Trump announces Japanese corporate giant is investing $50 billion in the U.S.

[NYC17]

You're conflating two separate things, and building a strawman in the process. First, this discussion started with Trump taking heat for supposedly claiming credit for something he had little to do with. I offered that Obama laughably claimed credit for "ending the Iraq War" when the actions which caused that ending were set in motion by his predecessor, and those actions didn't even actually end the war.

You then started a tangent about whether or not Obama could or should have changed course, which while a worthy topic, is a separate issue. I maintain that things would have been far better off had Obama tried to put pressure on the Maliki government to keep a stabilizing force to continue the advise and assist mission in the country. This would have prevented the Iraqi Army from melting away as it did. All of this is well in the realm of possibility, but didn't happen mostly because Obama didn't want it to.

Even as the Arab Spring started, Obama and company wanted to treat it like Woodstock instead of seeing it for what it really was. Then they wen't full retard and started bombing Ghaddafi and Assad, and well, you have what we have now. We eventually got back on track with Iraq and have the Iraqi military on the offensive by doing essentially what we were doing when we left, with a greater focus on special operations forces, but still the FID mission. Our air assets are also decisively engaged, which makes a world of difference. Many lives were lost unnecessarily to get back to this point. Egypt's military did us a solid in dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood there, and Syria and Lebanon are still complete clusterfucks with no end in sight.

- - - Updated - - -



Same thing I said to the other guy. Two separate issues. He was silly for claiming he ended the war, because he did not set into motion the events that led to the "ending" and because that ending wasn't even really an ending regardless of who set it in motion. My opinion is he should have continued our efforts there and not been shy about it but that bears not one bit on the ridiculousness of claiming an ending he didn't create. Understand now?

I'm aware of what your claim was. Reiterating that you made the claimd oesn't make it any more meaningful; nor accurate.

I understand your need to describe the discussion as a "tangent" when all it is is a discussion, and disagreement. for instance, you claiming that Obama could have done it because you say so, while every bit of evidence suggests otherwise is a disagreement you have with me, but I wouldn't call it a tangent. WHy? Because it's silly.

As far as Libya, it's laughable that conservatives have a problem with it. They were all but leading the charge. But, you know, historical awareness doesn't seem to be their strongsuit.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I'm aware of what your claim was. Reiterating that you made the claimd oesn't make it any more meaningful; nor accurate.

I understand your need to describe the discussion as a "tangent" when all it is is a discussion, and disagreement. for instance, you claiming that Obama could have done it because you say so, while every bit of evidence suggests otherwise is a disagreement you have with me, but I wouldn't call it a tangent. WHy? Because it's silly.

As far as Libya, it's laughable that conservatives have a problem with it. They were all but leading the charge. But, you know, historical awareness doesn't seem to be their strongsuit.

I reiterated my positions to clarify my points that Obama claiming the he ended the war, and whether or not doing so was a good idea, are in fact, two separate issues. Evidence, what evidence? You've not supported your argument with any. You've just stated your opinion in much the same manner I have.

I don't speak for all conservatives, so you're just stuck arguing with me, sorry. I'll admit I supported the initial invasion, but I learned from that folly. Secretary Clinton and President Obama apparently did not. Staying in Iraq to to try and fix what we broke and leaving to go break other things aught not to be painted with the same brush.

[NYC17]

I reiterated my positions to clarify my points that Obama claiming the he ended the war, and whether or not doing so was a good idea, are in fact, two separate issues. Evidence, what evidence? You've not supported your argument with any. You've just stated your opinion in much the same manner I have.

I don't speak for all conservatives, so you're just stuck arguing with me, sorry. I'll admit I supported the initial invasion, but I learned from that folly. Secretary Clinton and President Obama apparently did not. Staying in Iraq to to try and fix what we broke and leaving to go break other things aught not to be painted with the same brush.

Uh no, I've offered verifiable facts, some of which you even seemed to agree with, about Maliki etc. but your general "Obama bad" refrain just doesn't allow you to accept it. Obama didn't find the protections offered by a weak Iraqi government to be strong enough for U.S. troops. He's such a prick, making sure you guys had the right protections and all.

But yes, I mentioned conservatives because if I were to use the term "you", it would have been viewed as a personal attack. That's how the game goes on this forum.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Uh no, I've offered verifiable facts, some of which you even seemed to agree with, about Maliki etc. but your general "Obama bad" refrain just doesn't allow you to accept it. Obama didn't find the protections offered by a weak Iraqi government to be strong enough for U.S. troops. He's such a prick, making sure you guys had the right protections and all.

But yes, I mentioned conservatives because if I were to use the term "you", it would have been viewed as a personal attack. That's how the game goes on this forum.

You've stated the released reasons why the SOFA fell through. I've agreed those were the stated reasons. Where we're differing is I don't believe that is the entire story. I was not privy to the details of those discussions so I'm ultimately speculating. It is not a completely unfounded position to take though that President Obama had an extreme distaste for the Iraq war, and really wanted to wash his hands of the whole exercise. The Maliki government suffered no loss of material support from us by not coming to an agreement about the SOFA. That in my mind is very telling of the Obama Administration's lack of fucks to give on subject. They were hoping we could turn the page on Iraq and be done with it. It turns out they were incredibly wrong, and many people suffered horrific ends as a result.

Now, to be fair, to lay the atrocities of ISIS at Obama's feet is stupid and wrong. It is not wrong however, to look at the decisions that Obama made, which created the conditions necessary for ISIS to rise. Most of Obama's second term was spent attempting to correct the follies of his first. Sometimes with success, such as the case of Iraq, and sadly sometimes with failure in the case of Syria.

[NYC17]

You've stated the released reasons why the SOFA fell through. I've agreed those were the stated reasons. Where we're differing is I don't believe that is the entire story. I was not privy to the details of those discussions so I'm ultimately speculating. It is not a completely unfounded position to take though that President Obama had an extreme distaste for the Iraq war, and really wanted to wash his hands of the whole exercise. The Maliki government suffered no loss of material support from us by not coming to an agreement about the SOFA. That in my mind is very telling of the Obama Administration's lack of fucks to give on subject. They were hoping we could turn the page on Iraq and be done with it. It turns out they were incredibly wrong, and many people suffered horrific ends as a result.

Now, to be fair, to lay the atrocities of ISIS at Obama's feet is stupid and wrong. It is not wrong however, to look at the decisions that Obama made, which created the conditions necessary for ISIS to rise. Most of Obama's second term was spent attempting to correct the follies of his first. Sometimes with success, such as the case of Iraq, and sadly sometimes with failure in the case of Syria.

Its really as simple as this. The Iraqi parliament was not going to approve troops remaining without them being subjected to Iraqi law. Obama and his administration didn't find that acceptable. You can argue it's a high and probably impossible bar to meet if you want. You can also argue that troops should have been subjected to their law. However, Obama disagreed and the American people would not have supported such an agreement, as they wanted troops removed to begin with.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Its really as simple as this. The Iraqi parliament was not going to approve troops remaining without them being subjected to Iraqi law. Obama and his administration didn't find that acceptable. You can argue it's a high and probably impossible bar to meet if you want. You can also argue that troops should have been subjected to their law. However, Obama disagreed and the American people would not have supported such an agreement, as they wanted troops removed to begin with.

I don't disagree at all those terms should have been met. I just disagree that we were confined to the choices of acquiesce to Maliki, or leave the country. We had more than enough leverage to get better terms, but lacked the desire to do so.

[Kujako]

Its really as simple as this. The Iraqi parliament was not going to approve troops remaining without them being subjected to Iraqi law. Obama and his administration didn't find that acceptable. You can argue it's a high and probably impossible bar to meet if you want. You can also argue that troops should have been subjected to their law. However, Obama disagreed and the American people would not have supported such an agreement, as they wanted troops removed to begin with.

So Obama turned white, changed his name to Bush, traveled back in time and signed the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement? Man... what CAN'T that fella do?

[Zyster]

People in here are hilarious. Jump through hoops to support Trump having no affiliation at all with this. Defends Obama is the reason Osama Bin Laden was killed in many many many previous threads.

[Deleted]

Trump should ask his good friend vladimir putin to allow the people from aleppo to move out of the warzone.. instead of helping assad to go from house to house and kill every single person left.

Exactly that is happening right now.

[Tijuana]

So Obama turned white, changed his name to Bush, traveled back in time and signed the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement? Man... what CAN'T that fella do?

Obama is half white. Just sayin...

[NYC17]

So Obama turned white, changed his name to Bush, traveled back in time and signed the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement? Man... what CAN'T that fella do?

I don't see how this applies to my comment, but whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't disagree at all those terms should have been met. I just disagree that we were confined to the choices of acquiesce to Maliki, or leave the country. We had more than enough leverage to get better terms, but lacked the desire to do so.

Right. except it wasn't just Maliki that was the problem. it was the parliament. The only term that seemed to matter was troop immunity from Iraqi law, and the parliament was not having it.

So what better terms were there?