Iraq made it crystal clear that they were NOT going to renegotiate the SOFA that they had just gotten through negotiating. This wasn't just Maliki who was opposed to that. Anything we negotiated would have had to pass their "legislature", which was ABSOLUTELY opposed to continued presence of US combat forces. Why would Iraq choose to renegotiate a contract that they had negotiated only 1 month previously??? And, no, I am most definitely NOT pointing to Obamacare only - even though that was used by the Republicans as justification for shutting down our government and voted against it over 60 times proposing to cancel every health care plan in America (other than Medicare and VA) without having a plan for what American families could do as a replacement. The second larges legeslative effort under Obama was immigration, and with that they developed a bi-partisan reform act that passed the Senate and would have passed the Republican House, but Boehner refused to allow it to come to a vote. While Dems had the Senate, Republicans blocked all meaningful legislation that didn't meet the 2/3 requirement of cloture. We've also seen unprecedented refusal to review nominations, leaving a seriously depleted judiciary for NO REASON related to the qualifications of any nominee - an unprecedented purely partisan assault. Do you think the close margin in the Senate will be used by Dems to require cloture on all Republican bills during the Trump presidency??? If not, why not?
You're clearly overstating the case, though you may not know it. It was Barrack Obama who didn't want to negotiate. Here he is.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgyu11TZEFc It was important that a SOFA was in place and all Obama had to do was renegotiate it. If you recall Obama wanted to 'end the war in Iraq' and 'bring the troops home'.. He did not mention renegotiating a SOFA. here he is again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpBwmN66As In fact they did have another plan and Paul Ryan mentioned it many times. You may get to see a version of it soon. Here's what happened. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...eamers-homeland-security-department/22854865/ Perhaps there was a reason. It's not unprecedented and the SCOTUS was not 'seriously depleted'. The vacancy will soon be filled.QUOTE] Do you think the close margin in the Senate will be used by Dems to require cloture on all Republican bills during the Trump presidency???[/QUOTE] These people were elected to serve what they believe to be the best interests of the American people, according to their conscience. The Democrats and the Republicans should act accordingly and the people can then respond to their decisions at the next election, just as they did November 9th.
We have ~ 6K troops in Iraq right now with no SOFA. Maliki wanted US troops to stay after the surge. But when they left he acted to purge the Iraqi gov of Sunni's under influence of Iran. The Obama administration pointed to the success of Iraq with regard to security, safety, and stability as one of the best achievements of their administration as they pulled out all of the US military, gov, and intelligence personnel. AQI had been decimated down to tens of fighters the influence of Iran in the ME was low. And the result of that - ISIS and mayhem. This all goes onto the Obama administration. Harry Reid has opened the door for the nuclear option. IMO the R's should use it. Additionally 25 D Senators are up for re election in 2018. Their votes in the next 2 years will factor into their re election.
..? No, we don't put in place an agreement such as a SOFA with the intent of turning around and renegotiating it one month later. And, Maliki was crystal clear about there being no chance of going back. He had no interest i US combat troops in Iraq, and his government would not have ratified such an agreement. Think about it from his point of view. He was intent on his civil war against Sunnis. He was driving Sunnis from his government and was eliminating them from cities/areas he saw as belonging to Shiites using his military and Shiite militias. US combat troops would have been at counter purposes with Maliki. Our experience was that we had success against terrorjsts when working WITH Sunnis, not against them. And, what did we have to offer Sunnis that didn't include protection from Maliki?
Yes, and they are not alowed to carry out combat missions. Plus, that number is far smaller than the minimum number of troops required to carry out independent combat operations according to our military. We have used them in rolls such as training Sunnis to be part of their military and to otherwise have leverage in what the Iraqi government does, moderating their treatment of Sunni civilians while trying to keep the focus on fighting terrorists.
Nuclear option? That would create far more terrorists than it would kill, would raise world wide opposition, would slaughter more civilians than terrorists, and would be perhaps the most stupid thing we could posibly do. The last thing we should want is validation of nuclear war.
Right. Which demonstrates that this whole SOFA argument was just an excuse to blame others for the failure of Obama's policies. Yes, but there was a great many divisions within his government with some actively supporting terrorists groups or who were sympathetic to them. Others wanted more reward for themselves. This, as you know, was a fledgling democracy which most everyone outside of BHO and his followers understood. The consequences of Obama's ignorance of foreign policy in the area has been demonstrated more than once. His mention of a "Red Line" in Syria and describing ISIS as a "JV Team" are just two other examples. But neither of these led to the horrors we've seen in the area since December, 2011, when he abandoned Iraq to the terrorists who had previously been brought under control. These are the facts.
These people were elected to serve what they believe to be the best interests of the American people, according to their conscience. The Democrats and the Republicans should act accordingly and the people can then respond to their decisions at the next election, just as they did November 9th.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court originally had 6 justices. The court has not improved since then, but 8 is certainly better than 9
Trivia and nothing more and his mandate comes from the landslide victory for electors, what wins the contest.
Hilarious! Now you think electors are people!! Sorry - it is "we the people", not ":we the electors".
Obama/Jarrett ignored all of the advice they were given. And .... ISIS. The factions in the Iraqi gov were and are clearly there but the US presence kept them in check. How long would we have had to remain in Iraq - as long as it took. We still have ~ 30K troops in South Korea.
Come'on man. It's the Harry Reid "nuclear option" - it refers to passing things through the Senate with a majority vote (and not a 60 vote filibuster approval requirement). https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html
Gee whiz - that is what they were doing before Obama pulled them all out declaring the democracy in Iraq (and stability in the ME) as one of the greatest accomplishments of his administration. The Iranians could not believe the stupidity of such a move. It's the greatest foreign policy blunder since Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler (although Chamberlain might have been buying time for the British military). There is no argument to justify what Obama did.
The Kurds insisted it was impossible that Obama would ever pull the troops, that it would lead to a bloodbath.
I was trying to find the "I'm really butt hurt" meme but couldn't. That's okay. We'll leave some tissues out for ya
The GOP is just one state legislature away from being able to pass a constitutional amendment w/o the Dems having the ability to stop it. This is the first time in American history one party has had so much power.
After all this: OK we're way past November 9th. In fact, it doesn't look like you've posted since November 8th. Interesting...however I am very much interested in your after action report.
Yes, globalism is slavery I 100% agree. And the Globalist elite that run those multi nation companies that want cheap labour also want mass immigration to destroy National culture & drive down the wages & move industry to the cheapest place they can. It does make me wonder, when I see all these anti-Globalist protesters, they seem so much like these anti-Trump cry-babies that are burning American inner-Cities at the moment, I wonder if they actually understand what they are protesting about. Still the youth of to-day are so ill-informed I am not surprised they have no idea what they are rioting about. They have no logical arguments to make.
I waited and a different game happened..... - - - Updated - - - Really? How is that gloating going? - - - Updated - - - Not so fast.
