Bagdad Falling

angry_chicken · June 22, 2014, 4:31pm

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Your response to people’s arguments merely consist of ,<<>> , <<< takes small portion of post and says, “stop arguing, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of XXXXXX” >>> LMAO you’re like a fucking parrot repeating himself. Tell me what else I fundamentally misunderstand. I mean shit, ENLIGHTEN US. Or, you could make a fucking counterpoint instead. Make a statement instead of just telling people they are wrong and should stop talking. This isn’t YOUR forum - I’ll say whatever the fuck I want.

Let me ask you this: do YOU think deploying 300 unsupported men is a good idea?

angry_chicken · June 22, 2014, 4:36pm

[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]

Yes, democratic principles DO end at the water’s edge. These people can’t handle democracy. Hell, WE can barely handle democracy. Why do we keep pretending that democracy (or a democratic republic) is a “one size, fit’s all” form of government? It’s clearly NOT. In order for it to work, THE PEOPLE HAVE TO WANT IT ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR IT.

SexMachine · June 22, 2014, 4:39pm

It was signed two weeks before he left office. He had no time to renegotiate anything.

smh_23 · June 22, 2014, 5:43pm

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It was signed two weeks before he left office. He had no time to renegotiate anything.[/quote]

No, the language belonged in the original SOFA, which he had years to negotiate. He wanted it in the original SOFA, and it should have been there. He shouldn’t have RE-negotiated an enduring American presence, he should have negotiated an enduring American presence. He tried to, and failed.

So, same failure, yes?

Gkhan · June 22, 2014, 5:41pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
THE PEOPLE HAVE TO WANT IT ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR IT.[/quote]

which explains why the Iraqi security forces dropped their weapons and ran or surrendered.

And another thing. Why do people dismiss Isis as “only a few thousand” terrorists? What? Are Mosul, Tikrit, Baquba, & Baiji ghost towns? No one living there? Don’t people conceive that Isis will recruit followers from these cities? Hell Mosul has over a million people living there. But no worries, Isis is only a few thousand terrorists. Stopping them will be a cakewalk.

pat · June 22, 2014, 6:00pm

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

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. [/quote]

Ding ding ding. Thank you.

Plus, U.S. soldiers would have begun seeing their day in Iraqi courts.

This is what I mean when I say that I try to stay away from IR discussion hereabouts. You find yourself rehashing the most basic points about diplomacy.[/quote]

Care to address the above Pat?[/quote]

Who said anything about violating the SOFA? There were a plethora of other perfectly legal actions obama could have taken including but not limited to ending the SOFA, creating a new SOFA, etc. The SOFA’s are not carved in stone. They can be nullified, amended and renegotiated perfectly legally. It says so in the SOFA.

So the idea that the SOFA was so binding that obama had no options. That’s bunk. He had options and the situation on the ground warranted changes and different actions.
Iraq was no ready to govern themselves. Despite what the Iraqi’s thought, we knew it and we were warned by many people in the government, especially the generals and the personnel who were on the ground.
The fact is obama ignored everybody and did what he wanted to despite the consequences. After all, he always had Bush to blame for starting the conflict in the first place. Something I presume he figured would eternally absolve him from any consequences to his actions.
Obama was not bound to take all the troops out, he wanted to and nothing was going to stop him from doing so, consequences be damned.
We now see it was a grave mistake, but he was warned.
Even us piss-ant citizens saw the handwriting on the wall. We called this exact scenario in 2011.
If we knew it, obama damn sure knew it and did nothing about it. That’s his fault, his blunder. He had options and didn’t take them.
He promised to get those troops out and by golly he did so. He says as much himself.

Only a sitting president can make decisions about troop deployment, not a former one. That’s a stubborn fact you cannot do anything about.

pat · June 22, 2014, 6:03pm

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It was signed two weeks before he left office. He had no time to renegotiate anything.[/quote]

No, the language belonged in the original SOFA, which he had years to negotiate. He wanted it in the original SOFA, and it should have been there. He shouldn’t have RE-negotiated an enduring American presence, he should have negotiated an enduring American presence. He tried to, and failed.

So, same failure, yes?[/quote]

He didn’t try hard enough. Lives are at stake, you don’t just throw your hands up and say “Fuck it”. You do what you have to do to secure what you have accomplished, so as not to put ourselves in a position where we have to go fight yet another war.

Bismark · June 22, 2014, 6:25pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Your response to people’s arguments merely consist of ,<<>> , <<< takes small portion of post and says, “stop arguing, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of XXXXXX” >>> LMAO you’re like a fucking parrot repeating himself. Tell me what else I fundamentally misunderstand. I mean shit, ENLIGHTEN US. Or, you could make a fucking counterpoint instead. Make a statement instead of just telling people they are wrong and should stop talking. This isn’t YOUR forum - I’ll say whatever the fuck I want.

Let me ask you this: do YOU think deploying 300 unsupported men is a good idea?[/quote]

You conflated the direct action oriented forces that constituted Task Force Ranger (75th Ranger regiment and Delta Force operatives) with the Army Special Forces (aka Green Berets) who will conduct foreign internal defense in Iraq. You chose to compare them to the Spartan hoplites who died delaying Persian forces at the battle of Thermopolae, which is disengenous to say the least.

Bismark · June 22, 2014, 6:13pm

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It was signed two weeks before he left office. He had no time to renegotiate anything.[/quote]

And such a monumental security agreement wasn’t in the works for nearly a year prior to that. It was surely thrust upon him.

angry_chicken · June 22, 2014, 6:26pm

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Your response to people’s arguments merely consist of ,<<>> , <<< takes small portion of post and says, “stop arguing, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of XXXXXX” >>> LMAO you’re like a fucking parrot repeating himself. Tell me what else I fundamentally misunderstand. I mean shit, ENLIGHTEN US. Or, you could make a fucking counterpoint instead. Make a statement instead of just telling people they are wrong and should stop talking. This isn’t YOUR forum - I’ll say whatever the fuck I want.

Let me ask you this: do YOU think deploying 300 unsupported men is a good idea?[/quote]

You conflated the direct action oriented forces that constitutes Task Force Ranger (75th Ranger regiment and Delta Force operatives) with the Army Special Forces (aka Green Berets) who will conduct foreign internal defense in Iraq. You chose to compare them to the Spartan hoplites who died delaying Persian forces at the battle of Thermopolae, which is disengenous to say the least.[/quote]

And you STILL didn’t answer my direct question. LOVE your style, bro. As for the Mogadishu reference, I stated the things that REMINDED me of that situation, none of which were tactical. I’ll restate them: “Not enough men, not enough support, in hostile territory with no clear plan, without the political will to do what needs to be done”. Do you disagree that ANY of that quote is UNTRUE? That’s what I was comparing, and I said so.

And of course who wouldn’t use the “300” men reference? I mean 300 GREEKS (founders of democracy) against god knows how many Persians (Iraqis)? It was not a serious comparison, it was an illustrative reference of a foolish, destined to fail mission. Which this has the potential to be if ISIS moves in and conquers Baghdad while they are there.

Any more things you’d like to attack and distract the conversation with?

DO YOU THINK DEPLOYING 300 UNDEFENDED SPECIAL FORCES TROOPS IS A GOOD IDEA?

smh_23 · June 22, 2014, 8:00pm

[quote]pat wrote:
So the idea that the SOFA was so binding that obama had no options.[/quote]

Nobody has said that. He had exactly the same two options as Bush had. Neither of the two succeeded in forcing the option that could have avoided our present situation. Thus, exactly both of them are responsible for our absence in Iraq after 2011.

The big difference being that Obama had nothing to do with orchestrating the larger clusterfuck that brought us to a situation wherein an American military presence in Iraq was necessary, and Bush had everything to do with it.

But with regard to the withdrawal, Bush and Obama both saw the need for, and failed to win, a remnant security force. Thus, my initial objections in this thread are plainly and completely vindicated.

smh_23 · June 22, 2014, 8:37pm

In this thread we have the stupidest kind of partisanship on full reeking display.

We have a situation that two presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, failed to correctly handle, to literally the exact same effect. We have two presidents with the (admittedly very difficult) opportunity, desire, and responsibility to secure a remnant American security force in Iraq–and we have both of their utter failures to that end.

And yet one of those two presidents is being condemned and singled out as the sole recipient of blame, whereas the other is being obliquely defended or at least absolved of guilt and unmentioned. Or, where the latter president is also condemned, it is only after the condemnation’s having to be beaten out of the condemner.

All this despite the fact that that latter of the presidents mentioned above, in a moment of scintillating failure, created the whole problem in the first place.

A clearer taste of bullshit and hackery is difficult to imagine.

angry_chicken · June 22, 2014, 8:29pm

FTR, I hated Bush just as much as I hate Obama. But I hate the MEDIA more because everything Bush did, they went after like a rabid dog - even if he STUTTERED. Everything Mr. Hope and Change fucks up, lies about, etc… is barely reported on. Can you deny that?

smh_23 · June 22, 2014, 8:36pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
FTR, I hated Bush just as much as I hate Obama. But I hate the MEDIA more because everything Bush did, they went after like a rabid dog - even if he STUTTERED. Everything Mr. Hope and Change fucks up, lies about, etc… is barely reported on. Can you deny that?[/quote]

I would not deny media bias under any circumstance.

As an aside, “the media” you’re referring to here entails the liberal (and, yes, far more mainstream) media. The conservative media is the other side of the same coin.

Bismark · June 22, 2014, 9:00pm