Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 137 of 137

Thread: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

  1. #131
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Ok, Buddha, what part of this do you not understand. The government NIE of 2006 concluded that the Iraq war increased Islamic extremism and made America less safe. STOP.............pretending the Iraq war had any success.
    Keep in mind that 2006 was prior to the Iraqi Surge Monte. So your point is really mute as it doesn't take into account the peace and stability that was brought to Iraq in the aftermath of both the Surge and the Awakening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Radicalism made possible again by US policy.
    Better to allow the Soviet Union to expand unchecked?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    No war is won from the air alone, never has been.
    Pay close attention to what I said: so nothing short of sending in regular american combat troops qualifies as "going in to fight and win" then?

    We have had great success in completing the objectives we've laid out over the past several years in multiple campaigns without the use of regular american combat troops. For example, we were able to remove Qaddafi and the Taliban from power without having to deploy one pair or regular army boots on the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    "The fact of the matter is that Obama has bombed more countries than Bush".....

    True. Because under his watch terrorism is spreading. Another cheap distraction of meaningless stats. War is not measured in bombs dropped, if they were Britain would have been in German hands after the "Battle of Britain"....it is measured in ground gained.

    As Obama has for seven years attempted to ride a wave of appeasement and some weird idea of "peace" the war has spread from one fight to abut seven. So of course he has to bomb more countries, and the people in them let us not forget, because he is actually losing.

    Three years ago the commander in chief declared Iraq was stable enough that American troops can come home...just in time for the election. Now, he's blabbing about "Crusades" while facing what was obvious a year ago, they need boots on the ground
    Just as I don't blame Bush for the Arab Spring, I also don't blame Obama for the same Arab Spring that has caused the rise of terror throughout the Middle East that has resulted in the spike of bombings. As I've stated multiple times on this issue with the likes of @Montecresto , the Arab Spring is the primary reason why Iraq is in the state that it is today. It's not like when the last combat troops withdrew from the region that Iraq wasn't a model of peace and stability.

    Afterall, and I believe we can both agree on this, It's a practical impossibility for the US to maintain an effective ground presence in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all at once yes?

  2. #132
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Keep in mind that 2006 was prior to the Iraqi Surge Monte. So your point is really mute as it doesn't take into account the peace and stability that was brought to Iraq in the aftermath of both the Surge and the Awakening.



    Better to allow the Soviet Union to expand unchecked?



    Pay close attention to what I said: so nothing short of sending in regular american combat troops qualifies as "going in to fight and win" then?

    We have had great success in completing the objectives we've laid out over the past several years in multiple campaigns without the use of regular american combat troops. For example, we were able to remove Qaddafi and the Taliban from power without having to deploy one pair or regular army boots on the ground.



    Just as I don't blame Bush for the Arab Spring, I also don't blame Obama for the same Arab Spring that has caused the rise of terror throughout the Middle East that has resulted in the spike of bombings. As I've stated multiple times on this issue with the likes of @Montecresto , the Arab Spring is the primary reason why Iraq is in the state that it is today. It's not like when the last combat troops withdrew from the region that Iraq wasn't a model of peace and stability.

    Afterall, and I believe we can both agree on this, It's a practical impossibility for the US to maintain an effective ground presence in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all at once yes?
    The Rand Corp. study disagrees with you Buddha.

    Tuesday
    July 29, 2008

    Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

    Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.

    In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #133
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Keep in mind that 2006 was prior to the Iraqi Surge Monte. So your point is really mute as it doesn't take into account the peace and stability that was brought to Iraq in the aftermath of both the Surge and the Awakening.



    Better to allow the Soviet Union to expand unchecked?



    Pay close attention to what I said: so nothing short of sending in regular american combat troops qualifies as "going in to fight and win" then?

    We have had great success in completing the objectives we've laid out over the past several years in multiple campaigns without the use of regular american combat troops. For example, we were able to remove Qaddafi and the Taliban from power without having to deploy one pair or regular army boots on the ground.



    Just as I don't blame Bush for the Arab Spring, I also don't blame Obama for the same Arab Spring that has caused the rise of terror throughout the Middle East that has resulted in the spike of bombings. As I've stated multiple times on this issue with the likes of @Montecresto , the Arab Spring is the primary reason why Iraq is in the state that it is today. It's not like when the last combat troops withdrew from the region that Iraq wasn't a model of peace and stability.

    Afterall, and I believe we can both agree on this, It's a practical impossibility for the US to maintain an effective ground presence in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all at once yes?



    Obama eagerly supported and backed Arab spring and pushed for his regime change in Egypt.

    That was stupid.

    Yes it would be hard...but when Obama came to office Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan were not issues. He allowed that to happen. This is HIS war now.
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  4. #134
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Keep in mind that 2006 was prior to the Iraqi Surge Monte. So your point is really mute as it doesn't take into account the peace and stability that was brought to Iraq in the aftermath of both the Surge and the Awakening.



    Better to allow the Soviet Union to expand unchecked?



    Pay close attention to what I said: so nothing short of sending in regular american combat troops qualifies as "going in to fight and win" then?

    We have had great success in completing the objectives we've laid out over the past several years in multiple campaigns without the use of regular american combat troops. For example, we were able to remove Qaddafi and the Taliban from power without having to deploy one pair or regular army boots on the ground.



    Just as I don't blame Bush for the Arab Spring, I also don't blame Obama for the same Arab Spring that has caused the rise of terror throughout the Middle East that has resulted in the spike of bombings. As I've stated multiple times on this issue with the likes of @Montecresto , the Arab Spring is the primary reason why Iraq is in the state that it is today. It's not like when the last combat troops withdrew from the region that Iraq wasn't a model of peace and stability.

    Afterall, and I believe we can both agree on this, It's a practical impossibility for the US to maintain an effective ground presence in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all at once yes?
    Unfortunately, just like his predecessor who whiles away the hours in his Dallas studio painting picture scenes and writing books, after having created a mess in Iraq and A-Stan, Obama too will be gone shortly in the blink of an eye, but the damage in his wake will be left for the rest to deal with. This is what you get when partisans have party power in front of American exceptionalism.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #135
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    Obama eagerly supported and backed Arab spring and pushed for his regime change in Egypt.

    That was stupid.

    Yes it would be hard...but when Obama came to office Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan were not issues. He allowed that to happen. This is HIS war now.
    I agree that in retrospect that supporting the Arab Spring was a strategic mistake on Obama's part. But that was due more to his faith (and many in the west mind you) in the people of the Middle East than But none of those issues are the result of anything he's done though. Syria, Libya and Yemen are in as bad a shape as they are due to the Arab Spring. And Somalia and Pakistan were troubled and terrorist riddled states way before Obama ever took the oath.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Unfortunately, just like his predecessor who whiles away the hours in his Dallas studio painting picture scenes and writing books, after having created a mess in Iraq and A-Stan, Obama too will be gone shortly in the blink of an eye, but the damage in his wake will be left for the rest to deal with. This is what you get when partisans have party power in front of American exceptionalism.
    Even were the US to completely remove itself at this point, it still be in just as great a mess. The roots of the Arab Spring have little to do with American Exceptionalism and everything to do with a burgeoning youth population that had no jobs and no prospects for their future. And I think it's time we have a bit of a reality check in regards to Russia. Were the Russians, whether directly in some cases or indirectly through her allies in the region, not kept stirring the pot, it's doubtful that as much suffering in the region would of taken place. In fact, there isn't a bad actor in that region that doesn't have some times back to Moscow.

    But going back to the assertion of US influence in the region having a detrimental affect, I'm kind of curious of your thoughts of Mubarak. Say what you will about the negative consequences that resulted from putting to much faith in Egyptians ability to self-rule, but at least when the US realized it had the opportunity to force out someone who was treating so many of his people like ****, Obama was quick to listen and react. (Something that that had Russia done the same with Syria, it's probable we'd of never had an ISIS, as the Syrians wouldn't of had to resort to such violent extremism to achieve their goals). Of course, by removing Mubarak, you inevitably make the region more unstable. Hell, this is a perfect example mind you of (prior to his removal) US influence bringing peace to the region, through an alliance that has prevented another Arab conflict against the Israelis. Which brings us to the key question; Do you believe we should of kept Mubarak in power, thus acknowledging American influence has played a beneficial role in the region, or continue to believe he should be removed, due to some irrational hatred for the US and a belief that nothing they do in the region is ever right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    The Rand Corp. study disagrees with you Buddha.

    Tuesday
    July 29, 2008

    Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

    Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.

    In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.
    First off, the discussion was about whether or not the Surge brought violence down in Iraq not the entire globe. Second, and more importantly mind you, many of the attacks carried out by "Al Qaeda" are in fact lone wolves or small groups that simply try to latch onto the name for fame purposes. Finally, the last bit of that report, that's what Obama has been doing in large part since he became President. And it's not looking like terrorism has gone on the decline Monte...

    There's fare more wrong with the flawed report, but suffice to say, it's a product of 2008 and has become woefully out of date at this point. What's next, you gonna start citing reports from the 50's that smoking is actually good for you?

  6. #136
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I agree that in retrospect that supporting the Arab Spring was a strategic mistake on Obama's part. But that was due more to his faith (and many in the west mind you) in the people of the Middle East than But none of those issues are the result of anything he's done though. Syria, Libya and Yemen are in as bad a shape as they are due to the Arab Spring. And Somalia and Pakistan were troubled and terrorist riddled states way before Obama ever took the oath.



    Even were the US to completely remove itself at this point, it still be in just as great a mess. The roots of the Arab Spring have little to do with American Exceptionalism and everything to do with a burgeoning youth population that had no jobs and no prospects for their future. And I think it's time we have a bit of a reality check in regards to Russia. Were the Russians, whether directly in some cases or indirectly through her allies in the region, not kept stirring the pot, it's doubtful that as much suffering in the region would of taken place. In fact, there isn't a bad actor in that region that doesn't have some times back to Moscow.

    "I inherited this mess..."

    It's what he's NOT done.....lead
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  7. #137
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I agree that in retrospect that supporting the Arab Spring was a strategic mistake on Obama's part. But that was due more to his faith (and many in the west mind you) in the people of the Middle East than But none of those issues are the result of anything he's done though. Syria, Libya and Yemen are in as bad a shape as they are due to the Arab Spring. And Somalia and Pakistan were troubled and terrorist riddled states way before Obama ever took the oath.



    Even were the US to completely remove itself at this point, it still be in just as great a mess. The roots of the Arab Spring have little to do with American Exceptionalism and everything to do with a burgeoning youth population that had no jobs and no prospects for their future. And I think it's time we have a bit of a reality check in regards to Russia. Were the Russians, whether directly in some cases or indirectly through her allies in the region, not kept stirring the pot, it's doubtful that as much suffering in the region would of taken place. In fact, there isn't a bad actor in that region that doesn't have some times back to Moscow.

    But going back to the assertion of US influence in the region having a detrimental affect, I'm kind of curious of your thoughts of Mubarak. Say what you will about the negative consequences that resulted from putting to much faith in Egyptians ability to self-rule, but at least when the US realized it had the opportunity to force out someone who was treating so many of his people like ****, Obama was quick to listen and react. (Something that that had Russia done the same with Syria, it's probable we'd of never had an ISIS, as the Syrians wouldn't of had to resort to such violent extremism to achieve their goals). Of course, by removing Mubarak, you inevitably make the region more unstable. Hell, this is a perfect example mind you of (prior to his removal) US influence bringing peace to the region, through an alliance that has prevented another Arab conflict against the Israelis. Which brings us to the key question; Do you believe we should of kept Mubarak in power, thus acknowledging American influence has played a beneficial role in the region, or continue to believe he should be removed, due to some irrational hatred for the US and a belief that nothing they do in the region is ever right?



    First off, the discussion was about whether or not the Surge brought violence down in Iraq not the entire globe. Second, and more importantly mind you, many of the attacks carried out by "Al Qaeda" are in fact lone wolves or small groups that simply try to latch onto the name for fame purposes. Finally, the last bit of that report, that's what Obama has been doing in large part since he became President. And it's not looking like terrorism has gone on the decline Monte...

    There's fare more wrong with the flawed report, but suffice to say, it's a product of 2008 and has become woefully out of date at this point. What's next, you gonna start citing reports from the 50's that smoking is actually good for you?
    Suffer the consequences dude.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Posting Permissions

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