Evacuating US embassy in Iraq

[Mustang]

As Al Qaeda close in on Baghdad, a thought came to me. Why is it that the success of the Obama foreign policy seems to hinge on whether or not he can evacuate embassys around the world in time before becoming overrun by terrorists?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/world/middleeast/embassy.html?_r=1

Let me see if I've got this straight. One of the complaints about BEHGHAZI is that Obama didn't do enough to protect American personnel up to, and including, evacuation, right? Now erring on the side of caution is a sign of weakness or failure?

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

That completely misses the point

Not only does it NOT miss the point, it IS the point.

Conservatives have adopted a political version of the Stupor Duck mode of crime fighting. You see, everywhere Stupor Duck looked, he saw evidence of master criminal/terrorist Aardvark Ratnik's activities. The only problem was that these events were not only NOT being committed by Ratnik, they were essentially benign events that Stupor Duck was misinterpreting simply because he had tunnel vision. He saw ALL events through the prism of his preconceived ideas.

Here's how it works (as if I have to explain it). Conservatives start with a conclusion: Obama is BAD, or incompetent, or corrupt, etc. Then, any event that happens can be interpreted in such a way that leads you to the conclusion. That was abundantly obvious in the whole Libya uprising situation two or three years ago when conservatives first belittled Obama for not getting involved in a matter of such long term significance. Then, once Obama did get involved, they criticized him for getting the US into a conflict that was not in our national interest, AND putting American troops in harms way. THEN, when it was pointed out to them that American troops were not directly involved in hostilities and America was only providing logistical support, THEN they criticized Obama for not taking a leadership role. See how that works?

The POINT, Kaz, is that it didn't matter what President Obama did or didn't do. That was secondary because criticism would have been forthcoming from conservatives REGARDLESS of what Obama did.

This is the conservative MO in all things. Therefore, it makes a mockery out of conservative criticism in general because it ALL seems feigned.

 

[kaz]

The POINT, Kaz, is that it didn't matter what President Obama did or didn't do. That was secondary because criticism would have been forthcoming from conservatives REGARDLESS of what Obama did.

LOL, a Democrat in the Post W era saying this is too ridiculous to take seriously. Most conservatives support conservative values, they just don't come from the Democratic party at all anymore. That is not the same as saying if they did, they still wouldn't support it. You have no idea since they are not.

 

[KNB]

You are a fool. Today children died. I have not put in this many years to try to prevent children from dying.

Its not a win win when children die.

Someone should have said that to this guy:

 

[Mustang]

The POINT, Kaz, is that it didn't matter what President Obama did or didn't do. That was secondary because criticism would have been forthcoming from conservatives REGARDLESS of what Obama did.

LOL, a Democrat in the Post W era saying this is too ridiculous to take seriously. Most conservatives support conservative values, they just don't come from the Democratic party at all anymore. That is not the same as saying if they did, they still wouldn't support it. You have no idea since they are not.

Let's take those one at a time.

First of all, I'm NOT a Democrat. I've never been a member of any political party, and I have no intention of ever joining one, PERIOD.

Two, so-called conservative values or principles are highly malleable. They change for plenty of reasons, including the political winds with what is and is not popular. But conservatives also turn against their own ideas when it gets political traction with the opposition. The so-called individual mandate is proof of that.

Lastly, as far as W is/was concerned, I was never a fan, but I didn't have a major problem with him as president until he cooked up the idea that going into Iraq was in our national interest when I clearly understood what a debacle it would really be. I certainly didn't believe that Saddam was a threat to the USA even if he DID have mustard gas or some other form of chemical warfare. Hell, he couldn't even shoot down one of our planes over his own territory. How's he going to threaten Americans in America? And I DAMN sure didn't believe he had nukes or was even remotely close to acquiring them. In fact, I have serious doubts that ANYONE in the Bush administration really believed that Saddam was a threat to America, regardless of what they said publicly about mushroom clouds and all that other nonsense.

So, once Bush committed the USA to take out the man who once tried to kill his own daddy, I never trusted anything the man said again. Still don't. Obama, for all his faults, has never crossed that kind of line.

 

[Indofred]

I have seen many foreign embassies, in several countries; most have noteworthy security.
US embassies are by far the most secure.
They have to be because America is such a bastard of a cuntry, killing more innocents than the rest of the world put together.
Wake up America - your idiotic foreign policies are painting a target on every American.

 

[jon_berzerk]

As Al Qaeda close in on Baghdad, a thought came to me. Why is it that the success of the Obama foreign policy seems to hinge on whether or not he can evacuate embassys around the world in time before becoming overrun by terrorists?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/world/middleeast/embassy.html?_r=1

turns out it is not an evacuation

but rather a temporary relocation

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIEwT1772ZY]Jen Psaki Baghdad Embassy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Plasmaball]

1700 prisoners mass murdered by ISIS and tweeted photos make the news today. I hope Obama had a good golf game while that happened.

you want a tissue you little pussy. You wanted to go into Iraq, and this is what you get. We warned you on h***** this would happen. you ignored us and called us anti-american troop haters.

 

[Mustang]

1700 prisoners mass murdered by ISIS and tweeted photos make the news today. I hope Obama had a good golf game while that happened.

Yeah, like you give a damn about any of them...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama's foreign policy options are limited by the bush failures in the ME.

Hey Jake lets go back to the League of Mother Trucking Nations buddy.

I'm game.

We could, buddy, go back to Abel and Cain if we want.

Bush failed because he never could have succeeded as you well know.

And BHO was a fool to even try to play the Bush game.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama's foreign policy options are limited by the bush failures in the ME.

Dem Talking Point #1:

Obama Fucked Up, therefore Booooooooooooooooooooooosh!!

Get it right. Because Bush fucked up, therefore Obama fucked up.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Two Step Plan:

1. Get the fuck out of there

2. Leave a sign on the embassy door with a little clock on it that says: "Back when you get your shit together"

.

 

[Iceweasel]

For the Bush blamers, Iraq was pretty much under control by the time he left office. The situation has deteriorated rapidly and predictably so. The decision to get out early was purely political and it's a lesson we have learned before.

 

[Plasmaball]

For the Bush blamers, Iraq was pretty much under control by the time he left office. The situation has deteriorated rapidly and predictably so. The decision to get out early was purely political and it's a lesson we have learned before.

the choice to get out was made by the Iraqis and Bush signed it.

Fact

 

[1776]

"It's Bush's fault....that Boko Haram is running wild in Nigeria, AQIM is running wild in Libya, ISIS is running wild in Iraq, blah, blah, blah."

 

[kaz]

First of all, I'm NOT a Democrat. I've never been a member of any political party, and I have no intention of ever joining one, PERIOD.

It's funny how the harder left Democrat liberals are always the ones who aren't Democrats.

Lastly, as far as W is/was concerned, I was never a fan, but I didn't have a major problem with him as president until he cooked up the idea that going into Iraq was in our national interest when I clearly understood what a debacle it would really be

I thought W sucked, and it's because he is a tax and spend liberal. And then he got us in war after war, including Iraq, which I oppose. However, I didn't decide like you to take what two parties did hand in hand and blame one of them for it, I blame them both because they both did it.

 

[Mustang]

For the Bush blamers, Iraq was pretty much under control by the time he left office. The situation has deteriorated rapidly and predictably so. The decision to get out early was purely political and it's a lesson we have learned before.

Under control?

Iraq is a country with artificial boundaries drawn up by colonial powers. That means that Iraqis don't even really see themselves as a cohesive unit like Texans view themselves as Texans while New Yorkers view themselves as New Yorkers. It's a cauldron of competing religious and tribal rivalries which goes back hundreds of years.

Add to that the fact that Iraq has nothing resembling a recent history of liberal institutions which generally respect the rights of other people and other groups. Instead, it has a history of brutal suppression and murder and the kind of subsequent reprisals which lead to vendettas and blood oaths. You think that just disappears overnight? Guess again!

Now, if you think a temporary lull in the violence (a decrease in the violence, really) in this kind of historical environment can be considered a country that's "under control," then you have little understanding how those people have lived for decades under a brutal dictator who has essentially repressed all those religious and tribal rivalries which have now reared their ugly heads.

Take a look at Rwanda and Serbia if you want an answer to the question of whether these groups are willing to work with each other in a liberal democracy.

With all that said, what basically happened in 2003 is that Bush ripped the bandage off the wound where a scab had formed. In other words, OUR country set all those competing forces loose once Saddam was gone from keeping a lid on things. That means that we were the match which set it all aflame. You're fooling yourself it you think a temporary respite in the violence meant anything other than just that. The truth is that when all is said and done, it wouldn't matter who was president or which political party was in power in America because those people, and ESPECIALLY those competing groups, are going to duke it out with one another one way or the other. That means they'll do it if we've pulled out, and they'll do it if we still have a military presence there. It's going to happen, period.

Deal with it!

 

[Siete]

For the Bush blamers, Iraq was pretty much under control by the time he left office. The situation has deteriorated rapidly and predictably so. The decision to get out early was purely political and it's a lesson we have learned before.

you have Iraq confused with Afghanistan.


the only control in Iraq boiled down to the amount of purple ink they got for their thumb on election day ..

 

[Iceweasel]

For the Bush blamers, Iraq was pretty much under control by the time he left office. The situation has deteriorated rapidly and predictably so. The decision to get out early was purely political and it's a lesson we have learned before.

the choice to get out was made by the Iraqis and Bush signed it.

Fact

Yes, because like I said it was doing pretty good at the time. It went downhill and we should have made adjustments one way or another.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"It's Bush's fault....that Boko Haram is running wild in Nigeria, AQIM is running wild in Libya, ISIS is running wild in Iraq, blah, blah, blah."

now it is reported that ISIS shot down an Iraqi helicopter

with a US stinger missile

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama's foreign policy options are limited by the bush failures in the ME.

Dem Talking Point #1:

Obama Fucked Up, therefore Booooooooooooooooooooooosh!!

Get it right. Because Bush fucked up, therefore Obama fucked up.

Obama the powerless

How sad

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk