First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Drops 26,171 Bombs in 2016
22003 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 1/8/17 , edited 1/8/17

Xxanthar wrote:

Yeah if we never invaded Iraq would have continued to violate the ceasefire agreement and rape torture and imprison his people, kill masses of Kurds. Obama pulled out our troops. let ISIS move back in and then sent our troops back in to help recapture places that we have already lost troops taking the first time.


Wow you are great at dodging questions you must be a full blown Trump supporter just keep your head buried it's a nice way to go through life
Posted 1/8/17
I hope he wasn't banned for this argument.. Didn't see him do anything bad in this thread.
3088 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/8/17 , edited 1/8/17

Xxanthar wrote:

Yeah if we never invaded Iraq would have continued to violate the ceasefire agreement and rape torture and imprison his people, kill masses of Kurds. Obama pulled out our troops. let ISIS move back in and then sent our troops back in to help recapture places that we have already lost troops taking the first time.




Yeah he called out troops and if the where the where already captured they stayed captured you calling out that more troops need to be there and fight them but here you are sitting by on your computer on not doing nothing if you so called want to call for we need more troops then you go their for yourself and fight but guarantee you wont because PTSD and other mental disorders that come for war some troops end up commiting sucide war isnt no joke where you keep rushing the base then you win. Also how can Obama found ISIS if Obama did all these things he wouldve been impeached by now but no he wasn't do you actually think he can found a terrorist group in this country these the same people who found out Hillary emails on her private server but they still found no actual proof he founded ISIS.
Posted 1/8/17 , edited 1/8/17

Newgalaxy wrote:



Yeah he called out troops and if the where the where already captured they stayed captured you calling out that more troops need to be there and fight them but here you are sitting by on your computer on not doing nothing if you so called want to call for we need more troops then you go their for yourself and fight but guarantee you wont because PTSD and other mental disorders that come for war some troops end up commiting sucide war isnt no joke where you keep rushing the base then you win. Also how can Obama found ISIS if Obama did all these things he wouldve been impeached by now but no he wasn't do you actually think he can found a terrorist group in this country these the same people who found out Hillary emails on her private server but they still found no actual proof he founded ISIS.


I'm not saying he is their leader, I'm saying that he provided the environment that let ISIS thrive, by toppling Libya and destabilizing Egypt, and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And his lack of leadership and a coherent foreign policy.
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/8/17
You know, the Iraqi government didn't want the US to continue occupying the country even when Bush negotiated the timetable by which Obama ultimately conducted the withdrawal. They hadn't grown any warmer to the idea of continuing the occupation in the period between that timetable's negotiation and the point where US troops actually began to pull back. Furthermore, consistently failed efforts to foster unity between rival ethnic groups within the country made it incredibly difficult to coalesce a unified, dedicated Iraqi defence force, rendering any prior effort to provide the new Iraqi government with the necessary equipment and infrastructure to mount a defence against domestic and foreign hostilities on its own pretty ineffectual. This was demonstrated very clearly when numerically and technologically superior Iraqi defence force personnel began throwing their weapons down, abandoning their vehicles, and leaving their posts upon being challenged by ISIL. Much of the work dedicated to setting up the Iraqi government and fostering unity between the country's various ethnic groups occurred during the Bush administration, so it's only fair to blame them for this failure.

Another important issue was that the Iraqi government was hostile to US forces' continuing to be protected from prosecution under Iraqi law, a point of serious contention even when the last Bush SOFA was put into place. Had Obama kept US forces in Iraq against the terms of the SOFA Bush put into place and not gotten a new SOFA (which he couldn't, because the Iraqi government didn't want to extend the US occupation, which is why the withdrawal happened) the terms protecting US forces from such prosecution would be nulled two ways: they'd have expired, and the US would have violated the timetable and thus invalidated the agreement under which those protections were established in the first place.
Posted 1/8/17

BlueOni wrote:

You know, the Iraqi government didn't want the US to continue occupying the country even when Bush negotiated the timetable by which Obama ultimately conducted the withdrawal. They hadn't grown any warmer to the idea of continuing the occupation in the period between that timetable's negotiation and the point where US troops actually began to pull back. Furthermore, consistently failed efforts to foster unity between rival ethnic groups within the country made it incredibly difficult to coalesce a unified, dedicated Iraqi defence force, rendering any prior effort to provide the new Iraqi government with the necessary equipment and infrastructure to mount a defence against domestic and foreign hostilities on its own pretty ineffectual. This was demonstrated very clearly when numerically and technologically superior Iraqi defence force personnel began throwing their weapons down, abandoning their vehicles, and leaving their posts upon being challenged by ISIL. Much of the work dedicated to setting up the Iraqi government and fostering unity between the country's various ethnic groups occurred during the Bush administration, so it's only fair to blame them for this failure.

Another important issue was that the Iraqi government was hostile to US forces' continuing to be protected from prosecution under Iraqi law, a point of serious contention even when the last Bush SOFA was put into place. Had Obama kept US forces in Iraq against the terms of the SOFA Bush put into place and not gotten a new SOFA (which he couldn't, because the Iraqi government didn't want to extend the US occupation, which is why the withdrawal happened) the terms protecting US forces from such prosecution would be nulled two ways: they'd have expired, and the US would have violated the timetable and thus invalidated the agreement under which those protections were established in the first place.


Bush does get a lot of the blame for his caving to Democrat pressure during the reconstruction and agreeing to a timetable. We were the ones that ousted Saddam, we won so as long as our troops were there we could have changed the agreement. If I remember correctly Obama was pulling troops out without even trying to renegotiate the drawdown. This was when ISIS had become a large threat and Iraq was signaling that they wanted the USA hold off on the withdrawal. If Bush was still at the helm, I don't think that he would have left Iraq with the threat of ISIS on the horizon. Either way, Obama has been the 'Leader' for the last 8 years, and has done NOTHING to stabilize the middle east. He's only let it get much worse.
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/8/17

Xxanthar wrote:

Bush does get a lot of the blame for his caving to Democrat pressure during the reconstruction and agreeing to a timetable. We were the ones that ousted Saddam, we won so as long as our troops were there we could have changed the agreement. If I remember correctly Obama was pulling troops out without even trying to renegotiate the drawdown. This was when ISIS had become a large threat and Iraq was signaling that they wanted the USA hold off on the withdrawal. If Bush was still at the helm, I don't think that he would have left Iraq with the threat of ISIS on the horizon. Either way, Obama has been the 'Leader' for the last 8 years, and has done NOTHING to stabilize the middle east. He's only let it get much worse.


If by "Democrat pressure" you mean all the things I was saying about the Iraqi government and people not wanting the US to continue to occupy the country and wanting to be able to prosecute US armed service personnel in their courts according to their laws you're right on the money, Bush offered a withdrawal timetable as a compromise with that sentiment in order to secure a SOFA. And he had to secure a SOFA in order to keep troops in Iraq.

And wow, you seriously wanted Obama to pull a Darth Vader on a country that was already increasingly hostile to a continued US presence? You think Obama should've said "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further" when the timetable ran out? Really? You think that would've gone well? How? Why?
3788 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / The Mothership
Offline
Posted 1/8/17
I thought the political arguments were over with? These types of threads can make coming to General Discussion very uncomfortable and annoying for many people. Jeez... the election is long over with but this is still going!?
2410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 1/8/17

Xxanthar wrote:

Bush does get a lot of the blame for his caving to Democrat pressure during the reconstruction and agreeing to a timetable. We were the ones that ousted Saddam, we won so as long as our troops were there we could have changed the agreement. If I remember correctly Obama was pulling troops out without even trying to renegotiate the drawdown. This was when ISIS had become a large threat and Iraq was signaling that they wanted the USA hold off on the withdrawal. If Bush was still at the helm, I don't think that he would have left Iraq with the threat of ISIS on the horizon. Either way, Obama has been the 'Leader' for the last 8 years, and has done NOTHING to stabilize the middle east. He's only let it get much worse.


Since you seem to think we should have stayed in Iraq longer, do you think that, had we done so, it would have involved... dropping bombs? Suppose Obama had kept us in Iraq - to help "stabilize" the Middle East; do you know how that would have affected the number of targets we bombed over the years, and particularly in 2016? Is there a magic number of bombs one can drop as a Nobel laureate and not be ridiculed - maybe either so few no one notices, or so many the hawks are too happy to care? What if all 26,171 bombs dropped this year went towards the kinds of "stabilization" you would have approved in Iraq had we stayed? (Not that such would actually have been stabilizing, as BlueOni demonstrated earlier. She clearly knows what she's talking about.) You can't have it both ways, and that's what bothers me about your opinion here. Is it not possible for Obama to do anything right in your eyes? Surely you hope that Donald Trump's "enemies" (in quotes because he himself used the word recently) give him the benefit of the doubt, even though we all feel his election is an absurdity and a monstrosity. You should do the same yourself if you expect it from others.
Posted 1/8/17

auroraloose wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Bush does get a lot of the blame for his caving to Democrat pressure during the reconstruction and agreeing to a timetable. We were the ones that ousted Saddam, we won so as long as our troops were there we could have changed the agreement. If I remember correctly Obama was pulling troops out without even trying to renegotiate the drawdown. This was when ISIS had become a large threat and Iraq was signaling that they wanted the USA hold off on the withdrawal. If Bush was still at the helm, I don't think that he would have left Iraq with the threat of ISIS on the horizon. Either way, Obama has been the 'Leader' for the last 8 years, and has done NOTHING to stabilize the middle east. He's only let it get much worse.


Since you seem to think we should have stayed in Iraq longer, do you think that, had we done so, it would have involved... dropping bombs? Suppose Obama had kept us in Iraq - to help "stabilize" the Middle East; do you know how that would have affected the number of targets we bombed over the years, and particularly in 2016? Is there a magic number of bombs one can drop as a Nobel laureate and not be ridiculed - maybe either so few no one notices, or so many the hawks are too happy to care? What if all 26,171 bombs dropped this year went towards the kinds of "stabilization" you would have approved in Iraq had we stayed? (Not that such would actually have been stabilizing, as BlueOni demonstrated earlier. She clearly knows what she's talking about.) You can't have it both ways, and that's what bothers me about your opinion here. Is it not possible for Obama to do anything right in your eyes? Surely you hope that Donald Trump's "enemies" (in quotes because he himself used the word recently) give him the benefit of the doubt, even though we all feel his election is an absurdity and a monstrosity. You should do the same yourself if you expect it from others.


He dropped most of those bombs on Syria, not Iraq. You know Syria, AKA ' Obama's War'. Obama was a foreign policy nightmare from when he was sworn in right until the end.
2410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 1/8/17

Xxanthar wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

Since you seem to think we should have stayed in Iraq longer, do you think that, had we done so, it would have involved... dropping bombs? Suppose Obama had kept us in Iraq - to help "stabilize" the Middle East; do you know how that would have affected the number of targets we bombed over the years, and particularly in 2016? Is there a magic number of bombs one can drop as a Nobel laureate and not be ridiculed - maybe either so few no one notices, or so many the hawks are too happy to care? What if all 26,171 bombs dropped this year went towards the kinds of "stabilization" you would have approved in Iraq had we stayed? (Not that such would actually have been stabilizing, as BlueOni demonstrated earlier. She clearly knows what she's talking about.) You can't have it both ways, and that's what bothers me about your opinion here. Is it not possible for Obama to do anything right in your eyes? Surely you hope that Donald Trump's "enemies" (in quotes because he himself used the word recently) give him the benefit of the doubt, even though we all feel his election is an absurdity and a monstrosity. You should do the same yourself if you expect it from others.


He dropped most of those bombs on Syria, not Iraq. You know Syria, AKA ' Obama's War'. Obama was a foreign policy nightmare from when he was sworn in right until the end.


You realize this doesn't answer any of my questions, right? You want to make fun of Obama for being warmongering even though he has a Nobel Peace Prize, but you want to say that he was a failure because he wasn't nearly warmongering enough. And you're unwilling to consider that you might actually approve of the warmongering he's conducted, even as you desired other warmongering of even more dubitable efficacy. You can disapprove of whatever you want, but at least give him a little respect.
42502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
fairy godmother
Offline
Posted 1/9/17
dawwww look at that salt
11291 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/9/17
Not so fun fact, more people have been murdered in Chicago since 2001 than Americans killed in Iraq.

42502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
fairy godmother
Offline
Posted 1/9/17
Did you not just post this on MAL?
Or is it just someone with a similarly annoying trump stroking mindset?
One Punch Mod
104439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 11/8/17
Closed because OP nuked
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.