Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.
[/quote]

The hatred and subsequent blind ignorance towards Obama cannot be stymied.

[/quote]

So Obama has just been misunderstood by his critics all these years? Why not enlighten us? What are we missing?

322

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Yes
You speak of causes and I agree with you. (There is no need to argue a conceded history.)
I speak of responsibility for policy, and either you demur, or you believe cause trumps responsibility for action or inaction.
See? What could be more clear?[/quote]

No, I believe cause determines responsibility, because it does. I am only responsible for the failures and problems that I cause…[/quote]

But you were not sworn in as President in January 2009. When Obama was sworn in as President, he accepted responsibility for all the policies and actions and omissions of his administration. Responsibility is not as you have defined it; it is a legal and political reality.
Every president inherits the good and bad from the previous. Obama–in his own words–accepted an Iraq from which American troops had negotiated an exit, an Iraq at “peace” with a stable government.
He is responsible for the United States’ policy failures that have led to the current mess. Every responsible commentator sees that he feebly tried to do something for security beyond 2011 and failed. Bush–who may have set the stage, bad and good and bad–cannot be responsible for Obama’s actions, only Obama is.

I am being repetitive. I’ll pause here until some other factoid arises.

323

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.
[/quote]

For the 3rd time,

“If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations.”

What part of diplomacy 1 0’fucking 1 don’t you understand?

324

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.
[/quote]

For the 3rd time,

“If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations.”

What part of diplomacy 1 0’fucking 1 don’t you understand?
[/quote]

Please cite the international law to which the United States is signatory, which would require it to adhere to the SOFA agreement.

325

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.
[/quote]

For the 3rd time,

“If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations.”

What part of diplomacy 1 0’fucking 1 don’t you understand?
[/quote]

Please cite the international law to which the United States is signatory, which would require it to adhere to the SOFA agreement.
[/quote]

Beat me to it, SM.

Bismark: Our “foreign relations” is pretty damaged already, thanks to Obama letting Putin treat him like a little bitch (among other things too countless to mention here). Also, WE HAVE THE GUNS. WE HAVE THE BOMBS. We HAD the troops ON THE GROUND. What the fuck could that little dysfunctional Iraqi gov’t have done about it even if they wanted to? Protest? We could have just trumped up some bullshit charges and hung Maliki. Just like we did with Sadaam when he didn’t do what we wanted. That’s the only thing these fucking religious fanatics respond to. Superior fire power and brutality. You say that’s harsh? THEY ARE FINE WITH STONING WOMEN IN THE STREET… That’s their mind set, way of life and fits in just fine with their world view cuz their little book says so. You can’t deal with people who are THAT fucking retarded with “normal” diplomatic relations! There’s no “civil discourse” here! They aren’t CAPABLE of that. You have to come down to THEIR level and communicate in a way that gets through their thick skulls: beat their fucking brains in until they submit.

ISIS understands this. What’s the first thing they did when they took Tikrit? They publicly EXECUTED a bunch of people! You don’t see anyone blowing THEM up now, do you? That’s because they are there to WIN…

And YOU ask ME about what part of “diplomacy 101” I don’t understand? What fucking part of “diplomacy 101” hasn’t the United States government understood since WWII?

Politicians and MEDIA are the reason we cant seem to win a fucking war anymore. Since when is “losing” the “right” way to do battle? THAT fact alone is what damages our foreign relations. The whole world KNOWS that we are afraid to put any American soldiers in harms way, we are afraid to do what it takes to WIN, we are afraid to make key strategic moves too close to an election cycle, we are afraid to inflict too much “collateral damage”… WE ARE AFRAID…

And our enemies know this, so they attack us in unconventional ways to make us MORE afraid. To cause our fear to turn us into the quivering sheep we have become. Giving up our basic freedoms in the name of “protecting us”… They have a FAR greater understanding of strategy than we do, that’s for sure. Our foreign policy is like a six year old with ADD trying to play chess with an old man - every few years we change our mind and go a different direction. Look at the CONTINUITY that Putin has given Russia. Look at the CONTINUITY that China’s policies have given them and their economic dominance and growth. It’s called having a long term plan and sticking to it. But that’s not what we do. We blow about in the wind blaming the other side for fucking it up and throwing money at problems that aren’t even the right problems.

In other words, WE SUCK at “diplomacy 101”, so why are you calling ME out on it? Cuz MY ideas would allow us to actually WIN? And god forbid if we actually WIN… That could make the losers feel bad. Don’t worry: I’m sure we could pay China to manufacture a few million trophies to hand out to the losers so they can feel special too. That would be the “diplomatic” thing to do, right? Bunch of fucking pussys…

326

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Every responsible commentator sees that he feebly tried to do something for security beyond 2011 and failed. Bush–who may have set the stage, bad and good and bad–cannot be responsible for Obama’s actions, only Obama is.

I am being repetitive. I’ll pause here until some other factoid arises.

[/quote]

Before you pause, please acknowledge this poor, simple point that’s for some unknowable reason failed to catch your attention: Bush, also, feebly tried to do something for security beyond 2011 and failed.

Same failure. Same responsibility for same failure. (It’s just that, for Bush, to this relatively understandable failure in Iraq are added the not-relatively-understandable, biblical fuck-ups in Iraq that preceded it.)

So: Same failure. Same responsibility. Yes?

327

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.
[/quote]

For the 3rd time,

“If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations.”

What part of diplomacy 1 0’fucking 1 don’t you understand?
[/quote]

Please cite the international law to which the United States is signatory, which would require it to adhere to the SOFA agreement.
[/quote]

Come on.

I expect people who don’t well understand foreign affairs to suggest things like “let’s just violate the SOFA” and “I’ll tell China to go fuck themselves,” but I don’t expect you to.

Jurisdiction, the legitimacy of the Maliki government we ourselves had propped up, the legitimacy of other agreements with the Iraqis. Simply ignoring the SOFA would have been a disaster far greater than having to send more guys in years later to deal with ISIS, and it would have plastered American news with images of American soldiers being tried before juries of their Iraqi peers.

328

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And that’s another thing, SMH, Iraq has drained the right of political capital. And badly marred the label “conservatism.”
[/quote]

Indeed it has. And this poses a problem for people like me, who want a business-minded Republican to come in and do unsexy things like think about numbers and taxes and unfunded liabilities. Also reign in the IRS and the NSA. Roll back some of Obama’s affronts to 1A rights, particularly religious liberty.

But that won’t happen if the right continues in its silly self-delusion on the subject of very recent history. The masochistic self-contortion–the simple bad argumentation–on display in this thread is appalling, particularly when you consider the indisputable intelligence from which much of it is issuing. And it isn’t just hereabouts: Even Krauthammer can’t be all that stupid (shameless perfidy aside), and yet he has written a column on the subject of Bush-Obama-Iraq that was more easily torn to pieces–less logically and evidentially supportable–than the average PWI post.

All this serves to invite the truly dangerous idiots and assholes, the Cheneys and McCains, back to the party. Back into positions of favor and influence. And, my serious distaste for Hillary aside, I’ll be smiling in November 2016 when she beats the party of history denial and hawkishness and outright stupidity, if the GOP allows itself to lapse back into that.

329

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.
[/quote]

For the 3rd time,

“If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations.”

What part of diplomacy 1 0’fucking 1 don’t you understand?
[/quote]

Please cite the international law to which the United States is signatory, which would require it to adhere to the SOFA agreement.
[/quote]

Come on.

I expect people who don’t well understand foreign affairs to suggest things like “let’s just violate the SOFA” and “I’ll tell China to go fuck themselves,” but I don’t expect you to.

Jurisdiction, the legitimacy of the Maliki government we ourselves had propped up, the legitimacy of other agreements with the Iraqis. Simply ignoring the SOFA would have been a disaster far greater than having to send more guys in years later to deal with ISIS, and it would have plastered American news with images of American soldiers being tried before juries of their Iraqi peers.[/quote]

If his predecessor was able to manufacture a casus belli for the invasion and occupation, it would not have been too difficult for Obama to find his way around SOFA.

330

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
We could have just trumped up some bullshit charges and hung Maliki. [/quote]

or just pay someone to throw a shoe at him. j/k

331

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
…[/quote]

Great post btw.

332

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And that’s another thing, SMH, Iraq has drained the right of political capital. And badly marred the label “conservatism.”
[/quote]

Indeed it has. And this poses a problem for people like me, who want a business-minded Republican to come in and do unsexy things like think about numbers and taxes and unfunded liabilities. Also reign in the IRS and the NSA. Roll back some of Obama’s affronts to 1A rights, particularly religious liberty.

But that won’t happen if the right continues in its silly self-delusion on the subject of very recent history. The masochistic self-contortion–the simple bad argumentation–on display in this thread is appalling, particularly when you consider the indisputable intelligence from which much of it is issuing. And it isn’t just hereabouts: Even Krauthammer can’t be all that stupid (shameless perfidy aside), and yet he has written a column on the subject of Bush-Obama-Iraq that was more easily torn to pieces–less logically and evidentially supportable–than the average PWI post.

All this serves to invite the truly dangerous idiots and assholes, the Cheneys and McCains, back to the party. Back into positions of favor and influence. And, my serious distaste for Hillary aside, I’ll be smiling in November 2016 when she beats the party of history denial and hawkishness and outright stupidity, if the GOP allows itself to lapse back into that.[/quote]

I’m with you, smh…

I think we are already seeing “hints” of 2016 already.

The GOP will be so focused on 1) putting the “Death Nail” to Obama 2) trying to “tie” the DEM nominee to him 3) putting all kinds of “social” issues to the forefront (I get it, Sloth…!) and 4) marginalizing large segments of the population, that they will almost “elect” a DEM for President on their own.

I would also like to see a “business-minded Republican to come in and do unsexy things like think about numbers and taxes and unfunded liabilities. Also reign in the IRS and the NSA”…but it won’t happen.

They wouldn’t make it through the GOP Primary.

Mufasa

333

http://news.sky.com/story/1286443/iraq-shia-cleric-issues-threat-to-us-forces

Moqtada al Sadr has warned that the 300 US military advisers en route to Iraq will be attacked.

This situation reminds me of Mogadishu - Not enough men, not enough support, in hostile territory with no clear plan, without the political will to do what needs to be done. Imagine how many Gitmo prisoners they can get back if they manage to capture some more of our guys. The LEADER of ISIS, Abu Bakr, was in Gitmo and released in 2009 (under Obama’s watch). I’m sure they thought he was no threat at the time…

Keep in mind they have captured our TANKS, at least one Black Hawk helicopter and are estimated to have a 2 BILLION dollar war chest… “but 300 guys ought to do it”…

300? Really? Sorry, but that movie title’s been taken already. But it’s ALL Bush’s fault, right?

334

Christ, it’s Lebanon all over again. Can they have bullets in their guns this time? Please?

335

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If his predecessor was able to manufacture a casus belli for the invasion and occupation…[/quote]

…To near-ineffably disastrous effect.

I have a distinct respect for people hesitant to take a page out of certain books: How To Waste Thousands of American lives, How To Mishandle Trillion-Dollar Wars, How To Fake Your Way Through A Justification For War As Though It’s A Fucking Grade-School Book Report, How To Make Damn Sure Your Party Sits Out The Next 2-4 Presidential Elections.

But just out of morbid curiosity, what, specifically, are you proposing that Obama could have done to “find his way around the SOFA?” And how would the Iraqi government and courts have responded? And where would that have left relations with the Maliki government we had just finished propping up? And how would other U.S. diplomatic efforts have been affected? And, considering the answers to the previous questions, what adviser would suggest reneging on the SOFA without a replacement? What president would consent to such a proposition?

336

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If his predecessor was able to manufacture a casus belli for the invasion and occupation…[/quote]

…To near-ineffably disastrous effect.

I have a distinct respect for people hesitant to take a page out of certain books: How To Waste Thousands of American lives, How To Mishandle Trillion-Dollar Wars, How To Fake Your Way Through A Justification For War As Though It’s A Fucking Grade-School Book Report, How To Make Damn Sure Your Party Sits Out The Next 2-4 Presidential Elections.

But just out of morbid curiosity, what, specifically, are you proposing that Obama could have done to “find his way around the SOFA?” And how would the Iraqi government and courts have responded? And where would that have left relations with the Maliki government we had just finished propping up? And how would other U.S. diplomatic efforts have been affected? And, considering the answers to the previous questions, what adviser would suggest reneging on the SOFA without a replacement? What president would consent to such a proposition?[/quote]

There are many things Obama could have done and the most obvious thing would have been to apply enormous pressure upon the Iraqis to renegotiate a new arrangement. Hell, the CIA used to “disappear” people and orchestrate coups in the third world as a matter of course.

337

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
http://news.sky.com/story/1286443/iraq-shia-cleric-issues-threat-to-us-forces

Moqtada al Sadr has warned that the 300 US military advisers en route to Iraq will be attacked.

This situation reminds me of Mogadishu - Not enough men, not enough support, in hostile territory with no clear plan, without the political will to do what needs to be done. Imagine how many Gitmo prisoners they can get back if they manage to capture some more of our guys. The LEADER of ISIS, Abu Bakr, was in Gitmo and released in 2009 (under Obama’s watch). I’m sure they thought he was no threat at the time…

Keep in mind they have captured our TANKS, at least one Black Hawk helicopter and are estimated to have a 2 BILLION dollar war chest… “but 300 guys ought to do it”…

300? Really? Sorry, but that movie title’s been taken already. But it’s ALL Bush’s fault, right?[/quote]

You can’t even begin to compare Task Force Ranger, which was tasked with conducting direct action missions, with the 300 Army Special Forces conducting foreign internal defense. To continue to attempt to do so will only demonstrate that you have fundamental misunderstandings regarding the deployment of American military forces.

338

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If his predecessor was able to manufacture a casus belli for the invasion and occupation…[/quote]

…To near-ineffably disastrous effect.

I have a distinct respect for people hesitant to take a page out of certain books: How To Waste Thousands of American lives, How To Mishandle Trillion-Dollar Wars, How To Fake Your Way Through A Justification For War As Though It’s A Fucking Grade-School Book Report, How To Make Damn Sure Your Party Sits Out The Next 2-4 Presidential Elections.

But just out of morbid curiosity, what, specifically, are you proposing that Obama could have done to “find his way around the SOFA?” And how would the Iraqi government and courts have responded? And where would that have left relations with the Maliki government we had just finished propping up? And how would other U.S. diplomatic efforts have been affected? And, considering the answers to the previous questions, what adviser would suggest reneging on the SOFA without a replacement? What president would consent to such a proposition?[/quote]

There are many things Obama could have done and the most obvious thing would have been to apply enormous pressure upon the Iraqis to renegotiate a new arrangement. Hell, the CIA used to “disappear” people and orchestrate coups in the third world as a matter of course.
[/quote]

Yes Iraqis, you can elect your own leaders and be a sovereign state, as long as it coincides with our interests. After that, we will ignore the legitimacy of your domestic political institutions and assassinate stubborn leaders when they cry foul. Do democratic principles end at the water’ s edge? Your conception of America is surely a shining city on the hill.

339

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If his predecessor was able to manufacture a casus belli for the invasion and occupation…[/quote]

…To near-ineffably disastrous effect.

I have a distinct respect for people hesitant to take a page out of certain books: How To Waste Thousands of American lives, How To Mishandle Trillion-Dollar Wars, How To Fake Your Way Through A Justification For War As Though It’s A Fucking Grade-School Book Report, How To Make Damn Sure Your Party Sits Out The Next 2-4 Presidential Elections.

But just out of morbid curiosity, what, specifically, are you proposing that Obama could have done to “find his way around the SOFA?” And how would the Iraqi government and courts have responded? And where would that have left relations with the Maliki government we had just finished propping up? And how would other U.S. diplomatic efforts have been affected? And, considering the answers to the previous questions, what adviser would suggest reneging on the SOFA without a replacement? What president would consent to such a proposition?[/quote]

There are many things Obama could have done and the most obvious thing would have been to apply enormous pressure upon the Iraqis to renegotiate a new arrangement. Hell, the CIA used to “disappear” people and orchestrate coups in the third world as a matter of course.
[/quote]

Yes Iraqis, you can elect your own leaders and be a sovereign state, as long as it coincides with our interests. After that, we will ignore the legitimacy of your domestic political institutions and assassinate stubborn leaders when they cry foul. Do democratic principles end at the water’ s edge? Your conception of America is surely a shining city on the hill.[/quote]

I wasn’t advocating assassinations. My point was that renegotiating terms or getting around SOFA would’ve been a trifle compared to what previous administrations have pulled off.

340

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If his predecessor was able to manufacture a casus belli for the invasion and occupation…[/quote]

…To near-ineffably disastrous effect.

I have a distinct respect for people hesitant to take a page out of certain books: How To Waste Thousands of American lives, How To Mishandle Trillion-Dollar Wars, How To Fake Your Way Through A Justification For War As Though It’s A Fucking Grade-School Book Report, How To Make Damn Sure Your Party Sits Out The Next 2-4 Presidential Elections.

But just out of morbid curiosity, what, specifically, are you proposing that Obama could have done to “find his way around the SOFA?” And how would the Iraqi government and courts have responded? And where would that have left relations with the Maliki government we had just finished propping up? And how would other U.S. diplomatic efforts have been affected? And, considering the answers to the previous questions, what adviser would suggest reneging on the SOFA without a replacement? What president would consent to such a proposition?[/quote]

There are many things Obama could have done and the most obvious thing would have been to apply enormous pressure upon the Iraqis to renegotiate a new arrangement.[/quote]

And Bush could have done the same, when he wanted a remnant security force and failed to include language to that effect in his SOFA. Yes?

Indeed. See Bis’ response.