We have been in both places for decades with no plans on ever leaving, and no one seems to be the least bit upset because our troops aren't dying.
Say what you want about Bush, but we had things pretty well under control despite his "ineptness" and If we had left 50,000 troops there the same way we did in Germany or Korea, ISIS would not be front page news today. No one every would have heard of them. It's a lot easier to keep cockroaches under control with routine spraying than it is to have to tent your house due to an infestation, what we have now is an infestation due to lack of spraying and I for one blame our current CIC.
The time frame I think for this action is less than 2 years, and possibly considerably less than that.
And by "boots"' I mean large numbers, measured not in the 100's or even thousands of troops, but in the 10's of thousands.
Agree?
A position i have held since we first went into Iraq. As even that dolt McCain said, "i don't care if we are there for a hundred years, as long as it's not our kids dying"
Yes, we absolutely need to be back in Iraq, not just to combat ISIS, but to project power in the region. Like it or not, the world runs on oil, the Chinese and the Russians aren't exactly bashful about looking out for their national interests, neither should we.
...the politics of the situation will make it untenable. No candidate for 2016 will make going back to Iraq a campaign slogan.
Oddly, the only one that can pull this off at this point would be Barry. His approval ratings suck and he is a lame duck so he could actually do something in the country's best interest here.
He'd have McCain and his butt buddy twin from SC taking his back, lol, and that would give him political cover and the House would be behind it as well. The left would have to go along, with a few loud dissenters on the far left and some Rand Paul type libertarian/isolationists voicing objections.
So...you think it should happen but do you think it WILL happen, in the numbers I state and in the time frame I laid out?
-- Modified on 8/23/2014 6:30:56 PM
To go back to Iraq in any appreciable numbers would be a tacit admission by this weakling of a POTUS that he was wrong to have ever left, and while Obama might be weak, he is still arrogant and I doubt his ego will allow him to do what's in the interest of the country.
Personally, i think by the time we get back there the damage will be so severe that even a competent POTUS will take years to un do the damage.
ISIS is now on the borders of Turkey so this should be NATO led force at the behest of Turkey. I mean every NATO country should and must contribute proportionally according to the treaty.
We will be oil surplus country in very short time and will be exporting.
We should not have gotten in Iraq in the first place. Russia has plant of oil and natural gas and US cannot stop China from what they are doing. The more US gets embroiled in the Middle East, the better off Chinese are.
Go gag on some balls.
Why? Since when did we become the army/police of the world. Maliki, an Iranian puppet, refused to sign off on the status of forces agreement because the Iranians wanted us out of Iraq. FYI, this agreement was negotiated initially by the Bush administration. Under "Normal" Diplomatic rules, if a host country wants you out, you leave ASAP.
You can forget thoughts about America being able to project power in the region, G.W. Bush followed by Obama have both done a good job of fucking that thought process.
Yes, we absolutely need to be back in Iraq, not just to combat ISIS, but to project power in the region. Like it or not, the world runs on oil, the Chinese and the Russians aren't exactly bashful about looking out for their national interests, neither should we.
My friend from the Mideast predicted this would happen if we removed Saddam. He grew up in Iran. He was right. Hussein would have the leaders of Isis hanging from iron hooks in one of his dungeons before this even got started. It's the only way to run the place. It's too late for that now.
Yes, we absolutely need to be back in Iraq, not just to combat ISIS, but to project power in the region. Like it or not, the world runs on oil, the Chinese and the Russians aren't exactly bashful about looking out for their national interests, neither should we.
Who will be the dominant faction on the ground is of more interest to me.
Who do you think will maintain control over the region?
And by "boots"' I mean large numbers, measured not in the 100's or even thousands of troops, but in the 10's of thousands.
Agree?
...have any skin in the game. How many of Jack and GaG's relatives are going to have their boots on the ground if we go back to Iraq?
you know the rest , something some one here Didn't get to do when they watched Saigon fall on TV . We are getting real close to exactly ten years since we kicked AQ in Iraq out of Fallujah and every where else in the T of D and sent them running off like the punk bitches they are. They know their little chapter is coming to and end because they can't hang .
J4UIWKTPs
-- Modified on 8/24/2014 4:58:52 AM
-- Modified on 8/24/2014 5:27:40 AM
I served, and most of my family has served, I never thought of it as any kind of a big deal. IMO every kid should spend a couple of years in uniform. and by every kid that means everyone from the poorest Mexican immigrant to the richest Senator's son.
BTW in what branch did you serve?
Should the only people allowed to decide or have an opinion on "declaring war, etc" be those serving and their immediate families? That amounts to less than 4% of the population. Maybe add in veterans and we're still just short of 10%.
It's actually not a terrible idea, only because I think the results would disappoint folks like President Obama and others that "hate war at all costs".
Maybe the concept would be extended into other areas. Such as only those with a net positive cash flow to the government can decide how the money is spent?
-- Modified on 8/24/2014 1:30:10 PM
FDR was no hawk but he knew a threat when he saw one.
The smartass BPs view prevailed until the entire planet was immersed in war.
Does history EVER repeat itself
Do you think ISIS does now or will in the future represent such a threat to us that boots on the ground will be a necessity? Thanks.
One of my biggest concerns regarding ISIS is President Obama. Whether or not Obama’s lack of concern for Iraq post Bush and whether or not he tried hard enough to pressure Maliki into a SOF agreement is water under the bridge. Same for his lack of attention to Syria. It allowed ISIS to flourish leading up to now but the problem at the present is Obama’s apparent attitude towards the situation. He hates war at all cost and it shows. Some of the cost incurred by not engaging our enemies (such at ISIS) is created when he attempts to blame his political opponents for his inaction. It’s a diversion. He will use any excuse he thinks he can get away with to not engage. Engagement for Obama includes even saying the truth about ISIS. Just look at the difference in tone between Obama and his own military chiefs (e.g. Joint Chief of Staff and DOD Secretary). Of course our engagement of ISIS has changed very recently.
Is it or will it become necessary to put boots on the ground to defeat them? We already have boots on the ground. The Americans that are called advisers to the Iraqi army and Kurds are mostly Special Forces. I would wager we have far more boots than is published, more than a few hundred. But Obama will do virtually anything to not give the appearance that we are “invading” again. I think it would take an attack on par with 9/11/2001 for him to change his mind.
But who knows? Maybe our present presence along with Iraq and the Kurds will have some good successes. Maybe ISIS will fall apart. Obama’s hoping for enough to get him out of office, but his attitude for now is to go as slow as possible. I think he actually believes a great foreign policy is “Don’t do stupid stuff.” Just look for example, his present counter to the beheading is to set AG Holder and the FBI on it, once again reverting to pre-9/11 attitudes of law enforcement rather than military (at least publicly). So my answer is, no extra boots until Obama is gone, unless something even more terrible occurs
...with NO exceptions for sons AND daughters of millionaires and politicians. You'd be able to hear a pin drop for the lack of saber-rattling.
Nice try, ed. Not!
and I firmly believe that we still never should have left Iraq.
Nice try yourself there, NOT!!!
besides we still did a lot of saber-rattling even when virtually every able bodied man did his time in the service, including the sons of millionaires and politicians. It never stopped this country from getting involved in conflicts all over the world.
I do agree that we should return to the draft with ZERO exceptions. If nothing else it might put an end to people still working for minimum wage at age thirty because they have never learned a skill. There is nothing at all wrong with serving your country and bettering yourself at the same time, until recently that was how it was done for millions of young men.
Who is going to pay for all of the post war costs that the VA will face?
Nice try yourself there, NOT!!!
besides we still did a lot of saber-rattling even when virtually every able bodied man did his time in the service, including the sons of millionaires and politicians. It never stopped this country from getting involved in conflicts all over the world.
I do agree that we should return to the draft with ZERO exceptions. If nothing else it might put an end to people still working for minimum wage at age thirty because they have never learned a skill. There is nothing at all wrong with serving your country and bettering yourself at the same time, until recently that was how it was done for millions of young men.
Not quite anyway.
There are presently just over 2 million active and reservists. There are over 30 million 18 to 24 year old men and women according to the 2010 census, so that's approximately 5 million 18 to 20 year olds. Unless your draft terms are different than in the past, assuming a 2 year hitch, that's more than tripling the the present size, slightly less given many are already enlisted. I suppose you could fire most of the enlisted but they clearly want to be there, but maybe not into the future once you reduce their pay as would probably be needed.
I totally agree a draft would be a more equitable system for those of draft age but it does not "solve" the skin in the game question. Improves it yes, solves it, no. There would remain millions without sons or daughters at or approaching draft age that would continue to have no skin in the game.
...nieces, nephews, godchildren or kids of lifelong friends. That would be their "skin."
Bill O'Reilly always points to a nephew or cousin's son that he probably wouldn't recognize walking down the street as his "skin."
about the size increase required to draft everyone eligible?
...Typical conservative, saying he said something when he said the opposite. Hurry, there's still time to edit your other post!
I've been addressing the "skin" issue not the size of the military. I say bring back the draft for young men and women. Let the powers-that-be handle the issue of size. They could always cut food stamps, welfare, Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.
I agreed with your premise. You must have missed that.
I suppose I could say something equally snotty like "just like a liberal to rather have the issue to bitch about than to see an agreement", but I won't.
My question was, how were you going to pay for it. In order to draft everyone that needs to be drafted to satisfy the "skin equation", the size of the military needs to be more than TRIPLED.
Someone else's problem to figure that out? OK. Glad to see you've thought this through.
...where you said it or anything close. You actually said the complete OPPOSITE: "There would remain millions without sons or daughters at or approaching draft age that would continue to have no skin in the game."
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=233241&boardID=39&page=1#233241
I also answered your question about how to pay for it. It should appeal to you as it's the right's answer of how to pay for everything:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=233251&boardID=39&page=1#233251
Try not subvocalizing when you read. You'll have better reading comprehension.
When you proposed your "skin in the game" through draft, you did not define what that meant. I agreed with your concept and proceeded to come up with my own definition which ended up being slightly different than yours. Based on my definition (lacking any from you) I saw some holes in your "solution", making it only a partial solution. The analysis was all based on MY definition, not your (since it did not exist yet). What's the big deal here?
I also pointed out some potential unintended consequences of your "solution". People with "solutions" sometimes don't see those. Again, what's the big deal?
You typify what's wrong with politics today. You'd rather fight than find agreement.
BTW, my everybody knows somebody was restatement of your definition, somewhat sarcastic but not too far off.
p.s. I've never knowingly made edits to any post after I've seen someone has replied and I take offense to your accusation.
-- Modified on 8/25/2014 9:12:04 AM
and since I did serve, as did most of my family, I guess I have more "skin in the game" than you.
You can't have it both ways, although you usually do try
...bets, and J.O.'s. But if not, I'll be glad to let you interview me when you show me a signed contract from a publisher with a six-figure advance for my authorized biography.
Sure we can send the army and it shouldn’t take them too long to kill at least those ISIS guys who are willing to fight a modern army. There are only about …what 10 to 20 thousand members of ISIS. Of course, we sacrifice a new generation of young American men and woman who will be killed or maimed if we do this, as well as spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new war. Our army, however, can defeat these guys.
But after “mission accomplished,” what do we do? Do we set up a “democratically elected government of the Caliphate” and then train their soldiers to take over their own security?
How well has that worked in Iraq, Jack? How long do you think the “democratically elected government of Afghanistan” will last once our troops pull out? All those weapons we have given the Afghan army – you do understand we’ve really given them to the Taliban. It is just a matter of time.
Or do we leave behind permanent garrisons of troops in Iraq and Syria, and task them with fighting whatever bad guys appear?
Have we learned nothing from the Bush-Cheney wars, the greatest foreign policy blunders of this century?
Maybe you rethink this one, Jack? But at least tell me you have a plan for what to do when the war is "over.
...Rand "The Dove" Paul. Let's see if they walk it like they talk it.
but the chances are, given a choice between the two, AND if the GOP controls at least one house of Congress, I would most likely vote for the Hildabeast.
I hope that meets your approval, I can only imagine all the sleepless nights I will have to suffer through if you don't.
As much as I detest her, I am confident that if she had been POTUS instead of Obama, we would still be in Iraq, and no one ever would have heard of ISIS, and as you rightfully point out, under Paul, our military would have been decimated and we would no longer the ability to "project force" in the region even if we had the political will to do so.
...never make disparaging remarks about the way Republican men look? Don't you think Rand Paul's hair looks like he got a transplant from his pubic region? That is, if he's not wearing a piece.
but the fact remains, righty or not, I would most likely still vote for her over Rand Paul.
which do your think she would prefer, my vote? or compliments about her appearance?
...to be judged on their performance rather than their appearance. Or else give equal time to the "beasts" among male politicians.
My question is based more on history than my personal views on what we should do right now. History tells me we are going back and that it is just a question of when.
Of course your question is valid. "What do we do after?" should always be discussed before we would go back. The cost of American lives lost always needs to be weighed.
But here is the issue and there is no way to avoid it. Extremist Islamists declared war on the the U.S. decades ago. As much as we wish this wasn't true, it is. From the Cole bombing to the Marine barracks bombing to the bombing of the WTC in NYC back in '93 to 9/11, radical Muslims aren't really listening to our call for a cease fire. They just keep coming. This enemy isn't like nazi Germany or imperial japan. Countries can be defeated Mari, ideologies can not.
Troops remain in Germany and Korea and have kept the peace. These people are telling us, screaming at us even, that they are coming. Do you really think the beheadings will stop or increase? Al Queda now seems to be "ISIS light". Remember why al Queda stopped beheadings? They were PR conscious. As crazy as that may sound, they were. They took massive shit from the Muslim world for doing so b/c it was hurting their recruitment and they stopped. But these new nut jobs aren't playing by the old rules. They have an opposite opinion. They believe chopping off heads shows other potential terrorists that they are playing hard ball, standing up to the U.S., the great satan. They are growing in size, in influence, in power and in funding. The numbers I heard is 20,000 and growing. These fkers have tanks now Mari. It's a different game then just a few months ago and I only see it getting worse.
You really don't think we have to take these people down, if not today, then next year or the year after? The impetus to start this thread was Hagels proclamation yesterday that ISIS is an "imminent" threat to the U.S. You tell me Mari, how many times in our history does our government tell us that w/o sending the troops in? Think about that for a second.
And to address your last sentence, I now believe this war will NEVER be over. I understand the reluctancy, believe me, but I don't see this ending any other way. They have never stopped being at war with us and we had better warm up to that idea real fast.
-- Modified on 8/23/2014 8:38:29 PM
Hegel said that ISIS is 'an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else.” Do you believe that? Doesn’t that strike you as a really foolish and overblown statement to make about a bunch of guys riding around in pick up trucks?
Now if ISIS posed a true “clear and present danger” to the United States, then boots on the ground might be justified. But the only way ISIS poses a significant risk to Americans is if we send an Army over there where they will be able to kill a number of our soldiers. They have no WMD and if they got WMD they would not have the means to deploy it - look at your weapons list again Jack – I didn’t see any long range bombers or ICBMs on it.
But we don’t put boots on the ground bc
-the ISIS leader says we plan to raise the black flag over the White House;
-bc they beheaded an American journalist and may do so to another (what the fuck are “journalists” doing over there anyway? When they get kidnapped – which is ISIS policy – we have to put our troops at risk to save them).
-bc they may have already sent terrorists over here. They can happen any time from any bad guy group.
-bc they may open terror training camps again.
All of this is bad but the risk is small and outweighed by the harm our troops will suffer if we go back over there. Plus ISIS is already fighting the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Assad regime, and the "good Syrian militants. Even Iran is against them. They pose a real danger only to those Americans already over there or foolish enough to go there.
Unless and until they present a clear and present danger to the homeland, [or maybe to Israel- but they are a long way from that] NO BOOTS ON THE GROUN
...danger threshold?
I just don't think it is as cut and dried as you say. Difficult decision? OMG yes! But a necessary one? Not 100% sure but I think history will bare me out.
-- Modified on 8/23/2014 10:10:16 PM
We have been in both places for decades with no plans on ever leaving, and no one seems to be the least bit upset because our troops aren't dying.
Say what you want about Bush, but we had things pretty well under control despite his "ineptness" and If we had left 50,000 troops there the same way we did in Germany or Korea, ISIS would not be front page news today. No one every would have heard of them. It's a lot easier to keep cockroaches under control with routine spraying than it is to have to tent your house due to an infestation, what we have now is an infestation due to lack of spraying and I for one blame our current CIC.
When hostilities ended that was it, soldiers didn't keep dying from suicide bombers and snipers. Iraq is probably worse than Vietnam because the radicals are so ingrained into society. Staying there forever really won't work, it just builds more resentment in the younger generations. Holy war is hard for us to even grasp. In my opinion one side needs to prevail in Iraq for there to be lasting peace. We and the United Nations won't allow that to happen. I might be wrong but the radicals are very willing to die for their cause and that makes them almost impossible to repress short of genocide. I m not sure there is an easy answer but at up to 1 million per troup per year staying there forever really isn't cost effective. At some point the people of Iraq will have to want peace and fight for it if they are going to have it.
Say what you want about Bush, but we had things pretty well under control despite his "ineptness" and If we had left 50,000 troops there the same way we did in Germany or Korea, ISIS would not be front page news today. No one every would have heard of them. It's a lot easier to keep cockroaches under control with routine spraying than it is to have to tent your house due to an infestation, what we have now is an infestation due to lack of spraying and I for one blame our current CIC.
I don't expect ticker tape parades for out troops, but we have very strategic interests in this part of the world. We need to be able to project power in the region to protect those interests and keep the region from completely exploding into a firestorm of violence and civil war.
The fact of the matter is, we had a reasonable handle on things prior to Obama being bullied into ceding to what was actually Iran's demands, not those of the Iraqi people, and predictably the power vacuum that was created has been filled by ISIS. Obama is responsible for this mess, and if even the Hildabeast had been in the white house instead of him, I firmly believe things would have been much much different.
If we allowed drilling in Alaska national reserve, the need for foreign oil is almost zero. The middle east has nothing but oil to support their economy. Quit buying it and we can probably dictate change without leaving troops there indefinitely. Besides oil production should be a national security issue. If we cant produce enough oil here or economy is at risk, at least have the ability to produce enough oil in North America for us to operate normally.
I'm not an oil man but understand when we use 40% of the worlds oil every year we have more influence on the price/suppliers then we do.
The fact of the matter is, we had a reasonable handle on things prior to Obama being bullied into ceding to what was actually Iran's demands, not those of the Iraqi people, and predictably the power vacuum that was created has been filled by ISIS. Obama is responsible for this mess, and if even the Hildabeast had been in the white house instead of him, I firmly believe things would have been much much different.
First off, it would take over five years to get up to even a million barrels a day if they were to open Anwar, barely five percent of our current consumption. Secondly we don't use 40% of the worlds oil, we use about 25%.
Oil is a world wide commodity, and as the largest consumer the market controls us, not the other way around. At least not until we start producing more than we consume, and that day is still a long ways off.
Yet the fact remains we only get roughly 13% of our oil from the middle east. So if we can get 5% from Alaska we get closer, I thought production could be 2 (10%) million barrels a day fairly quickly (4-7 yrs). Between Canada, Mexico and South America it's very conceivable to go without middle eastern oil. Even paying a premium to go without middle eastern oil is better than putting troops in Iraq for an endless length of time. I spent 2 years there and while I really do sympathize with the average Iraqi, I am not sure its worth the cost in lives and even more VA costs that we haven't even scratched the surface of yet.
I didn't research the 40% number (going off memory), it very well was 1/4. Apologies.
but the major flaw in your argument is that while WE only get a small percentage of our oil from the region, oil is a world wide commodity. If ISIS were to seize the Iraqi oil fields or worse, if the entire region went into outright civil war the impact on oil prices would be dramatic and immediate. most likely sending the world into world wide recession, and even though OUR oil doesn't come from that part of the world the impact would be felt every bit as much as if it were.
It's like if you live in California, and there is a record freeze in Florida, YOUR oranges don't come from Florida, but I guarantee you the price for California oranges is still going to go through the roof. We no longer live in a vacuum. I do agree that we should do everything in our power to become energy self sufficient, but that doesn't mean that the ME won't still have very important strategic concerns for us.
As a side note, when I lived in Florida, I couldn't get a decent orange, and the only grapefruit worth eating were from Texas.
... which brings to mind the question of how long before the more nefarious elements within the defense contractor networks begin negotiating service contracts with ISIS. They're already negotiating with the Russians and rogue elements within the British Isles.
In war, you have an objective, a strategy, and tactics. Strategy and tactics are pretty easy. It's the objective that I'm grappling with. When you think of a war in a traditional sense, you have an end to hostilities, somebody surrenders. We will never have a negotiation for peace, a surrender, or a cessation of hostilities with this threat. I do agree with Netanyahu when he said, "this threat will be coming to theater near you". Maybe that's the objective mari. This is a our new normal.
First things first....I'm going to hold the oil countries financially responsible. I want a $500 Billion down payment. Whatever we call this thing is going to be funded by these assholes in the Middle East. Oil will not go through the roof this time. Next is a mindset change. We are going to win. However we define it, we have to have the attitude of winning. Even an ugly win is a win.
I don't think we need to send in multiple divisions against 10-20K ISIS assholes. I think we can effectively annihilate them, and I want to emphasize the word annihilate. All of them dead. There is no surrender, no negotiation, no suing for peace. A massive air campaign (shit bring back the napalm), coupled with targeted killing with the use of snipers and special forces, and the use of the Kurdish fighters. They actually like us (no Sally Field jokes please), and they are very fierce fighters akin to the Gurkhas. Mari, there will be collateral damage. Get over it.
Last item mari. Since you reside in Texas, I'm going to assume you are a UT fan. See you at Cowboy Stadium (or whatever they call it), on 9/13 when UCLA will kick Texas' hillbilly ass. I'll be there, will you? And since you won't respond to GaG, how about a bet on whether or not UCLA makes it to final 4 in FOOTBALL. You do follow football?
And speaking of Cowboys or hillbillies. I took a little time off and drove over to Oxnard to watch the Cowboys practice with the Oakland Raiders 10 days ago. I have no idea what the Cowboy organization was thinking, but you don't give Raider fans an opportunity to be that close to the players. I was right behind the fence in the stands. I think I was the only white guy there. Are you a Cowboy fan mari?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfM6Qv8gXlk
But after “mission accomplished,” what do we do? Do we set up a “democratically elected government of the Caliphate” and then train their soldiers to take over their own security?
How well has that worked in Iraq, Jack? How long do you think the “democratically elected government of Afghanistan” will last once our troops pull out? All those weapons we have given the Afghan army – you do understand we’ve really given them to the Taliban. It is just a matter of time.
Or do we leave behind permanent garrisons of troops in Iraq and Syria, and task them with fighting whatever bad guys appear?
Have we learned nothing from the Bush-Cheney wars, the greatest foreign policy blunders of this century?
Maybe you rethink this one, Jack? But at least tell me you have a plan for what to do when the war is "over."
instead of annoying me on the Board? All that raw sewage on the floor can’t be good for recruiting. LOL
Actually, I agree 100% with your post. Air strikes, arm the Kurds, maybe special forces to do targeted killings but no invasion by the army again.
Finally, I am touched that you consider me one of the best looking P & R Board posters. If only the ladies felt that way
You should go with St. Croix and watch a few of UCLA's games. Then you will understand the "raw sewage" reference.
But thanks for being the straight man - again.
The tackle itself was clean, it was the Cowboy douchebag stepping over the Raiders player and pushing him back down that sparked the brawl.
Go Bruins
... are being taken far too lightly. Two years Jack? I believe we have a much shorter timetable.
So far, all the responses I've seen to your post seem to indicate the mindset that we will have to go back to Iraq if we are to fight ISIS.
I'm not so sure anymore. Islamic fundamentalism has had tremendous opportunity to insert its agents and sleeper cells into our country in recent years, even more so now that our borders have been rendered porous and the TSA rendered pointless, their stupidity and incompetence having been exposed for the world to see. One more sign of weakness for the predators of Islamic fundamentalism to exploit (and laugh at).
Remember when the Syrian situation exploded and Obama drew a line in the sand, and then did nothing when Assad crossed that line? That was the moment the rest of the civilized world as well as the barbarians of Islamic fundamentalism realized that America was emasculated by virtue of its internal Domestic political power struggles. To the Arab world, this was the ultimate sign of weakness, and it has been exploited to the max within the Muslim world, and the Islamic State is the result.
Israel has been the front line in this war for a long long time. But now, its high time the Red State-Blue State bullshit came to an end. We have bigger problems to contend with right here in our country, and its about damn time the willywonka faction realized it. Islamic State is already here. In your backyard.
Note to JohnnyComeAlready - you must be too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. We were one step away from nuclear war when the USSR planted missiles 90 miles off our shores. Considering the lack of progress made towards reconciliation with Cuba and their affinity for, and allegiance to governments considered hostile to the US, how much of a leap would it be to consider there might be ISIS missiles aimed at the US right now, just waiting for 9/11/14? how easy would it be to infiltrate the resort destinations so close to our shores, whether it be Cancun, the Bahama's, Cuba, etc etc.
Surely I'm not the only person to have considered those options? Are you so ignorant as to believe for one moment that the US is not considered an enemy of Islamic State just as much if not more so even than Israel? While you, and the more overt Jew-haters are focused on having Israel convicted of the war crime of defending its people, the real enemy is hiding behind you, just waiting for the chance to slit your pusillanimous throats.
Yohannes branded crosses and other symbols like the alpha and omega into their foreheads . When they killed a Christian he killed ten of them.
Or like the Spaniards who buried them in pig skins . Even boning out the skull of the pigs head and making into a hat/ mask for the dead Muslim.
on pay TV.
my brother has been to Iraq twice and is currently training soldiers on the big island Hawaii. Army boots on the ground is going to happen real soon.
Yes, Obama, it can be argued, has looked weak, which was the catalyst for Isis insurgency. But, it was Bush who started the process of withdrawal, and Iraq is a sovereign country, who choose to have us leave. That set up a chance for Maliki to set up a government allowing all sides to participate and have say over how the country would adapt to the differing groups demands for it's land and wealth. He failed to do so; that is the true catalyst for the Isis insurgency, in my view. If he had done so, that would have been a win/win for us and them. However, we still win in Iraq, because of the insurgence of Isis, due to now Turkey and Iraq are allowing us to arm the Kurds, and are even open for them to become their own country. And, now it looks like there might be an opening for a new and fairer governing body. Now, we lose if we can't contain Isis before they become an imminent threat to us. Some argue they already are. Perhaps. Going after them in Syria is going to be tricky, and I don't think you're going to be getting any headlines describing the inside workings of how that's going to come about. 
The terms of the withdrawal were negotiated by Bush. Obama simply followed them. He considered having our forces remain there longer in spite of that but Milaki would not grant them immunity from Iraqi justice if any "human rights violations" happened, a term we never, ever concede for the safety of our troops in ANY foreign engagement.
We never should have gone to Iraq and eliminated the only man there powerful and ruthless enough to keep all the crazy factions from getting out of hand. If Saddam had stayed in power, ISIS, ISIL, whatever would have been crushed in the beginning before they gathered any momentum. Now we are faced with something far more serious. Our intelligence agencies have mostly followed the rule, "better the Devil you know than the one you don't know." This is where Bush/Cheney have led us: