• 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!

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq

Fletch said:
And Obama had 2 years to negotiate a new agreement. He didn't get that done mainly because he didn't want to get that done. Ask yourself this question: Had McCain won in 2008, do you think we would have kept troops in Iraq?
Click to expand...

Well first of all, THANK GAWD he didn't, and secondly, only if he wanted to **** can Bush's SOFA. And third, as a side, he would have scrapped Bush's SOFA and kept troops in Iraq and used it as a base to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"!
 
Montecresto said:
March 18, 2013
On 10th Anniversary, 53% in U.S. See Iraq War as Mistake
Republicans most likely to say conflict was not a mistake
by Andrew Dugan

On 10th Anniversary, 53% in U.S. See Iraq War as Mistake
Click to expand...
Even if you grant that it was a mistake, Obama compounded that mistake by pulling out too early. The US military had succeeded in pacifying the country. A residual force would have offered protection and continued American influence. As it stands now, Iraq was a complete mistake because every US soldier that died taking Falluja and Ramadi and Mosul died in vain because those cities and many more have been retaken by the forces they defeated.
 
APACHERAT said:
Leon Panetta just like Robert Gates are long time "yes men" in government. But they do their jobs and didn't allowed themselves to become politicized no matter who's administration they worked for.

But Panetta and Gates are the only two competent appointees that Obama ever made to serve in his failed administration during the past six years and nine months.

I'm sure Panetta is going out of his way trying to be kind towards Obama just like Gates did in his book.
Click to expand...

Robert Gates happily serving as the president of a university when he was called back to D.C. to again serve his country.
 
Montecresto said:
Well first of all, THANK GAWD he didn't, and secondly, only if he wanted to **** can Bush's SOFA. And third, as a side, he would have scrapped Bush's SOFA and kept troops in Iraq and used it as a base to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"!
Click to expand...
So, you agree then that McCain would have left troops there. That means Obamas attempt to blame Maliki for us leaving is a lie. Obama wanted US troops out. Obama ran on pulling US troops out. Obama bragged about pulling US troops out. Now that things have gone badly, Obama blames Maliki.
 
Fletch said:
Even if you grant that it was a mistake, Obama compounded that mistake by pulling out too early. The US military had succeeded in pacifying the country. A residual force would have offered protection and continued American influence. As it stands now, Iraq was a complete mistake because every US soldier that died taking Falluja and Ramadi and Mosul died in vain because those cities and many more have been retaken by the forces they defeated.
Click to expand...

Obama made no such mistake! It was consistent with both the will of the American people and George Bush's negotiated SOFA. But we agree that the troops died in Iraq in vain.
 
Fletch said:
So, you agree then that McCain would have left troops there. That means Obamas attempt to blame Maliki for us leaving is a lie. Obama wanted US troops out. Obama ran on pulling US troops out. Obama bragged about pulling US troops out. Now that things have gone badly, Obama blames Maliki.
Click to expand...

I think that McCain would have scrapped Bush's SOFA, and proven that Iraq was not in fact a sovereign country, would have left troops and attacked at least Iran from our bases there. Again, thank gawd, he isn't and never will be president.
 
Montecresto said:
Obama made no such mistake! It was consistent with both the will of the American people and George Bush's negotiated SOFA. But we agree that the troops died in Iraq in vain.
Click to expand...
They died in vain because the gains they fought for were not secured by Obama. It was a mistake to leave no forces there. That really isn't arguable at this point.
 
I am so fed up with American's when it comes to this that I could literally throw up all over my computer. CAN WE MAKE UP OUR DAMN MINDS!!! Come on people!!! What I mean is, we were all for invading Iraq and all agreed it was the right thing to do, not once, but TWICE! At least until combat commenced. It really is telling when you take a look at the publics reaction to war today that most people HAVE NEVER PICKED UP A HISTORY BOOK IN THEIR LIFE! What do they expect war to be? We go to war, take a few casualties, and all the sudden, a war people overwhelmingly supported for good reason, suddenly becomes political fodder to oust anyone supporting it. WE DID THIS NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE!!!!! Now we are about to do it A THRID TIME!!! I fear that those same IDIOTS who have never read a history book are probably so ignorant of history, they DONT EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS TWO ATTEMPTS which just happened recently. Are we really going to do this again, I mean really!!! There are only two ways to handle the Middle East. Both, would be equally unacceptable by the American public. So I have determined that either way, we are going to lose again. The two responses are, stay out of it completely and allow China and Russia to handle it. Which would be catastrophic, as we still heavily rely on ME oil. Or, we send in 500-750k troops into Iraq and DO WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE back in the early 90's and completely occupy Iraq. Then use it as a forward operating location to eliminate the Middle East of extremist leaders and governments. Again, neither will happen, and all that will happen is the status quo will be maintained. While at the same time, US service members lives will be sacrificed in the name of pretty much nothing at all.
 
Fletch said:
They died in vain because the gains they fought for were not secured by Obama. It was a mistake to leave no forces there. That really isn't arguable at this point.
Click to expand...

Then you would have to concede that the majority of Americans will means nothing, and that Bush's SOFA to withdraw all troops by December 31, 2011 was a mistake.
 
Capster78 said:
I am so fed up with American's when it comes to this that I could literally throw up all over my computer. CAN WE MAKE UP OUR DAMN MINDS!!! Come on people!!! What I mean is, we were all for invading Iraq and all agreed it was the right thing to do, not once, but TWICE! At least until combat commenced. It really is telling when you take a look at the publics reaction to war today that most people HAVE NEVER PICKED UP A HISTORY BOOK IN THEIR LIFE! What do they expect war to be? We go to war, take a few casualties, and all the sudden, a war people overwhelmingly supported for good reason, suddenly becomes political fodder to oust anyone supporting it. WE DID THIS NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE!!!!! Now we are about to do it A THRID TIME!!! I fear that those same IDIOTS who have never read a history book are probably so ignorant of history, they DONT EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS TWO ATTEMPTS which just happened recently. Are we really going to do this again, I mean really!!! There are only two ways to handle the Middle East. Both, would be equally unacceptable by the American public. So I have determined that either way, we are going to lose again. The two responses are, stay out of it completely and allow China and Russia to handle it. Which would be catastrophic, as we still heavily rely on ME oil. Or, we send in 500-750k troops into Iraq and DO WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE back in the early 90's and completely occupy Iraq. Then use it as a forward operating location to eliminate the Middle East of extremist leaders and governments. Again, neither will happen, and all that will happen is the status quo will be maintained. While at the same time, US service members lives will be sacrificed in the name of pretty much nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's all about oil, not democracy, not human rights!
 
Montecresto said:
Yep, it's all about oil, not democracy, not human rights!
Click to expand...

People like you who continue to politicize it, are exactly the problem. This is why we have retreated back to the US both times is because of mindless propaganda of the likes of which you have just spouted. It's quite easy to use propaganda on a wholey ignorant society more interested in reality shows and Football. American's, I have come to realize, are as deep as the cheap gold plating on the bling they wear. If you have any time to do any actual REAL STUDYING of the situation instead of taking what you hear from political pundits on TV as fact, then you will realize that what you just said is about as ignorant as you can be on the situation.
 
Capster78 said:
People like you who continue to politicize it, are exactly the problem. This is why we have retreated back to the US both times is because of mindless propaganda of the likes of which you have just spouted. It's quite easy to use propaganda on a wholey ignorant society more interested in reality shows and Football. American's, I have come to realize, are as deep as the cheap gold plating on the bling they wear. If you have any time to do any actual REAL STUDYING of the situation instead of taking what you hear from political pundits on TV as fact, then you will realize that what you just said is about as ignorant as you can be on the situation.
Click to expand...

Your personal attacks aside.

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

Chuck Hagel

Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq | Michael Moore
 
Montecresto said:
Your personal attacks aside.

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

Chuck Hagel

Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq*|*Michael Moore
Click to expand...

Yes, we are fighting for oil, but we are also fighting to free the people from the extremists. I think your inability to understand that a free society will ultimately be economically advantageous to the US. So the argument that oil is the only reason for war, is ignorant. The biggest economic gains America made was soon after WW2 and the Korean war. When the US liberated both Japan and Korea from their rulers and turned them into capitalistic countries that had strong ties with the US, we gained a lot. If we were able to remove the control of the leaders in the ME who are effectively stopping any progress of civilization there, then the ME and the US will profit greatly. All you have to do is pick up a history book and see how we transformed Japan and Korea after their respective wars with us and you will see the obvious advantage of transforming a government from a dictatorship type rule, to our system and then forming strong economic ties with it.
 
And it is in history books that you will also find there is quite a bit of untapped intelligence in the Middle East that is stifled due to religious extreamism. All one has to do is look at a time when the Middle East was free from it. They invented Algebra, named most of the stars and were leading on almost every scientific front that existed at the time. There is a lot of untapped potential in the Middle East that if freed will greatly contribute to humanity. These are not trivial talking points, its HISTORY!!! Of which most Americans are completely ignorant of.
 
Navy Pride said:
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.
Click to expand...

This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin WRT this administration's failure at gaining the status of forces agreement. That failure is exactly why the US troop pullout happened, and the resulting raise and gains that ISIS / ISIL has made.

Yes, this ISIS / ISIL raise and gain are squarely on this president's head, and his failed administration's head, regardless of their trying to blame shift it to Maliki.

I wonder how much money, and how many combat troops lives this Obama and administration failure will cost in the long run.
 
Montecresto said:
Then you would have to concede that the majority of Americans will means nothing, and that Bush's SOFA to withdraw all troops by December 31, 2011 was a mistake.
Click to expand...
First of all, Im not defending Bush nor the Iraq war or the Sofa agreement signed by Bush. Bush isn't president. Bush was no longer president when the SOFA expired. Obama was president and once he was sworn in, Iraq and the SOFA and everything else that comes with the job of president became HIS responsibility. He didn't do a very good job and could easily be argued to have made matter worse. Second, we don't elect a president to follow the will of the majority. He is elected to lead. And in that regard Obama has performed poorly as well.
 
There was no need for talks. We should have just built two bases. One on the border of Syria and another on the border of Iran, and none of this crap would be happening today and our allies would have our support there in an instant. Why anyone feels that had to be negotiated is beyond me. 4,000 died for that right, many more bled and we just walked out for the loser in charges political joy.


Navy Pride said:
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.
Click to expand...
 
Fletch said:
. Second, we don't elect a president to follow the will of the majority. He is elected to lead. .
Click to expand...

er uh your opinion is required in the Obamacare forum. Anyhoo, Iraq not wanting US troops and refusing to give US troops immunity is not President Obama's responsibility. Thank goodness as a leader he didn't let the inevitable and incessant lies from the right about Iraq stop him from making the right decisions. I guess maliki just assumed he would be as weak willed and easy to manipulate as Bush. He was wrong.
 
Even allowing for Panetta's loyalty to Hillary and all things Clinton, it doesn't detract from what he, and others, have said about the matter.
 
Montecresto said:
No, we don't because the SOFA Bush negotiated required COMPLETE withdrawal by December 31, 2011!!!!!
Click to expand...
It is truly amazing that despite all the information available that there are still those too stubborn to understand that SOFA agreements are often designed to end in a successors term in case changes want to be made. The important gain was getting the first SOFA agreement as a precedent for successive Presidents, and Iraqi leaders, to follow.

Of course Obama had no intention of following any SOFA agreement and said so. His plan was always to 'bring the troops home' whther Iraq was stable or not. As it was he insisted it was 'stable', and a 'great achievement'.
 
Montecresto said:
Obama made no such mistake! It was consistent with both the will of the American people and George Bush's negotiated SOFA. But we agree that the troops died in Iraq in vain.
Click to expand...
Since when does 'the will of the American people' guide foreign policy? They usually don't understand a thing except 'war is bad', and it must be explained what the long term consequence of what any decision might be. That's what leadership is intended to do.

Again it's clear you know nothing about SOFA and shouldn't even be using the term.
 
Montecresto said:
Then you would have to concede that the majority of Americans will means nothing, and that Bush's SOFA to withdraw all troops by December 31, 2011 was a mistake.
Click to expand...
How do you get that from what the man said? You keep making the same silly errors in fact repeatedly.
 
Capster78 said:
People like you who continue to politicize it, are exactly the problem. This is why we have retreated back to the US both times is because of mindless propaganda of the likes of which you have just spouted. It's quite easy to use propaganda on a wholey ignorant society more interested in reality shows and Football. American's, I have come to realize, are as deep as the cheap gold plating on the bling they wear. If you have any time to do any actual REAL STUDYING of the situation instead of taking what you hear from political pundits on TV as fact, then you will realize that what you just said is about as ignorant as you can be on the situation.
Click to expand...
This guy, a fan of Saddam Hussein, is consistently wrong on everything he posts and yet feels his voice should be heard in the running of US foreign policy. It's that odd mix of arrogance and ignorance that we have become so familiar with over recent decades. Like listening to the OWS protesters 24 hours a days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom