• 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!

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq

When any group behaves like Nazis, what's the harm in comparing them to Nazis? Why so sensitive in this area? Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood

They didn't act like Nazi's. They were a minority crew trying to hold onto their power over a majority with extreme authoritarianist oppression. They were not pushing for race purity and pushing an expansion of a third reich. Not even close.
 
I can agree with that. If only some weren't working overtime to make is so hard to vote perhaps we'd get a better turnout?

Greetings, poweRob. :2wave:

I've been voting for years in the same place, and we all know each other since it's a small town. I still have to show ID to comply with Ohio law. The first time I was asked a few years ago, I was surprised because he knew me, so I asked why, and the man keeping the sign-in book said "I have to ask my own mother to show her ID." *Okay, that's fair* Most of the people I know just show their driver's license, or any other State-issued card with a picture on it. I don't know what other States require, though.
 
When any group behaves like Nazis, what's the harm in comparing them to Nazis? Why so sensitive in this area? Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood

They didn't act like Nazi's. They were a minority crew trying to hold onto their power over a majority with extreme authoritarianist oppression. They were not pushing for race purity and pushing an expansion of a third reich. Not even close.
 
They didn't act like Nazi's. They were a minority crew trying to hold onto their power over a majority with extreme authoritarianist oppression. They were not pushing for race purity and pushing an expansion of a third reich. Not even close.
Any similarity with their attitudes towards Jews? Censorship? A Master Religion?
 
Greetings, poweRob. :2wave:

I've been voting for years in the same place, and we all know each other since it's a small town. I still have to show ID to comply with Ohio law. The first time I was asked a few years ago, I was surprised because he knew me, so I asked why, and the man keeping the sign-in book said "I have to ask my own mother to show her ID." *Okay, that's fair* Most of the people I know just show their driver's license, or any other State-issued card with a picture on it. I don't know what other States require, though.

Its' very unbalanced and unequal. The constitution allots for states to run their own elections but I really think we need to standardize them and get some unity in place so that there isn't all these ridiculous variations that are thwarted by special interests all over the place. Like in Texas where they put forth (and got struck down fortunately) that a college ID, which is a state institution, isn't ID enough but an private organization NRA ID card is good enough to vote with. Makes no sense.

NRA Card OK But Not Student ID: Fed Court Blocks Texas Voter ID Law | Politic365
 
Any similarity with their attitudes towards Jews? Censorship? A Master Religion?

Under Bathists... such oppression was far less. Christians existed in peace in Northern parts of Iraq. Jews... don't know. doesn't matter in context of Nazi's putting Jews on trains and then in ovens and gas chambers compared to that not happening in Iraq. Try as desperate as you might, there is no reasonable comparison.
 
Sending American troops into Afghanistan with politically correct rules of engagement that favor the enemy doesn't gain the respect of the troops.

If the troops can't fight a war without torture, rape, murder, indiscriminate killing, and desecration of the dead then perhaps it should operate without immunity.
 
If the troops can't fight a war without torture, rape, murder, indiscriminate killing, and desecration of the dead then perhaps it should operate without immunity.

Telling our troops they can't shoot at the enemy until they are already being shot at is PC ROE that favor the enemy.
 
Telling our troops they can't shoot at the enemy until they are already being shot at is PC ROE that favor the enemy.

As opposed to what? Shooting random people and hoping at least one of them actually is the enemy?
 
As opposed to what? Shooting random people and hoping at least one of them actually is the enemy?

During WW ll the entire Pacific theatre and European theatre were one big free fire zone. That's how you win battles that leads to winning wars.
 
During WW ll the entire Pacific theatre and European theatre were one big free fire zone. That's how you win battles that leads to winning wars.

Fortunately we've come a long way both technologically and morally from firebombing entire cities to neutralize a single target. Thats how war criminals behave and only incompetents would believe such a strategy is needed today.
 
Last edited:
If the troops can't fight a war without torture, rape, murder, indiscriminate killing, and desecration of the dead then perhaps it should operate without immunity.

Just for your information, war is the organized destruction of property and murder of people. Cant really have a war without those two prerequisites. Breaking other peoples **** and murdering people aint exactly honorable, I don't think dead people are really going to care about their corpses. If they somehow do care, then they probably envy those that get raped and tortured cause at least they are still breathing. Wars are very non prejudicial activities. They are the essence of nondiscrimination, at its finest, everyone gets to share in the fun. Immunity is something that host countries give when the actually want their guests to do something, otherwise nobody is gona do jack or ****.

"I am sorry, is a terrorist group rampaging though your streets? What? You need help? Now? Sucks to be you. I have date with the TV right now, footballs on. That's unacceptable? You need help this instant? Tell you what friend I will be nice and pass it up the chain. If you lucky they will get on that request in week. Now try and keep your head, I hear them terrorist have been taking em. You wouldn't want to loose yours right? I gots to go. You all have a fine day now. Footballs are calling me."
 
As opposed to what? Shooting random people and hoping at least one of them actually is the enemy?

Actually the way it works is this way. You kill and maim as many people in their territory as you can regardless of their supposed sympathies. They are like potato chips you cant kill just one. You wipe the whole bag out.
 
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

I'm sure you put in on your bookshelf right next to Richard Clarke's fine works...
 
er uh your opinion is required in the Obamacare forum. Anyhoo, Iraq not wanting US troops and refusing to give US troops immunity is not President Obama's responsibility. Thank goodness as a leader he didn't let the inevitable and incessant lies from the right about Iraq stop him from making the right decisions. I guess maliki just assumed he would be as weak willed and easy to manipulate as Bush. He was wrong.

Ok, lets just think about this for a minute. I mean, actually use the thing you were gifted with, or not gifted with and really think about what you just said. Maliki cant even defeat ISIS and force them to do anything. So if we decide we want combat troops in Iraq, we will have combat troops in Iraq. There is nothing Maliki or the government of Iraq could possibly do to us to keep us from placing troops in Iraq. HE CANT EVEN CONTROL HIS OWN COUNTRY!!! What exactly do you think Maliki would do if we decided to put troops there and one of them breaks a law we don't agree with being a law. Seriously, you think we would be forced to turn him over. NO!!!! HE CANT EVEN DEFEAT ISIS, so how in the heck is he going to force us to turn over a soldier for breaking a law in Iraq. Camon now, I was hoping people would be smart enough to see that both Maliki and Obama are not interested in US soldiers in Iraq and that is why they used SOFA as a scapegoat issue.
 
Under Bathists... such oppression was far less. Christians existed in peace in Northern parts of Iraq. Jews... don't know. doesn't matter in context of Nazi's putting Jews on trains and then in ovens and gas chambers compared to that not happening in Iraq. Try as desperate as you might, there is no reasonable comparison.
I'm not as desperate to make the comparison as you are to deny it.
 
Ok, lets just think about this for a minute. I mean, actually use the thing you were gifted with, or not gifted with and really think about what you just said. Maliki cant even defeat ISIS and force them to do anything. So if we decide we want combat troops in Iraq, we will have combat troops in Iraq. There is nothing Maliki or the government of Iraq could possibly do to us to keep us from placing troops in Iraq. HE CANT EVEN CONTROL HIS OWN COUNTRY!!! What exactly do you think Maliki would do if we decided to put troops there and one of them breaks a law we don't agree with being a law. Seriously, you think we would be forced to turn him over. NO!!!! HE CANT EVEN DEFEAT ISIS, so how in the heck is he going to force us to turn over a soldier for breaking a law in Iraq. Camon now, I was hoping people would be smart enough to see that both Maliki and Obama are not interested in US soldiers in Iraq and that is why they used SOFA as a scapegoat issue.

did you hit "reply" to the wrong post ?
 
Yes, we are fighting for oil, but we are also fighting to free the people from the extremists. I think your inability to understand that a free society will ultimately be economically advantageous to the US. So the argument that oil is the only reason for war, is ignorant. The biggest economic gains America made was soon after WW2 and the Korean war. When the US liberated both Japan and Korea from their rulers and turned them into capitalistic countries that had strong ties with the US, we gained a lot. If we were able to remove the control of the leaders in the ME who are effectively stopping any progress of civilization there, then the ME and the US will profit greatly. All you have to do is pick up a history book and see how we transformed Japan and Korea after their respective wars with us and you will see the obvious advantage of transforming a government from a dictatorship type rule, to our system and then forming strong economic ties with it.

I'm not denying the benefits of free societies. I'm denying that US policies are creating any such thing.
 
It is truly amazing that despite all the information available that there are still those too stubborn to understand that SOFA agreements are often designed to end in a successors term in case changes want to be made. The important gain was getting the first SOFA agreement as a precedent for successive Presidents, and Iraqi leaders, to follow.

Of course Obama had no intention of following any SOFA agreement and said so. His plan was always to 'bring the troops home' whther Iraq was stable or not. As it was he insisted it was 'stable', and a 'great achievement'.

Yes, bring the troops home because we Americans elected him to do so. If you've a problem with that, as I stated before, get Harper to station Canadian troops there!
 
First of all, Im not defending Bush nor the Iraq war or the Sofa agreement signed by Bush. Bush isn't president. Bush was no longer president when the SOFA expired. Obama was president and once he was sworn in, Iraq and the SOFA and everything else that comes with the job of president became HIS responsibility. He didn't do a very good job and could easily be argued to have made matter worse. Second, we don't elect a president to follow the will of the majority. He is elected to lead. And in that regard Obama has performed poorly as well.

I think Obama's ME policies have been at least as damaging as Bush's. In fact, the general US policy in the ME has been failure for decades.
 
So what? These are the same people who voted for Barrack Obama? Are you saying that foreign policy should be decided by public polling??

By election!
 
Since when does 'the will of the American people' guide foreign policy? They usually don't understand a thing except 'war is bad', and it must be explained what the long term consequence of what any decision might be. That's what leadership is intended to do.

Again it's clear you know nothing about SOFA and shouldn't even be using the term.

Since when does the will of a Canadian, resident of CR guide American foreign policy?
 
All of which is entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

Not true. You invoke Clinton as agreeing with Panetta when Clinton believed the Iraq war was a mistake to begin with.
 
Indeed. And thereby helped bring ISIS into being.

More lies from the chief of disinformation. Obama supported the MB against Mubarak, he used Al Qaeda to help topple Gaddafi, and has been pursuing old US policy of regime change in Syria. Very bad Obama policies. But the Islamic State and ISIS/ISIL didn't come into being just because you only heard of them a few months ago!

The Sunni militants who now threaten to take over Iraq seemed to spring from nowhere when they stormed Mosul in early June. But the group that recently renamed itself simply “the Islamic State” has existed under various names and in various shapes since the early 1990s. And its story is the story of how modern terrorism has evolved, from a political and religious ideal into a death cult.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/isis-a-short-history/376030/

The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), which previously called itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎ al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIraq wa-al-Shām) and is also known by the Arabic acronym Dāʻish (داعش), is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East.

ISIL originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004. AQI took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the 2003–11 Iraq War, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) shortly afterwards.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant


None of which would have happened under Hussein's watch! Bush bears far more responsibility for the rise of the Islamic State.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom