Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Do you think Obama's strategy for ISIS will work as well as Bush's strategy for Iraq worked?
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Do you think Obama's strategy for ISIS will work as well as Bush's strategy for Iraq worked?
___________________________________________________________________________
Just like Truman didn't expect Eisenhower to surrender South Korea, I don't think Bush expected Obama to surrender Iraq.
We now know that the US was transferring weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels. Were the weapons going to the Syrian Free Army (reportedly more secular) or to radical jehadim. The CIA was running the program out of Benghazi. Obama is resembling an onion -- layer after layer revealing more and more stuff that stinks.
Just like Truman didn't expect Eisenhower to surrender South Korea, I don't think Bush expected Obama to surrender Iraq.
Who signed the paperwork to have us out by a certain date? And when was it signed?
Kinda makes you wish Saddam was still there containing all that craziness doesn't it ?
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Just like Truman didn't expect Eisenhower to surrender South Korea, I don't think Bush expected Obama to surrender Iraq.
Who signed the paperwork to have us out by a certain date? And when was it signed?
______________________________________________________________________
Bush got an extension, Obama chose to hit the exits running. I believe Gen. Lloyd Austin said that 24,000 U.S. troops were needed for the job and Obama offered a paltry 5,000 or so troops for training only. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was defeated and hurting when Bush left, but was still in existence in Syria. Al-Maliki would have cut a deal with the U.S. according to more than a few officials if he saw a serious offer, but since he could see that Iran would be a more reliable ally, he took the more serious offer.
said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, ”It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”
Like Ron Paul said, "haven't we done enough damage over there?".
We can't afford to get into another ground battle. Plus, it doesn't matter if we eliminate ISIS or not because someone else will be right along to take their place.
Experience with the Barbary States in the early 1800s and Europe's actions provide a guide -- kill enough of them and they are discouraged for a couple of generations. Otherwise, they just keep coming.
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Kinda makes you wish Saddam was still there containing all that craziness doesn't it ?
_______________________________________________________
No but it does make me wish Mitt was President because he would know what to do. The buffoon we have in office doesn’t have a clue.
BTW, your statement is insane.
No but it does make me wish Mitt was President because he would know what to do. The buffoon we have in office doesn’t have a clue.
He would have bought it in a takeover, sold the assets and got rid of it.