Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It isn't about dictating. It is about providing further stability.
It isn't about dictating. It is about providing further stability.
Actually, what it's about is the fact that Iraq is a sovereign nation which we can't force to do anything. Just because one Iraqi leader supported Obama's plan does not mean that that was sufficient to gain Iraq's approval. Obama didn't cave. In fact, he fought to work out a deal to keep US troops in Iraq. But immunity was a deal breaker for Obama, and rightly so.
I think many are missing the point as to why U.S. troops are leaving Iraq by December 31, 2011:
Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end
The Associated Press
Date: Fri. Oct. 21 2011
In recent months, Washington had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces.
Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee.
Moreover, Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay.
When the 2008 agreement requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq was passed, many U.S. officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that Americans could stay longer.
The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.
The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.
More: Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end - CTV News
As I understand it, Obama could have left troops in Iraq past year-end - but because Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts - Obama is pulling them out. Thank you, Mr. President.
First of all- we do have a responsibility to provide stability
if that is what Iraq wants.
Al Sad'r is a Shiite Cleric- he is the last one Obama should be acquiescing to
especially in light of the risks for upheaval and civil war
and given the fact that Maliki wanted us to stay for these reasons.
I don't see how anyone could say Obama is lying or accepting undue praise. He had a choice to make - and he made it.
First of all- we do have a responsibility to provide stability
No, we don't. How is it that people think we have a responsibility to do for other countries but not our own?
if that is what Iraq wants.
Apparently, they don't want it anyway.
This is what most of you are not getting. This isn't about what Obama decided so much as what IRAQ decided. Iraq refused to extend immunity to US troops. It is because of that reason that Obama decided we must withdraw our troops. And he's right to do it. There's no reason we should leave our troops in Iraq if it will potentially expose them to legal troubles there.
especially in light of the risks for upheaval and civil war
That is Iraq's problem, not ours. They made their decision.
and given the fact that Maliki wanted us to stay for these reasons.
Obama has a singular, and very reasonable, request. To extend immunity to US troops. It was a necessary request. Indeed, the people who are bitching that Obama is wrong would have been in even a bigger uproar if Obama didn't stand up for our troops on this. If Maliki wants us to keep our troops there than it was HIS job to secure support within HIS government to grant Obama's request. But since he couldn't do that, I don't give a care what he wants or what his reasons are.
