• 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!

The Rise of ISIS, explained in 6 minutes

OrphanSlug said:
What we are trying to tell you is that an occupation of Iraq until "capable of protecting it's own sovereignty" seems more like the South Korea model, which has been indefinite vs. some 5 or 10 or 15 year plan. The government installed was weak, their military was even weaker. The elephant in the room here is we left behind the very people that became ISIS, became the enemy of the government we supported, and there is no real certainty at all that a "small contingent" (whatever that means) would have prevented ISIS from spilling over from Syria into Iraq.

And the last thing you should be doing is mentioning "common sense" in any regard with our foreign policy for the greater Middle East going back several decades now.
Click to expand...

The elephant in the room in regards to Korea is that for all practical purposes, it was a United Nations operation. Like Vietnam.......what happened on the battlefield mattered less then what was going on in constipated peace talks. Wars should be won or lost on the battlefield. I do not buy the Korea comparison. And yes...a small contingent supported by air power would have prevented ISIS getting a foothold in Iraq. A quick and devastating response at the beginning of ISIS surging into Iraq would have contained them in Syria.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Bush's intention was a SOFA agreement that would leave a small contingent of elite troops behind to prevent just what ultimately happened from happening....at least until the Iraq military was capable of defending Iraq. Obama became president in January 2009 and had plenty of time to work out that SOFA agreement. The Iraqi leadership wanted a small contingent left behind, however Obama offered such a small contingent that the Iraqi leadership did not consider it worth the political risk at the time.
Click to expand...

LOL Bush built he largest most expensive embassy EVER in Baghdad and expected a long term occupation agreement like we have with S. Korea unfortunately the Iraqi's would have one of it and would not sign any SOFA that did not include a complete withdrawal of troops. Bush's handpicked President Maliki was taking orders from Tehran and had his own agenda which did ot include the US. Obama did not have any better luck than Bush in getting the Iraqis' to like us.
 
WCH said:
Right. Look at today's headline and see how things have turned with our policies toward Iran.
Click to expand...

I know right?. It makes one wistful for that tyrant Saddam who now seems like a *****cat compared to ISIS. Oh well it's only 5000 American lives and trillions of $. Everyone makes mistakes. Even though GW Bush was responsible for the loss of more American lives than Bin Laden, I'm sure he "meant" well.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
I know right?. It makes one wistful for that tyrant Saddam who now seems like a *****cat compared to ISIS. Oh well it's only 5000 American lives and trillions of $. Everyone makes mistakes. Even though GW Bush was responsible for the loss of more American lives than Bin Laden, I'm sure he "meant" well.
Click to expand...

'Cept we weren't after OBL, we were after the guy who gassed 1000s of his own people, was developing more WMDs and was providing training grounds for terrorists.

If you think for a minute the the same money men that controlled Bush don't control Obama, think again.
 
WCH said:
'Cept we weren't after OBL, we were after the guy who gassed 1000s of his own people, was developing more WMDs and was providing training grounds for terrorists.

If you think for a minute the the same money men that controlled Bush don't control Obama, think again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding us that Bush was also responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam ever dreamed of. That is one of the reasons they would not stand for any more occupation. Saddam did not like jihadists mostly because they didn't like his secular ways and wanted his overthrow just like Bush did. We now see why.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Bush built he largest most expensive embassy EVER in Baghdad and expected a long term occupation agreement like we have with S. Korea unfortunately the Iraqi's would have one of it and would not sign any SOFA that did not include a complete withdrawal of troops. Bush's handpicked President Maliki was taking orders from Tehran and had his own agenda which did ot include the US. Obama did not have any better luck than Bush in getting the Iraqis' to like us.
Click to expand...

Yawn.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I was against our getting into the Vietnam conflict to begin with....however politicians make those decisions...good or bad. The point is, when the politicians commit our military to war, there should be a clear objective and the military should be turned loose to accomplish that objective. I do not buy into the "victory is not possible" scenario.
Click to expand...
It changes nothing in my statement that wars are won by the party that is willing to pay the most. Read as sacrifice the most.

Nam had a clear objective where we were concerned. It wasn't achieved on account of the others achieving theirs.

One can spend the rest of one's life having wet dreams on how we met no military defeat, the salient point remains that we didn't win.

The objectives of Absurdistan (if somebody would finally make the effort of defining that one) and Iraq were achieved just as little.

Again for very much the same reasons, the country wouldn't carry an indefinable investment. Indefinable in scope, that is.

That's a problem any country that is not a dictatorship faces and its military power has nothing to do with it once its free (and voting) population starts calculating costs.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Bush's intention was a SOFA agreement that would leave a small contingent of elite troops behind to prevent just what ultimately happened from happening....at least until the Iraq military was capable of defending Iraq. Obama became president in January 2009 and had plenty of time to work out that SOFA agreement. The Iraqi leadership wanted a small contingent left behind, however Obama offered such a small contingent that the Iraqi leadership did not consider it worth the political risk at the time.
Click to expand...
Hmmm......

I do recall that the Iraqi government wouldn't grant the immunity to any US troops that we demanded, thus making any troops subject to Iraqi laws and, where deemed fit, prosecution.

Did you just forget about that?
 
WCH said:
I totally agree with your '1984' view on us being in never-ending wars with perpetual enemies all for the sake of control and profit.

However we here seem to break everything down into political corners where someone needs to be wrong.

BTW: This whole Muslim issue started long before the Iran/Shah thing. IMO, they are the opposition in the war for our souls.
Click to expand...




There's been a lot of conditioning there. As I actively pursue relationships with my Muslim neighbors, I find the opposite. I will say there is an over-supply of radicals in the middle east, but that's the result of years and years of international politics. Hell we can go back to the crusades if you like, but what most historians agree on, it was the partitioning and decrees following WWII, including the state of Israel that got things going.

It's a perfect 1984 scenario, an enemy that cannot be defeated. What better war could there be?

As I have said that need to have someone in that chain be blamed is killing America. Say anything about anything in Iraq and half the nation pulls there hair our "Bush did it!". Both sides need someone to take all the blame, as no one on this side can


It has rolled out more and more since Obama, he being thin skinned his followers have never been able to attribute any defect to him, based on the majority of reports in here, Obama is the perfect man.

Well as alcoholics say, you can't fix anything unless you admit its broken. People can see what's broken, but need to blame anyone but Obama. I have followed the trajectories of the debate of Iraq 3, the current "conflict", and it runs like this.

George W. Bush and his henchman single handedly invaded Iraq and screwed it up based on a lie about WMD's.

The truth is, the United States invaded Iraq based on false intelligence supported by most high ranking Democrats in congress, including Hillary Clinton. Say Obama pulled out too soon, and the argument becomes it was Bush's time table.

What is missing is that the United States has to hold them both to account for the same reason. Bush to pump his sagging numbers, and Obama because it was convenient to pull out as troops would be re-united with their families in time for the election. All decisions based on the reputations of the president, not the good of the nation.

The people of the United States chose to ignore that and instead of joining together and finding an answer, they ensure that we will know was at least for the rest of my life. The liberals have to get their head around the fact war is good business and can be good politics. But that won't happen when everything that happens MUST be the fault of someone else.
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
The elephant in the room in regards to Korea is that for all practical purposes, it was a United Nations operation. Like Vietnam.......
Click to expand...
Ah, so I see it's being admitted that Iraq wasn't? So all this coalition of the willing stuff was just a stunt for the gallery?
what happened on the battlefield mattered less then what was going on in constipated peace talks. Wars should be won or lost on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
Where I can understand the desire for it to be so, I nevertheless suggest that simplistic world views not be made the basis for the address of complexities.
I do not buy the Korea comparison.
Click to expand...
inasmuch as there were other very potent parties in the game, neither do I. Nevertheless you should be familiar with the Yalu river significance.
And yes...a small contingent supported by air power would have prevented ISIS getting a foothold in Iraq. A quick and devastating response at the beginning of ISIS surging into Iraq would have contained them in Syria.
Click to expand...
You got that one backward. What came to be IS had its origins in Iraq. That means that crowd was already there. Weakened but reforming. Syria provided just another opportunity for them to enhance their impact.
 
Well, to return to the OP, I guess one could go all the way back to Adam and Eve (yeah, yeah, I know) to identify who is really to blame.

But going back to the Ottomans will perhaps have to do, even if only for the purpose of blaming them for losing the overall mess to the allies of WWI, who then cut it up in the idiotic abandonment of future considerations that was standard at the time.

Resulting in a Sunni minority lording it over everybody else in Iraq, just as much as a Shia minority lording it over everybody else in Syria. The key word being minority (having the whip hand), religion is of secondary importance.
 
Chagos said:
It changes nothing in my statement that wars are won by the party that is willing to pay the most. Read as sacrifice the most.
Click to expand...

Wars are won by the party that does what is needed to accomplish the objective. That means if the politicians commit a military force to war, they should turn the military loose to accomplish the objective. Not make them fight with their hands tied behind their backs.

Nam had a clear objective where we were concerned. It wasn't achieved on account of the others achieving theirs.
Click to expand...

It was not achieved on account of our politicians not having the will or the backbone to allow the military to complete the objective.


One can spend the rest of one's life having wet dreams on how we met no military defeat, the salient point remains that we didn't win.
Click to expand...

No wet dreams here, son. I hate war. However if we commit US forces to war, we should allow them to win. And for your information, while the objective was lost(in the halls of congress and the white house) we met no military defeat in Vietnam.

The objectives of Absurdistan (if somebody would finally make the effort of defining that one) and Iraq were achieved just as little.
Click to expand...

Iraq was won, although it did take longer then it should have. What happened after we left does not change that. As for afghanistan, in many ways it has turned into Vietnam...perhaps worse. The rules of engagement that the US military has to abide by are so limited that not much can be accomplished. Add to that our moronic president announced to the enemy when we are going to leave.

Again for very much the same reasons, the country wouldn't carry an indefinable investment. Indefinable in scope, that is.
Click to expand...

Tell that to our idiot commander in chief.
 
Chagos said:
Hmmm......

I do recall that the Iraqi government wouldn't grant the immunity to any US troops that we demanded, thus making any troops subject to Iraqi laws and, where deemed fit, prosecution.

Did you just forget about that?
Click to expand...

Not at all. However that was not the hangup. That was merely Obama's escape clause. Obama offered to leave a small contingent of troops behind. The problem was that what he offered to small to make it worth the political risk that the Iraqi leader faced in allowing it.
 
Chagos said:
Ah, so I see it's being admitted that Iraq wasn't? So all this coalition of the willing stuff was just a stunt for the gallery? Where I can understand the desire for it to be so, I nevertheless suggest that simplistic world views not be made the basis for the address of complexities. inasmuch as there were other very potent parties in the game, neither do I. Nevertheless you should be familiar with the Yalu river significance. You got that one backward. What came to be IS had its origins in Iraq. That means that crowd was already there. Weakened but reforming. Syria provided just another opportunity for them to enhance their impact.
Click to expand...

The existence of of sunni muslims vulnerable to radicalization does not translate to ISIS having it's origins in Iraq. The movement is centralized in Syria. That is where they are in control of the assets that allow them to be an insane and deadly nuisance in Iraq and many other places.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The existence of of sunni muslims vulnerable to radicalization does not translate to ISIS having it's origins in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Kindly don't put words into my mouth, I made neither such "translation" nor cause-effect interpretation. The fact remains that they were in Iraq already and took the Syrian opportunity when it offered itself. Piggy backing the rebellion there until they controlled almost all of it. To the point of spreading elsewhere and enhancing their Iraq activities but not to initiating them. They were always in Iraq and first as well.
The movement is centralized in Syria. That is where they are in control of the assets that allow them to be an insane and deadly nuisance in Iraq and many other places.
Click to expand...
Changes nothing wrt origin.

You're factually incorrect.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Not at all. However that was not the hangup. That was merely Obama's escape clause. Obama offered to leave a small contingent of troops behind. The problem was that what he offered to small to make it worth the political risk that the Iraqi leader faced in allowing it.
Click to expand...
Also wrt your other posts, in the face of anyone insisting that the world be black and white and, when it refuses to adhere to the demand, wasting time in trying to bully it into that shape, factual discussion becomes impossible.

So I wish you luck in your endeavours even when I know that luck alone won't cut it.

Have a good day.
 
iguanaman said:
Thanks for reminding us that Bush was also responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam ever dreamed of. That is one of the reasons they would not stand for any more occupation. Saddam did not like jihadists mostly because they didn't like his secular ways and wanted his overthrow just like Bush did. We now see why.
Click to expand...

They don't have too much of a problem being occupied by ISIS.

"Remind" is the key word here. WGAF?
 
Fearandloathing said:
There's been a lot of conditioning there. As I actively pursue relationships with my Muslim neighbors, I find the opposite. I will say there is an over-supply of radicals in the middle east, but that's the result of years and years of international politics. Hell we can go back to the crusades if you like, but what most historians agree on, it was the partitioning and decrees following WWII, including the state of Israel that got things going.

It's a perfect 1984 scenario, an enemy that cannot be defeated. What better war could there be?

As I have said that need to have someone in that chain be blamed is killing America. Say anything about anything in Iraq and half the nation pulls there hair our "Bush did it!". Both sides need someone to take all the blame, as no one on this side can


It has rolled out more and more since Obama, he being thin skinned his followers have never been able to attribute any defect to him, based on the majority of reports in here, Obama is the perfect man.

Well as alcoholics say, you can't fix anything unless you admit its broken. People can see what's broken, but need to blame anyone but Obama. I have followed the trajectories of the debate of Iraq 3, the current "conflict", and it runs like this.

George W. Bush and his henchman single handedly invaded Iraq and screwed it up based on a lie about WMD's.

The truth is, the United States invaded Iraq based on false intelligence supported by most high ranking Democrats in congress, including Hillary Clinton. Say Obama pulled out too soon, and the argument becomes it was Bush's time table.

What is missing is that the United States has to hold them both to account for the same reason. Bush to pump his sagging numbers, and Obama because it was convenient to pull out as troops would be re-united with their families in time for the election. All decisions based on the reputations of the president, not the good of the nation.

The people of the United States chose to ignore that and instead of joining together and finding an answer, they ensure that we will know was at least for the rest of my life. The liberals have to get their head around the fact war is good business and can be good politics. But that won't happen when everything that happens MUST be the fault of someone else.
Click to expand...

Go back to any past war and see money men with their political sycophants gladly supporting both sides of these conflicts.... all for the control and profit incurred.

We the people have little or no say in the process. Our own civil war brought us to where we are in this country today.... still divided while supporting the continuation of this lunacy.

Satan must be smiling.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Tell that to the families of the 3000 Kurds who were gassed to death by the Saddam regime. Iraq may or may not have had massive stockpiles of wmds in the lead up to the 2003 invasion, however it is ludicrous to suggest that they did not have any of them. There were wmds found in Iraq after the invasion....just not the expected mass stockpiles. And ISIS formed in Syria, not Iraq. They took advantage in Iraq when Obama failed to leave a contingent of troops behind..
Click to expand...

None of that had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. GW Bush and his henchmen wanted to turn Iraq over into an American possession and the plans for the were started long before 911. That incident just provided a convenient vehicle for the "roll out"...

The argument was over a long time ago: Iraq was a dismal failure that laid open an entire section of the Middle East for radical jihad.
 
jet57 said:
Prove it. Credibly refute the information in the video.
Click to expand...

Why would I need to do that? I have taken no position that the snippet shown in the politically motivated Vox propaganda is inaccurate. What I have been proving is that far from picking one moment in order to feed those afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome, a full history of the region should be presented. Where is Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or even Libya?

If you're content with the fodder for those obsessed with Bush, so be it, but that only proves how afflicted one is. Again, the better picture is the full accounting of the history, which is what I commented on in my first post on this thread.
 
For the life of me I can't figure out why some people seem to think the "war on terror" can and/or should be fought like a "conventional war" of the past.

No specific country has declared war on the USofA.

Who are we supposed to carpet bomb into oblivion? Some of the countries these terrorist groups hide in are our allies.

Are we supposed to declare war on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, about a dozen to two dozen countries in Africa, and so on.....

Fighting ISIS/Al Qaeda is NOT like fighting the Japanese or the Germans in WW2.
They do not wear a specific uniform and take orders from a specific government.

You can't make an apples to apples comparison in how we fight terrorist groups with how we once fought in WW1 or WW2.

It's NOT the same thing.
 
WCH said:
Go back to any past war and see money men with their political sycophants gladly supporting both sides of these conflicts.... all for the control and profit incurred.

We the people have little or no say in the process. Our own civil war brought us to where we are in this country today.... still divided while supporting the continuation of this lunacy.

Satan must be smiling.
Click to expand...



Too little attention has been paid Dwight Eisenhower and his warnings about the military industry complex.

We see them selling arms to both sides, and when it gets ugly American, British, Canadian and other you mem have to take up the same weapons and join the fray. There has been constant war involving the United States for 15 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom