• 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!

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

The war in 2003 and the mess over there now is in Bush II's lap. It's all his.

Funny thing too is as 2016 gets closer I'm betting Bush III(Jeb) will be more and more isolationist about Iraq then even Obama is. LOL.. Bush I and Bush II had wars there. I doubt Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush president(if he wins) who got us into a war there. If he's the GOP nom he'll backpedal like crazy away from wanting boots on the ground in Iraq.

Boots on the ground is the only way to bring peace to that region. And no, the mess is not in W's lap...its in Obama's. Every policy he has had over there has been a complete and utter inarguable failure.
 
Yes, it would be just like it was between the years after the Gulf war and Bush's invasion, which was magnitudes better then it's been since.

Easy for you to say, you werent spreading mustard gas on your hotdogs.
 
Easy for you to say, you werent spreading mustard gas on your hotdogs.

For all the Bush administrations dire warnings to the opposite, Saddam Hussein wasn't spreading mustard gas on my hotdogs either. In fact despite claims made by that administration, he wasn't affiliated with OBL or al Qaeda, hadn't the inclination nor the means to deliver a mushroom cloud over a US city, and wasn't a threat to the US whatsoever.
 
Obama, as any objective American would, hates bad cops, which while the small minority of them are, must be dealt with nevertheless.

"Bad cops" in the mind of Obama is interchangeable with "white cops". He hates white cops.
 
For all the Bush administrations dire warnings to the opposite, Saddam Hussein wasn't spreading mustard gas on my hotdogs either. In fact despite claims made by that administration, he wasn't affiliated with OBL or al Qaeda, hadn't the inclination nor the means to deliver a mushroom cloud over a US city, and wasn't a threat to the US whatsoever.

You are making the claim that Saddam Hussein did not gas his own people.


More cluelessness from the RADICAL progressive left.
 
"Bad cops" in the mind of Obama is interchangeable with "white cops". He hates white cops.

Oh stop your racist snivelling, and knock that chip off your shoulder, it's not conducive to quality police work.
 
You are making the claim that Saddam Hussein did not gas his own people.


More cluelessness from the RADICAL progressive left.

Read dude, I didn't say that.
 
Boots on the ground is the only way to bring peace to that region. And no, the mess is not in W's lap...its in Obama's. Every policy he has had over there has been a complete and utter inarguable failure.

You have a regular pattern of being wrong.
 
Oh stop your racist snivelling, and knock that chip off your shoulder, it's not conducive to quality police work.

Im not the one with the chip, racist Obama is. I dont know where it was developed though...probably because he grew up without a dad....was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, but somehow self identifies as black? That is just weird.

Its clear he hates white people...and if you are a white Christian, look the hell out.
 
Reagan derangement syndrome. You guys need therapy.

And Present Moment Awareness would point to Republican Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Or should I now call it Clinton Derangement Syndrome--or maybe Swift Boat 2.0 twelve years later .
 
Were they? Were they 'wrong'? Were they 'lying'?
Or were things significantly better there and then they got completely ****ed by the typical amateur hour

Maliki--the bush/cheney stooge !
 
The war in 2003 and the mess over there now is in Bush II's lap. It's all his.

Funny thing too is as 2016 gets closer I'm betting Bush III(Jeb) will be more and more isolationist about Iraq then even Obama is. LOL.. Bush I and Bush II had wars there. I doubt Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush president(if he wins) who got us into a war there. If he's the GOP nom he'll backpedal like crazy away from wanting boots on the ground in Iraq.

Let the GOP Hawks run on the lying Bush/Cheney war.
We saw the revisionist softball question from Megyn Kelly to J.E.B. and he fumbled that.
FOX gave Bush his chance--now it's Walker and Rubio .
 
The war in 2003 and the mess over there now is in Bush II's lap. It's all his.

Funny thing too is as 2016 gets closer I'm betting Bush III(Jeb) will be more and more isolationist about Iraq then even Obama is. LOL.. Bush I and Bush II had wars there. I doubt Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush president(if he wins) who got us into a war there. If he's the GOP nom he'll backpedal like crazy away from wanting boots on the ground in Iraq.
How do you figure Obama is isolationist about Iraq? He continued the war without missing a beat, got out of Iraq only when forced by the Iraqi government, and is now eagerly getting the US involved again. The original war is on Bush, no doubt, but present involvement is utterly and completely BO's war.
 
How do you figure Obama is isolationist about Iraq? He continued the war without missing a beat, got out of Iraq only when forced by the Iraqi government, and is now eagerly getting the US involved again. The original war is on Bush, no doubt, but present involvement is utterly and completely BO's war.

Obama is wavering about getting troops back in there. I agree he could have done more by getting us out of there earlier, and staying out completely. But that's another discussion for another time. My point is NOW he doesn't want boots on the ground again, and neither will Jeb. I don't think Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush President who will have Americans killed in Iraq.
 
He's bombing which counts too. It absolutely floors me that aerial bombardment is considered a lesser step. I suspect that inhabitants of an area aren't too keen on being bombed by a power from the other side of the world that can attack with seeming impunity, and may have some impetus to seek retribution by taking the conflict to them.
 
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.

No, the world cannot live with ISIS. And the world has to step up, not just the U.S.

I appreciated Sawdust’s providing that YouTube of Megyn Kelly’s interview with Marc Thiessen with the vid clip of Dubya’s 2007 prediction …surrendering the future to Al Qaeda, mass killings on a horrific scale, establishing a safe haven to replace the one lost in Afghanistan.

But here is the point: Here we are. All this bickering about where blame lies is counterproductive—what is the world going to DO about ISIS?

And what can it do until the good, decent people who remain silent about ISIS because of fear or because of the bonds of kinship and tribe choose to stand up? ISIS is committing crimes against humanity itself. Apparently, the Iraqis and others haven’t had quite enough yet, and this is a mystery to me—that thousands and thousands of little girls and women being kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery isn’t enough. That crucifixions and mass beheadings isn't enough.

UN ISIS suspected of "war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide" - CBS News
 
We don't need to do anything about ISIS. In fact, they act as a good counter force to Iran who, until ISIS , was arguably the real wińner in the continuing misadventures of Shrub and BO. The US can play both sides against each other, like China & India did with the US and Sovs
 
Back
Top Bottom