1robin
Christian/Baptist
That war can only be waged if the nation where it is being fought unanimously votes to allow it to take place is silly and contradictory to history.
I am not a prophet, but I can make an educated guess. Isis would not have been able to kill civilians by the tens of thousands virtually unchecked for a long time. Also he would not have risked or lost what the soldiers paid for with their blood and their lives. Being a soldier I can tell you that we accept the fact that we will lose friends and will have to endure hardships for a long time. What US soldiers do have a problem with is for the politicians to squander all the gains the soldiers sacrifice bought or to even risk that happening for political reasons.
I am not sure what your point is. Obama simply should have not let what you stated to occur. He should have simply said that the Iraqi's hold no sovereignty over US personnel and any attacks on our citizens would be met with force.
I am not sure what your saying. we were talking about the merit of Obama's decisions concerning a war. I am not discussing hypothetical partisan politics in general.
Of course you draw down after a war. The issue here is that liberals always try to cut and run too fast, and for political reasons. They threw away everything that was gained by 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam who died to preserve the south and freedom, they also attempted to sit by and let the free world burn in WW2 until Japan attacked us and we demanded action, and they are doing the same thing in the middle east.
Of course there have been examples where sticking it out did not work. However it is meaningless to point out that military mistakes occur. What are you saying? That only actions that have never failed can be carried out? Should we not attempt to cure cancer because some cures have not worked in some cases?
Roosevelt (a liberal of course, or at least a progressive) tried his best to not get involved because WW2 at that point was not popular, which allowed millions to die before we acted. You cannot possibly find a war more universally agreed with than the gulf wars, it was only much later when things got a little difficult that the liberals started whining. besides a thing is not right or wrong depending on it's popularity. Hitler was hugely popular in 37 - 42, was he right? Jesus was unpopular with the Jewish establishment, does that make his messages on love and peace wrong? Arguments from popularity are a type of logical fallacy.
That was not the goal but it should have been. you could not come up with better situation. The terrorists were coming to us instead of hiding in the civilian population. Of course we took a few casualties here and there, but our enemy was finally out in the open and for every soldier we lost a dozen to a hundred or more terrorists died. For the first time the enemy were looking for us instead of hiding behind children and Hospitals. It was the best situation anyone could rationally hope for.
That proves my point, if Obama had the moral courage to stand up to evil and protect Iraq then he should have left a significant US force in Iraq until the Iraqi's were properly trained.
I respect politicians for doing what is right even if people whine about it. Obama gave into the whining instead of doing what was right. Political expediency has no relevance here. I am discussing what is right and wrong, not what is best for a Politicians career. Again your proving everything I have said about Obama and liberals in general. BTW this same dichotomy has existed in the exact same way for thousands of years.
That would not have been the case if a true leader and statesman had been in power instead of a liberal ideologue.
I do not care, Lincoln was hated by most much of the time, all by some all the time. yet because he stayed the correct moral course in spite of criticism he is known as possibly the greatest president in history. BTW the other president that the same can be said about is Washington. Obama will be known as a petty, immoral, and self interested narcissist, unlike the presidents I mentioned.
If we had a true leader as president then that situation would simply not exist. Obama was not forced to do what you claim he was, in fact that situation never existed in general outside of a hypothetical.
These are false arguments because no one could have forced any of these situations to become reality. Obama did not have to allow a single thing you mentioned to become reality.
You seem to be claiming that only wars in which we lose no one and no one has to suffer can be fought. That is irrational and unhistorical. All wars come with risks, the Iraqi war had less risk than most.
You only have about two bizarre lines of reasoning which you state in dozens of ways.
1. Only wars where no risks exist and nothing bad occurs can be fought. That is silly, irrational, and unhistorical.
2. Or that things which Obama was not forced to allow to occur are reasons that Obama should have run before the job was done. This is self contradictory, incoherent, and even if true would only show that Obama failed in another way in addition to running before the job was done. No one could have forced us to allow any of the things you suggest would have forced us to leave when we did.
