(06-16-2014 10:24 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 10:21 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 09:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 09:49 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 09:27 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Huh?

I was never that optimistic that you could have a good ending to this. Obama did pretty much what Bush did, except that after 10+ years, decided it was time to get out. So either we stay there forever or we get out. We can't afford the former and may have to just tolerate the results of the latter.

Both failed to notice a pathway to victory and one gave up. Which is more respectable?

Which pathway was that?

Splitting Iraq up.

Probably going to split up without our help. But this way we won't get blamed (or, not as much) for the location of the dividing line.

A brief history of the situation there:

• At the end of his term Bush outlined and negotiated a timeline to get US
• Troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011
• Iraq Failed to renew the status of forces agreement that would've given US troops immunity from prosecution (Obama had wanted to keep more advisors on the ground)
• Without the status of forces agreement, US troops were withdrawn at the end of 2011
• Maliki has since marginalize the Sunni population and what has happened in response is that the Sunnis welcomed in ISIS... there's not much chance this would have happened without local complicity
  

(06-16-2014 07:53 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  New city captured

The situation continues to deepen.

On a particularly interesting note, they reported that the Obama Admin. is perhaps willing to have direct talks with Iran over the Iraqi question.

Generally, I'm a fan of open relations with Iran and talks with them, but not this time. Talks on the subject with them are counterproductive and signal weakness instead of strength.

that was one of his big things in the primaries in 2008 -- his willingness to have bilateral talks without preconditions. as president, he has always been willing to have direct talks with whatever lunatic muslim whackjob that wasn't a republican congressman or didn't work for fox news.

Obama will send 275 troops to protect US personnel and Embassy. Is that enough?

(06-16-2014 07:44 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Obama will send 275 troops to protect US personnel and Embassy. Is that enough?

Not without a comma and three zeros. It's far better to have zero than not enough.

(06-16-2014 08:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 07:44 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Obama will send 275 troops to protect US personnel and Embassy. Is that enough?

Not without a comma and three zeros. It's far better to have zero than not enough.

275 is a political number, enough to say he's doing all he can to protect US personnel still in Iraq, but not enough to risk significant loss if a major conflict arises. I suspect in Obama's mind 275 is considered acceptable loss.

(06-16-2014 08:23 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 08:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 07:44 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Obama will send 275 troops to protect US personnel and Embassy. Is that enough?

Not without a comma and three zeros. It's far better to have zero than not enough.

275 is a political number, enough to say he's doing all he can to protect US personnel still in Iraq, but not enough to risk significant loss if a major conflict arises. I suspect in Obama's mind 275 is considered acceptable loss.

I'm surprised he didn't pick 435 select troops.

An alternate way to look at this entire situation is to look at the flag that someone carries as a flag of convenience - whoever pays the money and supplies the guns gets their flag hoisted by the men with guns. It is likely that in any given city in the middle east at any given time, that if you told the population that they could round up 100 men and slaughter them in a ditch with impunity that you would not find any difficulty finding executioners or a list of victims. I think that's what this wave of ISIS flowing over Iraq represents. It's the opportunity for retribution against enemy tribes - Maliki's mismanagement of the country provided the willingness for retribution against Shiites, and this is more a wave of opportunity than anything else. The cities that have fallen are Sunni cities under the thumb of /Shiite national army (at least Shiite by association). I don't see this ending with ISIS taking over Baghdad, which I think is majority Shiite although a mixed population. The resolution is either a divided state, or seeing the Shiites exert brutal control over the rest of the country and drop the pretense of democracy.

This may be Iran's Afghanistan (analogous to Soviet occupation). Iran is or may be stretched thin with Syria and Iraq on its plate... since the umbrella rebels are really the same in both Syria and Iraq, it may be best to leave the problem to Iran and let it bleed them thin.

Given that their advance has been in Sunni areas (low hanging fruit for them), I can't see this ending with ISIS control over Iraq in just about any scenario.

We should merge about 4 threads.

(06-16-2014 08:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 07:44 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Obama will send 275 troops to protect US personnel and Embassy. Is that enough?

Not without a comma and three zeros. It's far better to have zero than not enough.

EXACTLY.

(06-17-2014 12:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We should merge about 4 threads.

You should take out your weenur, shake it at the neighbors dog, and drink a beer while you smurf your leg.

Just kidding

WWPBD?

What Would Paul Bremer Do?

I wish I could find the Bush sound bites he made in 2008 when he said exiting Iraq and leaving 0 US troop presence would lead to a terrorist group overrunning Iraq to replace the Afghanistan terrorist home. He also added the military cost to retake Iraq after this happens will be far higher than when we first took it.

Hannity played this today, and everything Bush predicted is happening, down to the mass executions.

(06-17-2014 05:36 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I wish I could find the Bush sound bites he made in 2008 when he said exiting Iraq and leaving 0 US troop presence would lead to a terrorist group overrunning Iraq to replace the Afghanistan terrorist home. He also added the military cost to retake Iraq after this happens will be far higher than when we first took it.

Hannity played this today, and everything Bush predicted is happening, down to the mass executions.

Was it before or after he signed the agreement to remove all troops from Iraq?

Protip: Stop listening to Hannity.

So. the ISIS dudes are now using US Humvees and weapons and have a half a billion dollars in cash from a bank they took over. Nice.

(06-18-2014 08:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 05:36 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I wish I could find the Bush sound bites he made in 2008 when he said exiting Iraq and leaving 0 US troop presence would lead to a terrorist group overrunning Iraq to replace the Afghanistan terrorist home. He also added the military cost to retake Iraq after this happens will be far higher than when we first took it.

Hannity played this today, and everything Bush predicted is happening, down to the mass executions.

Was it before or after he signed the agreement to remove all troops from Iraq?

Protip: Stop listening to Hannity.

you people are just clinical. absolutely clinical. you're someone's dissertation in abnormal psychology. which is all fine and good, as far as republicans are concerned. as long as you blame your abject failures on a guy who's name hasn't been on a ballot in a decade, you'll never fix the massive, fatal flaws in your political philosophy. in short, you aren't done shooting yourself in the foot yet.

so, blame on. just understand that every time you liberals say "george bush's fault", we quietly celebrate. it means you still don't get it.

we're going to clean up in november.

Eagle, who designed the Iraq war and planned for the exit strategy by signing the status of forces of agreement removing all US forces from Iraq?

I know it's not very convenient for you and your agenda, but it wasn't Obama and the Democrats.

Sorry.

(06-18-2014 08:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Eagle, who designed the Iraq war and planned for the exit strategy by signing the status of forces of agreement removing all US forces from Iraq?

I know it's not very convenient for you and your agenda, but it wasn't Obama and the Democrats.

Sorry.

tell me, what do you see when you look at this picture?

So, Bush was saying that he got us into a war we could never leave. Gotcha.

(06-18-2014 08:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So, Bush was saying that he got us into a war we could never leave. Gotcha.

Surprisingly...the use of force authorization is still law and still in effect. Unless it is repealed, we can keep on keeping on in perpetuity.

(06-18-2014 08:19 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Eagle, who designed the Iraq war and planned for the exit strategy by signing the status of forces of agreement removing all US forces from Iraq?

I know it's not very convenient for you and your agenda, but it wasn't Obama and the Democrats.

Sorry.

tell me, what do you see when you look at this picture?

EagleX finally admitting defeat.