• 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!

US hostage Kassig 'killed by IS'

Ah, rehashing the same old lie. Who signed the withdrawal agreement of 2008? Thanks.

As already pointed out, the 2008 agreement set 2011 as the end point in order to leave BHO a free hand. No one imagined BHO would opt for a zero force level.
 
Conservatives have no plan, and neocons have an even worse plan. You could kill every ISIS member and it wouldn't solve a damned thing. It would actually cause more extremism, and promote the belief to Islamic nations that America will take care of their problems if they ever get out of hand.

You're an enabler.

Islamism is flourishing under Obama, we dont want to MORE extremism so we better keep quiet. :doh

Still comments like yours offer a valuable lesson-into the mindset of appeasers like those that tried the same with hitler.
 
You should also recognize that Obama was gifted with a huge pile of dung left over by Bush... Afghanistan, Iraq and an economy in complete shambles. The Obama Administration certainly made their share of mistakes, but nothing short of Jesus could have managed to wholly fix what a mass **** up they inherited.

I saw Chuck Todd on Charlie Rose talking about his new book about Obama. One of the points they discussed was that Obama and the Pentagon just did not click well. No matter how many times he asked them and in how many different ways, they would not give him any proposals, for instance, that did not involve a surge in Afghanistan even when he was trying to find out if there were other postures we could be taking other than flooding the country with boots. Unfortunately, that pile of dung he was left included a mindset that probably cost people life and limb that possibly could have been avoided.
 
Islamism is flourishing under Obama, we dont want to MORE extremism so we better keep quiet. :doh

The only way to end Islamic extremism in the Middle East -- through force -- is to literally tear the whole place down and rebuild it from the ground up. Good luck getting public support for that, and good luck paying for it.
 
The only way to end Islamic extremism in the Middle East -- through force -- is to literally tear the whole place down and rebuild it from the ground up. Good luck getting public support for that, and good luck paying for it.

I dont think thats feasible, but its also not needed. The US is the lawnmower, and ISIS are the weeds. We have a choice, do nothing and live amongst the weeds or mow them down. Its a constant chore, like laundry or washing your car-but its worth the effort.

So, you can continue to appease terror, but I wont have it. And once this chump is out of office, neither will the next potus.
 
As already pointed out, the 2008 agreement set 2011 as the end point in order to leave BHO a free hand. No one imagined BHO would opt for a zero force level.

You keep lying? Why? Can you tell us where in this text you see 2011 as the "end point" for anything? The agreement actually set the withdrawal point for all US troops for that date.

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

All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory nolater than December 31, 2011.

It was fulfilled. Do you have a problem with the Obama administration fulfilling the agreements by previous administrations?
 
I saw Chuck Todd on Charlie Rose talking about his new book about Obama. One of the points they discussed was that Obama and the Pentagon just did not click well. No matter how many times he asked them and in how many different ways, they would not give him any proposals, for instance, that did not involve a surge in Afghanistan even when he was trying to find out if there were other postures we could be taking other than flooding the country with boots. Unfortunately, that pile of dung he was left included a mindset that probably cost people life and limb that possibly could have been avoided.

So its the pentagons fault now, eh?
 
Do you have a problem with the Obama administration fulfilling the agreements by previous administrations?

I have a problem with Obama giving terrorists the time, space, and moral permission to flourish-and then blaming it on his predecessor. Your lame attempted excuse (Obama's just following orders/here to do his job/etc) just doesn't fly.
 
I have a problem with Obama giving terrorists the time, space, and moral permission to flourish-and then blaming it on his predecessor. Your lame attempted excuse (Obama's just following orders/here to do his job/etc) just doesn't fly.

Ah, my lame attempt. It's good you've come back to discuss this issue. Considering you keep regurgitating the lie that Obama "lost a peace" that was never in existence. Can you tell us which part of the Iraqi withdrawal agreement shouldn't have been fulfilled and under what legal premise?

Or are you going to continue lying you ass off on who signed the agreement, why and what it involved?
 
I dont think thats feasible, but its also not needed. The US is the lawnmower, and ISIS are the weeds.

Curiously, this is almost the exact word usage used by Israel in dealing with its issues. Whenever the Palestinians get out of hand, they 'mow the lawn'.

Anyway, have fun promoting wars and fighting emotions for the next 60 years. And don't ever be under the impression that you're not a socialist (since you believe in spending and redistributing wealth via the government).
 
You keep lying? Why? Can you tell us where in this text you see 2011 as the "end point" for anything? The agreement actually set the withdrawal point for all US troops for that date.

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



It was fulfilled. Do you have a problem with the Obama administration fulfilling the agreements by previous administrations?

For the third time, the agreement was written that way to leave BHO a free hand. The assumption of all concerned was that by 2011 the BHO team would have formulated their strategy and would negotiate accordingly. No one believed this would lead to a zero option.
 
For the third time, the agreement was written that way to leave BHO a free hand. The assumption of all concerned was that by 2011 the BHO team would have formulated their strategy and would negotiate accordingly. No one believed this would lead to a zero option.

Was it now? Show us how and where. Tell us where it allowed "a free hand". I'll wait.
 
Was it now? Show us how and where. Tell us where it allowed "a free hand". I'll wait.

Here you go.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html

". . . At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date. . . ."
 
Ah, my lame attempt. It's good you've come back to discuss this issue. Considering you keep regurgitating the lie that Obama "lost a peace" that was never in existence. Can you tell us which part of the Iraqi withdrawal agreement shouldn't have been fulfilled and under what legal premise?

Or are you going to continue lying you ass off on who signed the agreement, why and what it involved?

Iraq was willing to work with us, Obama continued to change the rules and make the iraqi's jump through hoops. And, as SOON as ISIS started its advance, Obama had no issue quickly getting a SOFA overnight. Just like its done all over the nation.

We all know its an excuse pal, just admit it.
 
Curiously, this is almost the exact word usage used by Israel in dealing with its issues. Whenever the Palestinians get out of hand, they 'mow the lawn'.

Anyway, have fun promoting wars and fighting emotions for the next 60 years. And don't ever be under the impression that you're not a socialist (since you believe in spending and redistributing wealth via the government).

:applaud :bs
 
Last edited:
Here you go.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html

". . . At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date. . . ."

Ah, so you can't actually refer the agreement itself? Good. I didn't think you could either. You have to rely on the beliefs of unnamed sources. It's a terrible thing that how people think agreements will be implemented and what is actually written into them are two different things. Now, can you provide anything from the agreement itself to prove this claim: "the agreement was written that way to leave BHO a free hand"? Yes or no answer.
 
Iraq was willing to work with us, Obama continued to change the rules and make the iraqi's jump through hoops. And, as SOON as ISIS started its advance, Obama had no issue quickly getting a SOFA overnight.

Well, when ISIS started advancing, the 25 Billion Dollar (USD) Iraqi army promptly folded. Prior to that, Malaki was in Iran's pocket and was Iran was vehement that no American troops were to remain in Iraq.
 
Ah, so you can't actually refer the agreement itself? Good. I didn't think you could either. You have to rely on the beliefs of unnamed sources. It's a terrible thing that how people think agreements will be implemented and what is actually written into them are two different things. Now, can you provide anything from the agreement itself to prove this claim: "the agreement was written that way to leave BHO a free hand"? Yes or no answer.

That is the way of almost all agreements, and you are either a novice or willfully obtuse if you don't know that. Had such language been in the agreement its political purpose could not have been accomplished.
 
Well, when ISIS started advancing, the 25 Billion Dollar (USD) Iraqi army promptly folded. Prior to that, Malaki was in Iran's pocket and was Iran was vehement that no American troops were to remain in Iraq.

Thats nice, but understand the point-the insurmountable task of getting a sofa agreement was done in a few hours. Obama caught in yet another lie.
 
Iraq was willing to work with us,

Ah, so Iraq asked for US forces to stay past the 2011 deadline. Fine. Show us how? Remember, for this statement to be true, Iraq's demands need to have come before the deadline. So I'll wait for you to provide evidence.

Obama continued to change the rules and make the iraqi's jump through hoops. And, as SOON as ISIS started its advance, Obama had no issue quickly getting a SOFA overnight. Just like its done all over the nation.

We all know its an excuse pal, just admit it.

Your refusal to even provide a modicum of proof is really funny. However, it doesn't make your false claims true.
 
Thats nice, but understand the point-the insurmountable task of getting a sofa agreement was done in a few hours. Obama caught in yet another lie.

It was not insurmountable; Malaki just didn't want to sign it because he was a sectarian thug controlled by Iran. ISIS came about in part due to Malaki's actions, and Malaki was no longer in a position to play games when his army sh*t its collective pants.
 
That is the way of almost all agreements, and you are either a novice or willfully obtuse if you don't know that. Had such language been in the agreement its political purpose could not have been accomplished.

Last post where I ask you to show us where the agreement left Obama "a free hand". Now, I won't even begin to address the moronic belief that agreements are bound by the expectations of people who don't sign them or write them. However, I will say this, if you continue to claim that it was written with a language that allowed leniency on the deadlines, I'll continue to ask you where in the text one can find such language and laugh as you are totally incapable of doing so.
 
Last post where I ask you to show us where the agreement left Obama "a free hand". Now, I won't even begin to address the moronic belief that agreements are bound by the expectations of people who don't sign them or write them. However, I will say this, if you continue to claim that it was written with a language that allowed leniency on the deadlines, I'll continue to ask you where in the text one can find such language and laugh as you are totally incapable of doing so.

There was never "leniency" anywhere, but there was a near universal expectation that a new agreement would be negotiated before the 2011 deadline, and that new agreement would provide for a residual US troop presence.
 
Back
Top Bottom