- Moderator
- #21
Patriotism may be the refuge of the scoundrel, but word mincing is the refuge of the disingenuous. Rather then disputing FACTS, which should be judged by their TRUTH or FALSITY, they play around the edges of logic with half-truths and deliberate omissions. For example:
"6. Obama hurriedly pulled (all) our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse." Rather than address its salient points (underlined), they pose a false analogy that Bush intended to withdraw some troops at some time after a stable Iraqi government was functioning.
You're posting opinion and half-truths as facts and using them to build a thesis that is less than sound.
U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]
The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]
The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]
Obama followed the agreement already in place. As for "allowing" the government to collapse - it's not clear that the collapse could have been prevented given the corrupt and weak nature of that entity.
"10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality (Iranian hegemony)." Rather than dispute this fact, they quibble that the words "guarantee" and "hegemony" are not actually contained in the referenced document. By that reasoning, Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler had nothing to do with the fate of Czechoslovakia because it didn't contain the word "invasion."
While it is theoretically true that we can't know the future, lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite is as near a certainty of an explosion as we are likely to get.
What, if anything, would guarantee Iranian hegemony is the loss of Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran. The nuclear deal may or may not effect this. This is your opinion, not a stated fact, just as it is my opinion, not a stated fact.