Obama to Police...Criminals need to be able to easily shoot you...I am restricting your protection.

Drumcollie said:

Try again.

Bush signed the agreement. Why?

Click to expand...

Why does Obama want criminals to be able to shoot cops?
If you want answer look it up and write your own thread[/QUOTE]
Bush signed the agreement. Why?

Craig said:

Why does Obama want criminals to be able to shoot cops?
If you want answer look it up and write your own thread

Click to expand...

Bush signed the agreement. Why?[/QUOTE]
off topic...howza about you get back to the topic?

oh that's right you can't answer that one!

Drumcollie said:

Bush signed the agreement. Why?

Click to expand...

off topic...howza about you get back to the topic?

oh that's right you can't answer that one![/QUOTE]
We had moved to a different topic. So...choose either...

Bush signed the agreement. Why?

or:

The top post is, as you know, really really dumb. The militarization of the police has not been a positive for our nation and to limit the military weaponry does not meet your assertion that Obama wants criminals to kill cops. That analysis is, undoubtedly, deeply flawed.

Craig said:

off topic...howza about you get back to the topic?

oh that's right you can't answer that one!

Click to expand...

or:

The top post is, as you know, really really dumb. The militarization of the police has not been a positive for our nation and to limit the military weaponry does not meet your assertion that Obama wants criminals to kill cops. That analysis is, undoubtedly, deeply flawed.[/QUOTE]

You are learning ...so now you made an assertion.

Drumcollie said:

A. The Bush agreement is equal to treatise? The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq)

is not a treaty

What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?



As explained in greater detail in 11 FAM 721.2, there are two procedures under domestic law through which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. First, international agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its advice and consent under Article II, section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution are "treaties." Second, international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are often referred to as "executive agreements." There are different types of executive agreements.

1. This which you say is well documented..is not documented here...which is the same reason we have the Iraqi failure due to Obama's readiness to withdraw in2009 regardless of the Iraqi situation...To quote GWB:

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush

George spoke of the problems of withdrawing to soon...everyone knew this except you and Obama...pointing out that lefty is going to do what lefty wants even if people must die...so the agenda is more important than people.
Point no. 1 ...epic fail...you weren't even close

2. Your point is wasted...corruption or no GWB spoke of what would happen and now it's happening...that is all on Obama...man up buddy...someone has to on your side has to man up....your President won't.

Click to expand...

Your note on treaties vs agreements is irrelevant. Obama could not ignore the agreement between the US and Iraq. To do so would have to tell any nation in the future that they cannot trust the US to uphold those agreements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treaty
noun, plural treaties.
1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.
2.the formal document embodying such an international agreement.
3.any agreement or compact

So Bush said "Dont' withdraw too soon" and then signed an agreement, with 30 days to go on his adminstration, which bound the next president to withdraw by the end of 2011.

Man up to that.

Drumcollie said:

if it such a bad Idea..why did your President then do it?

btw don't tell me the intelligence reports siad it would would...because first thing required of democrats is intelligence...something you don't have.

Click to expand...

1. Obama followed the agreement negotiated and signed by Bush....
2. Obama offered a new SOFA that would have kept troops in Iraq. Maliki wouldn't sign it.

middleview said:

Drumcollie strikes again:

Ask George W. Bush why he signed such a stupid agreement if you think withdrawing all troops at the end of 2011 was such a bad idea....

Click to expand...

BOOOOOOOOOSSSHHHHH!!!

marvin martian said:

BOOOOOOOOOSSSHHHHH!!!

Click to expand...

Right....Dimcronie wants to argue that Obama should not have withdrawn troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 and you think it doesn't make sense to mention that Bush signed a binding agreement that required Obama do exactly that.

You are the blog equivalent of an ankle biter.
Run along Marvin.

marvin martian said:

Obama's executive order is nothing more than his typical childish retribution directed at police departments that protested the Federal government's deployment of armed troops in "training" exercises in several states over the last two months.

Does anyone really think the timing is a coincidence? These jurisdictions stepped out of line, failed to bend the knee quickly enough, and now they are being punished by taking away their toys.

Click to expand...

I'd say the timing has less to do with any of that than with the popular outcry against the recent police riots in St. Louis and Baltimore, and the ensuing pressure on the ruling class Obama represents.

Drumcollie said:

As if you would know intellect...You lost that right to know when you joined the party of slavery and segregation and claimed...They've changed...Democrats are different now?..go ahead tell your democrats to never play the race card...aka using racism for political gain and tell 'em racism is over...see how soon they deny racism is over...

Waaaaaaa waaaaaaaaa! I feel so insulted! Waaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaa!.....

Click to expand...

Racism isn't over. You simply turn a blind eye to it because you benefit from it, and demand that everyone else do so as well, in the name of anti-racism.

Craig said:

In 2010, Obama did precisely what Bush warned against and withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — overruling his commander on the ground, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who had recommended that Obama keep 24,000 troops. And since then, everything that Bush warned would happen has come to pass.

Click to expand...

Try again.

Bush signed the agreement. Why?[/QUOTE]
Hillary voted for it why?

EatTheRich said:

Racism isn't over. You simply turn a blind eye to it because you benefit from it, and demand that everyone else do so as well, in the name of anti-racism.

Click to expand...

Racism is over...your just late to the party or just weren't invited and now you try to justify why you joined the "Party of slavery and segregation" the democrats.

EatTheRich said:

Racism isn't over. You simply turn a blind eye to it because you benefit from it, and demand that everyone else do so as well, in the name of anti-racism.

Click to expand...

But you are right on one issue..I do benefit from racism ending...to bad you don't see it that way and benefit too.

Drumcollie said:

Try again.

Bush signed the agreement. Why?

Click to expand...

Hillary voted for it why?[/QUOTE]

I understand. You simply do not want to address the fact that Bush gave the warning, then signed the agreement. You are immune to facts and timelines.

Drumcollie said:

Racism is over...your just late to the party or just weren't invited and now you try to justify why you joined the "Party of slavery and segregation" the Democrats.

Click to expand...

I'm not a Democrat.

A Black man with no criminal record and identical qualifications is less likely to get a job than a white man with a felony conviction. Racism is over, my ass.

Drumcollie said:

But you are right on one issue..I do benefit from racism ending...to bad you don't see it that way and benefit too.

Click to expand...

What happened to the "dumb" button?

EatTheRich said:

I'm not a Democrat.

A Black man with no criminal record and identical qualifications is less likely to get a job than a white man with a felony conviction. Racism is over, my ass.

Click to expand...

There are several points here...

1. Why does racism for you only concern Black people and not just people of color?

2. When does racism end? and why not now?...for me it ended along time ago...why do you still need racism to persist?

3. Why do you have racism all over you ass?...ok that one is a joke...but all jokes aside, you have stated

1. Racism isn't over for you even though you were told it was over...but not for you buddy...hell no!.....why?

2. It's starts somewhere...let's say you are right and it is what you say, racism is not over (just for arguments sake, cause it really is over)...when does it end?

3. Most importantly, why not right here and right now?

4. Why are you not the leader(If racism hasn't really ended) to stand for the end of racism? Why don't you see yourself as the"Bringer of Equality" to all peoples? "The Ender" of racism? ...

5...err rather when the opportunity has arisen against all odds(see Rockets v Clippers NBA, rockets down 3 to 1 and win when only 9 other teams have ever done this) Why do you choose not to stand for racism is over?

6. A lot of questions but lastly why are you and all other democrats so against racism ending right now?

What your going to see is that it starts somewhere..why not with you, right here and now? But your caucus need racism to blame Republicans so in order to do so...racism can't end...and dammit if those Republicans didn't end racism right before you eyes. You are faced with the task of choosing, to either be a part of racism end or to be a straggler trying to hold on to racism...this is your choice from here on out Because you know from this point on either you are ending racism or keeping it alive...which one are you?

middleview said:

Right....Dimcronie wants to argue that Obama should not have withdrawn troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 and you think it doesn't make sense to mention that Bush signed a binding agreement that required Obama do exactly that.

You are the blog equivalent of an ankle biter.
Run along Marvin.

Click to expand...

wrong...wrong...wrong...Obama's generals made that argument, and so did GW and everything they said has come true. You President's decision was based on the idea that all would be hunky dory, when he pulled out and he was nieve......or he wanted this to happen, because he was warned.

Drumcollie said:

wrong...wrong...wrong...Obama's generals made that argument, and so did GW and everything they said has come true. You President's decision was based on the idea that all would be hunky dory, when he pulled out and he was nieve......or he wanted this to happen, because he was warned.

Click to expand...

Bush signed a status of forces agreement in December 2008. It required withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011.

Obama offered a new agreement that would have kept US troops in Iraq. Maliki turned it down.

Feel free to come up with facts to support any other narrative you believe to be true....but your previous post is simply your opinions and you are wrong.

Craig said:

Hillary voted for it why?

Click to expand...

I understand. You simply do not want to address the fact that Bush gave the warning, then signed the agreement. You are immune to facts and timelines.[/QUOTE]
what so bad about that?...Hillary voted for it?