 |
Hello:
I've been waiting for this moment...
We're OUT of Iraq. From the get go, I've said that George W. Bush LOST this war. I said it time and time again. I haven't changed my mind.
It looks, however, like the right wing agrees with me. Iran is the winner, but it's Obama's fault.. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.
And, you guys want to run this country.
excon
Hello Ex good to see your up and about.
I agree that Iraq was a waste of lives and money. It was fought for the wrong reason(s), Saddam needed to go away and we needed the oil. Iraq will never be a democracy but I think Iran will muddy the water even more now that we are pulling out.
Let's not forget that Vietnam was another war we should not have been involved in but LBJ (democrat) found a way in and it took a Republican to get us out.
Have a great day.
I saw a T shirt that said Vietnam, second place. Made my blood run cold but that's what happened. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq we were the British red coats standing in a line in an open field compared to our enemy. Somehow we decided to become the world police force and we aren't very smart about it. The French showed us what would happen in Vietnam but we went in anyway. The Russian showed us what Afghanistan was like, we went in anyway. We need smarter leaders, this coming from a guy who lives in a state where our last two governors are making our license plates.
Obama did snatch defeat from victory by not negotiating a renewal of the status of forces agreement . If we had bugged out of Korea the same way then the NORKS would rule the whole place. No difference.
For the record.. Remaining in Iraq are 16,000 American personel ;many of them re-designated "Diplomats" and Diplomatic Security Personnel" to be at the service of the State Dept. They are housed...or should I say ,"garrisoned " in the largest and most heavily fortified Embassy in the world. Such is the Obama deception.
I hope I am hearing this wrong .
Ali Musa Daqduq to be released when we leave Iraq .
He is a Hezbollah operative trained by the Iran Qud's .2007 he led a terror team into Iraq that killed 5 US troops in Karbalah . He was later captured and has been inUS custody in Iraq .
But there are no provisions to either transfer him to the US or to GITMO to face justice. His compatriots were already transferred to Iraqi control and they shamefully( and swiftly I might add) exchanged them for captured British soldiers .
This was not the only example . There have been literally hundreds of Iranian operatives involved in terror activity in Iraq who have been released and repatriated to Iran .
Daqduq ,besides the specific case of the deaths of the US troops in Karbala trained many of the Iranian and Iraqi terrorists operatives working in Iraq the last decade . He has much more blood on his hands .
Yet it appears that when we exit he too will be handed over to the Iraqis .Must be part of that honourable peace President Obama promised us .
I will be constructing a letter to Att Gen Holder and Def Sec Panetta in support of a transfer to GITMO and a tribunal... not that it will do any good .
I expect Daqduq will get his welcome home parade in the streets of Tehran long before the parade I envision for returning troops down the Canyon of Heroes is ever realized.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, it certainly was part of the negotiations over our withdrawal.
Besides, having gone in WRONGLY, and having killed some 100,000 Iraqi's while we were there, I'm just not sure there IS an honorable peace. There's only leaving.
But, I agree with you. Some of the stuff that goes on is very ugly.. We handed over ONE terrorist.. Israel, recently, handed over 100's. You do, what you have to do.
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Unfair comparison... WE were INVITED into South Korea to DEFEND them. The NORKS were the INVADERS. WE were the defenders. . WE were the good guys. We REMAIN the good guys. South Korea wants us THERE.
However, in Iraq, WE were the invaders. We invaded for FALSE reasons. THEY were defending themselves against the invaders. THEY'RE the good guys. They want us OUT. We have no business staying there.
Yes, Iran is the winner. That's what happens when you LOSE wars. You get SCREWED. And George W. Bush LOST this one.
excon
Wrong... we did not kill 100,000 Iraqis.. they mostly killed themselves.. with the assist of AQ and Iran.Quote:
Besides, having gone in WRONGLY, and having killed some 100,000 Iraqi's while we were there
That is a move by the Israelis that I disagree with . But it's their business.Quote:
But, I agree with you. Some of the stuff that goes on is very ugly.. We handed over ONE terrorist.. Israel, recently, handed over 100's. You do, what you have to do.
We are only turning over Daqduq because of our weak-kneed leadership who won't do the right thing about handling unlawful enemy combattants ,and would rather free them than conduct tribunals .
No it is not . The status of forces agreement was in place .It was Obama's refusual to negotiate an extension that was wrong.Quote:
Unfair comparison
You are kidding ,aren't you ? You think they want Iran dominance ? Do you think Maliki would've travelled to Washington this month if he wasn't seeking some kind of deal ?
Maliki is telling anyone who will listen that he wants America there . He is attempting to balance Iraq's long-term interest;but the President's policies are pushing him into the arms of Iran . Yeah I said it!
Yes ,only Obama's policies makes Iran the winners .
Instead of building a new alliance with a free and independent Iraq ;the President is content to allow all the gains of the last decade to be squandered .
There were in fact very minor disagreements in the negotiations ,that were easily surmountable, if the President had any intention of pursuing a new alliance . He was not inclined to because of the silly campaign promises he boxed himself into.
Meanwhile he shamelessly touts the accomplishments there as if they are his own . There is no shortage of rhetoric about the great opportunities and freedoms that the "Bush war " gave to these Iraqis. He's right about that of course ;but he had ZERO to do with it ,and his decisions now threaten a reversal of all good that came from the conflict.
Why all the analysis and debate, the US is leaving Iraq, it is largely peaceful, this is a good thing. And you you seem to think you had some sort of propriety rights by reason of conquest. A somewhat outmoded idea
There is no question that the US invaded Iraq for the flimsiest of reasons - no, read false, not flimsy.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Bush disgraced a great country, was directly responsible for massive killing on all sides, and will go down in history with the other mass murderers of the 20th century.
Just wait... Like Egypt, and Libya... Iraq will soon be run by the Islamic lunatics that call themselves the Muslim Brotherhood... but Obama would like that since he is aligned with them.
And Athos... you like some many of the lefties that like Obamas wars... but hate anything Bushg had a hand in... you are ignoring a key thing...
Saddam violated the cease fire agreement... "W" didn't start a new war... the "First" Gulf war never officially ended... and since selective amnesia is also part of Bush Deraingement syndrome...
Cease fires don't expire... Korea is still under a cease fire agreement... thats been HOW many years.
If anyone disgraced themselves it's the Iraqi people. A large percentage of them anyway. We would have been out of there years ago if they had any civilization in their genes.
Maliki wanted the US to stay .President Jalal Talabani wanted the US to stay and said that only the Mookie al-Sadr faction backed by Iran wanted the US out.
So yeah ;Obama's premature withdrawal guarantees that the thugs in Tehran are the biggest short term winners. In the long term ,smoothy is probably correct... the pan-Islamist jihadists will probably control the most strategically located nation on the Arabian peninsula.
The President seems hell bent on trying to prove his original hypothesis that Iraq was the "dumb war", by guaranteeing a negative outcome.
Well Mr President ;you can proudly display your own"Mission Accomplished " banner during your 2012 convention.Make sure you invite the troops at nearby Fort Bragg to attend .
Iraq was a dumb war instituted by the dumbest President ever to take office in america, so don't try to justify it. Wrap up your paranoia and do what George H W Bush did and leave the muslims to work it out for themselves.
With all due respect to former President GHWBush and to your revisionist history.
1. his idea of letting the muslims ... work it out for themselves was to sit by with our air assets on the ground ,and the largest coalition army since WWII nearby while Saddam's helicopters gunned down 10's of thousands of Iraqi Shia and Kurds.
2. As a result of his decision ,the US and the Brits spent a decade enforcing no fly zones to protect these Iraqis from further mass murder .
Now ,had the world truly backed the sanctions imposed on the Saddam led regime with the same gusto that they did when they decided the South African regime had to go ;then maybe Operation Iraqi Freedom would not have been necessary. But unfortunately ;the very countries that opposed the war were the very ones that made it necessary by violating UN sanctions on Iraq.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You HIT the nail on the head... Since we DIDN'T win, your scenario is entirely possible... But, it's NOT because we're leaving... It's because we DIDN'T win. The same thing will happen if we leave in 5 years - 10 years - 20 years... That's because we DIDN'T WIN!
You, like your Republican cohorts, are arguing for PERMANENT war, and we ain't going for it.
But, that's cool.. You got another war looming on the horizon just like the one we lost... DUDES!!
excon
I don't know what you mean by win. We must've lost WWII in Europe and Japan because our troops are still there .
Tom Tom the US didn't win or loose Iraq, you conquered Saddam but then the insurgency held you mired in a war for years, a strategy of Iran and Al Qaeda. Ultimately the Iraqi were strong enough to police their own country and you were invited to leave or at least convert your military presence to a civilian one.
Similarly you have neither won or lost Afghanistan but I predict the same outcome.
War is no longer as clear cut as it used to be
True enough .But I wasn't the one who spoke in terms of win or loss.
Goals :
1.Saddam removed... check
2. Accounting of his WMD... check
3. No longer a threat to his neighbors... check
4. No longer a threat to his own people who he mass murdered for years... check
5. A free Iraq with a representative government... check
6 . A secure Iraq... incomplete ;and that is why were are still needed there . It will take Iraq a decade to be in a position to defend it's own air space . It will take them some time to secure themselves from dominance from their neighbor to the East.
Again ;the Iraqis were not pushing us out . Except for the faction already mentioned ,they wanted us to stay... and US business investment is very much in demand.
No... it was a political calculation from the President to undermine the talks for continuing the Status of Forces Agreement that ended US Combat in Iraq in 2008 in victory (with the caveat that you make about the definitions of won /loss ;victory/defeat) .
Edit the specific date of Victory in Iraq Day is November 17,2008 . Mark it on your calendar.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Let's translate #6 into ENGLISH.. It means we DIDN'T WIN. You mention our troops in Japan. We WON in Japan. Our troops are NOT preventing a re-engagement of that war. Same thing in Germany.
Troops left in Iraq, however, WOULD be preventing a war - a war that is going to happen WHENEVER we leave, because we DIDN'T WIN. Plus, our residual force would be TARGETS. We'd CONTINUE to suffer casualties... That ain't a win...
It was LOST before it ever began, because it was STARTED for the wrong reasons. It will NEVER be won. George Bush broke it soooo badly that only a PERMANENT state of war will fix it, IF you want to call that a fix...
Now, you want to do Iran the same way... DUDES!!
excon
Exactly . Troops left in Germany were left there to prevent a war that would've happened when we left. That issue wasn't resolved until 1989 . Japan could've asked us to leave any time . We stuck around in a security arrangement with our allies the Japanese to secure them from the theat of communist neighbors. Why are we still in Korea ? The same reason.Quote:
Our troops are NOT preventing a re-engagement of that war. Same thing in Germany... Troops left in Iraq, however, WOULD be preventing a war - a war that is going to happen WHENEVER we leave,
Sorry , don't see the difference.
The dumbest President ever to take office in the USA is currently in office (Barrak Obama) he's even too ashamed of his college transcripts to produce them... the second dumbest president was Jimmy Carter...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What about the Iraqi demand that US troops would have no immunity from Iraqi law? That requirement had no impact on the decision to withdraw?
They made a similar "demand " in 2008 . It was negotiable then and it was now .
Face it . The President had to have a least one of his campaign promises fulfilled .
Since the agreement expired gave a pull out date of 12/31/11 then it was easy for him . All he had to do was make a show of an attempt to renegotiate to keep the Generals happy ,and put Panetta into Sec Def .
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Hi smoothy,
I think that is a misunderestimation.
Tut
It was certainly portrayed a lot differently at the time, but I won't defend his negotiating skills which are pretty much non-existent. His opponents must like his negotiations pretty well. They all seem to have broad smiles when they leave the room.
Tom do you realise how arrogant that statement is? Iraq is a soveriegn country invaded by the US. They have every right to ask america to remove their troops. The need for those troops has past and obviously the Iraqi government had reached a stage where the american presence is not tolerable. You might wonder why such wonderful people would be asked to leave? It's cultural, your culture is offensive to the Iraqi. This is something you fail to understand, your culture is offensive to many peoples in this world but no more so than to muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Domestic politics in Iraq required some kind of concession on the issue . The President of course made it publicly clear that troops remaining without immunity was unacceptable... and he is right on that count.
Still there was room for negotiations . For one thing ; as I stated earlier there will be troops left who will be under the State Dept control. By extension ;these troops will enjoy the immunity that we sought. The problem is that there are just not enough to do what is still needed there from us.
But who said that the force being left behind had to be the numbers we are leaving ?
Maliki was in favor of up to 20,000 US troops remaining but there were domestic political issues he had to deal with .Specifically it involved a separate deal he was working out with former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who was trying to tie the negotiations to other concessions from Maliki .
It would've been a small matter to take the size of the force out of the negotiations with the Parliament and have an agreement directly with the Iraqi Foreign Minister over the number of troops allowed to be assigned to the State Dept. especially if the force level was going to be in the 5-10,000 range.
For that matter it still would be doable if that was the President's goal . I for one do not believe the line in the news that this was a simple botched negotiation. This was in fact the stated goal of the President .
Clete ;you're not hearing me.. They wanted us to stay.The only reason troop immunity could've been negotiable was if there were ongoing negotiations in the 1st place to have US troops stay.
Why should your troops be a law unto themselves Tom. The laws in that country are very different to the US. Immunity from prosecution is B/S
Go tell that to every diplomatic attachment in every country in the world . There is no reason to have a Status of Force Agreement if terms like immunity are not part of the deal .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreementQuote:
The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military operational issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over bases and personnel. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes.
Your troops in East Timor have such a deal ;as they should.
We did not invade East Timor
The hell with all the politics, the boys are glad to be back, so they can really see what they have risked their lives for.
Wonder if the wingers will call them lazy if they can't get a job? Ya think the "job creators" can at least do that?
One war over, one more to go, unless the righties get there way, and get us in IRAN, or some other conflict. But I can see why they rather fight whoever, because they are scared of everybody that doesn't like the pie they are cooking.
Tal I think you are right there are some people who just can't make money without a war going on. You don't want to fight Iran, you don't want to fight NK. Those a fanatical people which means the only answer is to nuke them and we don't want to do that
We don't have to nuke 'em, we can leave them alone. If they like repression, poverty, and subjugation, let 'em have it.
They want to throw rocks, we throw them two. Talk is cheap, so why get excited over the rhetoric. Starting a war over a robot toy is as insane as the guy next door not returning your ball.
Telling Iraq how they deal with their neighbors is even more insane. Now if they ask for help with some unruly neighbors, that's something else all together.
With the current Adm I expect that will be like the Czechs asking England and France for help against Germany 1938 .Quote:
Telling Iraq how they deal with their neighbors is even more insane. Now if they ask for help with some unruly neighbors, that's something else all together.
__________________
All over Iraq the one thing they have in common is the belief that the US just abandoned them .
Doesn't matter what the population may, or may not be thinking, it's the sovereign government that makes the call. They have their future in their own hands and that's what the whole thing was about wasn't it.
It's their call, and they made it, and the bureaucratic hawks, and politicians can live with it. They have no choice, and the rest is just talk.
Leave it to the right wing to think they can control everything all over the world.
It is very clear that it was the President who sabotaged negotiations . It was not because the leaders of Iraq didn't want us there... they did .
Obama had no intention of extending the SOFA because this was one campaign promise that he was determined to honor ,regardless of the consequences.
We left a job undone there in 1990 ;and we had to go back. With this decision I predict we will be back again .
They wanted us there under their terms, not ours, so best leave them to live with their decision, and if they invite us back, then we can reassess the situation.
Never know what happens next. Maybe they don't like Iran, or China, or whomever else they deal with in the future. I don't believe in losing sleep over what ifs, or ruining more of the lives of our youth on a stupid political position.
Let the Iraqis build their own country, at their own expense, at their own pace and peril. Let them make their own decisions and pay their own consequences. Its easier to balance a budget, heal a nation, without fighting someone else's battles.
It's called isolationism Tal but a good policy you stay on your side of the fence and I'll stay on mine
That way the rest of the world can be dominated in peace without our interference. That worked so well for us in 1914-17 ;and 1939-1942.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 AM. |