Why aren't christians doing anything

[FanthatSpark]

...work for counterpunch, do we?

Nope , just refreshing truth there, lol.

 

[RDKirk]

Obama was Constitutionally bound by the agreement Bush signed.

Well, as the House Republicans pointed out to Iran, the new president can repudiate the agreements of the former president. The word of the US government cannot be considered reliable.

Mate in two, but I'll be kind and offer you a draw.

I love that movie.

 

[mindlight]

The agreement called for a complete pullout of US combat forces. Obama is not responsible for reading comprehension skills of Gates or "many Iraqis."

Gates was selected by both Republican and Democrat presidents as Defence Secretary. You dismiss his view on this agreement way too glibly.

And the Right wanted to continue the glorious war -- we get it.

The war was already won by the Surge. It is Hilary Clinton and Obama that squandered that victory and the sacrifices that had been made. 'So keen to be history makers that they missed the opportunity to be peacemakers!'

Yes, yes, he was a tactical genius -- we get it. No wonder he singed for a complete pullout of combat troops by December 2011.

No Bush was far from a perfect president but this agreement was made with an understanding of a continued cooperative American presence and with an assessment on the conditions on the ground. The intelligence reports that Obama used to legitimate his withdrawal stated that leaving iraq would have no impact on the local situation. Those predictions have proven as bad as we have come to expect from American intelligence and rank with Pearlharbour, 911 and WMDs for their level of incompetence. They were also contrary to the collective wisdom of the military leaders many who spoke out against the decision.

Obama was Constitutionally bound by the agreement Bush signed.

Oh please...do you expect a serious response to that! First off you misunderstand the intent behind the agreement which was mainly to do with the handover of sovereignty. Second you misunderstand your own consitutional process which constantly reviews and clarifies the meaning of such arrangements. Obamas key consideration seems to be a desire to end the war and given his legal background worries over American soldiers immunity to prosecution by a sovereign Iraq.

Mate in two, but I'll be kind and offer you a draw.

Maybe you should stick to chess though I know a little boy who could probably beat you at that.

 

[mindlight]

The church in Iraq was decimated by Iraqi Shiites all the while Bush was in office as well. That consequence of removing Saddam had been predicted by the intelligence community 'way back in the early 90s.

American "intelligence" merely commentated here on a trend that had been going on for a century. In 1947 12% of iraqis were Christian, 1987 8%, 1% 2015. Christians have been leaving for more than 100 years. Assyrian Christians left for Russia as the Ottoman empire wound down and the Turks were busy massacring millions of Armenian and Greek Christians. What the war did was remove the controls on sectarian violence and create more fluid borders. It gave reason and opportunity for Christians to run from a place that has treated them badly since the original Muslim invaders occupied their lands. There are now some 600000 Christians in an Iraqi diaspora of some 4-5 million. I do think the occupying powers could have done more for Christians but their murder has been by Muslims and it is they that are responsible for the genocide. It is clear to me God is telling Christians to get out. When they are gone there will most likely be a terrifying judgment on the place that will make the current crisis look like a tea party by comparison.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Gates was selected by both Republican and Democrat presidents as Defence Secretary. You dismiss his view on this agreement way too glibly.

He could've floated down from heaven on a buggy pulled by four german shepherds -- he's still wrong about the SOFA.

The war was already won by the Surge. It is Hilary Clinton and Obama that squandered that victory and the sacrifices that had been made. 'So keen to be history makers that they missed the opportunity to be peacemakers!'

Yes, Yes, Bush won the glorious war with His Surge... and that why you're complaining that we didn't fight it longer...

No Bush was far from a perfect president but this agreement was made with an understanding of a continued cooperative American presence and with an assessment on the conditions on the ground.

What was "understood" and what was actually written down are two different things... If Bush wanted to continued Combat presence in Iraq, he probably shouldn't have signed a treaty which called for their removal once he was long out of office...

The intelligence reports that Obama used to legitimate his withdrawal stated that leaving iraq would have no impact on the local situation. Those predictions have proven as bad as we have come to expect from American intelligence and rank with Pearlharbour, 911 and WMDs for their level of incompetence. They were also contrary to the collective wisdom of the military leaders many who spoke out against the decision.

None of which means a lick of difference -- any treaty signed becomes the law of the land.

Oh please...do you expect a serious response to that!

Nope -- and I'm not disappointed.

First off you misunderstand the intent behind the agreement which was mainly to do with the handover of sovereignty.

Which we did, and which the Iraqis promptly squandered. Why do you think Iraqi troops fled from ISIS even with vastly superior numbers?

Second you misunderstand your own consitutional process which constantly reviews and clarifies the meaning of such arrangements.

You mean the Supremacy Clause?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Not a lot of wiggle room, is there?

Obamas key consideration seems to be a desire to end the war and given his legal background worries over American soldiers immunity to prosecution by a sovereign Iraq.

By all means, continue to attempt to make this sound like a bad thing...

Maybe you should stick to chess though I know a little boy who could probably beat you at that.

I see the metaphor just flew right by...

 

[mindlight]

He could've floated down from heaven on a buggy pulled by four german shepherds -- he's still wrong about the SOFA.

Article 24 sets a clear timetable which I must admit I am surprised Bush signed up to. But maybe Gates and Bush both considered article 27 as the get out clause allowing ongoing support for the sovereignty of Iraq and protection against internal and external threats.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Yes, Yes, Bush won the glorious war with His Surge... and that why you're complaining that we didn't fight it longer...

What was "understood" and what was actually written down are two different things... If Bush wanted to continued Combat presence in Iraq, he probably shouldn't have signed a treaty which called for their removal once he was long out of office...

No Article 27 gives ground for an ongoing presence and Obama himself discussed this possibility indicating that it was a real one in his mind also. You are just wrong on this.

None of which means a lick of difference -- any treaty signed becomes the law of the land.

All very legal but history is littered with broken American legal agreements. Sometimes for very good reasons I must add. America was actually legally obliged to go to war to protect the sovereignty of the Ukraine but de facto recognised that the Crimea wants to be a part of Russia so chose bluster and economic sanctions instead.

Which we did, and which the Iraqis promptly squandered. Why do you think Iraqi troops fled from ISIS even with vastly superior numbers?

Neither of us hold much respect for Iraqi governance or military ability which adds weight to the incredulity many feel at Obamas uncritical handover of power to these people before the proper conditions were in place. There were warnings made. The result: chaos, genocide, Christian massacres....

You mean the Supremacy Clause?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Not a lot of wiggle room, is there?

Article 27 - lawyers always leave wiggle room! You have broken enough treaties and made enough stupid domestic laws ( whether abortion , gay marriage etc etc) to undermine this as governing principle to be respected no matter what.

By all means, continue to attempt to make this sound like a bad thing...

With 20 - 20 hindsight it clearly was the wrong decision to completely withdraw. The peace could have been maintained without significant American casualties. Hundreds of thousands of Christians and millions of Muslims would not now be dead or homeless.

I see the metaphor just flew right by...

whatever.. You were being arrogant and deserved the response.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Article 24 sets a clear timetable which I must admit I am surprised Bush signed up to. But maybe Gates and Bush both considered article 27 as the get out clause allowing ongoing support for the sovereignty of Iraq and protection against internal and external threats.

Maybe they did consider it.... a pity their opinions aren't in the treaty itself.

No Article 27 gives ground for an ongoing presence and Obama himself discussed this possibility indicating that it was a real one in his mind also. You are just wrong on this.

How big a presence would it have allowed for? Big enough to make a difference?

All very legal but history is littered with broken American legal agreements. Sometimes for very good reasons I must add. America was actually legally obliged to go to war to protect the sovereignty of the Ukraine but de facto recognised that the Crimea wants to be a part of Russia so chose bluster and economic sanctions instead.

It is shamefully true that America has a history of broken treaties... nevertheless, "what's one more?" is a poor justification for breaking this one.

America's credibility in the international community wasn't all that great in that time -- we needed to honor an agreement once in a while to build it back.

Neither of us hold much respect for Iraqi governance or military ability which adds weight to the incredulity many feel at Obamas uncritical handover of power to these people before the proper conditions were in place. There were warnings made. The result: chaos, genocide, Christian massacres....

Agreed -- as puppet governments go, it wasn't all that strong. Then again, the last time we erred in the opposite direction was in Iran... and my, how that came back to bite us...

Article 27 - lawyers always leave wiggle room! You have broken enough treaties and made enough stupid domestic laws ( whether abortion , gay marriage etc etc) to undermine this as governing principle to be respected no matter what.

Lawyers would have allowed it -- the people would not have. The people wanted the war over and the troops home. Had Obama reneged on that promise, the people would've lynched him on the White House lawn.

With 20 - 20 hindsight it clearly was the wrong decision to completely withdraw. The peace could have been maintained without significant American casualties.

I'm sure they would've continued to be welcomed as liberators. How shocking would it have been if you were wrong!

The. American. People. Wanted. Out.

Hundreds of thousands of Christians and millions of Muslims would not now be dead or homeless.

Well, that's the price of war, isn't it?