Clearly our withdrawal was a success. The Islamic State is a peaceful, just, and virtuous crowd of misunderstood Muslim Westerners who seek to create better lives for the people of Iraq and Syria! As you can see by one of the charts posted earlier by another member, the amount of deaths in Iraq have skyrocketed after our withdrawal - more than doubled.
Do you believe the Middle East, more specifically Syria and Iraq, is better-off now under the Islamic State than it was under American occupation?
The point clearly went over your head. Get someone to explain it to you.How many Islamic Extremists are there in Germany, South Korea or Japan? Do you happen to have any more absurd comparisons?
You can pretty much take it as a given thet they are not there and they are feeling that they are risking their lives for no support will be arriving from anyone. Thats quite a different situation fron IS who is recruiting members from all over the world. Are you equating Iraqi forces with American or Coalition forces?Moreover, if international forces would not be responsible for maintaining order, what would the be the point of having them there? The Iraqi military has over 270,000 active duty members, yet they can't maintain order and safety in their own country. We would have to fill that roll if we were there.
This has nothing to do with being "The World's Police". The American people committed themselves to a war, lost many good people, spent billions of dollars, eliminated an insanely murderous dictator, introduced democracy to the country for the first time in its history and then made an ignoble retreat by throwing it all away.
That has absolutely nothing to do with being the "World's Police", something Congress never approved anyway.
They did that under that madman Hussein too. Pansies. :lol:
Democracy did arrive in Iraq, people voted and people were elected. All went well and the citizens defied terrorist threats. Maybe its best to show you in pictures. https://www.google.ca/search?q=imag...QIY6zogT-o4HoDQ&ved=0CCAQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=742Sorry, democracy was NOT introduced. That was a facade of democracy. The US, nor a combination of the coalition of the willing, waved a magic wand, and suddenly Iraq was a democracy. And we spent trillions, and eliminated in Powell's words a leader that provided relative peace and stability.
On the Democracy Index, Iraq ranks poorly. Of the 167 countries ranked for 2013, Iraq was classified as a “hybrid regime” (between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”) and came in at a ranking of 113. In 2013, according to Transparency International, Iraq ranked among the eight most corrupt nations and territories in the world* (with corruption defined as “abuse of entrusted power for private gain”). Freedom House simply says: "Iraq is not an electoral democracy. Although it has conducted meaningful elections, political participation and decision-making in the country remain seriously impaired by sectarian and insurgent violence, widespread corruption, and the influence of foreign powers." Freedom House has also noted that hundreds of professors were killed and many fled the country during the height of the sectarian fighting, a blow to academic freedom; the judiciary's independence is threatened by political pressure, and sectarian violence continues to threaten religious freedom.
Why allowed them to take the city in the first place?
White House Promises to Bomb Ramadi Until City Retaken From ISIS | Military.com
On the Democracy Index, Iraq ranks poorly. Of the 167 countries ranked for 2013, Iraq was classified as a “hybrid regime” (between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”) and came in at a ranking of 113. In 2013, according to Transparency International, Iraq ranked among the eight most corrupt nations and territories in the world* (with corruption defined as “abuse of entrusted power for private gain”). Freedom House simply says: "Iraq is not an electoral democracy. Although it has conducted meaningful elections, political participation and decision-making in the country remain seriously impaired by sectarian and insurgent violence, widespread corruption, and the influence of foreign powers." Freedom House has also noted that hundreds of professors were killed and many fled the country during the height of the sectarian fighting, a blow to academic freedom; the judiciary's independence is threatened by political pressure, and sectarian violence continues to threaten religious freedom. [/QUOTE]Democracy did arrive in Iraq, people voted and people were elected. All went well and the citizens defied terrorist threats. Maybe its best to show you in pictures. https://www.google.ca/search?q=imag...QIY6zogT-o4HoDQ&ved=0CCAQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=742
Leading from behind and not leaving a force of 10K troops in Iraq is just working so well (walking backwards).
Lol. A token force of 10K wouldn't accomplish anything.
There wasn't much peace to "lose" in Iraq. That being said, it is true that the Obama administration's approach to jihadi terrorism in general, and the rise of IS in particular, has been pretty pathetic.
The UK television show " Top Gear " even did a Middle east special a few years back and drove through parts of the region that are now littered with ISIS fighters.
Leading from behind and not leaving a force of 10K troops in Iraq is just working so well (walking backwards).
Saddam was never an American "Buddy". He was being used during a period when he was necesssary and usefel to American interests.Please. Saddam was our buddy until it was politically unfavorable for him to be.
Releasing people from a degenerate dictatorship is always a moral high ground. Surely you must be aware of the genocide, the mass graves, etc. Is all this forgotten now in the revisionist blogs?There was no moral ground there. We destabilized an entire region, spent trillions of dollars on foreign occupation with no plan on how to secure the country for the long term, more than doubled our losses from 9/11, emboldened terrorists and created an environment ripe for terrorist generation.
No it didn't. Once the US and Coalition began the 'surge', which should have been ongoing frrom Day 1, Iraq was pretty much stable, just as Obama repeated so many times. But when he withdrew all that toppled. Thats when your point about "creating an environment ripe for a terrorist generation". There was none of that at the time of this "Greats=est Achievement".Our intervention made things worse.
Not only are you not the World's Police, Americans can no even be trusted to end a war that they themselves initiated, had won, and then threw it all away.When you go in blind and stupid, you have no chance to arrive at a proper conclusion. We are not the World Police, we are not imperials, we were not meant to fight Forever War.
There were open elections in Iraq. Even Iraqi Women were allowed to vote.
The UK television show " Top Gear " even did a Middle east special a few years back and drove through parts of the region that are now littered with ISIS fighters.
There were open elections in Iraq. Even Iraqi Women were allowed to vote.
The UK television show " Top Gear " even did a Middle east special a few years back and drove through parts of the region that are now littered with ISIS fighters.
The Military, and Romney, wanted 30,000 - 50,000 troops to remain while Obama want 3.000 to 5.000, which would only have put these people in harms way, just as he undermanned the troops in AfghanistanLol. A token force of 10K wouldn't accomplish anything.
The Military, and Romney, wanted 30,000 - 50,000 troops to remain while Obama want 3.000 to 5.000, which would only have put these people in harms way, just as he undermanned the troops in Afghanistan
It got them little after the troops left and IS took over, but of course you claimed earlier that it never made an appearance there at all. The troops should have remained, just as they did in Europe and elsewhere following WWII.To the bolded. Lol, and what did that get them.
It got them little after the troops left and IS took over, but of course you claimed earlier that it never made an appearance there at all. The troops should have remained, just as they did in Europe and elsewhere following WWII.
Our forces over there fighting IS now. Wish them luck.Americans elected Obama to bring our troops home. Perhaps you can get your Mounties over there to do what you think needs to be done.
Our forces over there fighting IS now. Wish them luck.
You made the claim earlier that Iraq was not a Democracy, then you said it was. Are you now claiming that Iraq was a well established democracy, like Germany, Japan, or South Korea and therefore could stand on its own???Democracies don't need troop enforcement. Thanks much for making my point.
You made the claim earlier that Iraq was not a Democracy, then you said it was. Are you now claiming that Iraq was a well established democracy, like Germany, Japan, or South Korea and therefore could stand on its own???
You feel the US will be disbanding their military any time soon?
"Leading from behind?"
As opposed to what?
And at present, we live in a US dominated uni-polar world.
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
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?