Problem #1 is that Bush didn't fight to win in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Problem #2 is that Obama didn't fight to win in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Wars end one of two ways--you win, or you surrender.
If you don't fight to win, you are fighting to surrender, and everybody you are killing or maiming--on both sides--is getting killed or maimed in vain.

(10-15-2014 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  "You guys"? What have I ever said about discrimination or bigotry?

I was born a Christian and would like to see people defended, but executions and torture take place under all the dictators (e.g. Hussein, Mubarak) and we don't care about that apparently.

If we went back in there with 150,000 troops, bombed the hell out of ISIS and occupied the entire country, ISIS would still move into Syria - would we invade Syria too? Otherwise it would be like fighting in Afghanistan with the Taliban using Pakistan as a safe haven.

I know where you're coming from and you could be right, but I could see us doing that and ending up back at the same place afterwards. It's just a matter of time.

As I already stated, your position of just pulling out all troops and going home is exactly what Obama did and now here we are 2 years later in the same position of having to ramp up military action once again. We all know nothing is really going to get solved without some limited troop deployments so God only knows where this is headed now.

If it was plausible to stay out of it, Obama, OF ALL PEOPLE would have found it.

He failed on all accounts.

The biggest failure was still the Bush administration getting rid of the Iraqi army. Everything after that is trying to make up for that mistake and mitigate the damage. "All accounts"? What are all these accounts? He pulled out and you disagree. What else?

Anyway, looks like the Turks are detaining Kurdish men at the border and preventing them from crossing over to help fight ISIS. Difficult situation with for the Turks considering they view both the Kurds and ISIS as terrorist. The PKK has been attacking Turkey for decades so I get why Turkey doesn't exactly trust Kurds with guns on its border. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

(10-16-2014 10:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Anyway, looks like the Turks are detaining Kurdish men at the border and preventing them from crossing over to help fight ISIS. Difficult situation with for the Turks considering they view both the Kurds and ISIS as terrorist. The PKK has been attacking Turkey for decades so I get why Turkey doesn't exactly trust Kurds with guns on its border. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Wait, which border are they preventing them from crossing?

(10-16-2014 10:23 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-16-2014 10:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Anyway, looks like the Turks are detaining Kurdish men at the border and preventing them from crossing over to help fight ISIS. Difficult situation with for the Turks considering they view both the Kurds and ISIS as terrorist. The PKK has been attacking Turkey for decades so I get why Turkey doesn't exactly trust Kurds with guns on its border. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Wait, which border are they preventing them from crossing?

The Turkish border back into Syria (Kobani).

(10-16-2014 10:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-16-2014 10:23 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-16-2014 10:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Anyway, looks like the Turks are detaining Kurdish men at the border and preventing them from crossing over to help fight ISIS. Difficult situation with for the Turks considering they view both the Kurds and ISIS as terrorist. The PKK has been attacking Turkey for decades so I get why Turkey doesn't exactly trust Kurds with guns on its border. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Wait, which border are they preventing them from crossing?

The Turkish border back into Syria (Kobani).

Ok. Kinda thought they'd let PKK into Syria, but letting them back into Turkey (from Syria or Iraq) would be more of an issue.

(10-15-2014 04:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:41 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 03:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 03:33 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 02:57 PM)VA49er Wrote:  The US military in Iraq would do nothing to stop ISIS from forming in Syria. I do agree the whole "red line" thing was dumb as hades. Just an example of poking the bear and then running away.

We were having a discussion about the fall if Iraq after we pulled all the troops out instead of leaving a smaller presence there.

Iraq would be much more stable today with 20,000 US troops still stationed there. That would have been less than a quarter of our force from previous years.

And those 20,000, even assuming they were enough to minimize the violence, would have to be there forever, and would be taking casualties the entire time. And we'd be spending money on it forever too. And those soldiers would be risking being arrested for murder for anything they did, probably even strictly defending themselves.

You mean like in Japan, S Korea, Germany, Italy etc?

We kept troops in Western Europe to protect them from the Russians. We keep troops in S Korea to be a trip wire for N Korea. Is radical Islam and the ilk of IS any less evil? Why would we not afford the same protection to a liberated Iraq than we did with a liberated Italy and Germany?

Those countries are not Iraq. We KNEW there were sectarian divisions which were basically held together as a viable state by a dictator. Japan was very homegeneous and we also bombed them back to the Stone Age, along with Germany. Germans wouldn't fight us because we were essentially protecting them from marauding Russians. In fact they were moving into our sector to get away from the Russians, if they could.

I'm not going to disagree about how the war was executed but the point remains the same. We PROTECTED those people who ran to us. We protected their country from Russia, Northe Korea etc. Why do we not afford that protection to those Iraqis who were doing the same? The sectarian nature IMO doesn't play into it because all sides were starting to see us as trusted arbiters. Deaths of our soldiers were going down and in number comparable to those in post WW2 Germany and Japan. Soldiers are still dying in Korea. So that's irrelevant. To me we abandoned a core principle of what makes America great. Why people fight for it and are drawn to it.

(10-16-2014 10:05 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The biggest failure was still the Bush administration getting rid of the Iraqi army. Everything after that is trying to make up for that mistake and mitigate the damage. "All accounts"? What are all these accounts? He pulled out and you disagree. What else?

That's the difference in me and you. I can openly admit Bush's mistakes in the early parts of the war. I didn't even vote for him so its no problem at all for me.

But you can't even bring yourself to admit Obama is responsible for HIS actions and HIS Decisions. All you can do is make excuses and blame the others for everything the current guy decides to do.

He made that decision and ignored his commanders on the ground.

Now we will pay the price. The entire place is in flames with ISIS terrorizing half the country.

YES, Obamas foreign policy is a massive failure on all accounts.

You guys have another 20 years of bringing up W. Feel bad for you in a way but he's all yours. Own him.

(10-16-2014 05:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guys have another 20 years of bringing up W. Feel bad for you in a way but he's all yours. Own him.

I'd take ANY Bush over this incompetent douchbag in the WH any day of the week.

Obama is easily the worst POTUS of my lifetime. Including Jimmy Carter.

(10-16-2014 05:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guys have another 20 years of bringing up W. Feel bad for you in a way but he's all yours. Own him.

Considering what we have now, I'll take that as a compliment.

This is Obama's Katrina.

Nothing has reached the incompetence of Iraq in my opinion, but Yes I can understand and appreciate those that say we have had some crappy leadership from both parties. I get that.

Karma ... Turkey Loses U.N. Security Council Seat in Huge Upset

(10-14-2014 07:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.620693?v...973C85F90F


What the hell do we do or what can we do? Our "Ally" prefers ISIS over one of our stronger allies in the region. "Kurds"


The place is a hell hole.

Thanks W!

Erdogan is a jerk. He's trying to pull a Putin. What he is doing makes little sense, even if you are a paranoid Turk. Here's what he's going to engender.

1) A greater likelihood of a recognized Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, Northern Syria, and perhaps elsewhere

2) Increased strife between the Kurds in SE Turkey and the Turkish government

3) Refugee issues in Southern Turkey

4) Problems between Turkey and NATO and the EU.

5) An abandonment of Turkey's pretense of leadership over Turkish peoples in the former CIS as Erdogan has abandoned any protection of the Turkish Tatars in Crimea.

6) Economic fallout for Turkey as its borders become less stable and its trade becomes more difficult.

I don't get Erdogan.

Biden needs to 'let slip' some more comments. These should be along the lines of "Maybe its time we evaluate the status of the US bases in Turkey and simply move them to Erbil".

(10-17-2014 08:56 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is Obama's Katrina.

Nothing has reached the incompetence of Iraq in my opinion, but Yes I can understand and appreciate those that say we have had some crappy leadership from both parties. I get that.

ISIS isn't on Obama. Its on the Europeans. Its really their problem more than ours. Obama is correct to force the Europeans to carry more of the water for their defense. I see no need to invade Syria.

Turkey deserved to lose that vote and should be ejected from NATO
as being an unreliable partner. No point in having someone you
cannot depend on if you are pledging to defend them.

maybe it's because no nation trusts us any more.

(10-17-2014 10:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't get Erdogan.

Erdogan entered when the military was still king and when the US was trying to use bases in Turkey to get rid of Sadaam. The secret of the peaceful, democratic Muslim state that is Turkey was never much of a secret, and really no different than Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al. It's always been some agent - either a dictator or the military - that's been necessary to keep the Islamists in check. The brilliance of Attaturk is in achieving that while allowing secular political rule. Tunisia is another interesting case where French secularism has left a legacy in a country now run by Islamists.

Erdogan's agenda was always eroding secularism and first making Turkey safe for the Islamists. Since doing that, he's had trouble keeping a reign on corruption and winning reelection in the face of obvious lack of competency.

(10-17-2014 10:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Biden needs to 'let slip' some more comments. These should be along the lines of "Maybe its time we evaluate the status of the US bases in Turkey and simply move them to Erbil".

The problem with this is that Biden would be running completely counter to his boss, who has cozied up to Erdogan throughout his presidency (remember the crisis in Gaza where Lurch went to Hamas's enablers to try to get them to broker an honest peace?).

This is somewhat typical of the Obama-Erdogan relationship.

The Deep State - The New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/0...ntPage=all Wrote:The American response to this intensifying repression has been tepid. President Barack Obama has developed a close relationship with Erdoğan, whom he regards as a dynamic and democratically minded leader. A White House official told me that Obama has regularly voiced his concerns about the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities. On the rare occasion that an American official has made his criticisms public, Erdoğan has easily dismissed them. Last year, the American Ambassador, Frank Ricciardone, raised the issue of detained journalists. Erdoğan mocked Ricciardone, a veteran diplomat and a Turkish speaker, as “a rookie ambassador.”

Obama is playing ***** to Erdogan, there's not much of any other way to portray it.

I don't get Obama.