Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 220

Thread: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

  1. #121
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    He doesn't want to talk about reality, he just wants to blame Obama. Who cares?
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Gees, I can link a family tree to "Muhammad."

    I read too much....

    I don't even know where to begin....
    You certainly can, and the major branches STILL kill each other. They dont need the west to hate on someone else.

    This is the context into which Obama, and Kerry think they can stroll in and make peace. They will never get it.

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    What happened on Obama's watch? Has the US been attacked again? No, only a Republican would allow that.
    Which republican "allowed" an attack? Why did Clinton let OBL go?

  4. #124
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,056

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius. Splinter groups are a common thing in Islamism-you can refer to ISIS as a splinter group if you'd like, but a precursor is not the same thing. Please focus and stop diverting.
    Using words you learned recently doesn't mean you're using them correctly. You incorrectly stated that ISIS came into existence as a result of the Obama administration's work. That's ridiculous on the face and easily proven false (see post 109). Now, you're saying that it doesn't matter because the scenario which I presented was covered under your statement. In short, the crux of your argument is on blaming the Obama administration for something. The problem with blaming the Obama administration with that something is that what you're now blaming them for is not deviating from the foreign policy plan set forth by the previous Republican administration. How do I know this? Well:

    U.S.

    The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] 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.[2][3][1][4]
    Look at who signed it and when. It's in red in case you missed it. So what does Obama do? Well, Obama continues with the Republican administration's plan of withdrawing forces and getting us out of Iraq. Sure, he stood in favor of withdrawl, but so did Republicans as they not only worked to get it approved by the Iraqis themselves but actively worked to meet Iraqi demands concerning sovereignty. Anyways, long story short - it's now 2008, Bush comes out of office and what does Obama do? He moves ahead with the plan set forth and agreed by:

    1. The Bush administration
    2. The Iraqi government
    3. Our national defense community
    4. The Coalition of the Willing

    Anyways, how do I know Obama decides to follow the withdrawal plan? Well:

    Iraq Withdrawal: U.S. Abandoning Plans To Keep Troops In Country

    BAGHDAD -- The U.S. is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline, The Associated Press has learned. The decision to pull out fully by January will effectively end more than eight years of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, despite ongoing concerns about its security forces and the potential for instability.

    The decision ends months of hand-wringing by U.S. officials over whether to stick to a Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline that was set in 2008 or negotiate a new security agreement to ensure that gains made and more than 4,400 American military lives lost since March 2003 do not go to waste.
    Obama's policy in regards to Iraq was indistinguishable from what the previous administration was doing. As a matter of fact, the condition for us staying was immunity for our soldiers from backwards Iraqi laws. The Iraqis didn't give it to us, so we gave them a middle finger. In the meantime, you have ISI which isn't a precursor of any sort as you previously stated. It's the same damn organization operating in two countries instead of one. It's the non-existent difference between Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. What are they doing? Well, they've been alive and kicking since 2006. They see the Republican administration's exit-plan and well, it's just a blessing for them when Obama decides to follow up with it in 2008. Actually, in retrospect, I bet the Iraqis are wishing they had given us that immunity. It would have probably worked better for them in the long run. We would have stayed and they would have been better protected.

    However, hindsight is 20/20 and really, the only people we can put at fault now are those who point fingers without being informed, like yourself. This is the second time I have to school you on a matter you literally know nothing about and just want to chant little slogans about. It's becoming a pattern and one I'll have fun interrupting from now. You've already been proven to be uninformed on so many of these little nuances that I doubt you'll do more than complain that I'm bringing up too many facts and then run off to another thread.

    I think the weirdest pattern I see is the fact that you cheerlead for all that is right wing without necessarily being informed about what it is you're cheering for. That's not a good combination because you can end up looking like you're ranting against Obama for doing what a Republican administration wanted.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Using words you learned recently doesn't mean you're using them correctly. You incorrectly stated that ISIS came into existence as a result of the Obama administration's work. That's ridiculous on the face and easily proven false (see post 109). Now, you're saying that it doesn't matter because the scenario which I presented was covered under your statement. In short, the crux of your argument is on blaming the Obama administration for something. The problem with blaming the Obama administration with that something is that what you're now blaming them for is not deviating from the foreign policy plan set forth by the previous Republican administration. How do I know this? Well:

    U.S.



    Look at who signed it and when. It's in red in case you missed it. So what does Obama do? Well, Obama continues with the Republican administration's plan of withdrawing forces and getting us out of Iraq. Sure, he stood in favor of withdrawl, but so did Republicans as they not only worked to get it approved by the Iraqis themselves but actively worked to meet Iraqi demands concerning sovereignty. Anyways, long story short - it's now 2008, Bush comes out of office and what does Obama do? He moves ahead with the plan set forth and agreed by:

    1. The Bush administration
    2. The Iraqi government
    3. Our national defense community
    4. The Coalition of the Willing

    Anyways, how do I know Obama decides to follow the withdrawal plan? Well:

    Iraq Withdrawal: U.S. Abandoning Plans To Keep Troops In Country



    Obama's policy in regards to Iraq was indistinguishable from what the previous administration was doing. As a matter of fact, the condition for us staying was immunity for our soldiers from backwards Iraqi laws. The Iraqis didn't give it to us, so we gave them a middle finger. In the meantime, you have ISI which isn't a precursor of any sort as you previously stated. It's the same damn organization operating in two countries instead of one. It's the non-existent difference between Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. What are they doing? Well, they've been alive and kicking since 2006. They see the Republican administration's exit-plan and well, it's just a blessing for them when Obama decides to follow up with it in 2008. Actually, in retrospect, I bet the Iraqis are wishing they had given us that immunity. It would have probably worked better for them in the long run. We would have stayed and they would have been better protected.

    However, hindsight is 20/20 and really, the only people we can put at fault now are those who point fingers without being informed, like yourself. This is the second time I have to school you on a matter you literally know nothing about and just want to chant little slogans about. It's becoming a pattern and one I'll have fun interrupting from now. You've already been proven to be uninformed on so many of these little nuances that I doubt you'll do more than complain that I'm bringing up too many facts and then run off to another thread.

    I think the weirdest pattern I see is the fact that you cheerlead for all that is right wing without necessarily being informed about what it is you're cheering for. That's not a good combination because you can end up looking like you're ranting against Obama for doing what a Republican administration wanted.
    It seems you're new to this controversy.

    The Bush administration fully expected troops to remain in Iraq, after further negotiations, but Barrack Obama wanted all troops withdrawn.

    Of course he is now backing down from that position, claiming that it was the fault of the Iraqis.

    Why anyone would try to defend this serial liar defies all logic.

  6. #126
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,056

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It seems you're new to this controversy.
    Not at all and your lack of a response to any of my points is proof enough that you're completely uninformed on the matter as per usual when you're trying to pretend you're an independent.

    The Bush administration fully expected troops to remain in Iraq, after further negotiations,
    Is this one of those times when you go against all factual evidence of the contrary and keep arguing? Grant, the Bush administration was the one that signed the withdrawal order from Iraq and set a timeline. I just posted that in the previous post. The Bush administration set the terms and conditions for withdrawal with ratification from the Iraqis themselves. Are you serious dude? You're looking uninformed.

    Sequence of events:

    2008, Bush administration signs agreement with Iraqis:

    U.S.

    The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.
    In it Bush administration sets withdrawal dates for combat forces and then any remaining personnel:

    It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1]
    Conditions are also set for the withdrawal:

    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.[2][3][1][4]

    The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]
    You're being dishonest, Grant. The fact that you're replying with little nonsensical 4 sentence posts is enough proof. However, I implore you to double down on how uninformed you are. How did Barack Hussein Obama, POTUS, changed the withdrawal plan set forth by the Bush administration. If you can't show us, then you have to admit that he not only follow the Republican plan, he followed up with the plan agreed on by the previous administration, the GOP, our national defense community, the Iraqis and our allies. Want to double down?
    Last edited by Hatuey; 08-11-14 at 03:30 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It seems you're new to this controversy.

    The Bush administration fully expected troops to remain in Iraq, after further negotiations, but Barrack Obama wanted all troops withdrawn.

    Of course he is now backing down from that position, claiming that it was the fault of the Iraqis.

    Why anyone would try to defend this serial liar defies all logic.
    This is exactly it. Can you EVER remember a president losing a war and allowing innocent children to be beheaded, and then trying to blame it on his predecessor? Has this ever freaking happened before?

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    This is exactly it. Can you EVER remember a president losing a war and allowing innocent children to be beheaded, and then trying to blame it on his predecessor? Has this ever freaking happened before?
    Not in any democracy that I know of. Perhaps in the Third World.

  9. #129
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,056

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    This is exactly it. Can you EVER remember a president losing a war and allowing innocent children to be beheaded, and then trying to blame it on his predecessor? Has this ever freaking happened before?
    You're being dishonest again. You're now claiming Obama lost a war for continuing with the withdrawal plan set forth by the previous administration. Why is it you avoid me when you're losing an argument? You did it in that thread with the Nazis and then you disappeared from the thread. Are you afraid of me? I don't bite.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Not at all and your lack of a response to any of my points is proof enough that you're completely uninformed on the matter as per usual when you're trying to pretend you're an independent.



    Is this one of those times when you go against all factual evidence of the contrary and keep arguing? Grant, the Bush administration was the one that signed the withdrawal order from Iraq and set a timeline. I just posted that in the previous post. The Bush administration set the terms and conditions for withdrawal with ratification from the Iraqis themselves. Are you serious dude? You're looking uninformed.

    Sequence of events:

    2008, Bush administration signs agreement with Iraqis:

    U.S.



    In it Bush administration sets withdrawal dates for combat forces and then any remaining personnel:



    Conditions are also set for the withdrawal:



    You're being dishonest, Grant. The fact that you're replying with little nonsensical 4 sentence posts is enough proof. However, I implore you to double down on how uninformed you are. How did Barack Hussein Obama, POTUS, changed the withdrawal plan set forth by the Bush administration. If you can't show us, then you have to admit that he not only follow the Republican plan, he followed up with the plan agreed on by the previous administration, the GOP, our national defense community, the Iraqis and our allies. Want to double down?
    Here is all you need to know. Please note that the Bush Administration expected troops to remain and that the agreement called for further negotiations.

    The head of the CIA said that as many as 70,000 troops would remain in Iraq.

    If you read it all the way down to the bottom the truth will emerge. This has been debated throughout the thread and it's not to interesting to go through it all again. It's also late.

    Obama wanted complete withdrawal of troops and in the debate with Romney he emphasized this, which came as a shock to Romney because what is happening today was forecast. All gains made were lost.

    I am sorry to be abrupt but it is late here. Nite!

    U.S.

Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •