Ramadi Falls, approximately 500 civilians executed so far, over 114,000 misplaced.

[candycorn]

So would you want to send your husband,wife,son, or daughter to fight for a city the natives have no interest in defending/re-taking? If so, drive them down to the recruiting station/meat grinder.

This is going to be harsh...your being an idiot.
We created this mess. And your position is - oh well - Fuck you, not our problem.
You can blame Bush if you like and ignore what happened for the past 6 years.
Or you can blame it all on Obama for ignoring everyone and abandoning Iraq when the surge WE sent was working,
Whatever - we created the problem. To ignore the 1,000's of innocent civilians being executed, including women and children - is nothing short of evil.
Take your head out of your ass. Three years ago Iraq was improving tremendously. A real government was SLOWLY developing, infrastructure was rebuilding, their economy was rebuilding etc. etc. etc.
Today Iraq is a complete and utter mess.

We didn't start shit. Killer muslims flying planes into the WTC started this.

Good point.

 

[asaratis]

Bush was awful, I hated the whole fucking family and I suspected his Dad tried to assassinate Reagan and they helped plan 9/11.

What makes you think I'm a fan of Bush ffs?

I'm not kidding.

Do you wear a tinfoil hat while contemplating your conspiracy theories?

 

[Katzndogz]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

Of course not. Al Baghdadi said see you in New York. If obumble is president not then. It would have to be someone else to stop him.

 

[syonidv]

We created this mess. And your position is - oh well - Fuck you, not our problem.

We did create the mess and no...it's not our problem.

In fairness, it is your problem (and will very much continue to be so) but you lack the capability to remedy it.

It's a game of retreat: how much time to spend firing blindly over your shoulder versus how much time to spend running away.

 

[Nutz]

We created this mess. And your position is - oh well - Fuck you, not our problem.

We did create the mess and no...it's not our problem.

In fairness, it is your problem (and will very much continue to be so) but you lack the capability to remedy it.

It's a game of retreat: how much time to spend firing blindly over your shoulder versus how much time to spend running away.

Nope...not our problem Killer Muslims killing one another...we are winning.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

WE...being the US or WE being people who actually use the oil such as Japan, France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, China, Singapore, Australia, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Canada, or Sumatra?

The question you should be asking yourself is if you'd be happy to send your kids over there (which I assume you're okay with endangering your kids for zero net gain for the US), why aren't the fathers of young Japanese, French, Spanish, German et. al. kids be willing to send theirs? l

Do you honestly think that ISIS is going to be content with staying "over there", Candy? Kindly explain where it is that you think that they will be "satisfied" with. The fact is that they've been quite honest about what their goals are. They want to make their brand of Islam the only religion there is on the planet earth and are quite wiling to kill anyone who won't go along with that vision.

 

[Oldstyle]

What bemuses me is how you progressives seem to think that if you make nice with these people then they'll leave you alone. What you can't seem to grasp is that an atheist to them is a bug that needs to be squashed. Someone who believes in women's rights is someone who's given up their right to stay alive. Someone who believes in free speech needs to be put up against a wall and shot.

 

[Steinlight]

 

[Steinlight]

What bemuses me is how you progressives seem to think that if you make nice with these people then they'll leave you alone. What you can't seem to grasp is that an atheist to them is a bug that needs to be squashed. Someone who believes in women's rights is someone who's given up their right to stay alive. Someone who believes in free speech needs to be put up against a wall and shot.

If President GayBlackman along that faggot Lindsay Graham and the senile John McCain didn't arm the "moderate" syrian rebels to begin with, ISIS would have never grown to its current state.

But of course we needed to get rid of Assad for "freedumb and democracy" and for our greatest ally Israel.

 

[candycorn]

We created this mess. And your position is - oh well - Fuck you, not our problem.

We did create the mess and no...it's not our problem.

In fairness, it is your problem (and will very much continue to be so) but you lack the capability to remedy it.

It's a game of retreat: how much time to spend firing blindly over your shoulder versus how much time to spend running away.

It's really not our problem.

Fact: The US will suffer another catastrophic attack on our soil.
Fact: We would have suffered it regardless of whether ISIS was around or not.
Why: When you're responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, their relatives tend to get pissed. Blowback is blowback...the innocent victims will not care who is responsible.

If the remedy were a truly multi-national force where the US was a small % of the total number of commitments it would be one thing. The problem is that it is never like this. Like it or not, our "coalition partners" are cowards who are not going to jump into the pool until we have taken care of the heavy lifting. That means boots on the ground and bodies in the ground...in YOUR neighborhood.

All the while, nobody can tell me what winning looks like over there.

Would YOU do that for me, please? Describe what winning looks like and tell us how we get there?

 

[Steinlight]

The only sure way to stop an islamic terror attack is to stop islamic immigration into the US. But since everyone loves "muh diversity", they aren't willing to do that.

Quite frankly, the millions of central/latin american immigrants pouring over the border every year are more of a threat to the security of everyday Americans than some guerrilla army half way across the world.

 

[candycorn]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

WE...being the US or WE being people who actually use the oil such as Japan, France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, China, Singapore, Australia, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Canada, or Sumatra?

The question you should be asking yourself is if you'd be happy to send your kids over there (which I assume you're okay with endangering your kids for zero net gain for the US), why aren't the fathers of young Japanese, French, Spanish, German et. al. kids be willing to send theirs? l

Do you honestly think that ISIS is going to be content with staying "over there", Candy? Kindly explain where it is that you think that they will be "satisfied" with. The fact is that they've been quite honest about what their goals are. They want to make their brand of Islam the only religion there is on the planet earth and are quite wiling to kill anyone who won't go along with that vision.

What bemuses me is how you progressives seem to think that if you make nice with these people then they'll leave you alone. What you can't seem to grasp is that an atheist to them is a bug that needs to be squashed. Someone who believes in women's rights is someone who's given up their right to stay alive. Someone who believes in free speech needs to be put up against a wall and shot.

World's problem...let the world solve it. The US made the down payment

 

[syonidv]

We created this mess. And your position is - oh well - Fuck you, not our problem.

We did create the mess and no...it's not our problem.

In fairness, it is your problem (and will very much continue to be so) but you lack the capability to remedy it.

It's a game of retreat: how much time to spend firing blindly over your shoulder versus how much time to spend running away.

It's really not our problem.

Fact: The US will suffer another catastrophic attack on our soil.
Fact: We would have suffered it regardless of whether ISIS was around or not.
Why: When you're responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, their relatives tend to get pissed. Blowback is blowback...the innocent victims will not care who is responsible.

If the remedy were a truly multi-national force where the US was a small % of the total number of commitments it would be one thing. The problem is that it is never like this. Like it or not, our "coalition partners" are cowards who are not going to jump into the pool until we have taken care of the heavy lifting. That means boots on the ground and bodies in the ground...in YOUR neighborhood.

All the while, nobody can tell me what winning looks like over there.

Would YOU do that for me, please? Describe what winning looks like and tell us how we get there?

I can't tell you what winning over there looks like. Hence my assertion that "you lack the capability to remedy it".

Terrorist attacks by ISIS and ME extremists are the least of your worries. The reason Uncle Sam went in was to implement a series of EOs to appropriate Iraqi banks and resources, mainly as a reaction to Saddam Hussein's appeals to the African Congress to abandon the US petrodollar, which would accelerate the world's abandoning the US dollar as a reserve currency.

I don't think most Americans realize just how screwed Uncle Sam will be after losing the US dollar hegemony in the near future, and the media certainly isn't going to tell you, but we can at least agree that bombing Iraq to rubble again isn't going to prevent it. Hence we agree that going after ISIS isn't in your national interest as this point.

If you think that terrorism is all western nations have to worry about, you're sorely mistaken. The fall of Iraq is a great beacon declaring to the world that America no longer possesses the means to enforce the American economic hegemony and the US petrodollar. In that respect, it very much still is your problem.

 

[candycorn]

We created this mess. And your position is - oh well - Fuck you, not our problem.

We did create the mess and no...it's not our problem.

In fairness, it is your problem (and will very much continue to be so) but you lack the capability to remedy it.

It's a game of retreat: how much time to spend firing blindly over your shoulder versus how much time to spend running away.

It's really not our problem.

Fact: The US will suffer another catastrophic attack on our soil.
Fact: We would have suffered it regardless of whether ISIS was around or not.
Why: When you're responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, their relatives tend to get pissed. Blowback is blowback...the innocent victims will not care who is responsible.

If the remedy were a truly multi-national force where the US was a small % of the total number of commitments it would be one thing. The problem is that it is never like this. Like it or not, our "coalition partners" are cowards who are not going to jump into the pool until we have taken care of the heavy lifting. That means boots on the ground and bodies in the ground...in YOUR neighborhood.

All the while, nobody can tell me what winning looks like over there.

Would YOU do that for me, please? Describe what winning looks like and tell us how we get there?

I can't tell you what winning over there looks like. Hence my assertion that "you lack the capability to remedy it".

Terrorist attacks by ISIS and ME extremists are the least of your worries. The reason Uncle Sam went in was to implement a series of EOs to appropriate Iraqi banks and resources, mainly as a reaction to Saddam Hussein's appeals to the African Congress to abandon the US petrodollar, which would accelerate the world's abandoning the US dollar as a reserve currency.

I don't think most Americans realize just how screwed Uncle Sam will be after losing the US dollar hegemony in the near future, and the media certainly isn't going to tell you, but we can at least agree that bombing Iraq to rubble again isn't going to prevent it. Hence we agree that going after ISIS isn't in your national interest as this point.

If you think that terrorism is all western nations have to worry about, you're sorely mistaken. The fall of Iraq is a great beacon declaring to the world that America no longer possesses the means to enforce the American economic hegemony and the US petrodollar. In that respect, it very much still is your problem.

Nobody cares.

As long as we're not spilling blood in winless wars (where ever they are on the globe), we are employing the right strategy.

Is there a time when your national interests are on the line and it's worth it to spill blood and treasure? Sure. Iraq isn't it. ISIS isn't worth the investment of blood and capital.

 

[auditor0007]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

It will never happen because ISIS cannot govern. They are good a grabbing land and chasing people away, but they cannot keep people under their rule. Here is what is going to happen. At some point, we will help to create an even bigger monster than ISIS to fight ISIS. This monster will destroy ISIS completely and then rule with an iron fist much in the way Saddam Hussein did. The biggest reason that we do not want to fight ISIS on the ground is that in order to destroy them completely, we will need to commit war crimes. To defeat ISIS, no prisoners can be taken.

 

[candycorn]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

It will never happen because ISIS cannot govern. They are good a grabbing land and chasing people away, but they cannot keep people under their rule. Here is what is going to happen. At some point, we will help to create an even bigger monster than ISIS to fight ISIS. This monster will destroy ISIS completely and then rule with an iron fist much in the way Saddam Hussein did. The biggest reason that we do not want to fight ISIS on the ground is that in order to destroy them completely, we will need to commit war crimes. To defeat ISIS, no prisoners can be taken.

It's not just about not taking prisoners, it's asking Private Landry or Corporal Smith to differentiate between an ISIS soldier and a non militant/non militarized Iraqi civilian. It was really a lot more convenient when the enemy all wore uniforms...wasn't it?

As for your post, "never" is a long time. But the problem with military juntas is that they really suck at managing an economy. Saddam, one will note, was not much on the whole "iron fist" malarkey Oldstyle was trying to allege he was.

He was a brutal dictator when he needed to be but he understood that brutality only got you so far:

This from Wiki:
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program.

I doubt ISIS is going to go down that road.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

No, the question you should be asking yourself is why are you and most other conservatives so consistently wrong on the issues, including conservative advocacy that American ground forces be sent to the ME to fight the self-proclaimed 'Islamic state.'

War-mongering conservatives were wrong in their advocacy of invading Iraq in 2003 just as they're wrong today in their advocacy of sending Americans to once again fight and die needlessly in Iraq.

If there's going to be any hope for long-term stability and peace in Iraq the Iraqi government and people alone must find their way to stability and peace absent unwarranted interference from the United States.

The fact you and most others on the war-mongering right fail to realize is that the self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' would prefer nothing more than the United States to send conventional military forces to the Region – making it easier to kill American soldiers, capture them for reasons of propaganda and exploitation, and justify the movement's legitimacy in the Muslim world that Americans and the West are 'hostile invaders' seeking to 'subjugate' the people of the Middle East.

Fortunately the president and American people reject conservative advocacy of sending Americans to again fight and die in a failed, pointless war.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

WE...being the US or WE being people who actually use the oil such as Japan, France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, China, Singapore, Australia, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Canada, or Sumatra?

The question you should be asking yourself is if you'd be happy to send your kids over there (which I assume you're okay with endangering your kids for zero net gain for the US), why aren't the fathers of young Japanese, French, Spanish, German et. al. kids be willing to send theirs? l

Do you honestly think that ISIS is going to be content with staying "over there", Candy? Kindly explain where it is that you think that they will be "satisfied" with. The fact is that they've been quite honest about what their goals are. They want to make their brand of Islam the only religion there is on the planet earth and are quite wiling to kill anyone who won't go along with that vision.

What bemuses me is how you progressives seem to think that if you make nice with these people then they'll leave you alone. What you can't seem to grasp is that an atheist to them is a bug that needs to be squashed. Someone who believes in women's rights is someone who's given up their right to stay alive. Someone who believes in free speech needs to be put up against a wall and shot.

World's problem...let the world solve it. The US made the down payment

Since we are the country these terrorists most equate with "The Great Satan", Candy...it's not just the world's problem...it's OUR problem because quite frankly, they can't allow us to exist. My point to you specifically, is that as a progressive, you're the person they hate the most because the things that you believe in are the things that they most strongly disapprove of.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

No, the question you should be asking yourself is why are you and most other conservatives so consistently wrong on the issues, including conservative advocacy that American ground forces be sent to the ME to fight the self-proclaimed 'Islamic state.'

War-mongering conservatives were wrong in their advocacy of invading Iraq in 2003 just as they're wrong today in their advocacy of sending Americans to once again fight and die needlessly in Iraq.

If there's going to be any hope for long-term stability and peace in Iraq the Iraqi government and people alone must find their way to stability and peace absent unwarranted interference from the United States.

The fact you and most others on the war-mongering right fail to realize is that the self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' would prefer nothing more than the United States to send conventional military forces to the Region – making it easier to kill American soldiers, capture them for reasons of propaganda and exploitation, and justify the movement's legitimacy in the Muslim world that Americans and the West are 'hostile invaders' seeking to 'subjugate' the people of the Middle East.

Fortunately the president and American people reject conservative advocacy of sending Americans to again fight and die in a failed, pointless war.

Against the advice of both his military and his State Department, Barack Obama pulled out all US ground troops from Iraq. What's happening now is a direct result of that poor decision.

 

[syonidv]

Since ISIS has a history of conducting mass executions of captured enemy soldiers, Candy...I can understand the reluctance of Iraqis to stand and fight against them.

The question you should be asking yourself is at what point do WE stand and fight against them? When they take the entire Middle East?

It will never happen because ISIS cannot govern. They are good a grabbing land and chasing people away, but they cannot keep people under their rule. Here is what is going to happen. At some point, we will help to create an even bigger monster than ISIS to fight ISIS. This monster will destroy ISIS completely and then rule with an iron fist much in the way Saddam Hussein did. The biggest reason that we do not want to fight ISIS on the ground is that in order to destroy them completely, we will need to commit war crimes. To defeat ISIS, no prisoners can be taken.

It's not just about not taking prisoners, it's asking Private Landry or Corporal Smith to differentiate between an ISIS soldier and a non militant/non militarized Iraqi civilian. It was really a lot more convenient when the enemy all wore uniforms...wasn't it?

As for your post, "never" is a long time. But the problem with military juntas is that they really suck at managing an economy. Saddam, one will note, was not much on the whole "iron fist" malarkey Oldstyle was trying to allege he was.

He was a brutal dictator when he needed to be but he understood that brutality only got you so far:

This from Wiki:
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program.

I doubt ISIS is going to go down that road.

I doubt ISIS rule will be any better than under Saddam Hussein, but let's not blot out the man's legacy for sake of his liberal education platform.

For Sunni Muslims, life was good under Hussein. For Shiites and Kurds... not so much.