• 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!

Islamists attack Radiohead fans at Turkish release party

Hatuey said:
Actually:





This is your perception of who his actions favor being used to determine his religion after having stated it was debatable (see definition of the word: moot) that Obama was a Muslim. Would you care to rephrase your statements to mesh with your current position that you're not saying Obama is a super secret Muslim?
Click to expand...

Again I don't care what he is, I care about the crap he has done.
 
coldjoint said:
But the decision to leave 0 troops was Obamas.
Click to expand...

No, coldjoint, the decision to leave "0 troops" wasn't Obama's. It was in the agreement Bush signed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1]
Click to expand...

Before you decide to try and weasel yourself out by pointing at Wikipedia:

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

View attachment 67202973

That is agreement signed by Bush. So no, Obama did not make the decision. He followed through with a decision made by a previous president. You can either inform yourself and admit you are wrong, or you can double down with another bull**** statement. It's up to you. It's definitely better than continuing to sell conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
No, coldjoint, the decision to leave "0 troops" wasn't Obama's. It was in the agreement Bush signed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement



You can either inform yourself and admit you are wrong, or you can double down with another bull**** statement. It's up to you. It's definitely better than continuing to sell conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Obama was advised to leave troops there. And could of done that. What Bush signed lost its authority under a new president.

And this conspiracy crap is not being advanced by me. I have said conspiracy 0 times. I have seen you say it every post.

Last time, Obamas policies have strengthed Islamists and made the world, and the US, far less safe than it has ever been before.
 
Crovax said:
Funny how Obama is taking credit for it then

The Obameter: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Okie dokie:

- Statement being evaluated is from July 14th, 2008.
- Agreement for troop withdrawal signed in November 16th, 2008 by Bush.
- Statement used to demonstrated a promise being kept is Obama having a discussion with military leaders.
- Zero mention of the fact that an agreement was signed long before Obama assumed office.

It seems to me like your problem is with Politico's understanding and not anything Obama has said or done.
 
coldjoint said:
Obama was advised to leave troops there. And could of done that. What Bush signed lost its authority under a new president.
Click to expand...

International agreements aren't dependent on the executives who signed them being in power but on the parties involved existing. So no, don't repeat the asinine assertion that an international agreement is rendered void by an election. Please, don't double down on this absurd point.

And this conspiracy crap is not being advanced by me. I have said conspiracy 0 times. I have seen you say it every post.
Click to expand...

You are a conspiracy theorist and you should try your hardest to distance yourself from it. Obama isn't a secret muslim. That isn't moot.

You are 3 strikes down. So far you've been wrong about every absurd claim you've tried to make. I'd give up if I were you.
 
coldjoint said:
Obama was advised to leave troops there. And could of done that. What Bush signed lost its authority under a new president.

And this conspiracy crap is not being advanced by me. I have said conspiracy 0 times. I have seen you say it every post.

Last time, Obamas policies have strengthed Islamists and made the world, and the US, far less safe than it has ever been before.
Click to expand...

Really? Agreements signed by the President of the United States are only valid until there's a new President?
Must inspire confidence in your allies, I bet.
 
Grand Mal said:
Really? Agreements signed by the President of the United States are only valid until there's a new President?
Must inspire confidence in your allies, I bet.
Click to expand...

He doesn't understand or know how international agreements actually work. I don't think he understands that these agreements don't bind the person who signed them. They bind the countries that are party to it. If his statement held any water, NAFTA would no longer have authority when Bush II came to power.

Hell, we can go local and say the Civil Rights Act of 1968 no longer held authority once Nixon came into power. His position betrays a level of ignorance that is absolutely astounding.
 
Hatuey said:
He doesn't understand or know how international agreements actually work. I don't think he understands that these agreements don't bind the person who signed them. They bind the countries that are party to it. If his statement held any water, NAFTA would no longer have authority when Bush II came to power.

Hell, we can go local and say the Civil Rights Act of 1968 no longer held authority once Nixon came into power. His position betrays a level of ignorance that is absolutely astounding.
Click to expand...

Actually, if the same rule could be made internationally it would add a cool, video-RPG-game quality to diplomacy.
 
Grand Mal said:
Actually, if the same rule could be made internationally it would add a cool, video-RPG-game quality to diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Well, it would be awesome wouldn't it? Imagine signing a loan for a house and then considering it void if the bank representatives are fired or quit? These Trump supporters, I tells ya.
 
Hatuey said:
International agreements aren't dependent on the executives who signed them being in power but on the parties involved existing. So no, don't repeat the asinine assertion that an international agreement is rendered void by an election. Please, don't double down on this absurd point.



You are a conspiracy theorist and you should try your hardest to distance yourself from it. Obama isn't a secret muslim. That isn't moot.

You are 3 strikes down. So far you've been wrong about every absurd claim you've tried to make. I'd give up if I were you.
Click to expand...

Who died and made you boss? Your opinion of me is also a moot point. You should just talk to yourself, I doubt anyone else is interested.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Really? Agreements signed by the President of the United States are only valid until there's a new President?
Must inspire confidence in your allies, I bet.
Click to expand...

Our allies have 0 confidence in us thanks to Obama. And I refer to the Iran agreement that any president, but Clinton, will cancel or eviscerate.
 
coldjoint said:
Who died and made you boss. Your opinion of me is also a moot point. You should just talk to yourself, I doubt anyone else is interested.
Click to expand...

Lmao, giving up already? I would too if I had been proven wrong 3 times in a row in less than 3 posts. Let's examine how you were proven wrong:

1. Obama made the decision to pull out of Iraq.
Truth: The order for troop removal was signed by the Bush administration.
2. Obama made the decision to leave zero troops in Iraq.
Truth: The order for complete troop removal is in the agreement signed by the Bush administration.
3. International agreements are rendered void by an election.
Truth: That's absolutely stupid and indicative of just how little you know about global politics.

Let me gues.... you are a Trump supporter?

:)
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao, giving up already? I would too if I had been proven wrong 3 times in a row in less than 3 posts. Let's examine how you were proven wrong:

1. Obama made the decision to pull out of Iraq.
Truth: The order for troop removal was signed by the Bush administration.
2. Obama made the decision to leave zero troops in Iraq.
Truth: The order for complete troop removal is in the agreement signed by the Bush administration.
3. International agreements are rendered void by an election.
Truth: That's absolutely stupid and indicative of just how little you know about global politics.

Let me gues.... you are a Trump supporter?

:)
Click to expand...

You talking to me?:lamo
 
coldjoint said:
Our allies have 0 confidence in us thanks to Obama. And I refer to the Iran agreement that any president, but Clinton, will cancel or eviscerate.
Click to expand...

The rest of America will be electing a President. You, apparently, will be voting for a King.
 
coldjoint said:
You talking to me?:lamo
Click to expand...

It's pretty apparent that you're now running away. There is no need to waste bandwidth after being wasted by another poster. :)
 
Hatuey said:
It's pretty apparent that you're now running away. There is no need to waste bandwidth after being wasted by another poster. :)
Click to expand...

You have the market cornered on wasting bandwith. And I am not running, you are making excuses, transferring blame, and pushing a tired narrative.
 
coldjoint said:
You have the market cornered on wasting bandwith. And I am not running, you are making excuses, transferring blame, and pushing a tired narrative.
Click to expand...

Making... what excuses? You make 3 claims. All 3 are demonstrably wrong. Why are you still wasting bandwidth doing something other than admitting you were wrong?
 
Hatuey said:
Making... what excuses? You make 3 claims. All 3 are demonstrably wrong. Why are you still wasting bandwidth doing something other than admitting you were wrong?
Click to expand...

I could pick apart your claims. You see every time an apologist cites facts there are no mitigating circumstanstances or nuances. But when those things serve their purpose there are countless exceptions to what facts others present.

Do you get it? Obama engineered this mess. Regardless of his religion.
 
Just checking with the thread...still more jokes about Radiohead or have we diverted to other topics OTHER than the fact that Muslims in the loving and peaceful religion of Islam beat the **** out of a bunch of people with pipes for listening to music and having a beer?
 
Good to see we have a music expert in here who belittles a band that has given more to humanity than he ever will. This is supposed to be about Muslims attacking people, not what Obama or Bush did in Iraq. Let's keep on topic.
 
VanceMack said:
Just checking with the thread...still more jokes about Radiohead or have we diverted to other topics OTHER than the fact that Muslims in the loving and peaceful religion of Islam beat the **** out of a bunch of people with pipes for listening to music and having a beer?
Click to expand...

Hey, don't talk about the "Religion of Peace" that way buddy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom