Is it safe for Obama to visit Iraq?
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL.... Nice....
but you will now go straight to hell for daring to criticize the second coming or 'the One'.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yeah.... after how many months of telling the world how the surge would never work? That there was NO military solution and if he had his way, we would have pulled all troops out by now (according to his timetable that he set in January 2007)
So now that he has NO choice but to admit that he was 100% wrong, we are supposed to say "well gee, he admits it now, so lets forget the past 14 months he has stated his opposition to it"???
The "SURGE" did not work. The troops are still in Iraq, on "Pause".
Its like having a building thats falling. You send in hundrids of reinforcements to hold it up, and while they are standing there holding the building up, you say... LOOK its working. The "surge" was to be a temoprary 18 month buildup of troops... Now they are staying indefeintly.
The second those guys let go, the building will fall. Bush is just hoping these guys can hold the building up until the election.
The Security situation in Iraq is improved, temporarly. The poltical problems are still the same and once the troops leave... The security situation will no longer be improved.
Its like having a building thats falling. You send in hundrids of reinforcements to hold it up, and while they are standing there holding the building up, you say... LOOK its working. The "surge" was to be a temoprary 18 month buildup of troops... Now they are staying indefeintly.
The second those guys let go, the building will fall. Bush is just hoping these guys can hold the building up until the election.
The Security situation in Iraq is improved, temporarly. The poltical problems are still the same and once the troops leave... The security situation will no longer be improved.
That's oversimplifying, and you're just trying to cover your ass with this. First of all, I think it's possible to admit the surge worked (to some extent - I think declarations of unmitigated success have been vastly overplayed), doesn't mean he was "wrong" to suggest that the alternative would have worked, as well. His position all along is that we can only get so far militarily in Iraq, and that forcing the Iraqis hand to step up & be self-sufficient in their own defense is the way to go. The fact that Iraqis are now talking in terms of withdrawal & a timetable is at least a partial victory for him on that position, so I don't think he has anything to back down about.
On the 2nd point, you're a miserable partisan fuck if you can't allow a politician to admit a mistake here & there; that's the kind of attitude that breeds a leader like your hero Bush, who can't admit any mistakes of any kind. At the very least, you can acknowledge it, and not fabricate the idea that he is just geared to denigrate the security efforts, as the cartoon implies.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Settle down skippy....
1) What do you mean I am trying to "cover my ass"???? I was right on supporting the surge. Your messiah was wrong.
2) He was indeed WRONG in his assertation that the surge would 'likely make things worse'.
"On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." ...
In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080718/pl_usnw/rnc__obama__the_democrats__and_the_surge
3) I have ZERO problem with someone admitting a mistake. But that is NOT what your messiah is doing. Instead he is acting like he was correct all along. Or have you heard him say he was wrong in not supporting the surge? Wrong in stating that it wouldn't work? Wrong in stating that it would likely make things worse???
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5417331&page=1
"In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
That's it? That's the only comment you have to support your assertion that for "many months" he "told the world that the surge would never work?"
A bit of an exaggeration there, innit, Freak?
He praised the security situation on his trip; that's as much of an acknowledgment as you can get out of a politician, because there are people in the McCain camp who are twice as hackish as you are & who would take anything that was more of an outright admission & run with it like there was no tomorrow.
I love how the surge represents the 1st time that any of you hacks can say you were "right" in any way, and it's like manna from heaven for you. Fact is, it's not the overwhelming success it's portrayed as, and we're still in a fragile mess of a situation over there because of the huge # of times you have been WRONG. Obama's admission that security is improved over there is infinitely more of an admission than we'll ever get out of any of those responsible for the blunders that got us in this situation to begin with.
Obama's position has always been that the sooner the Iraqis are on their own & have to step up, the better. Nothing that has happened has proven that assertion "100% wrong," and it still represents his basic philosophy.
That's it? That's the only comment you have to support your assertion that for "many months" he "told the world that the surge would never work?"
A bit of an exaggeration there, innit, Freak?
He praised the security situation on his trip; that's as much of an acknowledgment as you can get out of a politician, because there are people in the McCain camp who are twice as hackish as you are & who would take anything that was more of an outright admission & run with it like there was no tomorrow.
I love how the surge represents the 1st time that any of you hacks can say you were "right" in any way, and it's like manna from heaven for you. Fact is, it's not the overwhelming success it's portrayed as, and we're still in a fragile mess of a situation over there because of the huge # of times you have been WRONG. Obama's admission that security is improved over there is infinitely more of an admission than we'll ever get out of any of those responsible for the blunders that got us in this situation to begin with.
Obama's position has always been that the sooner the Iraqis are on their own & have to step up, the better. Nothing that has happened has proven that assertion "100% wrong," and it still represents his basic philosophy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... so his position in January 2007 is shown to you. His current position is shown to you. Yet you somehow want to pretend that his position wasn't the same all the way through. He JUST said THIS month that given what he knows now, he STILL would oppose the surge. Sorry if I inferred that meant he was standing by his previous comments. Given that to my knowledge he has never changed his position.
Given that it is the success of the surge is what is going to allow for the Iraqis to take over control of more provinces, yes he is 100% wrong to state that he would still oppose that very surge. Yes, I agree, things are still fragile over there and we still have about 8 of the 18 provinces where our troops are in the lead. All the more reason to listen to the commanders on the ground as to when re-deployment can occur rather than setting a specific timetable for withdrawal. Because as you alluded to... it could easily blow back up again.
Obama's definition of success is much broader than Bush, McCain's or yours. This won't shock you, but I agree with him. All of a sudden, "victory" in Iraq seems to be defined as a security situation which we still control & which is fragile at best. It's another result of the constant goalpost shifting we have seen, and doesn't look at the larger picture of what both political & military success not just in Iraq, but in the broader war on terror entail.
"What's missing in our debate about Iraq — what has been missing since before the war began — is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy," Obama said. "This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st Century."
"George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq — they have a strategy for staying in Iraq," Obama said. "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down."
"At some point, a judgment must be made," he added. "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-iraq_dorningjul16,0,3356588.story
You & McCain & others are lying about his position, and declaring him "100% wrong" based on a limited view of the situation, and your own criteria. Fact is, he has been more right on Iraq since the beginning than any of you have ever been within 1,000 miles of.
"What's missing in our debate about Iraq — what has been missing since before the war began — is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy," Obama said. "This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st Century."
"George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq — they have a strategy for staying in Iraq," Obama said. "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down."
"At some point, a judgment must be made," he added. "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-iraq_dorningjul16,0,3356588.story
You & McCain & others are lying about his position, and declaring him "100% wrong" based on a limited view of the situation, and your own criteria. Fact is, he has been more right on Iraq since the beginning than any of you have ever been within 1,000 miles of.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Where have I "lied" about his position? I posted quotes from OBAMA's friggin speech. They were exact words from OBAMA. How the fuck is that "lying about his position"?????
Yes, he was correct on his intial stance of opposing the war. He is also correct on the war detracting from the economy. I would disagree with him that our security is somehow diminished by the war. I would agree that the way Bush handled Iraq has diminished (or at the least exposed) how the world sees the US.
But NONE of that changes the fact that he was wrong in his judgement on whether or not the surge itself would work. Nor does it change the fact that he seems rather foolish to suggest that knowing what he does today he would still oppose the surge that has led to conditions in which his plan for withdrawal could be feasible.
You said he had "no choice but to admit that he was 100% wrong." That's only on YOUR limited definition of what he was talking about. He has always been clear that we can only get so far with the military; his opposition to the surge was much more than "it won't reduce violence."
If you can't see that, I can't do much for you.
If you can't see that, I can't do much for you.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Man are you blinded by your faith in the messiah.
As I said... Obama is NOT 100% wrong on Iraq. He is 100% wrong on JUST the surge. He said in Sept 2007 .....
"There's no military solution in Iraq; there never was," Obama said. "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."
http://www.barackobama.com/media/2007/09/13/obama_time_to_bring_troops_hom.php
He is flat out WRONG on both of those positions that relate to the surge. I know it is something that you cannot admit. I do understand why you like Obama so much. I think he would make a good leader. Obviously I think McCain will be a better one, but Obama most definitely is the best candidate the Dems have put up in my lifetime.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Please explain how I am not looking at the correct context. When someone says that there is 'no military solution' and that given 20/20 hindsight on the surge that he would STILL oppose it. Please explain where the context is that I am missing.
Because I am obviously blinded to whatever you are seeing. He could not have been clearer on his position on the surge.
This does not mean that his way might have worked. We can neither prove nor disprove that. But for him to state that the surge is STILL a mistake.... even after knowing how well it has worked (which to be clear does NOT mean that things are perfect over there by any means)... THAT is where I think he is 100% wrong.
Socrtease
Verified User
The real problem here is that Dems and Obama supporters in general will NEVER say that the surge worked. As I have said before, the best thing is to say "ok it worked. HOwever, you said after it worked you would bring forces for the surge back home. You also said that when the security situation improved the Iraqi's would begin stepping up and taking charge. To prove that you need to not just NOT take the lead in those provences but clear out entirely, in the 10 that we are not in the lead, show us what you got." We are not requiring the Iraqi's to do this because the truth is, Neither Bush or McCain want to face the pressure of LOTS of Americans demanding that our troops be brought home. This surge was never about letting the Iraqi's take charge, it was all about having less soldiers die there so that there was less pressure to stay in Iraq. They don't want to pull back, and they don't want to bring, imo, even half the troops back. Bush wants a major military presence there so it can act as a spring board for further missions in other parts of the ME. When that happens Iraqi's will revolt at us being there AT ALL.
"When someone says that there is 'no military solution' and that given 20/20 hindsight on the surge that he would STILL oppose it. Please explain where the context is that I am missing."
Jeez...can you be this stupid?
He's 100% right...there IS no military solution in Iraq, which is consistent with everything he has ever said about the situation. THAT is why he opposed the surge. The context of "success" with regard to the surge is very limited, but it's what you're sticking with.
And his way might have worked; we will never know. That's why his admission that security has improved isn't the 100% endorsement of the surge that McCain & the connie cons want. I think he still believes that it's more than we should have committed after all of this time in terms of soldiers, resources & attention.
Jeez...can you be this stupid?
He's 100% right...there IS no military solution in Iraq, which is consistent with everything he has ever said about the situation. THAT is why he opposed the surge. The context of "success" with regard to the surge is very limited, but it's what you're sticking with.
And his way might have worked; we will never know. That's why his admission that security has improved isn't the 100% endorsement of the surge that McCain & the connie cons want. I think he still believes that it's more than we should have committed after all of this time in terms of soldiers, resources & attention.