Is Obama the 21st century's "Neville Chamberlain"?

[Flash Farley]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

In his speech on ISIS today, Obama said:

"This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision. So the United States will continue to do our part by continuing to counter ISIL's hateful propaganda, especially online. We'll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort islam and its victims are mostly Muslims.

We're also going to partner with Muslim communities as they seek the prosperity and dignity they observe. And we're going to expect those communities to step up in terms of pushing back as hard as they can in conjunction with other people of good will against these hateful ideologies, particularly when it comes to what we're teaching young people."

This imbecile can't seem to grasp the concept that you can't counter radical ideology with social campaigns or flowery speeches written by recently-graduated Political Science majors. If we are faced with an enemy who is absolutely convinced that their "god" wills them to fight to the death, and that their eternal soul depends on it, does Obama think some lame-ass Facebook, #Hashtag, or YouTube campaigns are going to counter that? Does he not know anything about history?

Head in the fuckin' sand.

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

 

[Flash Farley]

The lying fool on the hill.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Hey, if the sheets fit....

LOL, you can't even get your memes right. Don't you mean "if the shoe fits.....wear it (Mr. President)."

P.S. Not getting much play out of that race card, eh?

No....I post exactly what I mean...

 

[JQPublic1]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

In his speech on ISIS today, Obama said:

"This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision. So the United States will continue to do our part by continuing to counter ISIL's hateful propaganda, especially online. We'll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort islam and its victims are mostly Muslims.

We're also going to partner with Muslim communities as they seek the prosperity and dignity they observe. And we're going to expect those communities to step up in terms of pushing back as hard as they can in conjunction with other people of good will against these hateful ideologies, particularly when it comes to what we're teaching young people."

This imbecile can't seem to grasp the concept that you can't counter radical ideology with social campaigns or flowery speeches written by recently-graduated Political Science majors. If we are faced with an enemy who is absolutely convinced that their "god" wills them to fight to the death, and that their eternal soul depends on it, does Obama think some lame-ass Facebook, #Hashtag, or YouTube campaigns are going to counter that? Does he not know anything about history?

Head in the fuckin' sand.

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

In his speech on ISIS today, Obama said:

"This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision. So the United States will continue to do our part by continuing to counter ISIL's hateful propaganda, especially online. We'll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort islam and its victims are mostly Muslims.

We're also going to partner with Muslim communities as they seek the prosperity and dignity they observe. And we're going to expect those communities to step up in terms of pushing back as hard as they can in conjunction with other people of good will against these hateful ideologies, particularly when it comes to what we're teaching young people."

This imbecile can't seem to grasp the concept that you can't counter radical ideology with social campaigns or flowery speeches written by recently-graduated Political Science majors. If we are faced with an enemy who is absolutely convinced that their "god" wills them to fight to the death, and that their eternal soul depends on it, does Obama think some lame-ass Facebook, #Hashtag, or YouTube campaigns are going to counter that? Does he not know anything about history?

Head in the fuckin' sand.

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Obama refused to leave a residual force absent an explicit agreement from the Iraqnamese parliament that US forces would be exclusively subject to US legal jurisdiction.....

ISIS has its origins among Sunnis marginalized after the US invasion.....

 

[Flash Farley]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Nope. Obama did what the left wanted, not the American people. He kept his promise and people are being slaughtered. Nice work.

 

[Flash Farley]

[YouQUOTE="JGalt, post: 11773967, member: 28609"]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Obama refused to leave a residual force absent an explicit agreement from the Iraqnamese parliament that US forces would be exclusively subject to US legal jurisdiction.....

ISIS has its origins among Sunnis marginalized after the US invasion.....[/QUOTE]
Nope. Obama bragged about "ending the war". He had to keep his campaign promise.

 

[regent]

For historians: before condemning Chamberlain, start with the "Rule of Ten." and Churchill.

 

[Flash Farley]

For historians: before condemning Chamberlain, start with the "Rule of Ten." and Churchill.

Churchill was mocked for warning about Hitler.

 

[IcebergSlim]

[YouQUOTE="JGalt, post: 11773967, member: 28609"]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Obama refused to leave a residual force absent an explicit agreement from the Iraqnamese parliament that US forces would be exclusively subject to US legal jurisdiction.....

ISIS has its origins among Sunnis marginalized after the US invasion.....

Nope. Obama bragged about "ending the war". He had to keep his campaign promise.

[/QUOTE]


"Nope"?

Have you spent any time figuring out how Mosul was overrun by less than 1000 Toyota jockeys?

 

[Flash Farley]

3 Times Obama Administration Was Warned About ISIS Threat - ABC News

 

[Flash Farley]

[YouQUOTE="JGalt, post: 11773967, member: 28609"]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....
Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Obama refused to leave a residual force absent an explicit agreement from the Iraqnamese parliament that US forces would be exclusively subject to US legal jurisdiction.....

ISIS has its origins among Sunnis marginalized after the US invasion.....

Nope. Obama bragged about "ending the war". He had to keep his campaign promise.

"Nope"?

Have you spent any time figuring out how Mosul was overrun by less than 1000 Toyota jockeys?[/QUOTE]
The JV team? It wouldn't have happened if Obama listened to his military experts.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....
Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Nope. Obama did what the left wanted, not the American people. He kept his promise and people are being slaughtered. Nice work.

Just making shit up as you go along...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans widely support President Obama's recent decision to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, with 75% approving.

Three in Four Americans Back Obama on Iraq Withdrawal

 

[Flash Farley]

Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to get Bin Ladin and Obama was warned about ISIS. Lyndon Johnson is responsible for Viet Nam. Democrats lately can't fight. Bring back Roosevelt, Truman and John Kennedy.

 

[Flash Farley]

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Hell, Obama did what the American people wanted him to do: stop spending billions on two wars. Remember, our economy was deplorable back then and the war machine had to be wound down. Can you imagine what the national debt would look like today if we hadn't pulled out of IRAQ?

Nope. Obama did what the left wanted, not the American people. He kept his promise and people are being slaughtered. Nice work.

Just making shit up as you go along...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans widely support President Obama's recent decision to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, with 75% approving.

Three in Four Americans Back Obama on Iraq Withdrawal

Looks like they were wrong.

 

[MACAULAY]

Both Chamberlain and Obama are fools, but plenty of elected officials are fools.

What makes Chamberlain such a famous fool, and what will make Obama more famous is that they had the bad luck to deal with...Zealots.

Hitler was a Zealot, and a Fanatic...a person with a psychosis.

And who is more psychotic, more zealous, more fanatic than a Muslim Mullah in Iran--that group of hate-filled Medicine Men who have taught the whole fanatic population to scream: "Death to America" while they flagellate themselves in the streets.

Hitler had nothing on these guys.

But, it is the differences to be found between Hitler and the Muslim Mullahs that is really scary.

1) Hitler didn't have enough oil. That's why he thought he had to invade Russia--he needed their oil.

The Iranians are sitting on a mountain of oil...and will control more are soon as they have established hegemony in the Middle East...which is not far off with Obama as their bitch.

2) Hitler didn't have a nuclear bomb. Not even people in Chicago, New York and California...the nation's slowest learners...doubt that he would have used it if he had it.

But Obama, a Chicago Community Organizer, thinks he can train the Mullahs up to where they are civilized enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons....he says they can have them in 10 years, but we all know he is just hoping to get out of office for a respectable period before a lunatic Ayatollah wakes up one morning and decides that Allah is tired of the existence of Israel...or maybe that Allah would like to see what a dirty bomb would do in Manhattan for the next 300 years.

The only real winner coming out of the debacle that is Barack Obama is Neville Chamberlain. He will at last be put to rest. And Obama will take his place as history's worst fool.

 

[Misty]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good.....

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[Flash Farley]

I want the United States of America that destroyed the Nazis and Japs. I want my country back.

 

[IcebergSlim]

[YouQUOTE="JGalt, post: 11773967, member: 28609"]

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Obama was warned by military experts about pulling out all the troops without leaving a residual force. He did it anyway to keep a political promise in election year. Obama is responsible for ISIS, period.

Obama refused to leave a residual force absent an explicit agreement from the Iraqnamese parliament that US forces would be exclusively subject to US legal jurisdiction.....

ISIS has its origins among Sunnis marginalized after the US invasion.....

Nope. Obama bragged about "ending the war". He had to keep his campaign promise.

"Nope"?

Have you spent any time figuring out how Mosul was overrun by less than 1000 Toyota jockeys?

The JV team? It wouldn't have happened if Obama listened to his military experts.[/QUOTE]

The were matched up against the vaunted $25 billion dollar Legion of the Bronze Cordovan, hardened by several years of training under Commander Bunnypants...

In the fairy tale version favored by Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voters, US troops would have loitered indefinitely under Iraqnamese jurisdiction, charged with keeping the government at whose pleasure they were operating from abusing the Sunni minority...

 

[JGalt]

Mighty harsh on Mr. Chamberlain whose intentions were good....

In his speech on ISIS today, Obama said:

"This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision. So the United States will continue to do our part by continuing to counter ISIL's hateful propaganda, especially online. We'll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort islam and its victims are mostly Muslims.

We're also going to partner with Muslim communities as they seek the prosperity and dignity they observe. And we're going to expect those communities to step up in terms of pushing back as hard as they can in conjunction with other people of good will against these hateful ideologies, particularly when it comes to what we're teaching young people."

This imbecile can't seem to grasp the concept that you can't counter radical ideology with social campaigns or flowery speeches written by recently-graduated Political Science majors. If we are faced with an enemy who is absolutely convinced that their "god" wills them to fight to the death, and that their eternal soul depends on it, does Obama think some lame-ass Facebook, #Hashtag, or YouTube campaigns are going to counter that? Does he not know anything about history?

Head in the fuckin' sand.

Yeah, Johnboy......we saw how well the "military modality" worked during the aughts.....

Actually it worked pretty well for GW. His surge in 2007 pretty much wrecked Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They actually had free and open elections there and things would look alot different there today had Obama not undone everything those brave soldiers fought and died for. Bush was by no means fighting a war the way it should have been, thanks to the liberal pacifist meddling and the media turning the public sour. But he was way more a Commander in Chief this this sniveling pussy we have now.

It's all about fiction to you, isn't it...

I suggest you avert your eyes...

But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.


Rather, it did just the opposite, greatly exacerbating antagonisms between them. That result was clearly predicted before the “surge” by none other than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, top U.S. military leaders, and even the Washington Establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, all of which were pressing for less — not more — military involvement.


In one very important sense, however, the “surge” into Iraq was wildly successful in achieving what was almost certainly its primary aim. It bought President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a “decent interval” so they could leave office without an explicit military defeat sullying their legacy – and for the “acceptable” price of “only” 1,000 more U.S. dead.

Resurgence of the Surge Myth Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Ok Mr. Cut&Paste Revisionist. Would you also like to explain how badly Obama fucked up what little good we did in Iraq with his mishandling of the job he took over? Or are you going to flat out lie and tell us he's doing a stunning job?