Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 5 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 Next
Switch to Forum Live View More Obama Foreign Policy Legacy
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 10:15AM #41
vra
Posts: 7,467

That small of force would not likely have made a difference in the long run.  A reminder that when we did have that few, they were mostly in the role of being advisors to help build up the Iraqi forces, and we well know how that worked out.  


The only real affect would have been what one former general said could be done and that was to send in a force of 100,000+ and have them take up the brunt of the fighting.  However, that still would not likely have worked out in the long run because it certainly didn't work in the past there.  


Obama and many others learned the lessons from the past, going all the way back to the Vietnam conflict, but many others have forgotten.  J. William Fullbright warned us about this 50 years ago, and yet many still think that we can reinvent the wheel.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 10:56AM #42
TENAC
Posts: 30,170

At the very least obama should be doing what Putin is doing.  Putin will reap some pretty good rewards in the ME from this.


It costs us little to bomb ISIS installations but obama is not even authorizing that. 


Putin is propping up Assad, while we trained and are backing the rebels, whom Putin is bombing.  obama says nothing.


I would have more respect for obama if he just said he would not expose one US soldier to gunfire and brought everyone home.  But instead he looks clueless, listless and amazingly weak on the world's stage.  


He is the epitmore of the pathetic leader.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 10:58AM #43
TENAC
Posts: 30,170

Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:11AM, Jasr wrote:


Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:01AM, JRoadrunner wrote:


Do you agree or disagree with Leon Panetta that had Obama kept a minimal force of 10-15,000 in Iraq things would not have spiraled out of control as they have in the past year.




I could not possibly disagree more.


Iraq has collapsed because it was left in the hands of a corrupt Iranian puppet, who hollowed out the Iraqi army with purges of seasoned Sunni officers and graft.


10-15,000 Americans would have been sitting ducks, fighting the war with no support.


Panetta is a self-aggrandizing incompetent.




It seems everyone who disagrees with obama is incompetent.


Tell who, besides obama agrees with obama of any consequence.  John Kerry I suppose, but I digress........

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 11:53AM #44
Jasr
Posts: 14,876

Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:58AM, TENAC wrote:


Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:11AM, Jasr wrote:


Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:01AM, JRoadrunner wrote:


Do you agree or disagree with Leon Panetta that had Obama kept a minimal force of 10-15,000 in Iraq things would not have spiraled out of control as they have in the past year.




I could not possibly disagree more.


Iraq has collapsed because it was left in the hands of a corrupt Iranian puppet, who hollowed out the Iraqi army with purges of seasoned Sunni officers and graft.


10-15,000 Americans would have been sitting ducks, fighting the war with no support.


Panetta is a self-aggrandizing incompetent.




It seems everyone who disagrees with obama is incompetent.


Tell who, besides obama agrees with obama of any consequence.  John Kerry I suppose, but I digress........




Unlike you I don't waste my time appealing to authority. I prefer to do my own thinking.


Tell me why you think I was wrong in my explanation of why Iraq collapsed.


And after that, tell me what you think Obama should have done differently, and how you would pay for it. Please be specific.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 11:56AM #45
vra
Posts: 7,467

Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:56AM, TENAC wrote:


At the very least obama should be doing what Putin is doing.  Putin will reap some pretty good rewards in the ME from this.


It costs us little to bomb ISIS installations but obama is not even authorizing that. 


Putin is propping up Assad, while we trained and are backing the rebels, whom Putin is bombing.  obama says nothing.


I would have more respect for obama if he just said he would not expose one US soldier to gunfire and brought everyone home.  But instead he looks clueless, listless and amazingly weak on the world's stage.  


He is the epitmore of the pathetic leader.




So, you think that just bombing ISIS will solve the problem?  Are you aware of the fact that by doing as such we would be helping Assad?  Are you also aware of the fact that bombing alone accomplishes next to nothing?


So far, even though you've been asked, you have not come up with a single coherent strategy on what you think Obama should do there.  All you do is to slip into your partisan condemnation while offering nothing, and the Republican candidates are doing the exact same thing.    

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 12:11PM #46
JRoadrunner
Posts: 6,282

Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:11AM, Jasr wrote:


Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:01AM, JRoadrunner wrote:


Do you agree or disagree with Leon Panetta that had Obama kept a minimal force of 10-15,000 in Iraq things would not have spiraled out of control as they have in the past year.




I could not possibly disagree more.


Iraq has collapsed because it was left in the hands of a corrupt Iranian puppet, who hollowed out the Iraqi army with purges of seasoned Sunni officers and graft.


10-15,000 Americans would have been sitting ducks, fighting the war with no support.


Panetta is a self-aggrandizing incompetent.




Iraq and Iran are both corrupt beyond belief. While it's easy to call Panetta a self-aggrandizing incompetent the fact is that his credentials are a little more impressive than an account on BNET. Furthermore, if he is such a self-aggrandizing incompetent why did Obama have him in some of the most important positions in government?


The reality is that it is nothing but blind speculation that ISIS would have arisen and routed 10-15,000 American troops. And, even then, that was not the reason Obama removed them; he did not remove them becaues he thought they were about to come under attack and would be routed. He removed them because he thought the situation was more or less under control and/or because of his pre-election promises to remove all American troops from Iraq.


If there is any incompetence here it is clearly, squarely and egregiously on the shoulders of our Commander-in-Chief. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 12:24PM #47
SeraphimR
Posts: 12,687

Oct 2, 2015 -- 11:56AM, vra wrote:


Oct 2, 2015 -- 10:56AM, TENAC wrote:


At the very least obama should be doing what Putin is doing.  Putin will reap some pretty good rewards in the ME from this.


It costs us little to bomb ISIS installations but obama is not even authorizing that. 


Putin is propping up Assad, while we trained and are backing the rebels, whom Putin is bombing.  obama says nothing.


I would have more respect for obama if he just said he would not expose one US soldier to gunfire and brought everyone home.  But instead he looks clueless, listless and amazingly weak on the world's stage.  


He is the epitmore of the pathetic leader.




So, you think that just bombing ISIS will solve the problem?  Are you aware of the fact that by doing as such we would be helping Assad?  Are you also aware of the fact that bombing alone accomplishes next to nothing?


So far, even though you've been asked, you have not come up with a single coherent strategy on what you think Obama should do there.  All you do is to slip into your partisan condemnation while offering nothing, and the Republican candidates are doing the exact same thing.    




First of, bombing is a coherent strategy.  Even if you think it won't work, you can't complain in the next sentence that thecritics don't have a single coherent strategy.


I think the complaint is that Obama doesn't have a coherent strategy either, other than covering his ass.  And I think it is a valid to complain that our supreme leader doesn't have a plan.  It is his job, and not mine.


“So long as there is squalor in the world, those obsessed with social justice feel obliged not only to live in it themselves but also to spread it evenly.”

http://takimag.com/article/the_ugly_truth_theodore_dalrymple
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 12:26PM #48
Jasr
Posts: 14,876

Oct 2, 2015 -- 12:11PM, JRoadrunner wrote:


The reality is that until it is nothing but blind speculation that ISIS would have arisen and routed 10-15,000 American troops.




It is not blind speculation at all. The only way the Sunni innsurgency was defeated the first time was through alliance with the tribal leaders in the Sunni regions and an enornmous surge of troops. Under Al Maliki the relationship with the Sunnis was poisoned from the beginnning, and they were fortified with the Sunni officer corps that al Maliki purged.


Anyway I am not saying that 15,000 competent US troops would not have put up a good fight. I am saying it would be a wrong decision to make them do it. US troops put themselves in the hands of the civilian leadership...it is up to the civilian leadership to reward that service with good decisions.


Oct 2, 2015 -- 12:11PM, JRoadrunner wrote:


And that was not the reason Obama removed them. He did not remove them becaues he thought they were about to come under attack and would be routed. He removed them because he thought the situation was more or less under control or because of his pre-election promises.




He removed them because his predecessor agreed to remove them. And it was a campaign promise Obama was absolutely right to keep.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 12:32PM #49
JRoadrunner
Posts: 6,282

Oct 2, 2015 -- 12:26PM, Jasr wrote:


He removed them because his predecessor agreed to remove them. And it was a campaign promise Obama was absolutely right to keep.




His precedessor said they would be removed when the time was right. Panetta, Obama's hand-picked man to determine when that time was, said the time was NOT right. Not listening to the most qualified opinion that you yourself placed in the position to make that determination is the definition of incompetence. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 02, 2015 - 12:40PM #50
Erey
Posts: 21,730

This whole diologue about Obama and his actions and his inactions regarding this part of the world.


I do think anything,  and I do mean ANYTHING Obama does on the spectrum of inaction to action is going to reflect badly on him and the rest of the US.   And no, not just because Obama is black.


Just this expectation that the US is responsible for every death in all this.


Russia as far as I can see does not have this burden,  they can go in there and just mow them down.  If any civilians are caught up in that, oh well.  So by default I think Russia can be and hopfully will be much more effective.  They can be as ruthless as they want to be,  almost.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook