Quote:I'm not trying to defend Obama's foreign policy. For one, I disagree with most of it, and two, I've already had that argument with you. I find it interesting that you posted a story basically confirming that Obama had no ability to extend or renegotiate the SOFA without support from the US and Iraq (he had support from neither), and somehow are arguing that it confirms that Obama did nothing. Of course he did nothing. The article makes it clear that the parties that had to agree for him to do something made [BAD WORD REMOVED]ed efforts at best. I mean, others within Washington--not President Obama--wanted US soldiers to be immune to Iraqi laws and prosecution. Don't you see why Iraq might have had a problem with that?
I don't blame Obama in the least for wanting us out of Iraq. We should never have been there in the first place, and were it not for some careful engineering on the part of the executive branch from 2001-2003, we never would have been.
Quote:So you're saying that it's ok for a President to lie about the motivations for going to war?
"There you go again,"
You willfully ignore the direct and rather detailed political analysis of Barrack Obama's strategy to use the negotiations as the cover for a pull out, just like he used the authorization for use of force as cover for doing nothing in Syria. I have noticed a distinct pattern of your just omitting the parts of my posts that you just wish would go away.
The basic premise of your argument is asinine. "Barrack Obama couldn't do x y or z because he would need the support of a b and c." The funny thing is that liberal politicians run for office to amass omnipotence and yet when things go sour somehow convince the masses that they are but helpless pawns. Barrack Obama is the leader of the free world. In efforts such as war and the defense of this nation it is his RESPONSIBILITY to build consensus and coalitions that serve the interest of the globe, but chiefly that of American citizens. The idea that he didn't have the ability or that his hands were tied is flatly ridiculous.
When Barrack Obama wants something, he usually finds a way to make it happen. he brought healthcare back from the political scrap heap when congressional members of his own party were being shouted down in town hall meetings. He got a republican house to pass an increase to the top marginal rate. Any attempt to curtail or limit his legislative achievements by the current congress are slapped down with a threat of a government shutdown. Show me one instance where he has talked as passionately about keeping troops in Iraq or outright defeating ISIS as he has about bringing in Refugees?
I think that I and other members of the board have indulged your fantasy about Halliburton Stock and oil enough. If you want to continue with the misguided notion that the Iraq war was based on a lie shared by every major intelligence community you are going to have to provide us with evidence that Sadaam Hussein's execution was faked and that the bush administration promised him billions of dollars in stock options, oil futures, and a faked execution for him being complicit. Until such time i would please ask you to leave the "Bush lied" t-shirts at home.
Barack Obama makes me sick.
Piece of garbage.
Quote:"There you go again,"
You willfully ignore the direct and rather detailed political analysis of Barrack Obama's strategy to use the negotiations as the cover for a pull out, just like he used the authorization for use of force as cover for doing nothing in Syria. I have noticed a distinct pattern of your just omitting the parts of my posts that you just wish would go away.
The basic premise of your argument is asinine. "Barrack Obama couldn't do x y or z because he would need the support of a b and c." The funny thing is that liberal politicians run for office to amass omnipotence and yet when things go sour somehow convince the masses that they are but helpless pawns. Barrack Obama is the leader of the free world. In efforts such as war and the defense of this nation it is his RESPONSIBILITY to build consensus and coalitions that serve the interest of the globe, but chiefly that of American citizens. The idea that he didn't have the ability or that his hands were tied is flatly ridiculous.
When Barrack Obama wants something, he usually finds a way to make it happen. he brought healthcare back from the political scrap heap when congressional members of his own party were being shouted down in town hall meetings. He got a republican house to pass an increase to the top marginal rate. Any attempt to curtail or limit his legislative achievements by the current congress are slapped down with a threat of a government shutdown. Show me one instance where he has talked as passionately about keeping troops in Iraq or outright defeating ISIS as he has about bringing in Refugees?
I think that I and other members of the board have indulged your fantasy about Halliburton Stock and oil enough. If you want to continue with the misguided notion that the Iraq war was based on a lie shared by every major intelligence community you are going to have to provide us with evidence that Sadaam Hussein's execution was faked and that the bush administration promised him billions of dollars in stock options, oil futures, and a faked execution for him being complicit. Until such time i would please ask you to leave the "Bush lied" t-shirts at home.
I don't ignore parts of your posts. I just find parts of them to be less worthy of my time than others, particularly when I've already responded to your main point. Did Obama want to stay in Iraq? No, but even if he had, the support for him to do so was not there.
All politicians run with the goal of being omnipotent leaders. Most fail.
As to proof, you're not going to find a government official going on record saying, "Yup, Iraq was all about revenge, Halliburton stock and oil futures." The closest you'll get might be George H. W. Bush's statement in his autobiography about his son letting Dick Cheney take too much control of the administration, and Cheney's desire to use force to strong-arm the Middle East. As rollerjag has already pointed out, if you connect the dots and follow the money, it's not too hard to see that there were motivations beyond, "Saddam might probably could potentially have or be trying to acquire WMDs."
Your insistence that Saddam would have to have been a willing participant is almost as comical as your argument that being transsexual is the same thing as pouring bleach in your eyes. Saddam Hussein had a long history of tension with the US and the west in general, going back before Desert Storm. If you'd told him that the US was going to invade if he didn't allow UN inspectors in, he'd probably have added more concertina wire to the top of the fences around his facilities. He was a natural patsy, and you don't have to know that you're a patsy to be one.
Your insistence upon documented evidence in a situation where you'll never find any is cool. That's on you. If you're not willing to connect the dots, follow the money, and think outside the, "Bush said this and no one felt like getting killed enough to dispute it," box, then nothing I say or do will convince you that there was more, much more, to the Iraqi invasion than WMDs and UN inspectors. By the federal government's own admission, the insistence that there were WMDs was a lie, a statement presented as fact when all involved knew it was speculative. That alone should be enough to make your Spidey Sense tingle about the whole situation. If it doesn't, hey, enjoy life. I'm done trying to tell a brick wall that it's red.
Quote:Fighting words.
To who? ISIS?
He lost any ounce of respect I had left for him. He will no longer get any respect from me. He is not a leader. He is a coward.
The most violent and # 1 terror organization is Boko Harum. They just blew up a bunch of people...Nigeria I believ it was.
Outrage? Where? Nigeria? Pffft....no oil there. Plus, they seem to leave the west alone.
First of all, your callous disregard for the trans-abled community is staggering.
Second... Lol. First it was an oil war for oil because of bush (oil that we did not take). Now the bush's feel dupped by the guy who worked for haliburton for five minutes (a defense contractor that was brought in during the clinton administration and that clinton awarded a bid it did not win).
Now its "well sadaam was just a loose cannon who would rather die than simply point out to the international community that he was being framed."
Nevermind that isis has used weapons he wasnt supposed to have. Nevermind the fact that syria has used weapons we know he transported. Nevermind that we know isis has access to other stockpiles of chemical weapons that should have been destroyed. Nevermind that the guy didn't feign innocence when he was captured and admitted he would have never followed international law. Nevermind the facf that Hillary clinton and a plurality of democrats signed off on the intell that the whole world had.
Cheynee was a rich white guy so something had to be foul. It cant be that he was hawkish about international law and nonproliferation in a post 9 11 world, that doesnt sound as good to the looney tune left.
Quote:Yeah I missed your point you're being serious? You cant be suggesting our foreign policy no matter how badly executed or fumbled along the way is equal to terrorism?
Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
That is a perfect description of U.S. foreign policy. And I do not think it was badly executed or fumbled. Everything is going as planned We need to get over the idea that U.S. Presidents call the shots - they do not. The real leaders do not hold office and many of the wealthiest people on the planet do not appear on the Forbes List.
Quote:I don't ignore parts of your posts. I just find parts of them to be less worthy of my time than others, particularly when I've already responded to your main point. Did Obama want to stay in Iraq? No, but even if he had, the support for him to do so was not there. All politicians run with the goal of being omnipotent leaders. Most fail.
As to proof, you're not going to find a government official going on record saying, "Yup, Iraq was all about revenge, Halliburton stock and oil futures." The closest you'll get might be George H. W. Bush's statement in his autobiography about his son letting [BAD WORD REMOVED] Cheney take too much control of the administration, and Cheney's desire to use force to strong-arm the Middle East. As rollerjag has already pointed out, if you connect the dots and follow the money, it's not too hard to see that there were motivations beyond, "Saddam might probably could potentially have or be trying to acquire WMDs."
Your insistence that Saddam would have to have been a willing participant is almost as comical as your argument that being transsexual is the same thing as pouring bleach in your eyes. Saddam Hussein had a long history of tension with the US and the west in general, going back before Desert Storm. If you'd told him that the US was going to invade if he didn't allow UN inspectors in, he'd probably have added more concertina wire to the top of the fences around his facilities. He was a natural patsy, and you don't have to know that you're a patsy to be one.
Your insistence upon documented evidence in a situation where you'll never find any is cool. That's on you. If you're not willing to connect the dots, follow the money, and think outside the, "Bush said this and no one felt like getting killed enough to dispute it," box, then nothing I say or do will convince you that there was more, much more, to the Iraqi invasion than WMDs and UN inspectors. By the federal government's own admission, the insistence that there were WMDs was a lie, a statement presented as fact when all involved knew it was speculative. That alone should be enough to make your Spidey Sense tingle about the whole situation. If it doesn't, hey, enjoy life. I'm done trying to tell a brick wall that it's red.
Can't reach a mule to look left and right if it's fitted with blinders.
Pot... Kettle... Ah you get the point.
Quote:Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
That is a perfect description of U.S. foreign policy. And I do not think it was badly executed or fumbled. Everything is going as planned We need to get over the idea that U.S. Presidents call the shots - they do not. The real leaders do not hold office and many of the wealthiest people on the planet do not appear on the Forbes List.
With that loose definition all forejgn military actions should be consider terrorism.
Terrorism is when civilians are targeted for the purpose of striking fear in the population. We've made way to many interventions over the last 30 years but were not directly targeting civilians for the purpose of fear.
You loose all credibility with loose definitions to makea point with hyperbole.
Now its fair to say our interventionist policies have created an environment that fostered groups which became terroist or that our actions have been counterproductive at best and more intervention is the last thing we need, I'd agree there. It's time to clean up our mess by bombing isis to the stone age, end all middle Eastern foreign aid and go home
Quote:Do you honestly think we would have cared enough about what was going on in Iraq had they not controlled so much oil?
Read this, and resist the temptation to pass it off as liberal propaganda before reading.
As Vic often said, if you want to get to the heart of the matter, follow the money.
While I don't disagree with much of that opinion piece, there are/were several other underlying factors. I do agree that you have to follow the money, but the sources of said money was not in the oil fields of Iraq.
Again, you have to go back and look at recent history in the region. The U.S. made a fatal mistake during the Afghanistan war(s) in the late 1980's and into the early 1990's. We were funneling millions of dollars, weapons and aid into the area via Pakistan in joint operations with the Saudis. The goal was the fall of communist leaders in Afghanistan which happened. The area quickly became a hotbed for radical Islamic fighters, and the country ended up in a civil war between moderates and radical jihadists. Many who were trained there began to focus on what was happening in Iraq. The fear was that there were known chemical weapons in Iraq that the U.S. did not want to fall into the wrong hands.
It was quite a mistake to leave Afghanistan after the fall of Mohammad Najibullah. President Clinton wasn't interested much in foreign affairs, especially in that part of the world. The CIA funding was cut back, and his appointed CIA chief was more interested in "technological intelligence" rather than human intelligence. It was also determined at that time that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than a homeland security issue. The CIA and the FBI did not share information between the two agencies.
Meanwhile Afghanistan as well as other areas in the mid-east and Africa became breeding grounds for radical jihadists.
Fast-forward to the second war with Iraq (which technically speaking was part of the Global War on Terrorism). Many of the radicals that trained in Afghanistan, funded by certain "Islamic charities" and people such as Osama bin Laden were showing up in Iraq. Much like what happened in Afghanistan, they wanted to establish an Islamic State ruled by Sharia Law. There was no way that we (the U.S.) were going to allow radical jihadists to gain possession of chemical weapons.
Quote:So you're saying that it's ok for a President to lie about the motivations for going to war?
Nope. President Bush never lied.
Quote:Fast-forward to the second war with Iraq (which technically speaking was part of the Global War on Terrorism). Many of the radicals that trained in Afghanistan, funded by certain "Islamic charities" and people such as Osama bin Laden were showing up in Iraq. Much like what happened in Afghanistan, they wanted to establish an Islamic State ruled by Sharia Law. There was no way that we (the U.S.) were going to allow radical jihadists to gain possession of chemical weapons.
I gotta hand it to you, you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you guzzle it.
The Bush administration never said terrorists were "showing up in Iraq", they sold that angle as deep, concerted coordination between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That never happened. There were contacts between the two parties, but no evidence anything came of them. Why would Saddam cooperate with the very folks whose goal is to overthrow leaders of secular Arab governments, like his?
Yes, there were terrorist training camps in a region out of Hussein's control, in the Kurdish north. That's it. The only way they were gaining a foothold in Iraq was for someone to remove Hussein and dismantle his security infrastructure.
We handled that part quite nicely, didn't we?
Yes the american left was instrumental.
Quote:Yeah I missed your point you're being serious? You cant be suggesting our foreign policy no matter how badly executed or fumbled along the way is equal to terrorism?
American foreign policy isn't equal to terrorism because it doesn't attempt to use fear in order to further political goals.
America has (and still does to some extent) kept brutal dictators in power, over thrown democratically elected regimes in favor of said dictators and has generally meddled in the affairs of sovereign nations to a frightening extent.
We are still shocked and disgusted here.
We are waiting for help from Obama and USA. For now, Poutine and Russia help us.
Quote:We are still shocked and disgusted here.
We are waiting for help from Obama and USA. For now, Poutine and Russia help us.
You'll be waiting a long time before Obama to help. He IS one of them and a coward to boot
Quote:With that loose definition all forejgn military actions should be consider terrorism.
Terrorism is when civilians are targeted for the purpose of striking fear in the population. We've made way to many interventions over the last 30 years but were not directly targeting civilians for the purpose of fear.
You loose all credibility with loose definitions to makea point with hyperbole.
Now its fair to say our interventionist policies have created an environment that fostered groups which became terroist or that our actions have been counterproductive at best and more intervention is the last thing we need, I'd agree there. It's time to clean up our mess by bombing isis to the stone age, end all middle Eastern foreign aid and go home
What hyperbole? I used the dictionary.com definition of a word. It clearly describes the U.S. foreign policy, so how is that hyperbole? Can you apply the same standard to the U.S. that the U.S. applied to Iraq? We have WMDs too. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to exist? Should Iraqis kick your door in to keep you "safe"? Or would you tend to resent that?
You say more intervention is the last thing we need, then suggest another intervention to "clean up our mess"?
Every nation is required to act responsibly. In the absence of some form of international law and accountabilitt you would see "the purge" played out on the world stage.
![[Image: 713e7800-a5bf-4da8-ad76-ba54412d567b.jpg]](http://photosaws.sparkpeople.com/guid/713e7800-a5bf-4da8-ad76-ba54412d567b.jpg)