• 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!

Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

You mean, it didn't fail for those 6 years the Bush administration was involved in it? Boy, you're definitely an optimist. It's a shame you ignore the fact that it was entirely dependent on us for security, it failed to establish a stable political system and the politicians who were put in charge completely ignored everything the US said. Yeah, but it wasn't a failure from the moment the US set foot there. As I said, stay honest apdst. ;)

What about this?

Video: Remember when Obama took credit for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq instead of blaming Maliki for it? « Hot Air
 
Irrelevant. Campaign promises aren't law. So I ask you again: Who drew the withdrawal plan and constrained us to December 31st, 2011 withdrawal date? :) I'll wait for you to answer.
I like that! "Campaign promises aren't law"!

Did you know that Barrack Obama was negotiating the terms for when SOFA expired, just as had been anticipated?
 
What about this?

What about it? You're proving that Obama complied with the former administration's withdrawal plan.

I like that! "Campaign promises aren't law"!

I'm shocked you do. It would save you some trouble considering you've spent the last 10 post complaining and moaning about what is and isn't expected. Here bud, from now on stick to what is in the laws and agreements signed by the US. Not what you "independents" expect.

Did you know that Barrack Obama was negotiating the terms for when SOFA expired, just as had been anticipated?

I love the way you've changed your phrasing from "The agreement demanded it" to "it was anticipated". Again, learn these words: It's irrelevant whether he was negotiating it or not at the time the agreement expired. Once it did, Obama complied with the groundwork set by the former administration.
 
So the two options were Obama leaving the region to terrorists (which he picked) or perpetual war? False choice, much?

Well apparently false choices are all people can make when you don't provide **** other than bitching with no options of your own. Care to man up and say what US Conservative would do... or is this your usual "I'm gonna sit back and point fingers and whine" thread?
 
You are falsely equating two very different scenarios-the Benghazi attacks and the Iraqi genocide occurring now under Obama. They do share a common factor though-the death of innocents for Obama's PERSONAL political benefit.

Take a stand. Are you pissed that Obama IS doing something or isn't doing enough? Jesus. You are a wiggly fish that's hard to pin down other than having severe ODS as your position on all things.
 
Well apparently false choices are all people can make when you don't provide **** other than bitching with no options of your own. Care to man up and say what US Conservative would do... or is this your usual "I'm gonna sit back and point fingers and whine" thread?

I didn't realize you had made me president. My first act will be to sic the IRS on you.
 
Take a stand. Are you pissed that Obama IS doing something or isn't doing enough? Jesus. You are a wiggly fish that's hard to pin down other than having severe ODS as your position on all things.

Even your dichotomy is flawed. He didn't do it right, and now isn't doing enough-like a scolded child dragging his feet-except it isn't a child-its the president of the freaking USA.

Mark my words-going down as the worst ever.
 
Actually, Obama tried to extend the SOFA agreement but due to the contraversies re: Americam Miliary contractors and immunity from Iraqi prosecution the SOFA agreement extension was denied by the Iraqi government.

Greetings, Swit. :2wave:

BHO should have tried bargaining, since those people love to haggle - it's in their blood, I think! :lol: I believe Maliki was disappointed when Obama said okay and left. Took all the fun out of it, and left him in a bad position as it turned out. Now we're back and it's worse than before! Sheesh!!
 
Even your dichotomy is flawed. He didn't do it right, and now isn't doing enough-like a scolded child dragging his feet-except it isn't a child-its the president of the freaking USA.

Mark my words-going down as the worst ever.

Still dodging. Care to answer what the "right thing to do" is in Iraq? I doubt you have anything but I'll find it fun still asking it of you.
 
As Obama has so clearly demonstrated, liberalism and reality are like water and oil.

Another dodge. What is the right thing to do in Iraq US Conservative? Got anything?
 
Projection at its finest.

Actually it's not.

Are you still unaware that Obama said Iraq was "stable" when he pulled the troops out of Iraq and that Biden said it was the Administration's 'greatest achievement'?

No kidding. Do you still not know that?
 
Greetings, Swit. :2wave:

BHO should have tried bargaining, since those people love to haggle - it's in their blood, I think! :lol: I believe Maliki was disappointed when Obama said okay and left. Took all the fun out of it, and left him in a bad position as it turned out. Now we're back and it's worse than before! Sheesh!!

Worse than before is actually what Obama meant by hope and change. :cool:
 
9/11 occurred after the elections and both Republicans and Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq..[/QUOTEru

It was Bush's bright idea to respond to 9/11 by invading Iraq. The fact that it was approved by Congress, with some Democratic support, does not mean squat. A true functioning board of directors (Congress... not like what we have now, but the way they generally functioned for our first 220 years of existence) generally provides advice and consent, it does not run show. Going into Iraq was the doing of the Bush Administration; congress simply chose not to stop them.
 
9/11 occurred after the elections and both Republicans and Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq..[/QUOTEru

It was Bush's bright idea to respond to 9/11 by invading Iraq. The fact that it was approved by Congress, with some Democratic support, does not mean squat. A true functioning board of directors (Congress... not like what we have now, but the way they generally functioned for our first 220 years of existence) generally provides advice and consent, it does not run show. Going into Iraq was the doing of the Bush Administration; congress simply chose not to stop them.

So you are advocating for MORE executive control and less from Congress? Why do you hate checks and balances?
 
9/11 occurred after the elections and both Republicans and Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq..[/QUOTEru
It was Bush's bright idea to respond to 9/11 by invading Iraq. The fact that it was approved by Congress, with some Democratic support, does not mean squat.
Actually it means a great deal.

A true functioning board of directors (Congress... not like what we have now, but the way they generally functioned for our first 220 years of existence) generally provides advice and consent, it does not run show. Going into Iraq was the doing of the Bush Administration; congress simply chose not to stop them.

In fact they chose to support the decision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
 
Back
Top Bottom