• 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!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

TheDemSocialist said:
Whats your point? They passed to "partially reverse"... Not fully? And at the end point they still kept the majority of the ban in part...


Assad.



Really? "Several people"? As far as I can tell the only person doing that current has been myself, while the rest who have kept active on this thread you, US Con, Grant and others have been focused on "ITS ALL BO's FAULT!".



"All available means"? So, continuous, just about never ending occupation and war. Sounds like the military industrial complex is in for a big time $$$ maker.
Click to expand...



The point was.....the one link pointed out other Sunni Arabs had or were making attacks. Which the Baathist were against the US and Iraqi government.

Assad was fighting the Syrian Rebels and we do have the threads up on what was taking place. He rarely was going after AQ of Iraq.

Yes Really.....as the Narrative of going back to Bush. Doesn't relate. Nor does the excuses over BO's Foreign Policy. Are you trying to State that both of BO's S.O.Ds got it wrong with what they told the Entire country? Why is it no Foreign Policy experts carry the narrative......like you do. Looking for any excuse, any technicality, and trying to Blame Bush for AQ being back in Iraq......after being driven out or their so called retreating.


So Continuous?????? Not when.....one offers the poor in that region a way out poverty, as one of those means and ways.
 
rocket88 said:
I'd like to agree, but the problem is that the real power broker in that neighborhood is Iran. Personally, I say so what, but....
Click to expand...

Iran is a problem. And we know that. And soon they will have nuclear weapons.
 
joG said:
Iran is a problem. And we know that. And soon they will have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Yes they will, our POTUS sees no problem with that. However, he knows he will be out of office before they announce they do. Wish I could say I expected more from him.
 
US Conservative said:
Yes they will, our POTUS sees no problem with that. However, he knows he will be out of office before they announce they do. Wish I could say I expected more from him.
Click to expand...

It is a little disconcerting. He is certainly, or seems to be, on the right track, when he wants our allies, the less reliable ones like Germany, to shoulder their fair share of the hard and soft costs of international security making. But the travers to a world, where that works, is rather danger fraught and in cases like Iran the danger of getting it wrong is large and potentially existential.
 
joG said:
Iran is a problem. And we know that. And soon they will have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Was there really a way to stop it from happening without going to war, and if not, why did Bush invade Iraq and not Iran?
 
US Conservative said:
Yes they will, our POTUS sees no problem with that. However, he knows he will be out of office before they announce they do. Wish I could say I expected more from him.
Click to expand...

By talking to Iran, Obama has done more to stop it than Bush did. All Bush did was wag his finger at them.

I will ask you the same question: If we knew Iran was researching nuclear weapons (which we did), and there's no way to stop it short of military action (debateable, but since that's the usual conservative response, I'll give it to you), why invade Iraq instead of Iran? It would seem to me that Iran was a much bigger threat to security than Saddam was in his wildest dreams.
 
rocket88 said:
Possibly. Was there really a way to stop it from happening without going to war, and if not, why did Bush invade Iraq and not Iran?
Click to expand...

At the time of the invasion I considered that question, understood the reasoning and was not sure we moved the right way. That is water under the bridge now and we have to deal with the question of proliferation now. Proliferation under the conditions of increasing relative power in a dozen large countries is near sure to mean nuclear war in this century. That is the problem.
 
joG said:
At the time of the invasion I considered that question, understood the reasoning and was not sure we moved the right way. That is water under the bridge now and we have to deal with the question of proliferation now. Proliferation under the conditions of increasing relative power in a dozen large countries is near sure to mean nuclear war in this century. That is the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's a way to stop proliferation. The secrets are out there, and there to be had if the price is right.

The best thing is to maintain our arsenal as a deterrent and make it clear that we're not going to stand by if they are used. It's also possibly the world's worst kept "secret" that Israel has nuclear weapons, which is another strong deterrent for Iran.
 
rocket88 said:
Now they're asking for help, but when we pulled out they were asking for that. Staying at that point would have violated their sovereignty, and been against the wishes of the American people.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that having invaded in the first place violated Iraqi sovereignty.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It seems to me that having invaded in the first place violated Iraqi sovereignty.
Click to expand...

The justification for invasion is debatable. The issue of Saddam wasn't one that was going away anytime soon.

However, there is no justification for violating their sovereignty after Saddam was gone, given the insistence that the sovereignty of the Iraqi people was important.
 
rocket88 said:
The justification for invasion is debatable. The issue of Saddam wasn't one that was going away anytime soon.

However, there is no justification for violating their sovereignty after Saddam was gone, given the insistence that the sovereignty of the Iraqi people was important.
Click to expand...
Why wasn't their sovereignty important before Saddam was gone? It was still an independent nation, was it not?
 
rocket88 said:
So it gets to be Obama's fault forever, but Bush's fault ended in 2009?
Click to expand...
What is this "it" you refer to? If you are referring to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, despite the recommendations of the generals, the CIA and the previous administration, then of course Obama is responsible. He even took credit for it numerous times. There really is no debate here.
 
Grant said:
What is this "it" you refer to? If you are referring to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, despite the recommendations of the generals, the CIA and the previous administration, then of course Obama is responsible. He even took credit for it numerous times. There really is no debate here.
Click to expand...

My, how things change.

Right wing news, August 2010:
The one time Obama should be referencing George Bush, and, nary a mention

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq “on schedule,” by Aug. 31.
But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.

Details, schmetails, Obama has a narrative about Himself to tell
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Yes, the changes depend on who is seeking credit or discharging blame. Was Obama forced to withdraw the troops as per SOFA or did he end the war in Iraq as promised and, to his self-credit, bring the troops home?
Click to expand...

He carried out the agreement made between the Bush Administration and Iraq. Now that the withdrawal is seen to have been a disaster, the Republicans are arguing that Obama owns the decision, while Democrats are saying it was all Bush. Back in 2010, it was the Democrats claiming credit for having ended the war, while Republicans were pointing out that it was Bush who negotiated the withdrawal.

If it's a disaster, then blame the other party. If it's a positive thing, then claim the credit. That's how things are done in Washington.
 
Dittohead not! said:
He carried out the agreement made between the Bush Administration and Iraq. Now that the withdrawal is seen to have been a disaster, the Republicans are arguing that Obama owns the decision, while Democrats are saying it was all Bush. Back in 2010, it was the Democrats claiming credit for having ended the war, while Republicans were pointing out that it was Bush who negotiated the withdrawal.

If it's a disaster, then blame the other party. If it's a positive thing, then claim the credit. That's how things are done in Washington.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is how things are done in Washington but we are not in Washington and should be able to recognize what really went on, if we want to participate in an honest debate.

The US has something like 87 SOFA's around the world which are always coming up for renewal and renegotiation. The one in Iraq was no different. Obama and his supporters will blame SOFA for the withdrawal or take credit to 'end the war in Iraq'. They are obviously using this both ways, which politicians naturally do, but the electorate should see through this chicanery and certainly not defend it. By allowing this they support the dishonesty in government they are often railing against.
 
Grant said:
Yes, that is how things are done in Washington but we are not in Washington and should be able to recognize what really went on, if we want to participate in an honest debate.

The US has something like 87 SOFA's around the world which are always coming up for renewal and renegotiation. The one in Iraq was no different. Obama and his supporters will blame SOFA for the withdrawal or take credit to 'end the war in Iraq'. They are obviously using this both ways, which politicians naturally do, but the electorate should see through this chicanery and certainly not defend it. By allowing this they support the dishonesty in government they are often railing against.
Click to expand...

If the electorate could see through this chicanery,they would have voted the proponents of absurd partisanship out long ago. Instead, they wave their pom poms and forget about what the party they're cheering for has said and done in the past.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm not sure there's a way to stop proliferation. The secrets are out there, and there to be had if the price is right.

The best thing is to maintain our arsenal as a deterrent and make it clear that we're not going to stand by if they are used. It's also possibly the world's worst kept "secret" that Israel has nuclear weapons, which is another strong deterrent for Iran.
Click to expand...

Well, there is always preemption.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the electorate could see through this chicanery,they would have voted the proponents of absurd partisanship out long ago. Instead, they wave their pom poms and forget about what the party they're cheering for has said and done in the past.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the American electorate were once more sophisticated than they are now and disapproved of lies from any quarter.

But perhaps that is wishful thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom