• 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!

How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the US on Troop Withdrawal

Who won?

  • Iraq won

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Iran won

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • USA won

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • No winner

    Votes: 8 72.7%
  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
DaveFagan

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the US on Troop Withdrawal | Truthout

"The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmanoeuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement."

This seems to be an accurate history of the events leading to the GWBush capitulation regarding the SOFA agreement with Iraq. Iran's background maneuvering is pretty obvious in retrospect. It appears Iraq may have lost the battle and won the war, or something like that, eh?
 
DaveFagan said:
How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the US on Troop Withdrawal | Truthout

"The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmanoeuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement."

This seems to be an accurate history of the events leading to the GWBush capitulation regarding the SOFA agreement with Iraq. Iran's background maneuvering is pretty obvious in retrospect. It appears Iraq may have lost the battle and won the war, or something like that, eh?
Click to expand...

Wow. A far-left blog. Seriously.
Your knowledge on foreign matters was always to say....ignorant. This just confirms it
 
Last edited:
I do recall the broadly held assumption that U.S. troops would maintain a presence in Iraq for decades to come, but I think the OP is pretty thin gruel. It has the facts right, but I think the conclusions it draws are specious.

There were always calls for time tables, Maliki's requests for one didn't suddenly occur after a meetings with al-Sadr and Iran. Maliki was calling for a troop withdrawal within 16 months in July of '08; troops stayed for an additional two years beyond that.
 
Given this quote.....
In the end, however, Bush administration officials realised that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.
Click to expand...

I would argue BO screwed the Country if this agreement is a POS. The real pressure to sign came from Bush's belief BO would have entered into a far worse agreement.
 
If keeping 5,000 troops in Iraq to fight terrorists meant that our soldiers would be under the legal control of Iraq, then screw you Iraq.....we iz goin' home.

adios & salaam alechem. :)
 
Thunder said:
If keeping 5,000 troops in Iraq to fight terrorists meant that our soldiers would be under the legal control of Iraq, then screw you Iraq.....we iz goin' home.

adios & salaam alechem. :)
Click to expand...

I would logically conclude that from an Iraqi point of view that, we the USA, were the terrorists.
 
DaveFagan said:
I would logically conclude that from an Iraqi point of view that, we the USA, were the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Ba'athists, Saddam loyalists, and the Mahdi army would certainly agree. But how tyrannical can an occupier be when, as the OP implies, the government it set up to replace Saddam's pushed them out? That doesn't sound like much of an 'occuppier' to me, nor terrorist.
 
DaveFagan said:
I would logically conclude that from an Iraqi point of view that, we the USA, were the terrorists.
Click to expand...
I think the iraqi girls that were routinely raped by saddams boys would disagree. I think the Kurds would say your theory is BS.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Ba'athists, Saddam loyalists, and the Mahdi army would certainly agree. But how tyrannical can an occupier be when, as the OP implies, the government it set up to replace Saddam's pushed them out? That doesn't sound like much of an 'occuppier' to me, nor terrorist.
Click to expand...

In excess of 100,000+ dead Iraqis, devastated infrastructure, women's rights gone, Christians mostly gone, persecution of Baaths, refugees, maimed, homes destroyed, and those are inevitable when you bring war and death to any country and we are the ones who brought the war of choice, same as Libya.
 
DaveFagan said:
In excess of 100,000+ dead Iraqis, devastated infrastructure, women's rights gone, Christians mostly gone, persecution of Baaths, refugees, maimed, homes destroyed, and those are inevitable when you bring war and death to any country and we are the ones who brought the war of choice, same as Libya.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure Germany will start another war right now because of the devastation.
Or perhaps South Korea will start a war with the US
Give it up. Not only are you looking more and more ridiculous, your claims and stances has been refuted so many times, it would take a small army to track all of them
 
I'm not disagreeing that it was a war of choice, as it is obvious that the intelligence we based our decision to go to war on was flawed to begin with and massaged to reach a foregone conclusion of invasion.

I reject, however, any implication that the U.S. armed forces are terrorists. Invaders, fine. I can even live with occupiers, though clearly that no longer applies, and since we left voluntarily, we can't have been quite as evil and nasty as some believe. But the meaning of "terrorist" in our language is being stretched to the point that it will have about as much meaning as "Nazi" does now.

Don't be intellectually lazy Dave, you seem smarter than that.
 
ChuckBerry said:
I'm not disagreeing that it was a war of choice, as it is obvious that the intelligence we based our decision to go to war on was flawed to begin with and massaged to reach a foregone conclusion of invasion.

I reject, however, any implication that the U.S. armed forces are terrorists. Invaders, fine. I can even live with occupiers, though clearly that no longer applies, and since we left voluntarily, we can't have been quite as evil and nasty as some believe. But the meaning of "terrorist" in our language is being stretched to the point that it will have about as much meaning as "Nazi" does now.

Don't be intellectually lazy Dave, you seem smarter than that.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and read the Patriot Act and then tell me why we would not be considered "terrorists" in Iraq or Libya. We terrorized the populace and I repeat that "we brought war and death to their country." If that doesn't constitute terrorism, I don't know what does. 100,000+ dead Iraqis. Millions fled to Syria. How many maimed and they won't be saying the Iranians or Russians did it, but the good ol' boys from the USA. You can't get enough perfume to treat this turd. Our soldiers certainly deserve leaders who chose honorable engagements, not wars of choice to profit the Big Energy network.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom