Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 120

Thread: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,752

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    And Reagan wished we would have declared war on North Vietnam in a 1984 speech.
    Think any of us would be around right now if that had happened ?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    I'm not very interested in talking about history. If Bush hadn't invaded, If Obama had an intelligent plan for pulling troops out. Both of those were mistakes and we wouldn't be having this conversation if either of them had done something different. Guess what. They didn't. How do you like what this administration is doing about ISIS today? Obama says we are winning but have had setbacks. I know people who were taking the same kind of drugs in the 70's that he's on now.
    Chemists Have Solutions .

  2. #62
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    And Reagan wished we would have declared war on North Vietnam in a 1984 speech.
    Think any of us would be around right now if that had happened ?
    Reagan derangement syndrome. You guys need therapy.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,752

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Bush: Here's my ****-up--here's what the next POTUSA should do/not do 18 months out.
    Obama: Thanks for that overlapping war, similar to the one LBJ gave to Nixon.

    Bush: Here's Maliki but I can't get a SOFA without Sharia but signed a withdrawal for 2010 anyway.
    Obama: I'm sure your GOP will work with me as my DEMs helped you with your Medicare part D ****-up.

    Bush: Fool me once, shame on --shame on you; Fool me, you can't get fooled again.
    Obama: Of all the things to say to one billion Muslims, why "bring it on" ?
    Chemists Have Solutions .

  4. #64
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    And Reagan wished we would have declared war on North Vietnam in a 1984 speech.
    Think any of us would be around right now if that had happened ?
    I didn't know that. What was his point?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,752

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I didn't know that. What was his point?
    If I was cynical, I would say it was all part of his "Patriot" card--but not this weekend.
    Some call it Reagan winning the Vietnam war.

    To be fair and true to my Vietnam friends who have now passed away and are still alive,
    I must believe that Reagan was trying to bring closure to a Nation still divided.

    And bring the Vietnam Veterans back into the fold of society.
    I remember how my buddies were turned away by their own VFWs.

    It wasn't long after Reagan's 1984 speech, 1985 and 1986 respectively, that New York and Chicago had huge parades for Vietnam Veterans .
    Chemists Have Solutions .

  6. #66
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    If I was cynical, I would say it was all part of his "Patriot" card--but not this weekend.
    Some call it Reagan winning the Vietnam war.

    To be fair and true to my Vietnam friends who have now passed away and are still alive,
    I must believe that Reagan was trying to bring closure to a Nation still divided.

    And bring the Vietnam Veterans back into the fold of society.
    I remember how my buddies were turned away by their own VFWs.

    It wasn't long after Reagan's 1984 speech, 1985 and 1986 respectively, that New York and Chicago had huge parades for Vietnam Veterans .
    Oh I think I see. You mean that Reagan thought we should have had a more legitimised congressionally declared war?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,752

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Oh I think I see. You mean that Reagan thought we should have had a more legitimised congressionally declared war?
    Reagan's rationale for declaring war on North Vietnam is tailored directly after remarks by MacArthur that his hands were tied by Truman.
    Though I can't find any Reagan comments until he switched parties.
    We all saw what happened when MacArthur got too close to China's border.

    At this point, I would like to point out how incredibly brilliant MacArthur's 'left hook' from the sea at Inchon was.
    Cutting across Korea and trapping the North Koreans.
    But he wouldn't stop when he was told to by this President and the Chinese came over the border.

    The 'left hook' was also used by Schwarzkopf in Iraq-one with similar results.
    Only this time Bush-41 told his generals where to stop and they did.

    It's been said Haiphong harbor had Russian nukes--Vietnam Vets would know better than I.
    If you find it on a map, you can see where a 'right-hook' could have cut North Vietnam in half all the way to Cambodia.
    Needless to say, the Red Chinese and Soviets would have reacted .
    Chemists Have Solutions .

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,797

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    If this cut-and-run surprises Mr. Obama's Secretary of Defense, it shouldn't. We can expect to see more of the same skittishness, shown in various ways, from nations who either are or might have been our allies. When the United States is strong and stands by its commitments to those nations, it makes them more willing to follow our lead. But when it disappears on or even betrays its allies, they realize we are not standing behind them--and react accordingly.

    With this president, every government in the world knows it is dealing with a weak sister, and that there is no U.S. foreign policy worthy of the name. Mr. Obama's shameful appeasement of the Islamists who rule Iran has encouraged them to become more aggressive in Iraq, among other places, and that has put the Sunni population there in a very difficult position. Most of them probably don't much like the evil jihadists in ISIS, but they may well consider them less of a threat than millions of Iraqi Shiites--some of whom are also jihadists--under heavy Iranian influence. Any sense that they are all countrymen and can trust each other seems to be almost completely missing.

    The U.S. cannot live with ISIS, and neither can the rest of the civilized world. The ugly truth is that the people fighting for that group are fanatics who are determined to kill not only unbelievers in that region, but unbelievers like us. They have a vast safe haven, and they have plenty of money and plenty of time to draw their plans. Americans will never be safe from large terrorist attacks--possibly another 9/11, or even worse--while ISIS exists. Defeating it probably would not require killing every last person who fights for it, but it would certainly require killing most of them. It should be obvious we cannot rely on Iraqi forces to do the job, and it should also be obvious that it will not get done with the small and half-hearted air campaign that has been the main feature of the U.S. effort so far.
    Last edited by matchlight; 05-25-15 at 12:18 AM.

  9. #69
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    If this cut-and-run surprises Mr. Obama's Secretary of Defense, it shouldn't. We can expect to see more of the same skittishness, shown in various ways, from nations who either are or might have been our allies. When the United States is strong and stands by its commitments to those nations, it makes them more willing to follow our lead. But when it disappears on or even betrays its allies, they realize we are not standing behind them--and react accordingly.

    With this president, every government in the world knows it is dealing with a weak sister, and that there is no U.S. foreign policy worthy of the name. Mr. Obama's shameful appeasement of the Islamists who rule Iran has encouraged them to become more aggressive in Iraq, among other places, and that has put the Sunni population there in a very difficult position. Most of them probably don't much like the evil jihadists in ISIS, but they may well consider them less of a threat than millions of Iraqi Shiites--some of whom are also jihadists--under heavy Iranian influence. Any sense that they are all countrymen and can trust each other seems to be almost completely missing.

    The U.S. cannot live with ISIS, and neither can the rest of the civilized world. The ugly truth is that the people fighting for that group are fanatics who are determined to kill not only unbelievers in that region, but unbelievers like us. They have a vast safe haven, and they have plenty of money and plenty of time to draw their plans. Americans will never be safe from large terrorist attacks--possibly another 9/11, or even worse--while ISIS exists. Defeating it probably would not require killing every last person who fights for it, but it would certainly require killing most of them. It should be obvious we cannot rely on Iraqi forces to do the job, and it should also be obvious that it will not get done with the small and half-hearted air campaign that has been the main feature of the U.S. effort so far.
    What's obvious is that the creators of the problem ought not be the ones insisting on any solutions.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #70
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,522

    Re: U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

    Quote Originally Posted by WSUwarrior View Post
    Apparently Obama's strategy of sending in advisers to "train" Iraqi forces is a failed policy.


    Literally every decision Obama has made in Iraq has been the wrong one. Imagine that, an anti-war liberal college professor doesn't know how to win wars. Is it 2016 yet?
    It's a helluva lot more complicated than that... it always has been. Unfortunately, complexity is not something we pay Republicans to get.... never saw such a group of simpletons.

    Sorry, but it was the Bush Administration that tinkered with something they did not understand. It starts with the fact that Iraq is not a real country, but something that was kludged together at the end of the Ottoman Empire. Its no wonder when you broke the glue that held the mess together (the strong arm dictator names Saddam) and had no clue how you were going to pick up the pieces that you were not going to be able to put the country back together. The NeoCons naivette on this extended to a policy of de-baathification, which involved removing Sunni's from power (including disbanding the military, the power structure of which was largely Sunni). The government that the NeoCons chose to support was Shiaa, which put us on the side of Iran..... So, with the Sunni run from power and all of the command and control expertise of the military now out of work Sunni, its no wonder they set up shop across the street.

    The reason the Iraqi military is ineffective is that its command and control was gutted in de-baathifcation AND the current military is of a country that really does not exist. No one wants to die for Iraq. Its a mess and there is very little the US can do about it. Its too bad we had to spend between $2 and $6 Trillion dollars knocking of a two-bit dictator that had is finger in the dyke of middle east war and peace. But, that was the Bush Administration: brass, crass and stupid.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...338463426.html
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/21/...ation-of-iraq/
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ors-isis-jihad
    https://lecturesnthoughts.wordpress....isis-to-exist/

    We Dems apologize that we could not fix in seven years what Bush screwed up in eight.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 05-25-15 at 12:38 AM.

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •