Forums Register login What's New?
What was done is being undone...Iraq
Page 5 of 31
  1. Aren't most people here, and in general, "predictable"? Maybe they are pathetic....and also an attempt to further the discussion. The President is currently frozen it seems on the issue. In 48 hours, he has gone from firm on doing nothing, to sending ships to the gulf, to now maybe we want to work with Iran. It's not an easy situation.

    If you have something firm in terms of an argument, by all means, put it out there. The drive-by insult is fun but not very conducive.
  2. Well, they had better get "radical" themselves or they will lose the civil war that is upon them.

    Use of airpower is a mixed bag. If we do any kind of serious close air support, we could lose some planes and have pilots captured. On the other hand it would give us convenient access and an excuse to badly damage ISIL and some other radicals for reasons of our own involving Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Jordan, and Al Qaeda.

    The kurds want a three-way split of the country and to be independent. Of course, the Sunnis and Shia want their oilfields and will be a problem for them. The Kurds were the ones that played ball with us during the occupation. If we get into this in any way it will likely be to protect an emerging Kurdistan from Iran and Iraq and possibly Turkey. Turkey has to be reminded who the Superpower is from time to time.
  3. it wasnt an insult at all, im referencing your responses to this particular issue as with most. Nothing personal at all.

    just as fluid as this situation is, the president has to be fluid in the facts and his responses. i have no problem with what he has said or done this far.
    Hawks, as you seem to be trending towards are absolutist on every similar matter, it hasnt worked out well in this region.
    you are basically playing Monday morning QB on every thing he has said regarding this situation.
  4. Democrats have been blaming Bush for Iraq. Fine. Then Senator Obama (in 2007), opposed the surge, claiming it would encourage sectarian violence, that things would get worse, not better.

    In 2010, Joe Biden said, "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

    I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences." lol.

    "In 2011, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, recommended keeping between 14,000 and 18,000 troops in Iraq (down from 45,000). The White House rejected Austin’s recommendation, worried about “the cost and the political optics.” So our commanders reduced their request to 10,000 — a number commanders said might be able to work “in extremis.” But the White House rejected this as well, insisting the number be cut to between 3,000 to 4,000 troops — a level insufficient to provide force protection and train Iraqis, much less to counterbalance Iran."

    The power vacuum left behind was filled by ISIS. Iraq actually went to Iran for help after we turned them down. Now that embassy personnel are in danger and people are being murdered, Obama is now considering some type of agreement with Iran!
    LSUTiga likes this.
  5. Nobody wants Iraq to be a permanent US military base like Japan or Germany. They got nuthin' that we need. Not one damn thing. We never needed to go to war against Iraq and now we damn sure don't need to go to war to defend them!

    Whenever we left, be it four years ago or 40 years from now, they are going to go back to fighting each other like they have for thousands of years.

    I'd really like some of these Obama bashers to make a case for why we should be fighting for Iraq, when the bastards won't fight for themselves.
    LSUMASTERMIND and LSUsupaFan like this.
  6. It was a mistake to go, why waste more of our time, talent, and treasure to accomplish an undefined and likely impossible goal. The drawdown in Iraq is one of the few things Obama got right.

  7. Obama's really "all in" on this one. A whopin 275 troops. lmao

  8. I have been hesitant to criticize Obama on this. We pulled out like we should have but now the vacuum left is pulling our enemy, Al Qaeda, in. Iraq is a front to fight these guys instead of on our shores. There must be people in Iraq that value the new freedom that is being taken from them and we still could provide assistance.

    I don't think this is an easy decision and it is probably one of those decisions that there is right or wrong answer. Just chose and suffer the consequences. I do think we are leaning more and more to the defense of what we helped establish. I think we should not have gone in the first place but that does not justify doing nothing now.

    Would you be critical if Obama chose to defend Baghdad and help re-establish order?
  9. Again, it's more complex than this. ISIS didn't move in just because the US left. ISIS has moved in because Maliki has persecuted the Sunnis. Sure we could send troops in and restore order, but why would we do that when as soon as we left the Shi'ite leaders would just start the cycle back over again? There are no signs that this civil war will lead to terrorist attacks in the US. This is strictly an internal Iraq issue, just like Vietnam in the 1970s, Korea in the 1960s and China in the 1950s.

    They're not going to learn their mistakes if the price is paid with American blood.
    Contained Chaos, LSUsupaFan, red55 and 1 other person like this.
  10. Rare is the day I agree with @MLUTiger on a political stance
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 5 of 31