Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Oct '11 02:22
    BBC: "All US troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year, President Obama announces, bringing to an end a nine-year military campaign there."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15410154

    Do Obama's detractors on this forum welcome this announcement and recognize it as an achievement by the president in so far as it is both an astute move and more or less a promise kept?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Oct '11 02:31
    Originally posted by FMF
    BBC: "All US troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year, President Obama announces, bringing to an end a nine-year military campaign there."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15410154

    Do Obama's detractors on this forum welcome this announcement and recognize it as an achievement by the president in so far as it is both an astute move and more or less a promise kept?
    It's hardly a "promise kept". In fact, Obama repeatedly spoke of a "residual force" of up to 50,000 men and tried all year to get the Iraqi government to accept such a force. The promise to remove all troops by the end of this year was part of an agreement made by GWB before he left office; if you want to give Obama credit for somewhat reluctantly keeping an agreement with a foreign nation then I guess that is warranted, but hardly laudatory.
  3. 22 Oct '11 03:55
    Originally posted by FMF
    BBC: "All US troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year, President Obama announces, bringing to an end a nine-year military campaign there."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15410154

    Do Obama's detractors on this forum welcome this announcement and recognize it as an achievement by the president in so far as it is both an astute move and more or less a promise kept?
    Unless continuing a military campaign furthers a countries interests I cannot see how is it ever not good to be done with a military campaign. I would think that lives are and money by the campaign being completed and I am not sure how the US how get further benefits by staying in Iraq. Is there an argument for staying?
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Oct '11 04:07
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Unless continuing a military campaign furthers a countries interests I cannot see how is it ever not good to be done with a military campaign. I would think that lives are and money by the campaign being completed and I am not sure how the US how get further benefits by staying in Iraq. Is there an argument for staying?
    The presence or lack of arguments for doing or not doing something aside, do you applaud Obama's announcement?
  5. 22 Oct '11 05:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    BBC: "All US troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year, President Obama announces, bringing to an end a nine-year military campaign there."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15410154

    Do Obama's detractors on this forum welcome this announcement and recognize it as an achievement by the president in so far as it is both an astute move and more or less a promise kept?
    All you will get is the information filtered through the established positions.

    My view is that the US admin pushed the Iraqi govt, such as it is, to the wall, on whether US soldiers would be immune from the Iraqi justice system, such as it is, and they, for whatever reason, had to say no, and we said, OK then, we are out of here.

    For all we know, that 'no' answer is what the US admin wanted, and everyone is happy, or at least happier than any other answer would make the parties.

    It might also be a way to out Iran, on whether they are providing active assistance to whoever is still blowing up people in Iraq. Can Iran restrain themselves from ramping up their activities in Iraq? Will it become obvious?

    Kind of a reverse domino effect. Brilliant, if it works.
  6. 22 Oct '11 13:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    The presence or lack of arguments for doing or not doing something aside, do you applaud Obama's announcement?
    I definitely do support Obama's announcement. I have no problem with him trying to push the Iraqis for anything that would benefit this country-- including solder immunity.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Oct '11 14:47
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I definitely do support Obama's announcement. I have no problem with him trying to push the Iraqis for anything that would benefit this country-- including solder immunity.
    If there are foreign soldiers on our soil receiving or giving training should they be exempt from our laws?
  8. 22 Oct '11 16:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    If there are foreign soldiers on our soil receiving or giving training should they be exempt from our laws?
    The question is whether there training benefits us. If it does we might make concessions, if it doesn't I would not train them unless we were compensated adequately. We are in Iraq for their benefit. Obama is justified to make demands. If they don't want to meet them then we do owe the Iraqi people anything and have the right to leave ASAP.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Oct '11 16:06
    Originally posted by quackquack
    The question is whether there training benefits us. If it does we might make concessions, if it doesn't I would not train them unless we were compensated adequately. We are in Iraq for their benefit. Obama is justified to make demands. If they don't want to meet them then we do owe the Iraqi people anything and have the right to leave ASAP.


    The Iraqi people decided long ago that they didn't want us "benefiting them" if it meant US troops could kill their people with impunity.
  10. 22 Oct '11 16:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder


    The Iraqi people decided long ago that they didn't want us "benefiting them" if it meant US troops could kill their people with impunity.
    If we get nothing from being there, then we should leave.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Oct '11 16:55
    Originally posted by quackquack
    If we get nothing from being there, then we should leave.
    Most Iraqis will shed no tears when we do.
  12. 22 Oct '11 17:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder


    The Iraqi people decided long ago that they didn't want us "benefiting them" if it meant US troops could kill their people with impunity.
    It would be impossible to conduct military operations in a country if killing an attacker were subject to that country's laws. While Iraq's position is understandable politically, murdering their people wouldn't be with impunity. US soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which for example says:

    918. ART. 118. MURDER
    Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -
    (1) has a premeditated design to kill;
    (2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
    (3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
    (4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
    is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

    There are also articles for manslaughter, robbery, etc.

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20X.%20PUNITIVE%20ARTICLES
  13. 23 Oct '11 00:43
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Most Iraqis will shed no tears when we do.
    You know this from the hundreds of hours you have spent interviewing Iraqis, I guess. Otherwise you are claiming some kind of god like mind reading ability which, I must say, I find unlikely.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Oct '11 01:04
    Originally posted by dryhump
    You know this from the hundreds of hours you have spent interviewing Iraqis, I guess. Otherwise you are claiming some kind of god like mind reading ability which, I must say, I find unlikely.
    I can read Iraqi election results even if you can't or refuse to.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Oct '11 01:26
    Originally posted by JS357
    It would be impossible to conduct military operations in a country if killing an attacker were subject to that country's laws. While Iraq's position is understandable politically, murdering their people wouldn't be with impunity. US soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which for example says:

    918. ART. 118. MURDER
    Any person subject ...[text shortened]... , etc.

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20X.%20PUNITIVE%20ARTICLES
    Your knowledge of this subject is obviously extremely limited. This link might help: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34531.pdf

    First, US troops are not supposed to conduct offensive military operations in Iraq after December 2011 (they can't conduct them now without the permission of Iraqi authorities). So that portion of your argument is utterly irrelevant. Of course, the inherent right to self-defense is not effected.

    Secondly, the most common form of Status of Force Agreements between the US and host countries provides for "shared jurisdiction" e.g. The United States has concluded agreements where it maintains exclusive jurisdiction over its personnel, but more often the agreement calls for shared jurisdiction with the receiving country.

    So Iraq was requesting nothing more than what most countries in the world with US forces on their soil have while the US was insisting on something they assuredly do not have i.e. full immunity.

    The US Supreme Court has weighed in on such agreements and found them valid. Note this case cited in the link I provided at p. 15:

    In 1957, a member of the U.S. Army was indicted in the death of a Japanese civilian while
    participating in a small unit exercise at Camp Weir range area in Japan.71 The United States
    claimed that the act was committed in the performance of official duty, but Japan insisted that it
    was outside the scope of official duty and therefore Japan had primary jurisdiction to try the
    member. After negotiations, the United States acquiesced and agreed to turn the member over to
    Japanese authorities. In an attempt to avoid trial in the Japanese Courts, the member sought a writ
    of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.72 The writ was
    denied, but the member was granted an injunction against delivery to Japanese authorities to
    stand trial. The United States appealed the injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    In Wilson v. Girard,73 the Supreme Court first addressed the jurisdictional provisions contained in
    the administrative agreement. The Court determined that by recommending ratification of the
    security treaty and subsequently the NATO SOFA, the Senate had approved the administrative
    agreement and protocol (embodying the NATO provisions) governing jurisdiction to try criminal
    offenses.74 The Court held that “a sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses
    against its laws committed within its border, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender
    its jurisdiction”
    and that Japan’s “cession to the United States of jurisdiction to try American
    military personnel for conduct constituting an offense against the laws of both countries was
    conditioned” by provisions contained in the protocol calling for “sympathetic consideration to a
    request from the other State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other State considers such
    waiver to be of particular importance.”75 The Court concluded that the issue was then whether the
    Constitution or legislation subsequent to treaty prohibited carrying out of the jurisdictional
    provisions. The Court found none and stated that “in the absence of such encroachments, the
    wisdom of the arrangement is exclusively for the determination of the Executive and Legislative
    Branches.”76


    Given the travesty of justice that the US court system made in the case of the Blackwater employees who gunned down a dozen or so Iraqi civilians in the middle of Baghdad and got away with it scot free, it's no wonder the Iraqi people and government found the idea of complete immunity for US servicemen for ANY crimes committed repugnant. Surely the US would not agree to the same for foreign troops training or being trained here. American exceptionalism has its limits.