You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Viliam comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 23 November 2015 01:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (275)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Viliam 24 November 2015 07:46:32AM 0 points [-]

no particularly good reason.

He promised that to his voters, if I remember correctly.

May be not a good reasons strategically, but still a good reason politically.

Comment author: hairyfigment 27 November 2015 05:53:56AM 2 points [-]

You're going along with a blatant and partisan lie. GW Bush accepted a deadline for withdrawal after the Iraqi government made noise about Iraqi sovereignty. Obama technically tried to negotiate a new deal to keep troops there, but could not reach agreement about legal immunity. If you squint and turn your head you could try to see this as Obama choosing to withdraw, but to say he did it "unilaterally" is a bald-faced lie.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 28 November 2015 05:50:51AM 1 point [-]

Obama technically tried to negotiate a new deal to keep troops there

Only in the most technical sense, as soon as the Iraqi's made a counter-offer different from his first one he called of negotiations.