One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Who will gain from US withdrawal from Iran Deal? Any guesses?
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
May 14, 2018 20:33:22   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
son of witless wrote:
The US is losing credibility and can't be trusted ? Of course you mean the way Obummer left Iraq to ISIS.

Well technically, Bush left Iraq to ISIS since Bush was the one who signed the Status of Forces Agreement, on Dec. 14, 2008, that said: “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” So Obama was actually making good on a promise made by a previous president which made the US MORE credible (see how that works?).

And your *decoy* wouldn't have worked anyway, because whatever your propaganda channel says happened in Iraq has no effect on the Iran deal and the fact that the U.S. is rescinding on a multilateral agreement they signed a only a few years before.

Reply
May 14, 2018 21:18:38   #
son of witless
 
straightUp wrote:
Well technically, Bush left Iraq to ISIS since Bush was the one who signed the Status of Forces Agreement, on Dec. 14, 2008, that said: “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” So Obama was actually making good on a promise made by a previous president which made the US MORE credible (see how that works?).

And your *decoy* wouldn't have worked anyway, because whatever your propaganda channel says happened in Iraq has no effect on the Iran deal and the fact that the U.S. is rescinding on a multilateral agreement they signed a only a few years before.
Well technically, Bush left Iraq to ISIS since Bus... (show quote)


Well technically the agreement Bush signed was an excuse for Obama to do what he wanted to do. Technically Obama did not have to follow an agreement that did not fit what happened in real life. Technically Obama wanted out. Technically Obama had the power to do what ever he needed to do to keep Iraq from being taken over by ISIS and Iran. Technically you are rationalizing an Obama catastrophe.

Technically President Trump is reversing a Presidential directive which is not a Treaty ratified by the Senate. Technically a President can undo what another President did, if it is not written into law.

Technically Obama allowing ISIS and Iran to conquer parts of Iraq and Syria hurt America's credibility. Technically the World stopped fearing the United States when Obama was technically our Fearless Leader.

Reply
May 14, 2018 21:27:24   #
moldyoldy
 
[quote=son of witless]Well technically the agreement Bush signed was an excuse for Obama to do what he wanted to do. Technically Obama did not have to follow an agreement that did not fit what happened in real life. Technically Obama wanted out. Technically Obama had the power to do what ever he needed to do to keep Iraq from being taken over by ISIS and Iran. Technically you are rationalizing an Obama catastrophe.

Technically President Trump is reversing a Presidential directive which is not a Treaty ratified by the Senate. Technically a President can undo what another President did, if it is not written into law.

Technically Obama allowing ISIS and Iran to conquer parts of Iraq and Syria hurt America's credibility. Technically the World stopped fearing the United States when Obama was technically our Fearless Leader.[/quote


Technically, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2018 23:20:43   #
CodyCoonhound Loc: Redbone Country
 
straightUp wrote:
I think if you really look at the the history of the middle-east since the industrial age you will find that Britain, France and the U.S. have been far more aggressive at "taking over" the middle east than Iran has been and it could be argued that everything Iran has done has been defensive, including their own revolution that kicked the U.S. out of Tehran.

As for the sanctions, I'm not sure I see your point. How does Airbus (which is actually a multinational company) and Boeing impact other countries if they are only pulling contracts from Iran? ...Honest question.
I think if you really look at the the history of t... (show quote)


Germany says they will not pull out of Iran agreement and the 99 Airbus order from Germany is canceled. Simply because banks are not sure if Iran can pay the notes on borrowed money. Very small portion of Airbus business, but without the aircraft Iran remains somewhat isolated and unable to expand their economy in areas that aircraft would help them. Just one of many articles on subject. http://fortune.com/2018/05/08/trump-iran-deal-boeing-airbus/

Reply
May 14, 2018 23:37:41   #
CodyCoonhound Loc: Redbone Country
 
straightUp wrote:
I think if you really look at the the history of the middle-east since the industrial age you will find that Britain, France and the U.S. have been far more aggressive at "taking over" the middle east than Iran has been and it could be argued that everything Iran has done has been defensive, including their own revolution that kicked the U.S. out of Tehran.
the economic war
As for the sanctions, I'm not sure I see your point. How does Airbus (which is actually a multinational company) and Boeing impact other countries if they are only pulling contracts from Iran? ...Honest question.
I think if you really look at the the history of t... (show quote)


As far as history of oil investment in middle east, you are correct. We thought we would run out in the 70's. Now we are the largest producer of oil and largest reserves. Thus, anyone that says they will shoot WOMD at the Israelis or USA, and thinks they can also provide weapons to terrorists around the world to attack us, then a price will be paid. We have always helped our enemies rebuild if they become good world citizens and stay good citizens. If we never went to middle east to build oil wells and refineries, they would have remained a very poor region. So it really was not us stealing oil from Iran in the 70's. Khomeni was their guy that wanted that wealth for himself and thus they over thru the dictatorship/quasi democracys.
The oil economy we built to grow their living standard by selling into world market became the prize. Much more complicated than that, but I think you get the gist.

Reply
May 15, 2018 10:05:17   #
son of witless
 
[quote=moldyoldy][quote=son of witless]Well technically the agreement Bush signed was an excuse for Obama to do what he wanted to do. Technically Obama did not have to follow an agreement that did not fit what happened in real life. Technically Obama wanted out. Technically Obama had the power to do what ever he needed to do to keep Iraq from being taken over by ISIS and Iran. Technically you are rationalizing an Obama catastrophe.

Technically President Trump is reversing a Presidential directive which is not a Treaty ratified by the Senate. Technically a President can undo what another President did, if it is not written into law.

Technically Obama allowing ISIS and Iran to conquer parts of Iraq and Syria hurt America's credibility. Technically the World stopped fearing the United States when Obama was technically our Fearless Leader.[/quote


Technically, you have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]

Are you sure that Bad Bob and you are not the same guy ? You did what he always does. You both claim that either I do not know what I am talking about or I am nuts, but neither of you seems able to muster the brain power to explain why you believe that.

Reply
May 15, 2018 10:36:14   #
moldyoldy
 
son of witless wrote:
Are you sure that Bad Bob and you are not the same guy ? You did what he always does. You both claim that either I do not know what I am talking about or I am nuts, but neither of you seems able to muster the brain power to explain why you believe that.


Any renegotiation would have put US troops under Iraqi law, this was not acceptable. This sticking point made keeping troops there impossible.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]
The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]
The Iraqi government also approved a Strategic Framework Agreement with the United States,[6] aimed at ensuring international cooperation including minority ethnicity, gender, and belief interests and other constitutional rights; threat deterrence; exchange students; education;[7] and cooperation in the areas of energy development, environmental hygiene, health care, information technology, communications, and law enforcement.[8]
Several groups of Iraqis protested the passing of the SOFA accord[9][10][11] as prolonging and legitimizing the occupation, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani expressed concerns with the ratified version.[12][13] Some other Iraqis expressed skepticism that the U.S. would completely end its presence by 2011.[14] U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had predicted that after 2011 he would have expected to see "perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops" as part of a residual force in Iraq.[15] Some Americans had discussed "loopholes"[16] and some Iraqis had said they believed parts of the pact remained a "mystery"

Reply
 
 
May 15, 2018 11:14:51   #
son of witless
 
moldyoldy wrote:
Any renegotiation would have put US troops under Iraqi law, this was not acceptable. This sticking point made keeping troops there impossible.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]
The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]
The Iraqi government also approved a Strategic Framework Agreement with the United States,[6] aimed at ensuring international cooperation including minority ethnicity, gender, and belief interests and other constitutional rights; threat deterrence; exchange students; education;[7] and cooperation in the areas of energy development, environmental hygiene, health care, information technology, communications, and law enforcement.[8]
Several groups of Iraqis protested the passing of the SOFA accord[9][10][11] as prolonging and legitimizing the occupation, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani expressed concerns with the ratified version.[12][13] Some other Iraqis expressed skepticism that the U.S. would completely end its presence by 2011.[14] U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had predicted that after 2011 he would have expected to see "perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops" as part of a residual force in Iraq.[15] Some Americans had discussed "loopholes"[16] and some Iraqis had said they believed parts of the pact remained a "mystery"
Any renegotiation would have put US troops under I... (show quote)


" Any renegotiation would have put US troops under Iraqi law, this was not acceptable. This sticking point made keeping troops there impossible."

Untrue. We controlled Iraq. US Troops would not be under Iraqi law unless we were stupid. It is inconceivably idiotic that we did not maintain an Air component in Iraq to deny Iran Air Superiority. Then again under the Great Barak it is very conceivable. A guy that never even ran a hot dog stand was trying to run a war. Barak been Bery Bery good to Iran and ISIS. Should we even bring up Libya and Obama and Hillary's gross incompetence there ?

Reply
May 15, 2018 12:46:07   #
moldyoldy
 
son of witless wrote:
" Any renegotiation would have put US troops under Iraqi law, this was not acceptable. This sticking point made keeping troops there impossible."

Untrue. We controlled Iraq. US Troops would not be under Iraqi law unless we were stupid. It is inconceivably idiotic that we did not maintain an Air component in Iraq to deny Iran Air Superiority. Then again under the Great Barak it is very conceivable. A guy that never even ran a hot dog stand was trying to run a war. Barak been Bery Bery good to Iran and ISIS. Should we even bring up Libya and Obama and Hillary's gross incompetence there ?
" Any renegotiation would have put US troops ... (show quote)


You are delusional, the US is not the world ruler.

Reply
May 15, 2018 16:13:30   #
son of witless
 
moldyoldy wrote:
You are delusional, the US is not the world ruler.


World Ruler ? ? What does that have to do with anything ? The US expended blood and treasure to get rid of Saddam and then beat back the Islamic terrorists who tried to fill the vacuum and then your young inexperienced idiot just threw it all away and got nothing. We controlled Iraq. We had allies who fought and died with our troops and Obama abandoned them to ISIS and Iran. Talk about America never being trusted again. Geez.

Reply
May 15, 2018 16:25:10   #
moldyoldy
 
son of witless wrote:
World Ruler ? ? What does that have to do with anything ? The US expended blood and treasure to get rid of Saddam and then beat back the Islamic terrorists who tried to fill the vacuum and then your young inexperienced idiot just threw it all away and got nothing. We controlled Iraq. We had allies who fought and died with our troops and Obama abandoned them to ISIS and Iran. Talk about America never being trusted again. Geez.


The agreement was solidified long before Obama came along. Signed by Bush.

Reply
 
 
May 15, 2018 16:50:49   #
Marsinah
 
rumitoid wrote:
Did BFF Putin order Trump to bail on Iran? It would appear so. (What does Russia have on him?) The only country in this accord to profit after Truump's withdrawal is Russia: what a coincidence. One more Russian link. But in Trump's admin, Russians are everywhere. Their interference gave him the presidency. And Comey.


Possibly they have KiraSeer Binkley. Whaddya think?

Reply
May 15, 2018 21:02:19   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
Marsinah wrote:
Possibly they have KiraSeer Binkley. Whaddya think?


Do you go by Susan Blange..on OPP sometimes too?

Reply
May 15, 2018 21:40:48   #
kankune Loc: Iowa
 
son of witless wrote:
Are you sure that Bad Bob and you are not the same guy ? You did what he always does. You both claim that either I do not know what I am talking about or I am nuts, but neither of you seems able to muster the brain power to explain why you believe that.



Reply
May 15, 2018 21:41:34   #
kankune Loc: Iowa
 
son of witless wrote:
" Any renegotiation would have put US troops under Iraqi law, this was not acceptable. This sticking point made keeping troops there impossible."

Untrue. We controlled Iraq. US Troops would not be under Iraqi law unless we were stupid. It is inconceivably idiotic that we did not maintain an Air component in Iraq to deny Iran Air Superiority. Then again under the Great Barak it is very conceivable. A guy that never even ran a hot dog stand was trying to run a war. Barak been Bery Bery good to Iran and ISIS. Should we even bring up Libya and Obama and Hillary's gross incompetence there ?
" Any renegotiation would have put US troops ... (show quote)



Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.