• 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'

Kobie said:
What part of the fact that the Iraqis would not budge on us giving up extraterritoriality is not penetrating that brick wall surrounding your cranium? That is a non-starter. Period.
Click to expand...

I just linked to an appeal by 2 members of Iraq's govt, including Maliki that were willing to sidestep this, and they quickly did when we eventually DID come back in (too little, too late-aka the story of Obama).
 
US Conservative said:
I just linked to an appeal by 2 members of Iraq's govt, including Maliki that were willing to sidestep this, and they quickly did when we eventually DID come back in (too little, too late-aka the story of Obama).
Click to expand...

You really don't read your own source, do you?

But ultimately, the Iraqis did insist that a new SOFA had to go through their parliament and they would not budge on the immunities issue, which made an extension of U.S. forces there impossible, Jeffrey said. He said the insistence on immunity was uniform inside the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
This is so ridiculous, it's almost contrary to every fact you've posted so far. Do you realize that extraterritoriality (demanded by Maliki and Iraqi government - as per your source) was not a demand that the US could meet? That makes the claim that they wanted us to stay complete bull****.
Click to expand...

You are making inferences here-jumps-that should not be made. Maliki TOLD Obama to make it an executive agreement, to sidestep the difficulties in getting a sofa agreement.

And in truth, a better president wouldn't have had any trouble getting through an agreement but as we see demonstrated nearly daily, our POTUS is not such a good leader.

Obama's shortcomings have put us here. Own it.
 
US Conservative said:
You are making inferences here-jumps-that should not be made. Maliki TOLD Obama to make it an executive agreement, to sidestep the difficulties in getting a sofa agreement.

And in truth, a better president wouldn't have had any trouble getting through an agreement but as we see demonstrated nearly daily, our POTUS is not such a good leader.
Click to expand...

It's like you didn't read your own source, what part of no senior official in the Iraqi government was willing to support extraterritoriality is hard for you to understand? It's like you're not even reading your own sources. You proved your own claim wrong. There was no inference. The Iraqi government would not have allowed extraterritoriality, they would not budge, and the people of the US would have had a collective meltdown if it had been agreed to. That makes your entire claim not only ridiculous, but false. They had no intention of 'working with us' if extraterritoriality was a position they (that includes Maliki) would not budge on.
 
Hatuey said:
It's like you didn't read your own source, what part of no senior official in the Iraqi government was willing to support extraterritoriality is hard for you to understand? It's like you're not even reading your own sources. You proved your own claim wrong. There was no inference. The Iraqi government would not have allowed extraterritoriality, they would not budge, and the people of the US would have had a collective meltdown if it had been agreed to. That makes your entire claim not only ridiculous, but false. They had no intention of 'working with us' if extraterritoriality was a position they (that includes Maliki) would not budge on.
Click to expand...

I have already linked to where Maliki ASKED OBAMA TO STAY. My claim was Iraq WANTED THE US TO STAY.
Obama left anyway and lost the peace in Iraq. Own it.
 
US Conservative said:
I have already linked to where Maliki ASKED OBAMA TO STAY. My claim was Iraq WANTED THE US TO STAY.
Obama left anyway and lost the peace in Iraq. Own it.
Click to expand...

US Conservative said:
Iraq was willing to work with us
Click to expand...

Still lying about what you stated? Again, Iraq didn't want to work with us. They asked to stay with the condition that we'd give up extraterritoriality. Not only was that unfeasible, it proves they had no interest in us staying at all. Keep lying US Con. Maybe if you do it long enough, it will come true.
 
US Conservative said:
I have already linked to where Maliki ASKED OBAMA TO STAY. My claim was Iraq WANTED THE US TO STAY.
Obama left anyway and lost the peace in Iraq. Own it.
Click to expand...
There was no peace, with Maliki in charge, it is/was a powder keg ready to blow.
 
US Conservative said:
Hey at least you can come out and say it-you were willing to leave Iraq to the wolves if it suited you. It wasn't about Iraq for Obama either-it was about how to take full advantage of the situation for political capital.

Now, since you and I agree something should now be done-the question is WHAT. We know that a few airstrikes here or there make for good news coverage but they aren't substantive. Boots on the ground are. And since we should never fight a war without being willing to fight it-I think we should deploy forces first to expel ISIS, and then to maintain a limited security presence for as long as is needed-NOT until a date on a calendar is reached.
Click to expand...

Too many mistakes were made early on that turned tactical convenience into insurmountable strategic failures. We would have needed McCain's 100 year war to even make a decent showing of it. It wasn't about throwing people to the wolves. We failed and needed to cut our losses. AMERICA failed, not Obama, and we failed before most people ever heard the name Obama in their lives.

Despite your rhetoric trying to avoid admitting the above making me not even want to discuss it further with you, I will say this: What we should do depends on what one wants the post war region to realistically look like--the only two choices are religious oligarchy or somewhat secular autocracy. The only in-between is biding time until you have one or the other at a great human toll.
 
US Conservative said:
I have already linked to where Maliki ASKED OBAMA TO STAY. My claim was Iraq WANTED THE US TO STAY.
Obama left anyway and lost the peace in Iraq. Own it.
Click to expand...

The immunities issue was always a condition of United States forces remaining in Iraq. Why can you not comprehend this?

Now, if your argument is that we should have stayed, extraterritoriality be damned, then fine, make the argument. It's a dumb argument, but at least it's an argument, not a steadfast denial of facts that are in your own source.
 
Kobie said:
The immunities issue was always a condition of United States forces remaining in Iraq. Why can you not comprehend this?

Now, if your argument is that we should have stayed, extraterritoriality be damned, then fine, make the argument. It's a dumb argument, but at least it's an argument, not a steadfast denial of facts that are in your own source.
Click to expand...

We could have brought down the Maliki government had we wanted to stay. Your thinking seems to be too post hoc ergo propter hoc on this.
 
US Conservative said:
What now? We focus on what NEEDS to be done, and thats boots on the ground, not a dog an pony show of airstrikes that aren't definitive.
In medicine, you treat the cause of the problems-and the symptoms resolve.
ISIS is a symptom of a weak leader who WONT act. Said another way, this dog wont hunt.
Click to expand...

I think we have established that there is no support for any decision Obama makes. And you want to put Soldiers in harms way? Hell no. Not with that kind of support.
 
Declan said:
We could have brought down the Maliki government had we wanted to stay. Your thinking seems to be too post hoc ergo propter hoc on this.
Click to expand...

You mean the government we were trying to legitimize?
 
Black Dog said:
That must have taken all of what? 3 seconds to come up with? Much like the other poster... Why don't you come up with a real argument and stop wasting my time.
Click to expand...

I guess you've forgotten that you are not required to answer every posting you disagree with. In fact, you don't even have to read the thread. Now I've reminded you of this, do try and remember.
 
Kobie said:
You mean the government we were trying to legitimize?
Click to expand...

Yes. We could have assassinated him or allowed it to happen through our own non-intervention. Maliki was not critical to success in Iraq. Nobody would have cared. The internal fight was over oil revenue sharing and nothing else at that point.
 
Hatuey said:
I know what side I'm on. Getting us into Iraq is and will always be bull****. However, in our third intervention, it's now obvious that - deposing Saddam left a void (like Cheney predicted in the 90s), that void was filled by insurgents from the beginning (predicted by Cheney again) and going in a third time is likely to turn Iraq into ... well.. another ****ty war we fight thanks to the rehashed white man's burden so many neoconservatives have.

Iraq is not like Korea, Germany or like Japan. Those countries weren't based on tribal factions and a borderline psychotic adherence to religious beliefs. For the most part, they were nations based on laws before we gave them democratic rule. Why do you think China is communist today? It's a country founded on strongman rule. It is a country where democracy and discussion was second to imperial rule and the Mandate of Heaven.

Going into Iraq a 3rd time will be a mistake if we go at it alone and the way it looks, that's how it's going to be. Unless we can shore up support from other nations, we're looking at thousands of American men and women dying for nothing other than the same neoconservative bull**** we've been dealt for nearly 15 years.
Click to expand...

I believe it is a mistake to attempt to impose democracy. However there are successful non-fundamentalist middle eastern countries that could have and shave been engaged in helping to establish effective government in Iraq.

While it is true Germany and Japan were unlike Iraq, there are some other absolutes in place. The US support of a successful Iraq ended before the 2004 elections. Politicians were more invested in winning the 2004 election than they were interested in presenting a unified front against terrorists. Everything that many conservatives are doing with regard to Obama, liberals did to Bush in spades. The US support of Germany and Japan dwarfs the support offered to creating a successful post war Iraq.

I dont think we should launch a boots on the ground war against ISIS alone and certainly not right now. I support the continued use of drones and air strikes. At the same time...I tend to take Jihadists seriously. What they are doing to entire villages of children and women they would do around the globe if not checked. I also am repulsed by a world of people that stand by and watch (or turn a blind eye to) atrocities around the world and do nothing because its 'not their problem'.
 
Hatuey said:
Still lying about what you stated? Again, Iraq didn't want to work with us. They asked to stay with the condition that we'd give up extraterritoriality. Not only was that unfeasible, it proves they had no interest in us staying at all. Keep lying US Con. Maybe if you do it long enough, it will come true.
Click to expand...

I already linked to where Maliki asked him to stay via executive agreement, YOU continue to bring up extraterritoriality when I did nothing of the sort. FOCUS, I never made that claim.

Obama had ways to save iraq, and he let them go for votes.
 
Declan said:
Too many mistakes were made early on that turned tactical convenience into insurmountable strategic failures. We would have needed McCain's 100 year war to even make a decent showing of it. It wasn't about throwing people to the wolves. We failed and needed to cut our losses. AMERICA failed, not Obama, and we failed before most people ever heard the name Obama in their lives.

Despite your rhetoric trying to avoid admitting the above making me not even want to discuss it further with you, I will say this: What we should do depends on what one wants the post war region to realistically look like--the only two choices are religious oligarchy or somewhat secular autocracy. The only in-between is biding time until you have one or the other at a great human toll.
Click to expand...

Wars with radical islamists dont end because you'd like to cut and run. Thats not how it works-this war ends with one side dead. Thats how ideological wars work, and we are NOT the aggressor here. And no, America has not lost this war, though many defeatists on the left would love to see that.
 
Kobie said:
The immunities issue was always a condition of United States forces remaining in Iraq. Why can you not comprehend this?

Now, if your argument is that we should have stayed, extraterritoriality be damned, then fine, make the argument. It's a dumb argument, but at least it's an argument, not a steadfast denial of facts that are in your own source.
Click to expand...

Kobie, I was not, nor am I now discussing legal immunities. Read that again.
Obama had ways to keep our troops in Iraq, this is well known and backed up by higher ups who have said as much. Obama chose not to, and now terrorism flourishes-this must have been what was meant by hope and change.
 
US Conservative said:
Wars with radical islamists dont end because you'd like to cut and run. Thats not how it works-this war ends with one side dead. Thats how ideological wars work, and we are NOT the aggressor here. And no, America has not lost this war, though many defeatists on the left would love to see that.
Click to expand...

Well since it is not your blood soaking into the sand, you have the luxury of not being the one who pays the price for your being wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
I think we have established that there is no support for any decision Obama makes. And you want to put Soldiers in harms way? Hell no. Not with that kind of support.
Click to expand...

I understand that view, but this problem is getting worse as ISIS metastasizes. This problem wont go away, it will just get worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom