Hey Kuresu,
(I could not access EvC forum yesterday afternoon from work and night from home. What gives?)
If, IF ANY American troops are in Iraq after 16 months (now its 19 months eh?, nice goal-post moving Kuresu, nice goal-post moving Obama), that would be clear and more evidence of continuing Bush policy. Fact, 70% of Iraqis want ALL Americans to leave. It is their country, what THEY want counts. What Bush or Obama wants is hardly important. If Germany invades Poland, Germany does NOT get the choice to continue occupying Poland.
"Leaving troops in Iraq for a long time would certainly not be unusual or without precedent."
The Iraqi invasion was based on lies. Thus, ALL American presence in Iraq is completely immoral and illegal. This particular situation would certainly be WITHOUT precedent. Your counter-argument about the USA having military bases in other countries is a straw man argument. Apples to oranges. ONLY WITH the approval of non-bullied or non-bribed people/government can the USA rightfully keep bases in other nations. (Indeed, recently Kyrgyzstan didn't approve, thus closed the U.S. base.) Again, 70% of Iraqis want USA out of there country. If Germany invades Poland, Germany does NOT get the choice to continue occupying Poland.
U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement SOFA
U.S.—Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia
According to SOFA, there are some scenarios that might extend the occupation. (Perhaps a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?) Kuresu, do you really believe a mere paper "agreement" will bind the war-criminal-actions of the USA to its terms? Kinda like using the honor system at a maximum security prison. I'd like to point out the USA has a looong history of violating international law and treaties . . .
Again, this is all speculation, I cannot use violations of SOFA for evidence, . . . yet. Kuresu, put this SOFA agreement in the folder marked "we'll see" and date it August 2010. To repeat, I would prefer to be wrong about Obama, and hope the US is COMPLETELY out of Iraq in the next 16, . . . err, 19 months. We'll see.
Re FISA bill:
First Kuresu writes:
"is the bill unconstitutional?"
[insert backpeddling noise]
Then Kuresu later writes:
"There is certainly a strong argument for the unconstitutionality of warrantless wiretapping."
"So, does Obama deplore the constitution? On one hand, he votes against doing away with warrants for wiretapping (the PAA), but does vote for an amendment to FISA, which adds some prohibitions to what the government can do leaves in place its powers in other areas. The picture, naturally, is far more complex than you make it out to be."
BS. Obama has pledged to defend the constitution and uphold the law. Bush's warrantless wiretapping was unconstitutional and illegal. Obama's FISA immunity bill vote was simply treasonous and despicable. With it, there will be no investigation of Bush's wire-tapping crimes or telecommunication company's collusion. This point stands as an example of Obama enabling/furthering Bush's illegal policies by allowing the crime to go unpunished and giving precedent to future presidential law breaking.
"It might be helpful to remember that there was a massive civil war that we sparked that killed the majority of these people."
It might be helpful to remember that the governments, the agencies, the departments, the nations, the world, etc., all warned loudly and repeatedly that the Iraqis were composed of different religious tribes that could ignite into a civil war IF the Bush Administration disregarded the invasion advice.
The Nuremberg Trials clearly showed: the country that illegally invades another country is wholly and fully responsible for ALL bad things that precipitates. By showing percentages for different causes of death, you attempt to marginalize the USA's responsibility. This is distasteful to say the least. The USA is responsible for ALL bad things in Iraq since the invasion. One doesn't deliberately run a bull into a china store and then unilaterally decide which broken pieces to pay for.
"Obama simply could have "reservations" about how you could implement the Arab Peace Initiative."
Puhlease. How ridiculous. The two state-solution has been hindered/vetoed by the US and Israel for almost 40 years. Just implement it Obama. Or continue with Bush's policy.
(One of my prior posts commented how Obama remained silent during Israel's recent illegal and immoral invasion of Gaza. Collective punishment IS a war crime. Gee wiz, how wonderful, when war crimes happen, Obama will merely have silent. . . "reservations".)
"I simply contended your argument that sovereignty violation is a specifically Bush policy."
Oh brother. Gosh, you really caught me there Pops. I'll have to re-construct my entire argument from scratch. Ummm, let's see . . . how about: "I don't believe we'll see foreign policy change, Obama will continue to follow Bush policies and other war criminal policies". How's that? Golly gee, it's like a completely different argument.
You previously wrote:
6) Karzai can demand a withdrawal all he wants. If Obama were to continue the Bush strategy of muddling through afghanistan, I'd say Karzai would be right.
Dronester responds:
"Originally, the US generals wanted 30,000 troops surge in Afghan. When Obama asked them, specifically to produce what goals, "What is the end game?", the Joint Chiefs said "Frankly we don't have one". I'd say that is muddling through.
Then Kuresu responds:
"That was the Bush policy . . . "
Oh no no no, that IS the Obabma policy. Read my link again Pops. My counter-argument specifically and completely refuted your first counter-argument. As my evidence shows, Obama's current policy continues the Bush strategy of muddling through. Additional troops and their respective war crimes (more wedding party massacres) will increase in Afghanistan under an Obama administration. The immoral and illegal policies of Bush continues, you lose this battle.
"Further, more troops can actually accomplish the mission if the mission is properly understood."
For the second time, no. Fact: USA IS muddlin' through Afghan. Kuresu, I'll note your good intentions for laying out a seemingly earnest Afghan strategy. But it is the exact same type of thinking that escalated the Vietnam war into MILLIONS dead:
"Originally, the US generals wanted 30,000 troops surge in Afghan. When Obama asked them, specifically to produce what goals, "What is the end game?", the Joint Chiefs said "Frankly we don't have one".
"And your paragraph says nothing about Holbrooke."
Which is why I previously wrote:
"You'll need to do some homework regarding USA's involvement in East Timor's atrocities"
Sorry Pops, my time and resources aren't limitless. It is a huge topic, but I'll try to expand with my next post.
Regarding R. Gates influence. You wrote:
Last I checked, that is decided by Obama and carried out by mainly the DoS and the SoS.
Then you contradicted:
It's also worth noting that Gates himself represented a change from earlier bush military policy.
So does Gates affect change or not? Seems you sunk your boat either way.
A two-millisecond google search reveals:
Hillary Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked
I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran, she said after being asked what she would do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
The Times & The Sunday Times
Her hawkish words were in response to a deliberately mis-translated warning from the Iranian president. Great, just the "change" we want from the Bush years. More blowhard cowboy talk. (Try looking up the word "diplomacy" Hillary)
"threatening nuclear annihilation is not a war crime"
According to the Geneva Conventions, threatening nuclear annihilation is a crime against peace. I am unclear if it is also a war crime. The technical legal arguments are over my head.
dronester writes:
"Are you seriously saying Iraq and Afghanistan are similiar circumstances?"
kuresu responds:
"Did I say they were? This is three times you've putt words into my mouth"
Kurseu, note the question mark on the end of my sentence. That means the sentence is a question, not a statement. While . . .
"And claiming that Obama is continuing Bush policies to the t is absurd"
Who is claiming "to the t"? Now who's putting words into the opponents mouth? You might want to look up the word "hypocrite" sometime.
"And try actually substantively supporting your argument. "
Ok, I'll try Pops, I'll try. : )
Cogito, ergo Deus non est
™ Version 4.2