Topic: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously (Read 3811 times)

The ISIS is much more dangerous then the government in Syria is. Syria can easily be wiped out by the rest of the world. The ISIS on the other hand is a terrorist organization who is actively committing genocide. 

You leftists and other PC maniacs do not understand that these guys will not stop when they reached the Syrian borders. In addition they don't have to go to the States for doing some harm, because of they are already there. These blokes are capable (or they will be capable shortly) to redraw the maps of the Middle-east, but today maybe not to late to hunt them down. You guys just doing the same what Baldwin and Chamberlain did in the thirties.

That has been to motto for the foreign policy for US for the last 40+ years.

Being a communist in the old day mean we will attack you even if you are 10 millions miles away.

Apparently, you need a reminder - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Qaeda, and we invaded Afghanistan to go after them, not Iraq.

I know that the time and effort I took to answer this was a waste, because I'm talking to a guy with the IQ of your average door knob, and I expect nothing but another indecipherable jumble of words in response, but hey - no one can say I didn't answer your questions.

As I stated above (you can look this up), the multi-national force involved in the invasion of Iraq was NOT under the auspices of NATO.

Not really, no. This was "the coalition of the willing" which was mostly the US and Great Britain. NATO as an organization was NOT involved in the decision to invade, and some members of NATO did not participate - in fact, refused to participate. NATO itself had a training mission of 150 advisors involved, but had no part in authorizing, planning or carrying out the mission.

Easy one. This comes under the heading of your weak language skills. Bush was in office for 8 years. The invasion of Iraq was in 2003, and the withdrawal was completed in December of 2011, as per the terms of the withdrawal agreement negotiated between the Iraqi and Bush governments -  also around 8 years. 8 years is, as I said, "the better part of 10 years". Do you need further help in understanding this language?

I'm not sure what the numbers were when Bush left office, but I'm sure it's information available if we were to look for it. The thing is, the number is irrelevant to the point. The fact is, the agreement for our withdrawal was negotiated under President Bush. It was not COMPLETED until Obama was in office, but it was still negotiated under Bush. As the deadline approached, the Iraqis expressed that they were not ready to take over security in their country (after all that time, they well should have been, but they became entirely too dependent on our forces to do it for them).  President Obama tried to negotiate an extension, but the Iraqis were unwilling to allow us to stay under the same terms they'd agreed to before - with an immunity for our personnel from prosecution under Iraqi civil authority. So, with that refusal, the Obama administration continued with the withdrawal. Responsibility for Iraq not being able to defend itself falls exclusively with Iraq - first, because after all that time, they should have been able to put together an Army that wouldn't drop their guns and run the moment someone says "BOO!" in their general direction, and second because they COULD have had us staying on to help them if they hadn't insisted on being able to arrest and jail American servicemen.

Not entirely sure what you are asking here (there's those language skills of yours), but let's just talk about those terrorist camps in Iraq prior to our invasion. They were actually there because WE were protecting them.  Surprised by that?  Well, it's essentially true. We set up these no fly zones and strictly enforced them against the Iraqi government.  The thing is, we didn't prepare for the side effect of the Iraqi government (under Saddam Hussein) not being able to mobilize against those terrorist groups - who hated him as much as they did us. Saddam Hussein was NOT supporting Al Qaeda, as was claimed by the Bush administration in the run-up to the invasion. They hated him, and he hated them.  And this was debunked before we invaded. So no, we did not invade Iraq to stop terrorism. And in the 20-20 vision of hind sight (and as many of us who opposed the invasion in the first place predicted) we have created a breeding ground for terrorism.

So then, the guy that was the lead of terrorists and thought to be in Iraq is not noticed or understood.  How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what?   Bush was in office for ten years??? NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Better ask the countries that were there.  Obviously 9/11 and those results  is not rememered or carred about?

Because they're different from us! And being different means you're evil!

It was Bush who was in charge when the entire Iraq army was disbanded, probably one of the most retarded decisions made by a modern US president.

If Saddam was still in power, ISIS probably wouldn't exist.

Why would they label IS as evil?  They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner.

Yeah, there were also supposed to be nuclear weapons weren't there?

His approval of the military strategy is a sound decision, the use of drones, bombing runs at ISIS, finally working in collusion with the Kurds (even on a small scale) is at least a step in the right direction. Demanding the Muslims of the ME bear the heavy lifting of ground fighting, also a good strategy.

I think in this case, Obama really does exemplify American foreign policy in our period of wannabe isolationists. We always do the right thing...after we've explored every other option.

Finally, an opinion:
 
In the US we have a powerful political factor that has a constant taste for war, and it is neverending. If we are at peace for a week folks like McCain are seeking wars out for us.
While that helps the defense industry, it does not help Americans. We won nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. But in each case we spent our wealth and American blood. How many of these wars must we fight before we turn on those who endlessly demand more blood for no purpose?

If you researched anything about Iraq, you would know that a lot was brewing there and if we had not taken action their whole country would have fallen a lot sooner and would have had no protection and no standing army. As it stands right now they do have a standing army but Obama deserted them. All they need is 3,000+ advisors and tech and radar and spy capabilities and their own army can do what needs to be done. When all us troops pulled out a lot of chaos ensued as what should be done and when and where the enemy is.

When the US left the iraqi army(once again abandoned by a democrat) was disorganized. take away a major structual foundation to an army and it doesnt function.

i know you want to be a lil beach and talk ur hard stuff tho.

l2read i guess?

We didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorists. If you think that's the case, we're wasting our time here, because you don't even understand the issue.  Second, Obama didn't leave Iraq without the ability to defend itself. The Bush Administration negotiated a demobilization time table, and we spent the better part of 10 years arming and teaching the Iraqis to defend themselves.  When the time came, and we had to pull out, Obama even offered to extend our stay, but the Iraqi government refused to renew the agreements that allowed our people to operate there without fear of reprisal from the Iraqi government if they decided they didn't like any of our soldiers.  At least TRY to get your facts straight.  If we want to concern ourselves with the potential for ISIS to attack inside the US, then we need to address that possibility and use intelligence to prevent it. That does NOT mean spending our resources over there starting yet another war with no end game on multiple fronts over there in the middle east.  And lastly, stop pretending you give a shit about those "innocent humans" being killed by ISIS. You don't care about them any more than you care about the hundreds of thousands of minimum wage workers at Burger King stores all over America. You trot them out as pawns to try and vilify others  who don't share your politics. That's ALL you use them for and the entire extent of your care for them.  You're not fooling anyone.  This is  about one thing and only one thing - you hate Obama and glom onto anything that opposes him, no matter what it is, and most of the time, you don't even understand the issues. You are one of those people who never shuts up long enough to actually LEARN anything. Why does ISIS exist? Is it because Obama left Iraq? No, it's not. It's because George W Bush invaded Iraq and CREATED the power vacuum they seek to fill. We have no business trying to police the entire world. And the mess things are in exists in large part because we have TRIED to do that. And in the mean time, we are bankrupting our own country in doing so.

Obama reminds me of the guy who always shows up to the party when everyone else is getting ready to leave, his responses always late and always tepid at best. Instead of a few periodic potshots at these creatures from ISIS, Obama should have been engaging them in earnest right from the get-go and we might not have this national security crises in Iraq we have today.

I have a few questions for anyone who sees Isis as a direct threat to the US:

 

1. Their declared primary purpose is religious, extending religious bloodshed in the ME to six centuries. Does anyone think any US action could change that reality as a basis for war there? (If so, explain Iraq/Afghanistan).

 

2. Other than the actions either taken by this administration or being considered (arming the Kurds, bombing and droning Isis in Iraq and perhaps Syria, and restoring creditability to the Iraqi government) what would you suggest? Boots on the ground? Nukes?

 

3. It is not news that ME terrorists want to kill westerners and, if given the opportunity will do so today. Does anyone think an Isis terrorists any different from any other terrorist? How so? And if they are no different, then are we not doing pretty good at preventing their success? If they are different then how come they have no succeeded at a US attack ever?

 

4. Isis is unlike al qaeda in more important respect; they occupy land. That means if they succeed in a US attack they can be found and killed much more easily than those who hid in the mountains of Pakistan. Wanna harm the US....we will come visiting you from the air with punishments you will not avoid. So why should we seek yet another "preemptive" war?