Tazmanian Devil
Banned
- Joined
- May 28, 2015
- Messages
- 972
- Reaction score
- 183
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It's one of the few things I agree with the GOP on. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong, a mistake. That's what's written in history.
U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There - The Atlantic
So much for democracy, and self determination!
SOFA's are negotiated at regular intervals and the same was expected for Iraq. BHO had no interest in a SOFA and that was reflected in his determination to "end the war in Iraq!", regardless of the consequences.
This is the record of the stupid SOB the Grubers voted for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tErgLS5m_BU
I really thought that Communism would be exposed when the Wall came down and although some finally realized the truth of what was actually there are still leftists around who feel that Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al were on the right track. This sort of ignorance must be tolerated in a free society but it's still a mystery as to why it should have retained such traction, even among those who should know better.
Obama said he would end the war in Iraq, bring the troops home, boasted when he did and then, when everything went south said, "Keep in mind, that wasn't a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government."That agreement gave President Limpwrist convenient cover for doing what he had wanted to do all along anyway--to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq. If he had left the sort of residual force military experts recommended at the time, roughly half the force the U.S. has maintained in South Korea for sixty years, with a somewhat different composition, what we are seeing in Iraq never could have happened.
A few thousand savages with AK's, RPG's, pickup trucks, captured Humvees, machine guns, and a tank or artillery piece here and there they liked to parade around, moving in desert areas with no cover, would have been very quickly destroyed by a highly trained U.S. force with plenty of aircraft, armor, and artillery. If they had ever tried to mass enough to attack with much strength, they would have been annihilated, just like that large convoy of vehicles that was trying to get back to Iraq from Kuwait City. Knowing that, they probably would never even have dared try to expand from Syria into Iraq.
That may be the way it is but not necessarily the way it must remain. Staying the way it is at the moment, hoping it will someday end peacefully,
goes against everything the Islamists are saying and everything that history has taught us.
The numbers were Obama's invention and were not taken seriously by anyone. So few troops would have jeopardized their lives.If a SOFA had been agreed upon, it was from what I have read, 3-5 K or 10 K Troops.
Would it have addressed the chronic corruption of Al Maliki? I would say no
Would it have halted the systemic murders of Sunni by Shia Militias? No
Would the Iraqi Army have been better trained? No, as we have seen, billions down that rabbit hole.
So let us take 10 K troops. Could they have slowed ISIL, yes but only to a certain.
There would have been many Fallujah’s.
Troops would/could have incurred high causality rates.
Then the US is drawn in again, to a war in the ME, that the people want nothing to do with.
Blood & treasure again down a sinkhole.
They have to defend and fight for themselves.
ISIL rose due to a number of reasons, 1 being Maliki’s treatment of Sunni minority.
ME is not the top strategic area for the US. It is Asia, then Africa.
The New York Times revealed Dec. 4 that Pentagon planners were talking about "relabeling" of U.S. combat units as "training and support" units in a Dec. 4 story, but provided no details. Pentagon planners were projecting that as many as 70,000 U.S. troops would be maintained in Iraq "for a substantial time even beyond 2011".
The numbers were Obama's invention and were not taken seriously by anyone. So few troops would have jeopardized their lives.
Here's what the military had to say.
POLITICS: Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq | Inter Press Service
They were right of course and Obama, for political reasons only, ignored them. He is now doing the same with Gitmo.
Not so much force to sign, but how about bothering (leading) his administration to get the agreement? From Peneta's book, could have gotten the agreement, but didn't bother toHow could Obama force the Iraqi's to sign a SOFA?
In your link, thanks for that, a SOFA while not mentioned would be needed.
SOFA's, as always, are regularly negotiated and Iraq was no different than any other country which is host to the US military.. Naturally this is a lot of political posturing in Iraq as much as there is in any democracy, but while everyone was aware of the problems which could result, everyone also wanted to save face and demonstrate, especially in Iraq, that they were dealing from strength. You can imagine the opposition to Malaki which was taking place, and the pressure he was under from the Ayatollahs.How could Obama force the Iraqi's to sign a SOFA?
In your link, thanks for that, a SOFA while not mentioned would be needed.
The numbers were Obama's invention and were not taken seriously by anyone. So few troops would have jeopardized their lives.
Here's what the military had to say.
POLITICS: Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq | Inter Press Service
They were right of course and Obama, for political reasons only, ignored them. He is now doing the same with Gitmo.
How could Obama force the Iraqi's to sign a SOFA?
In your link, thanks for that, a SOFA while not mentioned would be needed.
Yes, I doubt Bush would have just walked away and given up after all those sacrifices made by the American people and their military. If Obama couldn't stand up to Maliki how could he confront any world leader?Bush would have told him to sign it or get the hell out.
Yes, I doubt Bush would have just walked away and given up after all those sacrifices made by the American people and their military. If Obama couldn't stand up to Maliki how could he confront any world leader?
How could Obama force the Iraqi's to sign a SOFA?
In your link, thanks for that, a SOFA while not mentioned would be needed.
SOFA's, as always, are regularly negotiated and Iraq was no different than any other country which is host to the US military.. Naturally this is a lot of political posturing in Iraq as much as there is in any democracy, but while everyone was aware of the problems which could result, everyone also wanted to save face and demonstrate, especially in Iraq, that they were dealing from strength. You can imagine the opposition to Malaki which was taking place, and the pressure he was under from the Ayatollahs.
Even the US Secretary of Defense at the time, Robert Gates, predicted that perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops would remain as part of a residual force in Iraq.
Bush would have told him to sign it or get the hell out.
People without a dog in the race love to volunteer US troops and treasure. Some of our fringe right would be perfectly content to have made Iraq another Germany or South Korea, simultaneously raising hell because the Baltimore school district is feeding children.
Not me.
Let them sort it out themselves. The ME, Iraq will separate into 2 or 3 states. If I am alive in 20 years I will see it, Syria is also a perfect case for the state to split along ethnic/religious lines.
I know man, I didn't mean you on that one. And I believe you're probably right. Iraq was a Western creation to begin with, and three disagreeing factions were lumped together and told to get along. Ah, Western arrogance.
Terrorism is an international problem and if you're going to start a war you should finish it. To cut and run has never been a part of the American tradition. I hope policies change after the next election and the democracies can organize under American leadership.Two things.
Self determination/sovereignty
Obama was elected by Americans to bring the troops home. It's our say so, not that of some Latin American resident of Canadian decent.
Removing the troops was disastrous for Iraq and humanity over the short term and unless the democracies change their attitudes quickly, it will be even more serious over the longer term.Perhaps you are right the Obama did not push hard enough, the one thing we do now for sure is no one in Iraq wanted to take the lead in Govt to ensure a SOFA was agreed upon.
Panetta- well 2 differing stories, though I tend to go with his second version that Obama did not push enough.
The other to consider is the American public had more than enough of Iraq and solders killed and injured.
Countries can change their boundaries peacefully, and it has been done, but at the moment this is being done along religious lines, with neither peace nor independence being the motive.They used a tried and proven way, divide & conquer. Place a minority in power, knowing they will be loyal to you. Look to Rwanda as a classic example. India another.
Africa has the same problems. North/South Sudan finally split, yet there are territorial issues.
Somlialand - another So expect more of that in Africa.
Obama didn't push at all because he had promised to remove the troops from Iraq. Most thought this was an election gimmick and not to be taken seriously. Romney, and most everyone else certainly thought so, as you can see from this debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E7j7K3ksUgPerhaps you are right the Obama did not push hard enough, the one thing we do now for sure is no one in Iraq wanted to take the lead in Govt to ensure a SOFA was agreed upon.
Panetta- well 2 differing stories, though I tend to go with his second version that Obama did not push enough.
The other to consider is the American public had more than enough of Iraq and solders killed and injured.
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?