Should Obama Get Involved In Iraq?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not true. It's documented that they didn't try very hard at all to negotiate, because they didn't want to keep troops there. For purely political reasons.

Correct Sir.....this is coming back to haunt the Obama administration:

...Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a "follow up force" being left in theater and it was the Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/17/Senator-Graham-Obama-Administration-Lying-About-Iraq-Status-of-Forces-Agreement

[dre]

Not true. It's documented that they didn't try very hard at all to negotiate, because they didn't want to keep troops there. For purely political reasons.

Man its sheer comedy how desperate you are to blame this on Obama.

Never mind the fact that Bush is the one that made the commitment to withdraw troops.

Never mind the fact that put an Iranian proxy in control of Iraq.

Never mind the fact that it was Maliki that decided to assume the role of sectarian strongman, and stopped paying insurgents not to fight.

Never mind the fact that Sunnis and Shias in the region have been at each others throats for many hundreds of years.

Im no fan of Obamas at all.... but you guys are just pure comedy gold! LOL

[cybercoma]

Wait, is it Harper's fault that someone from his own riding burned his passport and is fighting with ISIS?

THANKS, HARPER!

[GostHacked]

Oh yes, holding a sitting president for HIS actions and decisions is ridiculous.

But some clowns around here still won't hold Bush for his failures.

[Shady]

Are you guys purposely being obtuse?

There's no desperation needed. I'm holding a sitting president responsible for his decision not to negotiate in good faith to keep a necessary residual force in Iraq. His failure to do so, combined with his irresponsible withdrawal, undid all of the gains made from 2007 until 2011. He did so for purely political reasons. So that he could campaign around the country claiming he "ended" the war in Iraq. His decision to do so was a complete and utter disaster, which snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[GostHacked]

Gee how did we get HERE Shady.... let's go back in history shall we .....

[Shady]

Gee how did we get HERE Shady.... let's go back in history shall we .....

We got here by Obama, for political reasons, withdrawing completely from Iraq, after he inherited a significantly improved situation. A small residual force was all that was necessary, as well as continued political pressure on the government there. But he withdrew both physically, and diplomatically.

[BubberMiley]

A small residual force was all that was necessary, as well as continued political pressure on the government there. But he withdrew both physically, and diplomatically.

But rather than Americans giving their lives and limbs, we shall instead see relentless, targeted drone strikes. It's often the people who would never put on the boots who want boots on the ground.

[GostHacked]

But rather than Americans giving their lives and limbs, we shall instead see relentless, targeted drone strikes. It's often the people who would never put on the boots who want boots on the ground.

Drone strikes, called it in the first post of this thread. Why is this so predictable?

Sorry not this thread .. the one I started about Iraq and it's Al-Queda problem.

Edited June 19, 2014 by GostHacked

[monty16]

Let the Americans figure out who to blame. Who cares? The rest of the world just blame the US and don't bother with the finer details.

[On Guard for Thee]

I somehow doubt you will see a lot of drone strikes. Too late for that. These ISIS boys are smart enough to "mix and mingle" and more innocents killed by drones isn't what the US needs. Of course who knows how effective it will be, but I think Obama's initial step of 300 or so "eyes on the ball" is better than "boots on the ground" We shall see.

[GostHacked]

I somehow doubt you will see a lot of drone strikes. Too late for that. These ISIS boys are smart enough to "mix and mingle" and more innocents killed by drones isn't what the US needs. Of course who knows how effective it will be, but I think Obama's initial step of 300 or so "eyes on the ball" is better than "boots on the ground" We shall see.

That did not stop the strikes in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Wedding parties were a popular target. 'Collateral damage'.

[On Guard for Thee]

That did not stop the strikes in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Wedding parties were a popular target. 'Collateral damage'.

Oh I know that. I've had to delay many of my own takeoffs to wait for Hellfire laden drone to get on it's way over the border to Pakistan. But first of all you have to have a "kill list" and I suspect they don't have a very accurate one just yet for the current situation.

[On Guard for Thee]

We got here by Obama, for political reasons, withdrawing completely from Iraq, after he inherited a significantly improved situation. A small residual force was all that was necessary, as well as continued political pressure on the government there. But he withdrew both physically, and diplomatically.

Nope. We got there by Bush. Obama offered to stay but Malaki would not provide the proper legal assurances the US has always demanded under those circumstances.

[monty16]

In actual fact Obama has done exactly what is expected of him and what is within his authority. He's invited the US congress to authorize another war with Iraq but those twofaced bastards don't want to either give their support either for or against any further action in Iraq.

It's quite likely though that Obama will be cowed into getting the killing started again in earnest. He'll be criticized if he does.

Which is about what should happen because it's the US that is guilty of the crimes against humanity in Iraq, not Bush2 or Obama. To try to blame it on either is just removing the blame from the guilty party. The US!

[Moonlight Graham]

The cruel cold reality is that war between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds was waged long before Britain created the artificial kingdom of Iraq jamming these three separate tribes into one nation to create a puppet state to appoint one of Faisal's sons as its King as payback for havng Faisal rip up his agreement to live side by side a Jewish state in his Muslim state.

The British created a puppet kingdom to secure their control over oil. The did what they always did. Divide and conquer. Create unstable nations of battling tribes to justify the British remaining to prevent chaos.

Its never ended. The British, then German Nazis, and then Americans tried to control it, and all failed.

It is a dysfunctional nation. It needs to be split into 3 states one Kurdish, one Sunni and the other Shiite to recognize the practical reality of what now exists.

Isis is an uprising against Shiites by Sunnis.

These Muslims hate each other as much as they do the rest of the world for trying to exploit their oil.

I agree, The state of Iraq is a colonial creation. The 3 groups in Iraq I'm sure are far more loyal and nationalistic to their own groups than to this "nation" called Iraq. You can't have a nation-state without national unity, we've seen in Canada with Quebec and them almost breaking up the country numerous times for far, far less things than Iraqis complain about with each other.

Either Iraq will eventually split into 3, maybe 1 or 2 of the groups will take their territory and join a neighbouring Muslim country with similar cultural alignments (ie: Kurds join Turkey or Syria, and/or Sunnis join Saudi Arabia...while Shiite Iraq could keep control of the rest of Iraq with their own state and control of the oil there. Either way, I can't see such a divided country staying together longterm only when a brutal dictator forces compliance and massacres minorities.

[Moonlight Graham]

The sooner ISIS creates the Caliphate the sooner human beings living under it will chafe and overthrow it.

The more we interfere with the entirely natural process that is unfolding the more FUBAR things will get...as the case in point proves.

Hey, maybe. Similar thing happened with US vs communism. The West only "defeated" communism when it imploded on itself and lost legitimacy as an ideology by most internationally.

[Bonam]

I don't see how the US would benefit by getting back into Iraq. The US tried for 8 years, now let the Iraqis handle their own affairs.

[-1=e^ipi]

Obama shouldn't have funded Islamic terrorists in Syria in the first place.

[GostHacked]

Obama shouldn't have funded Islamic terrorists in Syria in the first place.

A good point. I have posted a lot of stuff regarding the rebels and them operating out of Turkey with full NATO support in training, equipment and base of operations in Turkey.

The west is doing nothing more than creating a division and strife between the factions of Islam. As long as they are fighting each other, they are not concerned about the west. Once they understand they've all been duped, you will see a reunification and some reconciliation among the factions in Islam.

If that happens, then you will have Sunni's AND Shiites pointing their guns our way.

Over a century of constant meddling from foreign powers has not helped the situation. It's the main reason we are seeing this all today. Sure Islam has had its problems long before ( who hasn't really) but as some are taking the mentality of 'no intervention', then that should have been the approach over a century ago.

Some other entity is behind ISIS. But I really have no clue.

And this came back to bite the USA hard in the ass. All that military hardware that was left behind under the reason of being too expensive to ship back home, are now being used by ISIS and their partners. Real smart. Because the other side is the gun control issue in the US while arming and training the rebels abroad.

[PIK]

the situation in Iraq can never be as bad as what the US created and will again create if it gets involved. Even the crazies like Glenn Beck and the Fox News idiots are saying that the US shouldn't get involved again. Although they express it with sick attitudes of "No More", which means no more American lives lost.

That's surely not the issue at this late date and after the experience that cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Who really cares about how many Americans die while they are in Iraq once again slaughtering the people to keep the oil flowing?

In real life, the US is flying their planes around over Iraq searching for more victims. They'll find them but it's questionable whether they will be ISIS or more Iraqi people.

And finally, if ISIS succeeds then it's quite likely it will succeed in bringing stability back to Iraq's people. The way Saddam had succeeded.

Counterspin that for us with your US propaganda parroting!

Everyone was so scared of saddam,that they had to work together to survive, now saddam is gone all hell breaks loose. So for the ISIS to succeed they will have to be just as cruel and IMO they can be. But that to is not the answer. Just the wrong guy was put in as Iraqi president and he should be removed.

Edited June 20, 2014 by PIK

[GostHacked]

Everyone was so scared of saddam,that they had to work together to survive, now saddam is gone all hell breaks loose. So for the ISIS to succeed they will have to be just as cruel and IMO they can be. But that to is not the answer. Just the wrong guy was put in as Iraqi president and he should be removed.

But he was elected. Kind of undemocratic for the US to oust a democratically elected leader.

[dre]

Everyone was so scared of saddam,that they had to work together to survive, now saddam is gone all hell breaks loose. So for the ISIS to succeed they will have to be just as cruel and IMO they can be. But that to is not the answer. Just the wrong guy was put in as Iraqi president and he should be removed.

Its not just that they have the wrong president, its that two different nations have been mashed into one. Its very hard to keep a country together when multiple large cultural groups are present. Bribing the Sunnis with oil money worked for a while but as soon as the funds stopped flowing things heated up again.

[-1=e^ipi]

Once they understand they've all been duped, you will see a reunification and some reconciliation among the factions in Islam.

No they won't. Many sunni muslims (especially all of the extremists) consider Shia Muslims to be apostates, kaffir, idolaters, etc.

Also, if the west wanted to maximize strife between the two factions then they would support Shia not Sunni since the Sunni are more powerful.

The west helped extremists in Syria not due to some motive of maximizing strife, but due to ignorance and stupidity.

The US is primarily aligned with Sunni Islam over Shia Islam for purely historical reasons. They are allies with Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia has been sending them oil since the 1930's. They are allied against Iran because of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and because of the geopolitical situation of the cold war.

George Bush stupidly thought that he could bring 'democracy' to Iraq and that after everything would be peaceful and dandy, and the Iraqi's would be thankful to the Americans for freeing them from the evil dictator. He didn't not consider cultural or religious differences in Iraq.

Obama stupidly supported the Arab spring without skepticism or concern that islamists might hijack the movement. He even aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood well before the Arab spring (for example, his speech in Cairo in 2009).

Obama's political correctness also prevented him from making better decisions. 'The muslims are the victims of the evil colonist west' is probably what he probably thought. Therefore, he apologized to muslims for american's exercising free speech rather than defend free speech (innocence of muslims), he downplayed the role of islamists in the attack at Benghazi (blaming again the video), he aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, he financed Islamic terrorists in Syria, and western governments would have invaded Syria if Putin did not 'outplay' them. Similarly, David Cameron denied Islam had anything to do with the murder of Lee Rigby for exactly the same reasons.

There also seems to be this concept among many western politicians that if there is a dictator, that this dictator is evil, and that anyone that opposes this dictator must be good. Thus western governments supporting cannibal terrorists in Syria.

Over a century of constant meddling from foreign powers has not helped the situation. It's the main reason we are seeing this all today. Sure Islam has had its problems long before ( who hasn't really) but as some are taking the mentality of 'no intervention', then that should have been the approach over a century ago.

This type of political correct post colonial nonsense is one of the reasons the west is in the situation it is in. Radical Islam has problems, which is why the West should NEVER side with Islamists under any circumstances.

Some other entity is behind ISIS. But I really have no clue.

The only entities behind the ISIS are Islam, Saudi Arabia and Western governments stupidly supporting terrorists in Syria.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The only entities behind the ISIS are Islam, Saudi Arabia and Western governments stupidly supporting terrorists in Syria.

No, "ISIS" is not a monolithic group, and it certainly lacks dedicated, aligned sponsorship from nation states as most would define it. "ISIS" is a conglomeration of disparate (mostly Sunni) groups and interests that have come out on the short end of the stick in Syria and Iraq.