It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: Pulling All U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Was Not ‘My Decision'

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: RationalHuman
He could easily have violated Iraq's sovereignty and kept troops there, it's not like the US has never done that before.


What sovereignty? Just look at them now. Iranian military advisors, foreign supported crazy uprisings, ect.




posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
I'd like to add a small observation, if I may.....

Bush started this mess, Indeed. No question. Most of us were there to see it, and many of us were in eager support at the time. I was one of those people. Bush and Co. managed to pull one over on a good part of the Government, as well as the population. He got his war and the Bush family got their settlement on the Saddam issue, open from 1991.



I never did like the Bush agreement to pull out and said so. Also said that civil war was now inevitable right here on ATS a few years back.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I think that is a prediction a number of people turned out to be right on...and I'll wager every one of them would give anything to have been dead wrong on that one.

I fear our nation has been at war too long to have perspective at this point. We don't even see war as an All or Nothing proposition anymore. Not on any level. It's fine to pop in for a contingency operation, kill a bunch of folks while hoping the right ones were the majority, then pop back out to return to other concerns. How tidy it seems from this end...and how bloody and endless it seems where we do our pop-in/out acts.

Hell...Hindsight is 20/20 and hindsight will have us looking backward as we walk right into a pole and knock ourselves out cold.

Lets at least avoid being an international Pop-Tart this time and either stay clear to let them handle their own issues with *NO* interference (including finger waving if Iraq gets brutal in this fight. That may well be required) OR..... Go ALL in to the mission we can see needs done for emasculating ISIS. That can be limited too....but "rules" and "limits" publicly announced tells them what they need to do in crossing our lines to make us disengage. We lose before we begin, how it is happening now.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Logarock

I think that is a prediction a number of people turned out to be right on...and I'll wager every one of them would give anything to have been dead wrong on that one.

I fear our nation has been at war too long to have perspective at this point. We don't even see war as an All or Nothing proposition anymore. Not on any level. It's fine to pop in for a contingency operation, kill a bunch of folks while hoping the right ones were the majority, then pop back out to return to other concerns. How tidy it seems from this end...and how bloody and endless it seems where we do our pop-in/out acts.

Hell...Hindsight is 20/20 and hindsight will have us looking backward as we walk right into a pole and knock ourselves out cold.



All well and good sounding but what we have is not a problem with hindsight. We are looking now at a worse situation than folks were really ready to admit to back when folks were telling them that it wasn't a good time to pull out. We are seeing the fruits of not real smart right now. The pole were are running into isn't one from hindsight watching.

Remember all the big talk about how we were in it for the long haul? By Bush no less. Well no. The winds of political fortune and what ever else one would call it carried the day. Stupid decisions based on stupid arguments won the day. Foremost was this eager desire to look like the good guys, by answering to the infection of the anti-empire interpretations of everything america does.

Our current position makes the Sadam Baathist solution look great. Look at what he was willing to do to keep "order" and how unwilling we were to insure a transition after such a cost of our servicemen. I wouldn't say that it took a genius to see what was going to happen a few years ago. But considering the current situation maybe it would take a genius in relative terms.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

In 1990, George Bush the senior built a coalition of forces that numbered 500,000 men and a few women. (It was Saudi, after all). Half a million men with all it takes to fight the combined armies of several nations together in one purpose. What was that purpose? Merely ejecting an army already spent and exhausted from endless looting and pillaging, drunk and fat by the spoils of their excess. Look at the road to Basra to see what I mean about literally being too heavy with loot to even scoot when the time came.

500,000 men was overkill. It was meant to be. Total, overwhelming overkill. Done so losing was never even a serious outcome to wargame a contingency to. Unthinkable....as it turned out to be too. THAT was what I consider war fought with the intent to win it quickly, not screw around to make a business and profit of the whole thing.

The hindsight and pole I talk about isn't one we have hit yet. We will at this rate though. We are looking back at how Bush Jr. took us to war on a budget in 2003 and broke every single rule of offensive warfare which Powell and the others insisted were followed in 1991. When we aren't blaming him for half-assing us into a full blown war .. we blame Obama for happily leaving under ANY conditions he could manage it. All well and good...they both have blame.

I just think the hindsight searching for blame is where we don't see the pole of another defeat from battles half fought in front of us. This isn't a fight where US troops and Enemy are the ones doing the dying. It's innocents who, not that long ago, looked to US to be a positive force....yet another time.....are the dying in this one. That needs to change, if we're to be a part of it at all, IMO.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

We had an obligation on so many levels not to leave the Iraq people and government in this sort of spot. If that would have required some sort of limited by effective troop numbers in the country then so be it. The current events in Iraq represent mental illness affecting american foreign policy where it had so much invested. They only hindsight here would be trying to unravel the moron tangle ball. And yes we don't need to worry about that now but do need to reaffirm our commitment to fight terrorism and get on with it.


edit on 11-8-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: angeldoll
I believe it's been said multiple times that the US would only stay in Iraq with the provision of certain conditions. Those conditions were not met.


Can you post those "conditions" ?

Might be some relevance.



First off you are conflating and end to Military Operations and Occupation with "residual force"

Secondly the agreement for leaving a "residual force" failed when the Iraqi Parliament for internal political reasons refused to agree to the conditions required..



October 2011 decision to withdraw all American forces[edit]

As reported on Saturday, October 15, 2011, the Obama Administration proceeded with the plan to withdraw American forces from Iraq (barring some last-minute move in the Iraqi parliament when they returned from a break in late November 2011 shortly before the end-of-the-year withdrawal date) because of concerns that they would not have be given immunity from Iraqi courts, a concern for American commanders in the field who also had to worry about the Sadrist response should troops stay and the general state of Iraq's readiness for transfer of power.

en.wikipedia.org...

In short...The Iraqi government refused to modify the 2008 agreement under Bush to afford continued immunity for the residual force...aka...anyone the USA left behind would be subject to Iraqi civil law, courts and trial for any military actions they might take or had previously taken.




edit on 11-8-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Stop Picken on Obama! He's havin a WICKED GOOD time on Matha's Vineyard right now !



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Sovereign, stable and self reliant....he actually said that is how we are leaving Iraq? No, we are have created a broken country that is loaded with Depleted Uranium, and chemical warfare substances that will affect and change the people of Iraq forever. Who knows what mutations are ahead for those folks...the deformities of their newborns are already being documented. Bush/Obama...makes no difference...the damage has been done while either/or has been in office.

Leaving or going back....same ole same ole. More horror and destruction and it is usually the innocents that suffer the most...not the actual offending factions that need to be taken out. The methods of war nowadays, the technology, any and all of it just produces a no win situation for all concerned. Even the so called "good guys", (soldiers) fighting will suffer from the DU and other ravages of war. Nobody wins in the long run. Einstein was right, "Mans technology has far exceeded his humanity".



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: shrevegalBush/Obama...makes no difference...the damage has been done while either/or has been in office.



One for invading and occupying and the other for leaving? Damned if you do...?

I am not one to declare Pres. Obama blameless. He fought hard for the job, despite knowing the existing challenges..So he asked to sit in that chair, but he wasn't the POTUS that effed up Iraq either.

So I do have to ask what is thankfully for the rest of us a hypothetical...being dealt the cards he was walking through that door, what was the right option in Iraq at that time? You broke it, you own it? Cut your losses? Let them self-determine? Continue failed nation building? Honest question..If you are walking in as POTUS in January 2009...whats the plan in Iraq?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I heard Bush did it.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
Let's stop this blame game... realize our gov't is broke, and fix it...


The blame game is OLD.....



With all due respect the problem is the blame game is coming from the POTUS. That's the problem. That's the point of this thread. It's always someone else's fault.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
It's all back tracking, spin, and trying to save as many careers as possible. We all know going into Iraq was a mistake, but due to pressure we also left it unfinished. The problem with ISIS is a direct result of us going into Iraq and then leaving Iraq. Had we stayed we would still be fighting them, but they wouldn't control a portion of the country. With the certainty of needing more military action in Iraq all the politicians are scrambling to make it sound like they wanted to keep troops there.

In the end, expect it to all be blamed on Obama with the idea that he even went against the party since he's on his way out.

Just politics as usual.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Is it not possible for someone to take credit for doing something that wasn't their decision?

It wasn't my friends decision to have a baby, but he can take credit for having one.

It wasn't the drummers decision to play a certain beat during a specific part of the song, but he can take credit for playing it.

It wasn't the DJ's decision to play a certain song, but he can take credit for putting it on the radio.

It wasn't Obama's decision to get out of Iraq, but he can take credit for making it happen.

I can think of many more situations that prove this topic is a joke.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne



It wasn't Obama's decision to get out of Iraq, but he can take credit for making it happen.

But it is the opposite of what has happened.

Obama is blaming GW Bush for doing what Obama himself campaigned to do and took longer than he said it would to do it.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Iraq wanted more troops than Obama was willing to give.

So they decided having to protect the slim number of troops Obama was willing to offer wasn't worth the time or resources.

In short, Obama didn't want to give them anything of use.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: angeldoll
I believe it's been said multiple times that the US would only stay in Iraq with the provision of certain conditions. Those conditions were not met.


Can you post those "conditions" ?

Might be some relevance.



I have not read all the way through the responses but the biggest requirement was what is called a Status of Forces agreement. This essentially says that American troops are immune from prosecution while stationed in Iraq. Without this agreement in place, the Iraqi government could potentially charge our soldiers with crimes such as murder when defending themselves. As a veteran myself I am in complete and absolute agreement with Obama on this particular subject. I would not want to be stationed in a country where we did not have a SOFA.

Iraq stated plainly that THEY DID NOT WANT US THERE... I don't understand how people cannot grasp this concept.. they did not want us there and we got out .. now I think everyone regrets that decision in hindsight which everyone knows is 20/20.. Bush tried to negotiate an agreement and failed .... Obama continued to try an hammer out an agreement and came up short..

Political pundits now just want to hammer the president for anything... of this I am thoroughly convinced.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: amazing
Non-Issue. We needed to get out of there. The failings are with the government of Iraq. We put in a week government that alienated half the population. To blame Obama in any way for the Iraq mess is laughable. Only a fool would do that.


we did and look what happens.
he is blameing bush, AGAIN! lol.

obama has had more time with maliki than bush.

4 yrs of hillary in the mid-east, no surprise IS sprung up.



But Bush started this war and created this mess leaving it to his successor. Not Obama's fault. Not saying that him or Hillary did all the right things, but the Maliki government is a failure that all of this conflict springs from.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
If Bush hadn't "started" the war(s) in Iraq,

what would be the state of affairs now?




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
If Bush hadn't "started" the war(s) in Iraq,

what would be the state of affairs now?





I think we'd still have a powerful Hussein Government, mainly targeting kurds but he would have kept the extremists in check. Though it would be ruthless and harsh. Israel would still be safe, 4500 Americans would still be alive, 33000 Americans would still be healthy and uninjured. Haliburton would be 40 billion dollars poorer. 130000 innocent iraqi civilians would still be alive.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join