|
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 August 11 2016 23:56 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
No immunity for the 5k was the issue That could had been negotiated if there was will for it.
maybe not; surely oyu can understand that maybe Iraqis didn't like having foreign soldiers in their land that were immune from local prosecution no matter who they killed?
also, the iraqi armry had gotten plenty of training ofr a long time. They didn't lose because of inadequate training; they fled because commanders were bribed, the gov't was lousily sectarian, and the troops didn't want ot die to defend that land, cuz they didn't care abou tit.
|
On August 11 2016 23:56 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
No immunity for the 5k was the issue That could had been negotiated if there was will for it.
I believe they did try; however they were unable to arrive at anything amenable. I believe that the US position was pretty much functionally complete immunity - tried under US laws with probably some toothless clause for "turning over to local authorities if appropriate", and other crap like that. The US abusing the shit out of their immunity previously didn't exactly help either.
Another issue that contributed was that a lot of Baath party members ended up joining ISIS and other groups because the al-Maliki government essentially blocked them from participating in society. He held grudges, and he exacted revenge when he got power.
|
On August 11 2016 23:56 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
No immunity for the 5k was the issue That could had been negotiated if there was will for it.
your right.
But there was no will to negotiate it from the Iraqi government considering the misconduct and torture inflicted by US soldiers while they were immune to prosecution.
The US would never have gotten immunity after Abu Ghraib.
|
On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election..
Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
|
Not with McConnell saying Day 1 he'd make Obama a 1 term president?
|
I don't trust you when you claim to have seen the opposite danglars; as it does not match up with the facts well; nor has your history indicated a low level of bias, nor does that post indicate a low level of bias with its unfounded accusations.
|
On August 12 2016 00:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election.. Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
Yes, pretend Trump's rhetoric is not fundamentally more foul than that of others. Whatever makes you comfortable in your support of Trump, honesty be damned.
|
On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them.
that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way).
why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria.
so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?.
|
Eh to be fair, I don't think Dangler's supports Trump. He just doesn't like Hillary and Obama.
|
You can't just randomly claim 5000 people are diplomatic attaches to give htem immunity; that's not how it works. diplomats have to be approved by the host country.
|
|
|
On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?.
New events happened that prompted a military response.
Also..."hurr durr will you agree if we call our soldiers attaches and give them immunity?"
|
@Danglars
The left/center left wasn't nice to Clinton at all, remember Bernie Sanders? She is actually what most actual leftist would search in a "moderate republican", before your party went into batshitcrazyland.
Uhm... The right wing even shut down the goverment over totally unrelated stuff and now its somehow Obamas fault for not thinking about your sides feelings and inputs as much anymore? He tried to play nice for way too long, the right/reps very clearly showed that they had no interest in any sane discourse.
How is this now suddenly the lefts fault? Aside from the fact that well, he is a democratic president and therefore didn't really stand for republican values...
Obama isn't really "leftist", what he is probably what you would call a socially progressive moderate.
|
On August 11 2016 23:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:56 Godwrath wrote:On August 11 2016 23:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
No immunity for the 5k was the issue That could had been negotiated if there was will for it. maybe not; surely oyu can understand that maybe Iraqis didn't like having foreign soldiers in their land that were immune from local prosecution no matter who they killed? also, the iraqi armry had gotten plenty of training ofr a long time. They didn't lose because of inadequate training; they fled because commanders were bribed, the gov't was lousily sectarian, and the troops didn't want ot die to defend that land, cuz they didn't care abou tit.
Yes, that's why i said yes and no in the answer to Plansix, the goverment wasn't asking the US to keep soldiers on peacemaking duties (which would had been the ones where the soldiers would require that immunity), but rather as training coaches, which can easilly keep a low profile.
|
On August 12 2016 00:14 zlefin wrote:
You can't just randomly claim 5000 people are diplomatic attaches to give htem immunity; that's not how it works. diplomats have to be approved by the host country.
The host country grants them immunity. The US can't declare that its troops are immune to other nations laws and expect other nations to take that seriously.
|
On August 12 2016 00:14 JinDesu wrote:
Eh to be fair, I don't think Dangler's supports Trump. He just doesn't like Hillary and Obama.
That's the problem with having only one sane party in the system: they can put up someone as bad as Hillary Clinton and you don't really have any choice because the opposition is literally insane.
You could argue that there was the Bernie Sanders option but I don't think he had any real chance. Inertia, demographics, and socialism-phobia are a bitch. The Dems are becoming a worse party without any opposition to force them to shape up.
|
Didn't catch up to the entire thread yet, so sorry if it was linked, but on a lighter note:
Only the trumptastic tweets come from Trump's galaxy whatever android phone, while the boring ones (like introducing an event) come from an Iphone (campaign managed presumably) data analysis has found. What an age to live in :D
|
United States44436 Posts
On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?.
Yeah that's not how diplomatic immunity works.
|
On August 12 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 00:11 xM(Z wrote:On August 11 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:
Obama would have been raked over the coals if one US serviceman had to spend one day in an Iraqi prison under Iraqi authority. And quite rightly so, he has an obligation to protect them and by letting them fall into foreign control he'd be responsible for their treatment. Treatment in the context of Abu Ghraib etc too.
Maybe you call it just smart politicking if you're on the right but whichever way you see it, Obama recognized that he had an obligation, or at least a perceived obligation, to protect the soldiers and he upheld it. If you don't want to give him credit you call him a cynic but you can't deny that if he had ordered them to stay and be subject to Iraqi justice you'd have attacked him for betraying them. that's a cop out(he could've made those(alleged) 5000 US soldiers diplomat attaches and give them immunity that way). why is it a cop out?: because right now, US soldiers brought to Middle East by Obama, die in Syria. so what happened between then and now?. he's not up for another reelection?. where did those principles and obligations go?. New events happened that prompted a military response. Also..."hurr durr will you agree if we call our soldiers attaches and give them immunity?"
you call CIA operatives diplomatic attaches all the time and Iraq was half-in for some US military presence ...
anyway, that was just an available option among many others, like operating under a Memorandum of understanding : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding which wouldn't require Iraqi parliament ratification.
also, SOFA had a Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html attached to it.
1. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats. = the silver lining.
|
On August 12 2016 00:15 Velr wrote:
@Danglars
The left/center left wasn't nice to Clinton at all, remember Bernie Sanders? She is actually what most actual leftist would search in a "moderate republican", before your party went into batshitcrazyland.
Uhm... The right wing even shut down the goverment over totally unrelated stuff and now its somehow Obamas fault for not thinking about your sides feelings and inputs as much anymore? He tried to play nice for way too long, the right/reps very clearly showed that they had no interest in any sane discourse.
How is this now suddenly the lefts fault? Aside from the fact that well, he is a democratic president and therefore didn't really stand for republican values...
Obama isn't really "leftist", what he is probably what you would call a socially progressive moderate.
Well that's debatable :
this website considers that Clinton is more liberal than Obama on individual rights, domestic and economic issues, and tied on defense issues.
I'm personally more aligned with someone like Warren, and I wouldn't consider Clinton a left winger, rather a centre left à-la-US, but I think it's incorrect to put her in a different box than Obama. I think they are actually politically remarkably similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
