Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bush predicted rise of ISIS and warned us not to prematurely pull out of Iraq (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 17 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  15  16  17   
Author Topic: Bush predicted rise of ISIS and warned us not to prematurely pull out of Iraq
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As much as I opposed Bush, he knew exactly what would happen if we followed Obama's strategy. There is a transcript of a speech he have warning what would happen. His words were dead accurate.

quote:


A prophetic warning from then-President George W. Bush before he left office about what would happen if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq too soon is getting new attention in light of the Islamic State’s gains, as each of his predictions appears to be coming true.

Bush made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.  

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
”

Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen says all these predictions have come true.

“Every single thing that President Bush said there in that statement is happening today,” he told Fox News.

To Bush’s first warning, the Islamic State terror group is effectively the successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq – and they’ve overrun several major cities in Iraq’s north while claiming broad swaths of territory in Syria. Further, the group has been behind mass killings of Iraqi civilians as well as the recent execution by beheading of two American journalists.

The Obama administration has warned that the group’s violence threatens to approach genocide levels.

Though President Obama says combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, American troops are nevertheless returning in some capacity. The president on Wednesday announced an expanded airstrike campaign against the group in Iraq and Syria, and is sending hundreds more U.S. military personnel into Iraq.

Some lawmakers and analysts say this could have been avoided if the Obama administration had left a residual force in Iraq, or at least had responded sooner to ISIS’ gains in northern Iraq over the past year.

Bush, before he left office, signed an agreement setting the stage for U.S. troops to withdraw by December 2011.

Obama, though, was urged by military advisers to keep thousands of service members after that deadline to help the shaky Iraqi government. But when Washington and Baghdad were unable to reach a renewed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces in the country, the Obama administration withdrew virtually all troops at the end of 2011.

“We needed to leave a stabilizing force behind, and we didn't.  And of course, we know the rest is history,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News.



Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isis arose in Syria.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But they didn't take over Syria. They used Al Qaeda to take over Iraq then turned on Al Qaeda and is something even worse than Al Qaeda now.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They used the Sunni councils that the Iraqi government abandoned when we left to take over Iraq.

Our pulling out wasn't the problem, it was, very actively, the decision of the Shi'ite faction to marginalize the Sunnis that opened the way for ISIS to hire them back into service on their side.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which we abetted in order to gain their support for the new government. We MADE this mess. We shouldn't try to duck that or parse out blame.

We MADE this mess.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Bush's plan demanded a permanent occupation, then it was a bad plan because a permanent occupation was just not going to happen.

If Bush's plan needed an occupation only up to some specific point in time, Bush failed to establish or describe what that point in time would be and what it would look like.

Sorry but "until our commanders say we're ready" isn't a good description of such a point. It's a request for submission to the will of another, not an argument to convince the public.

I'm not asking for Bush to have mentioned a specific date, I'm asking for him to establish what Iraq was supposed to look at the time of the American troops departure -- and to make a rough guess about when such time would arrive.

Only in that case, would Americans be able to make an informed decision about whether they felt the cost was worth it, and whether the prediction looked plausible.

quote:
But they didn't take over Syria
They've taken large parts of Syria, same as they've taken large parts of Iraq. Look the map in wikipedia.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait a second! Are we now rewarding people for correct predictions? Because I correctly predicted the current state of affairs in Iraq before we even invaded Iraq, and Seneca hasn't started a thread about me.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Tom, but I predicted it before you [Wink] , and I wasn't the first, either. I'm sure I was the first on Ornery to call for a tripartite division of Iraq. Biden probably got the idea from me.
quote:
I'm not asking for Bush to have mentioned a specific date, I'm asking for him to establish what Iraq was supposed to look at the time of the American troops departure -- and to make a rough guess about when such time would arrive.
If we had the recorded meetings where he and his advisors discussed that before they started the war, I am very confident they would have said something like, "6 months, a year, but definitely not more".

I heard an interview with a Middle East historian earlier today who said that every single time we have intervened in the region we have caused the problems that we later had to go back to address. Iraq III is the direct result of Iraq II, which was the "fix" for Iraq I.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point here isn't to reward Bush as much as it is to point out that a mistake our CURRENT AND SITTING President has made was easily predicted and that hopefully it sheds light on his planned strategy with ISIS and how many predict it will fail before it has even begun.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, sounds just like what we were hearing back then. Unless you want to keep a permanent occupation force of 500,000 in the region, violate national sovereignty of every country and bankrupt the US economy, I think you should think harder about other solutions.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I submit it will be less costly than losing a few US cities to terrorist nukes.

It wasn't so long ago you mocked that possibility. Now our own government acknowledges ISIS has the funds and the will to sneak someone across our southern border to initiate a major terrorist attack on us.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, I also predicted that you would predict it would fail.

I'll go out on a limb here, even, and predict that you'll predict his next three plans -- no matter what they are, even if they're for lunch -- will also fail.

---------

quote:

It wasn't so long ago you mocked that possibility. Now our own government acknowledges ISIS has the funds and the will to sneak someone across our southern border to initiate a major terrorist attack on us.

It's nice that you believe the government so explicitly. I'll still mock that possibility, though.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're making the same freaking mistake we made 11 years ago.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, it's only a mistake if your goal isn't to keep the U.S. in a perpetual state of war with a completely irrelevant enemy.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only mistake is going back to an ostrich head in the sand isolationist strategy. It doesn't matter if we "leave them alone." They hate us and want to destroy us. The only sane course of action is to destroy them. When even liberal comedians finally realize that militant Islamism can't be peacefully coexisted with you'd hope everyone would get it by then.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The point here isn't to reward Bush as much as it is to point out that a mistake our CURRENT AND SITTING President has made was easily predicted and that hopefully it sheds light on his planned strategy with ISIS and how many predict it will fail before it has even begun.

Except that the mistake was going in in the first place, not anything that Obama did. Iraq was reasonably stable when we pulled out- it was only rendered vulnerable by the actions of the Iraqi government after the fact. Had they continued to employ the Awakening councils instead of marginalizing them and leaving them open for ISIS to hire instead, ISIS wouldn't have been able to get a foothold.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only sane course of action is to destroy them.
That's like saying the only sane solution to an energy crisis is to build a perpetual motion machine.

This isn't a threat that can be destroy- in fact, the harder we try to forcefully destroy it, the worse it gets because all we do is improve its peal to those that we hurt in the process as a way to respond to the damage we do while pursuing that fool's errand.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only mistake is going back to an ostrich head in the sand isolationist strategy. It doesn't matter if we "leave them alone." They hate us and want to destroy us. The only sane course of action is to destroy them.
We created this mess. We created the last mess. We created the mess before that. When are we going to learn that killing people causes the people left after we kill some people to want to kill us?

I find it hard to believe that there are people who don't understand that the vast majority of the reason there are extreme groups in the middle east that want to kill us isn't a direct result of our actions in the middle east.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On one of these threads someone mentioned that ISIS had made a mistake in exposing itself to attack. But it actually hasn't. It isn't ISIS itself in those cities in Iraq to any meaningful degree. IT's the Sunnis and Baathists that had military and leadership skills that it was able to hire, since the Iraqi government decided to marginalize them and leave them without any other options.

They're effectively human shields that ISIS doesn't really care about beyond their immediate utility, and probably hose we target, since each one of them we kill translates into another handful of dedicated recruits that are out for blood and not just in it to be able to afford to support their families and communities.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When the US is attacked with a chemical or nuclear attack only then will we do what is necessary to effectively end this threat. They can be defeated, we simply lack the collective will to do so at this moment because we judge the cost to be too high.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The only sane course of action is to destroy them.
That's like saying the only sane solution to an energy crisis is to build a perpetual motion machine.

Only with extra killing.

Honestly, Seneca. Really think for a moment about what "destroying them" means. How many hundreds of thousands of men, women, old people, and children are you willing to kill? Or, rather, have our soldiers kill because I don't see you volunteering. What taxes are you willing to pay to fund this?

And, why, do you think that will make us "safe"?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The only sane course of action is to destroy them.
That's like saying the only sane solution to an energy crisis is to build a perpetual motion machine.

Only with extra killing.

Honestly, Seneca. Really think for a moment about what "destroying them" means. How many hundreds of thousands of men, women, old people, and children are you willing to kill? Or, rather, have our soldiers kill because I don't see you volunteering. What taxes are you willing to pay to fund this?

And, why, do you think that will make us "safe"?

If we get nuked we will most likely lose millions in NYC, LA, etc. At that point the terrorists have signed the death warrants of everyone and everywhere ISIS is, civilians or not. This was the reality we faced during the Cold War and the calculus should be no different now.

And for the record I served in Desert Storm and Desert Shield and put my life on the line for this country. I had a good friend die in that conflict and knew many more who were injured, though overall our casualties were pretty low.

How do I know we can be made safe? Because we are capable of eliminating the enemy's ability to perpetuate itself. I don't lightly suggest this but it is inevitable if we are hit with a chemical or nuclear attack on our soil.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How exactly do we "eliminate the enemy's ability to perpetuate itself"? Capable how? Again, how many people need to die for you to feel safe?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many Americans need to die for you to admit that there are enemies trying to kill us and for you to be willing to allow us to fight back? Please let us know the number so we can tell the families of those who have died how many more are left to be slaughtered before we respond.

[ September 11, 2014, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, Isis does not have hundreds of thousands of members. And am not sure that any of its members are female.

Most current Isis groupies came in because of Isis' string of rapid victories. A few humiliations and most will fall away. Especially if we don't give them us boots on the ground. Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How many Americans need to die for you to admit that there are enemies trying to kill us and for you to be willing to allow us to fight back?
Says the Islamist terrorist recruiter to the potential member: How many muslims need to die for you to admit that there are enemies trying to kill us and for you to be willing to allow us to fight back?

quote:
Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women
Oh, golly, if it's that easy, one wonders why the Syrian government hasn't shown them that already. The Syrian soldier can hold the video screens in front of them, much like the loudspeakers speaking the world's deadliest joke in that Monty Python sketch.

I see again, as a decade ago, Americans drooling in their daydreams of ridiculously easy victories. Because it'll supposedly be different than the Iraq War. Which would supposedly be different than the Vietnam War.

Only thing that'll be different now if Obama manages to get actual Muslim nations of the region to do the fighting there. As I've said before: ISIL is a threat for the Muslim world. Therefore the Muslim world needs be the one to primarily deal with it. If it's America that deals with it, then nothing will be accomplished whatsoever -- the ISIL will again be the brave Muslim warriors who fight against the oppression by the Western crusaders.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" posted September 11, 2014 07:57 PM                       
quote:
How many Americans need to die for you to admit that there are enemies trying to kill us and for you to be willing to allow us to fight back?
Says the Islamist terrorist recruiter to the potential member: How many muslims need to die for you to admit that there are enemies trying to kill us and for you to be willing to allow us to fight back?

quote:
Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women
Oh, golly, if it's that easy, one wonders why the Syrian government hasn't shown them that already"

Because the Syrian govt finds the Kurds threatening, as all oppressors do.

Also, the Syrian govt like Isis operates by terror. You realize I didn't mean literal stomping, right? Just battlefield victory.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, I'm talking about the yahoos that joined very recently in Iraq, not the battle hardened group in Syria. Folks that joined up because Isis looked neat on YouTube, can sway the other way.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"

"I see again, as a decade ago, Americans drooling in their daydreams of ridiculously easy victories. Because it'll supposedly be different than the Iraq War. Which would supposedly be different than the Vietnam War.

Only thing that'll be different now if Obama manages to get actual Muslim nations of the region to do the fighting there"

He doesn't have to get them to do that. The Kurds are already doing that. And that's what I said would make the difference. Why act like you disagree with me, and turn around and propose the same strategy?

[ September 11, 2014, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

Most current Isis groupies came in because of Isis' string of rapid victories. A few humiliations and most will fall away. Especially if we don't give them us boots on the ground. Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women.

Note the parts of what I said that Aris cut out to make the point of drooling american who thinks american troops can win easy victory.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Kurds are already doing that.
The Kurds are fighting against ISIS intrusion in their own lands, that isn't equal to fighting a total war of elimination against ISIS. Isn't ISIS's elimination the plan, rather than just forcing them to withdraw from just Iraq?

quote:
Why act like you disagree with me, and turn around and propose the same strategy?
I believe that the absence of American boots on the ground is the only thing that can prevent it from being an absolute catastrophe like last time -- your usage of 'especially' seemed to imply that you instead considered said absence to be just a good bonus to have.

Either way you predict that it'll be easy, and I predict it'll be really hard. That's a pretty big difference right there.

[ September 12, 2014, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Either way you predict that it'll be easy, and I predict it'll be really hard. That's a pretty big difference right there.
If not impossible. Everyone here thinks of ISIS as invaders; nobody is taking into account that the group arose from native-born people from the area where they are fighting. The societies of those countries have to stop producing factional groups who believe, think and act like they do. That's a deeply rooted cultural problem that is beyond the reach of our bombs and can't be "fixed" by our military no matter how many soldiers we send over and no matter how long we keep them there.

The question is whether those countries will do that:
quote:
While Arab nations allied with the United States vowed on Thursday to “do their share” to fight ISIS and issued a joint communiqué supporting a broad strategy, the underlying tone was one of reluctance. The government perhaps most eager to join a coalition against ISIS was that of Syria, which Mr. Obama had already ruled out as a partner for what he described as terrorizing its citizens.

Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Fayssal Mekdad, told NBC News that Syria and the United States were “fighting the same enemy,” terrorism, and that his government had “no reservations” about airstrikes as long as the United States coordinated with it. He added, “We are ready to talk.”

Others were less than forthcoming. The foreign minister of Egypt — already at odds with Mr. Obama over the American decision to withhold some aid after the Egyptian military’s ouster last year of the elected president — complained that Egypt’s hands were full with its own fight against “terrorism,” referring to the Islamist opposition.

In Jordan, the state news agency reported that in a meeting about the extremists on Wednesday, King Abdullah II had told Secretary of State John Kerry “that the Palestinian cause remains the core of the conflict in the region” and that Jordan was focusing on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Turkey, which Mr. Kerry will visit on Friday, is concerned about attacks across its long border with ISIS-controlled Syria, and also about 49 Turkish government employees captured by the group in Iraq. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, an official advised not to expect public support for the American effort.

At a meeting in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, to build a coalition for the American mission, at least 10 Arab states signed a communiqué pledging to join “in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign,” but with the qualification “as appropriate” and without any specifics. Turkey attended the meeting but declined to sign.

Even in Baghdad and across Syria, where the threat from ISIS is immediate, reactions were mixed. Members of Iraq’s Shiite majority cheered the prospect of American help. But many Sunni Muslims were cynical about battling an organization that evolved from jihadist groups fighting American occupation.



[ September 12, 2014, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As to whether Bush advised in 2007 not to pull out before it was the right time, I repeat that you *really* have to be careful about relying on what you hear on FOX News.

Here is what he wrote into the SOFA in 2008:
quote:
Article 24

Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq

Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:

All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.

The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.

The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.


Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, Isis does not have hundreds of thousands of members. And am not sure that any of its members are female.

Most current Isis groupies came in because of Isis' string of rapid victories. A few humiliations and most will fall away. Especially if we don't give them us boots on the ground. Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women.

What are you going to do about Mosul? An ancient city of about 2 million people and currently a ISIL stronghold, should we just, as Seneca suggests, "nuke it into glass"? Dresden, perhaps?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris, what I said is that a large number of Isis goons joined very recently because of Isis's spate of victories in Iraq, so it's reasonable that those newbies might fall away in the face of a string of humiliating defeats.

What you call "the plan" is Obama's plan. You misrepresent me when you take my quotes out of context for your drooling American stereotype. I'm simply talking about pushing Isis out of Iraq. Attacking in Syria at this point would give Russia cover to stomp over eastern Europe. Even though doing so would not technically be aggression, euro-peons are habitually obtuse on that point.

You are wrong about the Kurds: Syrian Kurds are fighting Isis in Syria as well, and I'd bet the PKK are helping them.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess now we know how Bush was able to so accurately predict the rise of ISIS. He had Cheney create them. Chris Matthews, MSNBC, has the scoop:
quote:
During the final segment of MSNBC’s coverage of Barack Obama’s brief Wednesday night speech — in which the Democratic occupant of the White House called for air strikes in Iraq and Syria to combat the ISIS terrorist group — Hardball host Chris Matthews used the occasion to hammer former Vice President Dick Cheney as the cause, not just of the current president’s problems in the Middle East, but of creating Islamic terrorism as a whole.

“Please do not listen to Dick Cheney,” Matthews advised Obama. “He’s the one that created al-Qaeda by taking over the holy land in Saudi Arabia. He’s the one that de-Baathicized [sic] the Iraqi government. He created ISIS, and he’s coming back again with more advice.”

[DOH]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We should have listened to Dick Cheney. In 1991.
quote:
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Or 1994.


quote:
Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you’ve got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.”

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess that makes him a prescient idiot.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have a great idea for a book title.regime change for dummies
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He joined with Halliburton in 1995 and started getting no bid contracts that would make him and his buddies rich on the spoils of war. I guess that changes things.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 17 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  15  16  17   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1