|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 28 2015 03:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 03:42 always_winter wrote:That's not what the article said at all. The article stated the political nature of the compromise surrounded al-Maliki's inability to garner support from within his own parliament: Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq. As the article correctly stated, this stems from a history of encroachments on Iraqi sovereignty, and although the vast majority of high-ranking Iraqi military officials desperately wanted (needed) a continued American presence, al-Maliki's civilian opponents in Parliament had reservations, and the appeasement of such reservations in the name of Iraqi sovereignty effectively soured negotiations. Literally had nothing to do with war crimes. That's straight from left-field. Try again: "This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty. Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December."
Has absolutely nothing to do with war crimes. Universally granting immunity to every American soldier on Iraqi soil was seen as another encroachment on Iraqi sovereignty, this sentiment garnering support within Iraqi parliament which led to appeasement from al-Maliki. Iraqi military officials understood the need for a prolonged American presence, understood the absence of supposed war crimes, and quite frankly probably would've accepted a few war crimes for some American muscle. Don't let the talking points of heavily-skewed media outlets misguide you.
|
On March 28 2015 03:58 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 03:42 always_winter wrote:That's not what the article said at all. The article stated the political nature of the compromise surrounded al-Maliki's inability to garner support from within his own parliament: Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq. As the article correctly stated, this stems from a history of encroachments on Iraqi sovereignty, and although the vast majority of high-ranking Iraqi military officials desperately wanted (needed) a continued American presence, al-Maliki's civilian opponents in Parliament had reservations, and the appeasement of such reservations in the name of Iraqi sovereignty effectively soured negotiations. Literally had nothing to do with war crimes. That's straight from left-field. Try again: "This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty. Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December." Has absolutely nothing to do with war crimes. Universally granting immunity to every American soldier on Iraqi soil was seen as another encroachment on Iraqi sovereignty, this sentiment garnering support within Iraqi parliament which led to appeasement from al-Maliki. Iraqi military officials understood the need for a prolonged American presence, understood the absence of supposed war crimes, and quite frankly probably would've accepted a few war crimes for some American muscle. Don't let the talking points of heavily-skewed media outlets misguide you.
What exactly are you arguing? My point is that the Administration fucked up negotiations of the SoF agreement. It seemed like you were disagreeing. Is that incorrect?
|
We are in full disagreement, my friend. Allow me to elaborate.
Obama asking for American immunity had nothing to do with war crimes. Not a got damned thang. Obama asking for American immunity had EVERYTING to do with the Iraqi courts. Imagine a judicial system managed by the Staten Island Police Department, then imagine a judicial system even worse than that. That's Iraq. Corrupt would be an improvement.
The negotiations got fucked up. Big time. Did Obama ask for too much (you might be thinking to yourself)? Fuck no he didn't. If I'm sending a volunteer force of American soldiers, risking their lives on my behalf to defend a territory not of their own and a dictator not of their liking, then I'm making damn sure they have every assurance that they will not be subject to the fucked up Iraqi judicial system simply for actions in defense of its existence. The American military isn't Soviet Russia. We're not Imperial Japan. If war crimes were committed, you're damned sure we'd be the first holding someone accountable.
The negotiations got fucked up because al-Maliki is a gigantic piece of shit. He's another corrupt American puppet who thinks he's maybe if he's really sneaky he won't be unveiled. He wants power. He wants to silence opposition. He can't kill his opponents like Putin, because like he can't even take a piss without us giving him that extra shake. So instead he does it the old fashioned way, through manipulative and destructive politics, cowering to appease his opponents in a vein attempt to retain power while simultaneously souring the very deal which was his best bet to sustain it.
How's that? /rant
|
On March 28 2015 04:13 always_winter wrote:
We are in full disagreement, my friend. Allow me to elaborate.
Obama asking for American immunity had nothing to do with war crimes. Not a got damned thang. Obama asking for American immunity had EVERYTING to do with the Iraqi courts. Imagine a judicial system managed by the Staten Island Police Department, then imagine a judicial system even worse than that. That's Iraq. Corrupt would be an improvement.
The negotiations got fucked up. Big time. Did Obama ask for too much (you might be thinking to yourself)? Fuck no he didn't. If I'm sending a volunteer force of American soldiers, risking their lives on my behalf to defend a territory not of their own and a dictator not of their liking, then I'm making damn sure they have every assurance that they will not be subject to the fucked up Iraqi judicial system simply for actions in defense of its existence. The American military isn't Soviet Russia. We're not Imperial Japan. If war crimes were committed, you're damned sure we'd be the first holding someone accountable.
The negotiations got fucked up because al-Maliki is a gigantic piece of shit. He's another corrupt American puppet who thinks he's maybe if he's really sneaky he won't be unveiled. He wants power. He wants to silence opposition. He can't kill his opponents like Putin, because like he can't even take a piss without us giving him that extra shake. So instead he does it the old fashioned way, through manipulative and destructive politics, cowering to appease his opponents in a vein attempt to retain power while simultaneously souring the very deal which was his best bet to sustain it.
How's that? /rant
Okay, I'm not sure why you're bringing any of this up when it has nothing to do with the manner in which the actual negotiations were carried out. No one is arguing that the US shouldn't have asked for immunity for American soldiers. The issue was how to tactfully get the Iraqi government to agree to it. The NY Times article says that the Obama administration screwed up on this point.
|
And that's where I step in to say throw out that headline. Throw that shit right in the trash. Spit on it first. Treat it like the garbage that it is.
I fucking love this country. I really do. And that's why I was so adamant to step in to suggest such policies are in place to prevent American from committing war crimes. That's laughable. One thing I don't love about this country is our media. It's a god-forsaken pit of despair. It skews stories every which direction and shoves each bias down our throat via the 24-hour news cycle until we're so angry and scared that we don't even know what we're angry or scared about, or how we even got that way in the first place.
|
|
|
You're one of many, friend. Another loyal sheep to the pen.
The underlying message of that pure, unadulterated and unapologetic patriotism was to disregard the misconceptions perpetrated by media outlets and general human ignorance. Basically to form your own opinion based on real facts, rather than simply copy-pasting what is often extreme bias or, in some cases, national stereotypes.
|
Sometimes the rest of the world doesn't know what to do with outward expressions of patriotism that don't come from a place of tribalistic self-superiority, so I wouldn't read too much into it. A good argument, with its foundations in pragmatism, can be made in favor of the idea that some degree of nationalistic identification and motivation can be a helpful means of reconciling the lottery of birth with the relationships that necessarily arise out of one's interaction with their surrounding neighborhood, city, state, and country. Proximity, in all senses of the word, is something more people need to take into consideration when attempting to justify and shape their self-motivational worldview. In other words, I think patriotism makes a lot of practical sense even though it brings with it a lot of risks.
And let me add that I don't consider it a bad thing that a lot of the rest of the world is extremely suspicious of patriotism. History justifies the skepticism.
|
Well said.
It's also likely he's a pro-American homie just reachin for a laugh, in which case I'd probably rebut most jokes are based in true opinion, but nonetheless blame the interwebz and online forums in general for igniting that piping, white-hot fire in my loins that just makes me want to turn into Tom Cruz from A Few Good Men and debate every last motherfucker on the face of the Earth.
|
If war crimes were committed, you're damned sure we'd be the first holding someone accountable.
yeah, about that...
Patriotism is the greenhouse which breeds nationalism.
e: well, do things breed in greenhouses? growing would probably more appropriate. oh well
|
Maliki was an ass.
It brings up a real quandary: if you setup a democracy, and the leader they elect is ruining the country, what do you do?
You either wreck their legitimacy and sovereignty by removing him, or you let him destroy the country resulting in civil war. Those are both lousy options. I'd like a better plan for dealing with that contingency in the future.
|
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east."
|
On March 28 2015 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 03:27 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2015 03:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 03:09 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. I appreciate your efforts to define recent history, but the fact is, there was never any stability there at all post-occupation. There was only absolute military control. The only stability Iraq ever had was under brutal dictatorship, Saddam Hussein. Sad, but true. As others have pointed out, the world wanted America out of Iraq. Iraqis wanted America out of Iraq. Democrats won in 2008 because Americans wanted us out of Iraq. Bush left office with the understanding and plan in motion that we would get out of Iraq. But of course, now it's all Obama's fault. He should've ignored everyone and kept up a seemingly never-ending occupation. People were saying since 2003 that Iraq would become a major religious conflict without Saddam Hussein. Now it's news? Well, now it's Obama's fault. "I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise"? Really? I don't think anyone was putting anything close to those words in your mouth. The reality is so completely far removed from that. Face it, the entire premise of our involvement there was a false premise on multiple levels. Not talking about WMDs (although I'd like to) -- but, even more important, the ridiculously false premise that we could occupy Iraq and then just leave it basking under the glorious freedom of Murican Democracy. You're buying into liberal revisionist history, too. See my post above. Revisionist history? No. No one is disputing you on the point that our leaving Iraq was going to leave it in chaos. Where people are arguing with you is your desire to put this all on your partisan choice. America's removal from Iraq was decided not just by Obama. He was doing what he promised he would do, and what people wanted him to do. I know, and I'm sure many others here do as well, that there were disagreements from military generals and intelligence, that we should have stayed. But I don't think they're anymore "right" than Obama or everyone else who wanted us to leave. I think you're delusional if you think a few more years of American occupation would've prevented this. Unless we invaded and occupied Syria as well. Maybe occupy the whole Middle East, as I'm sure our more militant allies in Israel would approve of. Unless we were going to permanently own Iraq (not even a possibility), this was going to happen. It's actually ridiculous what you're arguing. ISIS exists to assume control of Iraq... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Such a purpose and organization only exists because we created that vacancy. Yeah, THAT'S Obama's fault. A revolutionary force in Iraq exists because... of Obama. LOL. To put it in simple partisan terms: your guy broke it, and now you want to blame the next guy for not doing the impossible job of cleaning it up. Take some time to actually read and understand my argument before posting. You're not GreenHorizons.
lol that's cute, you even think about me when I'm gone  So is blaming Obama for something the Bush administration knew it was creating.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
Source
|
On March 28 2015 06:25 zlefin wrote:
Maliki was an ass.
It brings up a real quandary: if you setup a democracy, and the leader they elect is ruining the country, what do you do?
You either wreck their legitimacy and sovereignty by removing him, or you let him destroy the country resulting in civil war. Those are both lousy options. I'd like a better plan for dealing with that contingency in the future.
If you want to setup democracy and have it work? A slow cultural shift over several decades, slowly increasing area's of democracy to the local population.
No country is willing to commit to that sort of timeline tho.
|
On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east."
Yeah, this sounds about right.
|
"I promise 20 more years in Iraq"
~xDaunt's inaugural speech, 2016
We got out of Iraq before it became another Vietnam. That's a problem solved. Also funny how you forgot about the end of your politico quote:
But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region.
The good old USAMA (United States of America and the Middle-East) is finally collapsing. (T_T)
Wait a second
Hold on
This just in - we don't fucking own the middle east.
|
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind.
|
On March 28 2015 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind.
Good thing the hawks prevented those right...? I mean they keep talking about how they want to save the people of Darfur too... Oh wait we as a nation don't give a shit about preventing genocide when it comes to reasons to go to war...
|
On March 28 2015 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind.
Yep >< and there really isnt an easy answer to that dilemma.
|
On March 28 2015 00:53 always_winter wrote:
Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is.
Glyphosate is generally regarded as one of the safest herbicides out there. Monsanto bashing is nothing more than a mix of anti-science and irrational liberal fears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
