• 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

Vern said:
Jack, that "valid" agreement required all troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011. That valid agreement also required we get Iraqi permission before troops left the base. Iraq did not want our troops. If they wanted our troops there then they would have said it publicly and given our troops immunity. Just say "President Obama should have caved on the immunity demand."
Click to expand...

It was all negotiable and an agreement with immunity was possible, as Panetta points out.
 
Montecresto said:
No tyranny from the Islamic State. And your in the minority. Increasingly Americans view the Iraq war and removing Hussein as a mistake.

February 19, 2014
More Americans Now View Afghanistan War as a Mistake
Republicans most likely to say the war was not a mistake. Bolded typical!!!
by Frank Newport

More Americans Now View Afghanistan War as a Mistake

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...

"If they were right then one would be enough." --Albert Einstein
 
Montecresto said:
We'll president Clinton agrees with me that Hans Blix was doing a fine job at not finding any WMD, and should have been allowed to complete his job. But of course he would have found nothing, the impetus for war would be gone and BushCo wouldn't have had their war. SO.................had the right thing been done to begin with, then once again, we wouldn't be talking about SOFA, and wringing our hands over the menacing Islamic State, Bush's war, and the removal of Hussein, a colossal failure, now acknowledged by most Americans, too!

"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process.

Clinton's Fight Against Terrorism - CBS News
Click to expand...

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was all negotiable and an agreement with immunity was possible, as Panetta points out.
Click to expand...

er uh Jack, where did Panetta point out that an "agreement with immunity was possible" because I didn't see it. I did see where "Iraqi officials" could only privately say they wanted troops to stay. If they wanted troops to stay they would have said it publicly. why do you think they could say it privately? because Iraqis wanted us out of their country. Does panetta mention that?

Anyhoo, bush's sofa and Iraq's refusal to allow immunity tied President Obama's hands.
 
Vern said:
er uh Jack, where did Panetta point out that an "agreement with immunity was possible" because I didn't see it. I did see where "Iraqi officials" could only privately say they wanted troops to stay. If they wanted troops to stay they would have said it publicly. why do you think they could say it privately? because Iraqis wanted us out of their country. Does panetta mention that?

Anyhoo, bush's sofa and Iraq's refusal to allow immunity tied President Obama's hands.
Click to expand...

GWB's SOFA gave BHO a free hand, and he chose not to engage.
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB's SOFA gave BHO a free hand, and he chose not to engage.
Click to expand...

er uh Jack, we know you believe Bush's SOFA gave President Obama had a free hand because you want to believe it. But I'm not seeing a "free hand" with troop withdrawal locked in and an intransigent Iraq demand for no troop immunity. Jack, Iraq didn't want us there. That's why Iraqi officials could only they wanted US troops "privately."
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB's SOFA gave BHO a free hand, and he chose not to engage.
Click to expand...

It ws the first SOFA agreement which was difficult because it was the first Iraq had ever had and the first time the US had negotiated this Agreement with Iraq. Once the first one was out of the way it was much easier to fine tune the second. But as BHO himself said, he didn't want any agreement.
 
Vern said:
er uh Jack, we know you believe Bush's SOFA gave President Obama had a free hand because you want to believe it.
Click to expand...
Actually he KNOWS that. as does anyone familiar with the agreement, including Barrack Obama.
 
Vern said:
er uh Jack, we know you believe Bush's SOFA gave President Obama had a free hand because you want to believe it. But I'm not seeing a "free hand" with troop withdrawal locked in and an intransigent Iraq demand for no troop immunity. Jack, Iraq didn't want us there. That's why Iraqi officials could only they wanted US troops "privately."
Click to expand...

I'll take Panetta's word over yours. Sorry.
 
radioman said:
We've spent billions of dollars and a decade training the Iraqi army.
They wilted at the mere sight of the ISIS.
I guess we were wasting our time and money....either our training was ineffective or the Iraqis won't fight for their freedom..:shrug:
It's their land.....and they won't fight for it.
Too bad.
Click to expand...

The way I see it anyone who agrees with the idea of leaving a perpetual U.S. military force in Iraq indefinitely is someone who really isn't looking for peace or democracy nor for a sovereign country to stand up on its own feet. You're looking to be occupiers at best, beating the drum beat of war at worse!

According to Sen. McCain, GWB and some many others on the Right, the counter-insurgency efforts in Iraq was a success if not a quasi victory, but that really isn't true. Sure, sectarian violence was down and the Iraqi military was being armed and trained sufficiently, but sectarian violence continued despite our efforts to secure large swaths of Iraq and despite our efforts to train local and national Iraqi forces to defend their own cities and their nation.

I understand what the U.S./Iraq SOFA says, that our combat forces would leave on the condition that our Generals were satisfied conditions on the ground, that the Iraqi military could stand on its own, but when the nation's leader tells you they can handle it, the only thing you can really do is step back and see if they've "manned up" and can handle their own problems.

I get that hindsight is 20/20 and the belief is that had our military remained in Iraq ISIL wouldn't have gained a foothold anywhere in country, but I wonder about that. I question whether or not the Iraqi military would have stayed to fight considering how fast they surrendered their weapons - weapons we gave them! But more importantly, I wonder just how long was our military to remain in Iraq "training up the Iraqi military in the way we wanted it to go"?

At some point, you have to take the training wheels off. When was that suppose to be? One could argue that the Iraqi military wasn't ready to stand on its own two feet and I'll grant you that considering how fast they laid down their arms once ISIS came to town, but to act as if this wasn't happening in small numbers even while we were their is foolish. So, tell me, just how long were we to stay in Iraq? And how long were we to continue putting up the façade that we hold true to our values of national sovereignty and democracy even when a nation's leader tells us to leave, that they can deal with their nation's security matters themselves? How long?
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Oh please Apache, you know better then that. If either of them were to be "nice" they would have waited until Obama was finished with his presidency to write books.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Makes you wonder how much these people believe in honor and fidelity to country. I get the freedom of speech angle, but there is such a thing as "respect for the office of the President of the United States of America". People think that just because they leave their position within an Administration it gives them an opening to speak their mind so freely even while the person they once worked for is still in office. All that does is take us one step closer to being the weakened nation folks within our government continue to claim we're moving towards.

Don't you see?

If someone who once worked for the President feels free to open his mouth or publish anything they want in a book that questions or brings doubt about the President's ability to lead, people outside of government, outside our borders begin to believe "if they don't trust their own President, why should we?"

The mouthpieces are weakening their own government and they don't even realize it.
 
APACHERAT said:
Just like the Army's Chief of Staff going public that only 3 combat brigades out of 33 were classified as being combat ready last year. That information is usually classified for two years. I suppose the General decided for national security reasons it was important enough to let the American people know how bad things really are.
Click to expand...

But that's not something you tell the American people OR THE WORLD in a book. That's something you tell to Congress and the Joint Chiefs either as you're walking out the door or in a closed national security/defense briefing.
 
Napoleon said:
*snip*

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that disagreement between Baghdad and Washington over the issue of immunity for American soldiers from Iraqi law was the main obstacle to reaching a deal to maintain an American military presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year.

Mr. Maliki also signaled that there would be no compromise on this matter even in further discussions to keep a small contingent of American trainers and advisers.

"When the issue of immunity was brought up and the Iraqi side was told that the American side won't leave a single soldier without full immunity and the Iraqi answer was that it's impossible to grant immunity to a single American soldier, negotiations stopped regarding the numbers, location and mechanics of training," Mr. Maliki told reporters in Baghdad.

*snip*

Mr. Maliki, who clinched a second term as prime minister in December after a grueling election, sought maximum political gain for Friday's announcement, projecting himself as the guardian of Iraqi sovereignty in the face of American demands.

"This is a huge victory and a massive success for Iraq and its diplomacy and its will and the will of its patriotic political forces," he said in his appearance on Saturday.

*snip*

Source.
Click to expand...

So, all you idiots who continue to say that the President and VP didn't fight hard enough to keep combat forces in Iraq can eat it! This was al-Maliki's call and as a 16-year veteran I can say I don't blame the President one bite for pulling our troops out and letting Iraq fend for itself. Even now I can support providing air support to fight ISIS, but unless the Iraqi people are willing to stand up and fight for their own country I WOULD NOT put one combat boot on the ground to fight in their defense (SpeOps notwithstanding).
 
Objective Voice said:
So, all you idiots who continue to say that the President and VP didn't fight hard enough to keep combat forces in Iraq can eat it! This was al-Maliki's call and as a 16-year veteran I can say I don't blame the President one bite for pulling our troops out and letting Iraq fend for itself. Even now I can support providing air support to fight ISIS, but unless the Iraqi people are willing to stand up and fight for their own country I WOULD NOT put one combat boot on the ground to fight in their defense (SpeOps notwithstanding).
Click to expand...

ISIS seems determined to break down and destroy the entire concept of iraq's nationhood.
 
Grant said:
You speak of "Iraqis" as though they were all of one mind, that there was no disagreement, no fears, no Islamists, and so on. Why not discuss a topic you know something about instead making such assertive errors?
Click to expand...

He speaks of "Iraqis" the same way people speak of "Americans"...our nation's leader represents "US"....ALL of us regardless of race, religion, sex, creed, age...or at least that's how it's suppose to be.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'll take Panetta's word over yours. Sorry.
Click to expand...
LOL... take whatever you want, it only shows the desperation of your argument. The facts of the issue have already been stated:

1. Bush's SOFA contained the withdrawal deadline, not anything Obama negotiated.

2. Iraq refused to agree to a new SOFA that continued routine troop immunity, so that was that. You might be willing to send them into that type of legal minefield, but thankfully Obama was not (I doubt Bush would have either).

This tack taken by right wing media is not only propaganda, it is simply stupid.

Also: Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement referendum, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to what Panetta has to say, he's got a book to sell and I don't think this is the first time he's stabbed the administration in the back. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but at the end of the day he's just giving an opinion based on nothing but his own interpretation, recollection, and version of events. Shoulda/coulda/woulda is not an effective argument.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
Yes you have. Either that or you are deliberately misleading.

The video tape is clear, Obama would have been granted immunity IF he had agreed to at least 10,000 troops. He would not. It was Obama's rejection and he made that very clear in the debates when he said he "did not want to get saddled with 10,000 troops. The interview is very specific, pins down the State Department flight attendant/propagandist and catches her lying as well.

Oh wait....it was on Fox and everyone knows Fox NEVER reports anything that's true, even when it comes out of the mouth of Obama himself.

carry on..
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is you would have been okay with a U.S. combat troop strength of 10,000 in Iraq versus the 182,060 troops that were in country at the time according to this GSA report:

As of June 1, 2008, according to DOD, the United States had 182,060 troops stationed in Iraq — 150,400 active component and 31,660 National Guard or Reserves.
Click to expand...

Just ask yourself if over 180,000 armed U.S. military personnel could not keep sectarian violence at bay in Iraq at its highest troop strength level, how in the world were 10,000 suppose to? But it's not about that is it?

Troop levels or immunity thereof really isn't the issue for most of you. It's the fact that this President wouldn't give in to your perception of "American leadership" or "American dominance". And yet the one time he stands up in defense of our men and women in uniform, the only thing you people complain about is "he didn't give in to another nation's leader to keep U.S. combat forces in Iraq to help defend their country like we wanted." Whaaah!

For all the bowing down, giving in and non-support of the military you people claim this President does I'd think that for once you'd be clad he stood up for something.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
But that's not something you tell the American people OR THE WORLD in a book. That's something you tell to Congress and the Joint Chiefs either as you're walking out the door or in a closed national security/defense briefing.
Click to expand...

It seems at times someone has to inform the American people when a President has become a national security threat or even Congress like back during the mid and late 1970's when the radical left ("New Left") took control of the Democrat Party and allowed our military to become a hollow force. When Reagan entered the White House it was discovered it was worse that we were told. So it cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions to repair the damage and for over twenty years we listen to progressive liberal complaining about Reagan's spending until Obama became President. You don't hear the left complaining about Reagan's spending any more do you ? And Reagan had something to show for it.

Every month all units with in the military are rated in combat readiness, C-1 to C-5, C-1 being combat ready to be deployed into combat and C-5 being the worst, comparable to the Mongolian Navy which doesn't have a navy. These combat readiness classifications are usually classified for two years.

But when you have a CnC (Obama) who is derelict in his duties as CnC, who has allowed our military to deteriorate as a fighting force, morale plummet, using the military for social engineering, some times a general or admiral has to buck the system. General Billy Mitchel did it and so did Brig. Gen. Evans F. Carlson, USMC (1st Marine Raiders fame)
 
APACHERAT said:
It seems at times someone has to inform the American people when a President has become a national security threat or even Congress like back during the mid and late 1970's when the radical left ("New Left") took control of the Democrat Party and allowed our military to become a hollow force. When Reagan entered the White House it was discovered it was worse that we were told. So it cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions to repair the damage and for over twenty years we listen to progressive liberal complaining about Reagan's spending until Obama became President. You don't hear the left complaining about Reagan's spending any more do you ? And Reagan had something to show for it.

Every month all units with in the military are rated in combat readiness, C-1 to C-5, C-1 being combat ready to be deployed into combat and C-5 being the worst, comparable to the Mongolian Navy which doesn't have a navy. These combat readiness classifications are usually classified for two years.

But when you have a CnC (Obama) who is derelict in his duties as CnC, who has allowed our military to deteriorate as a fighting force, morale plummet, using the military for social engineering, some times a general or admiral has to buck the system. General Billy Mitchel did it and so did Brig. Gen. Evans F. Carlson, USMC (1st Marine Raiders fame)
Click to expand...

That's you falling behind freedom of speech believing that it's perfectly fine for these people to say whatever they want once they leave office never once stopping to think of the damage they may cause by "spilling the beans" about their former boss while said boss is still running the country.

There was once a time when men of honor showed respect for the presidency. Where have those days gone?
 
Objective Voice said:
They do, but as long as the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are willing to fight for their nation and the government that rightly represents them, ISIS will fall.
Click to expand...
You figures the odds are on the side of the Iraqis?
 
Grant said:
You figures the odds are on the side of the Iraqis?
Click to expand...

The odds are always on the side of those who are willing to fight for what is rightfully theirs. But therein lay the key: They have to be willing to stand up and fight for themselves.

We were right to arm them and train them, but at some point they have to stand up and fight for themselves.
 
Objective Voice said:
That's you falling behind freedom of speech believing that it's perfectly fine for these people to say whatever they want once they leave office never once stopping to think of the damage they may cause by "spilling the beans" about their former boss while said boss is still running the country.

There was once a time when men of honor showed respect for the presidency. Where have those days gone?
Click to expand...

Gen. MacArthur, Gen. Carlson, Gen. Billy Mitchell.

Obama doesn't respect the U.S. military and those who wear the uniform, pretty hard to respect your commander when he doesn't respect you.
 
APACHERAT said:
Gen. MacArthur, Gen. Carlson, Gen. Billy Mitchell.

Obama doesn't respect the U.S. military and those who wear the uniform, pretty hard to respect your commander when he doesn't respect you.
Click to expand...

general Douglas MacArthur was considered by the u.s navy brass to be unhinged megalomaniac with a corn cob pipe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom