• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Montecresto said:
Let the GOP get criticised and it can only equate to hatred for America, lol.
Click to expand...

It is the distortion of the economic data and world affairs that is the problem.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
It is the distortion of the economic data and world affairs that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Figures lie and liars figure is the problem.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
Do you have any idea why they failed to allow American troops to remain in Iraq?
Click to expand...
Do you? Hint: it had to do with 'accountability'.

As for ISIS maybe this will help you

ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic state? - CNN.com
Click to expand...


"...The group, in its original form, was composed of and supported by a variety of Sunni insurgent groups, including its predecessor organizations, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) (2003–2006), Mujahideen Shura Council (2006–2006) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) (2006–2013), other insurgent groups such as Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura, Jaysh al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba and Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah, and a number of Iraqi tribes that profess Sunni Islam.

ISIS grew significantly as an organization owing to its participation in the Syrian Civil War and the strength of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Economic and political discrimination against Iraqi Sunnis since the fall of Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support. At the height of the 2003-2011 Iraq War, its forerunners enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city.[66][67][68][69] In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, ISIS has a large presence in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib and Aleppo.[70][71]...."


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Islamic state of Iraq (ISI) which now includes Syria (ISIS) .....or.....Islamic state of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) They've been actively plotting to take over Iraq since the 2006 Sunni awakening.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Moot said:
Do you? Hint: it had to do with 'accountability'.




"...The group, in its original form, was composed of and supported by a variety of Sunni insurgent groups, including its predecessor organizations, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) (2003–2006), Mujahideen Shura Council (2006–2006) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) (2006–2013), other insurgent groups such as Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura, Jaysh al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba and Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah, and a number of Iraqi tribes that profess Sunni Islam.

ISIS grew significantly as an organization owing to its participation in the Syrian Civil War and the strength of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Economic and political discrimination against Iraqi Sunnis since the fall of Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support. At the height of the 2003-2011 Iraq War, its forerunners enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city.[66][67][68][69] In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, ISIS has a large presence in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib and Aleppo.[70][71]...."


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Islamic state of Iraq (ISI) which now includes Syria (ISIS) .....or.....Islamic state of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) They've been actively plotting to take over Iraq since the 2006 Sunni awakening.
Click to expand...

Noticed you didn't highlight this sentence

In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, ISIS has a large presence in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib and Aleppo.[70][71]...."
Click to expand...

We tried to tell you if you dictate an actual date of withdrawal this would happen. Obama's incompetence allowed it to happen.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

jaydeehess said:
Well if Obama is enept in his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, especially wrt "winning the war", it also underlines how utterly and fully incompetent the administration that put American boots on the ground there in the first place, was.
Click to expand...

Fenton said:
Actually isis wasn't on the run killing Christians and threatening Genocide when Bush was President.
Click to expand...

I see this thread clips along a lot faster than I have the time to keep reading all new posts.

However, that response completely misses the mark on the point.

Yes I know that ISIS didn't even exist in force, if at all, when GWB invaded Iraq.

Point is that when that invasion took place American forces did not, nor was there any move to, control the borders. there was no thought to policing, and law and order either.

Every aspect of Hussein's beraucracy was dismantled including border control, policing, and the judicial system AND nothing was put in to replace it.
What that did, to the seeming utter dismay of Don Rumsfelf and Dick Cheney, was effectively install anarchy and borders open to any group with a grudge against the USA or the west of who were in support of one ethinc faction or another. Ethinc faction violence, once brutally put down by Hussein (who took it upon himself to operate in such violent operations instead) went through the roof as foreign fighters flooded Iraq over the now porous borders.

Make no mistake , the invasion went swimmingly, the occupation was seemingly never even thought about until after it was a reality. "Mission accomplished" oops gotta spend another $trillion on something we already declared a done deal and finished.


In years hence the Bush admin discovered that once such gates are open its all but impossible to close them. They essentially left that up to Obama. By then thousands of Americans had died in an occupation that had cost taxpayers $trillion of money borrowed from China.

Is it any wonder that Obama wanted out? Now the ghosts that came into being because of the failed, shortsighted and inept occupation of Iraq under GWB are bigger and scarier. Yet this is somehow, Obama's fault because HE(?) doesn't want to spend more money and LIVES on it?
 
Last edited:
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
Noticed you didn't highlight this sentence



We tried to tell you if you dictate an actual date of withdrawal this would happen. Obama's incompetence allowed it to happen.
Click to expand...


My point was to highlight that ISIS is from Iraq. You still seem to be denial over that fact, Conservative.


ISI moved into Syria AFTER the 2012 uprising and having gained territory there, they now call themselves ISIS....or ISIL to include all of the ME.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

jaydeehess said:
I see this thread clips along a lot faster than I have the time to keep reading all new posts.

However, that response completely misses the mark on the point.

Yes I know that ISIS didn't even exist in force, if at all, when GWB invaded Iraq.

Point is that when that invasion took place American forces did not, nor was there any move to, control the borders. there was no thought to policing, and law and order either.

Every aspect of Hussein's beraucracy was dismantled including border control, policing, and the judicial system AND nothing was put in to replace it.
What that did, to the seeming utter dismay of Don Rumsfelf and Dick Cheney, was effectively install anarchy and borders open to any group with a grudge against the USA or the west of who were in support of one ethinc faction or another. Ethinc faction violence, once brutally put down by Hussein (who took it upon himself to operate in such violent operations instead) went through the roof as foreign fighters flooded Iraq over the now porous borders.

Make no mistake , the invasion went swimmingly, the occupation was seemingly never even thought about until after it was a reality. "Mission accomplished" oops gotta spend another $trillion on something we already declared a done deal and finished.


In years hence the Bush admin discovered that once such gates are open its all but impossible to close them. They essentially left that up to Obama. By then thousands of Americans had died in an occupation that had cost taxpayers $trillion of money borrowed from China.

Is it any wonder that Obama wanted out? Now the ghosts that came into being because of the failed, shortsighted and inept occupation of Iraq under GWB are bigger and scarier. Yet this is somehow, Obama's fault because HE(?) doesn't want to spend more money and LIVES on it?
Click to expand...

Wow, nice attempt at re-writing history, is there anyone here that believes ISIS would be a threat if we had a contingency force in Iraq after the withdrawal? This is exactly what happens when you put an incompetent in charge of keeping the peace and his incompetence will be defended until their dying breath, wonder why? What is it about liberalism and Obama that creates people like this?

You can ignore history for example the Gulf war that never really ended. You can ignore the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. You can ignore the actual quotes of Democrats prior to Bush taking office and afterwards. You can ignore that the Senate under Democrat control gave approval for the invasion. You can ignore the world community that said Saddam Hussein was a threat? You can deny that Saddam Hussein used WMD on his own people. You can deny that he violated numerous UN resolutions. You can deny UN inspector Richard Butler's own words, "Don't believe those who say they aren't there just because we haven't found them. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Iraq certainly did have weapons of mass destruction. “Trust me. I held some in my own hands."

Yes, you can remain in a state of denial but all that does is ignore history and what actually happened.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Moot said:
My point was to highlight that ISIS is from Iraq. You still seem to be denial over that fact, Conservative.


ISI moved into Syria AFTER the 2012 uprising and having gained territory there, they now call themselves ISIS....or ISIL to include all of the ME.
Click to expand...

No, I don't deny that just like I don't deny that they went to Syria and Obama's failure to confront the problem in Syria gave them a green light to return to Iraq and try to build their Islamic Caliphate. It is Obama's incompetence and the liberal defense that is making this world much more dangerous than it was when Obama took office
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
No, I don't deny that just like I don't deny that they went to Syria and Obama's failure to confront the problem in Syria gave them a green light to return to Iraq and try to build their Islamic Caliphate. It is Obama's incompetence and the liberal defense that is making this world much more dangerous than it was when Obama took office
Click to expand...


And yet....Assad has given up his chemical weapon stockpiles and without one US troop setting foot in Syria. Perhaps you are disappointed that no American blood was shed in that endeavor?


Did you know the US has been destroying Assad's chemical weapons at sea?



"....The United States will destroy the highest-priority chemicals,[80] which were scheduled for removal from Syria by 31 December,[80] on board the MV Cape Ray in international waters of the Mediterranean,[51] using an U.S. Army Field Deployable Hydrolysis System.[81] The United Kingdom will give the United States specialist equipment and training to enable the highest-priority chemicals to be processed more quickly.[82] In addition around 150 tonnes of priority two chemicals, toxic material similar to industrial chemical agents, will be transported to the UK with the help of the British Royal Navy and destroyed there. The remaining stock of priority two chemicals not going to Britain will be destroyed by commercial companies.[83]

The first shipment of components for chemical weapons were removed from Syria by a Norwegian/Danish[84][85] flotilla on 7 January 2014.[86] The 31 December deadline for complete removal of priority chemicals had been missed; on 7 January, the New York Times assessed the delay was due to the difficulty of overland transport of chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war.[87] A second shipment was removed around 27 January; that same day, the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, expressed concern over the worsening delays and assessed that Syria already has the resources required to transport the weapons promptly despite the ongoing civil war.[88]

On 2 July, the Danish ship - Ark Futura arrived in the Italian port of Gioia Tauro, carrying the chemical weapons, which were then loaded onto the U.S. ship Cape Ray. The Cape Ray was equipped with two Field Deployable Hydrolysis Systems capable of neutralizing the poisonous substances and converting them into industrial waste.[89] On 19 July 2014, around 250 protesters gathered at the Souda base to protest the elimination of the chemical weapons in the nearby region of the Mediterranean Sea.[90]

Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So where's the red line now, eh?
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Moot said:
And yet....Assad has given up his chemical weapon stockpiles and without one US troop setting foot in Syria. Perhaps you are disappointed that no American blood was shed in that endeavor?


Did you know the US has been destroying Assad's chemical weapons at sea?



"....The United States will destroy the highest-priority chemicals,[80] which were scheduled for removal from Syria by 31 December,[80] on board the MV Cape Ray in international waters of the Mediterranean,[51] using an U.S. Army Field Deployable Hydrolysis System.[81] The United Kingdom will give the United States specialist equipment and training to enable the highest-priority chemicals to be processed more quickly.[82] In addition around 150 tonnes of priority two chemicals, toxic material similar to industrial chemical agents, will be transported to the UK with the help of the British Royal Navy and destroyed there. The remaining stock of priority two chemicals not going to Britain will be destroyed by commercial companies.[83]

The first shipment of components for chemical weapons were removed from Syria by a Norwegian/Danish[84][85] flotilla on 7 January 2014.[86] The 31 December deadline for complete removal of priority chemicals had been missed; on 7 January, the New York Times assessed the delay was due to the difficulty of overland transport of chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war.[87] A second shipment was removed around 27 January; that same day, the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, expressed concern over the worsening delays and assessed that Syria already has the resources required to transport the weapons promptly despite the ongoing civil war.[88]

On 2 July, the Danish ship - Ark Futura arrived in the Italian port of Gioia Tauro, carrying the chemical weapons, which were then loaded onto the U.S. ship Cape Ray. The Cape Ray was equipped with two Field Deployable Hydrolysis Systems capable of neutralizing the poisonous substances and converting them into industrial waste.[89] On 19 July 2014, around 250 protesters gathered at the Souda base to protest the elimination of the chemical weapons in the nearby region of the Mediterranean Sea.[90]

Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So where's the red line now, eh?
Click to expand...

Where is the liberal red line in Iraq? We won the war and lost the peace. Liberals don't seem to care that we told them that radical Islam would just sit and wait for all the troops to be withdrawn before moving back in. Think that ISIS would be rolling through Iraq with a U.S. force remaining there? Do you honestly believe that Obama negotiated in good faith to keep any troops there? He is doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Anyone that says the world is safer now than when Bush left office is delusional and nothing more than a partisan low information voter.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
Where is the liberal red line in Iraq? We won the war and lost the peace. Liberals don't seem to care that we told them that radical Islam would just sit and wait for all the troops to be withdrawn before moving back in. Think that ISIS would be rolling through Iraq with a U.S. force remaining there? Do you honestly believe that Obama negotiated in good faith to keep any troops there? He is doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Anyone that says the world is safer now than when Bush left office is delusional and nothing more than a partisan low information voter.
Click to expand...


We never had the peace. If you want to place blame you have to go all the way back to the....

Sykes–Picot Agreement
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Moot said:
We never had the peace. If you want to place blame you have to go all the way back to the....

Sykes–Picot Agreement
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, things were certainly a lot better there then than now or are you part of the liberal group that doesn't give a damn about the genocide in northern Iraq or the potential move of ISIS on Baghdad? Feel safe and secure in Utah these days? I slept well with Bush in the WH knowing he would act, not so much these days.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

VanceMack said:
Do you mean that 'peace' existed prior to Bush attacking and ousting Saddam Hussein?
Click to expand...

By comparison... Perhaps. At least it wasn't our troops in the mix. Saddam was a piece of **** dictator who was oppressive to his people which is how dictators hold on to power. Especially ones that are in a minority in their own country. But in volatile areas sometimes the heavy hand keeps waring factions from ripping each other apart. Tito comes to mind and just as soon as he died the Christians and Muslims went after each other and the whole Bosnia civil war/genocide happened.

Now in Iraq the oppressive dictator is dead and the sunni/shi'ite fighting ensues. I think it was biden in the 2008 election that Iraq should be split into three countries based on religion... Shi'ite, sunni and Kurd countries. Probably the only hope there is to keeping them off of each other... And even that might not work.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

poweRob said:
By comparison... Perhaps. At least it wasn't our troops in the mix. Saddam was a piece of **** dictator who was oppressive to his people which is how dictators hold on to power. Especially ones that are in a minority in their own country. But in volatile areas sometimes the heavy hand keeps waring factions from ripping each other apart. Tito comes to mind and just as soon as he died the Christians and Muslims went after each other and the whole Bosnia civil war/genocide happened.

Now in Iraq the oppressive dictator is dead and the sunni/shi'ite fighting ensues. I think it was biden in the 2008 election that Iraq should be split into three countries based on religion... Shi'ite, sunni and Kurd countries. Probably the only hope there is to keeping them off of each other... And even that might not work.
Click to expand...
The better answer (to Bush's discredit) would have been to do a better job of creating a post war Iraq. Ousting Saddam was the right thing to do. Less than 2 years later, Iraq had a functioning government and Constitution. We could have and should have done a better job of preparing them for a post war government. We should have maintained a stronger presence to better secure the security of our personnel there. We should have done a better job with propaganda...winning the hearts and minds. We should have done a better job of being very clear about what a post war Iraq could be with both the option of a Free Iraq and an Iraq under fundamentalist rule.

We did a ****ty job post war ops.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

VanceMack said:
The better answer (to Bush's discredit) would have been to do a better job of creating a post war Iraq. Ousting Saddam was the right thing to do. Less than 2 years later, Iraq had a functioning government and Constitution. We could have and should have done a better job of preparing them for a post war government. We should have maintained a stronger presence to better secure the security of our personnel there. We should have done a better job with propaganda...winning the hearts and minds. We should have done a better job of being very clear about what a post war Iraq could be with both the option of a Free Iraq and an Iraq under fundamentalist rule.

We did a ****ty job post war ops.
Click to expand...

"We" got zero support from the left and the media on the post war Iraq. Obama's commitment was to get out, he ran on the issue and then abandoned the country. That opened the flood gates and destroyed the incredible job our military did. When the Democrats won the Congress in the 2006 elections, the abandonment of the Iraqi Govt. began in earnest. Just listen to the left today. Has anyone heard much about the 40,000 Christians stranded on the mountains of northern Iraq? Imagine that Kurdish Air base that Obama failed to secure defending them but no, Iraq was the bad war, we had no business in Iraq according to liberals, and Iraq now is the responsibility of the Iraqis. Yes, liberals you are getting your wish.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
"We" got zero support from the left and the media on the post war Iraq. Obama's commitment was to get out, he ran on the issue and then abandoned the country. That opened the flood gates and destroyed the incredible job our military did. When the Democrats won the Congress in the 2006 elections, the abandonment of the Iraqi Govt. began in earnest. Just listen to the left today. Has anyone heard much about the 40,000 Christians stranded on the mountains of northern Iraq? Imagine that Kurdish Air base that Obama failed to secure defending them but no, Iraq was the bad war, we had no business in Iraq according to liberals, and Iraq now is the responsibility of the Iraqis. Yes, liberals you are getting your wish.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. The very same DEMOCRATS...those that had been clamoring for Saddams ouster and who had been decrying Saddam and pointing to his possession of WMDs, USE of WMDs, and his constant lies about the disposition of his WMDs IMMEDIATELY claimed they were victims...that Bush lied, that gosh...golly...if only the KNEW they would have never voted to support the war.

****ing disgusting maggots the lot of them. They sold out the military and their country for an election. Vermin. Worse than vermin.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
Notice all you offer is rhetoric and opinions never data or facts, why is that?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure opinion is all you've brought with you, too!
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
Where is the liberal red line in Iraq? We won the war and lost the peace. Liberals don't seem to care that we told them that radical Islam would just sit and wait for all the troops to be withdrawn before moving back in. Think that ISIS would be rolling through Iraq with a U.S. force remaining there? Do you honestly believe that Obama negotiated in good faith to keep any troops there? He is doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Anyone that says the world is safer now than when Bush left office is delusional and nothing more than a partisan low information voter.
Click to expand...

There was never peace in Iraq, never. Stop your damn lying.

Timeline of terrorist attacks in Iraq.


Chronology
2003: 25 suicide bombings
2004: 140 suicide bombings
2005: 478 suicide bombings
2006: 297 suicide bombings
2007: 442 Suicide Bombings
2008: 257 Suicide Bombings
2009: 76 Suicide Bombings
2010: 44 Suicide Bombings

2008 818 1,029 1,607 1,260 792 696 606 613 557 547 518 575 9,618

A list by month of all the Iraqis killed during Bush's last year in Iraq! There never was peace.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War


AND NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DROP IN TERRORIST ATTACKS BETWEEN BUSH's LAST YEAR AND OBAMA'S FIRST!!
 
Last edited:
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

Conservative said:
That is your opinion, things were certainly a lot better there then than now or are you part of the liberal group that doesn't give a damn about the genocide in northern Iraq or the potential move of ISIS on Baghdad? Feel safe and secure in Utah these days? I slept well with Bush in the WH knowing he would act, not so much these days.
Click to expand...


Two pages ago you didn't even know that ISIS was from Iraq, so how would you know if it was better there then than now?


Conservative said:
That is your opinion, when were you in Iraq? ...... ISIS came out of Syria not Iraq. ISIS wouldn't be in Iraq today had Obama...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

VanceMack said:
I completely agree. The very same DEMOCRATS...those that had been clamoring for Saddams ouster and who had been decrying Saddam and pointing to his possession of WMDs, USE of WMDs, and his constant lies about the disposition of his WMDs IMMEDIATELY claimed they were victims...that Bush lied, that gosh...golly...if only the KNEW they would have never voted to support the war.

****ing disgusting maggots the lot of them. They sold out the military and their country for an election. Vermin. Worse than vermin.
Click to expand...


More than half the democrats didn't vote for or support the war.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

VanceMack said:
The better answer (to Bush's discredit) would have been to do a better job of creating a post war Iraq. Ousting Saddam was the right thing to do. Less than 2 years later, Iraq had a functioning government and Constitution. We could have and should have done a better job of preparing them for a post war government. We should have maintained a stronger presence to better secure the security of our personnel there. We should have done a better job with propaganda...winning the hearts and minds. We should have done a better job of being very clear about what a post war Iraq could be with both the option of a Free Iraq and an Iraq under fundamentalist rule.

We did a ****ty job post war ops.
Click to expand...

Americans should forget the hearts and minds propaganda.. They already have the hearts and minds of normal people but will never win the H and M of the fanatics.
 
Re: American Forces Said to Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq

donsutherland1 said:
Apparently, the Pentagon Press Secretary has disputed the NYT story:

https://twitter.com/PentagonPresSec/status/497488631599464448

Pentagon: No U.S. air strikes have taken place in Iraq | Reuters

It has been reported that humanitarian drops took place: Obama Authorizes Air Strikes in Iraq - ABC News

Perhaps witnesses might have confused the humanitarian drops with air strikes.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Pentagon and the White House aren't communicating well. Obama says tackling Iraq's insurgency will take time | Reuters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom