Let us review: This is how the Obama Administration is responsible for the threat that is ISIS

[TemplarKormac]

In the negotiations that took place in 2011 for a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, many opportunities were missed which could have stemmed the tide of radical terrorist groups such as ISIS from going on their rampage. Obama failed to reach out to a broader coalition of Iraqi political leaders, which led to Nouri al Maliki not wanting to make any moves without their support. What's more interesting is the fact that the Obama administration had the option to put the troops on something called 'diplomatic rolls' which would have granted them immunity without input from the Iraqi government. Ultimately, the Obama Administration's failure to consider every viable option caused the negotiations to break down, which directly lead to the rise of one of the most powerful and barbaric terrorist groups in recent memory:

From October 21, 2011:

For more evidence that the administration actually wanted to extend the troop presence in Iraq, despite today's words by Obama and McDonough, one only has to look at the statements of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, "Dammit, make a decision" about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, "My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'" On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, "At the present time I'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the Iraqis."

Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would "leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States."

She said that the administration's negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.

...


The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn't about to do either.

"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."

...

As recently as August, Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."

How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

How can I lose an argument before you even make one? I'll keep talking about it without your input, so clam up or make a serious point. Your choice.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This disaster dates back to 2003, when we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, who provided a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against organized terror.

An invasion, as it turns out, that has cost us over a trillion dollars of borrowed money, over 4,000 young American lives, and many more thousands lost American limbs and minds.

So, probably not really a bargain to this point.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

How can I lose an argument before you even make one? I'll keep talking about it without your input, so clam up or make a serious point. Your choice.

You lost the argument weeks ago. You're trying to resurrect an old topic that we demolished you and those of your opinion before.

Are you trying to pretend this is a new topic?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you know that the rules of the forum say you're supposed to check and see if there are already threads on a topic before you start a new thread?

 

[JoeB131]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

How can I lose an argument before you even make one? I'll keep talking about it without your input, so clam up or make a serious point. Your choice.

so it's Obama's fault he didn't throw unlimited resources trying to salvage Bush's fuckup?

 

[Geaux4it]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

How can I lose an argument before you even make one? I'll keep talking about it without your input, so clam up or make a serious point. Your choice.

You lost the argument weeks ago. You're trying to resurrect an old topic that we demolished you and those of your opinion before.

Are you trying to pretend this is a new topic?

What, the left Un-American approach to destroying America? That one?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Yes, lefties... ISIS (Obamas ISIL) is Obama made. Get over it and rejoice in the Head Muslim Terrorist in Chief Obama

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

.

This disaster dates back to 2003, when we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, who provided a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against organized terror.

An invasion, as it turns out, that has cost us over a trillion dollars of borrowed money, over 4,000 young American lives, and many more thousands lost American limbs and minds.

So, probably not really a bargain to this point.

.

How did Saddam become a counterweight to organized terrorism? He was a terrorist too, by all definitions of the word. He committed systematic genocide of his opposition and of innocent people. He used those chemical weapons we found to intimidate people into submission. The man was a murderer and the Iraqis hailed his demise. I would hardly call that a disaster my friend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey Joe, why send our troops to fight Ebola, but not a war? How does that reasoning work out?

 

[Mac1958]

.

This disaster dates back to 2003, when we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, who provided a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against organized terror.

An invasion, as it turns out, that has cost us over a trillion dollars of borrowed money, over 4,000 young American lives, and many more thousands lost American limbs and minds.

So, probably not really a bargain to this point.

.

How did Saddam become a counterweight to organized terrorism? He was a terrorist too, by all definitions of the word. He committed systematic genocide of his opposition and of innocent people. Used those chemical weapons we found to intimidate people into submission, The man was a murderer and the Iraqis hailed his demise. I would hardly call that a disaster my friend.

I agree, he was a psychotic monster.

But he had enough control over his "country" that he would have gone after and slaughtered any group like this with no mercy, using his military. That's what despots do, that's how they become and remain despots.

That's the big picture, the one we ignored. We don't like a guy, so we invade a sovereign country and take him out. This is what happens when we think we can decide who the winners and losers are.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

.

This disaster dates back to 2003, when we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, who provided a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against organized terror.

An invasion, as it turns out, that has cost us over a trillion dollars of borrowed money, over 4,000 young American lives, and many more thousands lost American limbs and minds.

So, probably not really a bargain to this point.

.

How did Saddam become a counterweight to organized terrorism? He was a terrorist too, by all definitions of the word. He committed systematic genocide of his opposition and of innocent people. Used those chemical weapons we found to intimidate people into submission, The man was a murderer and the Iraqis hailed his demise. I would hardly call that a disaster my friend.

I agree, he was a psychotic monster.

But he had enough control over his "country" that he would have gone after and slaughtered any group like this with no mercy, using his military. That's what despots do, that's how they become and remain despots.

That's the big picture, the one we ignored. We don't like a guy, so we invade a sovereign country and take him out. This is what happens when we think we can decide who the winners and losers are.

.

The control he had over his country was stolen. The power he had was of intimidation and of murderous intent. When people plead for our help, do we abandon them? A nation isn't sovereign when a dictator takes away the freedoms of his own people. For a nation to be sovereign the people need to be free as well. Despots prevent national sovereignty by oppressing their people. No freedom, no sovereignty.

It's not a matter of us 'not liking a guy' its a matter of showing the world that we actually support personal liberties and freedom anywhere in the world. What good is it if we don't stand behind our principles?

Torture Chambers
The New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins, who wrote the best book on Iraq (“The Forever War”), recently recalled a visit, shortly after the invasion, to one of Saddam’s torture chambers, a place called Al Hakemiya. He met a man there who identified himself as Al-Musawi. The two visited a room where Al-Musawi’s “arms had been nearly torn from their sockets.” He had been hung from the ceiling and electrocuted.

“Today, in 2013 -- a decade later -- it’s not fashionable to suggest that the American invasion of Iraq served any useful purpose,” Filkins continued. “But what are we to make of Iraqis like Al-Musawi? Or of torture chambers like Al Hakemiya? Where do we place them in our memories? And, more important, how should they shape our judgment of the war we waged?”

His suggestion: “Ask the Iraqis -- that is, if anyone, in this moment of American navel-gazing, can be bothered to do so.”

I took Filkins’s charge to heart, and asked another graduate of Saddam’s torture chambers, a man named Barham Salih, what he thought of the invasion, 10 years on.

Today, Salih is the chairman of the board of the American University of Iraq in Sulaimani, which provides a liberal education in a place not previously known for such a phenomenon. In recent years, Salih has served as both the deputy prime minister of Iraq and as prime minister of the Kurdish regional government. He was in the camp of people who argued that Saddam’s decision to commit genocide against Iraqi Kurds (sometimes with chemical weapons) in the late 1980s made his removal a moral imperative.

I asked him if he thought the invasion was worth it.

“From the perspective of the Kurdish people -- and I dare say the majority of the Iraqi people -- it was worth it,” he said. “War is never a good option, but given our history and the brutality of Saddam’s regime, it may have been the only other option to end the genocidal campaign waged by Saddam against the Kurds and other communities in Iraq.”

Here is where his answer became a lament. “I must admit, however, that 10 years on, Iraq’s transition is, to say the least, characterized by unrealized expectations, both for Iraqis and for our American liberators. Iraq is not the friendly democracy that the U.S. had hoped for, and it is far from the secure, inclusive democracy that Iraqis deserved and aspired to.”

‘Inherent Danger’
He went on to blame Iraqis, rather than Americans, for the failures of the past decade. “Much can be said about U.S. missteps and miscalculations in this process, but there is no denying that Iraqi political leadership bears prime responsibility for squandering a unique opportunity to deliver to their people. This has been nothing short of a drastic failure of leadership on our part! The Kurdistan region offers hope that all is not lost in Iraq.”

I asked Salih to answer the argument that the Kurds -- who make up almost 20 percent of Iraq’s population -- were, by 2003, mainly living in relative safety in a region protected by an American-enforced no-fly zone. In other words, the invasion wasn’t a humanitarian necessity at that moment.

“All Iraqis lived under a regime that had complete disdain for human life,” he said. “Executions and killings continued at will. Thousands of Iraqis were being sent to the mass graves. The Kurds were never safe as they knew that Saddam could at any time decide to reconquer the no-fly zone.”

He went on, “Saddam was a menace to the Kurds, to the other Iraqi communities, and an inherent danger to the region. He was, from our perspective in this part of the world, a grave and mortal danger that we could never be safe from while he was still around.”

Was the Iraq Invasion Worthwhile Ask an Iraqi - Bloomberg View

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

How can I lose an argument before you even make one? I'll keep talking about it without your input, so clam up or make a serious point. Your choice.

so it's Obama's fault he didn't throw unlimited resources trying to salvage Bush's fuckup?

It's Obama's fault that he didn't have the psychic power to foresee the rise of ISIS and therefore didn't pre-emptively assume dictatorial powers both here and in Iraq in order to force an extended occupation on the Iraqi people, who wanted us out, as did the Iraqi government, as did the Iraqi people.

ISIS is none of our business. ISIS has been goading us into another costly useless entanglement in the Middle East -

and sadly they're somewhat successful at it so far.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Any of you who think American soldiers should now go to Iraq and die in place of the Iraqis who ran away in the face of ISIS,

sign up.

 

[Kosh]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

Yes the far left will deny anything their far left programming tells them to..

I can see in 2050 and the far left still blames Booooooossssshhhhh!!

 

[Kosh]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

How can I lose an argument before you even make one? I'll keep talking about it without your input, so clam up or make a serious point. Your choice.

You lost the argument weeks ago. You're trying to resurrect an old topic that we demolished you and those of your opinion before.

Are you trying to pretend this is a new topic?

The far left won no such argument, maybe except in their programmed minds..

 

[Kosh]

How many times do you need to lose this argument before you'll shut up about it?

How can I lose an argument before you even make one? I'll keep talking about it without your input, so clam up or make a serious point. Your choice.

so it's Obama's fault he didn't throw unlimited resources trying to salvage Bush's fuckup?

It's Obama's fault that he didn't have the psychic power to foresee the rise of ISIS and therefore didn't pre-emptively assume dictatorial powers both here and in Iraq in order to force an extended occupation on the Iraqi people, who wanted us out, as did the Iraqi government, as did the Iraqi people.

ISIS is none of our business. ISIS has been goading us into another costly useless entanglement in the Middle East -

and sadly they're somewhat successful at it so far.

Actually he had intel that talked about a growing threat (hence the Jay-vee comments), but I guess one has to actually read such things. However the election was more important and appeasing the far left base was more important.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This disaster dates back to 2003, when we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, who provided a strategic counter-balance to Iran and a firewall against organized terror.

An invasion, as it turns out, that has cost us over a trillion dollars of borrowed money, over 4,000 young American lives, and many more thousands lost American limbs and minds.

So, probably not really a bargain to this point.

.

How did Saddam become a counterweight to organized terrorism? He was a terrorist too, by all definitions of the word. He committed systematic genocide of his opposition and of innocent people. Used those chemical weapons we found to intimidate people into submission, The man was a murderer and the Iraqis hailed his demise. I would hardly call that a disaster my friend.

I agree, he was a psychotic monster.

But he had enough control over his "country" that he would have gone after and slaughtered any group like this with no mercy, using his military. That's what despots do, that's how they become and remain despots.

That's the big picture, the one we ignored. We don't like a guy, so we invade a sovereign country and take him out. This is what happens when we think we can decide who the winners and losers are.

.

The control he had over his country was stolen. The power he had was of intimidation and of murderous intent. When people plead for our help, do we abandon them? A nation isn't sovereign when a dictator takes away the freedoms of his own people. For a nation to be sovereign the people need to be free as well. Despots prevent national sovereignty by oppressing their people. No freedom, no sovereignty.

It's not a matter of us 'not liking a guy' its a matter of showing the world that we actually support personal liberties and freedom anywhere in the world. What good is it if we don't stand behind our principles?

Torture Chambers
The New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins, who wrote the best book on Iraq (“The Forever War”), recently recalled a visit, shortly after the invasion, to one of Saddam’s torture chambers, a place called Al Hakemiya. He met a man there who identified himself as Al-Musawi. The two visited a room where Al-Musawi’s “arms had been nearly torn from their sockets.” He had been hung from the ceiling and electrocuted.

“Today, in 2013 -- a decade later -- it’s not fashionable to suggest that the American invasion of Iraq served any useful purpose,” Filkins continued. “But what are we to make of Iraqis like Al-Musawi? Or of torture chambers like Al Hakemiya? Where do we place them in our memories? And, more important, how should they shape our judgment of the war we waged?”

His suggestion: “Ask the Iraqis -- that is, if anyone, in this moment of American navel-gazing, can be bothered to do so.”

I took Filkins’s charge to heart, and asked another graduate of Saddam’s torture chambers, a man named Barham Salih, what he thought of the invasion, 10 years on.

Today, Salih is the chairman of the board of the American University of Iraq in Sulaimani, which provides a liberal education in a place not previously known for such a phenomenon. In recent years, Salih has served as both the deputy prime minister of Iraq and as prime minister of the Kurdish regional government. He was in the camp of people who argued that Saddam’s decision to commit genocide against Iraqi Kurds (sometimes with chemical weapons) in the late 1980s made his removal a moral imperative.

I asked him if he thought the invasion was worth it.

“From the perspective of the Kurdish people -- and I dare say the majority of the Iraqi people -- it was worth it,” he said. “War is never a good option, but given our history and the brutality of Saddam’s regime, it may have been the only other option to end the genocidal campaign waged by Saddam against the Kurds and other communities in Iraq.”

Here is where his answer became a lament. “I must admit, however, that 10 years on, Iraq’s transition is, to say the least, characterized by unrealized expectations, both for Iraqis and for our American liberators. Iraq is not the friendly democracy that the U.S. had hoped for, and it is far from the secure, inclusive democracy that Iraqis deserved and aspired to.”

‘Inherent Danger’
He went on to blame Iraqis, rather than Americans, for the failures of the past decade. “Much can be said about U.S. missteps and miscalculations in this process, but there is no denying that Iraqi political leadership bears prime responsibility for squandering a unique opportunity to deliver to their people. This has been nothing short of a drastic failure of leadership on our part! The Kurdistan region offers hope that all is not lost in Iraq.”

I asked Salih to answer the argument that the Kurds -- who make up almost 20 percent of Iraq’s population -- were, by 2003, mainly living in relative safety in a region protected by an American-enforced no-fly zone. In other words, the invasion wasn’t a humanitarian necessity at that moment.

“All Iraqis lived under a regime that had complete disdain for human life,” he said. “Executions and killings continued at will. Thousands of Iraqis were being sent to the mass graves. The Kurds were never safe as they knew that Saddam could at any time decide to reconquer the no-fly zone.”

He went on, “Saddam was a menace to the Kurds, to the other Iraqi communities, and an inherent danger to the region. He was, from our perspective in this part of the world, a grave and mortal danger that we could never be safe from while he was still around.”

Was the Iraq Invasion Worthwhile Ask an Iraqi - Bloomberg View

This is not worth the price we have paid, not even close. And there are other evil regimes around the world too. Should we go after North Korea next?

I've sat in too many goddamn airports watching young boys pushing their legless soldier Dad down the corridor in a wheelchair. This was/is not worth it.

It's not our planet, and we failed to consider the big picture.

.

 

[Care4all]

Hey Joe, why send our troops to fight Ebola, but not a war? How does that reasoning work out?

I'm not Joe, but curbing and curing Ebola, "saves the world"....

Fighting and beating ISIS just opens the hole for another group just like them....

Because it is not the 'people' in the region beating them, there will never be a winner on 'the good side".....

I don't think my husband or father should die for this never ending cause...if you feel they should be sent to their possible DEATHS for this, then it is YOU that has a problem....and you can go over there with all of your arm chair hawks, and all of your stocked up guns and ammo that the 2nd amendment gave you, and fight ISIS yourselves, ''mano e mano".