US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

[protectionist]

What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.

Incorrect. The whole Benghazi scandal was an attempt by the administration to hide the involvement in funneling heavy weapons, WMD, etc. to the rebels and more radical elements in Syria. Elements that would later become ISIS. Apparently their cover-up job worked on you. Of course, sacking key people in the military and having the cooperation of the press never hurts. . . .

The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
Seymour M. Hersh The Red Line and the Rat Line Erdo an and the Syrian rebels LRB 17 April 2014

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

US OK’d sending arms to Libya
US approved sending weapons from Qatar to Libyan rebels but then worried they were ending up in hands of Islamic militants - World - The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but US officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamist militants, according to US officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Moammar Khadafy to the attack that killed four Americans at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of Khadafy.

As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

I think we will eventually send some troops, but I think we should see the effects of our air campaign and determine how much military support is coming from the 30 counties who have promised it.

ISIS has somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 trained fighters with 5,000 to 10,000 tag alongs. The Iraqi army has in excess of a hundred thousand trained troops and much better equipment than ISIS, yet ISIS is kicking the shit out of them. Why? Structural problems at top. Before the US commits any troops to Iraq, the US should see that the Iraqis do their part. The US should not waste American lives and billions of dollars on a country that refuses to protect itself even thou they have the means to do so.

I see the US mission as one to protect America, and Americans, not Iraqis.

 

[protectionist]

I'll make it easy for ya. Americans have been complicit in arming Islamic fighters in hopes they would depose Assad. They named themselves ISIS and claim to have a new agenda that most likely still includes deposing Assad. There are now NO moderate rebels for the US to support in the region and Obama won't even bother to ask Syria or Iran to help eradicate ISIS. Why ? Because Obama wants both countries destabilized. Lebanon too.

Part of this is right. The first part is poppycock.

Right now, the atrocities are coming form ISIS. In big bunches.

 

[Discombobulated]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

I think we will eventually send some troops, but I think we should see the effects of our air campaign and determine how much military support is coming from the 30 counties who have promised it.

ISIS has somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 trained fighters with 5,000 to 10,000 tag alongs. The Iraqi army has in excess of a hundred thousand trained troops and much better equipment than ISIS, yet ISIS is kicking the shit out of them. Why? Structural problems at top. Before the US commits any troops to Iraq, the US should see that the Iraqis do their part. The US should not waste American lives and billions of dollars on a country that refuses to protect itself even thou they have the means to do so.

I see the US mission as one to protect America, and Americans, not Iraqis.

It's easy to think about going to war when so few Americans ever put themselves at risk. It's so easy with only one percent of the population doing all the fighting and dying.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

I think we will eventually send some troops, but I think we should see the effects of our air campaign and determine how much military support is coming from the 30 counties who have promised it.

ISIS has somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 trained fighters with 5,000 to 10,000 tag alongs. The Iraqi army has in excess of a hundred thousand trained troops and much better equipment than ISIS, yet ISIS is kicking the shit out of them. Why? Structural problems at top. Before the US commits any troops to Iraq, the US should see that the Iraqis do their part. The US should not waste American lives and billions of dollars on a country that refuses to protect itself even thou they have the means to do so.

I see the US mission as one to protect America, and Americans, not Iraqis.

It's easy to think about going to war when so few Americans ever put themselves at risk. It's so easy with only one percent of the population doing all the fighting and dying.

Tell that to the ones who never served in the military. I served 6 years.

 

[georgephillip]

Incorrect. The whole Benghazi scandal was an attempt by the administration to hide the involvement in funneling heavy weapons, WMD, etc. to the rebels and more radical elements in Syria. Elements that would later become ISIS. Apparently their cover-up job worked on you. Of course, sacking key people in the military and having the cooperation of the press never hurts. . . .

The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
Seymour M. Hersh The Red Line and the Rat Line Erdo an and the Syrian rebels LRB 17 April 2014

US OK’d sending arms to Libya
US approved sending weapons from Qatar to Libyan rebels but then worried they were ending up in hands of Islamic militants - World - The Boston Globe

As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

 

[protectionist]

As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

 

[Discombobulated]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

I think we will eventually send some troops, but I think we should see the effects of our air campaign and determine how much military support is coming from the 30 counties who have promised it.

ISIS has somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 trained fighters with 5,000 to 10,000 tag alongs. The Iraqi army has in excess of a hundred thousand trained troops and much better equipment than ISIS, yet ISIS is kicking the shit out of them. Why? Structural problems at top. Before the US commits any troops to Iraq, the US should see that the Iraqis do their part. The US should not waste American lives and billions of dollars on a country that refuses to protect itself even thou they have the means to do so.

I see the US mission as one to protect America, and Americans, not Iraqis.

It's easy to think about going to war when so few Americans ever put themselves at risk. It's so easy with only one percent of the population doing all the fighting and dying.

Tell that to the ones who never served in the military. I served 6 years.

Since you seem to think sending troops into Syria is such a good idea why don't you volunteer to serve again? We're going to need everyone we can get, because if we go into Syria we'll be fighting there another ten years or more.

 

[Discombobulated]

According to recent polls a majority of Americans favor military action against ISIS and even sending troops to Syria. To this I say: Who gives a fuck. Opinion polls should never determine any part of foreign policy because the overwhelming majority of Americans are easily manipulated into believing almost anything.

 

[hipeter924]

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

If George H.W. Bush had taken out Saddam after the US had basically decimated the Iraqi army in the Gulf War, then there would be no ISIS, and Iraq would have been democratic and peaceful.

Instead he left Saddam in power as dictator, and VOA allegedly told Iraqis to rise up against Saddam claiming America would militarily support the uprising. The unitary movements for western style democracy in Iraq were quickly put down in brutal massacres by Saddam, with silence from western governments.

After they were dealt with, Saddam then turned his attention to avoiding the sanctions through corrupt measures like oil for food, and using the remnants of the Iraqi army and his security forces to keep any threats to his rule at bay. Till Bush Jr came to Iraq to de-stabilize the whole country, by removing the Iraqi army and the security forces from the equation, and letting a civil war erupt between Sunnis and Shiites.

If we had stayed, it would have been against the views of the new Iraqi government that wanted the US gone, though it is obvious now that the US military presence was the only thing keeping would be ISIS groups at bay in Iraq. Much like the history of the Middle East in the past, westerners getting involved when they shouldn't have, is now a cause for most of today's security concerns and humanitarian crises. Whether from carving up Africa on artificial lines, or supporting one religious faction against the other, or one country against another.

 

[georgephillip]

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

 

[Flopper]

Apparently, the McCain met with ISIL meme has been debunked. Although it's not clear if any of the ones he has met with have since joined ISIL.

Really, got a link?

Yeah, I read the "debunking." It was from the establishment. The debunking goes a little like this. "It's not who you think it is. Because we say so." Who is it? Well, they can't tell you. If they do, "lives might be put in danger."

This stuff is classic disinformation. I am not even sure I believe that crap about McCain fighting for ISIS. Really? You want us to believe an American went over there to fight for ISIS, and died? C'mon. Give me a break. After reading the WP article it doesn't pass the smell test. If he did, seems to me he fell in with some spooks.

Try as He May, John McCain Can’t Shake Falsehoods About Ties to ISIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/w...shake-falsehoods-about-ties-to-isis.html?_r=0

Apparently McCain subscribes to old proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Unfortunately, "If you dance with the devil, you will get burned." It seems we never lean.

 

[Flopper]

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

If George H.W. Bush had taken out Saddam after the US had basically decimated the Iraqi army in the Gulf War, then there would be no ISIS, and Iraq would have been democratic and peaceful.

Instead he left Saddam in power as dictator, and VOA allegedly told Iraqis to rise up against Saddam claiming America would militarily support the uprising. The unitary movements for western style democracy in Iraq were quickly put down in brutal massacres by Saddam, with silence from western governments.

After they were dealt with, Saddam then turned his attention to avoiding the sanctions through corrupt measures like oil for food, and using the remnants of the Iraqi army and his security forces to keep any threats to his rule at bay. Till Bush Jr came to Iraq to de-stabilize the whole country, by removing the Iraqi army and the security forces from the equation, and letting a civil war erupt between Sunnis and Shiites.

If we had stayed, it would have been against the views of the new Iraqi government that wanted the US gone, though it is obvious now that the US military presence was the only thing keeping would be ISIS groups at bay in Iraq. Much like the history of the Middle East in the past, westerners getting involved when they shouldn't have, is now a cause for most of today's security concerns and humanitarian crises. Whether from carving up Africa on artificial lines, or supporting one religious faction against the other, or one country against another.

Maybe there would been no ISIS today, but there is no way of predicting what the results might have been 15 years later. In 1993, the collision had strong support from Middle Eastern Countries who wanted Saddam out of Kuwait. However, having a US force occupying Iraq would have met with strong resistance at that time. Who knows what the results might have been.

 

[georgephillip]

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

Three out of four Iraqis wanted all US troops out of their country when Bush left office. Democracy, remember?

Citizens of the US would be well served to defeat the war whores in the US Congress and the greedy bankers on Wall Street if they have the slightest interest in world peace.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

I think we will eventually send some troops, but I think we should see the effects of our air campaign and determine how much military support is coming from the 30 counties who have promised it.

ISIS has somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 trained fighters with 5,000 to 10,000 tag alongs. The Iraqi army has in excess of a hundred thousand trained troops and much better equipment than ISIS, yet ISIS is kicking the shit out of them. Why? Structural problems at top. Before the US commits any troops to Iraq, the US should see that the Iraqis do their part. The US should not waste American lives and billions of dollars on a country that refuses to protect itself even thou they have the means to do so.

I see the US mission as one to protect America, and Americans, not Iraqis.

It's easy to think about going to war when so few Americans ever put themselves at risk. It's so easy with only one percent of the population doing all the fighting and dying.

Tell that to the ones who never served in the military. I served 6 years.

Since you seem to think sending troops into Syria is such a good idea why don't you volunteer to serve again? We're going to need everyone we can get, because if we go into Syria we'll be fighting there another ten years or more.

I already did some years ago. They said I'm too old. I'm 68 now.

 

[protectionist]

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

Three out of four Iraqis wanted all US troops out of their country when Bush left office. Democracy, remember?

Citizens of the US would be well served to defeat the war whores in the US Congress and the greedy bankers on Wall Street if they have the slightest interest in world peace.

1. And now 99 out of 100 Iraqis want the US back IN their country. Democracy.

2. World peace is unattainable when you have a thug army like ISIS who has declared war upon you. The only way you can now get world peace, is by annihilating them.

 

[protectionist]

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

 

[protectionist]

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

If George H.W. Bush had taken out Saddam after the US had basically decimated the Iraqi army in the Gulf War, then there would be no ISIS, and Iraq would have been democratic and peaceful.

Instead he left Saddam in power as dictator, and VOA allegedly told Iraqis to rise up against Saddam claiming America would militarily support the uprising. The unitary movements for western style democracy in Iraq were quickly put down in brutal massacres by Saddam, with silence from western governments.

After they were dealt with, Saddam then turned his attention to avoiding the sanctions through corrupt measures like oil for food, and using the remnants of the Iraqi army and his security forces to keep any threats to his rule at bay. Till Bush Jr came to Iraq to de-stabilize the whole country, by removing the Iraqi army and the security forces from the equation, and letting a civil war erupt between Sunnis and Shiites.

If we had stayed, it would have been against the views of the new Iraqi government that wanted the US gone, though it is obvious now that the US military presence was the only thing keeping would be ISIS groups at bay in Iraq. Much like the history of the Middle East in the past, westerners getting involved when they shouldn't have, is now a cause for most of today's security concerns and humanitarian crises. Whether from carving up Africa on artificial lines, or supporting one religious faction against the other, or one country against another.

Sounds like you contradicted yourself. You said 1."westerners getting involved when they shouldn't have, is now a cause for most of today's security concerns and humanitarian crises" But you also said >> 2. "US military presence was the only thing keeping would be ISIS groups at bay in Iraq."
I'll go with the second one.

 

[georgephillip]

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

Three out of four Iraqis wanted all US troops out of their country when Bush left office. Democracy, remember?

Citizens of the US would be well served to defeat the war whores in the US Congress and the greedy bankers on Wall Street if they have the slightest interest in world peace.

1. And now 99 out of 100 Iraqis want the US back IN their country. Democracy.

2. World peace is unattainable when you have a thug army like ISIS who has declared war upon you. The only way you can now get world peace, is by annihilating them.

According to the polling data I've found from CNN/ORC 9/25-9/28, 38% of Iraqis are in favor of US boots on their ground to combat IS and 60% are opposed.

World peace is unattainable when the greatest purveyor of violence in the world continues killing innocent human beings for money and market share.

Iraq

 

[georgephillip]

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia