• 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

Seeing as how the consistant hammering against Obama for Bengazi appears to have effected his approval rating, can explain how this benefitted him politically?

There was a great deal more than Benghazi.
 
There was a great deal more than Benghazi.

True. I dont deny that. But the argument was that he allowed the people in Bengazi to die for political gain. And it hurt him politically. How does he gain by letting Americans die in bengazi.
 
True. I dont deny that. But the argument was that he allowed the people in Bengazi to die for political gain. And it hurt him politically. How does he gain by letting Americans die in bengazi.
Because Benghazi happened just before the Presidential elections.
 
Many would argue that they came under prominence not because of Obama but because of the US decision to wage war in Iraq.

like Al queada, their main beef is a US presence in the region, and our support for Israel....saying it's all about us invading Iraq is inaccurate.

they came to prominence in the syrian civil war though....
 
like Al queada, their main beef is a US presence in the region, and our support for Israel....saying it's all about us invading Iraq is inaccurate.

they came to prominence in the syrian civil war though....

Yes, though at that time they were called 'rebels'. Still are, I suppose.
 
Yes, though at that time they were called 'rebels'. Still are, I suppose.

or "foreign insurgents".... i can't remember thier first leaders name... he was a "famous" terrorist there for a little while.
a jordanian .. tried and convicted in absentia in Jordan ... later got waxed.

dammit.. the old brain ain't working..
 
That was nothing new, especially in 2011. Obama decided to USE SOFA as an excuse-even though his own military advisors and Iraq said it would result in the very massacre's we see now. Thanks a lot Obama.

BS! Thank you Bush for ****ing up the wrong country!
 
I am just curious.... Are you merely stating what Obama said in a debate with Romney or are you denying that an extension was requested? i mean this staement basically implies that he asked for one but the Iraqi government refused:
"On Thursday, Obama addressed reporters in the White House Briefing Room about Iraq’s latest crisis. “Do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?” a reporter asked. “Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,” Obama said. “That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.”
becausse all of the link provided by me showed that he was looking to extend our stay there. Or are you say that all media outlets mis-reported this?

Im saying that obama has contradicted himself on his reasons for pulling out of Iraq-AND when its politically expedient-but nobodies buying it. The election is less than 3 months off.
 
Seeing as how the consistant hammering against Obama for Bengazi appears to have effected his approval rating, can explain how this benefitted him politically?

2 very different subjects. But Obama wanted the to be able to say he ended the war in iraq, consequences be damned. I'd love to talk about Benghazi, but lets not veer off subject-this is about Iraq.
 
The Iraqi parliment refused to allow our troops to be there.... should we have denied them their own sovereign right of governance?

Again, you aren't familiar with the facts of the case. You are now simply repeating Obama's long discredited excuse, and tragically you are doing it AFTER we know the facts.
 
Negotiations. You can look it up. U.S.

Yeah I already posted that wikipedia like... it back up my point. How could Obama have accomplished the extesion. You said it was easy and the wiki page doesn't go into the detail of alternate realities / how things could have gone under different circumstanses
 
Because Benghazi happened just before the Presidential elections.
You've ignored the question. How does letting Americanns die help him politically? He took a hit in the Polls.
 
like Al queada, their main beef is a US presence in the region, and our support for Israel....saying it's all about us invading Iraq is inaccurate.

they came to prominence in the syrian civil war though....
So how exactly was this Obama's doing then?
 
Im saying that obama has contradicted himself on his reasons for pulling out of Iraq-AND when its politically expedient-but nobodies buying it. The election is less than 3 months off.

Except for the pestering facts that:

1. That deadline was imposed under the Bush administration
and 2. That Obama tried to extend it but Iraqi parliment refused.

On a separate note. Yes Obama had no right (IMO) to claim credit for th troop withdrawl as it was actually negotiated under G.W. Bush
 
Again, you aren't familiar with the facts of the case. You are now simply repeating Obama's long discredited excuse, and tragically you are doing it AFTER we know the facts.

I need education.... can you provide the information?
 
Except for the pestering facts that:

1. That deadline was imposed under the Bush administration
and 2. That Obama tried to extend it but Iraqi parliment refused.

On a separate note. Yes Obama had no right (IMO) to claim credit for th troop withdrawl as it was actually negotiated under G.W. Bush

Dude, nobody is buying the argument you are selling.

Obama is POTUS. Obama is Chief of Staff. Obama has contradicted himself. Obama is responsible.

This isn't rocket science.
 
Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq
By PETER BAKERAUG. 7, 2014



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/a-return-to-action.html?_r=0

So Obama pulled out of Iraq at all costs, and this is the result.

This is what happens when people vote for Democrats.

Oh that's great. What's most disturbing about all this is that there isn't some grand strategic plan, this isn't being done in some coordinated effort with the Iraqis/Syrians/Iranians/Kurds to wipe out ISIS and finish them off. It's just the big bad US deciding, "You know, we haven't blown up anyone in a while... let's just lob a few missiles at that target over there and show them who's boss." A lot of people on this forum get on Republicans for their foreign policy, but at least when they go in, they hit hard and make you feel it. The fact is that today, the Taliban isn't running Afghanistan and Saddam is six feet under. What did eight years of Clinton running around lobbing missile here and there lead to? 9/11 that's what.

So of my Republican friends may actually applaud this effort... I stress the words may because as people like US Conservative haven't shown, they wouldn't offer him a break even if he came up with the cure for Cancer. But you're just as much idiots as anyone else if you do so, because all these strikes will end up doing is making a bigger enemy of ISIS. This will have ZERO effect on ISIS and their ability to wage war. Unless those airstrikes are coordinated with a ground offensive, they'll be recovered within a month... if they haven't already.
 
Oh that's great. What's most disturbing about all this is that there isn't some grand strategic plan, this isn't being done in some coordinated effort with the Iraqis/Syrians/Iranians/Kurds to wipe out ISIS and finish them off. It's just the big bad US deciding, "You know, we haven't blown up anyone in a while... let's just lob a few missiles at that target over there and show them who's boss." A lot of people on this forum get on Republicans for their foreign policy, but at least when they go in, they hit hard and make you feel it. The fact is that today, the Taliban isn't running Afghanistan and Saddam is six feet under. What did eight years of Clinton running around lobbing missile here and there lead to? 9/11 that's what.

So of my Republican friends may actually applaud this effort... I stress the words may because as people like US Conservative haven't shown, they wouldn't offer him a break even if he came up with the cure for Cancer. But you're just as much idiots as anyone else if you do so, because all these strikes will end up doing is making a bigger enemy of ISIS. This will have ZERO effect on ISIS and their ability to wage war. Unless those airstrikes are coordinated with a ground offensive, they'll be recovered within a month... if they haven't already.

Obama's actions are killing these innocents and he spit on every veteran and service member-dead and living-when he pulled out of Iraq.
 
Obama's actions are killing these innocents and he spit on every veteran and service member-dead and living-when he pulled out of Iraq.

I'm confused. Are you saying that him pulling out is killing innocents or that he is attacking now is killing innocents? Also, at some point, Iraq has to stand on it's own doesn't?
 
I'm confused. Are you saying that him pulling out is killing innocents or that he is attacking now is killing innocents? Also, at some point, Iraq has to stand on it's own doesn't?

In US Conservatives eyes this will instantly happen when a republican is elected president (if that ever happens again). Then referring to a past president's failure will become his hobby. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom