[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Bush didn't give a time line. I realize you'll make up shit to defend Obama at all cost.

In late April 2007 Congress*passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but*President Bush*vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline. He later signed a status of forces agreement that expired in 2011. That was not a deadline. It was the end of a contract. In which another contract should have been entered. The one Obama didn't get for several reasons. Mainly because he was committed to withdraw not securing gains.

To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” That's what Bush said to his critics demanding a withdrawal deadline.

That's Bush's timeline. We leave when the commanders say it's time to leave.

It's funny how after Obama pulled all the troops out he celebrated his actions and took full credit for them. Democrats were saying if McCain won we'd still be in Iraq. And they'd be right.

But now its all gone to shit in Iraq. All the sudden it's Bush's fault the troops were pulled out. Which is just plain reversing narratives to fit whatever you need to say to defend Obama.

Actually it WAS a deadline, one that was kept..

The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.

The facts don't lie.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

[quote =rob666;4434336]When was there ever a victory in Iraq? :facepa

Tell me, what will it look like? How can we define it?

EvwhatObaw, if ISIS is killed entirely ( which we all know will NEVER happen ) where will Iraq be next year? 5 years from now? 1 big happy democracy?

When we defeated Iraq. And we gained control of their military and took control from the tyrant.

If Iraq is a free democracy in 50 years it will be because of American troops. And that's success. Fuck this instant gratification pipe dream. That was never realistic and was never promised by Bush.

But we'll never know now. Because Obama pulled out before Iraq was prepared to fend for itself. That's not even debatable based on the events that have occurred.

I can understand the people saying it all was a mistake and we shouldn't of gone there. But i can't understand people saying "so what Obama pulled the troops out. We shouldn't of been there anyway" Pulling the troops out at this point was just as bad if not worse than originally going in.

Now nobody knows what's going to happen. Not just in Iraq but the entire middle east.[/QUOTE]

Bush set the timeline for troop withdrawal, all that Obama did was follow it.

So if you want someone to blame for that, you're blaming the wrong guy.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

You keep bringing up the cost of WAR, I am, and some others that concur, are saying a residual occupancy is not the same as war in cost.

And you call it hostile, but praise obama for calling it a stable and finished? make up your mind. Its only hostile now because we jumped the gun hauling ass out of there, thanks to obama. Are the far left people this dense everywhere?

And no its not bullshit about burying everything, I would know my dad is the safty medical director of the contractor that was assigned in getting that project done.

Thanks to Obama for pulling the troops out? No, sorry, that was signed off before he took office.

How is the cost to leave military personnel in Iraq going to be even remotely close to what it costs in the places you mentioned, such as Germany or Japan? How can you logically draw a comparison between friendly nations, and a place with an active resistance fighting any American presence? You REALLY think that the cost is similar to having a military presence in Japan or Germany?
When was the last time there was an attack on an American base in either of those countries?
OK, I'll forget the cost of war ( even though the war was over in 6 months and everything thereafter was an occupation ). How is fighting an insurgency going to be ANYWHERE near the cost of having a military base in Germany?

I've NEVER praised Obama for calling it stable or finished, in fact I've never considered it to be either..... Stop putting words into my mouth.

The fact is the day Saddam was gone, the genocide/civil war/meltdown was inevitable. So unless you want to fight against the Iraqi's indefinitely, you pull out...... And that is EXACTLY what will happen, because unlike Germany or japan, Iraq in its current borders is a relatively new country and has ZERO sense of national unity or identity.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Bush didn't give a time line. I realize you'll make up shit to defend Obama at all cost.

In late April 2007 Congress*passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but*President Bush*vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline. He later signed a status of forces agreement that expired in 2011. That was not a deadline. It was the end of a contract. In which another contract should have been entered. The one Obama didn't get for several reasons. Mainly because he was committed to withdraw not securing gains.

To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” That's what Bush said to his critics demanding a withdrawal deadline.

That's Bush's timeline. We leave when the commanders say it's time to leave.

It's funny how after Obama pulled all the troops out he celebrated his actions and took full credit for them. Democrats were saying if McCain won we'd still be in Iraq. And they'd be right.

But now its all gone to shit in Iraq. All the sudden it's Bush's fault the troops were pulled out. Which is just plain reversing narratives to fit whatever you need to say to defend Obama.

This is utter bullshit.

Stick to reality.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

Huh?

I said Russia did take Crimea by force..

When you send in troops and heavy weaponry to annex a part of a souvenir country, that's taking it by force.

Are you drunk?

OK....... Step by step, follow along.......


IF......IF....... Russia decided to take Crimea by force, they would, due to their supreme military capabilities.

Crimea...... Crimea...... after months...... months..... of fighting, is NOT....... NOT...... NOT..... Under Russian control.

So- If Crimea is not under Russian control, this means either- That Russia is not militarily capable of taking Crimea....... OR-
2- That Russia, although supplying aid and Intelligence, is not openly fighting with troops under the authority of Moscow.

So you tell me, which one is it?

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

OK....... Step by step, follow along.......


IF......IF....... Russia decided to take Crimea by force, they would, due to their supreme military capabilities.

Crimea...... Crimea...... after months...... months..... of fighting, is NOT....... NOT...... NOT..... Under Russian control.

So- If Crimea is not under Russian control, this means either- That Russia is not militarily capable of taking Crimea....... OR-
2- That Russia, although supplying aid and Intelligence, is not openly fighting with troops under the authority of Moscow.

So you tell me, which one is it?

Okay I guess you're not following what's going on in the region as closely as I thought. Russia already has annexed Crimea months ago. The current conflict isn't happening in Crimea it's happening in eastern Ukraine, completely separate from Crimea. The Russian Federation considers Crimea Russian territory since the annexation. You didn't know that?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

Okay I guess you're not following what's going on in the region as closely as I thought. Russia already has annexed Crimea months ago. The current conflict isn't happening in Crimea it's happening in eastern Ukraine, completely separate from Crimea. The Russian Federation considers Crimea Russian territory since the annexation. You didn't know that?

I'm just about done with you, you're just going in circles

You'd make a good politician..... the non-answers are excellent.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

I'm just about done with you, you're just going in circles

You'd make a good politician..... the non-answers are excellent.

I'll answer any question you have that is logical, shoot.

I got a question for you, do you know where Crimea is in location to Eastern Ukraine?



Russia has this territory now under it's control. It wants to draw a line north and take the rest of the bordering territory. It's not some mystery..

[rob666]

Ok, here's the question-


Assuming that Russia is fighting in Crimea, why has it been unable to occupy it as a whole?

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Ok, here's the question-


Assuming that Russia is fighting in Crimea, why has it been unable to occupy it as a whole?

It has been able to occupy it as a whole. Currently Russia is in military control of the entire Crimean peninsula(The blacked out area on that map). All Ukrainian forces withdrew by Russia's deadline, and there was no military battle for that region. Russia claimed that Ukraine(The Kiev) was oppressing the majority ethnic Russian population(because Crimea was Russian until 92).

Also, your question seems to be more directed at Eastern Ukraine than the Crimean Peninsula. If that's the case, I'll tell you exactly why the territory isn't Russian yet. Russia is involved in what's called a "proxy" war with Ukraine but more the west as a whole. They couldn't risk any more acts of aggression without isolating themselves from the international community.(After Crimea was taken by Russia is when sanctions against them started) So they are not officially trying to take the territory, they are funding mercenaries to handle the fighting. Once the territory gains "independence" they will have another "fair" referendum to join the Russian federation.