I think Obama is calling Saudi Arabia's bluff...if they want something done about it they can do it. Why send American's to fight and die in their war?
There isn't anything that an American President can do about suicide bombers in Europe. Give me a break.
Post edited by Gern Blansten on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Obama did it. Got it. More rancid comments. Adios amigos!
Brian you're a smart guy so you of all people should be aware that President Obama is to blame for everything that has ever gone wrong in this country and around the world. Back to and including the crucifixtion.
Recently, I watched a PBS documentary on what seemingly looks like a disastrous Obama foreign policy on the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. Pundits criticize his reaction (or lack thereof) to ISIS and terrorist attacks around the world. According to critics, Obama and his staff have a difficult time even using the word "terrorism." What will Obama's foreign policy legacy be? If possible, I'm hoping for an honest civilized discussion...
sure you are.
"it's all Obama's fault"
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
How is Obama's foreign policy horrible? What would you of done different?
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
I'd retort with the exact opposite for all the con's on the train, but that would be simplistic and idiotic.
I posted a significant article that very specifically highlights his entire foreign policy and view.
I think he is much more reactive to actual terrorism than his predecessor. Just because we are not in wars does not mean he isn't heavily invested in killing these fuckers.
Occupation does nothing to fight terrorism and just creates more terrorists.
Good point.
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
How is Obama's foreign policy horrible? What would you of done different?
I don't have to much of an issue with Iran deal or Cuba.Both are solid(for now).And for the record I agree with him on the Supreme Court Nomination even though that is not foreign policy.just sayin.
His hands off policy in the Middle East,Isreal And how he handles some of our closest allies are what I have the most issue with.I think we could also be a little more proactive in certain regions of conflict and we have been slow to react on other isolated issues. Im not saying Bush or Clinton were without fault.But that's rear view mirror.
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
How is Obama's foreign policy horrible? What would you of done different?
I don't have to much of an issue with Iran deal or Cuba.Both are solid(for now).And for the record I agree with him on the Supreme Court Nomination even though that is not foreign policy.just sayin.
His hands off policy in the Middle East,Isreal And how he handles some of our closest allies are what I have the most issue with.I think we could also be a little more proactive in certain regions of conflict and we have been slow to react on other isolated issues. Im not saying Bush or Clinton were without fault.But that's rear view mirror.
I do t want your sons or my nephews sent there to fight. Do t want my tax dollars sent there either. I very much think Obama made right decisions. It's ugly. Many suffer but least damage. I may be proven wrong.
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
How is Obama's foreign policy horrible? What would you of done different?
I don't have to much of an issue with Iran deal or Cuba.Both are solid(for now).And for the record I agree with him on the Supreme Court Nomination even though that is not foreign policy.just sayin.
His hands off policy in the Middle East,Isreal And how he handles some of our closest allies are what I have the most issue with.I think we could also be a little more proactive in certain regions of conflict and we have been slow to react on other isolated issues. Im not saying Bush or Clinton were without fault.But that's rear view mirror.
What benefit is there in the Middle East for the US?
I am disappointed in Obama's response during an interview today about the Brussels attack. He basically brushed off these terrorists as no big deal. I agree with him that their goal is to instill fear and disrupt our lives. I disagree with his belief that they could never defeat America. That's a bit too dismissive for me. I'd feel better if my commander in chief had something more to say about protecting American lives.
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
How is Obama's foreign policy horrible? What would you of done different?
I don't have to much of an issue with Iran deal or Cuba.Both are solid(for now).And for the record I agree with him on the Supreme Court Nomination even though that is not foreign policy.just sayin.
His hands off policy in the Middle East,Isreal And how he handles some of our closest allies are what I have the most issue with.I think we could also be a little more proactive in certain regions of conflict and we have been slow to react on other isolated issues. Im not saying Bush or Clinton were without fault.But that's rear view mirror.
What benefit is there in the Middle East for the US?
You mean other thhan strategic,economic and cultural?
With the world becoming smaller,there really isn't a place on earth where all can't benefit from something.As we become less and less reliant on foreign oil some of that will taper off but we still help prop each other's economy up.Im not just talking about the war machine but in many other areas of trade. Obviously having an allies like Israel,Turkey,Jordan,UAE,Etc helps with a presence in the area,yes from a military stand point but also with logistics.
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
here's an idea for Belgium....if your citizens go to Syria, they don't get to come back. It's not like you vacation in Syria.
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
You just outlined all the conclusions conservatives come away with when discussing current events and history because most have a lack of ability to dialogue and listen. When facts are presented, and grey areas pointed out, I think that overloads the system, so they come away with hearing only black-and-white paraphrases. It makes sense, because a lot of conservatives only think in black and white, and how you think effects how you hear things.
One thing that everyone forgets is that the Western powers, post both WWs engaged in nation building based on economic interests rather than tribal affiliations. These new countries were held together by strongmen, with the backing of a major world power. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and the lists go on. When those leaders die or get deposed it creates the power vacuum which is quickly filled. See the Balkan war, Isis and others for examples. It's not Bush's fault or Obama that they descended to chaos. It's the fault of decisions made in 1918 and 45.
Unfortunately when you break it, all hell breaks loose. If we want stability, there has to an autocratic leader. If we want freedom and human rights, well the whole map has to be redrawn and some serious diaspora. And that doesn't bode well for Israel.
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
Then take your ass and all your family and fight. Add your money for weapons and munitions. If you aren't willing to do that then stfu. Stop promoting sending others to die and others money to pay for it!
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
You just outlined all the conclusions conservatives come away with when discussing current events and history because most have a lack of ability to dialogue and listen. When facts are presented, and grey areas pointed out, I think that overloads the system, so they come away with hearing only black-and-white paraphrases. It makes sense, because a lot of conservatives only think in black and white, and how you think effects how you hear things.
Yeah right.Like that's not what happens with this crowd on these boards.
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
You just outlined all the conclusions conservatives come away with when discussing current events and history because most have a lack of ability to dialogue and listen. When facts are presented, and grey areas pointed out, I think that overloads the system, so they come away with hearing only black-and-white paraphrases. It makes sense, because a lot of conservatives only think in black and white, and how you think effects how you hear things.
Yeah right.Like that's not what happens with this crowd on these boards.
Hahaha some good old fashioned conservative butthurt... I love seeing all the WASPs (not you, just in general) who can't stand being in the minority for the first time in their lives!
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil -Conservatives are stupid greedy people. -Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty. -Israel sucks -It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!! -Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable. -Profit is a bad word -Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian? -You should have white guilt. - Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels. -Bushs fault - protesters Rock There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
You just outlined all the conclusions conservatives come away with when discussing current events and history because most have a lack of ability to dialogue and listen. When facts are presented, and grey areas pointed out, I think that overloads the system, so they come away with hearing only black-and-white paraphrases. It makes sense, because a lot of conservatives only think in black and white, and how you think effects how you hear things.
Yeah right.Like that's not what happens with this crowd on these boards.
Hahaha some good old fashioned conservative butthurt... I love seeing all the WASPs (not you, just in general) who can't stand being in the minority for the first time in their lives!
I'm in the minority now? We want job positions that we don't deserved based on my minority position in our subjugated society. Don't support our cause? Then you are a racist and part of the system that have kept us down!
Post edited by dmaradona10 on
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
So you would be willing to keep American troops there or send more troops or send your family members off to fend off the bad guys ...
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
So you would be willing to keep American troops there or send more troops or send your family members off to fend off the bad guys ...
I'm against most of these wars, but I don't really like this argument. Ours is a professional, all volunteer army. There isn't a draft. So joining the military means you can be called into action whether or not you agree wit
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
Then take your ass and all your family and fight. Add your money for weapons and munitions. If you aren't willing to do that then stfu. Stop promoting sending others to die and others money to pay for it!
Oh? I should just "stfu"? Is that how democracy works now? Sign of a lost argument right there.
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
So you would be willing to keep American troops there or send more troops or send your family members off to fend off the bad guys ...
Comments
There isn't anything that an American President can do about suicide bombers in Europe. Give me a break.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Get with it man!!
"it's all Obama's fault"
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Here is what you need to remember when you ask a question of all my super liberal,Obama loving,soap box preaching friends on these boards.
They Think
-Trump and Republicans are the devil
-Conservatives are stupid greedy people.
-Entitlements rule.Everyone should get milk from the govt titty.
-Israel sucks
-It's all Americas and the wests fault.Always!!!!
-Most terrorist attacks can be excused because someone Did the Islamic fundamentalists wrong somewhere along the way.So it's totally understandable.
-Profit is a bad word
-Did I mention the hate for Israel and love for anything Palestinian?
-You should have white guilt.
- Cops are bad,evil people but Thugs who commit crimes and get shot are cherub like angels.
-Bushs fault
- protesters Rock
There are many more I can add ,but that should get you going on the right track.
That said I agree Obamas foreign policy has been horrible.
-
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
www.headstonesband.com
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
I got half way through it and had to stop. I'll try and finish it later.
His hands off policy in the Middle East,Isreal And how he handles some of our closest allies are what I have the most issue with.I think we could also be a little more proactive in certain regions of conflict and we have been slow to react on other isolated issues.
Im not saying Bush or Clinton were without fault.But that's rear view mirror.
obama wanted to stay in iraq, al maliki would not let us.
I am sick and tired of pointing that out on this message board.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
With the world becoming smaller,there really isn't a place on earth where all can't benefit from something.As we become less and less reliant on foreign oil some of that will taper off but we still help prop each other's economy up.Im not just talking about the war machine but in many other areas of trade.
Obviously having an allies like Israel,Turkey,Jordan,UAE,Etc helps with a presence in the area,yes from a military stand point but also with logistics.
on twitter....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/21/the-u-s-military-has-a-lot-more-people-in-iraq-than-it-has-been-saying/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202
Like you I am sick and tired of pointing out that Obama could have maintained any size presence he would have liked. Right now he has decided on 5000.
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal
2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise
3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't)
4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
One thing that everyone forgets is that the Western powers, post both WWs engaged in nation building based on economic interests rather than tribal affiliations. These new countries were held together by strongmen, with the backing of a major world power. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and the lists go on. When those leaders die or get deposed it creates the power vacuum which is quickly filled. See the Balkan war, Isis and others for examples. It's not Bush's fault or Obama that they descended to chaos. It's the fault of decisions made in 1918 and 45.
Unfortunately when you break it, all hell breaks loose. If we want stability, there has to an autocratic leader. If we want freedom and human rights, well the whole map has to be redrawn and some serious diaspora. And that doesn't bode well for Israel.
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14