Why did Obama turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda?

[CrusaderFrank]

Just for the record Maliki wanted all US troops out.

Yeah, the tail should wag the dog

Oh so you think the US should FORCE our will on other nations? Man you republicans are psychopaths.

Our troops did the heavy lifting and they recommended that we stay on to properly train the ISF. Obama overruled them.

Maybe you should talk to the families of people who served and ask them what they think of the Obama Doctrine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should we have made Iraq a commonwealth, like Puerto Rico?

And had ourselves some brand new citizens able to travel all through the US?

That's a bold plan, CF.

Remember how we totally abandoned Germany and Japan in 1946 and pulled out all our troops?

Well no actually FDR and Truman installed fair occupations and helped restore civil order in those countries. So unlike the fucked up occupation of Iraq which created anarchy and sparked the ongoing civil war. Germans were fighting to get into the US sector of occupied Germany.

You're confused, the anarchy started AFTER we abandoned Iraq

 

[NYcarbineer]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists?

Did Obama intend to throw away and waste the sacrifices of our troops?

Obama's not stupid, so we know this wasn't a blunder. We have to ask, what was his intent?

Up until today you always claimed that Obama was doing nothing more than carrying out Bush's Iraq exit strategy.

It's so odd that suddenly you're changing your tune.

Obama fucked up, therefore Boooooooooooooooooosh!

Go ahead, deny that you ever gave Bush the credit for Obama ending the war in Iraq,

when things looked better.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Social "justice" and regulatory fascism are more important comrades...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just for the record Maliki wanted all US troops out.

Yeah, the tail should wag the dog

Oh so you think the US should FORCE our will on other nations? Man you republicans are psychopaths.

Frank is just flailing. He has a condition that causes that .

 

[dannyboys]

Tribal warfare has been going on in Iraq and throughout the region since the sand-monkeys lived in caves. Wait-a-minute! Many still do!
If the 'West' didn't need middle east oil the 'West' would have told the sand-monkeys to fuck off decades ago.
Now that the West has/is discovering it's own oil and gas reserves in stable parts of the world and now has the technology to go back to the tens of thousands of old wells and recover a lot more oil than previously watch how the 'West' has become less and less interested it what the sand-monkeys do to each other.
Social Darwinism my friends, is alive and well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

99% of the criticism of Obama by the deranged amounts to criticism that he hasn't cleaned up Bush's fuck ups satisfactorily.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A civil war in Iraq is none of our business.

 

[BlindBoo]

Bush did not lie, you dumbfuck ! your fucking demorats were all in favor of going to Ifuckingraq and voted to do so and support a regime change.

Of course Bush and company lied their collective asses off for over a year to morph the anger we had over 9-11 into support for the invasion of Iraq. The majority of Democrats in Congress opposed giving President Bush the deciding power as well. Supporting regime change is much different than sending our kids to die and get maimed in an ill conceived war of choice.

Oh knock it off... Bush cited the same evidence that those before him cited. Congress voted twice to invade Iraq. The reasons were multi-faceted, but not the least of them was to create a hedge against Iran, a known state sponsor of international terror.

And what do we have now? Iran poised to move in either directly or by proxy.

There were two conditions Congress gave to President Bush to use to invade Iraq. One was if Iraq was involved in 9-11. The other was if we could no longer rely on diplomatic efforts to protect us from the threat posed by Iraq. To the later, Iraq was not a threat and SCR 1441, which the US supported, was in effect and was verifying that Iraq did not have any new WMD production or vast stockpiles, which was the only way that shithole could ever be a threat to us. Bush disregarded our obligations to the UNSC resolution and pledges to our allies to come back to the SC before launching an invasion.

The reason cited were bogus and millions of people around the world knew it. Any American who didn't support it were called unpatriotic and terrorist supporter. Countries who didn't support Bushes call were also denigrated. The so called liberal media was all in as well.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Yeah, the tail should wag the dog

Oh so you think the US should FORCE our will on other nations? Man you republicans are psychopaths.

Our troops did the heavy lifting and they recommended that we stay on to properly train the ISF. Obama overruled them.

Maybe you should talk to the families of people who served and ask them what they think of the Obama Doctrine.

What we did in another country doesn't matter. Iraq is a sovereign nation. Unless we are directly at war with that nation, when a sovereign nation tells us they don't want us there, WE GET OUT. Period, end of story.

Our president has no say in it. Our generals have no say in it. No one in this country has the right tell Iraq "Fuck you, we don't care what you want. We're doing whatever WE want with your country". To even imagine that we can shows incredible hubris.

 

[Freewill]

Not that it matters but I get so tired of liberals "quoting" statistics that have not backing.

A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion. To be perfectly frank, it's hard to see how anyone who has even a passing familiarity with statistics could take Lancet's numbers seriously. Fred Kaplan from Slate explains:

"The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."

Bingo! What Lancet was in effect saying was that they believed 98,000 civilians died, but they might have been off by roughly 90,000 people or so in either direction.

Moreover, other sources at the time were coming in with numbers that were a tiny fraction of the 98,000 figure that the Lancet settled on. From a New York Times article on the Lancet study:

"The 100,000 estimate immediately came under attack. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain questioned the methodology of the study and compared it with an Iraq Health Ministry figure that put civilian fatalities at less than 4,000. Other critics referred to the findings of the Iraq Body Count project, which has constructed a database of war-related civilian deaths from verified news media reports or official sources like hospitals and morgues.
That database recently placed civilian deaths somewhere between 14,429 and 16,579, the range arising largely from uncertainty about whether some victims were civilians or insurgents. But because of its stringent conditions for including deaths in the database, the project has quite explicitly said, ''Our own total is certain to be an underestimate.''

Via GlobalSecurity.org, here's another Iraqi civilian death estimate:

"On 20 October 2003 the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants -- that is: civilians who did not take up arms."

Given all that, how any informed person can buy into Lancet's numbers is simply beyond me.

 

[BlindBoo]

Remember how we totally abandoned Germany and Japan in 1946 and pulled out all our troops?

Well no actually FDR and Truman installed fair occupations and helped restore civil order in those countries. So unlike the fucked up occupation of Iraq which created anarchy and sparked the ongoing civil war. Germans were fighting to get into the US sector of occupied Germany.

You're confused, the anarchy started AFTER we abandoned Iraq

The civil war that continues to this day started soon after we disbanded the Iraq army in late 2003. The violence continued to escalate until President Bush was forced to change course.

 

[Freewill]

Oh so you think the US should FORCE our will on other nations? Man you republicans are psychopaths.

Our troops did the heavy lifting and they recommended that we stay on to properly train the ISF. Obama overruled them.

Maybe you should talk to the families of people who served and ask them what they think of the Obama Doctrine.

What we did in another country doesn't matter. Iraq is a sovereign nation. Unless we are directly at war with that nation, when a sovereign nation tells us they don't want us there, WE GET OUT. Period, end of story.

Our president has no say in it. Our generals have no say in it. No one in this country has the right tell Iraq "Fuck you, we don't care what you want. We're doing whatever WE want with your country". To even imagine that we can shows incredible hubris.

You mean like the US did in Serbia, Libya and Syria?

 

[Bush92]

Supplanting democracy in the Middle East and SW Asia through regime change in Iraq was neo-con insanity. Democracy will never take hold in a politically and religiously complex region like Iraq. Leave Saddam and none of this crap thats going on right now happens. Saddam's used to have Al Queda militants that he captured (Bin Laden advocated the overthrow of Saddam) shoved into wood chippers feet first so he and his sons could watch the look on their faces when they got chopped-up. True story. So in a post 9-11 world, why do you get rid of this guy and destabilize the region? Your just doing Iran and groups like Muslim Brotherhood a favor.

 

[Freewill]

Of course Bush and company lied their collective asses off for over a year to morph the anger we had over 9-11 into support for the invasion of Iraq. The majority of Democrats in Congress opposed giving President Bush the deciding power as well. Supporting regime change is much different than sending our kids to die and get maimed in an ill conceived war of choice.

Oh knock it off... Bush cited the same evidence that those before him cited. Congress voted twice to invade Iraq. The reasons were multi-faceted, but not the least of them was to create a hedge against Iran, a known state sponsor of international terror.

And what do we have now? Iran poised to move in either directly or by proxy.

There were two conditions Congress gave to President Bush to use to invade Iraq. One was if Iraq was involved in 9-11. The other was if we could no longer rely on diplomatic efforts to protect us from the threat posed by Iraq. To the later, Iraq was not a threat and SCR 1441, which the US supported, was in effect and was verifying that Iraq did not have any new WMD production or vast stockpiles, which was the only way that shithole could ever be a threat to us. Bush disregarded our obligations to the UNSC resolution and pledges to our allies to come back to the SC before launching an invasion.

The reason cited were bogus and millions of people around the world knew it. Any American who didn't support it were called unpatriotic and terrorist supporter. Countries who didn't support Bushes call were also denigrated. The so called liberal media was all in as well.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Katzndogz]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists?

Did Obama intend to throw away and waste the sacrifices of our troops?

Obama's not stupid, so we know this wasn't a blunder. We have to ask, what was his intent?

Sharia law over the whole world with himself as Caliph.

 

[Freewill]

Supplanting democracy in the Middle East and SW Asia through regime change in Iraq was neo-con insanity. Democracy will never take hold in a politically and religiously complex region like Iraq. Leave Saddam and none of this crap thats going on right now happens. Saddam's used to have Al Queda militants that he captured (Bin Laden advocated the overthrow of Saddam) shoved into wood chippers feet first so he and his sons could watch the look on their faces when they got chopped-up. True story. So in a post 9-11 world, why do you get rid of this guy and destabilize the region? Your just doing Iran and groups like Muslim Brotherhood a favor.

You do realize that Saddam was systematically killing the Kurds? That Saddam was hardly better then what is going on today? I think you sell out people like the Iraqis as if they don't want freedom or can't handle freedom like children they must be severely disciplined. Maybe the radicals will take over and maybe not but if they do it will be a sad day for the world not just the Iraqi people.

 

[Freewill]

Far from leaving a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq, Obama has succeeded in giving AQ what it had prior to the GWOT: State sponsorship.

What was the plan? Did Obama intend to leave Iraq for the Jihadists?

Did Obama intend to throw away and waste the sacrifices of our troops?

Obama's not stupid, so we know this wasn't a blunder. We have to ask, what was his intent?

Sharia law over the whole world with himself as Caliph.

you got a point, bow down to Islam and the fighting will end.

 

[Bush92]

Supplanting democracy in the Middle East and SW Asia through regime change in Iraq was neo-con insanity. Democracy will never take hold in a politically and religiously complex region like Iraq. Leave Saddam and none of this crap thats going on right now happens. Saddam's used to have Al Queda militants that he captured (Bin Laden advocated the overthrow of Saddam) shoved into wood chippers feet first so he and his sons could watch the look on their faces when they got chopped-up. True story. So in a post 9-11 world, why do you get rid of this guy and destabilize the region? Your just doing Iran and groups like Muslim Brotherhood a favor.

You do realize that Saddam was systematically killing the Kurds? That Saddam was hardly better then what is going on today? I think you sell out people like the Iraqis as if they don't want freedom or can't handle freedom like children they must be severely disciplined. Maybe the radicals will take over and maybe not but if they do it will be a sad day for the world not just the Iraqi people.

Kurds are not an American problem. Also, I have never felt giving the Iraqi's a civics lesson was worth a single American life. Saddam was not a fundamentalist terrorist. This new group that is sweeping Iraq IS AN AL QUEDA AFFILIATED GROUP. SADDAM EXECUTED AL QUEDA IN HIS COUNTRY. SADDAM WOULD HAVE ALREADY GASSED THESE BASTARDS AND DONE THE USA A FAVOR IN DOING SO. Thats why regime change was el stupido.

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh knock it off... Bush cited the same evidence that those before him cited. Congress voted twice to invade Iraq. The reasons were multi-faceted, but not the least of them was to create a hedge against Iran, a known state sponsor of international terror.

And what do we have now? Iran poised to move in either directly or by proxy.

There were two conditions Congress gave to President Bush to use to invade Iraq. One was if Iraq was involved in 9-11. The other was if we could no longer rely on diplomatic efforts to protect us from the threat posed by Iraq. To the later, Iraq was not a threat and SCR 1441, which the US supported, was in effect and was verifying that Iraq did not have any new WMD production or vast stockpiles, which was the only way that shithole could ever be a threat to us. Bush disregarded our obligations to the UNSC resolution and pledges to our allies to come back to the SC before launching an invasion.

The reason cited were bogus and millions of people around the world knew it. Any American who didn't support it were called unpatriotic and terrorist supporter. Countries who didn't support Bushes call were also denigrated. The so called liberal media was all in as well.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically it is this section.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.