• 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 Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership [W:251]

Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

And misinterpreted it.
You said that Obama called the Iraq War a success and then failed to provide a direct quote that he ever said that. Instead you deliberately misinterpret what he did say because the truth doesn't fit your intellectually dishonest right wing narrative.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

You said that Obama called the Iraq War a success and then failed to provide a direct quote that he ever said that. Instead you deliberately misinterpret what he did say because the truth doesn't fit your intellectually dishonest right wing narrative.

He called it a success. Deny all you want.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

:shrug: having looked at the problem set professionally on the military side, I can tell you he is mostly correct.

I say "mostly" because Words Mean Things, and I wouldn't apply the term "completely" to "neutralized". "Massively" or possibly "Overwhelmingly", perhaps.


I concede your point on "completely."
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

He called it a success. Deny all you want.

You can quibble, lie, deny, deflect or whatever, but "a moment of success" does not translate into "Iraq War was a success."
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership



Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success.

Again, from the Gaurdian article.....

"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."​


And what was that "moment of success"? It was troop withdrawal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success.

Again, from the Gaurdian article.....
"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."​
And what was that "moment of success"? It was troop withdrawal.
You're not getting the entire picture but, even if what you say were true, and considering the murderous aftermath of the troop withdrawal in Iraq, do you still consider this 'withdrawal' a 'success'?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

You're not getting the entire picture but, even if what you say were true, and considering the murderous aftermath of the troop withdrawal in Iraq, do you still consider this 'withdrawal' a 'success'?

If what she says is true, that isn't the question. But understand this was coming no matter when we withdrew. It was destined the second we recklessly invaded Iraq.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

If what she says is true, that isn't the question. But understand this was coming no matter when we withdrew. It was destined the second we recklessly invaded Iraq.
That is clearly unprovable and a foolishly wild speculation. The fact is that the real problems began once the troops were removed and that is not debatable..
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

You're not getting the entire picture but, even if what you say were true, and considering the murderous aftermath of the troop withdrawal in Iraq, do you still consider this 'withdrawal' a 'success'?

What bloody aftermath? While still too high, there were less deaths after US combat troop withdrawal in 2009, than before....


byman-testimony-resurgence-al-qaeda-iraq-image-1.jpg
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success.

Again, from the Gaurdian article.....

"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."​


And what was that "moment of success"? It was troop withdrawal.

What goes around comes around, eh?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership


Combat troops were pulled out in 2009.....with an extension of 10 months.....


On 27 February 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced his revision to the original date of withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. The revision was to extend the original date of 30 June 2009 for an additional 10 months, to 31 August 2010.

On 19 August 2010 the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was the last American combat brigade to withdraw from Iraq.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Combat troops were pulled out in 2009.....with an extension of 10 months.....


On 27 February 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced his revision to the original date of withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. The revision was to extend the original date of 30 June 2009 for an additional 10 months, to 31 August 2010.

On 19 August 2010 the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was the last American combat brigade to withdraw from Iraq.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You only have to read the first paragraph. FLASHBACK

Are you aware now of the 'bloody aftermath'? Do you know that there were terrorists murdering innocent Iraqis when the troops were there and that by removing the troops the situation could only get worse?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

What goes around comes around, eh?

What is that supposed to mean?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

You only have to read the first paragraph. FLASHBACK

Are you aware now of the 'bloody aftermath'? Do you know that there were terrorists murdering innocent Iraqis when the troops were there and that by removing the troops the situation could only get worse?

All you had to do was look at the body count chart to see that the after math of troop withdrawal wasn't nearly as bloody as it was before. Sorry but I don't really consider the CNS a credible source.


Are you aware that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the invasion....but because of the war now there are? Bush still gets the credit for the invasion that opened the can of worms we now call ISIS.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

All you had to do was look at the body count chart to see that the after math of troop withdrawal wasn't nearly as bloody as it was before. Sorry but I don't really consider the CNS a credible source.


Are you aware that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the invasion....but because of the war now there are? Bush still gets the credit for the invasion that opened the can of worms we now call ISIS.

Wrong, Saddam literally had terrorist conventions.
 


This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:


Saddam's Dangerous Friends | The Weekly Standard
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Wrong, Saddam literally had terrorist conventions.


Then why can't you prove it with unbiased, credible, factual evidence?



"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard



Those are the same people that lied about WMDs in order to fool the public into supporting the Iraq war.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:


This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:


Saddam's Dangerous Friends | The Weekly Standard

Thanks for the cite. Stephen Hayes is a first rate researcher. Most leftists sympathize with Muslim jihadists and share their loathing of the U.S. and western civilization generally, so I expect them to try to cast doubt on this evidence. I have always thought Saddam Hussein was involved indirectly with jihadists, and possibly even with the people behind 9/11. President Clinton thought Iraq was involved with them too--he said he ordered the bombing of a factory in Khartoum in 1998 because of evidence that Iraq was using it to produce poison gas and/or biological agents that could fall into the hands of terrorists. Sudan's history of involvement with Al Qaeda--it was the group's home base in the early 1990's--made this risk credible.

In September, 1992, Abdul Yassin crossed from Iraq into Jordan, and from there flew to a Jersey City apartment building where his brother lived. Ostensibly he had come to the U.S. for treatment of his epilepsy. Within ten days of his arrival, Ramzi Yousef arrived at the same apartment building from Pakistan. In time, the two rented a nearby house that was back from the street, allowing them to hide the odors from the chemicals Yousef used, with Yassin's help, to put together a 1,200 lb. bomb there inside a rented van. Obviously someone was coordinating their activities.

A week or so after the bomb was set off under the North Tower on February 26, 1993--miraculously killing only six people, but coming uncomfortably close to bringing down both towers as other jihadists were to do eight and a half years later--Yassin, who was not yet a suspect, casually flew back to Iraq. Abdul Yassin was still living in Baghdad at the time of the 2003 invasion, even though the FBI had by then wanted him for a decade, and even though the agreements Iraq signed to end the Gulf War required it to report and turn over any suspected terrorists.

Also, Yassin's seriously ill mother received the kind of special medical treatments that were only available to the families of people the regime favored. Why was Saddam Hussein for so long sheltering and otherwise favoring a man who directly participated in the first jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center, unless Yassin was an operative of his regime, and unless Hussein wanted to help jihadists carry out that bombing? And if he wanted to help them bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, why would he, in 2001, not want to help them finish the job?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

What is that supposed to mean?

Oh...I just remember back when Bush said something and a whole lot of people "misunderstood" what he said. He took a lot of heat over that. There were a lot of misleading headlines about it.

"Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success. "

Well, seems the same thing is happening to Obama.

"What goes around, comes around."
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Sorry but I'm not going to read a pdf that I have to save to my hard drive from a source I'm not familiar with.



lauren.vortex.com on reddit.com


You should be careful, too.

Don't worry, Moot. That .pdf is safe. This is from the cover page:

Screenshot (728).jpg
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Except that headline is misleading because Obama didn't declare the Iraq War was a success.

Again, from the Gaurdian article.....
"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."​


And what was that "moment of success"? It was troop withdrawal.

"Iraq's not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. We're building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement," he said.
 
Back
Top Bottom