Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There certainly wasn’t a spike in things like armed drones or anything. No other hotspots we engaged that certainly were no direct threat to us.
You're moving the goalposts. You said that the MIC was running things, but you can't explain why then the decision-making changed so starkly from one admin to the next.
Clearly W Bush would not have pulled out. Robert Gates who was SecDef under both Bush and Obama, argued stridently against withdrawal in 2010 (so did Leon Panetta) but they lost the argument to the President.
You're moving the goalposts. You said that the MIC was running things, but you can't explain why then the decision-making changed so starkly from one admin to the next.
Clearly W Bush would not have pulled out. Robert Gates who was SecDef under both Bush and Obama, argued stridently against withdrawal in 2010 (so did Leon Panetta) but they lost the argument to the President.
The people eventually no longer tolerate it. But there will always be something going on to keep those “Defense” dollars spending.
Representatives secure pork barrel spending on Defense, which gives constituents jobs, which demands more Defense spending to continue, which has people question why we spend so much on Defense without credible threats, so we invent a Boogeyman of the month to shoot at. In the name of welfare essentially.
The people eventually no longer tolerate it. But there will always be something going on to keep those “Defense” dollars spending.
Representatives secure pork barrel spending on Defense, which gives constituents jobs, which demands more Defense spending to continue, which has people question why we spend so much on Defense without credible threats, so we invent a Boogeyman of the month to shoot at. In the name of welfare essentially.
Bush signed it under pressure from elements within Iraq. Gates said that there were many Iraqi leaders who were against withdrawal, but none willing to say so publicly. But Gates also thought that the agreement could have been re-worked to avoid precipitous withdrawal when the time actually arrived.
That's 'what in the world' I'm talking about. Again, two different admins, two starkly different approaches, contrary to your theory that the MIC runs everything.
Bush signed it under pressure from elements within Iraq. Gates said that there were many Iraqi leaders who were against withdrawal, but none willing to say so publicly. But Gates also thought that the agreement could have been re-worked to avoid precipitous withdrawal when the time actually arrived.
That's 'what in the world' I'm talking about. Again, two different admins, two starkly different approaches, contrary to your theory that the MIC runs everything.
Bush signed an agreement saying we would be out by Dec 2011. Bush started pulling out troops in his term.
Obama got us out as of Dec 2011.
That is starkly different, how exactly?
Iraqis were asserting their sovereignty and wanted us out. Bush started it, Obama finished it.
Bush signed it under pressure from elements within Iraq. Gates said that there were many Iraqi leaders who were against withdrawal, but none willing to say so publicly. But Gates also thought that the agreement could have been re-worked to avoid precipitous withdrawal when the time actually arrived.
That's 'what in the world' I'm talking about. Again, two different admins, two starkly different approaches, contrary to your theory that the MIC runs everything.
Yes of course Bush singed the agreement, they didn't want us there anymore and he didn't want to leave the next president with this mess without a conclusion. Gates had input on the agreement, we wanted to be out of there after 8 years of war. If there were in fact Iraqi leaders against our withdrawal they could have stated their disagreement publicly. Our military leaders in Iraq indicated they were trained and ready to take over, I never heard Gates state that they were not ready to take responsibility.
Yes of course Bush singed the agreement, they didn't want us there anymore and he didn't want to leave the next president with this mess without a conclusion. Gates had input on the agreement, we wanted to be out of there after 8 years of war. If there were in fact Iraqi leaders against our withdrawal they could have stated their disagreement publicly. Our military leaders in Iraq indicated they were trained and ready to take over, I never heard Gates state that they were not ready to take responsibility.
It's in his memoir Duty. Both he and Panetta were pushing hard to slow down withdrawal. He says there were many Iraqi leaders who wanted that too, but none were willing to say it publicly.
Uh, we precipitously exited Iraq in 2010 under Obama. If you were not aware of that, you should go do some reading before posting.
Revisionist history? We were told to leave by the Iraqi government because Hillary failed to seal the deal. We didn't leave because Obama decided that we were finished with Iraq. The resulting Chaos, it can be argued is what gave ISIS the ability to grow as strong as they did on Obama's watch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
