Off Topic · Why is Obama meddling in international affairs? (page 1)

This guy is a candidate for president and hes telling the leaders of other nations to not make agreements with our government? Guess he only wants our troops out of Iraq if hes the one who cant take credit for it. Obama first!



http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/pos...

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

I guess this is okay with you guys?

NY Post as your source for a balanced reported story?

Posted by martin:

NY Post as your source for a balanced reported story?

It has a direct quote from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Is he lying?

NY Post is almost as balanced as Fox News is with its reporting. Optimistically, the article concludes "we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January". This suggests that there probably won't be an agreement.

Now, we know there is going to be a new President in a few months. Any foreign leader who has his balls on the line and has half a brain would want to wait to see what is going to happen and who is going to be in place to get a full, concrete, long-term solution that won't flip in under 6 month. That's just sensible. For McCain or Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...

Obama did not ask to delay security agreement, Iraqi FM says


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did not urge Iraqi officials to delay a decision on a security agreement with the United States, Iraq's foreign minister told CNN on Sunday.

The statement by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari refutes a recent published report and a statement by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin that Obama tried to influence Iraqi politicians negotiating with the United States to score political points.

^ good catch remembering this thread martin. nypost has an agenda!

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

And he seems to be a fair-weather poster. Ever since things have turned for the worse for McCain in this campaign, Izy seems to have gone into disappearance. Maybe he'll actually reply to this thread now though.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

And he seems to be a fair-weather poster. Ever since things have turned for the worse for McCain in this campaign, Izy seems to have gone into disappearance. Maybe he'll actually reply to this thread now though.

If his track record is to be taken into consideration (always disapperaing after being owned on multiple occasions) then i seriously doubt we will be hearing from him. You can just listen to Sean Hannity and get the same answers izy would give


[Edited by - azamatbagatov on 10-13-2008 4:30 PM]

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

dont even respond to my posts.

Nice response.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

And he seems to be a fair-weather poster. Ever since things have turned for the worse for McCain in this campaign, Izy seems to have gone into disappearance. Maybe he'll actually reply to this thread now though.

You can see from my post count I dont post often. It gets frustrating posting in regards to politics when I am the only poster on this entire site that supports Mccain. I have never been very into politics, and while I enjoy an occasional debate I also do not have the inclination to rehash the same arguments with the same posters over and over again. Perhaps some of you should try to carry a thread when you are the only one on one side of the debate versus 20 other posters.

As far as being a "fair weather poster", it makes me laugh that you guys have put that much thought into it, when I see a topic that interests me I will respond, and when I dont I dont. As far as me being "owned" because the post quoted someone who is now retracting that statement, then I feel your issue is with the Post or the perosn who made the statement. If that means I am "owned", then i say Lol to you.

[Edited by - izybx on 14-10-2008 6:24 PM]

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

I would suggest to anyone who wants to say anything that doesn't go Obama's way, better forget about saying anything. You'll get clobbered on this board.

Posted by 4949:

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

I would suggest to anyone who wants to say anything that doesn't go Obama's way, better forget about saying anything. You'll get clobbered on this board.

no. If you want to say anything on this board back it up with sense and good arguments. That's all that is necessary.

Posted by martin:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

I would suggest to anyone who wants to say anything that doesn't go Obama's way, better forget about saying anything. You'll get clobbered on this board.

no. If you want to say anything on this board back it up with sense and good arguments. That's all that is necessary.

Good luck finding a Democrat and a Republican who will describe the others points as having "sense" or making "good arguments". The only thing that is accomplished when debating is that each person thinks the other is stupid

Posted by izybx:

Posted by martin:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

I would suggest to anyone who wants to say anything that doesn't go Obama's way, better forget about saying anything. You'll get clobbered on this board.

no. If you want to say anything on this board back it up with sense and good arguments. That's all that is necessary.

Good luck finding a Democrat and a Republican who will describe the others points as having "sense" or making "good arguments". The only thing that is accomplished when debating is that each person thinks the other is stupid

I am an optimistic fool.

Posted by martin:

Posted by izybx:

Posted by martin:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by ramtour420:

Posted by izybx:

I guess this is okay with you guys?

You just got owned !!! But seriously why would Obama want to do follow an agreement put in place by the Bush administration? If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, seems logical to me.

You just couldn't help yourself when you saw a chance to say something negative about Obama, could you? Even if it comes from a steaming pile of poop newspaper such as the Post. . .at least you stay true to your style, carry on !

I would suggest to anyone who wants to say anything that doesn't go Obama's way, better forget about saying anything. You'll get clobbered on this board.

no. If you want to say anything on this board back it up with sense and good arguments. That's all that is necessary.

Good luck finding a Democrat and a Republican who will describe the others points as having "sense" or making "good arguments". The only thing that is accomplished when debating is that each person thinks the other is stupid

I am an optimistic fool.

Thats the way to be bro

Because he's going to be the next President.

He's looking for more terrorists to pal around with because he's a terrorist and plans to kill every American.