• 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

Grant said:
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/12/07/18553914.php
Click to expand...

Oh good! You're making progress. At least you're posting something relevant now. However, let's focus on the important and relevant bits shall we? You still won't cite the actual text?

On November 16th, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreement, which cited the end of 2009 for the pull out of US troops from Iraqi cities. On November 27th, the Iraqi Parliament ratified SOFA, establishing that Coalition combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30th, 2009, and will be completely out of Iraq by December 31st, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough. The pact forbids holding prisoners without criminal charges, and limits searches of homes and buildings. Coalition forces are subject to Iraqi law if they commit major and premeditated crimes while off-duty and off-base. A referendum of Iraqis will be held in mid-2009 on the pact, which may require Coalition forces to leave by the middle of 2010. Parliament also passed another U.S.-Iraqi bilateral pact called the Strategic Framework Agreement, aimed at ensuring minority Sunni interests and constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Now, I put the black in bold because that's what is written on the agreement's text. The exact withdrawal date was stated in the agreement to be December 31st, 2011. Whether the Bush administration expected or didn't expect something is irrelevant. What was signed by all parties had the US to a withdrawal date of December 31st, 2011. Obama followed that agreement to the letter and now you're... attacking him for following the Republican policy on the matter.

Now, as far as the red part goes, can you show us what part of the agreement states that negotiations were necessary for the agreement to be carried out? I've already posted the link for the text but here it is in case you missed it:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no
later than December 31, 2011.

2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities,
villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces
assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that
such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above
shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages,
and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in
paragraph 2 above.

4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of
Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any
time The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United
States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.

5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce
the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have
been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United
States Forces will be present.
Click to expand...

Those are the 5 points agreed upon. Where is the further negotiations clause? Here is what you stated:

Grant said:
the agreement called for further negotiations.
Click to expand...

Where Grant? Where did the agreement call for further negotiations? Are we just going by word of mouth from anonymous sources or what's in the text? Well Grant, if we're going by what's in the text, the Bush administration signed a withdrawal agreement and concessions were made by both sides to reach it. There was no precondition or statement within the agreement that pushed for further negotiations. It just isn't there. Now, you could have saved yourself this embarrassment if you had simply been honest about the whole thing but instead you doubled down on your lie. Why?

Here is what happened when the US tried to negotiate a longer stay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–I...greement#December_14.2C_2008_press_conference

As reported on Saturday, October 15, 2011, the Obama Administration proceeded with the plan to withdraw American forces from Iraq (barring some last-minute move in the Iraqi parliament when they returned from a break in late November 2011 shortly before the end-of-the-year withdrawal date) because of concerns that they would not have be given immunity from Iraqi courts, a concern for American commanders in the field who also had to worry about the Sadrist response should troops stay and the general state of Iraq's readiness for transfer of power.[68]
Click to expand...

So Obama followed the advice of military commanders on the battlefield, he followed the Republican policy and you're still harping on him for it. You're looking very much like the partisan hack you pretend you're not by hiding the "Independent" label, Mr. Grant.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
is that an acknowledgment of FDR's leadership during world war 2?
Click to expand...

His greatest achievement was convincing the American people that they had to become involved in WWII. Eisenhower (and Patton) were the greatest American military leaders during WWII. FDR wisely left the military decisions to those on the field.
 
Peter King said:
Another partisan story, how creative.

Let's see, Obama does not send troops into a situation that he may not have known about (Benghazi) and there is a months and months long complain fest by the republicans/conservatives in congress.

Now, a lot of Americans in possible danger and loads of the worlds most favorite people to the conservatives (Christians, what else) and Obama chooses to do airstrikes? And what do the conservatives/republicans do? Whine about him daring to take action in Iraq.

Let's be honest, if Obama decided to but border forces up at the border to keep all those illegal immigrants out he would be trashed by the conservatives/republicans for taking away the freedom of the Southern states by deploying Obama's jackbooted dictatorial occupation army in the South to revenge slavery and out of hatred for the conservatives living there. Obama can never do anything right so I think he should just do what he thinks best and ignore the tea party and a large part of the republican party.
Click to expand...

I came to this conclusion a few years ago. He CAN"T do anything right in the eyes of the republicans. He is damned if he do and damned if he don't. Joe Scarborough was even calling out those republicans who decided to run to the Sunday morning shows and attack Obama on something they wanted him to do all along.

I never seen anything like this !!!!
 
TeleKat said:
This whole situation spawned from the US getting involved there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Correct. US involvement in getting rid of Saddam help me really understand the meaning of "necessary evil". Getting rid of him did more harm in that region then just keeping him in check.
 
Hatuey said:
Where Grant? Where did the agreement call for further negotiations? Are we just going by word of mouth from anonymous sources or what's in the text? Well Grant, if we're going by what's in the text, the Bush administration signed a withdrawal agreement and concessions were made by both sides to reach it. There was no precondition or statement within the agreement that pushed for further negotiations. It just isn't there. Now, you could have saved yourself this embarrassment if you had simply been honest about the whole thing but instead you doubled down on your lie. Why?
Click to expand...

Here is the SOFA agreement, though I assume you've read it. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf You might check Article 27.

You can also read a legal description here. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40011.pdf

You still haven't explained why Obama and Biden took credit for their 'greatest achievement in Iraq?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Because they're politicians?
Click to expand...

And you believe these two particular politicians?

Their lies should have been obvious long ago and yet there were still LIV's who voted for them.

How do you explain this idiocy? Because they're Liberals?
 
Grant said:
And you believe these two particular politicians?

Their lies should have been obvious long ago and yet there were still LIV's who voted for them.

How do you explain this idiocy? Because they're Liberals?
Click to expand...
They took credit for something that was popular. All politicians do that.
 
Grant said:
And you believe these two particular politicians?

Their lies should have been obvious long ago and yet there were still LIV's who voted for them.

How do you explain this idiocy? Because they're Liberals?
Click to expand...

that all depends on how a person defines "truth"
 
Navy Pride said:
Truth be told we nevver should have pulled all of our troops out of Iraq.....Thanks to Obama many more Americans will die there.
Click to expand...

As well as hundreds of thousands of others.

Obama was right that Iraq was 'stable', but unfortunately he decided not to keep it that way.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
They took credit for something that was popular. All politicians do that.
Click to expand...

You mean by pandering to an uneducated and naive electorate? Shouldn't people know better?

But of course we are talking of these two particular politicians, Obama and Biden, and not all politicians should be tarred with the same brush.
 
Grant said:
You mean by pandering to an uneducated and naive electorate? Shouldn't people know better?
Click to expand...
But they don't.

But of course we are talking of these two particular politicians, Obama and Biden, and not all politicians should be tarred with the same brush.
Click to expand...

Okay? They seem pretty normal to me. Maybe a bit smarter than the average ones.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
You mean by pandering to an uneducated and naive electorate? Shouldn't people know better?

But of course we are talking of these two particular politicians, Obama and Biden, and not all politicians should be tarred with the same brush.
Click to expand...

so why do you paint every liberal politicians as bad?

and if you are so concerned about the electorate being uneducated maybe you would be in favor of funding public education? then again maybe the public is educated and did not come to the same set of conclusions you did when they cast their vote.
 
Grant said:
Here is the SOFA agreement, though I assume you've read it. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf You might check Article 27.
Click to expand...

Lmao. You're not even reading it are you, Grant? That article states that the US will intervene if requested by the Iraqi government. Not that the agreement is based on pending further negotiations. It's nice to know you won't actually post the text you're supposedly citing but I will:

In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against
Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or
territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its
elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the
Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may
be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures,
including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other
measure, to deter such a threat.
Click to expand...

In short, the article states that the US will intervene if Iraq as a sovereign state requests it. When did the Iraqis request an intervention from the US government? Oh thats right! They didn't request it as the agreement's withdrawal date was getting close! Why? Because they refused to give our troops immunity from Iraqi courts and employ few political reforms. The Iraqis completely refused! As a matter of fact, Baghdad only requested airstrikes in 2014, 3 years after the agreement had been fulfilled. Why do you keep omitting these things Grant? They don't make you look any less uninformed.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
so why do you paint every liberal politicians as bad?
Click to expand...
I don't. But neither Obama and Biden are worthy of their office and they've shown that since early on in their first administration. How could any honest person possibly defend them?

and if you are so concerned about the electorate being uneducated maybe you would be in favor of funding public education? then again maybe the public is educated and did not come to the same set of conclusions you did when they cast their vote.
Click to expand...
Why would I want to fund public education when they are obviously doing an extremely poor job? I'd happily contribute to good private schools.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao. You're not even reading it are you, Grant? That article states that the US will intervene if requested by the Iraqi government. Not that the agreement is based on pending further negotiations. It's nice to know you won't actually post the text you're supposedly citing but I will:



In short, the article states that the US will intervene if Iraq as a sovereign state requests it. When did the Iraqis request an intervention from the US government? Oh thats right! They didn't request it as the agreement's withdrawal date was getting close! Why? Because they refused to give our troops immunity from Iraqi courts and employ few political reforms. The Iraqis completely refused! As a matter of fact, Baghdad only requested airstrikes in 2014, 3 years after the agreement had been fulfilled. Why do you keep omitting these things Grant? They don't make you look any less uninformed.
Click to expand...

The troop immunity' thing is no different than any other SOFA agreement. It seems you missed the part where the US would continue to train, etc.

If you are insisting that Bush signed a document where no further negotiations were possible, why did Obama continue negotiations with the Iraqi government and then take the credit when they broke down?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0
 
Grant said:
The troop immunity' thing is no different than any other SOFA agreement. It seems you missed the part where the US would continue to train, etc.

If you are insisting that Bush signed a document where no further negotiations were possible,
Click to expand...

No, I'm insisting that negotiations were never a precondition of the withdrawal. That's been proven as true by your tip toeing around the actual text of the agreement.

why did Obama continue negotiations with the Iraqi government and then take the credit when they broke down?
Click to expand...

You're not even trying to make sense anymore. Obama took credit for fulfilling the agreement set out by Republicans. Do you have any evidence to show he didn't? You're being reduced to talking points now Grant. It's getting sad.
 
Hatuey said:
No, I'm insisting that negotiations were never a precondition of the withdrawal. That's been proven as true by your tip toeing around the actual text of the agreement.
Click to expand...
Of course they weren't. What I've been saying is that further negations were expected, Obama participated in them in fact, and then these talks broke down, with Obama taking credit for the breakdown claiming he had ended the war and left behind a stable Iraq.

You're not even trying to make sense anymore. Obama took credit for fulfilling the agreement set out by Republicans. Do you have any evidence to show he didn't? You're being reduced to talking points now Grant. It's getting sad.
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever. Let the other interested posters decide.
 
You didn't want to chit chat, Grant? I told you, Obama took credit for something that was popular at home while actually endeavoring to get the Iraqi government to agree to the new SOFA. He knew it was the proper strategic thing to do. He also knew that it would be unpopular at home. So when the Iraqi parliament didn't agree to it, he took his ball and went home...enjoying the popularity the came with it at home.

In one way it was win/win (either get the strategic advantage or win popularity points at home) and in another it was lose/lose (either lose popularity on the left at home or lose a strategic advantage). But either way, his administration was just continuing on with what the Bush administration had started. So basically, your efforts to blame him look a little silly.






Especially, as Hatuey pointed out, when you don't even read what you're linking to.
 
Grant said:
Of course they weren't. What I've been saying is that further negations were expected,
Click to expand...

What is and isn't expected is entirely irrelevant. What was signed into law is ultimately what matters. In 2008, the agreement called for nothing other than the withdrawal of US troops by 2011. It didn't call for any further negotiations. Those are facts, Grant.

Yeah, whatever. Let the other interested posters decide.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Grant. I don't spew redundant talking points only to be refuted by the very evidence that is supposed to back me up. That's right up your alley though and this thread has proven that. You spend 4 posts trying to claim that further negotiations were part of the agreement. THEY NEVER WERE. That's entirely you fabricating things that never happened for 3 pages and then getting destroyed when asked to support them. You've failed, Grant. Go pretend to be an Independent somewhere else.
 
Hatuey said:
What is and isn't expected is entirely irrelevant. What was signed into law is ultimately what matters. In 2008, the agreement called for nothing other than the withdrawal of US troops by 2011. It didn't call for any further negotiations. Those are facts, Grant.



I'm sorry Grant. I don't spew redundant talking points only to be refuted by the very evidence that is supposed to back me up. That's right up your alley though and this thread has proven that. You spend 4 posts trying to claim that further negotiations were part of the agreement. THEY NEVER WERE. That's entirely you fabricating things that never happened for 3 pages and then getting destroyed when asked to support them. You've failed, Grant. Go pretend to be an Independent somewhere else.
Click to expand...

So you still remain unaware that Obama was negotiating with Iraq before SOFA expired? Or that the head of the CIA expected 70,000 troops to remain?

There is really nothing I can add to that.
 
Grant said:
So you still remain unaware that Obama was negotiating with Iraq before SOFA expired? Or that the head of the CIA expected 70,000 troops to remain?

There is really nothing I can add to that.
Click to expand...

And you remain unaware that Obama campaigned and was elected on the promise to get out of Iraq. He did not rush though and he followed Bush's plan to the letter. It is not his fault that the plan was bad from the start. Supporting the Shiite terrorist Maliki was poison to any hopes of a stable Iraq without our troops being present. It is just another consequence of Bush not having a clue about what to do after defeating Saddam.
 
Grant said:
So you still remain unaware that Obama was negotiating with Iraq before SOFA expired?
Click to expand...

Lmao, irrelevant. They weren't required by the withdrawal agreement or even a part of it. You're still trying to duck and dodge your claims aren't you?
 
Navy Pride said:
Truth be told we nevver should have pulled all of our troops out of Iraq.....Thanks to Obama many more Americans will die there.
Click to expand...

Yup, and innocent muslims, Christians, etc.

WHAT IS OBAMA DOING? Whats his game plan? His random and inept policy continues, just like syria and libya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom