• 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!

Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

Grant said:
Then that rather underscores the point that leaving Iraq was not a terribly good idea. It appears that the Middle East is becoming Iran's for the taking.
Click to expand...

Iran has a population of around 70 million, Iraq, the Gulf state, Turkey, Egypt combined have around triple that. Saudi Arabia has a far higher military budget, far more modern equipment (jets, and tanks), so does Turkey.

Iran is not going to take over the middle east. It doesnt have the military capacity to do so. It cant stop the PJAK/PKK terrorists or the Balochi terrorists within its own country, imagine the difficulty it will face if it invade Iraq. At most Iran will follow the same policies it has of supporting local groups as proxies and have influence rather then control
 
Zona said:
Its funny you say this. I really haven't heard them say much about his foreign policy or how he deals with terrorism lately. :) Remember, prior to 2008, they all said he would be weak. I really dont mind Clinton now, but remember when she used to say something about that 3 oclock call and how Palin tried to say the same thing.

I guarantee you, the right will not even mention terrorism now. That avenue is closed. Obama is kicking butt there. They of course will try to spin this somehow, but the troops pulling out is a good thing. Bin Laden, and every terrorist killed under his watch is a good thing. They can spin it any way they want to.

Actually, the illegal alien situation is pretty much closed for the right as well. Again , Obama is kicking butt there as well. Spin spin spin, but he is still kicking butt.
Click to expand...
Ah, young grasshoppa...

You have learned how to filter out the white noise of politics. I commend you, my young cha'detch. You are learning well, my son. :) (Just playin', but you're beginning to figure out how the rhetorical :spin: game is played...Well Done!)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Iran is not going to take over the middle east. It doesnt have the military capacity to do so. It cant stop the PJAK/PKK terrorists or the Balochi terrorists within its own country, imagine the difficulty it will face if it invade Iraq. At most Iran will follow the same policies it has of supporting local groups as proxies and have influence rather then control
Click to expand...
It will continue to expand it's influence via "soft power"
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It will continue to expand it's influence via "soft power"
Click to expand...
I don't see what influence Iran would have, and what everyone's talking about Iran's influence other than their ability to commit sporadic acts of terrorism in Iraq and abroad.
 
Objective Voice said:
It's funny...

You guys want the President to stop claiming he inherited a mess from his predicessor, but you refuse to give the man credit for either following through on what his predecessor left either undone or inadequate. The truth of the matter is an incoming President always acts on the building blocks (or mistakes) made by his predecessor. The hope is that he either improves upon the initiatives left behind or he throws the bad out and brings forward something new.

I have no problem with President Obama carrying forward and strengthening as best he can the work GW Bush left undone and in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Bush was a disaster and there is no reason to mimic him.

Obama is only carrying through with Bush's timeline due to the fact that we mowed down innocent civilians, including women and babies. The Iraqis do not want us there. This failed neocon policy of exporting American values at the barrel of a gun is most evident.

Obama's platform in 2008 was change, not more of the same. Unfortunately, people like you do not hold Obama to his word. They apologize for it.
 
Opteron said:
I don't see what influence Iran would have...
Click to expand...
How hard have you looked?
Opteron said:
...what everyone's talking about Iran's influence other than their ability to commit sporadic acts of terrorism in Iraq and abroad.
Click to expand...
The people who are running some of Iraq's major political parties had their bread buttered for years by Iran while they lived in exile in Iran. Iran has inroads withe some of the most influential people and parties in Iraq.
 
Antiderivative said:
Bush was a disaster and there is no reason to mimic him.

Obama is only carrying through with Bush's timeline due to the fact that we mowed down innocent civilians, including women and babies. The Iraqis do not want us there. This failed neocon policy of exporting American values at the barrel of a gun is most evident.

Obama's platform in 2008 was change, not more of the same. Unfortunately, people like you do not hold Obama to his word. They apologize for it.
Click to expand...

You don't want change; you only wish to critisize then stand on your partisan :soap and count off what you consider to be mounting failures of this President. What most of the anti-Obamaites fail to realize is the depth of our nation's problems both foreign and domestic. Take the state of the economy, for instance. Had TARP included more stringent spending limits, such as not using taxpayer funds to pay bonuses and/or setting conditions that the banks had to modify certain mortgages, maybe our economy would look different today.

Or how about having to deal with two open-ended wars once he took office?

Or how about the tax issue? How would our economy look had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire on January 1 of this year? Don't you think confidence in the financial markets and private sector would have been more firmly established had tax policy been set then considering that it would have been approximately 5 years before wholesale changes in the tax code would take effect again (re: health care reform)?

These are the things most people don't talk about because most of have a microview of our national politics. Personally, I try not to get too caught up in the short-term view.
 
Am I the only one here who's confused that this thread is not one big celebration? We're finally coming home, for god's sake! One pointless war down, one to go!
 
Phys251 said:
Am I the only one here who's confused that this thread is not one big celebration? We're finally coming home, for god's sake! One pointless war down, one to go!
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Let me help those who are still confused or resentful to understand...

President Obama was just on the Tonight Show and stated the cost of both the Iraq War and our involvement in Libya's civil war:

Iraq = upwards of $1 trillion; 4,000 American servicemen killed; thousands more wounded.

Libya = under $1 billion; 0 American servicemen killed; none injured

We already know from news articles linked in this thread that former President GW Bush arranged to have our troops withdraw from Iraq this year. We acknowledge that President Obama was merely following through on policies as set by his predecessor. If you're pissed off at President Obama for bringing our troops home as scheduled, why then aren't you pissed off at former President Bush for setting the deadline? After all, weren't we suppose to be spreading domacracy, helping to establish a government that was strong enough to lead it's people and do the will of its people, as well as what they believe is in the best interest of their country? Let's get back to this one...

For those who think it should matter that President Obama publisized the date for withdraw, I ask you why should it? After all, if we're helping to establish a government that believes in democracy, does not democracy involve honoring freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press? And if so, should not our withdraw date already be established information in Iraq since it's information the heads of state from both nations already know? In other words, don't you think Iraq's President informed his countrymen about our eventual withdrawl long ago?

Getting back to the cost of the war, Tea Partiers are complaining about out of control federal spending. Why then would you be upset about keeping our Armed Forces in Iraq knowing how much it cost? Remember: We had to borrow that money! You bitched about raising the debt limit; you should be jumping for joy - dancing a jig!! - because we're leaving and we won't have to lose...er, um...spend any more money in a war that was declared "Mission Accomplished" SEVEN YEARS AGO!!!

$1,000,000,000,000 (TRILLION) U.S. DOLLARS OF B-O-R-R-O-W-E-D M-O-N-E-Y!!! Let that sink in for a minute...

No...it's not quite there yet...imbedded in your cerebelum. You need a reminder of how much more cost effective a Z-E-R-O CASUALTY RATE war really costs our government using the most sophisticated weaponry and the most highly trained Special Operations Force can be: $1,000,000,000 (BILLION).

One more time...

$1,000,000,000,000 (Trillion)
$1,000,000,000 (Billion)

We claim to want to spread democracy, but when the country we claim to have "liberated" from dictatorship actually exercises its maturity and shows its ability to self-govern, suddenly we don't like that?

YOU FREAKING HYPERCRITES!!!

This is why President Obama will get my vote. Because he completed the mission! We meet our ultimate objective: to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We overstayed our welcome because Bush did not have an effective exit strategy. He failed to follow the advice of his former Secretary of Defense, Collen Powell to "security the [population] people". Because of this, the insurgency insued and we've spent the last seven years fighting against that instead of leaving when Bush proclaimed the job was over. Not only that, but we never did find those weapons of mass destruction Bush said Saddam was hidding.

To those who are so concerned about more insurgency or Iraq being influenced by another Muslim/Islamist nation, let me ask you this: What does that say about the part of the war on terror in general? One of the underlying reasons we went to Iraq was to keep terrorist from working with Saddam's government. If you really think that little of the newly elected government Bush helped to usher in, what does that say about his ability to "spread domacracy"? Should Iraq rapidly fall into alliance with an unfriendly nation to the U.S., wouldn't that mean former President Bush failed us? Who then is more a failure at being President?

THINK PEOPLE!!!

It's beyond time for our men and women to come home. You should be applauding this President for completing the job, not critizing him. And if Iraq doesn't want the continued protection of our military, if it has determined that part of demostrating a show of democracy in action is to obey the wishes of the democratic government you helped set in place, then you leave. To his credit, President Obama tried to negotiate keeping our troops there longer, but Iraq said no deal. So, why should we stay?
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
Iran has a population of around 70 million, Iraq, the Gulf state, Turkey, Egypt combined have around triple that. Saudi Arabia has a far higher military budget, far more modern equipment (jets, and tanks), so does Turkey.

Iran is not going to take over the middle east. It doesnt have the military capacity to do so. It cant stop the PJAK/PKK terrorists or the Balochi terrorists within its own country, imagine the difficulty it will face if it invade Iraq. At most Iran will follow the same policies it has of supporting local groups as proxies and have influence rather then control
Click to expand...

Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq to take control, nor does it need to invade Libya, Egypt or any ME country. Using the military is a rather old fashioned way to win a war. They will soon have nukes and that threat, along with acts of terrorism and assassinations, will be sufficient.

The United States has the most powerful military and the greatest stockpile of weapons in the world and yet few fear them because everyone knows they lack the resolve to win. Their bragging rights in Libya (and Qaddafi had become a friend of the US in recent years) is that no American got hurt. They now fight a war where, like politically correct sports teams, no one keeps score.

The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Qaddafi's Death Leaves Me Cold: Why?
 
Objective Voice said:
Exactly!

Let me help those who are still confused or resentful to understand...

President Obama was just on the Tonight Show and stated the cost of both the Iraq War and our involvement in Libya's civil war:

Iraq = upwards of $1 trillion; 4,000 American servicemen killed; thousands more wounded.

Libya = under $1 billion; 0 American servicemen killed; none injured

We already know from news articles linked in this thread that former President GW Bush arranged to have our troops withdraw from Iraq this year. We acknowledge that President Obama was merely following through on policies as set by his predecessor. If you're pissed off at President Obama for bringing our troops home as scheduled, why then aren't you pissed off at former President Bush for setting the deadline? After all, weren't we suppose to be spreading domacracy, helping to establish a government that was strong enough to lead it's people and do the will of its people, as well as what they believe is in the best interest of their country? Let's get back to this one...

For those who think it should matter that President Obama publisized the date for withdraw, I ask you why should it? After all, if we're helping to establish a government that believes in democracy, does not democracy involve honoring freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press? And if so, should not our withdraw date already be established information in Iraq since it's information the heads of state from both nations already know? In other words, don't you think Iraq's President informed his countrymen about our eventual withdrawl long ago?

Getting back to the cost of the war, Tea Partiers are complaining about out of control federal spending. Why then would you be upset about keeping our Armed Forces in Iraq knowing how much it cost? Remember: We had to borrow that money! You bitched about raising the debt limit; you should be jumping for joy - dancing a jig!! - because we're leaving and we won't have to lose...er, um...spend any more money in a war that was declared "Mission Accomplished" SEVEN YEARS AGO!!!

$1,000,000,000,000 (TRILLION) U.S. DOLLARS OF B-O-R-R-O-W-E-D M-O-N-E-Y!!! Let that sink in for a minute...

No...it's not quite there yet...imbedded in your cerebelum. You need a reminder of how much more cost effective a Z-E-R-O CASUALTY RATE war really costs our government using the most sophisticated weaponry and the most highly trained Special Operations Force can be: $1,000,000,000 (BILLION).

One more time...

$1,000,000,000,000 (Trillion)
$1,000,000,000 (Billion)

We claim to want to spread democracy, but when the country we claim to have "liberated" from dictatorship actually exercises its maturity and shows its ability to self-govern, suddenly we don't like that?

YOU FREAKING HYPERCRITES!!!

This is why President Obama will get my vote. Because he completed the mission! We meet our ultimate objective: to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We overstayed our welcome because Bush did not have an effective exit strategy. He failed to follow the advice of his former Secretary of Defense, Collen Powell to "security the [population] people". Because of this, the insurgency insued and we've spent the last seven years fighting against that instead of leaving when Bush proclaimed the job was over. Not only that, but we never did find those weapons of mass destruction Bush said Saddam was hidding.

To those who are so concerned about more insurgency or Iraq being influenced by another Muslim/Islamist nation, let me ask you this: What does that say about the part of the war on terror in general? One of the underlying reasons we went to Iraq was to keep terrorist from working with Saddam's government. If you really think that little of the newly elected government Bush helped to usher in, what does that say about his ability to "spread domacracy"? Should Iraq rapidly fall into alliance with an unfriendly nation to the U.S., wouldn't that mean former President Bush failed us? Who then is more a failure at being President?

THINK PEOPLE!!!

It's beyond time for our men and women to come home. You should be applauding this President for completing the job, not critizing him. And if Iraq doesn't want the continued protection of our military, if it has determined that part of demostrating a show of democracy in action is to obey the wishes of the democratic government you helped set in place, then you leave. To his credit, President Obama tried to negotiate keeping our troops there longer, but Iraq said no deal. So, why should we stay?
Click to expand...

It seems the cost eight years of the Iraq War was equal to Barrack Obama's stimulus package, or the money given to useless solar energy companies. And while Obama is sticking to the George Bush timetable we do not know if George Bush would have left while the country was still under threat.

It seems that all this money and worse, all the lives sacrificed, have been in vain. This is no "exit strategy". It is just an exit.
 
Grant said:
It seems the cost eight years of the Iraq War was equal to Barrack Obama's stimulus package, or the money given to useless solar energy companies. And while Obama is sticking to the George Bush timetable we do not know if George Bush would have left while the country was still under threat.

It seems that all this money and worse, all the lives sacrificed, have been in vain. This is no "exit strategy". It is just an exit.
Click to expand...

He did accept the agreement. Remember, this is largely what Iraqis want. Why would we impose ourself on them? Isn't it kind of arrogant on our part?

Bottom line, this is the agreement. Iraq never could ahve ever really been worth what was paid for it, not by us, not by the coalition, and damn sure not what was apid by the Iraqis. So I agree we shoudl be celebrating that that many will be coming home. Amen. God bless them all.
 
Boo Radley said:
He did accept the agreement. Remember, this is largely what Iraqis want. Why would we impose ourself on them? Isn't it kind of arrogant on our part?
Click to expand...

We seem to like imposing ourselves over others. We do it a lot. Look at all the freedom and democracy we've brought places (though I'm still not sure as to where in the Constitution our government was charged with bringing "freedom and democracy" to the rest of the world...and can we get paid for it? This ****'s expensive.)!

Boo Radley said:
Bottom line, this is the agreement. Iraq never could ahve ever really been worth what was paid for it, not by us, not by the coalition, and damn sure not what was apid by the Iraqis. So I agree we shoudl be celebrating that that many will be coming home. Amen. God bless them all.
Click to expand...

So long as they aren't being redeployed elsewhere. It's time to stop expensive Forever War; we're broke bitches.
 
Boo Radley said:
He did accept the agreement. Remember, this is largely what Iraqis want. Why would we impose ourself on them? Isn't it kind of arrogant on our part?

Bottom line, this is the agreement. Iraq never could ahve ever really been worth what was paid for it, not by us, not by the coalition, and damn sure not what was apid by the Iraqis. So I agree we shoudl be celebrating that that many will be coming home. Amen. God bless them all.
Click to expand...

Are the Americans leaving Iraq because they may appear "arrogant" to the Iraqi people? They don;t appear concerned about the charge of "arrogance" with their trrops stationed in other far less troubled areas of the world.

Iraq is not ready to stand on its own against external threats. That should be clear. This will be just another war where, because of political posturing, American lives have been sacrificed for nothing.

Yes, God bless the troops, all of them. But this was a political decision, not a military or strategic decision. Bush made a foolish decision in announcing when troops would leave and Obama made an ever worse decision by following through with this, knowing what will probably follow.

That handshake of Obama with Gadaffi should become as popular as the one with Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein.


The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Qaddafi's Death Leaves Me Cold: Why?
 
Ikari said:
We seem to like imposing ourselves over others. We do it a lot. Look at all the freedom and democracy we've brought places (though I'm still not sure as to where in the Constitution our government was charged with bringing "freedom and democracy" to the rest of the world...and can we get paid for it? This ****'s expensive.)!

So long as they aren't being redeployed elsewhere. It's time to stop expensive Forever War; we're broke bitches.
Click to expand...

There's a good argument for American isolationism because too many American lives and much American treasure have been lost protecting often unworthy allies, and long after they are no longer necessary. But in order to move toward isolationism, national borders should first be protected. One policy appears to contradict the other.
 
Grant said:
Are the Americans leaving Iraq because they may appear "arrogant" to the Iraqi people? They don;t appear concerned about the charge of "arrogance" with their trrops stationed in other far less troubled areas of the world.

Iraq is not ready to stand on its own against external threats. That should be clear. This will be just another war where, because of political posturing, American lives have been sacrificed for nothing.

Yes, God bless the troops, all of them. But this was a political decision, not a military or strategic decision. Bush made a foolish decision in announcing when troops would leave and Obama made an ever worse decision by following through with this, knowing what will probably follow.

That handshake of Obama with Gadaffi should become as popular as the one with Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein.


The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Qaddafi's Death Leaves Me Cold: Why?
Click to expand...

Actually, your using arrogant ina different context than I did, so there is no real way I can respond to it. See how I was using it, and answer that.

Who knows best about how ready Iraq is? Us or Iraq? Again, I repeat, the Iraqis wanted this more than we did.

You'll have to define what you mean by a political decision. This was negotiated with the Iraqis, who don't want us there without being subject to their laws. They pushed the moving as much as anyone.

Neither handshake means much. It means much more that we actually supported Saddam against Iran. Yes others gave him more, but that doesn't excuse that we did in fact support him, giving him the false impression we were an ally.

You threw more than a few different things in your repsonse. Any one of them would make a fair discussion. But what I see as important here is the US, let alone Obama personally, did not just decide to leave. There was a negotiation, and both parties agreed it was time to leave. That's the bottom line.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, your using arrogant ina different context than I did, so there is no real way I can respond to it. See how I was using it, and answer that.
Click to expand...

Arrogant is not one of those words that have shades of meaning. It's always quite clear what it means.

Who knows best about how ready Iraq is? Us or Iraq? Again, I repeat, the Iraqis wanted this more than we did.
Click to expand...

The Americans, being a well established democracy with a great deal more experience in world affairs and unlimited access to information within the Middle East, should definitely know better whether Iraq is prepared for democracy, regarding threats from within or without. It wasn't that long ago that the American Left were complaining about the corrupt and inept Iraqi leadership. What's changed?

You'll have to define what you mean by a political decision. This was negotiated with the Iraqis, who don't want us there without being subject to their laws. They pushed the moving as much as anyone.
Click to expand...

I see that as a pretense, nothing more. Certainly pressure could be brought to bear to explain clearly and forcefully how the system works. If Obama couldn't negotiate something as simple as this then he should not be be leader of the free world.
Neither handshake means much. It means much more that we actually supported Saddam against Iran.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it was reasonable at the time to support Saddam, though not later. But what had Gadaffi done to the United States between the time Obama shook Gadaffi's hand and the time it was decided to kill him? As was shown in that article, and others, Gadaffi was actually fighting against Al Qaeda and had become a useful ally.
Yes others gave him more, but that doesn't excuse that we did in fact support him, giving him the false impression we were an ally.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Barrack Obama here?

Immediately prior to Desert Storm and until the final invasion of Iraq there was no pretense that Saddam Hussein was an American ally. That had been made clear by Clinton and all American leaders.
You threw more than a few different things in your repsonse. Any one of them would make a fair discussion. But what I see as important here is the US, let alone Obama personally, did not just decide to leave. There was a negotiation, and both parties agreed it was time to leave. That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

How can a decision be made to leave in a war zone with an arbitrary timeline? That is the height of foolishness and never before been done in any war. That the Left would now support George Bush in this decision, a man for whom they obviously have little respect, appears clearly political as well and is not based on the merits of the case.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Arrogant is not one of those words that have shades of meaning. It's always quite clear what it means.
Click to expand...

Again you miss the point. I am not at all challenging your misuderstanding of the meaning of the word. I'm saying you took it from what I applied it too, and applied it where I did not.

The Americans, being a well established democracy with a great deal more experience in world affairs and unlimited access to information within the Middle East, should definitely know better whether Iraq is prepared for democracy, regarding threats from within or without. It wasn't that long ago that the American Left were complaining about the corrupt and inept Iraqi leadership. What's changed?
Click to expand...

Kind of imperialistic, and anohter place where I would use the word arrogant, applied to your view here.

I see that as a pretense, nothing more. Certainly pressure could be brought to bear to explain clearly and forcefully how the system works. If Obama couldn't negotiate something as simple as this then he should not be be leader of the free world.
Click to expand...

So, not forcing them to keep us is political? Is that really your position? And remember, Bush negoitated this. Obama just accepted it, as well he should have.

Yes, and it was reasonable at the time to support Saddam, though not later. But what had Gadaffi done to the United States between the time Obama shook Gadaffi's hand and the time it was decided to kill him? As was shown in that article, and others, Gadaffi was actually fighting against Al Qaeda and had become a useful ally.
Click to expand...

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? That's what has gotten us into trouble all around the world. you lose the moral high ground when you support tyrannts, and then profess to be agaisnt tyranny. But, obama didn't start the Lybian revolution. The Lybian people did. Then the french decided to interfer to protect civilains, and we went in after words. It's a slippery slope, and one I think we should have avoided, but lets not pretend we should have protected him either.

Are you referring to Barrack Obama here?

Immediately prior to Desert Storm and until the final invasion of Iraq there was no pretense that Saddam Hussein was an American ally. That had been made clear by Clinton and all American leaders.
Click to expand...

No, Obam isn't in the this part of the discussion at all. This was addressng our support of Saddam. You're jumping too far in history. Go back. Put the comment where it is meant to be.
 
Grant said:
There's a good argument for American isolationism because too many American lives and much American treasure have been lost protecting often unworthy allies, and long after they are no longer necessary. But in order to move toward isolationism, national borders should first be protected. One policy appears to contradict the other.
Click to expand...

We don't have to go towards isolationism, just non-interventionism.
 
Ikari said:
We don't have to go towards isolationism, just non-interventionism.
Click to expand...

As the past decades have demonstrated, just because the United States might initiate a non-interventionist policy with others, does not mean that others will be non-interventionist against the United States and its people. it is no longer possible in this age of technology to be either isolationist or non-interventionist. Those days are gone forever.
 
Grant said:
As the past decades have demonstrated, just because the United States might initiate a non-interventionist policy with others, does not mean that others will be non-interventionist against the United States and its people. it is no longer possible in this age of technology to be either isolationist or non-interventionist. Those days are gone forever.
Click to expand...

That is a very incorrect statement. It is in fact very easy to not be isolationist and instead be non-interventionist.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again you miss the point. I am not at all challenging your misuderstanding of the meaning of the word. I'm saying you took it from what I applied it too, and applied it where I did not.
Click to expand...

There was no reason to use the word.
Kind of imperialistic, and anohter place where I would use the word arrogant, applied to your view here.
Click to expand...

"Kind of imperialistic"? Was invading Iraq and dumping Saddam "kind of imperialistic". Now is not the time to be concerned about Americans and their allies being called "arrogant or imperialistic. If schoolyard taunts are going to this Administration's foreign policy then they shouldn't be in the game.
So, not forcing them to keep us is political? Is that really your position? And remember, Bush negoitated this. Obama just accepted it, as well he should have.
Click to expand...

Of course it's political! What other legitimate reason could there be, given that there is no way that Iraq is in a position to defend itself from outside influences? I would have preferred the US actually get some of that Iraqi oil the Left has always been claiming was the reason for displacing Saddam then leaving empty-handed, trillions in debt, with someone else picking up the spoils.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend? That's what has gotten us into trouble all around the world.
Click to expand...

No, it has not. You use some of these dictators when they are useful against a greater threat and discard them when they are of no further use. That's the way it works and that's the ways it has to work. What is your alternative?
you lose the moral high ground when you support tyrannts, and then profess to be agaisnt tyranny.
Click to expand...

There is a great deal of difference between using tyrants and supporting them. This should be clear. And this striving for the "moral high ground", as well as worrying about 'imperialism" or "arrogance" is what has made US foreign policy so inept and patently foolish in recent decades. We can see the slide commence where these silly cliches began.
But, obama didn't start the Lybian revolution. The Lybian people did.
Click to expand...

The "Libyan people"? How do you know who was behind this revolution? You have no idea who these "Libyan people" are. Do these "Libyan people " have a history of democracy, rule of law, equal rights for all? We do not yet know what the consequences might be, but we do know that there is turmoil in the Middle East and that's it. Withdrawing at ths point in time does not seem a wise decision, and it will be very difficult now for any American leader to get troops back in.

Then the french decided to interfer to protect civilains, and we went in after words. It's a slippery slope, and one I think we should have avoided, but lets not pretend we should have protected him either.
Click to expand...

Yes, Barrack Obama "led from behind" in Libya (without Congressional approval) and followed the direction of George Bush in Iraq.. Let's see if he tries to get any credit for any of these foreign policy decisions.


No, Obam isn't in the this part of the discussion at all. This was addressing our support of Saddam. You're jumping too far in history. Go back. Put the comment where it is meant to be.
Click to expand...

It's Obama pulling troops out of Iraq, how this decision effects all of the Middle East, how Obama is a disaster as a US President and how the consequences of his ineptness will create long lasting problems everywhere.
 
Ikari said:
That is a very incorrect statement. It is in fact very easy to not be isolationist and instead be non-interventionist.
Click to expand...

How can you be 'isolationist' in today's world?

You can't..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom