• 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!

Gov. Scott Walker: Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS

You obviously haven't read the thread then.

The discussion you are responding to pertained to the origin of ISIS. It was my contention that ISIS would not exist were it for our going into Iraq in the first place back in 2003 and that going back in is pointless when the real problem is that the government of Iraq is so corrupt and inept that it cannot defeat ISIS in its own country when most estimates put the total size of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq as just 30,000 or so militants while the Iraqi Defense Force constitutes 271,500 active personnel and 528,000 in reserve (Iraqi Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Even if some how we miraculously killed every single member of ISIS overnight, it would only be a matter of time before another Islamist group took its place. If a nation with a military the size of the one we left Iraq with cannot defend itself against just 30,000 militants, then what can we do other than occupy the nation indefinitely.

Moreover, origins of a terrorist organization do indeed matter because we don't want to simply create more such organizations by our actions. The entire neo-conservative ideology as it relates to terrorism was built around the notion that our containing and or supporting strong man dictators in the Middle East was the central catalyst for Islamic extremism and that by democratizing the Middle East we remove that catalyst for the creation of extremists. The traditional conservatives as well as many moderates believed that the only thing keeping radical Islam in check in much of the Middle East was the brutal repression by strongman dictators and attempting to impose western style democracy on a culture that never went through the enlightenment would only result in more terrorists.

In the case of Iraq, prior to our going in it was a country ruled by a dictator that was contained and no longer a threat to us. The forerunner to ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until 2004 - after we went in. So we took a country that was contained and not a threat to us and created an environment that fostered the growth of radical Islamist groups that were a threat to us. So yes, facts and details do matter here.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/ResearchNote_20_Zelin.pdf

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf


How does ISIS get money? who funds them?..who allows them to be able to operate?... Obamas NOT WANTING A SOFA agreement was the reason ISIS exists today...Obama delcared the war OVER....the JIHAD did not agree...Obama only cared about VOTES... NOT LIVES..

You post is so error filled my mind is boggled... Did Saddam allow training of AQ?
 
How does ISIS get money? who funds them?..who allows them to be able to operate?... Obamas NOT WANTING A SOFA agreement was the reason ISIS exists today...Obama delcared the war OVER....the JIHAD did not agree...Obama only cared about VOTES... NOT LIVES..

You post is so error filled my mind is boggled... Did Saddam allow training of AQ?

I don't even know why you bother with these liberals? They're just fine living in our country, just so long as they don't have to do any heavy lifting. People like Michael Moore, and those just like him make me want to puke! They're cowards not only of spirit, but of conviction, and I fear the latter is the more reprehensible!

Tim-
 
How does ISIS get money? who funds them?..who allows them to be able to operate?... Obamas NOT WANTING A SOFA agreement was the reason ISIS exists today...Obama delcared the war OVER....the JIHAD did not agree...Obama only cared about VOTES... NOT LIVES..

You post is so error filled my mind is boggled... Did Saddam allow training of AQ?

The only Al Qaeda operations at all in Iraq prior to our going in there was in the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq.

As to the SOFA agreement. The Iraqi government, which is a puppet of Iran, did not want us to stay. Moreover, if we did stay one of their conditions was that we would have to subject our soldiers to their courts. I am sure that is perfectly acceptable to you.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, what difference would it have made. As if that would have kept ISIS from taking over so much of the country... Had we just left a couple of thousand of our soldiers walled off in the green zone. That way not only would ISIS be taking over the county, they would use are presence as propaganda arguing they are liberating Iraq from the western imperialists. At which point we would either have to have another huge buildup for another surge to tamp down the Islamists in the country again, or just pack up and leave under worse circumstances than what we left under.
 
I don't even know why you bother with these liberals? They're just fine living in our country, just so long as they don't have to do any heavy lifting. People like Michael Moore, and those just like him make me want to puke! They're cowards not only of spirit, but of conviction, and I fear the latter is the more reprehensible!

Tim-

This is what it boils down to-they are only concerned with breaking down American society and extracting the wealth of others. They have no courage...no principles.
 
so what is it you would like a person running for President to say?

In your opinion Walker should have promised no boots on the ground against ISIS???

ANY presidential hopeful who would be foolish enough to say such a thing doesn't deserve a single vote.

it's that type of small thinking that got us into this situation. Under Bush you people couldn't stand that the United States was "hated" by other countries. Well you got your wish. we aren't hated anyone. Instead we are the world's PUNCHING BAG(your problem with walker's statement is just the one thousandth example of it). I'm glad that helps you sleep better, but I PROMISE YOU the rest of us in this country would much rather be the first than be the second. And nothing will change until the highest political office is out of democrat control.
 
so what is it you would like a person running for President to say?

In your opinion Walker should have promised no boots on the ground against ISIS???

ANY presidential hopeful who would be foolish enough to say such a thing doesn't deserve a single vote.

it's that type of small thinking that got us into this situation. Under Bush you people couldn't stand that the United States was "hated" by other countries. Well you got your wish. we aren't hated anyone. Instead we are the world's PUNCHING BAG. I'm glad that helps you sleep better, but I PROMISE YOU the rest of us in this country would much rather be the first than be the second. And nothing will change until the highest political office is out of democrat control.

Yea, we are the worlds punching bag alright. We keep on getting attacked by countries all over the world. right.
 
Yea, we are the worlds punching bag alright. We keep on getting attacked by countries all over the world. right.

do I have to give examples of the dictators and scumbag countries Obama has made "peace deals" with that got us exactly NOTHING in return(no help in security, no help in spreading democracy)?
do you think if "crazy" Bush was still in office ISIS would feel so comfortable cutting heads of our own citizens?

do I really have to point these things out or have you been living in a cave?
 
do I have to give examples of the dictators and scumbag countries Obama has made "peace deals" with that got us exactly NOTHING in return(no help in security, no help in spreading democracy)?

Sure, why don't you do that. I obviously need to be edumacated.

do you think if "crazy" Bush was still in office ISIS would feel so comfortable cutting heads of our own citizens?

I dunno, but they did't seem to have an issue with killilng thousands of our own citizens on US soil, and using US aircraft to do it.

do I really have to point these things out or have you been living in a cave?

I guess we all live in our own little worlds. In your world, everything Obama is bad, and everything Bush is good. In my world, there is a little good and bad in every POTUS.
 
You obviously haven't read the thread then.

The discussion you are responding to pertained to the origin of ISIS. It was my contention that ISIS would not exist were it for our going into Iraq in the first place back in 2003 and that going back in is pointless when the real problem is that the government of Iraq is so corrupt and inept that it cannot defeat ISIS in its own country when most estimates put the total size of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq as just 30,000 or so militants while the Iraqi Defense Force constitutes 271,500 active personnel and 528,000 in reserve (Iraqi Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Even if some how we miraculously killed every single member of ISIS overnight, it would only be a matter of time before another Islamist group took its place. If a nation with a military the size of the one we left Iraq with cannot defend itself against just 30,000 militants, then what can we do other than occupy the nation indefinitely.

Moreover, origins of a terrorist organization do indeed matter because we don't want to simply create more such organizations by our actions. The entire neo-conservative ideology as it relates to terrorism was built around the notion that our containing and or supporting strong man dictators in the Middle East was the central catalyst for Islamic extremism and that by democratizing the Middle East we remove that catalyst for the creation of extremists. The traditional conservatives as well as many moderates believed that the only thing keeping radical Islam in check in much of the Middle East was the brutal repression by strongman dictators and attempting to impose western style democracy on a culture that never went through the enlightenment would only result in more terrorists.

In the case of Iraq, prior to our going in it was a country ruled by a dictator that was contained and no longer a threat to us. The forerunner to ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until 2004 - after we went in. So we took a country that was contained and not a threat to us and created an environment that fostered the growth of radical Islamist groups that were a threat to us. So yes, facts and details do matter here.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/ResearchNote_20_Zelin.pdf

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf


And where in all that diversionary bull**** is there an answer to

My assertion is that ISIS is the new name for Al Qaeda in Iraq, which came into being after we invaded Iraq in 2004. Furthermore, that its precursor organization was working with a Kurdish militant organization prior to the war in Iraq that was hostile to Saddam.

Your assertion as far as I can tell is that ISIS would be a problem today even if we never went into Iraq and I don't think that history in anyway backs your assertion.

Based on what?

But, clearly we are done here
 
The only Al Qaeda operations at all in Iraq prior to our going in there was in the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq.

As to the SOFA agreement. The Iraqi government, which is a puppet of Iran, did not want us to stay. Moreover, if we did stay one of their conditions was that we would have to subject our soldiers to their courts. I am sure that is perfectly acceptable to you.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, what difference would it have made. As if that would have kept ISIS from taking over so much of the country... Had we just left a couple of thousand of our soldiers walled off in the green zone. That way not only would ISIS be taking over the county, they would use are presence as propaganda arguing they are liberating Iraq from the western imperialists. At which point we would either have to have another huge buildup for another surge to tamp down the Islamists in the country again, or just pack up and leave under worse circumstances than what we left under.


Im sorry.. but you need to back that up with something that is reality based and not just fun talking points on MSNBC...

as far as the SOFA you are 100% incorrect..Obama made it impossible for them to agree on any troops due to his call for for representation ..that was NOT the time...but I think we all get it was all about OBAMA as always and HIS ELECTION...PERIOD...
Obama is an abject failure...he cant negotiate a pack of gum
 
How does ISIS get money? who funds them?..who allows them to be able to operate?... Obamas NOT WANTING A SOFA agreement was the reason ISIS exists today...Obama delcared the war OVER....the JIHAD did not agree...Obama only cared about VOTES... NOT LIVES..

You post is so error filled my mind is boggled... Did Saddam allow training of AQ?

Frederick Kagan played an important part in designing the "surge" strategy the U.S. used successfully in Iraq in 2007. This is a paper he put out last fall, which I think is interesting. Note that the plan he suggests would involve a couple thousand or so special forces working with local infantry, but not usually directly engaged in combat. They would be very heavily supported by an army combat aviation brigade, dispersed to several large forward bases in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and possibly Turkey.

At these bases there would also be a total of about 7,000 men in a quick reaction force, of which about one-third would be available at any time. The assault and transport helicopters of the combat aviation brigade would take them and possibly some artillery, vehicles, etc. to wherever they might be needed in a fight. Most of the other forces would be supporting these ground and air forces by defending the bases, maintaining equipment, bringing in supplies, etc.

So only a fraction of the 25,000 total involved in the effort would be within shooting range of the jihadists, and they would have all sorts of resources backing them up, e.g. attack helicopters, search-and-rescue and medevac units, and drones. And in the unlikely event that even more firepower were ever needed, carrier aircraft and even heavy bombers could be brought to bear pretty quickly.

I agree with Kagan that an effort like this would be very risky--but that letting these people survive is even riskier yet. I remember President Kennedy's speech to the nation on October 22, 1962, when he acknowledged the dangers of the military measures he was taking--sending 100 ships and subs to blockade Cuba, moving 1,000 combat aircraft into striking range, getting 100,000 troops in position to invade Cuba, if necessary--but said the greatest danger of all would be for the U.S. to do nothing about the Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. He was right. That would have been an open invitation to the Soviets to take a chance, before long, on invading West Berlin. By being too anxious to avoid World War III over Cuba, we would have been asking for it to break out over Germany.

I doubt anything like the steps Kagan proposed will happen while this President is in office--and so much the worse for this country. Islamic jihadists are the common enemies of all civilized people, and there is no living in the world with them. They are just like the bastards who attacked us on 9/11, and this time they have an even better safe haven and even more resources. Thanks to Mr. Obama, they are also being given all sorts of time to draw their plans against us.


http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Defeating ISIS_0.pdf
 
Last edited:
do I have to give examples of the dictators and scumbag countries Obama has made "peace deals" with that got us exactly NOTHING in return(no help in security, no help in spreading democracy)?
do you think if "crazy" Bush was still in office ISIS would feel so comfortable cutting heads of our own citizens?

do I really have to point these things out or have you been living in a cave?

Bush was comfortable with giving aid to Pakistan a country that harbors the Taliban and Bin Laden. Didn't Bush tell the terrorists to "bring it on"? Isn't that what ISIS is doing?
 
The only Al Qaeda operations at all in Iraq prior to our going in there was in the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq.

As to the SOFA agreement. The Iraqi government, which is a puppet of Iran, did not want us to stay. Moreover, if we did stay one of their conditions was that we would have to subject our soldiers to their courts. I am sure that is perfectly acceptable to you.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, what difference would it have made. As if that would have kept ISIS from taking over so much of the country... Had we just left a couple of thousand of our soldiers walled off in the green zone. That way not only would ISIS be taking over the county, they would use are presence as propaganda arguing they are liberating Iraq from the western imperialists. At which point we would either have to have another huge buildup for another surge to tamp down the Islamists in the country again, or just pack up and leave under worse circumstances than what we left under.

again.. was Saddam part of banking nexus that funded terror and allowed safe haven?..was Clinton wrong also?

Bush had won the war.. Obama allowed those who fought for freedom to be slaughtered...all Obama haad to to do is negotiate a SOFA.. Malaki had to give lip service we all know that.. but Obama wanted OUT period.. irt was about OBAMA...not Iraq..
 
Frederick Kagan played an important part in designing the "surge" strategy the U.S. used successfully in Iraq in 2007. This is a paper he put out last fall, which I think is interesting. Note that the plan he suggests would involve a couple thousand or so special forces working with local infantry, but not usually directly engaged in combat. They would be very heavily supported by an army combat aviation brigade, dispersed to several large forward bases in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and possibly Turkey.

At these bases there would also be a total of about 7,000 men in a quick reaction force, of which about one-third would be available at any time. The assault and transport helicopters of the combat aviation brigade would take them and possibly some artillery, vehicles, etc. to wherever they might be needed in a fight. Most of the other forces would be supporting these ground and air forces by defending the bases, maintaining equipment, bringing in supplies, etc.

So only a fraction of the 25,000 total involved in the effort would be within shooting range of the jihadists, and they would have all sorts of resources backing them up, e.g. medevac helicopters, and drones. And in the unlikely event that even attack helicopters were not enough, carrier aircraft and even heavy bombers could be brought in pretty quickly.

I agree with Kagan that an effort like this would be very risky--but that letting these people survive is even riskier yet. I remember President Kennedy's speech to the nation on October 22, 1962, when he acknowledged the dangers of the military measures he was taking--sending 100 ships and subs to blockade Cuba, moving 1,000 combat aircraft into striking range, getting 100,000 troops in position to invade Cuba, if necessary--but said the greatest danger of all would be for the U.S. to do nothing about the Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. He was right. That would have been an open invitation to the Soviets to take a chance, before long, on invading West Berlin. By being too anxious to avoid World War III over Cuba, we would have been asking for it to break out over Germany.

I doubt anything like this will happen while this President is in office, and more's the worse for this country. There is no living in the world with people like these jihadists. They are just like the people who attacked us on 9/11, and this time they have an even better safe haven and even more resources. Thanks to Mr. Obama, they are also being given all sorts of time to draw their plans against us.


http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Defeating ISIS_0.pdf


great post.. thank you
 
again.. was Saddam part of banking nexus that funded terror and allowed safe haven?..was Clinton wrong also?

Bush had won the war.. Obama allowed those who fought for freedom to be slaughtered...all Obama haad to to do is negotiate a SOFA.. Malaki had to give lip service we all know that.. but Obama wanted OUT period.. irt was about OBAMA...not Iraq..

Maliki was a Shiite terrorist who murdered Sunni's in their beds. He also took his orders from Tehran and they wanted us out. There was nothing Obama could do short of ousting Maliki and starting all over again.
 
Maliki was a Shiite terrorist who murdered Sunni's in their beds. He also took his orders from Tehran and they wanted us out. There was nothing Obama could do short of ousting Maliki and starting all over again.



wrong... thats not even close.. so you telling me now Obama "gave them what they wanted " and left?...that was Obamas "solution"

wow.. what a statesmen...He showed them!!!! LOL

what was Obamas campaign pledge?... to leave Iraq right?... he gave date he would leave. right. why would they negotiate what Obama had already given them?...

Im worred people really dont get the Jihad... Is ISIS Shia? where is Malaki on this?
 
Last edited:
Frederick Kagan played an important part in designing the "surge" strategy the U.S. used successfully in Iraq in 2007. This is a paper he put out last fall, which I think is interesting. Note that the plan he suggests would involve a couple thousand or so special forces working with local infantry, but not usually directly engaged in combat. They would be very heavily supported by an army combat aviation brigade, dispersed to several large forward bases in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and possibly Turkey.

At these bases there would also be a total of about 7,000 men in a quick reaction force, of which about one-third would be available at any time. The assault and transport helicopters of the combat aviation brigade would take them and possibly some artillery, vehicles, etc. to wherever they might be needed in a fight. Most of the other forces would be supporting these ground and air forces by defending the bases, maintaining equipment, bringing in supplies, etc.

So only a fraction of the 25,000 total involved in the effort would be within shooting range of the jihadists, and they would have all sorts of resources backing them up, e.g. attack helicopters, search-and-rescue and medevac units, and drones. And in the unlikely event that even more firepower were ever needed, carrier aircraft and even heavy bombers could be brought to bear pretty quickly.

I agree with Kagan that an effort like this would be very risky--but that letting these people survive is even riskier yet. I remember President Kennedy's speech to the nation on October 22, 1962, when he acknowledged the dangers of the military measures he was taking--sending 100 ships and subs to blockade Cuba, moving 1,000 combat aircraft into striking range, getting 100,000 troops in position to invade Cuba, if necessary--but said the greatest danger of all would be for the U.S. to do nothing about the Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. He was right. That would have been an open invitation to the Soviets to take a chance, before long, on invading West Berlin. By being too anxious to avoid World War III over Cuba, we would have been asking for it to break out over Germany.

I doubt anything like the steps Kagan proposed will happen while this President is in office--and so much the worse for this country. Islamic jihadists are the common enemies of all civilized people, and there is no living in the world with them. They are just like the bastards who attacked us on 9/11, and this time they have an even better safe haven and even more resources. Thanks to Mr. Obama, they are also being given all sorts of time to draw their plans against us.


http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Defeating ISIS_0.pdf



That, I believe is the most enlightening post on this I have read to date.

Dated September of last year, two months before the election, it aims to:

Find and fix the enemy in order to:
a.Prevent him from renewing offensive operations to take the Euphrates River Valley from Haditha to Ramadi,the area south of Samarra along the Tigris River, the Baiji oil refinery, and Baghdad itself;
b. force the isis campaign in syria to culminate before taking Aleppo or the essential supply lines to the opposition from turkey;
c. establish positions from which to launch subsequent operations;
d. Prevent genocide

So there was a solid plan well before the election that was ignored both before AND after that had at least a chance of achieving its goals which has been replaced with a vague, "no boots on the ground - we're not sure who the enemy is or what to call them" war.

What frightens me is that the average American, for or against Obama has no idea of this, or am I in the dark?
 
That, I believe is the most enlightening post on this I have read to date.

Dated September of last year, two months before the election, it aims to:



So there was a solid plan well before the election that was ignored both before AND after that had at least a chance of achieving its goals which has been replaced with a vague, "no boots on the ground - we're not sure who the enemy is or what to call them" war.

What frightens me is that the average American, for or against Obama has no idea of this, or am I in the dark?


Bro.. you are spot on..you are not in the dark at all..
 
We need to make a decision. Either we are going to stay out of the fight or we are going to finish the job. There is no in between. The president wants to appease critics without deciding what to do either way. We should be able to finish ISIS in a few weeks if we apply our force as it should be applied. But I do agree that it isn't really our fight.
 
We need to make a decision. Either we are going to stay out of the fight or we are going to finish the job. There is no in between. The president wants to appease critics without deciding what to do either way. We should be able to finish ISIS in a few weeks if we apply our force as it should be applied. But I do agree that it isn't really our fight.

The decision is the USA made a huge mistake with allowing the media to pollute the population that Obama was not who they sold us he was...

The world knows Obama is a zero and the Jihad knows this more then the people of the USA sadly..
 
It already has son, it already has...

The NSA is reading this as I type it, they know who you have been calling..

before 911 you could get on a plane simply with a boarding pass...now someone has to look up your ass and check whether you have a hat pin.
All policies we allowed to happen by turning to government to solve every problem.

Tell the families of the 3500 plus victims of 911 that their freedoms have not been threatened, and have a face-to-face with a survivor, better yet one of the thousands of first responders.
As I stated, terrorism is a crime. Not an act of war.... and not one that spending billions in a foreign country is going to stop or change. Yes you can say, "Well they haven't attacked again". And that is because of our efforts at investigating, not waging war, that have prevented that.

And tell it to the women and children in Syria and Iraq who live in abject fear of being beheaded.
I don't recall giving a **** about the women and children of Syria and Iraq. ...
Also, nice work on the whole "OMFG WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!" ..... Between this and the "OMFG People died on 9/11!!!!!". Yes people died.... but I don't think we have to commit genocide or destroy our dollar's value and go into economic ruin over that. There comes a point to where dead people stop supporting failing foreign wars.


Pull your head out of the darkest place on earth and look around....in you haven't noticed, cartoonists in Paris are being slaughtered where they work....
Murders happen. These are CRIMES. Dealt with by law enforcement agencies. You can't defeat the entirety of radical islamic ideology by waging foreign wars and driving the U.S. into trillions more debt.

And, since you have such a strong "attitude" it might be well to remind you that the United States was invented through this process....no internet, they had to meet face to face usually armed in those days, and talk, debate and sometimes argue about what to do, what has been done and who did it.
And WTF does that have to do with trying to fight religious ideology in the middle east? A place where everywhere we go, we only **** **** up. Iran was a nice place in the 1950s before we came in and ****ed **** up during the cold war.

If your little "reminder" about war is a way of being sarcastic... let me ask you... Did YOU serve in the war in Iraq in 2003? I did. So im very aware of the process and what I know of the people and the region. This doesn't make me an expert...... but I would imagine a chicken hawk screaming war while sitting on his couch is vastly less qualified to speak on the matter of Wars in the Middle East.
 
All policies we allowed to happen by turning to government to solve every problem.

As I stated, terrorism is a crime. Not an act of war.... and not one that spending billions in a foreign country is going to stop or change. Yes you can say, "Well they haven't attacked again". And that is because of our efforts at investigating, not waging war, that have prevented that.

I don't recall giving a **** about the women and children of Syria and Iraq. ...
Also, nice work on the whole "OMFG WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!" ..... Between this and the "OMFG People died on 9/11!!!!!". Yes people died.... but I don't think we have to commit genocide or destroy our dollar's value and go into economic ruin over that. There comes a point to where dead people stop supporting failing foreign wars.


Murders happen. These are CRIMES. Dealt with by law enforcement agencies. You can't defeat the entirety of radical islamic ideology by waging foreign wars and driving the U.S. into trillions more debt.

And WTF does that have to do with trying to fight religious ideology in the middle east? A place where everywhere we go, we only **** **** up. Iran was a nice place in the 1950s before we came in and ****ed **** up during the cold war.

If your little "reminder" about war is a way of being sarcastic... let me ask you... Did YOU serve in the war in Iraq in 2003? I did. So im very aware of the process and what I know of the people and the region. This doesn't make me an expert...... but I would imagine a chicken hawk screaming war while sitting on his couch is vastly less qualified to speak on the matter of Wars in the Middle East.



well, that is an incredible job of avoiding the subject.

You asked for someone to show you that Terrorism is a threat to safety and I did.

What you think about Iraq in the 50's is irrelevant and, frankly, boring, I doubt you have a clue.
 
And where in all that diversionary bull**** is there an answer to



Based on what?

But, clearly we are done here

Based on the two reports I linked in the post you just responded to. Even the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, an arm of the Israeli Lobby states that ISIS is an outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq which was formed in 2004. Read the links.
 
Im sorry.. but you need to back that up with something that is reality based and not just fun talking points on MSNBC...

as far as the SOFA you are 100% incorrect..Obama made it impossible for them to agree on any troops due to his call for for representation ..that was NOT the time...but I think we all get it was all about OBAMA as always and HIS ELECTION...PERIOD...
Obama is an abject failure...he cant negotiate a pack of gum

You know I would say you cant make this **** up, but someone obviously did and you are repeating it. From Time Magazine's reporting at the time:

But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

A big fail your attempts to rewrite history.
 
That, I believe is the most enlightening post on this I have read to date.

Dated September of last year, two months before the election, it aims to:



So there was a solid plan well before the election that was ignored both before AND after that had at least a chance of achieving its goals which has been replaced with a vague, "no boots on the ground - we're not sure who the enemy is or what to call them" war.

What frightens me is that the average American, for or against Obama has no idea of this, or am I in the dark?

This President is in the habit of making a show of action and mouthing platitudes, but doing very little that counts. Many Americans are not taken in by his habitual lying.

The mixed force Kagan is describing is a somewhat smaller and more mobile version--with less emphasis on armor and more on armed helicopters--of the heavily armed force the U.S. has maintained at bases around South Korea, keeping the peace on the peninsula for for sixty years now. Like that force, it would also have a carrier or two on call as backup. It is what Mr. Obama should have left behind to stabilize Iraq, but--I believe for personal political gain--chose not to. All that did was create the pressing need to put a force like this back in, after the situation has deteriorated and made the job much harder and riskier.

Now the task is to recapture large, important areas that allied servicemen died to secure not many years ago. In Iraq, at least, it is Mr. Obama's fault that these savages were allowed to take over these cities and districts. His protestations about being bound by a status of forces agreement ring false. That is a flimsy cover story cooked up to hide his dereliction.

The L.A. Times just ran an article about plans to retake Mosul, maybe by this summer. I hope so. It's seemed to me for quite a while that because Mosul is Iraq's second-largest city, is near large oil fields, is at the farthest end of their supply lines, and is close enough to Irbil and Kurdish Iraq to make that a good base of operations, a successful campaign to retake it would badly tarnish the image of success the jihadists' appeal relies on so much. If some of them are forced to come out of the city and fight in the open, we may get to see how badly they want to fight when napalm is being dropped on them.
 
Back
Top Bottom