• 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!

ISIS seizes key Iraqi city of Ramadi as government forces pull back

Oh yes! It was all great in Iraq when we were there! It was stable! Not corrupt! Not under constant attacks from terrorist groups! It was great! :roll:

During the US occupation Iraq was the world's major killing ground for destroying jihadi terrorists. I think it was better to fight and kill them there than in Europe or North America. But you might disagree of course.
 
The intelligence communities consensus 2006 NIE concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. I doubt that by pointing that out that they were declaring that Saddam Hussein was a good guy.

Well, first, no that isn;t what the document says. It says that Iraq had become the cause of some Jihadists, but they never said that the AQI constituted a direct threat to the US. But then it is also old news since the surge pushed AQI out of Iraq. It was our withdraw from Iraq that opened the door for their return, bolstered by our secret weapon supplies to Syrian rebels.
 
During the US occupation Iraq was the world's major killing ground for destroying jihadi terrorists. I think it was better to fight and kill them there than in Europe or North America. But you might disagree of course.

It was the invasion and occupation that created that. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad all did great at containment of extremists.

Published: September 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all
 
Well, first, no that isn;t what the document says. It says that Iraq had become the cause of some Jihadists, but they never said that the AQI constituted a direct threat to the US. But then it is also old news since the surge pushed AQI out of Iraq. It was our withdraw from Iraq that opened the door for their return, bolstered by our secret weapon supplies to Syrian rebels.

It said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. There were no Islamic extremists operational in Iraq until the US showed up.
 
It said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. There were no Islamic extremists operational in Iraq until the US showed up.

And it also said that defeating AQI is the path to reducing recruitment of Jihad because it was the perception of success that created recruitment opportunities. The AQI that joined as the result of the short term success of AQI in the time of that assessment were killed or run off by the surge. As of 2009 AQI was a shell of its former self.

ISIS recruitment has indeed been driven by perceived success since Obama took office. Obama's idiotic policies 1) Helped ISIS align to a new cause in Syria and 2) opened the door for them to waltz in to Iraq and takeover vast swaths of the country with ease.

Again, to properly assess what policies created ISIS you have to look at the state of AQI when Obama took office. Al Qaeda in Iraq was not even in Iraq anymore. It was done.

The idiocy in Libya, terrible policy in Syria and an even worse decision in Iraq breathed life back into Al Qaeda under Obama's watch and gave them new purpose. They were so empowered by Obama's weakness that they changed their goal from driving the US out of Iraq to conquering the entire Middle East.
 
And it also said that defeating AQI is the path to reducing recruitment of Jihad because it was the perception of success that created recruitment opportunities. The AQI that joined as the result of the short term success of AQI in the time of that assessment were killed or run off by the surge. As of 2009 AQI was a shell of its former self.

ISIS recruitment has indeed been driven by perceived success since Obama took office. Obama's idiotic policies 1) Helped ISIS align to a new cause in Syria and 2) opened the door for them to waltz in to Iraq and takeover vast swaths of the country with ease.

Again, to properly assess what policies created ISIS you have to look at the state of AQI when Obama took office. Al Qaeda in Iraq was not even in Iraq anymore. It was done.

The idiocy in Libya, terrible policy in Syria and an even worse decision in Iraq breathed life back into Al Qaeda under Obama's watch and gave them new purpose. They were so empowered by Obama's weakness that they changed their goal from driving the US out of Iraq to conquering the entire Middle East.

You'll get no argument from me that Obama's ME policies have taken what Bush screwed up and made it multiples worse. I've pointed this out endlessly. A dozen years of failed policy in the ME has the region in pitiful condition.
 
Oh, well then there's no reason for us to be involved. The U.S. is a strong supporter of self-determination.

They have some support in Anbar but they don't in other regions. If ISIS are allowed to to gain control of Anbar it could get out of control fast.
 
They have some support in Anbar but they don't in other regions. If ISIS are allowed to to gain control of Anbar it could get out of control fast.

Do you expect that the British are going to be going back to Iraq to see to that?
 
Do you expect that the British are going to be going back to Iraq to see to that?

No unfourtuntly not, people in the West have yet to work out how dangerous ISIS are and how dangerous they could yet become.
 
You'll get no argument from me that Obama's ME policies have taken what Bush screwed up and made it multiples worse. I've pointed this out endlessly. A dozen years of failed policy in the ME has the region in pitiful condition.

The problem is that the 2006 NIE proposed a problem that was solved by 2009. As such it is hard to blame Bush for the state of Iraq today. If the best argument against Bush is that Iraq would be better today with Saddam then the case is weak. You would only be replacing a brutal insurgency with institutionalized tyranical brutality. ISIS is a bunch of pikers compared to Saddam.

The only reason why ISIS is successful is because we don't commit to eradicating them.
 
The problem is that the 2006 NIE proposed a problem that was solved by 2009. As such it is hard to blame Bush for the state of Iraq today. If the best argument against Bush is that Iraq would be better today with Saddam then the case is weak. You would only be replacing a brutal insurgency with institutionalized tyranical brutality. ISIS is a bunch of pikers compared to Saddam.

The only reason why ISIS is successful is because we don't commit to eradicating them.

Also the arguement can be made that ISIS were pushed out of Iraq during the "awakening" and that it was the inaction/instablilty in Syria that allowed them to grow in numbers and become what we see them as today.
 
No unfourtuntly not, people in the West have yet to work out how dangerous ISIS are and how dangerous they could yet become.

In some ways Obama was correct in labeling ISIS a "JV Team", what he apparently didn't contemplate was the effectiveness of a JV team when you only subject them to opposition no higher than peewee league. If the US committed to eradicating ISIS it would be over faster than the first Gulf War, and more lopsided... but we don't do it.

Go in, destroy ISIS, get a new SOFA that puts an operational force of 20,000 troops whose sole purpose is to the smack down fledgling insurgencies like ISIS and then sit their for a few decades.
 
Last edited:
During the US occupation Iraq was the world's major killing ground for destroying jihadi terrorists. I think it was better to fight and kill them there than in Europe or North America. But you might disagree of course.

What does that have to do with the comment you just quoted?
 
No unfourtuntly not, people in the West have yet to work out how dangerous ISIS are and how dangerous they could yet become.

I see. But you would like to see the British lead the charge and deal with the Islamic State?
 
Also the arguement can be made that ISIS were pushed out of Iraq during the "awakening" and that it was the inaction/instablilty in Syria that allowed them to grow in numbers and become what we see them as today.

No doubt AQI reconstituted, renamed and committed to a new, bigger purpose after fleeing to Syria. It just so happened that the mysticism of global caliphate is predicated on war raging from Syria to Yemen. When ISIS retreated to Syria and saw civil war brewing there they realized that it was just a matter of checking off boxes on the Caliphate checklist.
 
If you find it too difficult to read your own postings I can't really help you.

That somehow us destabilizing Iraq and opening up to terrorists worldwide, somehow is good? Bad? What?
 
They have some support in Anbar but they don't in other regions. If ISIS are allowed to to gain control of Anbar it could get out of control fast.
If that's what the Iraqi people want...
 
That somehow us destabilizing Iraq and opening up to terrorists worldwide, somehow is good? Bad? What?

You prefer the stability of the mass grave and the Baathist terror-regime?

Seriously, Iraq was,'t stable before the US intervention, it wasn't stable during the US intervention and it isn't stable after the US intervention. During the intervention the US did use the opportunity to turn Iraq into the graveyard for thousands of jihadi terrorists from various countries.
 
No unfourtuntly not, people in the West have yet to work out how dangerous ISIS are and how dangerous they could yet become.
They can't be that dangerous. McCain met with them to provide them with classified information and money...

mkh3.jpg
 
The problem is that the 2006 NIE proposed a problem that was solved by 2009. As such it is hard to blame Bush for the state of Iraq today. If the best argument against Bush is that Iraq would be better today with Saddam then the case is weak. You would only be replacing a brutal insurgency with institutionalized tyranical brutality. ISIS is a bunch of pikers compared to Saddam.

The only reason why ISIS is successful is because we don't commit to eradicating them.

Americans installed Obama in the WH (amongst other reasons of course) to bring America home from Iraq. A plurality of Americans recognize the folly of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Despite Bush's efforts to draw a link between Saddam Hussein and AQ, Saddam Hussein and OBL, his fear mongering about Saddam Hussein's ability to produce mushroom clouds over US cities and the like, that dog don't hunt and a very tiny amount of people still support those silly notions. The fact is that neither Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to Islamic extremists, and as both China and Russia both accurately predicted, US interference has caused Islamic extremism to spread throughout the region. And they didn't have to be just real brite to make such observation either.

Currently, the United States has military personnel deployed in about 150 Countries... This covers 75% of The World's Nations.
 
I see. But you would like to see the British lead the charge and deal with the Islamic State?

On our own no, to make it credible many countries have to be involved inlcuding the Arab nations. Any intervention can't be seen as a western invasion.
 
Also the arguement can be made that ISIS were pushed out of Iraq during the "awakening" and that it was the inaction/instablilty in Syria that allowed them to grow in numbers and become what we see them as today.

Well of course. They began as the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006, capitalizing on the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein, and taking advantage of the power vacuum in Syria, moved right in there as well, adding the second S to become the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
 
On our own no, to make it credible many countries have to be involved inlcuding the Arab nations. Any intervention can't be seen as a western invasion.

I think that's because the British aren't up to the task. Look, we can't keep creating crisis in the ME just to provide job security for our militaries, and maintain employment for our defense contractors.
 
Back
Top Bottom