Obama’s Iraq Surrender

[aaronleland]

When people on the left give Obama credit for pulling out of Iraq people on the right (rightfully) point out that all he did was follow through on a timeline set between Bush and the Iraqi government. Yet when people like AJ want to use it against the President for political reasons it turns into "Obama's surrender".

And why do I keep finding myself agreeing with Matthew recently? What happened to the old racist nutbag I used to love/hate?

 

[aaronleland]

I keep hearing about Al Qaeda operating in Iraq, yet when Bush was President liberals swore that there weren't any there. Interesting.

They weren't a big problem in Iraq prior to the invasion. One of the bad (good) things about Saddam Hussien, was that his secret police had the country locked up pretty tight.

When Iraq collapsed and the army was disbanded it was fertile ground for Al Qaeda.

Boy you guys are forgetful.

And Obama left Al Qaeda in Iraq so they can grow stronger until our next meeting. Brilliant.

Left Al Qaeda in Iraq? Why was it our job to "clean up" Iraq in the first place, let alone clean up our "clean up"? We have spend billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on Iraq in the past 10 years. Time to let the Iraqis deal with their own shithole for once.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fuck Iraq. Seriously, we can't stop the hatred of the shits and Sunni's from killing each other. They have been at this for 1,400 years.

America needs to invest within our country for once.

Iraq cost us 3 trillion dollars. Think how far that would go toward infrastructure, space exploration, and education.

It was an unneccessary war, an occupation that was assinine in the way it was conducted, and the only people that gained were the Haliburton stockholders.

 

[Old Rocks]

Afghanistan: Obama Surrenders

June 20, 2013 By Robert Spencer

...

In July 2012, the U.S. designated Afghanistan a “major non-Nato ally.” According to the BBC, this gives the Afghans “preferential access to U.S. arms exports and defence co-operation.” Thus unless Afghanistan is stripped of this status, we could be funding the Taliban with billions annually for years to come. And so the next time an Afghan soldier murders a group of American troops, and despite these negotiations in Qatar there will certainly be a next time, remember: you paid for his weapon.

Afghanistan: Obama Surrenders | FrontPage Magazine

We need to get out of Afghanistan totally. The stupidity of occupying that nation in the first place was readily apparent even then. We should have gone in, killed Bin Laden and his henchmen, and left.

There is no gain for us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Leaving is hardly surrender, it is sanity. Only insane people like you want to build empires in shitholes.

 

[Sallow]

Afghanistan: Obama Surrenders

June 20, 2013 By Robert Spencer

...

In July 2012, the U.S. designated Afghanistan a “major non-Nato ally.” According to the BBC, this gives the Afghans “preferential access to U.S. arms exports and defence co-operation.” Thus unless Afghanistan is stripped of this status, we could be funding the Taliban with billions annually for years to come. And so the next time an Afghan soldier murders a group of American troops, and despite these negotiations in Qatar there will certainly be a next time, remember: you paid for his weapon.

Afghanistan: Obama Surrenders | FrontPage Magazine

We need to get out of Afghanistan totally. The stupidity of occupying that nation in the first place was readily apparent even then. We should have gone in, killed Bin Laden and his henchmen, and left.

There is no gain for us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Leaving is hardly surrender, it is sanity. Only insane people like you want to build empires in shitholes.

Wonder how the OP would feel if Afghanistan were annexed and Afghanis were free to come and settle in his neighborhood.

 

[rdean]

It's a cluster fuck, thanks obongo...

Obama’s Iraq Surrender

May 31, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert

After almost a century of existence, the borders that form the modern Mideast nation states appear to be on the verge of disintegration. Part of the driving force behind this meltdown, as observers are beginning to acknowledge, is of course the intractable sectarian war in Syria. But a far bigger part of the picture is the accelerating destabilization of Iraq. The breakdown of Iraq, with its far-reaching regional ramifications, is attributable in no small part to President Obama’s abandonment of the U.S.’s mission in the country, a betrayal committed in total defiance of the military establishment’s recommendations, which squandered the hard-won victory handed down by President Bush. As predicted, our precipitous withdrawal has left the once pacified nation riven with sectarian strife, primarily among Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Kurds. As the region descends, the consequences of Obama’s folly are only becoming more obvious: a nation that once stood a chance at being a source of stability in the region is instead rapidly becoming its maelstrom.

In 1916, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France signed a secret agreement, with Russia’s approval, to dissolve the Ottoman Empire. The Sykes-Picot agreement was concerned with creating Middle East spheres of influence for France and Great Britain following their victory in WWl. The League of Nations facilitated the mandates over the territory captured by both nations. France got Syria and Lebanon, and Britain got Iraq. The agreement also separated the British mandatory Palestine, known by its Arab residents prior to WWI as “Surya al-Janubiyya” (Southern Syria), from the French mandatory of Syria to the north. For its approval of the deal, Russia received territory that eventually became Turkey.

...

The tragic consequences of that decision are unfolding at a rapid pace. A complete — and bloody — realignment of the entire Middle East is occurring, none of which accrues to America’s interests. In the Middle East, the U.S. has traded possible stability for almost certain chaos. As for our new role in shaping events there, it is best described by NY Post columnist Benny Avni. “What are America’s interests in any of this?” he writes. “Doesn’t matter. By opting to sit out, we’ve basically forfeited any say in the outcome.”

Obama?s Iraq Surrender | FrontPage Magazine

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Article 31:

First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The state takes care of public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and medical institutions.

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution

What else was there to do in Iraq. Republicans held a gun to their heads, liberated them without them asking and then approved a constitution that made them into a twin of Iran and gave them all government health care. I know, I know, it's let them die in this country, but at least Republicans helped someone somewhere. But their "help" had so many "unintended consequences".

 

[kiwiman127]

Why is it that most USMB's thread OPs reflect ignorance as the result of tabloid journalism and people falling for bullshit talking points?
USMB is becoming a fuckin joke.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Bush made no agreement to pull out of Iraq,he only talked of pull out when the Republicans lost the WH.

 

[kiwiman127]

Bush made no agreement to pull out of Iraq,he only talked of pull out when the Republicans lost the WH.

Link?

 

[Caroljo]

Okay, how can you possibly "win" a war like that? Let's see, Obama became President when the war was almost 6-years old. What could he have done to win it?

Obama did the right thing. He had two choices 1. pull out and cut our loses or 2. nuke the place.

Actually, Bush did the right thing by setting the pull-out date, Obama had no choice but to go through with it. Obama wanted to keep some troops there, the Iraqi leaders wouldn't give our troops immunity from their laws so Obama had no choice but to get them all out.

 

[Caroljo]

Bush made no agreement to pull out of Iraq,he only talked of pull out when the Republicans lost the WH.

This....from August 2008 - you know, BEFORE the elections Try again....

The agreement has already been approved by US President George W Bush and now needs to be endorsed by Iraqi leaders, he added.

Iraq and the US had agreed to "withdraw the US troops from Iraq by end of 2011," Mr Hammoud said.

US troops to pull out of Iraq by 2011: negotiator - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[bendog]

The opening of the thread sort of killed any rationality by declaring Iraq the first modern ME state.

 

[kiwiman127]

I remember when "O" took credit for getting the troops out of Iraq, our conservative friends rightfully cried foul and that "W" was the prez who accomplished the withdrawal.
Will these folks please make up their mind! They were right when they jumped all over "O" for taking credit but now that want to demonize "O" for pulling the troops out. Talk about total dishonesty!

 

[tjvh]

They weren't a big problem in Iraq prior to the invasion. One of the bad (good) things about Saddam Hussien, was that his secret police had the country locked up pretty tight.

When Iraq collapsed and the army was disbanded it was fertile ground for Al Qaeda.

Boy you guys are forgetful.

And Obama left Al Qaeda in Iraq so they can grow stronger until our next meeting. Brilliant.

I'll take it from that response that you agree that AQ had no real presence in Iraq before Bush's invasion of the country.

So, after Bush opened up the can of worms, and 10 years later it's still a shithole, what is Obama supposed to do -- keep US troops there indefinitely?

I am one of the few rational people who understands that Al Qaeda is not confined by borders, and that is why we will never defeat them. you cannot fight an ideology who disregards borders unless you disregard them too. We should have finished the job that both Democrats and Republicans agreed to, rather than rely on a timeline created by the Bush administration. Leaving Iraq before the job is done is the same thing we did in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[kiwiman127]

And Obama left Al Qaeda in Iraq so they can grow stronger until our next meeting. Brilliant.

I'll take it from that response that you agree that AQ had no real presence in Iraq before Bush's invasion of the country.

So, after Bush opened up the can of worms, and 10 years later it's still a shithole, what is Obama supposed to do -- keep US troops there indefinitely?

I am one of the few rational people who understands that Al Qaeda is not confined by borders, and that is why we will never defeat them. you cannot fight an ideology who disregards borders unless you disregard them too. We should have finished the job that both Democrats and Republicans agreed to, rather than rely on a timeline created by the Bush administration. Leaving Iraq before the job is done is the same thing we did in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

Right now al Qaeda in Iraq isn't the problem, it's the secular war between the Sunni and the Shites.
A little history lesson, during "the Surge" al Qaeda simply left Iraq and played the waiting game, after all al Qaeda doesn't operate within borders. We could have a huge troop level in Iraq and al Qaeda would simply move on to another geographic location and raise hell.

 

[tjvh]

I'll take it from that response that you agree that AQ had no real presence in Iraq before Bush's invasion of the country.

So, after Bush opened up the can of worms, and 10 years later it's still a shithole, what is Obama supposed to do -- keep US troops there indefinitely?

I am one of the few rational people who understands that Al Qaeda is not confined by borders, and that is why we will never defeat them. you cannot fight an ideology who disregards borders unless you disregard them too. We should have finished the job that both Democrats and Republicans agreed to, rather than rely on a timeline created by the Bush administration. Leaving Iraq before the job is done is the same thing we did in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

Right now al Qaeda in Iraq isn't the problem, it's the secular war between the Sunni and the Shites

Of course Al Qaeda in Iraq is a problem, can you see the Sun from the rock you have obviously been living under?

 

[kiwiman127]

I am one of the few rational people who understands that Al Qaeda is not confined by borders, and that is why we will never defeat them. you cannot fight an ideology who disregards borders unless you disregard them too. We should have finished the job that both Democrats and Republicans agreed to, rather than rely on a timeline created by the Bush administration. Leaving Iraq before the job is done is the same thing we did in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

Right now al Qaeda in Iraq isn't the problem, it's the secular war between the Sunni and the Shites

Of course Al Qaeda in Iraq is a problem, can you see the Sun from the rock you have obviously been living under?

Use your own description of al Qaeda being borderless and then follow up with the real world. You do know that al Qaeda is in over 50 countries don't you? Let's invade them all!! Thata boy!

 

[BlindBoo]

As Caroljo pointed out the Iraqis refused to give US Soldiers continued immunity and it was a signed agreement made by the Bush administration. President Obama would have left troops in Iraq if the Iraqi would agree to those terms, they didn't. Lots of interesting fact in that article however it reveals which administration is responsible for the current destabilization of the ME. Too bad Presidnet Bush didn't listen to or read the reasons his father decided not to oust Saddam from power.

"We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/why-we-didnt-invade-iraq-by-george-h-w-bush-in-1998.200976/

The invasion and occupation of Iraq will go down as one of the worst strategic blunders in US history. Trying to blame that on the guy who inherited the mess is typical of the pseudo-conservatives.

But it also goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire by the European powers who drew arbitrary lines to make up countries that they sought to exploit. Could we be seeing the beginning of the rise of Pan-Arabia.

 

[bendog]

Right now al Qaeda in Iraq isn't the problem, it's the secular war between the Sunni and the Shites

Of course Al Qaeda in Iraq is a problem, can you see the Sun from the rock you have obviously been living under?

Use your own description of al Qaeda being borderless and then follow up with the real world. You do know that al Qaeda is in over 50 countries don't you? Let's invade them all!! Thata boy!

Actually, for all his warts, Saddam did seem to have those bastards pretty well taken care of.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That was the George W. Bush surrender. Your OP makes it clear that you care nothing about the troops.

What troops, obongo surrendered and pulled all troops out. No troops in Iraq...

Well obongo said we won the war, so according to you Bush won the war...

Obama said he would not let Americans be tried in Iraqi courts.

That is what OamericanOjihad wants: Americans tried by Iraqis.

Fuck OamericanOjihad and the camel he rode in on.