Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

[US Conservative]

Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq
By PETER BAKERAUG. 7, 2014

WASHINGTON — In sending warplanes back into the skies over Iraq, President Obama on Thursday night found himself exactly where he did not want to be. Hoping to end the war in Iraq, Mr. Obama became the fourth president in a row to order military action in that graveyard of American ambition.

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.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

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.

And Bush got us in the ****ed up mess in the first place.

That's what happens when you vote for Republicans.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Love how many conservatives are promoting how great life would have been if America had just stayed in a perpetual war forever to score cheap political points.

 

[Swit]

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.

What's that? They clean up Republicans messes?

 

[US Conservative]

What's that? They clean up Republicans messes?

No they leave the place worse than they found it and then blame everyone else.

 

[US Conservative]

Love how many conservatives are promoting how great life would have been if America had just stayed in a perpetual war forever to score cheap political points.

So the two options were Obama leaving the region to terrorists (which he picked) or perpetual war? False choice, much?

 

[Swit]

So the two options were Obama leaving the region to terrorists (which he picked) or perpetual war? False choice, much?

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.

 

[US Conservative]

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.

Sorry thats untrue-Obama could have obtained the SOFA agreement-its not some insurmountable task-and the Iraqi's and our own military advised him to stay in iraq. Note how fast it came along when we sent in special forces.

Obama surrendered victory to the same group beheading christian children in egypt.

 

[Swit]

Sorry thats untrue-Obama could have obtained the SOFA agreement-its not some insurmountable task-and the Iraqi's and our own military advised him to stay in iraq. Note how fast it came along when we sent in special forces.

Obama surrendered victory to the same group beheading christian children in egypt.

It doesn't matter if Iraqi military advised him to stay. They fact of the matter is he did in fact try to extend the agreement on the grounds that ALL American forces (military and contrator) were immun to Iraqi persecution. The Iraqi parliment refused to grant that and so never extended the SOFA agreement.... seriously... you can look this up. Obama supporters were furious that he was trying to extend the stay.
link]U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There - The Atlantic
from wiki:
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. link
and another link

 

[Peter King]

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.

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.

 

[Perotista]

It doesn't matter if Iraqi military advised him to stay. They fact of the matter is he did in fact try to extend the agreement on the grounds that ALL American forces (military and contrator) were immun to Iraqi persecution. The Iraqi parliment refused to grant that and so never extended the SOFA agreement.... seriously... you can look this up. Obama supporters were furious that he was trying to extend the stay.
link]U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There - The Atlantic
from wiki:
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. link
and another link

That's weird. I served 20 years in the military in 4 different countries and the military personnel and contractors serving in those countries did not have immunity from prosecution by the local government. If you broke a local government law, you stood trial in their court. Most of the SOFA revolved on who had jurisdiction on the American military bases which housed the troops and equipment, the leased hotels and buildings etc. SOFA can also include rules of engagement and a whole bunch of other things. No one ever had immunity except those Embassy Personnel with diplomatic passports. Usually military personnel serving in a foreign country are subject to the laws of that country just like an American tourist would be.

Are you sure President Obama wanted immunity for all the military and contractors? If so you are putting all of the military and contractors in the same category as the Ambassador and the Embassy staff. I never heard of this ever being requested. But there is always a first time for everything. Even when I was an Assistant Attache, I did not have immunity although I carried an embassy ID.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

For ****s sake can someone actually know recent history!? How we got in this war, how we pulled out, etc?!??!?!

 

[TeleKat]

This whole situation spawned from the US getting involved there in the first place.

 

[Swit]

That's weird. I served 20 years in the military in 4 different countries and the military personnel and contractors serving in those countries did not have immunity from prosecution by the local government. If you broke a local government law, you stood trial in their court. Most of the SOFA revolved on who had jurisdiction on the American military bases which housed the troops and equipment, the leased hotels and buildings etc. SOFA can also include rules of engagement and a whole bunch of other things. No one ever had immunity except those Embassy Personnel with diplomatic passports. Usually military personnel serving in a foreign country are subject to the laws of that country just like an American tourist would be.

Are you sure President Obama wanted immunity for all the military and contractors? If so you are putting all of the military and contractors in the same category as the Ambassador and the Embassy staff. I never heard of this ever being requested. But there is always a first time for everything. Even when I was an Assistant Attache, I did not have immunity although I carried an embassy ID.

I must admit I never saw / read any of the actual SOFA proposals, but there was alot of controversy over Blackwater's allegedly killing of civillians as well as the Apache mowing down civilians movie that got exposed by wiki leaks. My understanding was that due to (at the time) the current SOFA agreemnt dis-allowed the Iraqi goverment from prosecuting those individuals and our Governments refusal to allow the prosecucution of the "casualties of war" type scenarios was the deal killer in the Iraqi parliments point of view. I can attempt and go dig up the articles if you wish.

 

[Swit]

This whole situation spawned from the US getting involved there in the first place.

agreed

 

[US Conservative]

It doesn't matter if Iraqi military advised him to stay. They fact of the matter is he did in fact try to extend the agreement on the grounds that ALL American forces (military and contrator) were immun to Iraqi persecution. The Iraqi parliment refused to grant that and so never extended the SOFA agreement.... seriously... you can look this up. Obama supporters were furious that he was trying to extend the stay.
link]U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There - The Atlantic
from wiki:
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. link
and another link

Facts, are stubborn things...

President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different. - The Washington Post


"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That’s not true," Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

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.”
President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different. - The Washington Post

Obama is shucking and jiving, while innocent children are dying. Politics, is all this was to him.

 

[US Conservative]

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.

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.

 

[US Conservative]

I must admit I never saw / read any of the actual SOFA proposals, but there was alot of controversy over Blackwater's allegedly killing of civillians as well as the Apache mowing down civilians movie that got exposed by wiki leaks. My understanding was that due to (at the time) the current SOFA agreemnt dis-allowed the Iraqi goverment from prosecuting those individuals and our Governments refusal to allow the prosecucution of the "casualties of war" type scenarios was the deal killer in the Iraqi parliments point of view. I can attempt and go dig up the articles if you wish.

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.

 

[US Conservative]

This whole situation spawned from the US getting involved there in the first place.

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

Those could have easily resolved and were expected to be.

 

[Swit]

Facts, are stubborn things...



Obama is shucking and jiving, while innocent children are dying. Politics, is all this was to him.

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?

 

[Swit]

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.

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

 

[Swit]

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.

The Iraqi parliment refused to allow our troops to be there.... should we have denied them their own sovereign right of governance?

 

[Peter King]

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.

No, they share a common factor named baseless republican complaining.

 

[Swit]

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.

Many would argue that they came under prominence not because of Obama but because of the US decision to wage war in Iraq.