U.S.-backed coups to take place around the world during the second half of the 20th century.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/19/map_7_confirmed_cia_backed_coups
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom