Page 29 of 64 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 638

Thread: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

  1. #281
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    07-19-15 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Tonight's slow, it can get hoppin.
    I have lots of coffee and my keyboard never runs dry of ink.

    HA!


  2. #282
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazmanian Devil View Post
    From your source:



    I had just begun skimming the article when I saw this and it struck me as being so biased it reeked of dis-ingenuity.

    I don't recall Jeb or anyone in a position to know who said everything was "fine in Iraq until Obama failed."

    I think the consensus at the time was that Iraq was relatively stable but it would require a long term commitment of US forces to help maintain that stability.

    And the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) could well have been negotiated and agreed upon had the persuasive Obama actually wanted to reach such an agreement.

    He didn't.

    It would have been politically hazardous for him.

    We all know every POTUS has to give some thought to the political ramification of every decision and policy. It is foolish to think otherwise, no matter who the POTUS is or from which political party.

    However, we have seen since then that Obama is more than willing to place partisan politics ahead of the good of the country.

    And in the final analysis we all can see what happened as a result.

    So, whether or not you liked Bushy, you have to admit he was correct on this score.

    From the WashPo:



    George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
    The Bush era (2006) NIE concluded by consensus amongst the nations intelligence services, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a direct cause of a sudden increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe! No, Bush gets no credit whatsoever. And Obama certainly has done worse since then in the ME.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #283
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,866

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    We can cope with ISIS, we just choose not to. Don't mistake the barbarism you see in our absence with how things would be if US troops were still in Iraq.

    Saddam murdered an estimate of 1 million people in his 25 years in power. ISIS is small time compared to Saddam.
    Nothing like a little exaggeration to help sell an argument. I think you are off by more than 10 fold on your data.... only Heritage Foundations forecast on the budgetary effect of the Bush tax cuts tops this in terms of estimate busts.

    The War Crimes of Iraq's Saddam Hussein

  4. #284
    Professor
    distraff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    02-24-16 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,300

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazmanian Devil View Post
    From your source:



    I had just begun skimming the article when I saw this and it struck me as being so biased it reeked of dis-ingenuity.

    I don't recall Jeb or anyone in a position to know who said everything was "fine in Iraq until Obama failed."
    Seriously? Where have you been in the past few weeks? This is the line that the top Republican candidates have been spouting for the last few weeks.
    Jeb Bush blames Iraq unrest on Obama - CNNPolitics.com

    I am quoting here:
    "ISIS didn't exist when my brother was President. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was President," he said. "There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure, but the surge created a fragile but stable Iraq that the President could've built on and it would've not allowed ISIS."

    So basically he is saying that Bush had mostly won the war until Obama failed to to properly occupy the country.

    I think the consensus at the time was that Iraq was relatively stable but it would require a long term commitment of US forces to help maintain that stability.

    And the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) could well have been negotiated and agreed upon had the persuasive Obama actually wanted to reach such an agreement.

    He didn't.

    It would have been politically hazardous for him.

    We all know every POTUS has to give some thought to the political ramification of every decision and policy. It is foolish to think otherwise, no matter who the POTUS is or from which political party.

    However, we hacve seen since then that Obama is more than willing to place partisan politics ahead of the good of the country.

    And in the final analysis we all can see what happened as a result.

    So, whether or not you liked Bushy, you have to admit he was correct on this score.

    From the WashPo:



    George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
    You don't actually address the main point of the article and also the reason I brought it up. I was making the point that the Bush administration made things up to get into Iraq and were hasty. It wasn't just bad intelligence.

    You seem to be implying that a provisional force would have kept Iraq stable. Iraq is a seriously messed up country and is basically made up of a patchwork of ethnic groups that absolutely hate each other. Its government is basically a house full of corrupt weak crooks. Just because there was a lull in the fighting because of a highly expensive surge in the US does not mean that the problem had been mostly solved. Unstable countries like this often have pauses before more fighting. A provisional force would not have been able to stop any of the crazy nonsense that would have sprung up in that God-forsaken hellhole. ISIS spread from Syria and provisional forces would not have been able to stop them. Especially when it would have looked like they were "freeing" Iraq from the Americans. That would have only made them stronger and would have cost thousands more wasted lives of our Soldiers leaving thousands more of our children without mothers and fathers.

    It would have taken a permanent occupation force to keep an inherently unstable country stable on a long-term basis. This is not Obama's fault. This is Iraq's and Bush's fault.

  5. #285
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    07-19-15 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    The Bush era (2006) NIE concluded by consensus amongst the nations intelligence services, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a direct cause of a sudden increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe! No, Bush gets no credit whatsoever. And Obama certainly has done worse since then in the ME.
    To use a metaphor, African Killer Bees have been migrating northward from South America for decades.

    If left alone they would continue their migration until they are stopped by colder temperatures (one hopes they don't evolve warm winter yellow jackets!).

    But any time any living thing gets near their hive they swarm and attack.

    Why?

    It's their nature. It's what they do.

    Now as for the increase in terrorism.

    All Muslims are Jihadists. They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform jihad in one of the four forms of it. Three being non violent. The other, Jihad by the Sword. But all Jihad is ultimately to help bring about the Prophet's command to all Muslims to help achieve mastery of mankind.

    And so Jihadists are continually doing their individual Jihad in their own way in all four forms and in words and deeds large and small. Every day, 24/7 around the world.

    They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform their acts of jihad in order to conquer the world for Allah and that is what they do.

    But whenever Infidels, or Kafirs (any non Muslim is a Kafir) land troops on Islamic lands, no matter that in the case of Desert Storm (in 1990-91) US and Coalition troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia as guests of the sovereign government (the Royal Saudi family), it was an offense to Islam and so the devout Jihadis around the world rose up to try to expel not only the Kafirs but also to expel the Royal family.

    That is what devoted Muslims do.

    Do we bow to Islamic law?

    Do we ignore the Saudi government in favor of religious zealots who want us to convert, become conquered and captives or dead ANYWAY?

    It's a complicated matter if you are trying to keep the peace and protect your allies and vital interests.

    I will conclude this post with a teaser.

    FBI interrogator George Piro said in a CBS 60 Minutes interview that Saddam Hussein confessed to him, after many months of chats and time spent together after he was captured from the spider hole, that he had intentionally bluffed about having WMD's to keep the dreaded Iranians from re-invading Iraq after their bloody war which took more than a million lives combined over ten years of fighting.

    And Saddam was more than bluffing about his willingness to destroy Israel if he could. (He'd launched dozens of SCUD missiles into Israel during Desert Storm.)

    What was Israel to do when they truly did not know if a WMD 'Sword of Damocles' was hanging over their necks which could wipe them off the map?

    What they would do is what they have ALWAYS done when threatened by their hostile neighbors. They eliminate that threat proactively.

    But you know how hated Israel is by Muslims.

    So what would the Muslim world have done if Israel had launched hundreds of air strikes searching for WMDS and bombing command and control centers without any outward provocation from Iraq to justify their air strikes and/or ground invasion?

    That is for another post.

    Sorry to ramble.

    TD

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    07-19-15 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    So basically he is saying that Bush had mostly won the war until Obama failed to to properly occupy the country.

    You don't actually address the main point of the article and also the reason I brought it up. I was making the point that the Bush administration made things up to get into Iraq and were hasty. It wasn't just bad intelligence.

    You seem to be implying that a provisional force would have kept Iraq stable.

    [...]

    It would have taken a permanent occupation force to keep an inherently unstable country stable on a long-term basis. This is not Obama's fault. This is Iraq's and Bush's fault.
    uly 22, 2008, 5:22 PM
    McCain: "We Will Come Home In Victory"

    Couric: What does victory in Iraq mean to you? And how long are you willing to engage U.S. troops to achieve it?

    McCain: We have succeeded in Iraq. We are winning. We will be making additional withdrawals as everybody acknowledged. We may have an advisory capacity as even Sen. Obama agrees. And we may have security arrangements that are in the interest of both countries. But the fact is victory is being achieved now.

    A stable society. Secure environment. Functioning government. Functioning legal system. All of the trappings of a nation where people can feel secure in their future in a free and independent nation. And that's what we've succeeded in the strategy which will then mean we are winning the war and bring our troops home.

    Couric: What is your biggest fear about bringing troops home too soon, Senator?

    McCain: That we lose the fragile success that we have achieved. Al Qaeda is not defeated. They're on the run, but they're not defeated. So my greatest concern is that we announce a date for withdrawal, which would have had devastating consequences if we had done it when Sen. Obama wanted it done.

    And we lose all the hard won gains that we achieved at the great sacrifice of American blood and treasure. I don't want that reversed. Sen. Obama had said, well, if things don't go right, he's prepared to send American troops back. I'm prepared to leave when we have victory; so, we will never have to send American troops back.
    McCain: "We Will Come Home In Victory" - CBS News

    CBS Grudgingly Acknowledges Progress in Iraq, But 'Danger' Ahead --11/26/2007

    # ABC's World News, November 22:

    DAVID MUIR: Last year on this day, Baghdad was in lockdown after one of that city's deadliest suicide bombings. But the headlines in recent weeks have been different. And today, our Baghdad correspondent, Terry McCarthy, got an extraordinary look at the country, traveling with the number two U.S. General there, Ray Odierno. They made nine stops, visiting several communities that have been notorious for violence. And as Terry reports, the optimism, among Americans at least, is spreading.

    TERRY MCCARTHY: From the triangle of death south of Baghdad, to the killing fields of Diyala to the north, to the once deadly deserts of Anbar out west, everywhere we went today, we heard the same thing: Violence is going down. No one is happier than General Odierno, one of the main designers of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq.

    [...]

    ODIERNO:I think we can be successful here.

    MCCARTHY: We have heard others in the top brass sounding optimistic before, but Odierno is not given to hype. And what was even more remarkable about today's trip was how many commanders on the ground now believe they're winning.

    [...]

    MCCARTHY: The biggest change, local citizens abandoning the insurgency and helping the Americans. Already, the U.S. has signed up 72,000 men to serve as community police. The message we get from U.S. commanders in bases outside Baghdad is pretty much the same wherever we go, cautious optimism. Not only is there a huge increase in Iraqi citizens groups who are coming forward to help the Americans, but overall levels of violence have gone way down.

    When the surge started, three or four Americans were being killed every day in Iraq. Now that number has gone down to about one a day. And for Iraqis, reason to be thankful, as well. Civilian deaths in Baghdad are down 65 percent compared to six months ago. Car bombs are down 47 percent. It's important to remember the war is far from over here. Just today, 11 Iraqis were killed in a single attack in southern Baghdad.

    [...]

    MCCARTHY: Unlike some of the other top brass, General Odierno is a fairly straight shooter and calls it as he sees it. And I think it's very significant that today, even though he's not declaring victory in this war, he clearly thinks they're starting to win.
    CBS Grudgingly Acknowledges Progress in Iraq, But 'Danger' Ahead --11/26/2007 | Media Research Center
    Last edited by Tazmanian Devil; 05-29-15 at 01:26 AM.

  7. #287
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    It was a darned sight more than that !

    "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.
    Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)
    So you disbelieve your own presidents words from 2004 ? Nonsense. The US armed forces were sent into combat on the basis of a known lie tying AQ with Iraq
    Did you read that link and who you were quoting?
    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by jpn View Post
    Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003:

    Vice President Cheney: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

    Mr. Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

    Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

    Worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.
    Do you know who was shooting at the Coalition military, who was murdering the Iraqi civilians, who were threatening the Iraqi people if they tried to vote in their first ever election? I'll save you the time. It was Islamists, the same people who are murdering the Iraqi people over there now, and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa.

  9. #289
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,909

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Do you know who was shooting at the Coalition military, who was murdering the Iraqi civilians, who were threatening the Iraqi people if they tried to vote in their first ever election? I'll save you the time. It was Islamists, the same people who are murdering the Iraqi people over there now, and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa.

    What you mean the same people your government set free to do this by deposing Hussein ? Who'd have thunk it

  10. #290
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    11-18-16 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,149

    Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Sure they do. And all the crimes against humanity carried out by the United States government against the indigenous people's of America, the crimes against humanity with the US targeting of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the atrocities committed by our CIA against the Latin American community, bother me too, and?
    Distraction,

    The topic is about Iraqi's loosing will to fight, not USA's dark page in history.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

Page 29 of 64 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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