- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Yes. Everyone knew the GWB administration did that as a favor to their successors, to give them freedom to stay or go as they thought best. Acting on (correct) Pentagon advice, the BHO administration opened negotiations, but they used the negotiation process as a way to depart rather than as a way to keep a useful presence in Iraq.eace
Bet you think Sen McCarthy got a bad rap huh?
Maliki wanted us us to stay.eace
Mind reader too huh?
Maliki wanted us us to stay.eace
Because there were easy ways to negotiate around that. Maliki was just politicking for the home folks. He wanted us to stay and we knew that, but BHO wanted to exploit the opening to leave altogether.eace
Maliki: Immunity for U.S. troops scuttled deal
raq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.
The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.
Maliki: Immunity for U.S. troops scuttled deal | Military Times | militarytimes.com
He was wrong in individual cases, but right in the aggregate, as historical scholarship has shown.eace
Actually there was political pressure forced on Maliki coming from Muqtada al-Sadr.
Blah blah. Grandstanding for the home folks and children. There was a deal to be made and he thought we would make it.eace
lol, You mean according to right wingers rewriting history? Like the GOP great depression being prolonged by FDR or Reagan was a 'great' Prez?
And now you see why he wanted us to stay.
Quite simply, BHO was given all the tools for an effective endgame, and squandered the opportunity.
Ummm no, the American people were done with Iraq and the huge waste of American lives and treasure. BushII had already squandered any effective endgame by having ZERO realistic approach to 'after the fall'. He had already declared we were leaving Iraq before he left office.
BushII never got the three biggest factions to form a real central government- do we see the Kurds flooding out of their semi-autonomous region to repel the terrorists??? They seem to be saying let the Arabs kill each other- even though they know the terrorists are Sunnis who backed Saddam and his genocidal attacks on Kurds.
The Iraqis didn't want us to stay so Obama would have to force any remaining combat units on the 'elected' government- not what democracies do.
Bottom line, the Iraqis had plenty of time to build a military capable of defeating 800 terrorists in pick-ups... :doh
But it is what happened prior that allowed those living in urban areas to experience an economic collapse that led to them leaving for work in rural areas on farms that had been bought on the cheap by the wealthy and introduced these people to the world of serfdom. The people allowed it to happen because they became complacent. They became an empire no longer able to defend their borders because they allowed their military to decline. Their currency collapsed. Their trade with the world had diminished. You can blame the leaders if you like but it was the people that allowed them to get away with it till it was to late change course.
Maliki was not the real leader of Iraq, he was a puppet. The real power belonged to Muqtada al-Sadr.
Moqtada al-Sadr orders halt to attacks on US troops stationed in Iraq | World news | The Guardian
Sadr is the real reason Maliki won his first election, because Sadr is the top Shia cleric in the country
Actually no, it came as more and more wealth was being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people... the Rural area, small and mid sized farmers were squeezed out as much cheaper grain from overseas flooded into Rome. Much farmland was abandoned in the face of grain imported from Carthage (when Rome lost Carthage famine became a frequent visitor to a City noted for luxurious consumption) People LEFT the farms for the cities.
Cheap labor in the form of slaves brought back from conquests, reduced the earning power of free but poorer citizens.
Taxes on the middle and lower classes increased to pay for the Legions, which FYI didn't decline because the people allowed the military to do so, the military declined because fewer and fewer Citizens were willing to go to the far ends of the earth for decades- the elite had more important things to do, the poor didn't feel like increasing the wealth of the elite.
'The People' didn't allow anything. The Empire over reached, pride, hubris kept EVERYONE from seeing the cost of far flung Legions, an over reliance on exploitative policies toward the outer provinces, and a vicious ruthlessness in the ruling class.
Cliff notes are good for those who just want to pass the course- however they don't give any insight. Fact is the Empire didn't go from conquer to Rome being sacked in a few years, but a slow and halting process over centuries.
Revolts happened repeatedly, assassination was common. Slaves rose in revolt, Generals rose in revolt, hungry Romans rioted...
A democracy, a Democratic Republic, a system where the people vote has a better chance at avoiding a collapse, but the sad fact is empire after empire rose and fell because people are human...
Ummm no, the American people were done with Iraq and the huge waste of American lives and treasure. BushII had already squandered any effective endgame by having ZERO realistic approach to 'after the fall'. He had already declared we were leaving Iraq before he left office.
BushII never got the three biggest factions to form a real central government- do we see the Kurds flooding out of their semi-autonomous region to repel the terrorists??? They seem to be saying let the Arabs kill each other- even though they know the terrorists are Sunnis who backed Saddam and his genocidal attacks on Kurds.
The Iraqis didn't want us to stay so Obama would have to force any remaining combat units on the 'elected' government- not what democracies do.
Bottom line, the Iraqis had plenty of time to build a military capable of defeating 800 terrorists in pick-ups... :doh
That only goes so far. Outreach to the Sunnis was the key, and that's why Maliki needed us. GWB won a victory. BHO has thrown it away.eace
Now your comparing two different types of fecal matter and choosing the one from the Democrap. (See what I did there?)
Clinton allowed for 3,000 to be killed in NYC on 9/11 by not prosecuting the first WTC attack ..
Maliki was not the real leader of Iraq, he was a puppet. The real power belonged to Muqtada al-Sadr.
Moqtada al-Sadr orders halt to attacks on US troops stationed in Iraq | World news | The Guardian
Sadr is the real reason Maliki won his first election, because Sadr is the top Shia cleric in the country
GWB won a victory. BHO has thrown it away.eace
Stop altering my user name and the facts speak for themselves.
Insults and partisan talking poits aren't an argument. You've yet to say anything remotely close to expressing an opinion, other than you know it all and everyone else is stupid.
What next? You gona call us racists?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?