Page 11 of 101 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 1009

Thread: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq[W:1007]

  1. #101
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Nothing new, are you cereal? That situation over there has been changing faster than quicksilver.

    What America needs are American opinions, because if we don't intervene and stop this now, it will come back to haunt us.
    As I said, there's nothing new in the ME that wasn't there when Obama made his speech in Egypt in 2009. The only difference is that Obama abandoned the region and now that abandonment is coming home to bite. It's the original point I made about Obama not having a big-picture goal/strategy and now he's just tossing things up hoping something will stick and stop the damage getting worse.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Bush didn't plan the pull out. That was an Obama campaign promise, remember? What Bush did was sign an agreement to leave forces in Iraq, well into Obama's term of office, but leave it up to Obama to determine if and under what terms the troops would remain. Did you think Bush could sign an agreement that bound both America and Iraq to troops in Iraq forever and ever?
    Here is part of the link sent a little earlier.
    Some anonymous U.S. officials and specialists who follow the war have argued they believe that parts of the agreement may be circumvented and that other parts may be open to interpretation, including: the parts giving Iraqi legal jurisdiction over United States soldiers who commit crimes off base and off duty, the part requiring for US troops to obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and the part banning the United States from staging attacks on other countries from Iraq.[38] For example, administration officials have argued that Iraqi prosecution of U.S. soldiers could take three years, by which time the U.S. will have withdrawn from Iraq under the terms of the agreement. In the interim, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of America's Uniform Code of Military Justice. Michael E. O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution research group, said there are "these areas that are not as clear cut as the Iraqis would like to think."[16]

    U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said. He continued that "two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament".[39]

    Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011. Pentagon planners say those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned" and that their efforts could be redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.[40] Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has also said "three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time".[41]

    In a letter to U.S. military personnel about new rules of engagement, Gen. Ray Odierno said that U.S. forces would reduce their visibility but that this does not mean "any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves". Odierno wrote that U.S. forces would coordinate "operations with the approval of the GoI (Government of Iraq), and we will conduct all operations by, with, and through the Iraqi Security Forces...Despite some adjustments to the way we conduct operations, the agreement simply reinforces transitions that are already underway, and I want to emphasize that our overarching principles remain the same", he further wrote.[42]

    General Raymond Odierno said that some U.S. forces would remain at local security stations as training and mentoring teams past the June 2009 deadline specified in the status of forces agreement. In contrast, Robert Gates estimated U.S. troops will be "out of cities and populated areas" by June 30. "That's the point at which we will have turned over all 18 provinces to provincial Iraqi control", he predicted.[43] A spokesman for Odierno, Lt. Col. James Hutton, reiterated that the soldiers staying in cities would not be combat forces but rather "enablers," who would provide services such as medical care, air-traffic control and helicopter support that the Iraqis cannot perform themselves.[44] Odierno's comments sparked outrage among some Iraqi lawmakers who say the United States is paving the way for breaching the interim agreement.[45]

    When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops”.

  3. #103
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    As I said, there's nothing new in the ME that wasn't there when Obama made his speech in Egypt in 2009. The only difference is that Obama abandoned the region and now that abandonment is coming home to bite. It's the original point I made about Obama not having a big-picture goal/strategy and now he's just tossing things up hoping something will stick and stop the damage getting worse.

    You keep talking about the past and Obama. What about numbskull Bush invading it in the first place?

    ISIS taking over half the country is a lot different than 2009. Nobody can control or foresee how a countries development is going to unfold. It's a little lame and unrealistic to keep playing the political 'nah nah card', when there's an unfolding situation, where a terrorist group wants to attack an murder anybody that isn't part of their particular religion.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  4. #104
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Here is part of the link sent a little earlier.
    Sure sounds like Bush and the Pentagon were planning to pull out, right?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #105
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    You keep talking about the past and Obama. What about numbskull Bush invading it in the first place?

    ISIS taking over half the country is a lot different than 2009. Nobody can control or foresee how a countries development is going to unfold. It's a little lame and unrealistic to keep playing the political 'nah nah card', when there's an unfolding situation, where a terrorist group wants to attack an murder anybody that isn't part of their particular religion.
    Sorry you think it's the political nah nah card - I'm simply stating things as I see them. All of these players were active and in existence in the ME when Bush left office and Obama took over. ISIS is a direct result of Obama's inattention to the region and to Syria specifically. No American influence and or presence in the region is why all these bad actors have come out of their holes and coalesced into a power to exert influence beyond Syria into Iraq. That's just how it is.

    I don't disagree that it's a bloody mess now - my point, back to my first comment, was that it's a result of Obama and his administration not having a bloody idea what they were doing or what they wanted to do - all they were concerned about was upping the US presence in Afghanistan and removing the US presence in Iraq - both campaign promises that were more important to Obama than facts on the ground.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #106
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Sorry you think it's the political nah nah card - I'm simply stating things as I see them. All of these players were active and in existence in the ME when Bush left office and Obama took over. ISIS is a direct result of Obama's inattention to the region and to Syria specifically. No American influence and or presence in the region is why all these bad actors have come out of their holes and coalesced into a power to exert influence beyond Syria into Iraq. That's just how it is.

    I don't disagree that it's a bloody mess now - my point, back to my first comment, was that it's a result of Obama and his administration not having a bloody idea what they were doing or what they wanted to do - all they were concerned about was upping the US presence in Afghanistan and removing the US presence in Iraq - both campaign promises that were more important to Obama than facts on the ground.
    Of course, you're doing nothing but sour grapes and political card playing. Trying to blame the whole situation on Obama doesn't add any positive information to the current dilemma. I call complete BS on that with Bush being much more at fault for causing ME instability, with 2 extended wars that were crappola.

    I supported pulling out of those hell holes and not you or anyone else could've seen how Syria and Iraq would erupt. But I'd definitely go back in whatever capacity needed now, because that current situation is growing more dangerous by the day.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  7. #107
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    The mood in Erbil has considerably improved but its insane that IS is even in a position to be shelling the city. We should be doing so much more than these limited air strikes. The United States should commit to a full deployment of our air power in support of the Kurdish troops on the ground trying to defend the civil society and democracy they have fought so hard to create. They have never been anything but loyal friends of the United States.

  8. #108
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Of course, you're doing nothing but sour grapes and political card playing. Trying to blame the whole situation on Obama doesn't add any positive information to the current dilemma. I call complete BS on that with Bush being much more at fault for causing ME instability, with 2 extended wars that were crappola.

    I supported pulling out of those hell holes and not you or anyone else could've seen how Syria and Iraq would erupt. But I'd definitely go back in whatever capacity needed now, because that current situation is growing more dangerous by the day.
    We have a difference of opinion and I respect yours even though I disagree with it.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #109
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    The mood in Erbil has considerably improved but its insane that IS is even in a position to be shelling the city. We should be doing so much more than these limited air strikes. The United States should commit to a full deployment of our air power in support of the Kurdish troops on the ground trying to defend the civil society and democracy they have fought so hard to create. They have never been anything but loyal friends of the United States.
    I would also have some overwhelming groups of heavily armed troops and Spec Ops, releasing a ground assault that would scare the devil back in his hole.


    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    We have a difference of opinion and I respect yours even though I disagree with it.
    I don't even know if my opinion of actively pushing ISIS back into Syria is a long term solution or the right one. They may (not likely) stop advancing on their own and be satisfied with the land and resources they've acquired. But this group so far has shown a complete disregard for any other nation, religion or power.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  10. #110
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,248

    Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Revisionism and Hypocricy started with the stains Cheney and Rumsfeld .
    6 years in and you still haven't managed your Bush obsession.

    We're in the year of our Lord 2014 by the way, and Obama made the final decision to pull every semblance of the American Military out of Iraq.

    It was a Politically motivated bone headed decision.

Page 11 of 101 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •