What's new
By:

ISIS

Stoked said:
In addition to Australia providing aid and being willing to expand military cooperation to stop ISIS. The Lebanese (with Hezbollah support) and the Jordanians are stackign their border with Iraq with troops to prevent ISIS from entering their territory.

I am with Heyhey.

When you see America, Russia, Israel, Iran, Germany, Hezbollah, Nusra Front, Australia, France, Britian, Syria, Syrian rebels, Iraq, Kurds, Lebanon and Jordan all unite to fight the same group then there is a real problem with that group.
Click to expand...

****, even Al-Qaeda has denounced Isis as extremists.
 
franklin said:
You fail to see how withdrawing and allowing this infestation??
Click to expand...

Q Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 — if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.

So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.
 
This guy was up there. An interesting read:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-my-safety.-Within-days-he-would-be-dead.html



Last week the Pentagon stated that that the “peshmerga”, the Kurdistan region’s military force, had rescued manuy of those stranded on the mountain. But this appears to be largely untrue, since the airlifts (which were carrying up to only several dozen people at a time) were being organised by the Iraqi Army, and and the roads were, and still are, being controlled by the YPG, a Syrian Kurdish militia.

At the mere mention of the Kurdish forces, I was met with cries of “No peshmerga!” and rapid handwaving: the people were unaware of this peshmerga expeditionary force that was supposedly evacuating them. The day before I arrived on the mountain I asked one evacuee, Qasim Shasho, who was crossing the Iraqi-Syrian border, who had saved him. He immediately replied, “Apo,” the nickname for Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader of the YPG’s parent group, the PKK.

These same refugees confirmed that they had been unable to receive the vast majority of the US aid drops; most, they claimed, had been useless as the packages and plastic water bottles had broken upon impact. “Please don’t fly too high,” begged Ibrahim Quho, 37, who was among those waiting on the mountain.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
heyhey said:
Q Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 — if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.

So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.
Click to expand...

Didn't read. Bush told us there are nasty people in the world that we need to eradicate and we didn't listen. Now look at this mess we are in.
 
heyhey said:
I don't think this is a fair way to look at it.

It wasn't a lie there really were just a few days ago tens of thousands of yazidi facing death at the hands of these lunatics. What the US could not have known is how successful the YPG(Syrian Kurdish forces) would be in helping the Iraqi Yazidi. Further Isis has pushed up to 1/4 of a million refugees from Irag and Syria into Kurdish controlled Iraq so stopping their advance towards the refugee camps is a legitimate goal in and of itself.

The US, Iran, Israel, and Russia(strange bedfellows indeed) all agree that we cannot permit these nutjobs to act with impunity. I think that should give us all a sense of how dangerous Isis is. France and Germany are arming and providing aid to the Kurds. Britain is taking part in airstrikes. Russia and Iran are providing military aid to Baghdad. I think it's only right that the US should use our air power to destroy US supplied tanks and humvees that are being used in a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...

isis is as dangerous as the nazi. they want to set up a "third recih" and cleanse everyone who is not like that. difference being not a "superiour ethnic race". but a "superior religion". so not that strange bedfellows.
 
Iraq didn't give us a status of forces agreement. If Obama had left troops in Iraq without a status of forces agreement I would forever curse his name and we'd be talking about the soldiers facing hanging after being tried an Iraqi kangaroo courts.
 
One Brow said:
Now ISIS has beheaded an American Journalist. Not smart.
Click to expand...

It is also reported that they have a second one captive and my behead him as well.

Already news articles about some lawmakers calling for an increased American role against ISIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top