Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
The withdraw timetable that Obama followed, I believe, was constructed by the Bush administration. To be fair, I don't recall conservatives attacking Bush for letting the enemy know when we were leaving.
However. The fact is, when Obama was calling the shots, many people were telling him that it was the wrong time for a complete withdrawal. Obama said the withdrawal wouldn't jeopardize the gain we had made.
Who was wrong in this case? Spence? Spence??
It is unbelievable how often this guy is 100% wrong.
There will always be hawks pushing for a harder position.
As for the 100% remark. This is exactly the wrong way to view things. By that measure the Bush team was 100% wrong on just about everything as well. Actually by that measure they were more than 100% wrong. 1000%?
And to top it all of you have #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, perhaps the biggest advocate of the war and most wrong about everything out slamming Obama to make political hey just to get his daughter media attention because she couldn't get any support to run in Wyoming.
Perhaps the most douchebaggery thing I've ever seen come from a VP and he's had his moments.
The simple fact is the situation is serious and if people think this is just another opportunity to pile on Obama they're doing this country -- and everything we've given -- a great disservice.
Perhaps the most douchebaggery thing I've ever seen come from a VP and he's had his moments.
-spence
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
There will always be hawks pushing for a harder position.
As for the 100% remark. This is exactly the wrong way to view things. By that measure the Bush team was 100% wrong on just about everything as well. Actually by that measure they were more than 100% wrong. 1000%?
And to top it all of you have #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, perhaps the biggest advocate of the war and most wrong about everything out slamming Obama to make political hey just to get his daughter media attention because she couldn't get any support to run in Wyoming.
Perhaps the most douchebaggery thing I've ever seen come from a VP and he's had his moments.
The simple fact is the situation is serious and if people think this is just another opportunity to pile on Obama they're doing this country -- and everything we've given -- a great disservice.
-spence
Do you even hear yourself type ???
Everything you accuse others of doing , you and your dear leader do X10
I'm not sure you want to bring douchebag vice presidents into this conversation do you?? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do you even hear yourself type ???
Everything you accuse others of doing , you and your dear leader do X10
I'm not sure you want to bring douchebag vice presidents into this conversation do you?? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That exactly was the point I was going to make. It is not like once 1 base was emptied, the enemy wouldn't figure we were leaving all the bases. Blaming Bush for something that happened 3 years later is silly. The whole problem was that the Sunni's (and Kurds) where mostly excluded from the govern. Had they felt included, Iraq might not be in this situation.
True and the Kurds are the only trustworthy group Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
These 2 groups have been killing each other for 1500 years, its not going to change. We have better odds at converting Spence to right wing conservatism than we have getting them to live in peace.
These 2 groups have been killing each other for 1500 years, its not going to change. We have better odds at converting Spence to right wing conservatism than we have getting them to live in peace.
It's not that simple. We need to make sure that they can't send more terrorists back here with airplanes or dirty bombs. We also should be loathe to dishonor those who died by surrendering all our gains, but that means absolutely nothing to Obama.
They will always be able to send more terrorists back here. It is not a dishonor to my many fellow servicemen that have fallen to close the embassy and come home. The mission was never to take over the country or control it. Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path.
They will always be able to send more terrorists back here. It is not a dishonor to my many fellow servicemen that have fallen to close the embassy and come home. The mission was never to take over the country or control it. Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path.
Our military men and women's honor doesn't change.
I agree with you on this rare point Spence. Don't mix honor and policy.
Policy pulled out our troops from Iraq (left the US pressence at only the Embassy), things have changed for the worse. Syria and Iran both are assisting Iraq. The Iraqi leader seems content to pull all of his loyal troops into Baghdad for a general Custer style last stand.
The loss of honor (if there was any) was caused by policy change and wishful thinking, hoping the new govt was capable of securing itself.
Yes ,this has been a well planned strategy on their part, and having announced when we would withdraw gave them the time to plan and the right time to execute it.
They will always be able to send more terrorists back here. It is not a dishonor to my many fellow servicemen that have fallen to close the embassy and come home. The mission was never to take over the country or control it. Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path.
Where I live, the point of the Surge, the only point of the Surge, was to defeat the insurgetnts and restore stability. Even Obama eventually had to admit that the Surge was a spectacular success. And it came at a cost of American blood.
I was there, and politics aside, I can't imagine anyone else who was there, not feeling like it was all for nothing, if this incompetent will allow Iraq to descend back into chaos. Thanks to the Surge, Obama inherited a relatively stable Iraq. On his watch, it is crumbling.
"Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path."
Oh, is that what's happening? I thought terrorists were killing everyone not on their side, and violently taking control? Where do yo uget you rinformation from? One of us has been badly misinformed.
How do you honor the troops, by relinquishing everytihng they fought for, at least during the Surge? Please explain how that's not dishonorong them?
Tell my company to take a hill, we'll take the hill. It's a spit in the face if, after Americans die taking that hill, we simply leave and allow the bad guys to immediately re-claim it. Is that really so hard to understand?
If we do this, what was the point of the Surge, exactly? Spence, can you explain that please?
Where I live, the point of the Surge, the only point of the Surge, was to defeat the insurgetnts and restore stability. Even Obama eventually had to admit that the Surge was a spectacular success. And it came at a cost of American blood.
I was there, and politics aside, I can't imagine anyone else who was there, not feeling like it was all for nothing, if this incompetent will allow Iraq to descend back into chaos. Thanks to the Surge, Obama inherited a relatively stable Iraq. On his watch, it is crumbling.
"Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path."
Oh, is that what's happening? I thought terrorists were killing everyone not on their side, and violently taking control? Where do yo uget you rinformation from? One of us has been badly misinformed.
Hey I lost friends there too... Policy changed under Obama, he pulled everyone out, left the state with an Embassy pressence only.
To escalate from an Embassy pressence to an army defending against ISIS who has already taken ALOT if the northern part of Iraq, is not feasible under our current administration.
I see Iraq and I feel we are going down the same route we did with Egypt and Libya where our strikes and actions helped the Muslim Brotherhood remove one bad guy and replace it with a mess of crap breeding ground for more terrorists.
Bottom line is I think the policy of the current President has let it deteriorate to an extent where there is no way to win. It's either by design or negligence, but its at the stage where, our only option is to close the Embassy and wait it out. Maybe in a few years we will have a leader that can engage in foreign policy, both in word and deed that will be able to work these things out, but for now, we'd be stupid to put our finest in harms way in Iraq, where the administration won't support them and won't let them do their job.
Close the Embassy bring the Embassador home before our Wonderous Leader repeats Banghazi again, this time with 100s dead instead of 3 or 4.
How do you honor the troops, by relinquishing everytihng they fought for, at least during the Surge? Please explain how that's not dishonorong them?
Tell my company to take a hill, we'll take the hill. It's a spit in the face if, after Americans die taking that hill, we simply leave and allow the bad guys to immediately re-claim it. Is that really so hard to understand?
If we do this, what was the point of the Surge, exactly? Spence, can you explain that please?
By that rationale shouldn't the very essence of the war be a great dishonor? I mean, the architects of the war policy were wrong about so much, and we learned that they really didn't even have a good reason to think they were going to be right.
For the US to have kept troops after 2011 we likely would have to made serious concessions (i.e. bribes) and for sure allowed US servicemen and women to be bound by Iraqi law.
A US troop presence would have also likely made the political situation worse and perhaps even accelerated a Sunni revolt pulling us back in even harder than today.
I'm not sure what we could have done to prevent this other than more pressure on the Maliki government to be inclusive and more pressure on Russia to abandon Syria, neither of which was very feasible.
Ultimately we can't stay there forever. The World needs to buck up and realize this isn't America's problem alone.
Hey I lost friends there too... Policy changed under Obama, he pulled everyone out, left the state with an Embassy pressence only.
To escalate from an Embassy pressence to an army defending against ISIS who has already taken ALOT if the northern part of Iraq, is not feasible under our current administration.
I see Iraq and I feel we are going down the same route we did with Egypt and Libya where our strikes and actions helped the Muslim Brotherhood remove one bad guy and replace it with a mess of crap breeding ground for more terrorists.
Bottom line is I think the policy of the current President has let it deteriorate to an extent where there is no way to win. It's either by design or negligence, but its at the stage where, our only option is to close the Embassy and wait it out. Maybe in a few years we will have a leader that can engage in foreign policy, both in word and deed that will be able to work these things out, but for now, we'd be stupid to put our finest in harms way in Iraq, where the administration won't support them and won't let them do their job.
Close the Embassy bring the Embassador home before our Wonderous Leader repeats Banghazi again, this time with 100s dead instead of 3 or 4.
"Hey I lost friends there too" God bless you and them.
"Policy changed under Obama, he pulled everyone out"
To be fair to Obama, the timeline for withdraw that he followed, I believe, was put in place by Bush. But Obama executed it, and he did that despite many experts suggesting that he was opening the door for exactly what is happening.
"remove one bad guy and replace it with a mess of crap breeding ground for more terrorists."
But after the Surge, there were free elections, and the people who voted, didn't elect hard-liners to any position that mattered. Moderates were winning everywhere. It looked like it was on the right track. But as you aid, at some point we need to turn it over to them. I just don't think we did it at a wise point in time.
"Close the Embassy bring the Embassador home "
But if the terrorists take over, they have a sovereign state. having access to a sovereign state (Afghanistan) led to 09/11. So isn't it in our vital interest to make sure that doesn't happen?
By that rationale shouldn't the very essence of the war be a great dishonor? I mean, the architects of the war policy were wrong about so much, and we learned that they really didn't even have a good reason to think they were going to be right.
For the US to have kept troops after 2011 we likely would have to made serious concessions (i.e. bribes) and for sure allowed US servicemen and women to be bound by Iraqi law.
A US troop presence would have also likely made the political situation worse and perhaps even accelerated a Sunni revolt pulling us back in even harder than today.
I'm not sure what we could have done to prevent this other than more pressure on the Maliki government to be inclusive and more pressure on Russia to abandon Syria, neither of which was very feasible.
Ultimately we can't stay there forever. The World needs to buck up and realize this isn't America's problem alone.
-spence
"By that rationale shouldn't the very essence of the war be a great dishonor?"
Only if the premise for the war was unreasonable, and/or unjust. If we can be a little honest, we can admit that back then, a large majority from both parties supported the war. I think one could have made a compelling case, even back then, that we could have waited. But many, many reasonable and decent people supported this war. Not just Bush. Many people forget that Hilary voted for the war, and said she was certain Iraq had WMDs, why does she get a pass?
"For the US to have kept troops after 2011 we likely would have to made serious concessions (i.e. bribes)"
Big whoop. Better to spend a few bucks to help prevent another 09/11, isn't it?
"and for sure allowed US servicemen and women to be bound by Iraqi law"
Not "for sure". We work around that all the time, and if Obama was half the world statesman that people like you claimed that he would be, that would have been an easy deal for him to make.
"I'm not sure what we could have done to prevent this "
Ever heard of the Surge? Things like this don't usually happen where the US Marines happen to be.
"Ultimately we can't stay there forever"
we stayed in Germany and Korea for a long, long time, and those places were a lot more stable, and a lot less likely to be the birthplace for mass attacks against US civilians.
It's a different world Spence, there are unspeakably vicious people in that part of the region. We can choose to face that, or we can choose to pretend that's not the case. If we take the former position, that means a lot of troops in a lot of places, in the attempt to prevent terrorism. If we choose the later, it means giving the terrorists a better chance of killing Americans before we go after them. Either way, in the end, we will face them. The question I, do we do it before, or after, they strike. I'd choose former. You and your hero apparently disagree.
I don't get it. You cannot wish these people away, no matter how hard you try. We now know, after this failed experiment, that electing a President who takes a softer approach with them, doesn't wo
Linear Mode
