• 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!

ISIS seizes key Iraqi city of Ramadi as government forces pull back

You prefer the stability of the mass grave and the Baathist terror-regime?
In compared to what is going on now, and what happened in the past from the invasion and as a result of the invasion? Absolutely.

Seriously, Iraq was,'t stable before the US intervention,
Iraq also had a lot better control of its territory and it wasnt the international jihadi playground.

it wasn't stable during the US intervention
No way? Really? A country wasnt stable when another country was invading it?

and it isn't stable after the US intervention.
Duh.

During the intervention the US did use the opportunity to turn Iraq into the graveyard for thousands of jihadi terrorists from various countries.
Ok... And..... ? What? Whats your point? Is this a good thing? Is it a good thing jihadis flocked to Iraq?
 
Seeing as how our inept federal government wants to overthrow both governments. I would say that it doesn't matter what type of government you are, if you're stable in the middle east chances are our government wants to topple you. Except Israel.

I see. The United States, with its enormous military, has been itching for years to overthrow the governments of Oman, Bahrein, and Jordan, but it's just too inept to accomplish that goal.
 
Well of course. They began as the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006, capitalizing on the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein, and taking advantage of the power vacuum in Syria, moved right in there as well, adding the second S to become the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
And the start of the disintegration of Iraq.
 
Last edited:
I think that's because the British aren't up to the task. Look, we can't keep creating crisis in the ME just to provide job security for our militaries, and maintain employment for our defense contractors.

I think you have no idea how much firepower we have, we could flatten Anbar in hours. Also we have years of expierance patrolling and policing hostile areas though our time in Northern Ireland which is why Basra was so well contained and why we held Helmand for so long. Our COIN tactics were closley watched by American forces who had little expierance in such climates.
 
I think you have no idea how much firepower we have, we could flatten Anbar in hours. Also we have years of expierance patrolling and policing hostile areas though our time in Northern Ireland which is why Basra was so well contained and why we held Helmand for so long. Our COIN tactics were closley watched by American forces who had little expierance in such climates.

It wasn't in that manner that I was referring to the British not being up to the task.
 
It wasn't in that manner that I was referring to the British not being up to the task.
UK has cut their Military drastically over he past years.
Now the US looks more to France when discussing military options.
 
Americans installed Obama in the WH (amongst other reasons of course) to bring America home from Iraq. A plurality of Americans recognize the folly of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Despite Bush's efforts to draw a link between Saddam Hussein and AQ, Saddam Hussein and OBL, his fear mongering about Saddam Hussein's ability to produce mushroom clouds over US cities and the like, that dog don't hunt and a very tiny amount of people still support those silly notions. The fact is that neither Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to Islamic extremists, and as both China and Russia both accurately predicted, US interference has caused Islamic extremism to spread throughout the region. And they didn't have to be just real brite to make such observation either.

Currently, the United States has military personnel deployed in about 150 Countries... This covers 75% of The World's Nations.


The Democrats voted for war in Iraq and then spent years attacking the president for going to war in Iraq. Bush never actually made the claim of an imminent mushroom cloud sent by Saddam, that is a misrepresentation by Ted Kennedy.

Likewise, Bush only ever claimed that there had been communications between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which the commission agreed took place. What Kerry argued was that Bush stated that there was a collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which Bush never claimed.

But sure, the Democrats had run a 5 year negative campaign against Bush and against the efforts of our Military in Iraq and it was indeed the tipping point for the election of Obama. But then in the same way the Democrats want to demonize Bush for going into Iraq, the same shallow interpretation would lead to the conclusion that Obama lied to the American people about consequences of leaving Iraq. It is becoming clear that the NIA had long warned the White House that a resurgent AQI would be the outcome of leaving Iraq, yet Obama stood before the American people and claimed the war was won, Iraq was peaceful and it was time to come home. Either he was lying or suffering from self imposed ignorance of the realities that were made available to him in his security briefings.

Bush can't be faulted for what Obama made of Iraq.... and Syria... and Yemen... and Libya.
 
The Democrats voted for war in Iraq and then spent years attacking the president for going to war in Iraq. Bush never actually made the claim of an imminent mushroom cloud sent by Saddam, that is a misrepresentation by Ted Kennedy.

Likewise, Bush only ever claimed that there had been communications between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which the commission agreed took place. What Kerry argued was that Bush stated that there was a collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which Bush never claimed.

But sure, the Democrats had run a 5 year negative campaign against Bush and against the efforts of our Military in Iraq and it was indeed the tipping point for the election of Obama. But then in the same way the Democrats want to demonize Bush for going into Iraq, the same shallow interpretation would lead to the conclusion that Obama lied to the American people about consequences of leaving Iraq. It is becoming clear that the NIA had long warned the White House that a resurgent AQI would be the outcome of leaving Iraq, yet Obama stood before the American people and claimed the war was won, Iraq was peaceful and it was time to come home. Either he was lying or suffering from self imposed ignorance of the realities that were made available to him in his security briefings.

Bush can't be faulted for what Obama made of Iraq.... and Syria... and Yemen... and Libya.

Well again, you'll not see me defending the democrats pathetic support for the Iraq war. I opposed that war for reasons I've listed on so many numerous occasions. Of course in 2002-3 it was hugely unpopular to oppose the Bush administrations ambitions for Iraq. I really did suffer ridicule at work and play for doing so at the time. For democratic law makers, they feared for their careers, not that that buys them a pass from me at all. But a majority of Americans have finally caught up and recognize the mistake of the Iraq war. The question remains though, have Americans learned any lessons.
 
It wasn't in that manner that I was referring to the British not being up to the task.

well in that regard I would agree, none of our politicans have the bottle to vote on it and the country as a whole is not interested in another conflict in the middle east.
 
In compared to what is going on now, and what happened in the past from the invasion and as a result of the invasion? Absolutely.

So you prefer large-scale government organized mass murder on a very large scale. That is your prerogative.
 
well in that regard I would agree, none of our politicans have the bottle to vote on it and the country as a whole is not interested in another conflict in the middle east.

There you have it, and I hope things remain that way.
 
Ok... And..... ? What? Whats your point? Is this a good thing? Is it a good thing jihadis flocked to Iraq?

Yes. It is Always better to fight these sorts of terrorists in Iraq than on the Streets of Western Europe or North America. You might prefer it the other way round. I don't.
 
Yet another example of how terrible of an idea it was to go into Iraq in the first place back in 2003.

How progressive!

Live in the past, blame the leaders of the past, keep blaming them.

That will fix the problems of today.

How about once the loony left actualyl came up with a solution? It is clear the first black president hasn't got the first ****ing clue what do, he has surredered territory after territory to terrorists, the cancer is matastizing and all Obama and his pathetic lemmings can do is blame Bush.

That sure brings in out of the box thinking.
 
And the start of the disintegration of Iraq.

They were able to do so only because BO and his Team dropped the SOFA. Once Intel was rolled back and pulled in.....there was no one that knew of any AQ in major numbers in Iraq. Although, it was known AQ was moving back in.

So it really has no tie to Bush jr.
 
Yes. It is Always better to fight these sorts of terrorists in Iraq than on the Streets of Western Europe or North America. You might prefer it the other way round. I don't.

So in your worldview it was an either or? It was either we open the door for these jihadis in Iraq and kill them there, or they were going to flood the streets of Western Europe or North America? This is your justification? :doh
 
So you prefer large-scale government organized mass murder on a very large scale. That is your prerogative.

Nope, its not what a "prefer" or my "prerogative", its comparison between two events and the long term consequences of each event.
 
So in your worldview it was an either or? It was either we open the door for these jihadis in Iraq and kill them there, or they were going to flood the streets of Western Europe or North America? This is your justification? :doh

Are you one of these people who believe jihadi terrorism suddenly sprang up in 2003?
 
Nope, its not what a "prefer" or my "prerogative", its comparison between two events and the long term consequences of each event.

Yes, you prefer the gassing of civilians, organized murdering campaigns, etc.
 
And the start of the disintegration of Iraq.

Well, it's the pottery barn rule that Powell spoke of. Bottom line is that the Middle East would be vastly better off today, could we erase the past 12 years of USFP in the region.
 
And it also said that defeating AQI is the path to reducing recruitment of Jihad because it was the perception of success that created recruitment opportunities. The AQI that joined as the result of the short term success of AQI in the time of that assessment were killed or run off by the surge. As of 2009 AQI was a shell of its former self.

ISIS recruitment has indeed been driven by perceived success since Obama took office. Obama's idiotic policies 1) Helped ISIS align to a new cause in Syria and 2) opened the door for them to waltz in to Iraq and takeover vast swaths of the country with ease.

Again, to properly assess what policies created ISIS you have to look at the state of AQI when Obama took office. Al Qaeda in Iraq was not even in Iraq anymore. It was done.

The idiocy in Libya, terrible policy in Syria and an even worse decision in Iraq breathed life back into Al Qaeda under Obama's watch and gave them new purpose. They were so empowered by Obama's weakness that they changed their goal from driving the US out of Iraq to conquering the entire Middle East.



Mornin JM. :2wave: Exactly, what policies and better yet, who's......as Judicial Watch discovered.



Another 2012 DIA memo predicts the rise of ISIS and the establishment of a caliphate 17 months before President Barack Obama called ISIS “jay-vee.”

A third DIA memo, dated Oct. 5, 2012, leaves no doubt that U.S. intelligence agencies knew that weapons were moving from Libya to Syria before the attack that killed four Americans. .....snip~
 
IMO, the Iraqi government isn't exactly doing things to win the support of the broader population, and this is also feeding ISIS e.g., facilitating its ability to recruit. From Reuters following ISIS's capture of Ramadi:

Sami Abed Saheb, 37, a Ramadi restaurant owner, said Islamic State found 30 women and 71 men in the detention center. They had been shot in the feet to prevent them escaping when their captors fled.

Islamic State tightens grip on captured Iraqi city | Reuters

In this case, the "captors" refers to the Iraqi forces that were driven from Ramadi. Hopefully, ISIS will be driven out of Ramadi in the not too distant future, but the Iraqi government needs to clean up its act if it is to demonstrate to the population at large that it is worthy of their support. Absent broad based support for the Iraqi government, the already limited U.S. effort will continue to face significant additional challenges.
 
We did not stay in Iraq because the Iraqi government no longer wanted us there. The only way they would allow us to stay would be if we would have subjected our soldiers to their courts, which is entirely unacceptable. The idiotic thing to do was to have gone in there in the first place. Had we continued the policy of containment with Iraq, we would not be dealing with this today.

You are dutifully reciting the fable President Pinprick's acolytes have cooked up, in an unconvincing effort to cover his rear. It is witless nonsense designed to gull the gullible. As if a country the U.S. had invaded, overrun, and still had a couple hundred thousand troops in, could dictate anything to a determined U.S. president. To hell with their G--damned courts. The U.S. could have--and should have--told any new government there when to jump, and how high. Imagine FDR, or Truman, or Eisenhower, or Reagan wringing his hands like an old woman and pleading that he was helpless to do anything more. Nothing more was done because this weak sister of a president did not want it done. Mr. Obama resents this country and does not wish it well.

Hussein was an Arab Hitler who had murdered several hundred thousand Iraqis, kept young children chained in filthy prisons, had invaded Kuwait, had reneged on the agreements he had made to save his skin after being routed in the 1991 war that drove him out, and who had continually been firing on U.S. and British aircraft in many hundreds of incidents during the dozen years since. He was known to have manufactured large amounts of chemical weapons and had the feedstocks and machinery needed to make biological weapons, particularly anthrax. By late 2002 it had been four years since he had allowed open international inspections of these things, and he continued to balk at them. A series of attacks using anthrax-contaminated mail, soon after 9/11, had killed several Americans and forced congressional offices to be temporarily shut down, and no one knew who was behind them. To top all this off, Hussein was paying suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians, and he was training and financing thousands of terrorists from groups around the world.

And yet despite all this, and even after 9/11, you would just have "contained" this regime, and hoped for the best. God help us all if the safety of the 300-plus million people in this country is ever entrusted to a president who shares your views. And maybe it already is.
 
Last edited:
Are you one of these people who believe jihadi terrorism suddenly sprang up in 2003?
Nope.

But are you going to answer my questions? Here I'll ask again: So in your worldview it was an either or? It was either we open the door for these jihadis in Iraq and kill them there, or they were going to flood the streets of Western Europe or North America? This is your justification?
 
You are dutifully reciting the fable President Pinprick's acolytes have cooked up, in an unconvincing effort to cover his rear. It is witless nonsense designed to gull the gullible. As if a country the U.S. had invaded, overrun, and still had a couple hundred thousand troops in, could dictate anything to a determined U.S. president. To hell with their G--damned courts. The U.S. could have--and should have--told any new government there when to jump, and how high. Imagine FDR, or Truman, or Eisenhower, or Reagan wringing his hands like an old woman and pleading that he was helpless to do anything more. Nothing more was done because this weak sister of a president did not want it done. Mr. Obama resents this country and does not wish it well.

Hussein was an Arab Hitler who had murdered several hundred thousand Iraqis, kept young children chained in filthy prisons, had invaded Kuwait, had reneged on the agreements he had made to save his skin after being routed in the 1991 war that drove him out, and who had continually been firing on U.S. and British aircraft in many hundreds of incidents during the dozen years since. He was known to have manufactured large amounts of chemical weapons and had the feedstocks and machinery needed to make biological weapons, particularly anthrax. By late 2002 it had been four years since he had allowed open international inspections of these things, and he continued to balk at them. A series of attacks using anthrax-contaminated mail, soon after 9/11, had killed several Americans and forced congressional offices to be temporarily shut down, and no one knew who was behind them. To top all this off, Hussein was paying suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians, and he was training and financing thousands of terrorists from groups around the world.

And yet despite all this, and even after 9/11, you would just have "contained" this regime, and hoped for the best. God help us all if the safety of the 300-plus million people in this country is ever entrusted to a president who shares your views. And maybe it already is.

Besides the fact that Americans sent Obama to Washington in 2008 to bring our troops home from Iraq,

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