• 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 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.

Team BO was out and talking about how inept Maliki was and the Iraqi government. Mocking him. Like the B Team. Yet they couldn't handle such an inept leader to get a SOFA. Do you think it had to do with putting in some real effort? In 2013 Maliki is knocking and talking Security of the Country. Not Syria.....Iraqs.



Could President Obama have showed more enthusiasm? True, Mr. Obama seemed to feel he couldn’t force an unwanted agreement on the Iraqi people, and he didn’t work with Mr. Maliki as President Bush had. But Mr. Obama spoke or met with Mr. Maliki three times in 2011, and Vice President Joe Biden was constantly in touch. What counted most with Mr. Maliki was not rapport but the coldblooded calculus of pluses and minuses affecting his political fortunes. On the other hand, the negotiations were disrupted repeatedly by White House staffers with public statements inaccurately low-balling the troop numbers and misinterpreting Iraqi decisions.....snip~

Maliki knew in Dec of 2013 when he came to see BO.

BO got his SOFA in 2014.....and he could have had talks to increase the troops. As you stated.....with ISIL's breakout.
 
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


The Iraqi resolution is irrelevent.

Whats that have to do with Obama's disastrous foreign policy decision to pull all US forces out of Iraq ?

He's the reason ISIS is now moving from town to town murdering and pillaging.

Like I said, Iraqi's went from voting in elections to being persecuted by ISIS.

Thats not Bush's fault, thats all on Obama.
 
Team BO was out and talking about how inept Maliki was and the Iraqi government. Mocking him. Like the B Team. Yet they couldn't handle such an inept leader to get a SOFA. Do you think it had to do with putting in some real effort? In 2013 Maliki is knocking and talking Security of the Country. Not Syria.....Iraqs.



Could President Obama have showed more enthusiasm? True, Mr. Obama seemed to feel he couldn’t force an unwanted agreement on the Iraqi people, and he didn’t work with Mr. Maliki as President Bush had. But Mr. Obama spoke or met with Mr. Maliki three times in 2011, and Vice President Joe Biden was constantly in touch. What counted most with Mr. Maliki was not rapport but the coldblooded calculus of pluses and minuses affecting his political fortunes. On the other hand, the negotiations were disrupted repeatedly by White House staffers with public statements inaccurately low-balling the troop numbers and misinterpreting Iraqi decisions.....snip~

Maliki knew in Dec of 2013 when he came to see BO.

BO got his SOFA in 2014.....and he could have had talks to increase the troops. As you stated.....with ISIL's breakout.

Points you made are valid. But until ISIL went rampaging with their brutality the average John Q Public wanted nothing to do with Iraq.
2 wars, people wanted it done for.
 
The Iraqi resolution is irrelevent.

Whats that have to do with Obama's disastrous foreign policy decision to pull all US forces out of Iraq ?

He's the reason ISIS is now moving from town to town murdering and pillaging.

Like I said, Iraqi's went from voting in elections to being persecuted by ISIS.

Thats not Bush's fault, thats all on Obama.

Even ardent republican supporters of the failed Iraq war now admit it was a mistake. Your failure to acknowledge what's actually in the post you quoted proves my point. Sense, as most republican congressmen now admit, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake to begin with, it's a moot point talking about what you think Obama's doing. You're out on the branch alone. :lamo
 
Even ardent republican supporters of the failed Iraq war now admit it was a mistake. Your failure to acknowledge what's actually in the post you quoted proves my point. Sense, as most republican congressmen now admit, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake to begin with, it's a moot point talking about what you think Obama's doing. You're out on the branch alone. :lamo

Nope. Not alone. And it might be opportune to say the invasion was wrong for many reasons, because it is politically correct and getting speaker engagements is easier, but that does not change the reality. And that was that it was quite right to go in at the time.
 
Nope. Not alone. And it might be opportune to say the invasion was wrong for many reasons, because it is politically correct and getting speaker engagements is easier, but that does not change the reality. And that was that it was quite right to go in at the time.

Sorry buddy.

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.

The discussion was moderated by Grover Norquist, who asked the congressmen how many of their colleagues now think the war was a mistake.

GOP Congressmen: Most Republicans Now Think Iraq War Was a Mistake | Cato @ Liberty
 
Points you made are valid. But until ISIL went rampaging with their brutality the average John Q Public wanted nothing to do with Iraq.
2 wars, people wanted it done for.

Yeah but here is another issue.....BO and his Team. Knew that Ansar al Sharia had spread from Yemen to Libya. All during that time AQIL was bickering with AQ Prime. Nothing was said or barely reported on. Which BO and Team kept reporting that AQAP was the most dangerous of Branches. Knowing their Bomb maker was in Syria.

BO's own Ambassador came out and stated others in the Iraqi government were warning too. Especially the Kurds.
 
Sorry buddy.

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.

The discussion was moderated by Grover Norquist, who asked the congressmen how many of their colleagues now think the war was a mistake.

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



Sorry Buddy.....the CIA man at the time, then and now. Puts all that into perspective. Calls BS just as he sees it.


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
 
Sorry buddy.

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.

The discussion was moderated by Grover Norquist, who asked the congressmen how many of their colleagues now think the war was a mistake.

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

It is easier to say that with knowledge of what we now know it was a mistake. That calms the population and the schnucks that dislike Bush and all that. But, of course, that does not mean that the desicion was wrong given the information then at hand.
 
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.

We hardly kept the country pacified when we had over 150,000 men over there. If you think 15,000 troops would have made any difference today then you are living in a fantasy world.
 
Sorry Buddy.....the CIA man at the time, then and now. Puts all that into perspective. Calls BS just as he sees it.


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

One CIA man calls BS on all the intelligence agencies. You need to get over your obsession with defending the "deciders" collosal failure of taking America to war in Iraq and squandering American blood and treasure. There's only a handful of you guys left defending this atrocity, give it up dude.

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.

The discussion was moderated by Grover Norquist, who asked the congressmen how many of their colleagues now think the war was a mistake.

GOP Congressmen: Most Republicans Now Think Iraq War Was a Mistake | Cato @ Liberty
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to say that Saddam was a good guy here, just pointing out the picture of Iraq then and now. Looking back it stands to reason that invading Iraq was not such a bright idea, the lasting effects will be something the next several Presidents will have to deal with. We are already up to 4 Presidents in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another, and as of late Iraq is in far worse shape today.

Victory was never really the goal. A permanent US military presence was the goal, a war without end. It's good for business.
 
It is easier to say that with knowledge of what we now know it was a mistake. That calms the population and the schnucks that dislike Bush and all that. But, of course, that does not mean that the desicion was wrong given the information then at hand.

No. That's the part I've told you repeatedly. I knew, what we know now back in 2002-3 and stood adamantly against this nonsense. There's no excuse for the democratic support of Bush's folly. But besides that, Jesus Christ, at least join your party and acknowledge now, today, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was in fact a mistake that didn't just cost the lives of 4,500 US servicemen/women and a trillion dollars. But cost the lives of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, and a country that's suffering its effects yet, as we speak.
 
No. That's the part I've told you repeatedly. I knew, what we know now back in 2002-3 and stood adamantly against this nonsense. There's no excuse for the democratic support of Bush's folly. But besides that, Jesus Christ, at least join your party and acknowledge now, today, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was in fact a mistake that didn't just cost the lives of 4,500 US servicemen/women and a trillion dollars. But cost the lives of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, and a country that's suffering its effects yet, as we speak.

we have been through a this and you sound like rt. I think you are not only wrong but wrong headed in this.
 
One did not need to be a brilliant military strategist in 2003 to understand that Iraq posed NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to US security.

Bush & Cheney took the country to war for ulterior motives, nothing more, mostly money.
 
One CIA man calls BS on all the intelligence agencies. You need to get over your obsession with defending the "deciders" collosal failure of taking America to war in Iraq and squandering American blood and treasure. There's only a handful of you guys left defending this atrocity, give it up dude.

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.

The discussion was moderated by Grover Norquist, who asked the congressmen how many of their colleagues now think the war was a mistake.

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


Yeah the one that was running things for the CIA and knew exactly what was being told to Clinton was being told to Bush Jr. The same guy that ran things for BO. Picked by BO.

Post 133 again. Its not what you know now......its what you knew then. Like BO's man said.
 
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:

At the start of Obama's tenure, Iraq was a work in progress. Yes, there were issues that still needed to be addressed, but things were getting better.

Then Obama pulled out us out completely and ignored the Iraqi govt's pleas for help when ISIS started taking territory. And when he finally decided to send help, he tied the military's hands.
 
Yeah but here is another issue.....BO and his Team. Knew that Ansar al Sharia had spread from Yemen to Libya. All during that time AQIL was bickering with AQ Prime. Nothing was said or barely reported on. Which BO and Team kept reporting that AQAP was the most dangerous of Branches. Knowing their Bomb maker was in Syria.

BO's own Ambassador came out and stated others in the Iraqi government were warning too. Especially the Kurds.
Most of his advisers are outside of their depth. What he wants, they give him. they would screw up the Lords Prayer.
Lots of experience around and it is not looked upon or used.
 
We hardly kept the country pacified when we had over 150,000 men over there. If you think 15,000 troops would have made any difference today then you are living in a fantasy world.

No, I am not. ISIS is not a well organized fighting force and numbers maybe 30,000 in all. The 150,000 troops in the surge were fighting a force of over 300,000 that were better trained than this ragtag bunch in ISIS.
 
Most of his advisers are outside of their depth. What he wants, they give him. they would screw up the Lords Prayer.
Lots of experience around and it is not looked upon or used.



Well this situation with Ramadi bring things into perspective......which they still have containment considered as an option.



WASHINGTON (AP) — The fall of Ramadi calls into question the Obama administration's strategy in Iraq. Is there a Plan B?

The current U.S. approach is a blend of retraining and rebuilding the Iraqi army, prodding Baghdad to reconcile with the nation's Sunnis, and bombing Islamic State targets from the air without committing American ground combat troops. But the rout revealed a weak Iraqi army, slow reconciliation and a bombing campaign that, while effective, is not decisive. On Monday, administration officials acknowledged the fall of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, as a "setback" in America's latest effort in Iraq. They still maintained the campaign would ultimately bring victory.

It seems highly unlikely that President Barack Obama would take the more dramatic route of sending ground combat forces into Iraq to rescue the situation in Ramadi or elsewhere. A White House spokesman, Eric Shultz, said Monday the U.S. will continue its support through airstrikes, advisers and trainers; he pointed to an intensified series of coalition air assaults in the Ramadi area, which included eight strikes overnight Sunday.....snip~

Rout in Ramadi calls US Iraq strategy into question - AP News 5/18/2015 6:53 PM
 
No, I am not. ISIS is not a well organized fighting force and numbers maybe 30,000 in all. The 150,000 troops in the surge were fighting a force of over 300,000 that were better trained than this ragtag bunch in ISIS.

The Iraqi military has over 270,000 active duty personnel. Yet they can't defeat ISIS in their own country. Moreover, its not like we killed or captured all 300,000 insurgents. Most of them are still there and would be taking the opportunity to hit us while we dealt with the instability resulting from ISIS. The fact is we were much better off with the brutal dictator Saddam in power and containing him. All we can hope to do today is contain the place again. A brutal dictator is what it takes to keep any semblance of stability over there.
 
Well this situation with Ramadi bring things into perspective......which they still have containment considered as an option.



WASHINGTON (AP) — The fall of Ramadi calls into question the Obama administration's strategy in Iraq. Is there a Plan B?

The current U.S. approach is a blend of retraining and rebuilding the Iraqi army, prodding Baghdad to reconcile with the nation's Sunnis, and bombing Islamic State targets from the air without committing American ground combat troops. But the rout revealed a weak Iraqi army, slow reconciliation and a bombing campaign that, while effective, is not decisive. On Monday, administration officials acknowledged the fall of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, as a "setback" in America's latest effort in Iraq. They still maintained the campaign would ultimately bring victory.

It seems highly unlikely that President Barack Obama would take the more dramatic route of sending ground combat forces into Iraq to rescue the situation in Ramadi or elsewhere. A White House spokesman, Eric Shultz, said Monday the U.S. will continue its support through airstrikes, advisers and trainers; he pointed to an intensified series of coalition air assaults in the Ramadi area, which included eight strikes overnight Sunday.....snip~

Rout in Ramadi calls US Iraq strategy into question - AP News 5/18/2015 6:53 PM

They could have used Shia Militias to reinforce the area previously. But then the Sunni wanted no part of them, justifiably and now they do. Why they could not get some Army troops there is unbelievable.
But boots on the ground, just sucks the US in farther.
The hardline Shia have displaced Abadi.
And consider he was also part of the Maliki regime who targeted Sunni's. And was seen by many as a weak sister.
Let them go at it.
The country will eventually split along sectarian lines.
Why place troops into a ****hole.
It does not serve a strategic position. It serves Iran's though.
Welcome to one of the repercussions from replacing Saddam.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/w...ights-iraqi-premiers-weakening-authority.html
BAGHDAD — As Shiite militiamen began streaming toward Ramadi on Monday to try to reverse the loss of the city to the Islamic State, the defeat has given new momentum to Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s rivals within his own Shiite political bloc.

At the urging of American officials who sought to sideline the militias, Mr. Abadi had, in effect, gambled that the combination of United States airstrikes and local Sunni tribal fighters would be able to drive Islamic State fighters out of the city as fighting intensified in recent weeks. The hope was that a victory in Ramadi could also serve as a push for a broader offensive to retake the Sunni heartland of Anbar Province.
 
They could have used Shia Militias to reinforce the area previously. But then the Sunni wanted no part of them, justifiably and now they do. Why they could not get some Army troops there is unbelievable.
But boots on the ground, just sucks the US in farther.
The hardline Shia have displaced Abadi.
And consider he was also part of the Maliki regime who targeted Sunni's. And was seen by many as a weak sister.
Let them go at it.
The country will eventually split along sectarian lines.
Why place troops into a ****hole.
It does not serve a strategic position. It serves Iran's though.
Welcome to one of the repercussions from replacing Saddam.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/w...ights-iraqi-premiers-weakening-authority.html


Then there was the Kurds.....which Right now Abadi is the one who is holding up their shipments of arms. The Shia will side with Iran anyways. Now even Iran is popping off that they should have been allowed to take the lead on this. Which we know the Sunni Tribes are not going for that.

Once again the Sunni Iraqi Army gave up ground to the Sunni ISIS fighters.
 
Then there was the Kurds.....which Right now Abadi is the one who is holding up their shipments of arms. The Shia will side with Iran anyways. Now even Iran is popping off that they should have been allowed to take the lead on this. Which we know the Sunni Tribes are not going for that.

Once again the Sunni Iraqi Army gave up ground to the Sunni ISIS fighters.

Time is getting close for an Independent Kurdistan.
 
Time is getting close for an Independent Kurdistan.

They are the only ones that have our back there.....without looking to put something sharp into it. Still ISIS and all connected to them, is everyones problem. Everyone needs to get into the game. EA Sports like.
 
Back
Top Bottom