• 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

Iran is there because Bush handpicked a Iranian sympathizer(and a terrorist) to be President who kicked us out following orders from Iran. Malachi has been running Iraq as a Shiite dictatorship and spent more time in Tehran than Bagdad. The Sunnis simply decided they could not take it any more and the radicals were given free reign.
We could not spend eternity getting soldiers legs blown off and acting as targets for terrorists. Is that what you think we should have done? Obama followed Bush's plan to tee and its failure was pre-ordained by the Bush Administration who had no idea how to handle the mess they created by ousting Saddam. Like Rummy said when washing his hands of it...."Democracy is messy" Donald Rumsfeld.

What We Left Behind - The New Yorker

New Yorker mag, really?
 
OK I'll bite. so what are we in disagreement about or are you just trolling at this point in time. Because you definately don't don't appear to grasp the concept that we cannot stay if a SOFA is not in place.

Yeah I figured I figured I wouldn't get a reply.... simpletons....
 
Troops in Vietnam weren't charged with a crime for killing RVN citizens who were either collateral damage or fighting with the enemy and prosecuted under RVN law, were they?

No they were not. Anything done on a mission or to prosecute the war effort was just the results of war.Stuff happens as they say. Also anything in Vietnam that happened on an American military base, they fell under American Law and American jurisdiction. Now if a GI went off base and was not on duty, to have a beer or what ever and broke Vietnamese law, he would be subject to Vietnamese jurisdiction. Anything a soldier did over there not involving the war effort or off base, you fell under Vietnamese law.
 
No they were not. Anything done on a mission or to prosecute the war effort was just the results of war.Stuff happens as they say. Also anything in Vietnam that happened on an American military base, they fell under American Law and American jurisdiction. Now if a GI went off base and was not on duty, to have a beer or what ever and broke Vietnamese law, he would be subject to Vietnamese jurisdiction. Anything a soldier did over there not involving the war effort or off base, you fell under Vietnamese law.[/QUOTE

Please don't acceept the bait. These people are imbeciles
 
I predict that there will be no good result to any foreign involvement in Iraq.

But anyone who wants to get involved has my permission to get on over there and join the fight.

Don't ask others to fight the battle that you're promoting. :roll:
 
ISIS didn't exist when we got involved there, they came into prominence under Obama, rapidly expanding like all of these terrorist organizations do. This is what a weak leader does to the world.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The group, in its original form, was composed of and supported by a variety of Sunni insurgent groups, including its predecessor organizations, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) (2003-2006), Mujahideen Shura Council (2006-2006) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) (2006-2013), other insurgent groups such as Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura, Jaysh al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba and Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah, and a number of Iraqi tribes that profess Sunni Islam.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/

The new al Qaeda was rebranded in 2006 as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). It would add "and Syria" to its name later.

The group exploited a growing perception among many Sunnis that they were being persecuted by the Shia-dominated government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, starved of resources and excluded from a share of power.

http://www.heritagefl.com/story/201...rael-could-be-dragged-into-conflict/2986.html

ISIS has origins in the various different al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni jihadists groups that have been active in the region for most of the past decade, including the infamous al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by former Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006 during the Iraq War.

You're being deliberately dishonest. ISI, the precursor to ISIS, did exist in 2006. It didn't expand into Syria because well... there was no Syrian civil war to begin with. However, if ISI had been stopped in 2006, it wouldn't have become ISIS. Stop being deliberately dishonest. It will save you some embarrassment.
 
Last edited:
No they were not. Anything done on a mission or to prosecute the war effort was just the results of war.Stuff happens as they say. Also anything in Vietnam that happened on an American military base, they fell under American Law and American jurisdiction. Now if a GI went off base and was not on duty, to have a beer or what ever and broke Vietnamese law, he would be subject to Vietnamese jurisdiction. Anything a soldier did over there not involving the war effort or off base, you fell under Vietnamese law.[/QUOTE

Please don't acceept the bait. These people are imbeciles

It was a simple question. But the way most SOFA works is anything done in the official capacity of conducting the war effort is/was not subject to the host countries laws. Anything done by anyone in an non-official capacity, that is not in conducting or related to the war effort, you are subject to the host countries laws.

This is where your word immunity throw me a loop. I wouldn't stay in a country if I had to fear a mistake in a grid coordination for an artillery strike in the official capacity of conducting the war would land me in a host country's jail. now if I punched a host country's citizen while off duty in a bar or doing some shopping, I should expect to be tried by the host country laws and judicial system.
 
I predict that there will be no good result to any foreign involvement in Iraq.

You must be joking. Everyone involved stands to benefit from being there-THATS WHY WE/THEY ARE.

Isis gets a base to wage war there and elsewhere. Its a handy location to behead Christian children and destroy the last of obscure kurdish sects, etc.
Iran gets to expand its sphere of influence and possibly link up to Syria...meaning road access vs sea/air routes, all while suppressing sunnis.
The US gets some semblance of security, increases stability, and maintains peace, and also defends southern oil producing regions.
The Kurds who are now on the defensive would have more bargaining room towards the establishment of a Kurdish state.

Though it has not happened, I could even see Russia getting involved with proxy support to Syria and Iran. This allows them to appear to be champions of peace, restore stability, perhaps gain oil access, and diminish US influence all in one shot.

As for your hawk fallacy, its discrediting-I wouldn't use that argument.
 
You're being deliberately dishonest. ISI, the precursor to ISIS, did exist in 2006. It didn't expand into Syria because well... there was no Syrian civil war to begin with. However, if ISI had been stopped in 2006, it wouldn't have become ISIS. Stop being deliberately dishonest. It will save you some embarrassment.

Its remarkable that you somehow know the telos of someone you have never met, and by what they type, no less.

ISIS DID NOT EXIST, THAT IS A FACTUALLY CORRECT STATEMENT. They are an incestuous group of radicals and if you want to trace out the family tree thats super-but it does not change the FACT. Much like its a FACT that these groups have expanded greatly under B. Hussein Obama.

ISIS, was forced out of much of the fighting in Syria by Al Qaida-because they were too extreme. And they have flourished under Obama. Im sure they'd like to thank him, actually.
 
Its remarkable that you somehow know the telos of someone you have never met, and by what they type, no less.

I tend to call lies out for what they are. You are being deliberately dishonest by trying to blame this on Obama when it's clear and evident that the organization existed as far back as 2006, Republicans failed to destroy it and it expanded into Syria. In short, Republicans created the clauster**** which is Iraq, ISI came to be as a result and when Republicans began the withdrawal process and Democrats continued it, they expanded into Syria. Want to prove me wrong or just debate more of your deliberately dishonest nonsense?

ISIS DID NOT EXIST, THAT IS A FACTUALLY CORRECT STATEMENT.

ISIS is a renaming of an organization that simply expanded into a new country. The leaders and group did in fact exist and so did the organization. If it had been stopped in 2006, it wouldn't have expanded into Syria. It existed in Iraq and the Republican administration in place failed to destroy it. Those are facts and the facts show you're being deliberately dishonest. Just like when you completely failed to rebut your erroneous and uneducated claims about Nazis being left wingers. You're making a pattern out of being deliberately dishonest by omitting information which goes against your ridiculously flawed narratives. Why?
 
I tend to call lies out for what they are. You are being deliberately dishonest by trying to blame this on Obama when it's clear and evident that the organization existed as far back as 2006, Republicans failed to destroy it and it expanded into Syria. In short, Republicans created the clauster**** which is Iraq, ISI came to be as a result and when Republicans began the withdrawal process and Democrats continued it, they expanded into Syria. Want to prove me wrong or just debate more of your deliberately dishonest nonsense?



ISIS is a renaming of an organization that simply expanded into a new country. The leaders and group did in fact exist and so did the organization. If it had been stopped in 2006, it wouldn't have expanded into Syria. It existed in Iraq and the Republican administration in place failed to destroy it. Those are facts and the facts show you're being deliberately dishonest. Just like when you completely failed to rebut your erroneous and uneducated claims about Nazis being left wingers. You're making a pattern out of being deliberately dishonest by omitting information which goes against your ridiculously flawed narratives. Why?

You appear to have left Obama out of this tale, as if he just happened upon this. 6 years, and he ignored his generals, the Iraqi govt, and the situation on the ground. In January, ISIS took Ramadi. Nothing.

Obama is the sitting POTUS and therefore Commander in Chief-this happened on his watch, nobody else's. See how the election goes in november for an idea of what people are buying.
 
You appear to have left Obama out of this tale, as if he just happened upon this. 6 years, and he ignored his generals, the Iraqi govt, and the situation on the ground. In January, ISIS took Ramadi. Nothing.

Obama is the sitting POTUS and therefore Commander in Chief-this happened on his watch, nobody else's. See how the election goes in november for an idea of what people are buying.

You're being dishonest again. Here was your original statement:

ISIS DID NOT EXIST, THAT IS A FACTUALLY CORRECT STATEMENT.

ISI (Future ISIS) did exist, it just hadn't expanded into Syria. The organization, leaders, mission and structure was there. Now, if you want to blame Obama for its expansion, sure. Go wingnuts on the matter. However, it didn't come to exist as a result of Obama's foreign policy. It existed long before that. I'm sure that since you've now been educated, you'll recant on your uneducated statements.
 
You're being dishonest again. Here was your original statement:



ISI (Future ISIS) did exist, it just hadn't expanded into Syria. The organization, leaders, mission and structure was there. Now, if you want to blame Obama for its expansion, sure. Go wingnuts on the matter. However, it didn't come to exist as a result of Obama's foreign policy. It existed long before that. I'm sure that since you've now been educated, you'll recant on your uneducated statements.

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.
 
Its remarkable that you somehow know the telos of someone you have never met, and by what they type, no less.

ISIS DID NOT EXIST, THAT IS A FACTUALLY CORRECT STATEMENT. They are an incestuous group of radicals and if you want to trace out the family tree thats super-but it does not change the FACT. Much like its a FACT that these groups have expanded greatly under B. Hussein Obama.

ISIS, was forced out of much of the fighting in Syria by Al Qaida-because they were too extreme. And they have flourished under Obama. Im sure they'd like to thank him, actually.

Gees, I can link a family tree to "Muhammad."

I read too much....

I don't even know where to begin....
 
You appear to have left Obama out of this tale, as if he just happened upon this. 6 years, and he ignored his generals, the Iraqi govt, and the situation on the ground. In January, ISIS took Ramadi. Nothing.

Obama is the sitting POTUS and therefore Commander in Chief-this happened on his watch, nobody else's. See how the election goes in november for an idea of what people are buying.

What happened on Obama's watch? Has the US been attacked again? No, only a Republican would allow that. You just mad because Obama didn't say "bring it on" like the incompetent Bush did and get 4000 American's killed in a hopelessly useless war. Obama followed Bush's signed agreement to the letter and when Bush's man Maliki said leave he did. If Bush's plan was good we would not be in this mess. But it was FAR from good and in fact was a recipe for disaster. Even the National review and Rand Paul agree. It looks like you are being left out to dry again.

Don
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/7/rand-paul-iraq-whats-going-now-i-dont-blame-presid/
 
He doesn't want to talk about reality, he just wants to blame Obama. Who cares?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom