Trump surrenders to the Taliban

[BlindBoo]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

well again, it is the acceptance of the jewish people that is of issue with the arabs. how sweet you spin it to be the acceptance of the arabs. So little bitty Isreal sits in between five countries inhabited by arabs, who hate their fking guts so much they don't care about civilian casualties. And it's the US that is the issue after WWII. Got it.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

The section on Israel and the Arabs begins on page 6.

 

[jc456]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

well again, it is the acceptance of the jewish people that is of issue with the arabs. how sweet you spin it to be the acceptance of the arabs. So little bitty Isreal sits in between five countries inhabited by arabs, who hate their fking guts so much they don't care about civilian casualties. And it's the US that is the issue after WWII. Got it.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

The section on Israel and the Arabs begins on page 6.

yeah, quote the part you think is relevant to my point?

BTW, thanks for explaining your short comings. the music was good.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

Obama lied to the American people when he told the American people he was pulling our troops out of Iraq because Iraq no longer needed us and now you are telling another lie when you claim he was just following the Status of Forces Agreement. The SoFA allowed that US troops could stay if the PM, Maliki, said conditions were not right for a withdrawal and when Maliki actually said that, Obama ignored the SoFA and said he would only stay if the Parliament, which was controlled by Iran at that time, asked him to.

The Pentagon had told Obama that if he pulled out, the country would go up in flames, but Obama was only interested in being reelected, no matter what the cost, so he lied to the American people and told us Iraq no longer needed our help. He knew full well the devastation this move would cause, he knew full well he was handing Iraq over to Iran, but he cared nothing about anything but being reelected. Apparently that's the way you think, too.

 

[jc456]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

Obama lied to the American people when he told the American people he was pulling our troops out of Iraq because Iraq no longer needed us and now you are telling another lie when you claim he was just following the Status of Forces Agreement. The SoFA allowed that US troops could stay if the PM, Maliki, said

Demonstrably false. There is no provision in the SOFA that President Bush signed that gives that power to the PM.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/11/25/17/SOFA-official.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf

He knew full well the devastation this move would cause, he knew full well he was handing Iraq over to Iran

The PM was a Shiite as were most of the elected representatives. It wasn't Obama that let that happen.

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama lied to the American people when he told the American people he was pulling our troops out of Iraq because Iraq no longer needed us and now you are telling another lie when you claim he was just following the Status of Forces Agreement. The SoFA allowed that US troops could stay if the PM, Maliki, said

Demonstrably false. There is no provision in the SOFA that President Bush signed that gives that power to the PM.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/11/25/17/SOFA-official.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf

he knew full well he was handing Iraq over to Iran, but he cared nothing about anything but being reelected.

The PM was a Shiite as were most of the elected representatives. It wasn't Obama that let that happen.

 

[jc456]

Obama lied to the American people when he told the American people he was pulling our troops out of Iraq because Iraq no longer needed us and now you are telling another lie when you claim he was just following the Status of Forces Agreement. The SoFA allowed that US troops could stay if the PM, Maliki, said

Demonstrably false. There is no provision in the SOFA that President Bush signed that gives that power to the PM.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/11/25/17/SOFA-official.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf

he knew full well he was handing Iraq over to Iran, but he cared nothing about anything but being reelected.

The PM was a Shiite as were most of the elected representatives. It wasn't Obama that let that happen.

did he remove the troops? if he did, then he was the problem. son, no matter what you say you're wrong if you don't agree obammy should have questioned the UN again.

 

[BlindBoo]

Demonstrably false. There is no provision in the SOFA that President Bush signed that gives that power to the PM.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/11/25/17/SOFA-official.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf

The PM was a Shiite as were most of the elected representatives. It wasn't Obama that let that happen.

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

 

[jc456]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

bush was gone. An expectation is for a reevaluation of the country. it wasn't done a complete failure. i love it when you scape goat your guy and manhandle mine. keep your hands off.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Demonstrably false. There is no provision in the SOFA that President Bush signed that gives that power to the PM.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/11/25/17/SOFA-official.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf

The PM was a Shiite as were most of the elected representatives. It wasn't Obama that let that happen.

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Obama lied to the American people when he told the American people he was pulling our troops out of Iraq because Iraq no longer needed us and now you are telling another lie when you claim he was just following the Status of Forces Agreement. The SoFA allowed that US troops could stay if the PM, Maliki, said

Demonstrably false. There is no provision in the SOFA that President Bush signed that gives that power to the PM.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/11/25/17/SOFA-official.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf

he knew full well he was handing Iraq over to Iran, but he cared nothing about anything but being reelected.

The PM was a Shiite as were most of the elected representatives. It wasn't Obama that let that happen.

You continue to lie.

Article 27 paragraph 1 gives explicit power to the PM to request the US to remain. Maliki asked Obama to stay but Obama refused because he believed it would be bad for his reelection campaign.

 

[toomuchtime_]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

 

[BlindBoo]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

bush was gone. An expectation is for a reevaluation of the country. it wasn't done a complete failure. i love it when you scape goat your guy and manhandle mine. keep your hands off.

There was no provision in the document President Bush signed for any re-evaluation period. Why didn't President Bush get a residual force in the SOFA? There must have been a reason he couldn't get the job done in the first place, right?

 

[jc456]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

bush was gone. An expectation is for a reevaluation of the country. it wasn't done a complete failure. i love it when you scape goat your guy and manhandle mine. keep your hands off.

There was no provision in the document President Bush signed for any re-evaluation period. Why didn't President Bush get a residual force in the SOFA? There must have been a reason he couldn't get the job done in the first place, right?

still scape goating, no class dude.

 

[toomuchtime_]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

bush was gone. An expectation is for a reevaluation of the country. it wasn't done a complete failure. i love it when you scape goat your guy and manhandle mine. keep your hands off.

There was no provision in the document President Bush signed for any re-evaluation period. Why didn't President Bush get a residual force in the SOFA? There must have been a reason he couldn't get the job done in the first place, right?

He got the job done. It clearly says US forces can stay if the PM wants them to. Maliki wanted them to and Obama refused because he thought it would be bad for his reelection campaign.

 

[BlindBoo]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President would keep troops in a country under those conditions.

 

[Markle]

Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

 

[jc456]

Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

caused additional american service men/ women deaths.

 

[toomuchtime_]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President keep troops in a country under those conditions.

What you have shown is that Obama did not have to pull the troops out because of the SoFA as you had previously claimed. The SoFA did not change the conditions under which US troops would serve, so Obama must have set new conditions which the Iraqis found unacceptable. The fact remains, US could have continued to serve under the same conditions they had been serving and Maliki wanted them to stay, but Obama wanted to leave for purely political reasons, so he lied to the American people, saying Iraq no longer needed US troops and now his supporters like you continue to lie about why he left because the truth, that it was a purely cynical political move and he knew the horror it would create is more than you can handle.

 

[jc456]

sure it was on obammy. no one else. he never revisited the order. shameful to say the least. just because it says something somewhere, doesn't mean ignore the future.

Nope it was on Bush who was the decider. He couldn't negotiate a residual force with immunity for our troop in 2008 when he had to sign that SOFA with Iraq.

Another lie. The agreement gave the US full jurisdiction over any actions by US military personnel. The question was about military contractors, not US soldiers. If a military contractor was off base and not on a sanctioned mission and committed a crime, then a joint US-Iraqi commission would decide if he would be tried by the US or Iraq. These are exactly the same conditions under which the US had been operating in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM disagrees:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans' terms.

Iraq PM: Immunity issue scuttled US troop deal

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

Like I said, it was the same for President Bush, which is why there was no provision for a residual force in the SOFA, they all had to go. No US President keep troops in a country under those conditions.

What you have shown is that Obama did not have to pull the troops out because of the SoFA as you had previously claimed. The SoFA did not change the conditions under which US troops would serve, so Obama must have set new conditions which the Iraqis found unacceptable. The fact remains, US could have continued to serve under the same conditions they had been serving and Maliki wanted them to stay, but Obama wanted to leave for purely political reasons, so he lied to the American people, saying Iraq no longer needed US troops and now his supporters like you continue to lie about why he left because the truth, that it was a purely cynical political move and he knew the horror it would create is more than you can handle.

yep, you got him to waiver off his claim.

 

[easyt65]

And if Obama had done this ya'll would be praising him for 'It's a MIRACLE. He's brought peace with the enemy!!!' thinking he's the Second Coming of the Messiah.

President Trump and his team...and the military...worked to get soldiers out of Afghanistan and end the US' longest war in history. It did not work, but the effort was admirable.

Perhaps Trump should take a page from the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's 'Legacy' by committing an International War Crime by invading a sovereign nation, dragging the US into the middle of a civil war, and leave soldiers in that country to keep fighting his war as he walks out the door of the WH...?!

 

[BlindBoo]

Look at the bright side, in 14 months the future, former Trumpublicans, can blame the new Democrat President for following Trumpybears surrender and withdrawal agreement. Just like they did when Obama followed Bushes SOFA with Iraq, after they kicked us out.

Didn't failed former President Barack Hussein Obama have to return troops to Iraq? President Obama had months to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. Who filled that vacuum? Why Russia and ISIS and Obama had to return troops to Iraq.

Obama's failure led to the huge ISIS Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Yep, great move by Obama!

Nope that was the government in Baghdad's fault for not living up to their promises to the Sunnis tribes. Two years after we left. There was no massive redeployment of US combat troops to fight ISIS.

Of course Obama left it up to the Generals to develop a plan on how to destroy the ISIS Caliphate without re-invading and getting a lot more American kids killed.