• 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

How progressive!

Live in the past, blame the leaders of the past, keep blaming them.

That will fix the problems of today.

How about once the loony left actualyl came up with a solution? It is clear the first black president hasn't got the first ****ing clue what do, he has surredered territory after territory to terrorists, the cancer is matastizing and all Obama and his pathetic lemmings can do is blame Bush.

That sure brings in out of the box thinking.

No, just saying that the people that created this mess in the first place are not the ones we ought to be listening to now. The warmongering right back in 2003 are the ones that insisted upon throwing a grenade in an outhouse so they should not be bitching about **** being everywhere now because of it.
 
Nope.

But are you going to answer my questions? Here I'll ask again: So in your worldview it was an either or? It was either we open the door for these jihadis in Iraq and kill them there, or they were going to flood the streets of Western Europe or North America? This is your justification?

I'm pretty sure it's simply defend Bush at all cost.
 
They were able to do so only because BO and his Team dropped the SOFA. Once Intel was rolled back and pulled in.....there was no one that knew of any AQ in major numbers in Iraq. Although, it was known AQ was moving back in.

So it really has no tie to Bush jr.
No - Iraq was not signing a SOFA. Maliki wanted no US Troops in Iraq. And I am sure that was reinforced by his patrons, Iran.
 
Well, it's the pottery barn rule that Powell spoke of. Bottom line is that the Middle East would be vastly better off today, could we erase the past 12 years of USFP in the region.

Screw that rule. Go in, complete the mission and get out.
What should have happened in AStan.
 
The Democrats voted for war in Iraq and then spent years attacking the president for going to war in Iraq. Bush never actually made the claim of an imminent mushroom cloud sent by Saddam, that is a misrepresentation by Ted Kennedy.

Likewise, Bush only ever claimed that there had been communications between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which the commission agreed took place. What Kerry argued was that Bush stated that there was a collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which Bush never claimed.

But sure, the Democrats had run a 5 year negative campaign against Bush and against the efforts of our Military in Iraq and it was indeed the tipping point for the election of Obama. But then in the same way the Democrats want to demonize Bush for going into Iraq, the same shallow interpretation would lead to the conclusion that Obama lied to the American people about consequences of leaving Iraq. It is becoming clear that the NIA had long warned the White House that a resurgent AQI would be the outcome of leaving Iraq, yet Obama stood before the American people and claimed the war was won, Iraq was peaceful and it was time to come home. Either he was lying or suffering from self imposed ignorance of the realities that were made available to him in his security briefings.

Bush can't be faulted for what Obama made of Iraq.... and Syria... and Yemen... and Libya.



Morell of the CIA just came out with his Book and has been doing interviews. Here is a bit what he had to say about Iraq and Bush Jr, on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Good stuff and straight from one of the Main players then and today.



MM: Yeah, I think it’s a totally unfair question, right, for somebody to say knowing what we know now, would you do something. That makes no sense, right? You never know what you know how when you’re making a decision. You only know what you knew then. So I think it’s a much more reasonable question to say if you knew then what President Bush knew, what you would do, and then it gets really tough, right? Because again, it’s all about the context, Hugh, and the context was, again, 3,000 people had just been killed, the CIA telling you that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, including restarting a nuclear weapons program that he had once and had stopped, the CIA telling you that he supports Palestinian terrorist groups, and not al Qaeda, but Palestinian terrorist groups, and the President sitting there thinking you know, I can’t afford to take the risk of this guy use those weapons of mass destruction against me directly, or I can’t take the risk of him giving those weapons to a terrorist group. So when you put the context around anything, right, you look at it in a different light. So I think people have been completely unfair to Governor Bush here. The question is not given what you know now. The question really is given what you know then, that’s the question I think he thought he was answering. And given all the members of Congress at the time who voted to go to war in Iraq and given what the President thought, I think the Governor is on solid footing.

HH: A couple of pages later, you write that the CIA’s judgment about Saddam and WMD was nothing new, nor was it unique. The perception that the Bush administration pushed the intelligence community toward believing that Saddam had WMD is just wrong. No one pushed us. We were already there. The notion that we were telling the White House wanted to hear can easily be debunked. Look at the question of Saddam’s connections to al Qaeda. We held our ground, the Agency held its ground, and refused to go where the intelligence did not take us. On WMD, if we’d believed it was likely Saddam had none, it would have been an act of madness to take the position we did. Following an invasion, a stockpile would either turn up or not. To go to war knowing you’re going to be proving wrong would be insane. That’s the kind of airtight analysis that has been missing from a lot of this hyper-politicized debate.

MM: So for years, for years, there’s been the view out there, Hugh, that CIA, the U.S. intelligence community, was pushed into this judgment by the Bush White House or hardliners in the Bush administration. It’s complete nonsense, as I walk through in the book. You know, I’ll tell you, the only thing you really need to know is that the CIA believed this about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before George Bush ever came to office. We were telling the same story to President Clinton......snip~

Former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell on "The Great War Of Our Time" « The Hugh Hewitt Show
 
No, just saying that the people that created this mess in the first place are not the ones we ought to be listening to now. The warmongering right back in 2003 are the ones that insisted upon throwing a grenade in an outhouse so they should not be bitching about **** being everywhere now because of it.

In terms of the results, is there really much difference between this war mongering right, and the left as represented by Obama in its embracing the Arab Spring?

Both were equally naive about Arab culture. One thought they could turn them into us. The other thought they would just become us as if by magic.

In either case, they remained who they are -- a people that routinely marries close family members, values blood over ideology, and clings resolutely to social mores rooted in the distant past.
 
No - Iraq was not signing a SOFA. Maliki wanted no US Troops in Iraq. And I am sure that was reinforced by his patrons, Iran.

Maliki couldn't get the Approval for the SOFA. But as for troops in Iraq. He changed his mind in 2013. Although he had been talking with BO's US Ambassador in 2012. Then he would address the US Institute of Peace for Support and Aid. Then later that year go and meet BO at the White House. Requesting more Aid....all to deal with AQ and Terrorists. Even informing us they would break thru to Syria.



Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Urges Greater U.S. Support.....


Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in an October 31 address at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington, called for more support from the United States in countering an ongoing wave of terrorism in Iraq that has been attributed primarily to al-Qaida-backed extremists, as well as for American patience as Iraq tries to build its young democracy amid the country’s deep internal political disputes.

Maliki described Iraq’s terrorism challenge as “huge and increasing—and we should face it.” The prime minister, making his first visit to Washington since the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was completed in December 2011, said he came to Washington “to consolidate the SFA [the bilateral Strategic Framework Agreement] at all levels,” including cooperation on security, trade and investment, reconstruction and education. He will speak with President Obama on Nov. 1 and has already met with Vice President Biden, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and congressional leaders.

The centerpiece of his USIP speech was an appeal for more U.S. support in defeating al-Qaida militants in Iraq. Iraq is seeking additional U.S. weaponry, including Apache attack helicopters and drones, though Maliki’s remarks focused on counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation. “Iraq needs its friends, to benefit from their experience and training,” he said......snip~

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Urges Greater U.S. Support | United States Institute of Peace
 
Maliki couldn't get the Approval for the SOFA. But as for troops in Iraq. He changed his mind in 2013. Although he had been talking with BO's US Ambassador in 2012. Then he would address the US Institute of Peace for Support and Aid. Then later that year go and meet BO at the White House. Requesting more Aid....all to deal with AQ and Terrorists. Even informing us they would break thru to Syria.




Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Urges Greater U.S. Support.....


Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in an October 31 address at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington, called for more support from the United States in countering an ongoing wave of terrorism in Iraq that has been attributed primarily to al-Qaida-backed extremists, as well as for American patience as Iraq tries to build its young democracy amid the country’s deep internal political disputes.

Maliki described Iraq’s terrorism challenge as “huge and increasing—and we should face it.” The prime minister, making his first visit to Washington since the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was completed in December 2011, said he came to Washington “to consolidate the SFA [the bilateral Strategic Framework Agreement] at all levels,” including cooperation on security, trade and investment, reconstruction and education. He will speak with President Obama on Nov. 1 and has already met with Vice President Biden, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and congressional leaders.

The centerpiece of his USIP speech was an appeal for more U.S. support in defeating al-Qaida militants in Iraq. Iraq is seeking additional U.S. weaponry, including Apache attack helicopters and drones, though Maliki’s remarks focused on counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation. “Iraq needs its friends, to benefit from their experience and training,” he said......snip~

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Urges Greater U.S. Support | United States Institute of Peace

Those problems were created by Maliki. Now we have a situation where the Militias are the ones running the show, with Iran as their backstop.
 
Yet another example of how terrible of an idea it was to go into Iraq in the first place back in 2003.

Yet another example of how terrible of an idea it was to pull out all American forces.
 
Those problems were created by Maliki. Now we have a situation where the Militias are the ones running the show, with Iran as their backstop.

How does that change up with him visiting Team BO twice for aid, and getting denied? All in 2013. What do you see if BO decides to work things out rather than walk away? Meaning AQIL's difficulty then.
 
Besides the fact that Americans sent Obama to Washington in 2008 to bring our troops home from Iraq,

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence
Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

I don't waste my time reading rags like Time. The fact Americans did that testifies mainly to the dumbing-down of America during the past several decades. As our public schools have cranked out more and more indoctrinated know-nothings during that period, the U.S. has developed a lumpenproletariat of tens of millions of leftist dim bulbs who resent and disdain most things about it. Not surprising these specimens would help elect a damned, disloyal liar like B. Hussein Obama. He is a man after their own hearts.
 
Yet another example of how terrible of an idea it was to pull out all American forces.

You are in the minority opinion. A plurality of Americans acknowledge the Iraq war as a mistake!
 
I don't waste my time reading rags like Time. The fact Americans did that testifies mainly to the dumbing-down of America during the past several decades. As our public schools have cranked out more and more indoctrinated know-nothings during that period, the U.S. has developed a lumpenproletariat of tens of millions of leftist dim bulbs who resent and disdain most things about it. Not surprising these specimens would help elect a damned, disloyal liar like B. Hussein Obama. He is a man after their own hearts.

The department of education is to blame for Bush's failed Iraq policy, lol. Now that's a first.
 
The department of education is to blame for Bush's failed Iraq policy, lol. Now that's a first.

Don't you understand, had we just continued the surge and kept 100,000 American troops in Iraq and continued to spend a minimum of 100 billion a month, we could have kept the country relatively stable forever. We are only talking about 150 trillion or so a century.
 
Don't you understand, had we just continued the surge and kept 100,000 American troops in Iraq and continued to spend a minimum of 100 billion a month, we could have kept the country relatively stable forever. We are only talking about 150 trillion or so a century.

Exactly. I don't think that you could break Iraq and then ever leave.
 
Exactly. I don't think that you could break Iraq and then ever leave.

You could, you just would have to find a strong and brutal dictator to run it. We could also hand it over to Iran which we more or less did when we deposed Saddam anyway.

What is laughable though is the notion that we could have left 10,000 troops there walled up in the green zone and that would kept the country stable.
 
You could, you just would have to find a strong and brutal dictator to run it. We could also hand it over to Iran which we more or less did when we deposed Saddam anyway.

What is laughable though is the notion that we could have left 10,000 troops there walled up in the green zone and that would kept the country stable.

Many argued for far more than 10K. And they were right. A country the size of Iraq, with the issues of Iraq would have required far more, and there would have been a steady stream of dead soldiers coming home in perpetuity. This isn't what Americans wanted. I only wish/hope that Americans have learned some lessons. I was a bit hopeful when 70% of Americans opposed the military engagement in Syria last summer, though there seems to be back door attempts around that now.
 
Don't you understand, had we just continued the surge and kept 100,000 American troops in Iraq and continued to spend a minimum of 100 billion a month, we could have kept the country relatively stable forever. We are only talking about 150 trillion or so a century.

Anyone here making that claim? No? Didn't think so. 15,000 troops would be sufficient to handle ISIS and it's 30,000 barbarians.
 
How does that change up with him visiting Team BO twice for aid, and getting denied? All in 2013. What do you see if BO decides to work things out rather than walk away? Meaning AQIL's difficulty then.

At that time did they not have the men and equipment?
No one figured the ineptitude, corruption and lack of leadership would cause such a disaster.
Should they have, yes, did they, no. At that time the American public had had more than enough of Iraq and expending blood and treasure.
From the link. Maliki asks for patience yet he was the one person responsible for most of this disaster.
He backed Shia militias targeting Sunni's.
He sold leadership positions in the Military.
The West has done enough. The hatred between Shia and Sunni after this will not be glossed over.
Syria, another ****hole.
Lebanon, only a bombing or 2 before that place reverts to sectarian war, with Iran supporting Hezbollah.
Saudi and Turkey want regime change in Syria.
Turkey is on the border and a short drive thru Jordan for Saudi to Syrian territory.

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Urges Greater U.S. Support | United States Institute of Peace
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in an October 31 address at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington, called for more support from the United States in countering an ongoing wave of terrorism in Iraq that has been attributed primarily to al-Qaida-backed extremists, as well as for American patience as Iraq tries to build its young democracy amid the country’s deep internal political disputes.
Nouri al-Maliki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunni friction
The reign of al-Maliki has been described as sectarian by both Sunnite Iraqis and western analysts; something which helped fuel a Sunni uprising in the country in 2014.[31] During the Northern Iraq offensive, beginning in June 2014, ISIS vowed to take power away from al-Maliki, who called upon Kurdish forces to help keep Iraq out of the hands of ISIS, as well as air support from American drones in order to eliminate dangerous jihadist elements in the country, which was refused by the United States, as "administration spokesmen have insisted that the United States is not actively considering using warplanes or armed drones to strike [jihadist havens]." During this crisis, al-Maliki was the target of a propaganda campaign by ISIS, whom they called an "underwear salesman," stating he "lost a historic opportunity for your people to control Iraq, and the Shiites will always curse you for as long as they live."[32]
 
The Middle East is a graveyard for empires. And some people never do learn a lesson.
 
At that time did they not have the men and equipment?
No one figured the ineptitude, corruption and lack of leadership would cause such a disaster.
Should they have, yes, did they, no. At that time the American public had had more than enough of Iraq and expending blood and treasure.
From the link. Maliki asks for patience yet he was the one person responsible for most of this disaster.
He backed Shia militias targeting Sunni's.
He sold leadership positions in the Military.
The West has done enough. The hatred between Shia and Sunni after this will not be glossed over.
Syria, another ****hole.
Lebanon, only a bombing or 2 before that place reverts to sectarian war, with Iran supporting Hezbollah.
Saudi and Turkey want regime change in Syria.
Turkey is on the border and a short drive thru Jordan for Saudi to Syrian territory.

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Urges Greater U.S. Support | United States Institute of Peace

Nouri al-Maliki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In January 2011, once the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was formed, President Obama decided, with the concurrence of his advisers, to keep troops on. But he wasn’t yet willing to tell Prime Minister Maliki or the American people. First, Washington had to determine the size of a residual force. That dragged on, with the military pushing for a larger force, and the White House for a small presence at or below 10,000, due to costs and the president’s prior “all troops out” position. In June the president decided on the force level (eventually 5,000) and obtained Mr. Maliki’s assent to new SOFA talks.

The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament.

Iraqi party leaders repeatedly reviewed the SOFA terms but by October 2011 were at an impasse. All accepted a U.S. troop presence—with the exception of the Sadrist faction, headed by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which held some 40 of Iraq’s 325 parliamentary seats. But on immunities only the Kurdish parties, with some 60 seats, would offer support. Neither Mr. Maliki, with some 120 seats, nor former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the leader of the largely Sunni Arab Iraqiya party with 80 more, would definitively provide support. With time running out, given long-standing U.S. policy that troops stationed overseas must have legal immunity, negotiations ended and the troop withdrawal was completed.....snip~

James Franklin Jeffrey: Behind the U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq - WSJ



Yet Maliki comes in 2013 due to how bad things are and with ISIL ready to break into Syria. Twice in the same year. Even knowing he was going to be put out of office.
 
2007

Before the United States invaded Iraq, Al Qa’ida was on the ropes. The United States and its coalition partners had rousted it from Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban, while a global manhunt was steadily shutting down jihadist cells from Morocco to Malaysia. Perhaps equally important, many Islamists, including fellow jihadists, harshly criticized bin Ladin for having rashly attacked a super power and, in so doing, causing the defeat of the Taliban, the only "true" Islamic regime in the eyes of many radicals.

The invasion of Iraq breathed new life into the organization. On an operational level, the United States diverted troops to Iraq rather than consolidate its victory in Afghanistan and increase its chances of hunting down Bin Ladin. Today, Al Qa’ida is reconstituting itself in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Politically, Iraq vindicated bin Ladin’s argument that the primary enemy of the Muslim world was not the local Muslim autocrats, but the "faraway enemy," the United States. Today, Al Qa'ida is again on the march.[2]

It was not supposed to be this way. Toppling Saddam Husayn’s regime was meant to usher in an era of prosperity for Iraq and put Osama bin Ladin and his followers on the run. Instead, the tables have turned. Today, Iraq is torn by crime, plagued by a vicious insurgency, and devoid of competent government and basic services. Strife in Iraq continues without end in sight, while the human and financial costs to the United States and its allies mount. With each car bomb and kidnapping, critics urging the withdrawal of troops grow more and more vociferous.

Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism | Brookings Institution
 
You are in the minority opinion. A plurality of Americans acknowledge the Iraq war as a mistake!

A plurality of American libs may acknowledge that but not Americans who are smart enough NOT to buy into the false narratives of the Democrats. ( Bush lied people died, Halliburton war for oil.. etc )

Iraqi citizens, including Women were voting not long ago and now they're being persecuted.
 
In January 2011, once the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was formed, President Obama decided, with the concurrence of his advisers, to keep troops on. But he wasn’t yet willing to tell Prime Minister Maliki or the American people. First, Washington had to determine the size of a residual force. That dragged on, with the military pushing for a larger force, and the White House for a small presence at or below 10,000, due to costs and the president’s prior “all troops out” position. In June the president decided on the force level (eventually 5,000) and obtained Mr. Maliki’s assent to new SOFA talks.

The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament.

Iraqi party leaders repeatedly reviewed the SOFA terms but by October 2011 were at an impasse. All accepted a U.S. troop presence—with the exception of the Sadrist faction, headed by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which held some 40 of Iraq’s 325 parliamentary seats. But on immunities only the Kurdish parties, with some 60 seats, would offer support. Neither Mr. Maliki, with some 120 seats, nor former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the leader of the largely Sunni Arab Iraqiya party with 80 more, would definitively provide support. With time running out, given long-standing U.S. policy that troops stationed overseas must have legal immunity, negotiations ended and the troop withdrawal was completed.....snip~

James Franklin Jeffrey: Behind the U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq - WSJ



Yet Maliki comes in 2013 due to how bad things are and with ISIL ready to break into Syria. Twice in the same year. Even knowing he was going to be put out of office.
How does this fall at Obama's feet. the Iraqi's not offering immunity.
Maliki did not know he was toast till last year when ISIL exploded across Iraq.
 
A plurality of American libs may acknowledge that but not Americans who are smart enough NOT to buy into the false narratives of the Democrats. ( Bush lied people died, Halliburton war for oil.. etc )

Iraqi citizens, including Women were voting not long ago and now they're being persecuted.

Well then, you're not just a minority status amongst Americans, but amongst your own party, too! Hanging on the edge to dirty wars and dirty fuels has you in a precarious position, lol.

In a Thursday panel at Cato on conservatism and war, U.S. Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.) revealed that the vast majority of GOP members of Congress now think it was wrong for the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003.

GOP Congressmen: Most Republicans Now Think Iraq War Was a Mistake | Cato @ Liberty
 
Back
Top Bottom