White House Promises to Bomb Ramadi Until City Retaken From ISIS

[RDS]

Why allowed them to take the city in the first place?

Critics of the Obama administration were quick to seize on the fall of Ramadi as a sign that the U.S. lacks a coherent strategy to defeat ISIS.
On Sunday, Rep. Michael MCaul, the Homeland Security Committee chairman, said on Fox TV that "in no way, shape or form are we winning" in Iraq.

White House Promises to Bomb Ramadi Until City Retaken From ISIS | Military.com

 

[Montecresto]

However, reporters based in Iraq on Sunday said that the ISF had fled Ramadi, reportedly leaving their wounded behind and abandoning equipment in a scene similar to last summer when ISIS fighters swept into the northwestern city of Mosul against little resistance.

I thought these boys are US trained and using US equipment. They sure do drop and run a lot.

 

[poweRob]

Why allowed them to take the city in the first place?



White House Promises to Bomb Ramadi Until City Retaken From ISIS | Military.com

Because we aren't the world's police?

 

[RDS]

Because we aren't the world's police?

LOL if you pretend to be the world's police at least shoot to kill like in your own backyard.

 

[poweRob]

LOL if you pretend to be the world's police at least shoot to kill like in your own backyard.

I guess I don't have such imperialistic desires as do our more hawkish conservatives of today.

 

[Trojan]

I guess I don't have such imperialistic desires as do our more hawkish conservatives of today.

We can argue all day whether or not the American invasion of Iraq was justified and moral/immoral, but that isn't really the point. Our withdrawal likely exacerbated the speed in which fundamentalists were able to gain a foothold in that country. We had been there for years, spent millions if not billions rebuilding the country, had a number of Americans' blood spilled, and now it's crumbling before us. We have a large, capable force of Muslim militants spreading like a plague across the Middle East, capturing territory and slaughtering non-believers left and right. They are radicalizing Westerners - more specifically, impressionable millennials - are well funded and are brutal. Was the withdrawal worth the possible consequences that may follow?

 

[poweRob]

We can argue all day whether or not the American invasion of Iraq was justified and moral/immoral, but that isn't really the point. Our withdrawal likely exacerbated the speed in which fundamentalists were able to gain a foothold in that country. We had been there for years, spent millions if not billions rebuilding the country, had a number of Americans' blood spilled, and now it's crumbling before us. We have a large, capable force of Muslim militants spreading like a plague across the Middle East, capturing territory and slaughtering non-believers left and right. They are radicalizing Westerners - more specifically, impressionable millennials - are well funded and are brutal. Was the withdrawal worth the possible consequences that may follow?

I see. It's blame Obama time is it. lol

so you want to argue about the past policies of the current administration so long as it doesn't spill over into the discussing the past president's policies.

I also noticed you didn't have an answer of your own to deal with it now... just whine about how we shouldn't have reduced troop levels.

 

[Montecresto]

We can argue all day whether or not the American invasion of Iraq was justified and moral/immoral, but that isn't really the point. Our withdrawal likely exacerbated the speed in which fundamentalists were able to gain a foothold in that country. We had been there for years, spent millions if not billions rebuilding the country, had a number of Americans' blood spilled, and now it's crumbling before us. We have a large, capable force of Muslim militants spreading like a plague across the Middle East, capturing territory and slaughtering non-believers left and right. They are radicalizing Westerners - more specifically, impressionable millennials - are well funded and are brutal. Was the withdrawal worth the possible consequences that may follow?

According to the Bush era 2006 NIE, a consensus amongst the intelligence community agencies concluded that the invasion of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. Argue with that all you wish.

Published: September 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all

 

[matchlight]

I guess I don't have such imperialistic desires as do our more hawkish conservatives of today.

"Imperialistic desires?" Mr. Obama's communist friend Frank Marshall Davis might have used you for the Star, the red piece of fish wrap he used to edit in Chicago. Throw in some stock phrases like "fascist lackeys," and "workers' cadres," and "capitalist running dogs," and you'd have been right there. If there is one power in the history of the world that is noteworthy for its lack of imperial ambitions, it is the United States. They have been glaringly absent. This country had 200 atom bombs before anyone else had even one--if Americans had really wanted an empire, the whole world was there for the taking.

 

[Montecresto]

"Imperialistic desires?" Mr. Obama's communist friend Frank Marshall Davis might have used you for the Star, the red piece of fish wrap he used to edit in Chicago. Throw in some stock phrases like "fascist lackeys," and "workers' cadres," and "capitalist running dogs," and you'd have been right there. If there is one power in the history of the world that is noteworthy for its lack of imperial ambitions, it is the United States. They have been glaringly absent. This country had 200 atom bombs before anyone else had even one--if Americans had really wanted an empire, the whole world was there for the taking.

And at present, we live in a US dominated uni-polar world.
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

 

[poweRob]

"Imperialistic desires?" Mr. Obama's communist friend Frank Marshall Davis might have used you for the Star, the red piece of fish wrap he used to edit in Chicago. Throw in some stock phrases like "fascist lackeys," and "workers' cadres," and "capitalist running dogs," and you'd have been right there. If there is one power in the history of the world that is noteworthy for its lack of imperial ambitions, it is the United States. They have been glaringly absent. This country had 200 atom bombs before anyone else had even one--if Americans had really wanted an empire, the whole world was there for the taking.

cool story bro...

Not all imperialistic take overs are militaristic only. Ours just happens to be corporate imperialism with a military backing. And it's been that way for most of the history of the country. Just read Smedley Bulter's short book "War is a Racket".

Here it is free online.

 

[Trojan]

I see. It's blame Obama time is it. lol

so you want to argue about the past policies of the current administration so long as it doesn't spill over into the discussing the past president's policies.

I also noticed you didn't have an answer of your own to deal with it now... just whine about how we shouldn't have reduced troop levels.

I'd rather complain about the mistake made by the incumbent, rather than the actions taken by a President more than a decade ago due to intelligence reports, yes. Continuous complaints about Bush are grating.

I'm not sure about a solution, but at least I'm willing to admit as much. "We aren't the world's police!" makes for a great sign to hold during a grassroots rally, but it isn't sound or realistic policy. We are currently the most powerful nation in the world both economically and militarily. We have ties to other states that aren't so simply broken. We invaded Iraq justifiably, but in hindsight it was a poor decision. We, however, cannot change that.

It's hard to say Send the troops!, but that may be the only way to actually combat such a threat in the long-term. We can assassinate their leadership as much as we'd like, but as long as those militants have their mind set on their goals, they will just regroup and continue their jihad under another name in the near future.

According to the Bush era 2006 NIE, a consensus amongst the intelligence community agencies concluded that the invasion of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. Argue with that all you wish.

Published: September 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all

Clearly, withdrawing from Iraq has led to an era of peace, prosperity, and freedom from extremist tyranny in the region. Is that what you're implying? If not, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and if you are, then you're looking at the conflict through rose tinted glasses.

The NIE report prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003 outlined a few key factors. Mainly, Saddam had the ability to produce a large amount of chemical/biological material in half a year, Iraq could produce nuclear weapons within a year if it acquired the correct ingredients, and Iraq was in violation of a number of U.N. resolutions with regard to NCB production.

Did you expect us to brush off an intelligence report and allow Saddam to continue? I'd like to ask you to sit back for a moment and imagine yourself in Bush's shoes. Not the ones that were thrown at him, but his actual shoes. If you're the leader of the United States of America, and your intelligence agencies come to you with a report stating that they are highly confident a dictatorship is pursuing WMDs, would you not listen? Would you trust the intelligence of Western Europe over your own agencies?

 

[Montecresto]

I'd rather complain about the mistake made by the incumbent, rather than the actions taken by a President more than a decade ago due to intelligence reports, yes. Continuous complaints about Bush are grating.

I'm not sure about a solution, but at least I'm willing to admit as much. "We aren't the world's police!" makes for a great sign to hold during a grassroots rally, but it isn't sound or realistic policy. We are currently the most powerful nation in the world both economically and militarily. We have ties to other states that aren't so simply broken. We invaded Iraq justifiably, but in hindsight it was a poor decision. We, however, cannot change that.

It's hard to say Send the troops!, but that may be the only way to actually combat such a threat in the long-term. We can assassinate their leadership as much as we'd like, but as long as those militants have their mind set on their goals, they will just regroup and continue their jihad under another name in the near future.



Clearly, withdrawing from Iraq has led to an era of peace, prosperity, and freedom from extremist tyranny in the region. Is that what you're implying? If not, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and if you are, then you're looking at the conflict through rose tinted glasses.

The NIE report prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003 outlined a few key factors. Mainly, Saddam had the ability to produce a large amount of chemical/biological material in half a year, Iraq could produce nuclear weapons within a year if it acquired the correct ingredients, and Iraq was in violation of a number of U.N. resolutions with regard to NCB production.

Did you expect us to brush off an intelligence report and allow Saddam to continue? I'd like to ask you to sit back for a moment and imagine yourself in Bush's shoes. Not the ones that were thrown at him, but his actual shoes. If you're the leader of the United States of America, and your intelligence agencies come to you with a report stating that they are highly confident a dictatorship is pursuing WMDs, would you not listen? Would you trust the intelligence of Western Europe over your own agencies?

No. First of all, I gave you the NIE that didn't stutter when they concluded that the invasion of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. The Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) organized the same year, and they added the second S to become the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria when they took advantage of another power vacuum. Removing Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad has left exploitable the entire region.

 

[Trojan]

No. First of all, I gave you the NIE that didn't stutter when they concluded that the invasion of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe.

Your point? We invaded Iraq because NIE reports stated that Saddam had the ability and the willpower to produce NCB weapons. I understand you think our invasion was a mistake, but that solves and means absolutely nothing. What was done was done, and that report was released in 2006 - after we had already pushed Hussein out.

The Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) organized the same year, and they added the second S to become the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria when they took advantage of another power vacuum. Removing Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad has left exploitable the entire region.

The Islamic State was a long time coming, and was actually formed in 1999 with intent to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. I won't argue with you regarding Egypt, Libya, and Syria, but we were occupying Iraq in order to prevent a power vacuum. The same cannot be said about Gaddafi, Mubarak, or Assad, the last of which is still in power.

 

[Montecresto]

Your point? We invaded Iraq because NIE reports stated that Saddam had the ability and the willpower to produce NCB weapons. I understand you think our invasion was a mistake, but that solves and means absolutely nothing. What was done was done, and that report was released in 2006 - after we had already pushed Hussein out.



The Islamic State was a long time coming, and was actually formed in 1999 with intent to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. I won't argue with you regarding Egypt, Libya, and Syria, but we were occupying Iraq in order to prevent a power vacuum. The same cannot be said about Gaddafi, Mubarak, or Assad, the last of which is still in power.

We invaded Iraq because it was Bush's long time ambition. He stated, while he was yet governor of Texas, that if he gets to be president that he would use his authority to go into Iraq, but wouldn't make his fathers mistake, but instead go all the way to Baghdad and take out Saddam Hussein. His first FP meeting was to discuss that. Many pre 9/11 warning signs were ignored, intel was massaged to fit the policy, lies were told, hyperbolic threats were conjured up, Powell's speech didn't convince me, nor the French or plenty of others. Hans Blix, the boots on the ground was infuriated with Bush/Blair and wrote stinging rebuttals to their assertions. That invasion and occupation, exacerbated global terrorism. It doesn't matter if you don't understand that.

In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny too if you think that hanging by a fingernail as he is, that Assad is still in control of Syria.

 

[chromium]

I'd rather complain about the mistake made by the incumbent, rather than the actions taken by a President more than a decade ago due to intelligence reports, yes. Continuous complaints about Bush are grating.

I'm not sure about a solution, but at least I'm willing to admit as much. "We aren't the world's police!" makes for a great sign to hold during a grassroots rally, but it isn't sound or realistic policy. We are currently the most powerful nation in the world both economically and militarily. We have ties to other states that aren't so simply broken. We invaded Iraq justifiably, but in hindsight it was a poor decision. We, however, cannot change that.

It's hard to say Send the troops!, but that may be the only way to actually combat such a threat in the long-term. We can assassinate their leadership as much as we'd like, but as long as those militants have their mind set on their goals, they will just regroup and continue their jihad under another name in the near future.



Clearly, withdrawing from Iraq has led to an era of peace, prosperity, and freedom from extremist tyranny in the region. Is that what you're implying? If not, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and if you are, then you're looking at the conflict through rose tinted glasses.

The NIE report prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003 outlined a few key factors. Mainly, Saddam had the ability to produce a large amount of chemical/biological material in half a year, Iraq could produce nuclear weapons within a year if it acquired the correct ingredients, and Iraq was in violation of a number of U.N. resolutions with regard to NCB production.

Did you expect us to brush off an intelligence report and allow Saddam to continue? I'd like to ask you to sit back for a moment and imagine yourself in Bush's shoes. Not the ones that were thrown at him, but his actual shoes. If you're the leader of the United States of America, and your intelligence agencies come to you with a report stating that they are highly confident a dictatorship is pursuing WMDs, would you not listen? Would you trust the intelligence of Western Europe over your own agencies?

Withdraw or not, there will be no end to extremists in that region because they are the majority. Most are unwilling to take up arms and risk themselves, but ISIS has plenty of sympathy there. That is why it's a futile cause and only the specific opponent changes over time. Al qaeda before, ISIS now, in 10 years? Iraq was invaded to begin with to steal oil, nothing more, and the collapse of saddam's regime gave the extremists free reign, as well as encouraging plenty others to sign up. It was asinine and counterproductive as hell and now you want to do it all over?

And no, china is the leading economic power. Militarily, plenty other countries could contribute far more, but they see and have always seen the futility of what i just described.

McCain is upset, how am i not surprised. That fossil wishes we STILL were "staying the course" in vietnam

 

[Montecresto]

Withdraw or not, there will be no end to extremists in that region because they are the majority. Most are unwilling to take up arms and risk themselves, but ISIS has plenty of sympathy there. That is why it's a futile cause and only the specific opponent changes over time. Al qaeda before, ISIS now, in 10 years? Iraq was invaded to begin with to steal oil, nothing more, and the collapse of saddam's regime gave the extremists free reign, as well as encouraging plenty others to sign up. It was asinine and counterproductive as hell and now you want to do it all over?

And no, china is the leading economic power. Militarily, plenty other countries could contribute far more, but they see and have always seen the futility of what i just described.

McCain is upset, how am i not surprised. That fossil wishes we STILL were "staying the course" in vietnam

I agree.

 

[matchlight]

cool story bro...

Not all imperialistic take overs are militaristic only. Ours just happens to be corporate imperialism with a military backing. And it's been that way for most of the history of the country. Just read Smedley Bulter's short book "War is a Racket".

Here it is free online.

Thank you, I'm already familiar with Smedley Butler's career and views.

 

[Trojan]

That invasion and occupation, exacerbated global terrorism. It doesn't matter if you don't understand that.

Absolutely nothing you've said goes against what I've said. Nothing. It's not about understanding. I can easily read your words and comprehend them. It's the incessant whining about George W. Bush that's grating. We invaded Iraq nearly 12 years ago, the ship already sailed. "It exacerbated global terrorism!" -- Okay, what exactly is your point? That we shouldn't have invaded Iraq? Mostly agreed in hindsight. Read the NIE report from 2002 and act as if you're in the Commander-in-Chief's shoes. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say "Oh, well, we shouldn't have done that!" after everything's destroyed and you realize the consequences. You likely won't see my side here, since you're already entrenched in your stance.

I'll link to Wikipedia for you, as well:

After several rounds of name changes and mergers with other groups, the organization is now known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[US Conservative]

Why allowed them to take the city in the first place?



White House Promises to Bomb Ramadi Until City Retaken From ISIS | Military.com

We have a weak POTUS currently, who lost the peace in Iraq and ignored the ISIS threat-calling them the "JV" team.

As a leftist, Obama is unable to handle evil, so this is the result. Nothing will change until a real leader is elected, and frankly that means a republican, or ideally a conservative.

 

[LeoVlaming]

We have a weak POTUS currently, who lost the peace in Iraq and ignored the ISIS threat-calling them the "JV" team.

As a leftist, Obama is unable to handle evil, so this is the result. Nothing will change until a real leader is elected, and frankly that means a republican, or ideally a conservative.

There wasn't much peace to "lose" in Iraq. That being said, it is true that the Obama administration's approach to jihadi terrorism in general, and the rise of IS in particular, has been pretty pathetic.

 

[Linc]

I agree.

Bush invited the Muslim terrorists to "bring it on".

Cowboy diplomacy strikes out again.

The 50,000 Wounded Warriors know who to curse every day .

 

[LeoVlaming]

Bush invited the Muslim terrorists to "bring it on".

Cowboy diplomacy strikes out again.

The 50,000 Wounded Warriors know who to curse every day .

Jihadi terrorists have been attacking the US for decades. Those whom they have killed and injured are the victims of these terrorists, not of anybody else. Whatever the apologists for jihadi terrorism might say.

 

[Linc]

Treasonous is Bush leaving a SOFA agreement putting our soldiers under Sharia law with the Iranian puppet Maliki.

Expecting Obama to clean up this and eight years worth of catastrophic Bush/Cheney policies is GOP madness .

 

[American]

However, reporters based in Iraq on Sunday said that the ISF had fled Ramadi, reportedly leaving their wounded behind and abandoning equipment in a scene similar to last summer when ISIS fighters swept into the northwestern city of Mosul against little resistance.

I thought these boys are US trained and using US equipment. They sure do drop and run a lot.

They did that under that madman Hussein too. Pansies. :lol: