(06-03-2015 08:28 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 07:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 04:53 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  When you have a 100% p#ssy as President who loves Muslims, ISIS is free to behead and slaughter who they want to without worrying about the US.

Whatever happened to a modicum of respect when referring to the POTUS, or does that only go into effect when you like the person in office.

Cry me a river. When Obama respect's America, I will respect him. I am not a boot licking lib like you.

I wasn't crying about anything, nor am I defending Obama in the least. Do you actually read what you're responding to, or do you just have a predetermined list of nonsensical talking points that you type regardless of how little sense saying them makes?

(06-03-2015 07:16 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 06:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:26 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The current administration was elected expressly to get America out of Iraq. Our absence of course would leave a power vacuum that someone had to fill. We hoped it would be the Iraqi militia that was left but they obviously failed in that charge.

But lets not act like the plan proposed hadn't succeeded elsewhere in the world.

Yep...it worked in Afghanistan.

Oh...wait...that created the Taliban.

Oops.

I was thinking Germany, Japan and Korea

Because we left forces there for stability and they remain there, ALL volunteers BTW, to this day, 60-70 yrs later. I think that may have been your point on "the plan" you reference above, but by including the part with the Iraqi militia it's a little murky in your exact meaning,

That said- 2011 and prior Iraq was relatively stable, and the behinder in chief cut and ran. Of course bad characters are going to seek opportunity and with the historical record of the Iraqi armies, it was pretty clear they would, and did, pose next to no opposition.

Had we left a relatively minor residual force of say 20k troops (ALL volunteers, BTW) in a remote area with xxx miles of clear buffer, and "do not enter or you-dead" instruction, we could have kept the peace.

Respond to risks, read ISIS, but not policing local areas or do any other patrols, the Iraqi Army probably could have handled that.

But no, the community organizer in chief had other plans, never mind what our military leaders, and former POTUS, had spelled out very specifically what could and did happen. Almost to a T.

And no, before any of you apologists bring it up, the SOFA is a non-starter. If zerO had wanted one he could have simply demanded one. If Malaki wasn't going to play ball, kick his asss out and go on to the next one until you find the right guy. Simple enough.

Once it was clear that America would be departing the region within the 2012-2016 window, the only chance for stability rested with the Iraqi Militia. Obviously I felt that if the US were willing to commit to staying in the region for 50 years that results similar to Japan and Germany could have been achieved. Many disagree with that POV.

That said I don't blame Obama for the decision to withdraw as that was his mandate from the electorate. In this regard the President has dutifully carried out the will of the people. But no one should be surprised that an insurgent force rose to fill the vacuum of power as America withdrew from the area.

RWT, you referred to War Games quote it is a reasonable perspective. But bare in mind that as America retreats from the the Global Arena militarily that there is going to be a commiserate raise in conflict. You and many that share the belief that US Intervention causes more problems than it solves, will get the opportunity to see if that POV is valid.

I blame zerO whole-heartedly for this humanitarian disaster. His first duty isn't to bend to the whim and fancy of the people, his party, nor those funneling them money.

His first duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and beyond that defend our interests abroad, as well as securing our borders against foreign invaders at home.

Has he done any of these things?

I'll ask again, as I got NO responses last times, yesterday, 2 months ago, 2 years ago ()- Someone give me one example of a rousing success of this band of merry travelers after 6 1/2 years and maybe we'll all shut up.

Why didn't anyone offer one up? Curious.

(06-03-2015 08:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  At this point...I am not in favor of doing anything about ISIS if it involves a single US soldiers life.... unless we decide to take off the gloves and TOTALLY destroy them. We all know...that is not going to happen.

Agreed. 100%. And has been shown, that would probably take about a weekend. Say 100 hours or so?

The last force we fully engaged was in the 100's of thousands. Not this JV squad...

(06-03-2015 04:10 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:39 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:32 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The current administration was elected expressly to get America out of Iraq. Our absence of course would leave a power vacuum that someone had to fill. We hoped it would be the Iraqi militia that was left but they obviously failed in that charge.

But lets not act like the plan proposed hadn't succeeded elsewhere in the world.

Yep...it worked in Afghanistan.

Oh...wait...that created the Taliban.

Oops.

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

I'm clear on the origin of the Taliban. And fyi, I'm actually fine with the premise that regime change, nation-building, and chasing terrorists into faraway nooks and crannies is usually a bad idea. But it seems a little bizarre to compare the Soviet handling of Afghanistan to the US handling of Iraq, especially considering how actively the US supported the Soviet opposition.

Actually the Soviet Union Invaded Afghanistan to take over that country and were repelled with U.S. Help. Iraq was a repeat offender after invading Kuwait, They were removed with U.S. help and went on to stick a finger in the eye of the world by not letting in inspectors in per agreement. We gave Saddam multiple chances to come clean and He didn't and We invaded to overthrow Him. We did not ever go to war with Iraq as a nation but somewhere along the Line We got into Nation Building and That was a Major Mistake. Again We went into Afghanistan to repel the Taliban and Al Qaeda , Not to take over Afghanistan itself after 911. Again it turned into Nation Building. Big difference between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. occupations.

(06-04-2015 12:46 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 07:16 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 06:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:26 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yep...it worked in Afghanistan.

Oh...wait...that created the Taliban.

Oops.

I was thinking Germany, Japan and Korea

Because we left forces there for stability and they remain there, ALL volunteers BTW, to this day, 60-70 yrs later. I think that may have been your point on "the plan" you reference above, but by including the part with the Iraqi militia it's a little murky in your exact meaning,

That said- 2011 and prior Iraq was relatively stable, and the behinder in chief cut and ran. Of course bad characters are going to seek opportunity and with the historical record of the Iraqi armies, it was pretty clear they would, and did, pose next to no opposition.

Had we left a relatively minor residual force of say 20k troops (ALL volunteers, BTW) in a remote area with xxx miles of clear buffer, and "do not enter or you-dead" instruction, we could have kept the peace.

Respond to risks, read ISIS, but not policing local areas or do any other patrols, the Iraqi Army probably could have handled that.

But no, the community organizer in chief had other plans, never mind what our military leaders, and former POTUS, had spelled out very specifically what could and did happen. Almost to a T.

And no, before any of you apologists bring it up, the SOFA is a non-starter. If zerO had wanted one he could have simply demanded one. If Malaki wasn't going to play ball, kick his asss out and go on to the next one until you find the right guy. Simple enough.

Once it was clear that America would be departing the region within the 2012-2016 window, the only chance for stability rested with the Iraqi Militia. Obviously I felt that if the US were willing to commit to staying in the region for 50 years that results similar to Japan and Germany could have been achieved. Many disagree with that POV.

That said I don't blame Obama for the decision to withdraw as that was his mandate from the electorate. In this regard the President has dutifully carried out the will of the people. But no one should be surprised that an insurgent force rose to fill the vacuum of power as America withdrew from the area.

RWT, you referred to War Games quote it is a reasonable perspective. But bare in mind that as America retreats from the the Global Arena militarily that there is going to be a commiserate raise in conflict. You and many that share the belief that US Intervention causes more problems than it solves, will get the opportunity to see if that POV is valid.

I blame zerO whole-heartedly for this humanitarian disaster. His first duty isn't to bend to the whim and fancy of the people, his party, nor those funneling them money.

His first duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and beyond that defend our interests abroad, as well as securing our borders against foreign invaders at home.

Has he done any of these things?

I'll ask again, as I got NO responses last times, yesterday, 2 months ago, 2 years ago ()- Someone give me one example of a rousing success of this band of merry travelers after 6 1/2 years and maybe we'll all shut up.

Why didn't anyone offer one up? Curious.

Because They Can't !

(06-03-2015 04:53 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  When you have a 100% p#ssy as President who loves Muslims, ISIS is free to behead and slaughter who they want to without worrying about the US.

Aside from being a completely ignorant and petty statement, it's clearly wrong. ISIS worries constantly about the US. First, because we've been continually bombing and killing their leaders for months (you're aware of this, yes?), and more importantly second, they're trying to draw us into a ground fight to aid their recruiting efforts. Nearly everything they produce is geared towards trying to intimidate the US.

(06-04-2015 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 04:53 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  When you have a 100% p#ssy as President who loves Muslims, ISIS is free to behead and slaughter who they want to without worrying about the US.

Aside from being a completely ignorant and petty statement, it's clearly wrong. ISIS worries constantly about the US. First, because we've been continually bombing and killing their leaders for months (you're aware of this, yes?), and more importantly second, they're trying to draw us into a ground fight to aid their recruiting efforts. Nearly everything they produce is geared towards trying to intimidate the US.

Even on the Streets of Boston !

http://controversialtimes.com/news/break...ers-video/

(06-04-2015 10:10 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 04:53 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  When you have a 100% p#ssy as President who loves Muslims, ISIS is free to behead and slaughter who they want to without worrying about the US.

Aside from being a completely ignorant and petty statement, it's clearly wrong. ISIS worries constantly about the US. First, because we've been continually bombing and killing their leaders for months (you're aware of this, yes?), and more importantly second, they're trying to draw us into a ground fight to aid their recruiting efforts. Nearly everything they produce is geared towards trying to intimidate the US.

Even on the Streets of Boston !

http://controversialtimes.com/news/break...ers-video/

And we're shutting them down. They're not succeeding. What more do you want? Seeking out to enact widespread retribution has been shown not to help our cause, and that's not to mention the cost in human lives it would cost. I get it, you want us to swing our imperial d*ck around a little bit, and I really do understand that. But it's not helping our cause, so get over it.

(06-04-2015 03:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:10 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 04:53 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  When you have a 100% p#ssy as President who loves Muslims, ISIS is free to behead and slaughter who they want to without worrying about the US.

Aside from being a completely ignorant and petty statement, it's clearly wrong. ISIS worries constantly about the US. First, because we've been continually bombing and killing their leaders for months (you're aware of this, yes?), and more importantly second, they're trying to draw us into a ground fight to aid their recruiting efforts. Nearly everything they produce is geared towards trying to intimidate the US.

Even on the Streets of Boston !

http://controversialtimes.com/news/break...ers-video/

And we're shutting them down. They're not succeeding. What more do you want? Seeking out to enact widespread retribution has been shown not to help our cause, and that's not to mention the cost in human lives it would cost. I get it, you want us to swing our imperial d*ck around a little bit, and I really do understand that. But it's not helping our cause, so get over it.

Oh yeah. We're definitely shutting them down. They're not succeeding.

Do you actually believe the things you say? We stopped a couple homegrown attacks, but in regards to the Middle East, we haven't done dick to stop or slow ISIS.

Shutting them down, per UCF.

(06-04-2015 03:47 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:10 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 04:53 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  When you have a 100% p#ssy as President who loves Muslims, ISIS is free to behead and slaughter who they want to without worrying about the US.

Aside from being a completely ignorant and petty statement, it's clearly wrong. ISIS worries constantly about the US. First, because we've been continually bombing and killing their leaders for months (you're aware of this, yes?), and more importantly second, they're trying to draw us into a ground fight to aid their recruiting efforts. Nearly everything they produce is geared towards trying to intimidate the US.

Even on the Streets of Boston !

http://controversialtimes.com/news/break...ers-video/

And we're shutting them down. They're not succeeding. What more do you want? Seeking out to enact widespread retribution has been shown not to help our cause, and that's not to mention the cost in human lives it would cost. I get it, you want us to swing our imperial d*ck around a little bit, and I really do understand that. But it's not helping our cause, so get over it.

Oh yeah. We're definitely shutting them down. They're not succeeding.

Do you actually believe the things you say? We stopped a couple homegrown attacks, but in regards to the Middle East, we haven't done dick to stop or slow ISIS.

Shutting them down, per UCF.

I'm sorry, I should have specified that I meant in regards to them actually affecting americans. The middle-east being a cluster isn't exactly new nor can be reasonably blamed on any single administration.

(06-04-2015 03:47 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 03:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:10 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 04:53 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  When you have a 100% p#ssy as President who loves Muslims, ISIS is free to behead and slaughter who they want to without worrying about the US.

Aside from being a completely ignorant and petty statement, it's clearly wrong. ISIS worries constantly about the US. First, because we've been continually bombing and killing their leaders for months (you're aware of this, yes?), and more importantly second, they're trying to draw us into a ground fight to aid their recruiting efforts. Nearly everything they produce is geared towards trying to intimidate the US.

Even on the Streets of Boston !

http://controversialtimes.com/news/break...ers-video/

And we're shutting them down. They're not succeeding. What more do you want? Seeking out to enact widespread retribution has been shown not to help our cause, and that's not to mention the cost in human lives it would cost. I get it, you want us to swing our imperial d*ck around a little bit, and I really do understand that. But it's not helping our cause, so get over it.

Oh yeah. We're definitely shutting them down. They're not succeeding.

Do you actually believe the things you say? We stopped a couple homegrown attacks, but in regards to the Middle East, we haven't done dick to stop or slow ISIS.

Shutting them down, per UCF.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

Course who can trust a right wing rag like the NYTimes?

Again, I should have specified that I meant we've shut down any attempt they've tried to harm America directly. Which we have. They aren't a legitimate threat to american lives in any significant way, and we might want to go back to the sort of policies which focus on that fact instead of acting like a world police force on our own.

But please, I'd love for you to try to explain why this time, intervening in the middle east will totally work out for the best.

As I said in another thread, it isn't just like there's a foreign group sitting on this territory and occupying it. They've got their tendrils everywhere in society, doing just enough of the "right things" (offering necessary services, building roads, hospitals, etc. that, although would be good if built by world standards, exist just to enforce their laws further) to suppress any opposition in the general public and keep them in a state of slavery. This is not something you can just: bomb them (thousands of enslaved civilians will die if you hit an ISIS camp which isn't ONLY fighters); march in and say, "Okay, civilians! We're here to liberate you!" (they're everywhere in the region and have built their military around the terrain to assure rule); or file a complaint somewhere (won't do any good -- they only listen to themselves and their own desires for more power). Thus, this is an extremely difficult situation.

(06-04-2015 06:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Again, I should have specified that I meant we've shut down any attempt they've tried to harm America directly. Which we have. They aren't a legitimate threat to american lives in any significant way, and we might want to go back to the sort of policies which focus on that fact instead of acting like a world police force on our own.

But please, I'd love for you to try to explain why this time, intervening in the middle east will totally work out for the best.

And again, you're furiously back-pedaling as usual.

But that's okay. Is the Middle East, and the world as a whole, better off with a strong USA, or the current weak one?

I'll hang up and take the answer off the air...

(06-04-2015 08:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  As I said in another thread, it isn't just like there's a foreign group sitting on this territory and occupying it. They've got their tendrils everywhere in society, doing just enough of the "right things" (offering necessary services, building roads, hospitals, etc. that, although would be good if built by world standards, exist just to enforce their laws further) to suppress any opposition in the general public and keep them in a state of slavery. This is not something you can just: bomb them (thousands of enslaved civilians will die if you hit an ISIS camp which isn't ONLY fighters); march in and say, "Okay, civilians! We're here to liberate you!" (they're everywhere in the region and have built their military around the terrain to assure rule); or file a complaint somewhere (won't do any good -- they only listen to themselves and their own desires for more power). Thus, this is an extremely difficult situation.

Granted.

Soooo, best to simply sit idly by and watch them get slaughtered? That appears to be the leftists and this regimes "solution".

Do you disagree? Then what? Book of the Month club?

Remember this. Eastern Syria is a Sunni majority in a country governed by a Shia elite group that live along the coast and coastal mountains. Western Iraq is a Sunni minority in a country governed by a Shia majority. The area encompassed by ISIS today probably should be an independent nation with a Sunni government. The problem is that ISIS is the only Sunni power to come forward so far. The US has a history of all to often backing the wrong side. This is one case where we are trying to defeat the one power that arguably represents the wishes of the people living within its footprint.

Of course the problem with an independent Sunni nation in the area is that it would be incredibly poor--no oil, no water, no coast.

Sad to say, the further things go, the more it looks as if Saddam--a Sunni who could wield power over a Shia majority--was probably the best solution for Iraq.

(06-04-2015 08:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  As I said in another thread, it isn't just like there's a foreign group sitting on this territory and occupying it. They've got their tendrils everywhere in society, doing just enough of the "right things" (offering necessary services, building roads, hospitals, etc. that, although would be good if built by world standards, exist just to enforce their laws further) to suppress any opposition in the general public and keep them in a state of slavery. This is not something you can just: bomb them (thousands of enslaved civilians will die if you hit an ISIS camp which isn't ONLY fighters); march in and say, "Okay, civilians! We're here to liberate you!" (they're everywhere in the region and have built their military around the terrain to assure rule); or file a complaint somewhere (won't do any good -- they only listen to themselves and their own desires for more power). Thus, this is an extremely difficult situation.

Kind of Like the Democrat Party! BTW ,I'm Not Comparing Democrats with the Horrible ISIS but with the analogy Posted

(06-05-2015 02:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Again, I should have specified that I meant we've shut down any attempt they've tried to harm America directly. Which we have. They aren't a legitimate threat to american lives in any significant way, and we might want to go back to the sort of policies which focus on that fact instead of acting like a world police force on our own.

But please, I'd love for you to try to explain why this time, intervening in the middle east will totally work out for the best.

And again, you're furiously back-pedaling as usual.

But that's okay. Is the Middle East, and the world as a whole, better off with a strong USA, or the current weak one?

I'll hang up and take the answer off the air...

I'm not furiously backpedaling, this stance mirrors literally everything I've ever stated on my feelings about ISIS. I know you're desperate for a GOTCHA! moment from me, everyone needs a win after a string of embarrassing defeats, but this isn't it.

As to your question, I don't accept the premise that the US is currently weak. Like, at all. Because we aren't. At all.

(06-05-2015 02:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Remember this. Eastern Syria is a Sunni majority in a country governed by a Shia elite group that live along the coast and coastal mountains. Western Iraq is a Sunni minority in a country governed by a Shia majority. The area encompassed by ISIS today probably should be an independent nation with a Sunni government. The problem is that ISIS is the only Sunni power to come forward so far. The US has a history of all to often backing the wrong side. This is one case where we are trying to defeat the one power that arguably represents the wishes of the people living within its footprint.

Of course the problem with an independent Sunni nation in the area is that it would be incredibly poor--no oil, no water, no coast.

Sad to say, the further things go, the more it looks as if Saddam--a Sunni who could wield power over a Shia majority--was probably the best solution for Iraq.

It took about two years for the Sunni Tribes to realize the Iron Rule of AQ-I wasn't the answer.

(06-05-2015 04:54 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  As I said in another thread, it isn't just like there's a foreign group sitting on this territory and occupying it. They've got their tendrils everywhere in society, doing just enough of the "right things" (offering necessary services, building roads, hospitals, etc. that, although would be good if built by world standards, exist just to enforce their laws further) to suppress any opposition in the general public and keep them in a state of slavery. This is not something you can just: bomb them (thousands of enslaved civilians will die if you hit an ISIS camp which isn't ONLY fighters); march in and say, "Okay, civilians! We're here to liberate you!" (they're everywhere in the region and have built their military around the terrain to assure rule); or file a complaint somewhere (won't do any good -- they only listen to themselves and their own desires for more power). Thus, this is an extremely difficult situation.

Kind of Like the Democrat Party! BTW ,I'm Not Comparing Democrats with the Horrible ISIS but with the analogy Posted

Not just like the Democratic Party. Both parties offer incentives to various groups for support if/when they get into politics. That's just how it works, and ISIS is no different although their endgoals are quite obviously horrific. Your analogy is more in tune with civilization in general and organized government. No government can exist without offering services and enforcing laws, since that is the entire point of having any organized society. You give something and you get something in return. The difference is ISIS wants you to give everything and in return they don't kill you. It's not like anyone in either party in the US is doing that.

In response to JMUDunk:

I had begun to type that I think a CIA Northern Alliance-type of operation like what was used to destabilize the Taliban in Afghanistan would probably be a better solution. Obviously, it will have to be some type of combination of clandestine operations and aerial strikes, but combating ISIS instead of a comparatively weaker organization globally like the Taliban is obviously more difficult. We can't just sit back and let them do whatever they want, but the options are a lot more limited. I'm a big proponent of intelligence operations and I think precision strikes and acts are a lot more important and meaningful in the long run, and to be quite honest I just don't see many other alternatives other than trying to uproot them from within by trying to forge alliances with tribal groups and directing CIA/NSA/etc. resources towards the fight.