LIbertarian Party says get out of Iraq and Syria.

Bernie Sanders agrees with you:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...egal-Backs-Troops-in-Syria-20160426-0017.html

 

well, at least to that extent he is rational. Please explain to me why in time of war you think we should be expending time treasure and American lives in a vain attempt to arrest and bring to trial enemy combatants and their commanders upon the field of battle? Especially given that said field of battle is in a foreign land in which our law enforcement officials have no jurisdiction. We certainly did not fight any other war in this country's history in such a manner. Perhaps that is why we've been at it fifteen years with no end in sight

- - - Updated - - -

well, at least to that extent he is rational. Please explain to me why in time of war you think we should be expending time treasure and American lives in a vain attempt to arrest and bring to trial enemy combatants and their commanders upon the field of battle? Especially given that said field of battle is in a foreign land in which our law enforcement officials have no jurisdiction. We certainly did not fight any other war in this country's history in such a manner. Perhaps that is why we've been at it fifteen years with no end in sight

 

Wtf? Please show me where I said that I wanted any US government involvement whatsoever in the Mid-East. If oil companies or Mac Donald's want to do business there, fine and dandy.

 

so as long as live in another country you are unwilling to do anything at all to prevent them sending berserkers here to murder your fellow citizens when ever they can scrape together the price of an airplane ticket?

 

Yes he spoke quite a bit about it while running for office.. but his actions in office do not match his campaign remarks. He exceeded that deadline promised in his campaign by over a year. Again, this isn't a matter of opinion, the US government attempted to create a new agreement that the Iraqi government rejected (NOT AN OPINION). You can deny that happened all you want, but that is the history of the matter. First the president exceeded his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, and then he made an attempt to extend that war. Your argument is so irrational, it would be like arguing that Abraham Lincoln didn't really free the slaves, because he said multiple times during his campaign that he wasn't going to.. it's nonsensical...

As for Obama being one of the top 5 most interventionist presidents, by measurement of countries bombed, he is one of the 5 most interventionist presidents in US history. By measurement of troops deployed overseas, he is one of the 5 most interventionist president in US history. By measurement of time at war, he is soon to be the one and only full two term president to spend his entire presidency at war.

He has deployed more troops in his presidency than Bush, spent more years at war, and has bombed nearly double the number of countries as him. The only thing that stopped Obama from getting involved in regime change in Syria like he did Libya was Russia.

 

Osama bin Laden attacked the US because of US Christian military bases in Saudi Arabia. Belgium and France were attacked after they sent warplanes to the Mid-East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia

If the US took its forces out the Mid-East the berserkers would have enough trouble trying to sort things out among themselves without attacking the US.

 

You still didn't read the link, so I still regard your opinion as invalid.

 

This is what's known as wishful thinking.Their ultimate goal is the establishment of a world spanning world ruling caliphate. Osama and others have said as much.

 

Once again, it is not my opinion

The US made attempts to extend the US troop presence in Iraq, but the Iraqi government rejected the US's proposals. That is not an opinion, that is the history of the matter

I should also note that your link makes no mentioning of the status of forces agreement

 

And, no surprise, Hillary also agrees with Cruz and the neocon Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex:

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/16/yes-hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/

 

Once again, I see you hadn't read it. At least this time you claimed you did.

 

but I did read it (all 9 pages), you just keep redundantly referring to the link because you lack a better argument. The article not once makes any case to deny the status of forces agreement, you basically just posted a long article as a diversion. You make no attempts to post any more arguments because you do not have any left

 

Well I'm not sure what argument you think I actually need. President Obama ran on getting out of Iraq. It was his signature campaign promise. So he becomes President and...gets out of Iraq. You trying to spin that as the President was forced out by the lack of a continuing status of forces agreement is pointless since the President was never going to stay in Iraq. As the article makes clear, everyone, both on the US and Iraqi sides of the negotiating table, expected that there was going to be some US presence, and the Iraqi's offered an executive agreement to bypass the parliamentary vote that the President wanted...because he didn't want to stay in Iraq.

So we got out of Iraq. Maybe you really think the President really wanted to stay but just couldn't come to an agreement...but I would say the evidence on that is scant. You are arguing for your opinion, which you're entitled to, but it has nothing to do with what actually happened.

 

He ran on getting out of Iraq by summmer 2010, he exceeded that by over a year and attempted to keep US troops there beyond 2011. The Iraqi government are the ones who rejectted extending the war. That is the history of the matter, Obama attempted to extend the war in Iraq, but the Iraqi government refused.. to say he was never going to extend the Iraq war is factually inaccurate. Your entire argument is about as rational as claiming Abraham Lincoln didn't really free the slaves because he made it a campaign point not to. Or better yet, Obama actually shut down GITMO, because that was a key campaign promise, because evidently campaign promises speak louder then actual actions taken in office

Again, it is not an opinion, the US did attempt to extend the war in Iraq. That cannot be argued against, it is the fact of the matter.. and the Iraqi government rejected their proposal. Again that is the fact of the matter. To say "no that didn't happened" is factually inaccurate, that is what actually happened. End of story

Furthermore, your article does not support your argument (as you claim). You were simply posting it as a means of dodging the discussion for lack of a better argument. Your own article states that US officials believe that the Iraqi prime minister never intended to allow soldiers to remain. The Iraqi prime minister himself stated “I am the owner of the idea of withdrawing the U.S. troops.” which is true, because the status of forces agreement which kicked US troops out by the end of 2011 was in fact his idea. It was also ultimately his decision to not allow US troops to stay any longer

As for the notion of bypassing the Iraqi parliament, that was an idea the Iraqi prime minister entertained if the US was willing to drop immunity for our troops. In the end the US passed the Iraqis an offer to keep 3,000 US troops in Iraq beyond 2011, the Iraqi government rejected it, thus ending the Iraq war.

"oh no it didn't happen that way" yeah, except it did

 

OK so you think Obama wanted a continued US presence in Iraq? OK... I guess we're not on the same planet.

 

It's not a matter of me thinking or believing one thing, it is a matter of history. The status of forces agreement which kicked US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011 was signed by Bush. Obama made a formal attempt to extend the war in Iraq that the Iraqi government itself declined.

That is not an opinion, that is what happened, period. You would fail your history exam trying to argue otherwise

 

Sigh...you're not educable.

 

Once again, that is what happened

You don't get to deny common knowledge and make judgments on who is educable

 

But you seem intent on doing so. Obama opposed the war from the outset, ran for President against the war and in favor pulling out, and when he became President, he pulled out. You think he wanted to stay and was forced out by the wily Dubya's machinations.

 

The error in your rationale is you are using his campaign promise as an example rather than his actions in office. I don't doubt what his campaign promise was, his campaign promise was actually to pull US troops out by the summer of 2010, however that is not what he did as president. He also promised during his campaign to close down GITMO, but we wouldn't use that as an example of what his actions as president were

Just curious though, which one of these do you believe to be untrue

1. Bush signed the status of forces agreement in 2008 which established that US troops would leave that county by the end of 2011

2. The Obama administration made a formal attempt to keep US troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline established in the status of forces agreement signed by Bush

3. The Iraqi government rejected the Obama administration's proposal to keep US troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline

just point out to me which one of these you find inaccurate

 

I've already discussed those points with you. And if you think, against all evidence, that Obama wanted to continue to have a US presence in Iraq but was forced out then you are free to think that.

 

So which one of these do you find to be untrue

1. Bush signed the status of forces agreement in 2008 which established that US troops would leave that county by the end of 2011

2. The Obama administration made a formal attempt to keep US troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline established in the status of forces agreement signed by Bush

3. The Iraqi government rejected the Obama administration's proposal to keep US troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline


Once again, I do not deny what his campaign promise was, I am merely speaking of his actions as president. Which one of the listed incidents do you believe to be inaccurate?

 

Jason Ditz calls US actions in Syria "puzzling."
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/08/24/...-syria-adds-to-growing-strain-on-us-strategy/

 

This reads like a bad joke except for the innocent civilians getting maimed and killed:
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/08/28/pentagon-fighting-between-turkey-syrian-kurds-unacceptable/

 

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble. Finding it everywhere. Diagnosing it incorrectly. And exacerbating it."-- Groucho Marx

Such is the Syrian war(and the Libya war before it) in a nutshell IMO. There are no winners here, only losers. And the Pentagon has been one of the biggest culprits. After Iraq, Obama(and the Democrats) crowed that it was a mistake and they should've got out. But now they created through a series of inaction and wrong actions, an even bigger problem than Iraq.

Other than Liberal leanings by the other Western Powers, I really don't understand how this administration is seen any differently than Bush's abroad. Other than being more incompetent.