The fight for Mossul has begun

[Egbert]

The really important point is that my name was in this thrade.

[Giancarlo]

Leaders lead. O had zero interest in staying in Iraq and wanted to bail asap. That he's still stuck there because of his terrible decisions is delicious irony.

He could have stayed in. What would Maliki say? "We don't want American troops here." "If we leave are you going to call us back to help save your sorry ass if your government falls?

Maliki....

"Then we'll stay."

You should have been Trump's Vice Presidential pick. You're about as stupid as he is and you make **** up. Like he did all night.

"He could have stayed in". Sounds like something Trump says. The Iraqi government which is the recognized government refused to negotiate. And the idiot you are basically deflected the other point on prosecutions.

[Egbert]

Ben Kenobi for Vice President.

[Tuberski]

Leaders lead. O had zero interest in staying in Iraq and wanted to bail asap. That he's still stuck there because of his terrible decisions is delicious irony.

He could have stayed in. What would Maliki say? "We don't want American troops here." "If we leave are you going to call us back to help save your sorry ass if your government falls?

Maliki....

"Then we'll stay."

I really like it when people who haven't served are all in favor of risking soldiers lives.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Along with the Kurds, etc. I don't see how America is responsible for creating ISIS when ISIS was already there. The narrative seems to be "if only the Americans would leave the problems would go away", except that as soon as the Americans did leave, the problems that were already there exploded. This is no surprise to anyone, save, maybe Obama.

The US created the power vacuum in which ISIS thrived. This isn't rocket science.

ACK!

[kentonio]

There's a difference between 'some' and 'none'. Sure, I have no problem with the drawdown which would have happened, but pulling out was a green light. The Iraqis were not ready. Deals get renegotiated all the time. There would be nothing wrong with talking with the Iraqis and saying, "you're not ready yet, if we leave it's going to create massive problems. We'd rather stay longer and get **** sorted out first before we go." Instead, O grandstanded on his promise, watched as peaceful Iraq evaporated and saw radical Islam take over half the country on his watch.

Rarely do we see such terrible failures in foreign policy. He ranks right up there with Chamberlain.

You're an idiot. Agreements require both sides to actually agree, the clue is pretty much entirely in the name. Iraq had no interest in continued American presence and made that absolutely clear. Surprisingly they had grown tired of watching American mercenaries gunning down innocent civilians in the streets, and then walking away scot free.

The reason ISIS got a foothold in Iraq is because Iraq was a battered mess due almost entirely to the outrageously appalling post-war occupation which fueled mass insurgency. The de-Baathification of Iraq will go down as one of the most idiotic and senseless decisions in history.

It's funny though you know, for a party so big on using the military, the Republicans really don't adopt any of the concepts of honour or duty that they supposedly worship. Bush screwed up and did so in a way that killed over a million people. The response from you cowards is to try and pin the blame on the guy who took over and was left trying to clear up the mess. I suppose we should have come to expect responsibility shirking and craven dishonesty from you by now, but it's still very pathetic.

[C0ckney]

keep proving me right, fez.

Thanks for proving me right

so original. that's what three degrees get you i suppose.

[C0ckney]

Considering that they started as a terrorist organization (and only later declared themselves caliphate) it is very likely that at one point (when the fortunes of war have turned too much agsainst them and they are about toi lose their last territory) they will try to go underground again

Although I think there is hope, that it will be very difficulty for them (most (if not all) of the faces of their leadership are known, so they may be identified and either captured or killed more easily ... also I believe that IS will have less backing by the population now (than before 2014) as not even the Sunni population will want a return of IS dictatorship and brutality .... also I think that only a minority of IS (fighters/leaders) will have knowledge in establishing and leading terrorist cells and networks)

yes, i think those are some good points. i wonder about the sunni population, though, and i suspect that given the choice between the islamic state and iranian-backed shia militias, many sunnis will choose the former. there's also the possibility of new groups forming to take advantage of sunni discontent, perhaps absorving former ISIS fighters.

[C0ckney]

It will draw on for a long time mostly because the Iraqi forces are next to worthless. In the end they will win through shear force of numbers but in terms of any decent military tactics? They do not have that level of ability or coordination.

as i'm sure you know, morale is crucial in these conflicts. right now, the islamic state's morale is at rock bottom while that of the iraqi forces is high.

[Bereta_Eder]

also, i'm not a racist and wouldn't care if it was serbian/chinese/french/arab/your children

That mandra of "we bomb everyone's children" equally is very reassuring

[Giancarlo]

so original. that's what three degrees get you i suppose.

Better than your complete lack of credibility and no degrees.

[Ben Kenobi]

I really like it when people who haven't served are all in favor of risking soldiers lives.

As opposed to risking soldiers lives trying to clean out ISIS? I'd vastly prefer holding to taking, and I think most folks in the military would too.

The US created the power vacuum in which ISIS thrived. This isn't rocket science.

Which is why you stay rather than cutting and running.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're an idiot. Agreements require both sides to actually agree, the clue is pretty much entirely in the name. Iraq had no interest in continued American presence and made that absolutely clear. Surprisingly they had grown tired of watching American mercenaries gunning down innocent civilians in the streets, and then walking away scot free.

Uh. Iraq wanted to keep 10k troops there. Obama wanted to pull out.

The reason ISIS got a foothold in Iraq is because Iraq was a battered mess due almost entirely to the outrageously appalling post-war occupation which fueled mass insurgency. The de-Baathification of Iraq will go down as one of the most idiotic and senseless decisions in history.

Ask the Kurds how they feel about that. There's nothing wrong with the process. There's everything wrong with cutting and running. Why didn't the US do that with Germany? They are still in Germany now.

It's funny though you know, for a party so big on using the military, the Republicans really don't adopt any of the concepts of honour or duty that they supposedly worship. Bush screwed up and did so in a way that killed over a million people.

We don't believe in senseless sacrifices. Pissing away everything in Iraq because, "we made a deal to leave", would leave things no better than in Vietnam where they did the same thing in Saigon.

Millions of people are alive today because the US chose to intervene and protect them, and still do because the US stayed in. Iraq had issues prior to 2010, sure. Iraq had issues prior to 2000 too. Iraq will have issues after 2010. The question is not a question as to honor but of duty. The ultimate duty was to protect the citizens of Iraq. Thanks to Obama the deal did not do that.

The response from you cowards is to try and pin the blame on the guy who took over and was left trying to clear up the mess. I suppose we should have come to expect responsibility shirking and craven dishonesty from you by now, but it's still very pathetic.

We blame Obama for his ****ty decisions.

[Giancarlo]

Uh. Iraq wanted to keep 10k troops there. Obama wanted to pull out.

No they didn't. They failed to agree to a settlement Obama pushed. Iraq didn't want us there.

Ask the Kurds how they feel about that. There's nothing wrong with the process. There's everything wrong with cutting and running. Why didn't the US do that with Germany? They are still in Germany now.

What am I supposed to ask the Kurds? What does Germany have to do with Iraq? You realize Europe is a different subject and that the troops left in Germany were left during the height of the cold war?

You need to learn how to stay on subject.

We don't believe in senseless sacrifices. Pissing away everything in Iraq because, "we made a deal to leave", would leave things no better than in Vietnam where they did the same thing in Saigon.

Tell that to the republican party. And senseless sacrifices? Leaving more troops in Iraq would have been a senseless sacrifice. But somebody as arrogant as you can sit on your pedestal and talk about sacrifices.

By the way, you may say you don't support Trump, but you sure sound like him when discussing sacrifices. When has anyone like you ever sacrificed anything?

By the way, Vietnam is doing fine without us. They seem to be on the up and the US-Vietnam conducted the first joint naval tests together. The US is starting to see Vietnam as an alternative to that Duterte but, but this is all a different subject.

Millions of people are alive today because the US chose to intervene and protect them, and still do because the US stayed in. Iraq had issues prior to 2010, sure. Iraq had issues prior to 2000 too. Iraq will have issues after 2010. The question is not a question as to honor but of duty. The ultimate duty was to protect the citizens of Iraq. Thanks to Obama the deal did not do that.

False correlation. The war in Iraq isn't the same as those other conflicts and we have no business being in Iraq at all. They need to sort their own mess out. By the way, what will happen when someone like Al Sadr starts killing US troops again? We need to keep any combat forces out of it. Training is fine, but combat... No. You are not honoring the fallen in anyway and you want more kids to die because you are a selfish ass.

We blame Obama for his ****ty decisions.

Bull****. The man has a 55-57% approval rating and has been quite good in just about every area. You made many ****ty decisions though. Catholicism for example.

[Giancarlo]

As opposed to risking soldiers lives trying to clean out ISIS? I'd vastly prefer holding to taking, and I think most folks in the military would too.



Which is why you stay rather than cutting and running.

We have no business going into Iraq with combat forces. Leave it to the Kurds, Sunni tribal forces and the Iraqi army.

You don't know a thing about the region and you only want others to die so you can be happy.

There was no cutting and running, you neoconservative tool.