(06-19-2014 08:13 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 06:33 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  solutions is even the wrong word.
I should say options. We have no easy options over there. Even using the term solution gives false hope.

The problem was the short-sightedness of the entire process. You go into Iraq
with the plan of hanging out there for 50-60 years. If we as a nation weren't committed to that type of engagement, then we would have been better off simply letting SpecFor assassinate Saddam and his family while hunting OBL to the ends of the Earth.

Quite possibly so. That's certainly a better option than getting a few thousand Americans killed trying to occupy a country. We have accomplished as much change in that area as you change a bucket of water by sticking your hand into the water and then pulling it back out.

(06-19-2014 12:43 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  but . . . ISIS didn't exist until Obama dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. ISIS would have never existed if Obama had not dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq.

this blood is on your hands. you people should grow up for once, and accept responsibility for the consequence of your actions.

Here, I disagree with you. ISIS has existed for a while in various forms, but really gained its strength in Syria with the power vacuum among the rebel groups. Obama wanted to throw support in to the rebels - he wanted to but not badly. What has happened in the absence of that is that the Saudis funded Salafists and Qatar funded the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda groups, roughly in equal numbers. Rebels flocked to the groups with money and success, and that was generally ISIS. i heard discussion this morning that ISIS may be the first terror group that is self-funding, through criminal activities, oil revenue, and now bank robbery.

you're hanging on a word. fine, let's do it this way:

but . . . ISIS wasn't relevant until Obama dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. ISIS would have never been relevant if Obama had not dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq.

(06-18-2014 09:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't think Owl's scenario is realistic either. Much easier said then done. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have no easy solutions over there.

we didn't need a "solution" when President Pretentiousness ascended unto the throne. all we needed was to avoid a monumental phuck up.

but that is immediately where The One went, and he did it just as soon as he could. it was as though undoing GWB's win was his primary goal, irrespective of the future consequences.

Vice President Gaffe-bot assumed 100% of the responsibility for all iraq policy when he said that the cut-and-run maneuver would go down as "one of the great achievements of this administration".

ownership passed that day.

(06-19-2014 09:13 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 12:43 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  but . . . ISIS didn't exist until Obama dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. ISIS would have never existed if Obama had not dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq.

this blood is on your hands. you people should grow up for once, and accept responsibility for the consequence of your actions.

Here, I disagree with you. ISIS has existed for a while in various forms, but really gained its strength in Syria with the power vacuum among the rebel groups. Obama wanted to throw support in to the rebels - he wanted to but not badly. What has happened in the absence of that is that the Saudis funded Salafists and Qatar funded the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda groups, roughly in equal numbers. Rebels flocked to the groups with money and success, and that was generally ISIS. i heard discussion this morning that ISIS may be the first terror group that is self-funding, through criminal activities, oil revenue, and now bank robbery.

you're hanging on a word. fine, let's do it this way:

but . . . ISIS wasn't relevant until Obama dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. ISIS would have never been relevant if Obama had not dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq.

I'm not sure which word you think I'm hanging on. As for responsibility, Maliki chose to exercise power in Iraq to benefit his clan (Shia) almost exclusively. Obama bears little responsibility for Syria, aside from making the US look like clowns once again by drawing meaningless lines in the sand. But, to the extent we could influence winners, it's all about lawyers, guns and money... There was never going to be much willingness to send billions of dollars to Syrian rebels just so they could claim to be moderate and later fold into the Muslim Brotherhood.

(06-19-2014 10:36 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 09:13 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 12:43 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  but . . . ISIS didn't exist until Obama dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. ISIS would have never existed if Obama had not dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq.

this blood is on your hands. you people should grow up for once, and accept responsibility for the consequence of your actions.

Here, I disagree with you. ISIS has existed for a while in various forms, but really gained its strength in Syria with the power vacuum among the rebel groups. Obama wanted to throw support in to the rebels - he wanted to but not badly. What has happened in the absence of that is that the Saudis funded Salafists and Qatar funded the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda groups, roughly in equal numbers. Rebels flocked to the groups with money and success, and that was generally ISIS. i heard discussion this morning that ISIS may be the first terror group that is self-funding, through criminal activities, oil revenue, and now bank robbery.

you're hanging on a word. fine, let's do it this way:

but . . . ISIS wasn't relevant until Obama dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. ISIS would have never been relevant if Obama had not dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq.

I'm not sure which word you think I'm hanging on. As for responsibility, Maliki chose to exercise power in Iraq to benefit his clan (Shia) almost exclusively. Obama bears little responsibility for Syria, aside from making the US look like clowns once again by drawing meaningless lines in the sand. But, to the extent we could influence winners, it's all about lawyers, guns and money... There was never going to be much willingness to send billions of dollars to Syrian rebels just so they could claim to be moderate and later fold into the Muslim Brotherhood.

the one that was replaced by the bold letters.

you seem to have psychic powers, a crystal ball, and infinite wisdom in all world cultures. it's extraordinarily impressive how you move from one thing that you absolutely know, but no one else does, to the next.

(06-19-2014 01:13 PM)EagleX Wrote:  you seem to have psychic powers, a crystal ball, and infinite wisdom in all world cultures. it's extraordinarily impressive how you move from one thing that you absolutely know, but no one else does, to the next.

Why thank you very much.