You can spell it out for some folks all you like. They simply refuse to listen.
At this point, it’s like teaching a pig to sing. You just have to admit that it will never work, wastes your time, and is simply amusing the pig.
If there was anything meaningful here to respond to, I’d respond to it. But can’t do anything with gibberish.
Do they really not see the irony of saying that the left is “Pravda” when Trump’s admiration for Putin and refusal to criticise Russia or even accept the intelligence briefing about the leaks is a massive issue in this election?
The right has a serious irony deficiency. They should be getting infusions for that.
And on top of that they have a very strange form of amnesia where they can’t remember anything that happened between October 2001 and Feb 2009. Sounds like a form of dementia to me. They should get that checked out ! 
They’ve pretty much already checked out.
While there, maybe they could get a spine transplant? Unless they are too busy running around like zombies trying to find “brains”…
I’m so sorry I don’t agree with you in that thread or this one that Obama leaving was the best choice to make or pursue in Iraq. It wasn’t. And your hyperventilating about it doesn’t dissuade me or my opinion from continuing to believe that.
- I don’t recall that being a point in the other thread, but I’ll take your word for it. Unless your point is Obama is beyond criticism, in which case, please.
Bush started it and Obama made it worse.
I can live with that statement.
Let’s accept that at face value for a moment… what does that really tell us?
Well, if Bush hadn’t been Bush, there would have been no war in Iraq at all. The sanctions would have continued. Saddam would either still be in power or would have died of old age. There would be no ISIS. Bush’s actions nearly-certainly made things much much worse.
On the other hand, what would have happened had a president other than Obama been in power between 2009 and 2016? Well, let’s assume that the situation did in fact get worse in that time frame. But what we need to compare is not 2009 vs 2016, it’s 2016-with-Obama-as-president vs 2016-with-other-president-as-president. Which of course we can’t do.
So even in you’re extremely oversimplified model, there’s a more compelling argument for Bush having done a bad job than Obama… because we can’t know how much worse things would be without Obama.
Obama made it far, far better by getting out and stopping the monthly deaths of American service men and women. Staying would have meant more Americans dead for nothing, and ISIL or their equivalent still would have emerged when we left.
Fine. What would the best choice have been, then? Be specific.
HeweyLogan, I’m just curious what you think Obama should have done?
If I’ve followed the discussion correctly, you think Obama should have kept US forces in Iraq, thereby preventing ISIS from forming.
However, the big problem Obama faced was that the agreement Bush had signed with the Iraqi government required all US troops to be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.
Bush and then Obama had tried to extend that deadline, but both failed, because the Iraqi government was no longer prepared to give US troops in Iraq immunity from Iraqi criminal law.
Given that commitment in a treaty with the Iraq government, what should Obama have done, HeweyLogan? Kept troops in Iraq in defiance of a treaty with the new government of Iraq, which the US government had itself helped to set up?
I’m genuinely curious what you think Obama should have done in these circumstances? And, since he withdrew troops based on the deal Bush made, how did his actions make it worse than what the situation was when Bush left office?
To not have left. To have kept and maintained a force that could have countered attacks against the regime, all the while trying to rebuild the regime into one that Iraqi as a whole could live with and support at which time then we would leave.
I recall that being the whole ‘You want to be there FOREVER!?!?’ arguments made against McCain at the time (and why I now assume coremelt was talking about him earlier).
That seemed and seems like the better decision to have taken, given what’s happened since we’ve left - we’ve gone back in and given them the barest support possible to keep the regime alive and in control. We’re in more now than when Obama pulled us out.
- I had to go back and see why this was even brought up - I brought it up in response to coremelt talking about how strong Obama has been in the region, or at least with Iraq. FYI and for my own info.
Honest question - under what agreement are we in there now? If we should be out how come we’re there. I’d argue the level of withdrawal was negotiable.
That would in effect be a declaration of war on the Republic of Iraq, which is at best an act of criminal aggression, and, since the President has no right to declare war without the permission of Congress, possibly an impeachably unconstitutional act.
Iraq was not, and is not, a playground for the US military. It’s a sovereign nation, and as of December 31, 2011, they wanted the US out. If you keep your troops there, as of January 1, 2012, it’s an invading force.
An Allied force was invited into Iraq in 2014 specifically to assist in fighting ISIL. Allied ground presence is limited; the Iraqis are doing most of the hard fighting themselves.
Can you say military occupation?
We would be overthrowing an existing government. Didn’t work too well the first time.
RickJay has already answered this: in 2014, the Iraq government requested US intervention against ISIS. The US and other countries have been there since then at the invitation of the Iraqi government.
See the wiki article on it:
US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021) - Wikipedia(2014–present
As for your assertion that the level of US troops in Iraq was negotiable, both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration tried to negotiate an extension for the 2011 pull-out. The point of disagreement between the US and Iraq was that the Iraqi government refused to continue to allow US troops and contractors to be immune from Iraqi criminal law. When they could not reach agreement on this point, the US withdrew in late 2011, as required by the Agreement.
Since both administrations tried without success to negotiate a longer stay for US forces in Iraq, past the 2011 deadline, on what basis do you maintain that the presence of US forces past December 31, 2011, was negotiable? The evidence does not support that assertion, in my view.
See the wiki article on the Status of Forces Agreement:
Sorry: meant to say that RickJay and Running Coach had both addressed the issue of the presence of US forces in Iraq. (Posting from my phone and sometimes have trouble remembering who all have posted already. )
So how were we initially legally allowed to go into Iraq? Were those allowances by Congress still in place when we went back in again after Dec 2011?
Or did the Iraqi’s say ‘Get out!’ then ‘No, no, our mistake, please come back!’?
I guess I resort to ‘If the United States wanted to, we would have stayed or left as we pleased’, but I agree it’s not as simple as I initially implied - I was and am going off the argument at the time between the Democrats who wanted to leave and the Republicans who wanted to stay.
In other words, why were Republicans saying we could and should stay when what you say is we never had a choice?
This NPR fact check on the matter doesn’t help much as it implies what you say but also implies that we could have manipulated staying put.
It also, interestingly enough, admits that our withdrawal played a role in helping form ISIS - the point I was making in regards to coremelts comments.
I admit I wasn’t as clear and concise as I could or should have been, however.
So you think the US military should have stayed in Iraq without a Status of Forces agreement, leaving them open to being charged and tried in Iraqi courts?