War today, war tomorrow, war forever... that's how Obama rolls

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I think McCain would have us out of Afghanistan sooner than Dear Leader.


http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/26/barack-obamas-not-ending-the-war-in-afgh

"Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on a promise to end the war in Iraq. That promise he tried his best to break by supporting a residual force of 10,000 U.S. troops past the 2011 withdrawal date agreed to by George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki several years prior. That plan, in fact, was also endorsed by Mitt Romney; the Republican presidential nominee called the president out on this fact at the last debate, but Obama responded by outright lying, saying “what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down” even though that was exactly what he tried to do. “That certainly would not help us in the Middle East,” Obama said of the 10,000 troops both he and Romney wanted to remain in Iraq past the 2011 withdrawal."

"In fact, before NATO agreed to withdraw by 2014, the U.S. and Afghanistan worked out a deal to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan for the next ten years. That truth was conveniently obscured during the campaign season but U.S. officials have made it a lot clearer the U.S. war in Afghanistan is not ending in 2014 since election day."
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure it's the Rethuglicans. They just won't let the Obama get us out of Afghanistan like he promised. Poor Obama is just thwarted at every turn by those pesky Rethuglicans.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Desert Dude has clearly never heard of a Status of Forces Agreement. In December of 2008, after Obama had campaigned and won, gaining many of his votes by his stance against OIF, Dubya signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Nouri Maliki (hence the shoe throwing incident) which not only obligated a presence of US troops, but a surge. I find it odd that so many people accuse Obama of blaming his problems on Dubya, as he has never once hidden behind this. Instead, he allowed himself to be the target of upbraiding by those who opposed the Iraq war as much as he did and had all along. To be fair, I also do not give him credit for the job well done getting us out of there with no loose ends.

Notwithstanding my defense of Obama, I too am curious as to whether or not he will keep his promise to withdraw troops from A-stan.

[video=youtube;iSeuLsNV4CA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSeuLsNV4CA[/video]
 

gagekko

Well-Known Member
America will always be OWNED by the elite and the banksters as long as Americans are stupid enough to buy into the two party system - Republicans? Democrats? They are just different claws on the same vampire :(
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
The Status of Force signed under George W. Bush, did not contain the provision of Local Law instead of UMJ. With no UMJ agreement, we won't base troops. The rest is partisan opinion. It doesn't matter who is President. The 10K that stay in either country will be not be subject to Sharia.

We won't base where, any GI, would end up in some local kangaroo court.

There is no other issue.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The Status of Force signed under George W. Bush, did not contain the provision of Local Law instead of UMJ. With no UMJ agreement, we won't base troops. The rest is partisan opinion. It doesn't matter who is President. The 10K that stay in either country will be not be subject to Sharia.

We won't base where, any GI, would end up in some local kangaroo court.

There is no other issue.
If Obama wanted Troops somewhere, they would be there, regardless of how that nation wished to hold them accountable for any transgressions they may commit. This is evidence that he isn't into unilateral ground invasions. They are expensive, unpopular and ineffective while creating massive domestic problems when troops come home with PTSD and off themselves in record numbers.

 
Top