• 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 controls half of Syrian territory, monitor says

eohrnberger said:
Which was filled by the US and coalition military forces until the new Iraq government could be installed, and voted on by the people. The vacuum that resulted in the rise of ISIS to their predominant position was Obama's premature withdraw of the US troops.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Obama lost the peace in Iraq for his personal political gain, and even now buries his head in the sand as ISIS expands.
 
Montecresto said:
No, not me, the nations intelligence agencies. What intelligence were you gathering, your opinion.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

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&_r=0

This is what the intelligence agencies were saying long before the withdrawal was even an issue, but while Bush was prosecuting the war.

The group (the Islamic State) originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that equating a 'worsening terrorist threat' and the explosion of ISIS into the vacuum Obam's pull out left is really an apples to apples comparison.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'm not sure that equating a 'worsening terrorist threat' and the explosion of ISIS into the vacuum Obam's pull out left is really an apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...

You would be talking about apples. I'm talking about the 2006 NIE that proves you wrong, and the formation of the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006, which took advantage of the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. three years before Obama became president. Obama is responsible for his own actions.
 
Montecresto said:
The "war on terror" is a junket for American defense contractors and big oil who have duped you into rah rah flag waving tuff man talking support of policies that exacerbate global terrorism to keep that wheel grinding. And it needs its stooges in order to perpetuate itself. Good job, you get a gold star. :joke:
Click to expand...

Im just telling you what you already know-how its going to be.

We aren't going anywhere.
 
Montecresto said:
You would be talking about apples. I'm talking about the 2006 NIE that proves you wrong, and the formation of the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006, which took advantage of the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. three years before Obama became president. Obama is responsible for his own actions.
Click to expand...

The NIE doesn't prove me wrong. It states a perfectly accurate point that you are taking out of context.

You are equating a 'worsening terrorist threat' to the expansion of ISIS (two things years and years apart BTW).

However, you ignore or refuse to acknowledge the previous ISIS confinement and deterrent effect US forces had while in country. Once the US forces were removed, ISIS rolled over the ill prepared and ill led Iraq military, in essence, filling up the vacuum that was left when the US forces left.
 
eohrnberger said:
The NIE doesn't prove me wrong. It states a perfectly accurate point that you are taking out of context.

You are equating a 'worsening terrorist threat' to the expansion of ISIS (two things years and years apart BTW).

However, you ignore or refuse to acknowledge the previous ISIS confinement and deterrent effect US forces had while in country. Once the US forces were removed, ISIS rolled over the ill prepared and ill led Iraq military, in essence, filling up the vacuum that was left when the US forces left.
Click to expand...

No they're not years apart, the NIE I quoted you was from the same year that the Islamic State in Iraq organized, 2006. In fact that's the point of the NIE and it's findings that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had caused an increase in terrorism, as evidenced by the formation of the Islamic State, in Iraq, that very year. So yeah, you're wrong, still.
 
Montecresto said:
No they're not years apart, the NIE I quoted you was from the same year that the Islamic State in Iraq organized, 2006. In fact that's the point of the NIE and it's findings that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had caused an increase in terrorism, as evidenced by the formation of the Islamic State, in Iraq, that very year. So yeah, you're wrong, still.
Click to expand...

Antagonized years ago, back on the date of the NEI that you cite, yeah, I concede that point. Yet, ISIS didn't rise into power until the vacuum that Obama caused when he pulled the troops out. Prior to that, the US troops were a deterrent to ISIS expanding. Now from my view, this is a point that you'd have to concede.
 
ARTHUR 1976 said:
Who signed the SOFA TREATY, YUP that's Right, bring em on Bushie and the Iraq Government, funny how you Gopers try to blame Obama when he wasn't even in office yet, nice try but Fail!!

Dec 31, 2011 was the out date, hey besides Bushie DECLARED MISSION ACCOMPLISHED IN 2003 remember that, LOL, that was almost 6 long years before,;Obama even took office..

Remember Rummy dummy it will be a 2 month war, freedom fries, oh and my favorite BRING EM ON!!

Well ISIS Is bringing it, doing exactly what that old drunk said, and there would have NEVER BEEN AN ISIS, if that dumb**** had never invaded in the 1st place..

Gee whatever happened to those WMD"S, LOL...

Bush was the complete failure here, that's why the Dems cleaned house in 2006, and Obama won a landslide in 2008, over that warmonger McCain..
Click to expand...



Here.....now you can't say you weren't brought about to speed on things. ;)


This is nonsense. The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure the war had been won. You can argue that the price of that victory was too high. Fine. We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, “We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” This was, said the president, a “moment of success.”

Which Obama proceeded to fully squander. With the 2012 election approaching, he chose to liquidate our military presence in Iraq. We didn’t just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases. We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean. And, most relevant to the fall of Ramadi, we abandoned the vast intelligence network we had so painstakingly constructed in Anbar province, without which our current patchwork operations there are largely blind and correspondingly feeble.

Mme. Secretary: When you arrived at State, al-Qaeda in Iraq had been crushed and expelled from Anbar. The Iraqi government had from Basra to Sadr City fought and defeated the radical, Iranian-proxy Shiite militias. Yet today these militias are back, once again dominating Baghdad. On your watch, we gave up our position as the dominant influence over a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” — forfeiting that position gratuitously to Iran. Was that not a mistake? And where were you when it was made?.....snip~

You want hypotheticals? Here
 
eohrnberger said:
Antagonized years ago, back on the date of the NEI that you cite, yeah, I concede that point. Yet, ISIS didn't rise into power until the vacuum that Obama caused when he pulled the troops out. Prior to that, the US troops were a deterrent to ISIS expanding. Now from my view, this is a point that you'd have to concede.
Click to expand...

I proved to you that both events were the same year though. My consensus to you is that the rise and expansion of the Islamic State is a result of all of Obama's policies post George Bush. And that his policies have been gasoline on Bush's fire. Your concession only goes half way. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has the direct correlation of causing an increase in global terrorism (as opposed to the presumably desired effect of diminishing it) making America LESS safe (as opposed to the presumably desired effect of making America safer) and resulted in the radicalization of Islamic extremists within Iraq and the formation of the Islamic State in Iraq, (ISI). It wasn't until the greater power vacuum caused by the withdrawal of the last troops that the Islamic State in Iraq, grew in power and moved beyond Iraq's borders and into Syria.

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

NOTE THE BOLDED.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state_(disambiguation)
 
Montecresto said:
I proved to you that both events were the same year though. My consensus to you is that the rise and expansion of the Islamic State is a result of all of Obama's policies post George Bush. And that his policies have been gasoline on Bush's fire. Your concession only goes half way. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has the direct correlation of causing an increase in global terrorism (as opposed to the presumably desired effect of diminishing it) making America LESS safe (as opposed to the presumably desired effect of making America safer) and resulted in the radicalization of Islamic extremists within Iraq and the formation of the Islamic State in Iraq, (ISI). It wasn't until the greater power vacuum caused by the withdrawal of the last troops that the Islamic State in Iraq, grew in power and moved beyond Iraq's borders and into Syria.

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

NOTE THE BOLDED.

Islamic state (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

And even so they declared themselves in 2006, they didn't really do all that much, nor make many gains until after the vacuum from the US troop pull out.

Now you can argue that ISIS would have waited until the eventual US troop pull out regardless of how many years that would have taken. You can also argue that Maliki had a hand in the power vacuum by dismissing experienced and trained Iraqi military leaders and installing inexperienced leaders from his preferred sect.

My point remains that the US troop pull out, as ordered by Obama, caused the vacuum that ISIS raised to the predominant position they now have, and that this is one of the many instances from Obama where his ideology trumps reality, with the nation and the world paying dearly for the consequences.
 
MMC said:
Here.....now you can't say you weren't brought about to speed on things. ;)


This is nonsense. The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure the war had been won. You can argue that the price of that victory was too high. Fine. We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, “We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” This was, said the president, a “moment of success.”

Which Obama proceeded to fully squander. With the 2012 election approaching, he chose to liquidate our military presence in Iraq. We didn’t just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases. We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean. And, most relevant to the fall of Ramadi, we abandoned the vast intelligence network we had so painstakingly constructed in Anbar province, without which our current patchwork operations there are largely blind and correspondingly feeble.

Mme. Secretary: When you arrived at State, al-Qaeda in Iraq had been crushed and expelled from Anbar. The Iraqi government had from Basra to Sadr City fought and defeated the radical, Iranian-proxy Shiite militias. Yet today these militias are back, once again dominating Baghdad. On your watch, we gave up our position as the dominant influence over a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” — forfeiting that position gratuitously to Iran. Was that not a mistake? And where were you when it was made?.....snip~

You want hypotheticals? Here
Click to expand...

Mornin MMC, When the US "WON" the war against Japan, it was finished, done and over with. Japan surrendered, and then proceeded to go forward based upon the terms of their surrender treaty. Saying that we "won" anything in Iraq is complete rubbish, ridiculous. The reason is that the (phony) "War on Terror" cannot be won, and will never have an end date, ever. No "enemy" in Iraq was ever defeated, the "enemy" didn't surrender, take off their uniforms and live by any surrendering terms. The strategy was to lay low, and wait out the occupation, knowing that the US couldn't, wouldn't remain in Iraq perpetually. The enemy, which in the beginning was identified as Al Qaeda, was fought in Afghanistan, and NOT defeated there. They followed us into Iraq, and was NOT defeated there. They morphed and grew, and by 2006 had organized themselves as the Islamic State in Iraq, ISI. subsequent US policies in the region advanced by Obama proved to be beneficial to the group who spread to Libya, taking advantage of another vacuum of power. Then of course, the Islamic State found fertile soil in the vacuum of power that exists in Syria. Besides all of that, reports are that the Islamic State is spreading down into Africa and all around the world. A poster here (in a different thread I believe) has claimed that the Islamic State has a presence in all 50 American States, I don't know whether or not that is true.
 
eohrnberger said:
And even so they declared themselves in 2006, they didn't really do all that much, nor make many gains until after the vacuum from the US troop pull out.

Now you can argue that ISIS would have waited until the eventual US troop pull out regardless of how many years that would have taken. You can also argue that Maliki had a hand in the power vacuum by dismissing experienced and trained Iraqi military leaders and installing inexperienced leaders from his preferred sect.

My point remains that the US troop pull out, as ordered by Obama, caused the vacuum that ISIS raised to the predominant position they now have, and that this is one of the many instances from Obama where his ideology trumps reality, with the nation and the world paying dearly for the consequences.
Click to expand...

To the bolded, who's disagreeing with that, well I should say that I'm not disagreeing with that. And I really have made it crystal clear to you that Obama's post Bush policies have had the effect of throwing gasoline on Bush's fire. A plurality of Americans, including an overwhelming majority of republicans in congress now view the Iraq invasion and occupation as a BIG FAT ****ING MISTAKE!!!!!!!!!!

Yesterday, the libertarian Cato Institute hosted a panel discussion on conservatism and the war in Afghanistan with Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN). When the conversation shifted to the war in Iraq, Rohrabacher said that “once President Bush decided to go into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake because we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan,” but that once Bush “decided to go in,” he “felt compelled” to “back him up.” He then added that “the decision to go in, in retrospect, almost all of us think that was a horrible mistake.”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/03/19/87590/gop-congressmen-iraq-mistake/
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Mornin MMC, When the US "WON" the war against Japan, it was finished, done and over with. Japan surrendered, and then proceeded to go forward based upon the terms of their surrender treaty. Saying that we "won" anything in Iraq is complete rubbish, ridiculous. The reason is that the (phony) "War on Terror" cannot be won, and will never have an end date, ever. No "enemy" in Iraq was ever defeated, the "enemy" didn't surrender, take off their uniforms and live by any surrendering terms. The strategy was to lay low, and wait out the occupation, knowing that the US couldn't, wouldn't remain in Iraq perpetually. The enemy, which in the beginning was identified as Al Qaeda, was fought in Afghanistan, and NOT defeated there. They followed us into Iraq, and was NOT defeated there. They morphed and grew, and by 2006 had organized themselves as the Islamic State in Iraq, ISI. subsequent US policies in the region advanced by Obama proved to be beneficial to the group who spread to Libya, taking advantage of another vacuum of power. Then of course, the Islamic State found fertile soil in the vacuum of power that exists in Syria. Besides all of that, reports are that the Islamic State is spreading down into Africa and all around the world. A poster here (in a different thread I believe) has claimed that the Islamic State has a presence in all 50 American States, I don't know whether or not that is true.
Click to expand...

Winning: Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq.....
Next Article → ATTRITION: Under Armor in Iraq
October 27, 2007: On October 22nd, Osama bin Laden admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled "Message to the people of Iraq," bin Laden complains of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that al Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. What bin Laden is most upset about is the large number of Sunni Arab terrorists who have switched sides in Iraq. This has actually been going on for a while. Tribal leaders and warlords in the west (Anbar province) have been turning on terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, for several years. While bin Laden appeals for unity, he shows only a superficial appreciation of what is actually going on in Iraq.

Saddam's henchmen, the main enemy, were no dummies. They were smart enough, and resourceful enough, to build a police state apparatus that kept Saddam in power for over three decades. However, for the last three years, that talent has been applied to keeping the henchmen alive and out of jail. But three years of fighting has reduced the original 100,000 or so core Saddam thugs, to a few thousand diehards. Three years ago, there were hundreds of thousands of allies and supporters from the Sunni minority (then, about five million people, now, less than half that), who wanted to be back in charge. Now the remaining Sunni Arabs just want to be left in peace. Thus the Sunni nationalists of in the Baghdad suburbs are shooting at, and turning in, their old allies from Saddams Baath party and secret police. This isn't easy for some of these guys, but it's seen as a matter of survival. While the fighting in and around Baghdad is officially about rooting out al Qaeda, and hard core terrorists, it's also about taking down the Baath party bankers and organizers who have been sustaining the bombers with cash, information and encouragement.

Al Qaeda is under a lot of pressure of late. In addition to defeat in Iraq, the organization is being battered in North Africa, South East Asia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bin Laden has not got any good news to talk about, and that's what's really got his followers angry......snip~

Winning: Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq


It appears, Bin Laden disagreed with your analysis before he met his end.
 
MMC said:
Here.....now you can't say you weren't brought about to speed on things. ;)


This is nonsense. The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure the war had been won. You can argue that the price of that victory was too high. Fine. We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, “We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” This was, said the president, a “moment of success.”

Which Obama proceeded to fully squander. With the 2012 election approaching, he chose to liquidate our military presence in Iraq. We didn’t just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases. We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean. And, most relevant to the fall of Ramadi, we abandoned the vast intelligence network we had so painstakingly constructed in Anbar province, without which our current patchwork operations there are largely blind and correspondingly feeble.

Mme. Secretary: When you arrived at State, al-Qaeda in Iraq had been crushed and expelled from Anbar. The Iraqi government had from Basra to Sadr City fought and defeated the radical, Iranian-proxy Shiite militias. Yet today these militias are back, once again dominating Baghdad. On your watch, we gave up our position as the dominant influence over a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” — forfeiting that position gratuitously to Iran. Was that not a mistake? And where were you when it was made?.....snip~

You want hypotheticals? Here
Click to expand...
If the war was won in early 09, when Bush left office why were we still there in 11?, this was Bush's war not Obama's Bush owned it, just like Obama owns the ACA..

Also Bush declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in 2003, so why were we there 8 long years later, especially since Rumsfeld said it would only be a 2 month war..

Bottom line the SOFA treaty the IRAQ Government wanted us outta there we were there too long to begin with.

Funny and hypocritical how the Cons keep trying to put Bush and his failures on Obama, party of personal responsibility huh, LOL, THE Bush administration was so inept it couldn't even run a taco stand in Tijuana, without screwing it up, incompetent as the day is long..
 
ARTHUR 1976 said:
If the war was won in early 09, when Bush left office why were we still there in 11?, this was Bush's war not Obama's Bush owned it, just like Obama owns the ACA..

Also Bush declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in 2003, so why were we there 8 long years later, especially since Rumsfeld said it would only be a 2 month war..

Bottom line the SOFA treaty the IRAQ Government wanted us outta there we were there too long to begin with.

Funny and hypocritical how the Cons keep trying to put Bush and his failures on Obama, party of personal responsibility huh, LOL, THE Bush administration was so inept it couldn't even run a taco stand in Tijuana, without screwing it up, incompetent as the day is long..
Click to expand...





BO peep declared it a success when and how long after Bush Jr, again? You didn't forget your Mans Words now did you? That pretty much removes Bush Jr from the equation.

Then why did Maliki return for aid and help in 2013? Just why wasn't BO able to handle such an Inept leader, with a weak government? What happened to all that Smart Power, huh? :lamo




The UN’s numbers bolster recent estimates from US intelligence about the scope of the foreign fighter problem, which the UN report finds to have spread despite the Obama administration’s aggressive counter-terrorism strikes and global surveillance dragnets. “Numbers since 2010 are now many times the size of the cumulative numbers of foreign terrorist fighters between 1990 and 2010 – and are growing,” says the report, produced by a security council committee that monitors al-Qaida.

Wading into a debate with legal implications for Barack Obama’s new war against Isis, the UN considers Isis “a splinter group” from al-Qaida. It considers an ideological congruence between the two groups sufficient to categorise them as part a broader movement, notwithstanding al-Qaida’s formal excommunication of Isis last February. “Al-Qaida core and Isil pursue similar strategic goals, albeit with tactical differences regarding sequencing and substantive differences about personal leadership,” the UN writes, using a different acronym for Isis......snip~

Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on 'unprecedented scale'
 
MMC said:
Winning: Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq.....
Next Article → ATTRITION: Under Armor in Iraq
October 27, 2007: On October 22nd, Osama bin Laden admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled "Message to the people of Iraq," bin Laden complains of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that al Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. What bin Laden is most upset about is the large number of Sunni Arab terrorists who have switched sides in Iraq. This has actually been going on for a while. Tribal leaders and warlords in the west (Anbar province) have been turning on terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, for several years. While bin Laden appeals for unity, he shows only a superficial appreciation of what is actually going on in Iraq.

Saddam's henchmen, the main enemy, were no dummies. They were smart enough, and resourceful enough, to build a police state apparatus that kept Saddam in power for over three decades. However, for the last three years, that talent has been applied to keeping the henchmen alive and out of jail. But three years of fighting has reduced the original 100,000 or so core Saddam thugs, to a few thousand diehards. Three years ago, there were hundreds of thousands of allies and supporters from the Sunni minority (then, about five million people, now, less than half that), who wanted to be back in charge. Now the remaining Sunni Arabs just want to be left in peace. Thus the Sunni nationalists of in the Baghdad suburbs are shooting at, and turning in, their old allies from Saddams Baath party and secret police. This isn't easy for some of these guys, but it's seen as a matter of survival. While the fighting in and around Baghdad is officially about rooting out al Qaeda, and hard core terrorists, it's also about taking down the Baath party bankers and organizers who have been sustaining the bombers with cash, information and encouragement.

Al Qaeda is under a lot of pressure of late. In addition to defeat in Iraq, the organization is being battered in North Africa, South East Asia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bin Laden has not got any good news to talk about, and that's what's really got his followers angry......snip~

Winning: Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq


It appears, Bin Laden disagreed with your analysis before he met his end.
Click to expand...

The source isn't trustworthy.
 
ARTHUR 1976 said:
If the war was won in early 09, when Bush left office why were we still there in 11?, this was Bush's war not Obama's Bush owned it, just like Obama owns the ACA..

Also Bush declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in 2003, so why were we there 8 long years later, especially since Rumsfeld said it would only be a 2 month war..

Bottom line the SOFA treaty the IRAQ Government wanted us outta there we were there too long to begin with.

Funny and hypocritical how the Cons keep trying to put Bush and his failures on Obama, party of personal responsibility huh, LOL, THE Bush administration was so inept it couldn't even run a taco stand in Tijuana, without screwing it up, incompetent as the day is long..
Click to expand...

Nothing was won, and Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.
 
Anomalism said:
ISIS seems to be gaining a lot of momentum.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ls-half-of-Syrian-territory-monitor-says.html

More than half of Syria’s territory is now controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria group after its westwards advance into the ancient city of Palmyra, a group monitoring the war said on Thursday. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Reuters the militant group has taken control of the city’s military air base and prison after storming them on Wednesday. ISIS followers posted a statement on Twitter saying it was in full control of the city, including the military installations, and that the retreating pro-government forces had left behind a large number of their dead.

Clashes since Wednesday had killed at least 100 pro-government fighters, the observatory said, which gains information through a network of sources on the ground. The capture of Palmyra is the first time ISIS has taken control of a city directly from the Syrian army and allied forces, which have already lost ground in the northwest and south to other insurgent groups in recent weeks. The central city, also known as Tadmur, is built alongside the remains of an oasis civilization whose colonnaded streets, temple and theatre have stood for 2,000 years
Click to expand...

Nothing to see here. Obama says we are winning and that in fifteen years ISIS will be defeated, which is five years shorter than he is giving Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The world is safe.
 
Congratulations anti war crowd, you are getting exactly what you wanted. What is next, the destruction of America?
 
Capster78 said:
Congratulations anti war crowd, you are getting exactly what you wanted. What is next, the destruction of America?
Click to expand...

Not sure what that means. Would you then be in the pro war crowd.
 
Capster78 said:
Depends on what you define as pro war.
Click to expand...

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
adj. In favour of a military solution to a political problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom