Rand Paul: Let’s face it, it was a mistake to topple Saddam Hussein

Hotair ^ | 04/27/2015 | AllahPundit

[laplata]

Right on.

[laplata]

That sir/madame is a totally different topic.

---

The thread got off topic a long time ago.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Sorry

Apologize...don't be ridiculous....I's just jiving ya.

[Chgogal]

Thanks for the link.

[Alberta's Child]

It was an "unofficial" translation because it was posted on that site one day (literally) after it was signed.

You can find other versions of it elsewhere on the 'net. They all say the same thing.

[Chgogal]

Hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I can handle the truth.
; )

[okie01]

Your post is filled with a lot of assumptions and no hard facts. You may be correct,...

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.

[Chgogal]

No matter what you say, the link YOU provided is the unofficial translation from an Arabic source. Where is the US government's source?

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.

[A Navy Vet]

"It's worth noting that the Obama administration was negotiating an extension of the U.S. military presence in Iraq through 2010, but ended up walking away from the negotiations under pressure from senior U.S. military leaders who were adamant that they would never allow U.S. military personnel to remain in Iraq unless they were given full immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts. This was a point that Iraq's leaders would not accept, so the U.S. left them to deal with their own sh!t-hole."

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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.

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.

[Alberta's Child]

I only provided that link because it was the first one that came up in a Google search. Does this one work any better for you?

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?

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[IMR 4350]

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.

[BeadCounter]

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.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/

[A Navy Vet]

""Sending soldiers into that kind of environment is an invitation for a large-scale mutiny."

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.

[laplata]

We should have gotten the WMD’s the first time we went into Iraq.

[demshateGod]

He is 100% right.

[RedHeeler]

Perot, redux.

[IMR 4350]

The first time we hadn’t been attacked and there was no threat.

[TigersEye]

Reasons we went to war with Iraq.

First the context, we were already in a state of war with Iraq under a cease fire.

• 1. Iraqi provocation of American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. "More than 42,000 sorties were flown during that time. Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems targeted ONW aircrews on nearly every flight." (That sounds like 42,000 reasons to me but I'll only count it as one.)
• 2. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions that were a result of his losing the war. (That should count as 17 reasons.)
• 3. Saddam tried to assassinate a former U.S. President.
• 4. Saddam was killing the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq that we had promised protection.
• 5. Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• 6. Iraq's biological weapons program.
• 7. Iraq's chemical weapons program.
• 8. Saddam's extensive cooperation with terrorists.

I left out the 500,000+ people Saddam had killed because, after all, who cares? /s