Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Statistikhengst, Mar 9, 2015.

  1. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    22,868
    Thanks Received:
    5,167
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +14,822
    No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

    But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: Claim that President Obama had no choice about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and blame Bush.

    The three problematic claims: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush

    These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.”

    The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.

    And Hayes’s third point, that the Bush administration signed the status-of-forces agreement that included U.S. troops’ leaving at the end of 2011, is utterly meaningless: The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated
     
  2. Dot Com
    Offline

    Dot Com Nullius in verba

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    52,848
    Thanks Received:
    7,758
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Fairfax, NoVA
    Ratings:
    +18,107
    The Cotton 47 make Iranians look like life-long friends in comparison. Repubs :(
     
  3. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    eagl 11241194
    This is an idiot's argument. There is no 'supposed to be' when it comes to negotiating a withdrawal agreement in 2008 with the Iraqis who wanted US troops gone, otherwise there would have been no need for hard negotiations in the first place. Relying on 'supposed to be renegotiated' three years out is about as stupid as one can get because it assumes that the Iraqis would be willing to negotiate after being told they were ready to provide security for their "SOVEREIGN" nation in 2008. And through 2011 it appeared on the surface that Iraq was able to provide for their own security. Why would they agree to grant US troops immunity when they did not believe they needed US troops anyway?
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2015
  4. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    eagl 11241194
    There is no 'blaming Bush' .... You are making that part up. Signing the deal in 2008 was about the only thing Bush did right with regard to Iraq for five years. Obama had no choice because the Iraqis would not grant immunity. That is just a fact. No need to blame Bush when expressing a fact that cannot be denied by Bush lovers desperate to somehow make sense out of Bush's dumb and needless and absurd invasion of Iraq to find WMD that were not there.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2015
  5. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    eagl 11241194
    There's another false argument from you eagle1. The Maliki government would let American troops stay,. they just would not grant them immunity.

    And according to Obama hater Vigilante, he cited a report that Obama wanted to keep 10,000 Troops in Iraq. So which is it eagle1? Do Obama haters accuse Obama of wanting to keep 10,000 troops or do Obama haters accuse Obama of wanting to keep no troops?
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2015
  6. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    eagl 11241194
    Maliki could have been willing to jump over the moon if it could keep US troops in Iraq...However (A) It would not pass in Iraq's legislature and an immunity deal could not be set in lraqi law without that. (B) It was Maliki who in December 2007 wrote a letter to the UN demanding that US troops had to be put on a timeline by 2008 to withdraw which forced Bush into "DESPERATE" negotiations in 2008 where Bush was fortunately forced to surrender to a three year deal and no permanent US bases were to be accepted in Iraq.
     
  7. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    NF 11223711

    You said "BUT" when Bush left office Iraq was intact. But it most certainly was not. You yourself have admitted that the civil war in Iraq was still going on when Bush left office. So straightening you out on the fact that Iraq was not 'intact' as far as violence being sufficiently contained by January 2009 is not a "BUT BUSH" argument. It is an argument against your entirely false and unsupportable claim that when Bush left office Iraq was intact.
     
  8. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    eagl 11241194
    Was it written into the agreement? Also was it written that whatever level of troops negotiated to remain after 2011 were to be granted the same immunity that was part of the 2008 agreement? If not you have no case.
     
  9. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    We did not withdraw from the region? Kuwait is not that far from Iraq. The toughest sanctions on Iran ever came in 2010 because of pressure from Obama on the EU. Where did we withdraw when the host government wanted us to stay? I know of no place.

    UN Sanctions Against Iran
     
  10. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,564
    Thanks Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    eagl 11223763
    Can you cite any legal, moral
    situational or practical means whereby a US President has the responsibility for the outcome of a vote or pending vote in a foreign government's legislative body?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

7 republican senators who did not sign letter to iran

,
7 republican senators did not sign iran letter
,

content

,
did richard burr sign iran letter
,
did the republicans send a letter to north korea yet
,
gop senators that did not sign letter to iraq
,

gop sends message to iran

,

names of senators sending letter to iran leader

,
names of us congress who supported sending a letter to iran
,
republican senstors who did not sign cotton letter
,
which republican senators did not sign letter to iran
,
which senators didnt sign letter to iran