• 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!

Source: Obama given detailed intelligence for a year about rise of ISIS

APACHERAT said:
Don't you mean the neo-conservatives who sided with Obama ?

It was the conservatives who pointed out that many of the rebels were Al Qaeda not Obama or any Democrats. Obama wanted to arm the Al Qaeda factions in Syria.

Remember, the GOP took in the Democrat's liberal base back in the 70's when the Democrat Party was hijacked by the radical left. These Democrat refuges are known as neo-conservatives.
Click to expand...

Another alternative history floated by conservatives. Conservatives are itching to give advanced weaponry to terrorists. It's a tradition. Remember Reagan in Afghanistan?
 
MMC said:
Not quite.....the Tea Party wasn't for it other than Ted Cruz and that's when Rand Paul and Johnny Quest McCain got into it with their verbal gaffs. Also there were quite a few against it that were establishment Repubs.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, pardon the broad brush. The action had wide support from the left and right, with some oppossition from both political parties. Unfortunately too much support for this bad action that has left Libya in grave trouble and reduced the oil output from 1.3 million BPD to 300k.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Another alternative history floated by conservatives. Conservatives are itching to give advanced weaponry to terrorists. It's a tradition. Remember Reagan in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Both parties have supported militant Islamic groups.

Since the Soviet-Afghan war, recruiting Mujahedin ("holy warriors") to fight covert wars on Washington's behest has become an integral part of US foreign policy. A 1997 document of the US Congress reveals how the Clinton administration --under advice from the National Security Council headed by Anthony Lake-- had "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network," of thousands of Mujahedin from the Muslim world.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html


Arming the Mujahideen began at the end of the Carter administration and continued throughout most of the Reagan administration. That was perhaps the first power vacuum created through BY-PARTISAN action.

Main articles: Taliban's rise to power and Afghan training camp
After the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan was effectively ungoverned for seven years and plagued by constant infighting between former allies and various mujahideen groups.

Throughout the 1990s, a new force began to emerge. The origins of the Taliban (literally "students") lay in the children of Afghanistan, many of them orphaned by the war, and many of whom had been educated in the rapidly expanding network of Islamic schools (madrassas) either in Kandahar or in the refugee camps on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
 
Last edited:
CycloneWanderer said:
... Tin foil hats are for aliens and conpiracies: things that are so improbable so as to be ridiculous. There has been a large purging of the military, top to bottom. I don't have many military contacts, but all of the ones I do have (active & retired) agree that a purge has been ongoing for a while.
Click to expand...

Its not a purge. Its a standard downsizing that happens after periods of war. We have build ups prior and during war and downsizing after them. I served in desert storm and after it was over there was a standard downsizing and promotion freezes until the numbers were back to where they should be and it took years.
 
poweRob said:
Its not a purge. Its a standard downsizing that happens after periods of war. We have build ups prior and during war and downsizing after them. I served in desert storm and after it was over there was a standard downsizing and promotion freezes until the numbers were back to where they should be and it took years.
Click to expand...

But "purge" is such an incendiary, counterfactual and conspiratorial word. Why not use it, if you're a conservative?
 
Do you suppose that there's an off chance that Obama has a strategy, and has one for quite some time (hell, it's been a year!), but don't want to announce it, and lose favor with his hard left constituency?
 
eohrnberger said:
Do you suppose that there's an off chance that Obama has a strategy, and has one for quite some time (hell, it's been a year!), but don't want to announce it, and lose favor with his hard left constituency?
Click to expand...

If you mean, will the US as a matter of policy, continue to meddle, interfere and intervene both covertly and overtly, creating crisis' that then require further interference and intervention, then yes, of course.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
But "purge" is such an incendiary, counterfactual and conspiratorial word. Why not use it, if you're a conservative?
Click to expand...


You have a Conservative " fetish ...

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
 
Montecresto said:
If you mean, will the US as a matter of policy, continue to meddle, interfere and intervene both covertly and overtly, creating crisis' that then require further interference and intervention, then yes, of course.
Click to expand...

Jeez, now you're starting to sound like Ron Paul.

If we stopped meddling do you think ISIS and ISIL will slink off back to their caves ?

Do you think they'll stop the caliphate if America plays nice ?
 
MMC said:
Easy money.....and here from one of the Left leaning MS Media sources out there. Oh and for the rest on Benghazi.....you can look up the 8-12 threads we have and see all that information.....in each one of them. As we didn't want the naysayers to think they were getting around those facts.

Oh and you can look up the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC.....including Politi Fact and Fact Check.Org Benghazi Timelines, for what those in Libya went on to say. Which the Interim for Libya was even making the Sunday Talks shows here in the US. ;)




Obama, al-Maliki to address Iraq's violence spike at White House meeting

Iraq's prime minister, facing an insurgent al Qaeda affiliate and sectarian strife, will appeal to President Barack Obama on Friday for new assistance from the United States, even as some lawmakers question Nuri al-Maliki's ability to lead his nation. A fresh rise in suicide bombers affiliated with al Qaeda has left more than 6,000 people dead this year alone, according to United Nations estimates. Violence has been on the upswing: On Wednesday, a suicide bomber killed at least nine people and wounded 25 others at a police checkpoint west of Mosul.

Al-Maliki is expected to ask for assistance in the form of weapons, equipment and intelligence-sharing in a bid to quell the bloodshed, two years after the United States withdrew almost all its troops from Iraq after Baghdad refused to renew a security agreement to extend legal immunity for American forces.....snip~

Obama, al-Maliki to address Iraq's violence spike at White House - CNN.com
Click to expand...

And when al-Maliki went to the White House, did he offer to abide by the SOFA that we require before we send in our troops?

While we're at it, what was al-Maliki doing very, very wrong? He was keeping Sunnis out of the government, keeping almost the entire government Shi'a, and we and other nations told him that he was screwing up by doing so. Before we left Iraq, we had his agreement to include Sunnis in the government that they, too, would have representation. al-Maliki didn't do it. We warned him that this would lead to unrest among the Sunnis, and he did not listen.

I suggest you determine who really was at fault for the Sunni unrest before you start blaming everything on Obama.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And when al-Maliki went to the White House, did he offer to abide by the SOFA that we require before we send in our troops?

While we're at it, what was al-Maliki doing very, very wrong? He was keeping Sunnis out of the government, keeping almost the entire government Shi'a, and we and other nations told him that he was screwing up by doing so. Before we left Iraq, we had his agreement to include Sunnis in the government that they, too, would have representation. al-Maliki didn't do it. We warned him that this would lead to unrest among the Sunnis, and he did not listen.

I suggest you determine who really was at fault for the Sunni unrest before you start blaming everything on Obama.
Click to expand...


Try again Glen.....I stated BO knew and he did. Also the articles points out Maliki's problems. This still does not change the fact that he came to BO in Nov of last year. He also stated that what was going on Syria would spill over into Iraq. Which it did.

Now all have it out there.....so it can't be spun any other way. BO does have to claim whats he was part of.
 
Fenton said:
Jeez, now you're starting to sound like Ron Paul.

If we stopped meddling do you think ISIS and ISIL will slink off back to their caves ?

Do you think they'll stop the caliphate if America plays nice ?
Click to expand...

No, Ron Paul may sound like me. IS and all the rest of the militant Islamic groups milling about the ME due to power vacuums that the US has created, would never have found the sanctuary that they have. Do you even know what Syria, Libya and Iraq look like today? If all you look at is Fox News, I can answer that for you. Go to real news, go to Al Jazeera which has updates in those states daily.
 
MMC said:
Try again Glen.....I stated BO knew and he did. Also the articles points out Maliki's problems. This still does not change the fact that he came to BO in Nov of last year. He also stated that what was going on Syria would spill over into Iraq. Which it did.

Now all have it out there.....so it can't be spun any other way. BO does have to claim whats he was part of.
Click to expand...

And what you're still not getting is that they told al-Maliki long before then that if he continues to shove Sunnis out of the government and disenfranchise them, he will alienate them and there would be unrest. They told him this would happen...and it did.

And you're angry with the president for not running to the rescue of a de facto dictator who the president had warned was setting up his own nation for unrest?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And what you're still not getting is that they told al-Maliki long before then that if he continues to shove Sunnis out of the government and disenfranchise them, he will alienate them and there would be unrest. They told him this would happen...and it did.

And you're angry with the president for not running to the rescue of a de facto dictator who the president had warned was setting up his own nation for unrest?
Click to expand...


No not quite Glen.....Why wouldn't I get it. I know the whole entire issue. As well as both sides of the Aisles Pundits and their talking points. Again what was going on with Maliki and what we told him, really doesn't matter when it comes down to him coming to visit and request help.....after how much time passed? After he played with the SOFA.

You forget I lived around BO and his BS long before he made the national scene Glen.
 
Jaaaman said:
Shooting the messenger. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Nah... just putting them out of their misery... because they constantly shoot themselves when they do this thing where they open their mouths.
 
MMC said:
Mornin 29A. :2wave: Here is what the RAND Corporation has to say on it.

[In a WSJ op-ed yesterday about the report, Jones reports, without mentioning Obama's repeated claims of having al Qaeda "on the run," that "The number of al Qaeda and other jihadist groups and fighters are growing, not shrinking.... From 2010 to 2013 the number of jihadist groups world-wide has grown by 58%, to 49 from 31; the number of jihadist fighters has doubled to a high estimate of 100,000; and the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates has increased to roughly 1,000 from 392."

Terrorism Flourishes During Obama Years
Click to expand...


Hey MMC, thanks for the link. But, imo, the assertion is not supported by the Rand site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom