LeoVlaming
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Oh yes! It was all great in Iraq when we were there! It was stable! Not corrupt! Not under constant attacks from terrorist groups! It was great! :roll:
The intelligence communities consensus 2006 NIE concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. I doubt that by pointing that out that they were declaring that Saddam Hussein was a good guy.
During the US occupation Iraq was the world's major killing ground for destroying jihadi terrorists. I think it was better to fight and kill them there than in Europe or North America. But you might disagree of course.
Well, first, no that isn;t what the document says. It says that Iraq had become the cause of some Jihadists, but they never said that the AQI constituted a direct threat to the US. But then it is also old news since the surge pushed AQI out of Iraq. It was our withdraw from Iraq that opened the door for their return, bolstered by our secret weapon supplies to Syrian rebels.
It said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. There were no Islamic extremists operational in Iraq until the US showed up.
And it also said that defeating AQI is the path to reducing recruitment of Jihad because it was the perception of success that created recruitment opportunities. The AQI that joined as the result of the short term success of AQI in the time of that assessment were killed or run off by the surge. As of 2009 AQI was a shell of its former self.
ISIS recruitment has indeed been driven by perceived success since Obama took office. Obama's idiotic policies 1) Helped ISIS align to a new cause in Syria and 2) opened the door for them to waltz in to Iraq and takeover vast swaths of the country with ease.
Again, to properly assess what policies created ISIS you have to look at the state of AQI when Obama took office. Al Qaeda in Iraq was not even in Iraq anymore. It was done.
The idiocy in Libya, terrible policy in Syria and an even worse decision in Iraq breathed life back into Al Qaeda under Obama's watch and gave them new purpose. They were so empowered by Obama's weakness that they changed their goal from driving the US out of Iraq to conquering the entire Middle East.
Oh, well then there's no reason for us to be involved. The U.S. is a strong supporter of self-determination.
They have some support in Anbar but they don't in other regions. If ISIS are allowed to to gain control of Anbar it could get out of control fast.
Do you expect that the British are going to be going back to Iraq to see to that?
You'll get no argument from me that Obama's ME policies have taken what Bush screwed up and made it multiples worse. I've pointed this out endlessly. A dozen years of failed policy in the ME has the region in pitiful condition.
The problem is that the 2006 NIE proposed a problem that was solved by 2009. As such it is hard to blame Bush for the state of Iraq today. If the best argument against Bush is that Iraq would be better today with Saddam then the case is weak. You would only be replacing a brutal insurgency with institutionalized tyranical brutality. ISIS is a bunch of pikers compared to Saddam.
The only reason why ISIS is successful is because we don't commit to eradicating them.
No unfourtuntly not, people in the West have yet to work out how dangerous ISIS are and how dangerous they could yet become.
During the US occupation Iraq was the world's major killing ground for destroying jihadi terrorists. I think it was better to fight and kill them there than in Europe or North America. But you might disagree of course.
What does that have to do with the comment you just quoted?
No unfourtuntly not, people in the West have yet to work out how dangerous ISIS are and how dangerous they could yet become.
Also the arguement can be made that ISIS were pushed out of Iraq during the "awakening" and that it was the inaction/instablilty in Syria that allowed them to grow in numbers and become what we see them as today.
If you find it too difficult to read your own postings I can't really help you.
If that's what the Iraqi people want...They have some support in Anbar but they don't in other regions. If ISIS are allowed to to gain control of Anbar it could get out of control fast.
That somehow us destabilizing Iraq and opening up to terrorists worldwide, somehow is good? Bad? What?
The problem is that the 2006 NIE proposed a problem that was solved by 2009. As such it is hard to blame Bush for the state of Iraq today. If the best argument against Bush is that Iraq would be better today with Saddam then the case is weak. You would only be replacing a brutal insurgency with institutionalized tyranical brutality. ISIS is a bunch of pikers compared to Saddam.
The only reason why ISIS is successful is because we don't commit to eradicating them.
I see. But you would like to see the British lead the charge and deal with the Islamic State?
Also the arguement can be made that ISIS were pushed out of Iraq during the "awakening" and that it was the inaction/instablilty in Syria that allowed them to grow in numbers and become what we see them as today.
On our own no, to make it credible many countries have to be involved inlcuding the Arab nations. Any intervention can't be seen as a western invasion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?