So he announces a withdrawal, cuts back troops so he can push Afghanistan, cuts funding to support the Iraqi forces - and isn't it just simply unfortunate that this unfortunate occurrence unfortunately occurs? Why, who could have even thought such a thing would ever happen?
While I don't support many of President Obama's policies, the decision to remove forces from Iraq as legally required. You can't legally station forces in another country without a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to give US Forces first jurisdiction in any situation involving a US service member. This is an incredibly important part of any SOFA agreement as it provides US service members with protection from host nation political turmoil. The lack of US support is 100% the fault of the Iraqi government. Once the *new* Iraqi government formed the clock started ticking on how long US forces could stay there.
Basically keeping your military on another nations territory without a formal agreement with that nation is known as an occupation.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
palladin9479 wrote: The lack of US support is 100% the fault of the Iraqi government.
That's nonsense. If POTUS had wanted us to stay there, we would have gotten the agreement we needed. OBama campaigned on the proimise to get us out of Iraq and that's what he did. If we had had a President that wanted us to stay and support that nation, you can bet that is EXACTLY what would have happened. This is all on the spineless simpering idiots that elected OBama President.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
palladin9479 wrote: The lack of US support is 100% the fault of the Iraqi government.
That's nonsense. If POTUS had wanted us to stay there, we would have gotten the agreement we needed. OBama campaigned on the proimise to get us out of Iraq and that's what he did. If we had had a President that wanted us to stay and support that nation, you can bet that is EXACTLY what would have happened. This is all on the spineless simpering idiots that elected OBama President.
I take offense at your choice of words used to characterize the people who voted for Obama. They are not nearly strong and vicious enough to describe the coalition of the insane and stupid who thought this Muthaf*ing conman who had NEVER HELD A F***ING REAL JOB IN HIS LIFE (except when he worked for Baskin Robbins) should be qualified to be President merely because he's black.
I have long advocated for the idea of a black President, but I think far more could have been accomplished had the Democrats not picked a stupid and evil man, But what am I talking about? Where Democrats are concerned, Stupid and Evil is baked into the cake.
Obama is a product of the fact that the National media services are all Liberal, All Democrat, and All Union. I have long regarded this condition as a dire threat to the nation's existence, and every thing this idiot has done to date, reinforces that perception. The National media services have too much power, and they need to be replaced with something that will serve the best interest of the nation, not the best interests of their various members who are intermarried and have an incestual relationship with the Democrat party's kook division.
Liberal Media delenda est!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Hehehe, considering that the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq was signed by G.W. Bush, this discussion (including my own comments) seems kinda silly:
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1]
Ohhhh, this is so funny!!!
Last edited by Skipjack on Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[quote="Skipjack"]Hehehe, considering that the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq was signed by G.W. Bush, this discussion (including my own comments) seems kinda silly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80 ... ment/quote]
There is always a SOFA when you are in someone else's country. OBama signed the SOFA that removed us from Iraq. The SOFA you're refering to was in power when OBama took office, but it was not the SOFA that removed protection of our servicemen from the Iraq judicial system, which is what forced us out of Iraq. If OBama had had a spine, and wanted us to stay and protect that country, then we would have had the same kind of agreement we had had under Bush, but instead we were forced to vacate because our servicemen would have been under the authority of the local judicial system and subject to it--something no Commander in Chief could possibly agree to.
You need to stop making up crazy bullshit to support OBama. He hasn't done anything right yet, so why would you be going all rah-rah in support of someone who is such a dismal failure?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Before you kill yourself laughing read this article from the Atlantic (Try as you might I think you would find it difficult to call The Atlantic a conservative blog)
Skipjack wrote:Hehehe, considering that the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq was signed by G.W. Bush, this discussion (including my own comments) seems kinda silly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80 ... _Agreement
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1]
Skipjack wrote:Hehehe, considering that the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq was signed by G.W. Bush, this discussion (including my own comments) seems kinda silly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80 ... ment/quote]
There is always a SOFA when you are in someone else's country. OBama signed the SOFA that removed us from Iraq.
I don't get it. The SOFA I quoted was what removed US troops from Iraq.
Either way, you seem to blame Obama for holding true to agreements made by GW Bush.
Skipjack wrote:Hehehe, considering that the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq was signed by G.W. Bush, this discussion (including my own comments) seems kinda silly:
Your comments ALWAYS seem kinda silly, and as always, you are just introducing more crap into the discussion and nothing in the way of enlightenment.
Everything is ALWAYS Bush's fault when it comes to explaining the utter clusterf*cks of this stupid token President. One would think that there is nothing which Bush could do but that Obama could undo, but no, we'll go with Skipjack thinks it's BOOOSHES fault.
Yeah, Bush screwed up a lot of things, but they are generally the opposite of everything you think he did wrong. But still, once Obama gets the keys to the US Army, their disposition is now his responsibility, not Bush's.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
ISIS Declares All Guns in Iraq Illegal…Except Those Used by ISIS
It’s the holy grail of gun control, as demanded by Michael Bloomberg and his minions as well as Dianne Feinstein and her associates in Congress: a total ban on firearms, other than those used by the government. And what government is embracing this “progressive” stance on ‘dangerous weapons, you might ask? The Al-Qaeda associated group known as ISIS has just made that declaration for all land under its control in Iraq . . .
From The Telegraph:
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham has set out a list of rules for residents of Mosul as it seeks to impose its Islamist rules on Iraq’s second city.
[...]
No public gathering other than those organised by ISIS will be allowed at any stage. No guns will be allowed outside of its ranks.
It has been said many times that power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and it looks like ISIS is embracing that idea.
The impetus behind this move is pretty clear: ISIS wants a monopoly on power so they can force those living in areas under their control to follow their rather extreme version of Islam and nothing else. If all guns are illegal, then there would be no way for citizens to resist the impending approach of death squads and morality police.
It’s about power and control, not “safety.”
ISIS has now become the latest gun control advocacy organization, joining not only the ranks of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Moms Demand Action, the Violence Policy Coalition, and Everytown for Gun Safety, but also the Ku Klux Klan and the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China.
Nice to know the experts still agree gun control works. Another Bush administration legacy; believe they made a massive effort to collect all the guns from Iraqi citizens back in 2003:
U.S. Will Restrict Civilian Gun Ownership in Iraq
BAGHDAD — A new U.S. policy aimed at drastically reducing the number of weapons in Iraq will allow people to keep guns for self-defense at home but outlaw them almost everywhere else, the commander of American ground forces in Iraq said Friday.
It's all about protecting your soldiers from political activism of the host nation. The elected Iraqi politicians refused to allow US Service members immunity (well it's not pure immunity but rather allows the US Military the ability to claim first jurisdiction of any alleged offenses). Otherwise the host nation could charge any service member they wanted with whatever charges they can invent then kangaroo them through a court and use them as a political hostage. Just look at what happened to that marine who accidentally drove over the Mexican border. They are using him as a political football to get more money out of the USA and railroading him through their own corrupt legal system. He has 0% chance at a fair trial. Any service member charged by an Iraqi court would instantly lose and be totally at the mercy of that government.
It's all about protecting your soldiers from political activism of the host nation. The elected Iraqi politicians refused to allow US Service members immunity (well it's not pure immunity but rather allows the US Military the ability to claim first jurisdiction of any alleged offenses). Otherwise the host nation could charge any service member they wanted with whatever charges they can invent then kangaroo them through a court and use them as a political hostage. Just look at what happened to that marine who accidentally drove over the Mexican border. They are using him as a political football to get more money out of the USA and railroading him through their own corrupt legal system. He has 0% chance at a fair trial. Any service member charged by an Iraqi court would instantly lose and be totally at the mercy of that government.
Maliki really didn't want us there, along with most of the Iraqi's at the time...the wanted us gone, thought they didn't need us anymore, though they probably regret that now. He deliberately refused the "immunity" to our troops knowing no president would agree without it..we would as you say be leaving them to the mercies of the Iraqi gov that didn't want us there anyway. He Maliki also wanted to systematically purge practically all Sunni from his Shiite gov.; probably in large part payback for all those years under Sadam when the Sunni’s lorded it over them; didn't want US around to interfere. Obama for his part was opposed to the Iraqi War way back in 2002 when he was just a state senator:
In late 2002, before the Iraq war had begun, then-state Sen. Obama appeared on Public Affairs, a Chicago television program hosted by Jeff Berkowitz. He was asked how, given the chance, he would have voted on the U.S. Senate's resolution to give President Bush authority to use military force in Iraq.
"If it had come to me in an up or down vote as it came, I think I would have agreed with our senior Sen. Dick Durbin and voted nay," Obama told Berkowitz
Right or wrong it was hardly a 2008 election year ploy to get himself elected, he was consistently opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning. This disaster is happening because Maliki's Iraq army is being routed by ISIS soldiers that they outnumber greater than 20 to one....who basically throw their weapons down and run like 12 year old catholic schoolgirls when confronted by the vastly inferior ISIS force. They the Iraqi own this debacle hands down, this is on them; wouldn't waste any more of our blood and treasure on this sorry lot.
Obama like any good political swayed with the wind on the war. I can show you just as many votes, statements for and supporting the war as against it. At his time frame as a senator it was good business to be vocally apposed in Chicago land.
How they vote not what they say is the best indicator.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
