Tiberius Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Spoken like the idiot you are. Fixed that. You two are dumb and dumber for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Corrected link: http://online.wsj.co...003931424188806 To refresh your memory in light of recent events in Iraq, this is how it went down in there in 2011: The U.S. had tried to extend the presence of our troops past Dec. 31 [2011]. Why did we fail? The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq’s laws… But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008…Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time…So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration? Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The administration didn’t even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until…a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate. The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn’t insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today… [Obama] also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to “end” the “war in Iraq.” Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders… Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks. Please read the whole thing. In typical Obama fashion, President Obama wanted to give the semblance of trying while actually undermining what ought to have been his own efforts. That way he could blame the Iraqis for what he’d always wanted to do anyway: completely withdraw. And why would he want a complete withdrawal? Placate the base, of course. The negotiations were concluded a mere year before the 2012 election. It was all about fulfilling his promise to leave that country, and he was very impatient to do so. Edited June 16, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Please read the whole thing. In typical Obama fashion, President Obama wanted to give the semblance of trying while actually undermining what ought to have been his own efforts. That way he could blame the Iraqis for what he’d always wanted to do anyway: completely withdraw. And why would he want a complete withdrawal? Placate the base, of course. The negotiations were concluded a mere year before the 2012 election. It was all about fulfilling his promise to leave that country, and he was very impatient to do so. The vast majority of Iraqi people wanted us out of their country and voted as such. The vast majority of Americans the same. Bush and Cheney and Dumbsfeld opened this can of worms, not Obama http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380398/dont-blame-iraq-obama-alone-andrew-c-mccarthy#! To listen to Republicans and those who foolishly repeat their revisionist history, you would think Obama inherited the Iraq so delusionally envisioned by Islamic-democracy-project devotees: a free, pluralistic democracy that would be a reliable counterterrorism ally and a thorn in totalitarian Iran’s side. In reality, Iraq remains an incorrigible sharia society in which the persecution of religious minorities and homosexuals is routine. Far from democratizing the country in any cultural sense, Bush officials fortified these tendencies by encouraging Iraq’s adoption of a constitution that enshrined Islam as the state religion and sharia as a primary source of law. Under American occupation, Iraq continued to shun diplomatic relations with Israel and to cheer the “resistance” waged by Hamas and Hezbollah. It sought closer ties with Tehran, a desire the Bush administration indulged on the fantasy rationale that Iran had a strong interest in a stable Iraq — even as everyone knew Iran was fueling anti-American terrorism in Iraq by both Shiite and Sunni jihadist cells.... The Iraqi mindset was obvious in public polling: In 2008, four in ten Iraqis continued to see Americans as legitimate terror targets — and the figure had recently hovered close to six in ten. Fully 80 percent of Iraqis said they wanted Americans to vacate their country. In the one vestige of Iraqi democracy about which the Bush administration could brag, the nation’s holding of popular elections, candidates competed with each other over who could most strenuously condemn the United States and demand that our troops leave yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 The vast majority of Iraqi people wanted us out of their country and voted as such. The vast majority of Americans the same. Bush and Cheney and Dumbsfeld opened this can of worms, not Obama http://www.nationalr...rew-c-mccarthy#! And the fall of Saigon is Kennedy's fault... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 And the fall of Saigon is Kennedy's fault... No, it was Ford's fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) http://scrappleface....ed-oval-office/ (2014-06-16) — Standing next to Marine One, the presidential helicopter, Barack Obama said Sunday that he would not lead ground forces into the White House to solve the escalating crisis in Iraq, as Sunni militants, inspired by al-Qaeda, capture one town after another in an attempt to establish a Muslim caliphate. Instead, the president threatened the use of an unmanned Oval Office and Situation Room, even as he received Tweet-briefings from Secretary of State John Kerry, who is remotely overseeing the evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Tal Afar. Mr. Obama, on vacation with his family, hit the links for a round of golf on a course owned by tech billionaire Larry Ellison, sending a clear signal to militants and terrorists alike that he rejects the Bush-era doctrine of “wingtips on the ground” in the executive office. “Americans are weary of a wartime commander-in-chief, with his presidential daily briefings, and his knees under his desk,” Obama said. “If I needed to know what’s happening right now in Iraq, I have people I could ask. In the meantime, I can steer the ship of state remotely, from any golf course in the world.” A spokesman for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) said they were prepared for anything but a “an American drone president,” noting that they would have to rethink their entire battle plan, since “current strategic scenarios are all predicated on real-time personal involvement by the U.S. Commander in Chief.” Edited June 16, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Winston Churchill once said (paraphrased) 'a 20 year-old who isn't liberal has no heart, but a 40 year-old who isn't conservative has no head'. you, sir, are no conservative. Spoken like a gentleman. When I read his post it was with Churchill's accent. Made it even classier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 http://scrappleface....ed-oval-office/ (2014-06-16) — Standing next to Marine One, the presidential helicopter, Barack Obama said Sunday that he would not lead ground forces into the White House to solve the escalating crisis in Iraq, as Sunni militants, inspired by al-Qaeda, capture one town after another in an attempt to establish a Muslim caliphate. Instead, the president threatened the use of an unmanned Oval Office and Situation Room, even as he received Tweet-briefings from Secretary of State John Kerry, who is remotely overseeing the evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Tal Afar. Mr. Obama, on vacation with his family, hit the links for a round of golf on a course owned by tech billionaire Larry Ellison, sending a clear signal to militants and terrorists alike that he rejects the Bush-era doctrine of “wingtips on the ground” in the executive office. “Americans are weary of a wartime commander-in-chief, with his presidential daily briefings, and his knees under his desk,” Obama said. “If I needed to know what’s happening right now in Iraq, I have people I could ask. In the meantime, I can steer the ship of state remotely, from any golf course in the world.” A spokesman for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) said they were prepared for anything but a “an American drone president,” noting that they would have to rethink their entire battle plan, since “current strategic scenarios are all predicated on real-time personal involvement by the U.S. Commander in Chief.” Right now, the President isn't going to accomplish anything on this issue from the Oval Office other than annoying people trying to do real work. If anything happens and he's needed, he's reachable. He wouldn't DO anything about it. But he's reachable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 When I read his post it was with Churchill's accent. Made it even classier. Another book worthy quote! So they knew this would happen and did it anyway??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Another book worthy quote! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY So they knew this would happen and did it anyway??? It's fair to question our decision to do what we did in Iraq 10 years ago. The question now is what should be done and how and when. The when was probably months ago unless we plan to do nothing. The big question is will Obama fix or !@#$ up what Bush !@#$ed up. Edited June 16, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Another book worthy quote! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY So they knew this would happen and did it anyway??? Hey, welcome to the reason many of us were against the war but for the occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Preach on brother Jesse!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq By Patrick Brennan One of the key points of debate in the U.S. over the recent events in Iraq is over what the U.S. could have done to avert them. If the U.S. still had troops there, would Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have become the sectarian strongman he has, would ISIS have established the stronghold it has, etc.? This is a complicated question, and one should never be too confident in counterfactuals. But there’s a compelling case articulated by a range of people that a U.S. presence there could have made today’s situation less likely, and certainly allowed us to have more options to respond today. But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: Claim that President Obama had no choice about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and blame Bush. The inconvenient aspect of this argument is that it’s not true. Chris Hayes laid out four points in the opening monologue of his show on Friday night, three of which consituted the above argument: (Video at the link) The three problematic claims: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush. These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea. And Hayes’s third point, that the Bush administration signed the status-of-forces agreement that included U.S. troops’ leaving at the end of 2011, is utterly meaningless: The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated eventually, to provide a long-term presence with U.S. troops in a different role. That’s why the Obama administration, however half-heartedly and with little regard for the fate of Iraq, did try to renegotiate it. And it’s why the Maliki government was open to these negotiations — the situation on the ground was very different in 2011 than it had been when Bush signed the agreement in 2008. More at the link: Edited June 17, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 What is happening now in Iraq is what would have happened anytime we withdrew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) What is happening now in Iraq is what would have happened anytime we withdrew... That's spot on. I spoke to a soldier who was there and he said it didn't matter when we leave, "they" would just come back. That's the fallacy of "it's Obama's fault for withdrawing" argument; timing does't matter, and we can't stay indefinitely due to costs. The mistake is not leaving, it's going in. Iraq borders were drawn up in the most stupid way possible given the rift between Shiite and Sunni, and then throw in Kurds to complete the trifecta. Edited June 17, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 That's spot on. I spoke to a soldier who was there and he said it didn't matter when we leave, "they" would just come back. That's the fallacy of "it's Obama's fault for withdrawing" argument; timing does't matter, and we can't stay indefinitely due to costs. The mistake is not leaving, it's going in. It's ridiculous that the Iraqi military can't get rid of a few hundred trouble makers after all the training and equipment we provided. Have they no pilots, jets, helicopters and tanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 It's ridiculous that the Iraqi military can't get rid of a few hundred trouble makers after all the training and equipment we provided. Have they no pilots, jets, helicopters and tanks? We did a pretty good job of blowing up most of their tanks and jets in 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 It's ridiculous that the Iraqi military can't get rid of a few hundred trouble makers after all the training and equipment we provided. Have they no pilots, jets, helicopters and tanks? I also want to know with all the intelligence in the area how no one saw this ISIS surge coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Then there's this... No idea about this source so I don't claim it's any good: http://seano.org/2014/06/16/breaking-iraq-isis-guerillas-have-u-s-stingers-spec-ops-enroute/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I also want to know with all the intelligence in the area how no one saw this ISIS surge coming. What intelligence? It was gutted when we pulled out of Iraq. Then there's this... No idea about this source so I don't claim it's any good: http://seano.org/201...ec-ops-enroute/ Sounds specious. After the great lengths we went to to collect "rogue" Stingers in the past decade, we abandon crates of them pulling out of Iraq? Wouldn't surprise me if ISIL had some...but I highly doubt they found them laying around. I would be entirely unsurprised to find out we supplied them for use in Syria, in fact. And airliners are more resilient than people think. A Stinger might be able to down one, but it's not likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts