Posted on 04/27/2015 7:35:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 04/27/2015 10:05:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Interesting, not because it’s a surprise that Ron Paul’s son feels this way — remember this? — but because this is a subject that every Republican in the field, Rand included, would probably prefer to avoid during the primaries.
Or am I wrong about that? Could this be a smart play for Paul, especially given how it’ll make Jeb Bush squirm?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Right on.
That sir/madame is a totally different topic.
The thread got off topic a long time ago.
Apologize...don't be ridiculous....I's just jiving ya.
You can find other versions of it elsewhere on the 'net. They all say the same thing.
I said they were "assumptions. And I granted that "nobody knew for sure".
However, it's a fairly safe assumption that Obama would be looking to throw a monkey wrench in the works and seeking an opportunity for an early exit from Iraq.
Why did Bush sign the deal? Because, after Obama's meddling, it was the best he could get.
There are plenty of other reasons to blame Bush. But the status of forces agreement with Iraq probably isn't one of them.
Anyways, we all know Obama, had he been a true Statesman, would have done the right thing. He did not. That is not Bush's fault. That is the American Voters’ fault. Twice, no less.
I clearly remember the "immunity" requirement. However, I don't believe that Obama would allow any "pressure" from the military. But then, that may be why he fired so many top brass. Geeze, I hate giving him ANY credit for anything, and I'm still not certain why that is why he didn't insist while in a position of absolute power that "immunity" would be non-negotiable.
Actually, I saw his election as an opportunity for the U.S. to do the exact opposite. Nobody in the leftist media in this country would ever hold him accountable for escalating the conflict over there (or anywhere else) ... which is why a jug-eared exchange student from Kenya was able to preside over thousands of drone strikes that would have drawn a sh!t-load of criticism if they were carried out by a Republican president.
There are plenty of other reasons to blame Bush. But the status of forces agreement with Iraq probably isn't one of them.
Agreed. I'm just pointing out that the terms of that agreement were established before Obama was even in office. Anyone who complains about the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 should take it up with Bush, not Obama.
Status of Forces Agreement (2008)
Anyways, we all know Obama, had he been a true Statesman, would have done the right thing.
I'm not even sure what "the right thing" is supposed to be. What are you talking about?
It wasn’t just the military brass. Even the leftist lawyers that littered his administration would have told him the same thing. You can’t leave military personnel in a combat role in a sovereign nation without having a clear agreement on their legal status. Sending soldiers into that kind of environment is an invitation for a large-scale mutiny.
He’s not right on this.
Contrary to what we’ve been told by the dems/MSM there was WMDs in Iraq and we couldn’t take the risk of having the terrorist get their hand on those WMDs, namely the bio weapons.
A container the size of a baby food jar filled with anthrax spores would be more than enough to contaminate every major city in the US using the crude methods of the terrorist.
I don’t know, you can find numerous articles where General Lloyd Austin did want more troops to remain and was in dispute with the agreement.
“”There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission,” this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that’s not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.”
That makes me question your position in our conversation. The military would not "mutiny" under those circumstances. Argue all you want, but I just don't believe it.
Again, I now question why we deposed Saddam and why a Status of Forces agreement was not put in place.
We should have gotten the WMD’s the first time we went into Iraq.
He is 100% right.
Perot, redux.
The first time we hadn’t been attacked and there was no threat.
First the context, we were already in a state of war with Iraq under a cease fire.
I left out the 500,000+ people Saddam had killed because, after all, who cares? /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.