- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 24,826
- Reaction score
- 8,345
- Location
- Northern New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The American people really should be outraged by what comes down to dereliction of duty by this president. So, Obama decided not to do anything about ISIS because he needed to promote that OBL is dead and GM is alive. He had actionable intelligence before the election, but kept a lid on on it. Nice job, Hussein.Kinda hard to do the work you've been elected to do when you spend more hours on the golf course than hours you spend in daily intelligence briefings.
Oh that's a new one.
Tell me, if things were so unstable and left over from Bush why did Obama decide to leave?
Are you saying Maliki wasn't elected? So how did he get re-elected in 2010 and just how did Bush Junior help him with that?
Uhm, you know al Sistani and al Sadr are the real control of the Shia in Iraq......Correct?
Also, if we you are using the excuse about helping with Genocide. How does this Play out for BO with the Syrian MB backed Sunni Rebels who used Chems on people and Slaughtered Christians.
The American people really should be outraged by what comes down to dereliction of duty by this president. So, Obama decided not to do anything about ISIS because he needed to promote that OBL is dead and GM is alive. He had actionable intelligence before the election, but kept a lid on on it. Nice job, Hussein.
In addition to that, the PDB is one of the most important aspects of his job, and he mostly ignores it. When he does glance at it, no explanation needed, the community organizer/president is the first one that has no questions with the PDB. He doesn't read it, because he won't do anything about what's in it. Boy, did we get screwed by the fools that elected this guy. We are paying for it now, and will continue to pay for it a long way down the road.
While Makiki was elected, there was no way he would gave been able to take power without American consent.
Yeah, especially since Obama was running on a platform of having killed Osama, al-Qaeda was on the run and Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration...you're are damned right it would be a "hard sell"..
But note, in Obama's defense his followers immediately turn to the political question and Obama's electoral standing as opposed to what's right. And thank you for documenting so succinctly the nature of the problem with Obama's presidency....it's all for image.
And who would have been giving him consent in 2010, again?
That an absolute lie. But don't take my word for it. Ask Joe Biden who in 2010 (that would be two years after Bush left office) proclaimed that Iraq would be "One of Obama's great achievements." Obama lost control of Iraq and its collapse came six years into Obamas term. To continue to claim its all Bushs fault at this point destroys any credibility you might have.
Given the circumstances under which the United States operated, it is difficult to see, if Maliki had been afforded three further years of direct military support—troops with targets painted on their backs—how the Iraqi state could have fared better so long as the current Prime Minister remained at the helm. Keeping a U.S. garrison beyond 2011 might have maintained security, but it would have brought Iraq little closer to sustainable democracy. Keeping that garrison over the objection of Iraq’s elected government would surely have made things worse. Either way, more American lives might have been lost.
At the hands of another leader, strategic victory might have come easier in Iraq—but this is a counterfactual. Maliki’s candidacy was vetted and backed by the CIA in 2006; in time, he had become the subject of path dependency. By 2011, the ouster of Maliki, twice-elected, might well have undermined the entire credibility Iraqi democratization. If Maliki is removed now, as many are advocating, it may address an immediate problem, but it will still be a process of many years to reach an enduring political conciliation. And such a transition in leadership must be driven by the Iraqi people.
Ultimately, those insisting that the United States military should have remained in Iraq indefinitely—akin to the open-ended American commitment in Korea—do not champion a practical alternative so much as a hope that things could have eventually gotten better. While a powerful emotional appeal, this is not a strategy.
I am not soley blaming Bush.
As I see it.....there is no way Bush Junior can be blamed for ISIL nor for them becoming ISIS.
Like I mentioned earlier.....BO could have be doing Airstrikes in Iraq and could have taken out half of what ISIS stole from 4 Military bases. They would not have been able to take Assad's Military bases without the use of our Tanks. They would not have taken possession of the Scud Missiles Assad has.
Even Today Turkey said they will jump into the fight. But Erdogan wants the long term Solution. He has already made statements concerning the effectiveness of airstrikes. So truthfully it is a call out on BO since BO touted he was leading the way.
Of course ISIS isn't Bush's fault.
I also don't see success without "boots on the ground."
Yep, he campaigned on making us less safe, and kept to it. Bravo, Hussein! Trouble is, anyone that voted for him didn't understand the consequences of putting him in office.Bush "decided to leave" in 2008 when he signed an agreement to "leave". Obama's choice was to re-invade Iraq against Maliki's rule and he decided he STILL thought invading Iraq was a bad idea. Imagine that, a President the actually does what he campaigned to do. The nerve of him.
In 2012 ISIS was exclusively in Syria. Do you think we should have invaded Syria then? McCain wanted to arm the rebels which ISIS was a part of but you think we should have invaded Syria to aid Assad? How are we paying for it? By not losing troops in a civil war in Iraq? I'll take those "losses" any day.
Ok? But be aware that someone will fill that void.If that is true, then they have already lost. They simply lack the ability or the support. And if we quit helping them garner support, they'd be even less now.
Silly bunny, he allowed Isis to take back all the cities Americans fought, and died for to free the Iraqi people, but he doesn't care.hey were the JV no threat
And Bush retired - 6 years ago. We got a new CEO. One who either is incompetant, or hires incompetant people, who do not keep him informed, which is incompetant.
...Their goals are clear, and they continue to say them outright, and that is the global caliphate, the domination of Shria everywhere. ....
I think Obama believes that, if we withdraw from all the attacks, invasions, coups, etc. and mind our own business that things will calm down in the world. It is an appealing idea. Sadly, it hasn't worked. ...
I wonder if you actually adequately parsed what you are saying here. Are you saying that we allowed ISIS to run roughshod over half of Iraq because Maliki was a bad guy? First off, worse then ISIS? And second, worse than Saddam Hussein?
Surely you aren't serious...
And Bush retired - 6 years ago. We got a new CEO. One who either is incompetant, or hires incompetant people, who do not keep him informed, which is incompetant.
Of course ISIS isn't Bush's fault.
I also don't see success without "boots on the ground."
Yeah, and we cant wait 3 years to train up the minimum of what General Dempsey said would be needed.....nor can we just rely on those Arab states to accomplish the mission.
I see years of not knowing who the enemy is if we put boots on the ground. About the only thing boots on the ground can do to identify the enemy is to stand out in the open until someone starts shooting at them. I don't call that a victory, I call that stupid.
Its not the responsibility of US troops to die fighting for Iraq. That's Iraq's responsibility. I don't mind aiding them to do what they can't do, but I'm not going to do for them what they can (should) do for themselves.
We already have "boots on the ground"...
Hopefully not standing out in the open as bate for ISIS fighters.
Seriously, what would US combat troops do? Go house to house asking people if they are the enemy? Order all ISIS fighters to report and stand in line for execution?
We can't tell the difference between ISIS and the native population (and they probably can't tell the difference either). But you can bet that ISIS can identify US troops. US boots on the ground would either have to just kill everyone indiscriminately (which we can do from the air anyhow), or stand around waiting for someone to start shooting at them. Either way, I don't see that as a winning situation.
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?