The fight for Mossul has begun

[giblets]

ISIS sounds scarier

[Giancarlo]

I guess the right wing wanted us to say "tough ****, we're staying in 'your' country forever."

Absolutely.

Ben thinks US soldiers were just fine. 4,000 dead. But hey just fine. His number is 10,000 before things aren't just fine anymore.

[Proteus_MST]

isis is many things

one thing for sure, the leadership has never known bondage

...

Of course not ... Bondage is consensual.
The only thing ISiots know is oppression and non consensual sex slavery of women and children

[Bereta_Eder]

isis is many things

one thing for sure, the leadership has never known bondage

someone who has been kept down only commits those kinds of evils against the perpetrators

not children

so **** off with that nonsense

USA bombed serbian children

[Giancarlo]

ISIS sounds scarier

Well when people call them Daesh, they get infuriated. Daesh is pretty much a derogatory term in Arabic.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-daesh-mean-isis-threatens-6841468

[giblets]

Absolutely.

Ben thinks US soldiers were just fine. 4,000 dead. But hey just fine. His number is 10,000 before things aren't just fine anymore.

Only 10,000? What a *****. He would have pulled out of Vietnam long before LBJ

[Ben Kenobi]

This isn't what happened. The Iraqi government demanded we leave. They are the recognized government. When the recognized government asks you to leave you have no choice in the matter. Obama did blow anything. He wasn't going to negotiate by Al-Malikis term. And Al-Maliki was the one that enraged Sunnis. He was the key problem. And who was the one that helped him take power? Your favorite President Dubya.

And who was the one who kept him in power? President Dubya. Maliki's 'demand' just happened to coincide with Obama's promise to pull the troops out. I'm amused that you still can't admit that Obama ****ed up by pulling the troops too soon.

And I'm not quite sure how, "pulling the troops too soon, equates to 'staying in the country forever.

I can't honestly believe you are this ignorant on this subject too.

Neither can I. Are you claiming that Obama never promised to pull the troops out to reverse Dubya's position? LOL. How did that work out for him? Obviously not well as he had to put the troops back.

This is called a phony narrative.

I criticized Obama then over this, prior to ISIS. It's not phony when it's true.

Liar liar pants on fire. Just like Trump. He didn't bail at first opportunity. There was an attempt at negotiations and the Iraqi government refused any sort of compromise. Keep being a historical revisionist, Benny.

Yes, he did bail at the first opportunity. So much for the Obama doctrine, withdrawing American forces from around the world. Long may it live on the ashheap of terrible foreign policies.

No. You are clueless and you don't know what you are talking about. We had no business being in Iraq in the first place. The troops there were just fine during the Bush administration? Tell that to the families of the thousands of US soldiers that died. Easy for a chickenhawk like you to make such claims. 4,000 dead and tens of thousands injured. Nothing was "just fine".

Uh, I don't count as a 'chickenhawk' because I opposed the Iraq (and Afghanistan) wars at the time. Wasn't my choice to go in. Two, are you seriously denying that Obama promised to pull the troops? More have died under Obama than ever died under Bush, and that's before we count all the civilian casualties from ISIS.

Obama has done just fine.

Where? Syria is a ****hole. Iraq is an even worse ****hole than it was in 2008. Libya, which he invaded is a worse ****hole than it was in 2008.

Is there one country that's better off today than when he took office?

If the Iraqi government refused any sort of compromise, of course we had to withdraw.

LOL, yeah. sure. Right after Obama makes a promise to pull the troops out, he tries to pull the troops out. Then he fails and breaks his own promise by having to put them back. Like a child playing with toy soldiers. "Oh, we don't need those here. Oops. Guess we really did need those here. Guess I'll put them back and deny I ever took them out in the first place."

If you would use your little brain, you would realize Shiite militia men were killing US troops too. Remember Al-Sadr? But of course a lying dingbat, like you, always knows better. You know what is ironic? You discussing this subject as if you know anything at all. The only fool here is you.

I remember a peaceful, free Iraq that Obama inherited. Now we have ISIS. Great job, Obama!

Militiamen allied with the government were attacking US forces if you can remember (unless your dementia is acting up). By the way, any presence of US troops in Iraq right now is minimal.

LOL, which is why Obama promised to take the troops out?

No. Actually it was the right move. By now, we would be looking at 10,000-15,000 dead. But you would think it would be just fine. Keep drinking your koolaid. You are nothing more than an armchair neoconservative fool.

Uh, you are aware that ISIS has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians now, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben thinks US soldiers were just fine. 4,000 dead. But hey just fine. His number is 10,000 before things aren't just fine anymore.

How many in 2008? Just 314, about the same as Obama prior to 2011.

Now because of Obama's fecklessness, he's wasted the sacrifice of 4500 American dead, (since you don't count those who died on Obama's watch).

[BeBMan]

The Anti-IS-Forces already won their first ideological important victory on sunday

The battle for Dabiq

Dabiq is a strategically unimportant town that, however, according to a prophecy strongly supported by IS clerics, was supposed to be the location of an important battle between Crusaders (i.e. the western forces) and the IS forces and was supposed to end with a victory for the IS forces (which then would trigger the apocalypse).

(...)

Kinda disappointing with all those prophecies for the apocalyse. Middle ages 1000 AD, Maya 2012, never forget

At least the Maya got a movie about it.

[Giancarlo]

How many in 2008? Just 314, about the same as Obama prior to 2011.

Now because of Obama's fecklessness, he's wasted the sacrifice of 4500 American dead, (since you don't count those who died on Obama's watch).

You are an idiot and you just proved it with this comment. There were less fatalities because the numbers of US troops were already being drawn down.

Goodness me. Just stop posting. Do you love embarrassing yourself? What a buffoon.

[rah]

Quick question. Why isn't the sacrifice of the 4500k dead not on the the administration that committed us to action in the first place. That sacrifice was already wasted.

[Giancarlo]

And who was the one who kept him in power? President Dubya. Maliki's 'demand' just happened to coincide with Obama's promise to pull the troops out. I'm amused that you still can't admit that Obama ****ed up by pulling the troops too soon.

That isn't what happened. Now you are lying your ass off because you ****ed up in this argument.

And I'm not quite sure how, "pulling the troops too soon, equates to 'staying in the country forever.

Another stupid statement.

Neither can I. Are you claiming that Obama never promised to pull the troops out to reverse Dubya's position? LOL. How did that work out for him? Obviously not well as he had to put the troops back.

You obviously are fine with US soldiers dying because you are a chickenhawk. Obama did the right thing. There was no agreement and we could stay when the Iraqi government wanted us to leave.

I criticized Obama then over this, prior to ISIS. It's not phony when it's true.

Except you are full of bull**** and you don't even see it.

Yes, he did bail at the first opportunity. So much for the Obama doctrine, withdrawing American forces from around the world. Long may it live on the ashheap of terrible foreign policies.

Another unsupported claim from an idiotic little mind. Your doctrine would lead to tens of thousands dead, so spare us your crap. We have no business being in Iraq. And no he didn't bail.

Uh, I don't count as a 'chickenhawk' because I opposed the Iraq (and Afghanistan) wars at the time. Wasn't my choice to go in. Two, are you seriously denying that Obama promised to pull the troops? More have died under Obama than ever died under Bush, and that's before we count all the civilian casualties from ISIS.

Moron. Bushs action led to around 800,000 to 1.2 million dead. You can't get even get your facts right.

Where? Syria is a ****hole. Iraq is an even worse ****hole than it was in 2008. Libya, which he invaded is a worse ****hole than it was in 2008.

Is there one country that's better off today than when he took office?



LOL, yeah. sure. Right after Obama makes a promise to pull the troops out, he tries to pull the troops out. Then he fails and breaks his own promise by having to put them back. Like a child playing with toy soldiers. "Oh, we don't need those here. Oops. Guess we really did need those here. Guess I'll put them back and deny I ever took them out in the first place."



I remember a peaceful, free Iraq that Obama inherited. Now we have ISIS. Great job, Obama!



LOL, which is why Obama promised to take the troops out?



Uh, you are aware that ISIS has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians now, right?

The rest of this is just total utter bull**** from an elementary mind that can't quite grasp the basics of foreign policy. By the way, Assad himself has killed many times more Syrians than Daesh. You idiot, you can't even get your figures right and you pull numbers out of your ass.

Obama hasn't deployed combat troops to Iraq. anything is limited to training and some logistics. The forces nearing Mosul are the Kurds and Iraqi army only.

[Giancarlo]

Stick to religion. This is your weakest area, Ben. I can't stand morons like you. It is people like you that end up destroying lives.

And a free, peaceful Iraq before Obama pulled out troops? Wow. You really are stupid. Iraq was never peaceful or free. Never. Certainly not under Al-Maliki. The reason why US troops fatalities were lower was because of lesser numbers and the withdrawal of US forces from combat roles prior to 2011.

You suggesting that Iraq was free and peaceful in 2008 shows you are a naive moron. Stupid ignorant man!

[Ben Kenobi]

And a free, peaceful Iraq before Obama pulled out troops? Wow. You really are stupid. Iraq was never peaceful or free. Never. Certainly not under Al-Maliki. The reason why US troops fatalities were lower was because of lesser numbers and the withdrawal of US forces from combat roles prior to 2011.

LOL, which eliminates your argument that Iraq was freer under Obama. Yes, by 2008, Iraqi was peaceful and free which Obama inherited. More than half of it was under ISIS, thanks to his fecklessness.

[Giancarlo]

LOL, which eliminates your argument that Iraq was freer under Obama. Yes, by 2008, Iraqi was peaceful and free which Obama inherited. More than half of it was under ISIS, thanks to his fecklessness.

I never said that was my argument. you stupid thing. You are just as bad at this as the argument about Hillary supposedly wanting to the abolish the Catholic church.

When you fail miserably, make **** up about me and Obama. You can't even get your history right. You blaming Obama for Daesh shows how stupidly ignorant you are. And get over your obsession with the word "fecklessness". The dictionary isn't your friend.

You are completely clueless and arguing with someone who actually has academic background in the middle east.