• 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

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.
Ok.... Point being?

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.
He was fighting ISIS which was in his state...


Yes Really.....as the Narrative of going back to Bush. Doesn't relate.
Seriously? You are going to claim that choices, decisions, and policies have not caused a blowback?

Nor does the excuses over BO's Foreign Policy.
Where did I said it excused it? I simply said trying to pin this all on one person is very simplistic.

Are you trying to State that both of BO's S.O.Ds got it wrong with what they told the Entire country?
Did I anywhere emply that?

Why is it no Foreign Policy experts carry the narrative......like you do.
What? That this is more than just one mans fault? I think many experts carry that narrative.

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.
As I stated Bush does carry partially the blame. All of it? No. A lot of it, yes.

So Continuous?????? Not when.....one offers the poor in that region a way out poverty, as one of those means and ways.
By constantly occupying their country? Sounds like Oceania is going to be in constant war with Eurasia again..
 
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.

Yes, I believe it is.
 
You are not making your case with these silly links, TheDemSocialist. Try your own words.

:doh Do you want me to pull some quotes. Or is reading too hard for ya? Or do you simply refuse anything that goes against your simple narrative?
 
:doh Do you want me to pull some quotes. Or is reading too hard for ya? Or do you simply refuse anything that goes against your simple narrative?
I suggested you use your own words. If that's a problem for you, don't bother.
 
Ok.... Point being?


He was fighting ISIS which was in his state...



Seriously? You are going to claim that choices, decisions, and policies have not caused a blowback?


Where did I said it excused it? I simply said trying to pin this all on one person is very simplistic.


Did I anywhere emply that?


What? That this is more than just one mans fault? I think many experts carry that narrative.


As I stated Bush does carry partially the blame. All of it? No. A lot of it, yes.


By constantly occupying their country? Sounds like Oceania is going to be in constant war with Eurasia again..


Point being, it goes back to others making attacks after AQ was unable to operate as a force under Bush Junior.....wherein they reconstructed themselves and grew in numbers under BO and his Team Policy and the way they dealt with Iraq in concept, and in reality. Then they became ISIL and now ISIS or Islamic State.

This was AQ and our Enemy. Once BO dropped the ball on the SOFA.....he rolled up most intel that we had going in Iraq.

Now the Islamic State is in Africa with a whole new city to play with. Surrounded by those that will join with them. They have expanded to Asia and they are growing and taking in more fighters every week.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/africa/209060-libyan-city-joined-islamic-state-group.html
 
I suggested you use your own words. If that's a problem for you, don't bother.

Sources offered that disprove your stance are just "silly links". We got it.
 
Point being, it goes back to others making attacks after AQ was unable to operate as a force under Bush Junior...
Except as I proved earlier they were able to operate....

..wherein they reconstructed themselves and grew in numbers under BO and his Team Policy and the way they dealt with Iraq in concept, and in reality. Then they became ISIL and now ISIS or Islamic State.
They did grow that is correct.

This was AQ and our Enemy. Once BO dropped the ball on the SOFA.....he rolled up most intel that we had going in Iraq.
Did he drop the ball or did Maliki and the Iraqi Parilament drop the ball? I think as links I provided earlier prove that it was mostly Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament.
 
They are opinion pieces not based on fact. You actually should read your own links before you post them.

Actually none of them were opinion pieces...
 
Point being, it goes back to others making attacks after AQ was unable to operate as a force under Bush Junior.....wherein they reconstructed themselves and grew in numbers under BO and his Team Policy and the way they dealt with Iraq in concept, and in reality. Then they became ISIL and now ISIS or Islamic State.

This was AQ and our Enemy. Once BO dropped the ball on the SOFA.....he rolled up most intel that we had going in Iraq.

Now the Islamic State is in Africa with a whole new city to play with. Surrounded by those that will join with them. They have expanded to Asia and they are growing and taking in more fighters every week.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/africa/209060-libyan-city-joined-islamic-state-group.html
Spot on again, MMC.

Those who believe that they can end a war just by withdrawing are more than a little foolish as the war will eventually come to them. Obama didn't end any war because, clearly, that is not up to one side to determine.

The islamist terrorists are obviously more determined to win the struggle moreso than the democracies, at least at this moment, and a great deal more violence and death will be done before all of this is finally brought to a close. And, as Bush said, it will take years of struggle, not simply a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
 
Except as I proved earlier they were able to operate....


They did grow that is correct.


Did he drop the ball or did Maliki and the Iraqi Parilament drop the ball? I think as links I provided earlier prove that it was mostly Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament.

Earlier, I proved they were strategically defeated and with their own words and saying they withdrew. Which we went around with how they were able to still get off attacks in Iraq coming thru Syria. As one the one place they were mainly coming from.

BO sending aid late was to try and contain ISIS. It's clear that containment failed.

Iraqis Forces weren't capable of handling ISIS on their own. Which is the Assessment of the Pentagon. Not militarily nor politically. Not even with a Unified Government.
 
Spot on again, MMC.

Those who believe that they can end a war just by withdrawing are more than a little foolish as the war will eventually come to them. Obama didn't end any war because, clearly, that is not up to one side to determine.

The islamist terrorists are obviously more determined to win the struggle moreso than the democracies, at least at this moment, and a great deal more violence and death will be done before all of this is finally brought to a close. And, as Bush said, it will take years of struggle, not simply a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.



Heya Grant. :2wave: Not to mention, I already linked why the Sunni are abandoning the Coalition. Then there is al Sadr and the Shia doing whatever al Sistani wants. Which they have been going after Sunni and ISIS. Although, moreso just Sunni In Baghdad.

Which doesn't count our other Sunni allies that do not trust BO and his Team. Like the Saudi and Qataris to name a couple.
 
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..

An honest debate would be one in which we recognized that the agreement to withdraw troops was one that Bush signed on to. Obama went through with America's promise and made good on our word as a nation.

I can't help but think that if he hadn't, you'd be leading the chorus denouncing him.
 
Earlier, I proved they were strategically defeated and with their own words and saying they withdrew. Which we went around with how they were able to still get off attacks in Iraq coming thru Syria. As one the one place they were mainly coming from.
Being able to lunch high staked attacks "was strategically defeated"?

BO sending aid late was to try and contain ISIS. It's clear that containment failed.

Iraqis Forces weren't capable of handling ISIS on their own. Which is the Assessment of the Pentagon. Not militarily nor politically. Not even with a Unified Government.
So you think we should go back into Iraq, and be in direct combat with them?
 
Well, there is always preemption.

There is, but you're assuming that they don't actually have a bomb, but haven't had a public test yet. Again, the Israel example - it's widely assumed that they have the capability, but haven't "officially" tested anything yet.
 
Heya Grant. :2wave: Not to mention, I already linked why the Sunni are abandoning the Coalition. Then there is al Sadr and the Shia doing whatever al Sistani wants. Which they have been going after Sunni and ISIS. Although, moreso just Sunni In Baghdad. Which doesn't count our other Sunni allies that do not trust BO and his Team. Like the Saudi and Qataris to name a couple.
I always admire your posts, MMC, because you understand so much of the details, the ins and outs, that can be complicated to those who are only looking at the overall picture.

It is not just the Sunnis who don't trust Obama, it is our traditional Allies as well. Calling Netanyahu "chicken****"?? This is teenage trash talk unbefitting a serious word power and its leadership. And of course we should remember Obama's insults against the British. I know it's been said before but Obama does seem to give more respect to Americans enemies than its Allies.
 
An honest debate would be one in which we recognized that the agreement to withdraw troops was one that Bush signed on to.
Yes, we know. We know about SOFA. There is no debate about Bush signing SOFA. Can we end this now?

However you do not seem to understand that the SOF Agreements, and there are over 80 of them in existence right now, are always renegotiated regularly. They all have an expiration date in order that any troubling issues can be discussed and agreed to. This is normal, just as was the one in Iraq.
Obama went through with America's promise and made good on our word as a nation.
First be clear that it was Obama's promise, not that of the Bush Administration, the CIA or the military. It was all Obama. You can ask yourself, perhaps, whether Obama withdrew the troops because he had to, because he promised to, or that Maliki gave him his marching orders. Which do you think it is?
I can't help but think that if he hadn't, you'd be leading the chorus denouncing him.
I cannot help with what you think, understand, or opine. I'm only interested in the circumstances in Iraq at the time they took place and the disaster we have there now. Unlike his supporters I have no emotional investment in Barrack Obama. He is just another politician as far as I'm concerned.
 
There is, but you're assuming that they don't actually have a bomb, but haven't had a public test yet. Again, the Israel example - it's widely assumed that they have the capability, but haven't "officially" tested anything yet.

I have less of a problem with Israel than Iran. In the case of Iran the threat to us is substantial and the impact on proliferation is certain.
 
Yes, we know. We know about SOFA. There is no debate about Bush signing SOFA. Can we end this now?

However you do not seem to understand that the SOF Agreements, and there are over 80 of them in existence right now, are always renegotiated regularly. They all have an expiration date in order that any troubling issues can be discussed and agreed to. This is normal, just as was the one in Iraq.

The Iraqis had zero interest in renegotiating at that point. So assuming that there wouldn't be one going forward, which is a fairly safe assumption, then what?

First be clear that it was Obama's promise, not that of the Bush Administration, the CIA or the military. It was all Obama. You can ask yourself, perhaps, whether Obama withdrew the troops because he had to, because he promised to, or that Maliki gave him his marching orders. Which do you think it is?

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. He promised to, and had to.
 
I always admire your posts, MMC, because you understand so much of the details, the ins and outs, that can be complicated to those who are only looking at the overall picture.

It is not just the Sunnis who don't trust Obama, it is our traditional Allies as well. Calling Netanyahu "chicken****"?? This is teenage trash talk unbefitting a serious word power and its leadership. And of course we should remember Obama's insults against the British. I know it's been said before but Obama does seem to give more respect to Americans enemies than its Allies.


Thanks Grant......That's the one thing this country has been lacking under BO and his Team.....and whats worse it isn't just being proven to us. It is being validated to other World Leaders. Which it will later be validated by History.

Still.....I do give TDS a lot of credit as for a young guy. He is up on a lot of Foreign policy not like many nowadays. It is; where the Big boys play, that affects Everyone's daily lives. Whether they know it or not.
 
I have less of a problem with Israel than Iran. In the case of Iran the threat to us is substantial and the impact on proliferation is certain.

I agree that Israel isn't anywhere close to the problem Iran is from an American perspective. I do, however, think that there's a fairly good probability that Iran has stolen a page from Israel's playbook as far as nukes are concerned.
 
I agree that Israel isn't anywhere close to the problem Iran is from an American perspective. I do, however, think that there's a fairly good probability that Iran has stolen a page from Israel's playbook as far as nukes are concerned.

All the more reason to do the nastiness now and not wait till their intercontinental delivery is in place.
 
The Iraqis had zero interest in renegotiating at that point.
What evidence do you have of this? "Zero interest"? Are you quite sure of this claim?
So assuming that there wouldn't be one going forward, which is a fairly safe assumption, then what?
Why would you male that assumption??
A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. He promised to, and had to.
He didn't "have to" do anything. Again, all the advice was against what he decided. And please get serious about Barrack Obama's "promises". We both should understand their worth.
 
Yes, we know. We know about SOFA. There is no debate about Bush signing SOFA. Can we end this now?

However you do not seem to understand that the SOF Agreements, and there are over 80 of them in existence right now, are always renegotiated regularly. They all have an expiration date in order that any troubling issues can be discussed and agreed to. This is normal, just as was the one in Iraq.
First be clear that it was Obama's promise, not that of the Bush Administration, the CIA or the military. It was all Obama. You can ask yourself, perhaps, whether Obama withdrew the troops because he had to, because he promised to, or that Maliki gave him his marching orders. Which do you think it is?
I cannot help with what you think, understand, or opine. I'm only interested in the circumstances in Iraq at the time they took place and the disaster we have there now. Unlike his supporters I have no emotional investment in Barrack Obama. He is just another politician as far as I'm concerned.


The one thing I have a problem with is, all using the excuse that Maliki was weak. Yet here was a weak leader and a weak government, with weak Armed Forces.....and yet we couldn't get them to agree to our terms for a SOFA. Here BO and his team couldn't find a way to use all their Elite liberal mannerisms and get this weak Leader and Weak government to come to terms with a deal.

Yet it was BO's own people who said that BO and Team didn't like Maliki......that he didn't care for Maliki like he didn't care for Karzi.

Now you know, there was a model that BO could have followed. I believe the Sicilians perfected it with those they don't like. Note: it was called Strictly Business.

th



KnowWhatImean! ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom