Iraq to vote on bill banning US military presence

Exactly. Obama gave Iraq away. He could have negotiated a SOFA with Maliki but he either stupidly or corruptly pulled our military, intelligence, air space control, and governance people out. He completely ignored the lessons of history.

We have and are paying later.

 

If other countries wish to do so, then yes.

But I would imagine that they do not wish to stop doing business with the US...

 

You are suggesting, then, that the "structure" of Donald Trump's "election campaign" showed him to be similar to Adolf Hitler, in some expansive way?

Would you elaborate, please?

Note: Your breezy dismissal of Donald Trump as a sort of Hitler acolyte does not smear only Donald Trump; it also redounds to all of his supporters--who, evidently, you consider incapable of critical thinking, and able only to be whipped up into a frenzy.

I am thoroughly opposed to any sort of "insurgen[cy].

WWI and WWII--where armies faced each other, man-to-man--is the sort of war that I could support.

But guerrilla warfare is simply wrong in all cases, I believe.

Most NATO countries still consider the US to be the leader of the Free World.

Perhaps the "nonaligned" countries may be pulling away. But...so what?

Yes, Saudi Arabia is indeed evil. No argument there.

I have long contended that the US supports various countries for two different reasons:

One reason is similar values. Israel is a good example of this.

The other reason is strategic geopolitical matters. And Saudi Arabia is a good example of this.

 

Kind of like Capone and Moran? Pick your poison?

 

Capone was a leader, Moran was not.
he inherited his position when everyone else was killed off.
Dion OBanion
.Hymie Weiss
Vincent Druci.

 

Ok, the Godfather vs the rest of the Families. My point is, Jack the Ripper over Ted Bundy is not an option for the living, both need to be dead.

 

True to a certain extent--when you expose someone to their delusions, they are not likely to remain friendly and peaceful very long.

 

After the new Iraqi parliament was established Maliki no longer had the power to make decisions for Iraq. It was the parliament and not Maliki who said the US military had to go. There was no negotiating with them.

 

Obama and Maliki could have made it happen. There was wide support for the US staying in Iraq. All of Obama’s senior military and state department officials warned him not to pull out. But the genius aka Obama did not want to keep military, intelligence, air space control, and governance personnel in Iraq. Obama was either stupid or corrupt for making the worst foreign policy decision since Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler.

 

As far as I recall.... there wasn't at all. Not from the side of the US nor from the side of Iraq.

 

You recall wrong. Do you get your news from CNN/MSNBC ???

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...o-wars-obama-finds-himself-entangled-in-three
President Obama entered the White House with a pledge to bring home U.S. troops from two major wars.

 

Did you actually read the entire piece ???

 

The point is that Obama promised to end the war and leave.
He was voted in.... twice! Says it all that the average joe doesn't want their army in Iraq.

 

Yea, uh-huh. Sure.

You are aware that we already left there once before, right? In 2008 we signed an agreement that we would leave by the end of 2011. And we were gone before the end of 2011.

Saudi Arabia asked the US to pull out in 2003, and we were gone within 6 months. The majority of forces and bases in Kuwait have been closed for years, their government asked for us to leave way back in 2008. The only presence we still have there (by mutual agreement) are places where we could place troops if needed during transit, all of the large bases (like Ali Al Salem) are long closed.

But please, pontificate us on the list of countries where we are still present that they do not want us there. Or how we have no respect for sovereignty, even though all things that apply are spelled out in a SOFA.

 

The actual point of the piece is that pulling out all personnel in 2011 was a stupid thing to do regardless of any campaign promises. All his advisers told him to stay just as we did in Europe, Japan, and (after leaving and having to come) Korea.

BTW the war was won after the successful surge in 2007.

 

It was an incredibly stupid move to pull out of Iraq in 2011.

 

You claimed "There was wide support for the US staying in Iraq.". And I proved that they voted Obama in who promised to end that crap. So you claim is not founded on what happened, now is it? The opinion of advisers is not relevant to your point of that so called wide support.

 

There was wide support in the Iraqi government for the US to keep a security force in Iraq. Look back at the post.

Your argument is inaccurate and absurd.

 

Maliki was not a very strong PM and his strength came from his daily calls with Bush who reasured him he had the full support of the US.

 

Actually, much more often it is India that does that, not the US. The US simply seems to get more attention for it is all.

At this time there are 8 UN Peacekeeping Operations going on.

In the West Sahara, the commander is a Canadian, and most troops are from Bangladesh. There are 0 US forces there.

In Darfur, the current commander is from Kenya. The largest force is over 3,000 troops from Rwanda, and there are 0 US forces there.

Then there is the Congo. The Commander of that mission is from Brazil, the largest force is from India. The US has a total of 3 observers on that mission. Yes, not 3,000, not 300, 3.

In the Sudan, the commander is from Ethiopia, and they are supplying most of the forces. There are 0 US forces involved.

In South Sudan, the commander is from Rwanda. Most troops are from India, the US has a total of 3 advisors, and 5 FBI members assisting in investigations.

At this time, there are 15 UN missions ongoing. And the total US presence in all of them? Around 100 people. Total.

The UN actually does fairly good at most conflicts on their own. However, we have tended to be their "big guns", when it looks like there is going to be major fighting, and more or less some heads need to be knocked around to get them to stop.

That is why we were involved in Kuwait. In Somalia after the warlords started taking over the UN food distribution points. The large presence needed in Lebanon to try and keep the warring factions apart.

 

Be that as it may, they asked us in 2008 to pull out by the end of 2011. And we were out before the end of 2011. They are asking us to pull out again, so if this passes we should pull out again.

The entire conspiracy theory laden nonsense of the original post is just that. Nonsense. In fact, the exact opposite has been the rule for decades.

Notice, I asked for a list of those countries that want us out and we are still there. Still waiting on anybody to actually provide such a list.

 

You claimed... WIDE... support. And my poll says no. And now the Iraqi's are busy kicking the US out by law. Your pushing goalposts now, with nothing to back it up. And what I just read from the post above, the US overplayed their hand with demanding to be placed above their law. Iraq says no. So much for the love.

You say that, but prove nothing

 

The agreement failed over a demand that American troops be given immunity from prosecution by Iraqis, a very touchy political issue within the Iraqi Parliament. Some experts said Iraqi leaders may not have been willing to take great political risk with their citizens in exchange for a relatively small American force.

But no immunity meant no sizable residual troop presence.

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October 2011 news conference. "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."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/