Obama is just an utter disaster for this world

[CMike]

Please tell us how many troops do you think we should have in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and whatever else country you think we should be in, plus tell us how many years or/and decades we should remain there, iyo?

While you're at it, do you actually remember why we left no troops in Iraq?

I think we should have two brigades in Iraq.

How many thousands of chrisitans have been barbarically and savagely murdered in Iraq.

The world was silent when the nazis murdered the jews.

We owe it to humanity to stop ISIS from their heinous acts.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think we should have two brigades in Iraq.

How many thousands of chrisitans have been barbarically and savagely murdered in Iraq.

The world was silent when the nazis murdered the jews.

We owe it to humanity to stop ISIS from their heinous acts.

What exactly will that do? All of the signs point to our presence actually hurting our effort for stability. Your right. We broke Iraq. And staying there would only break it more.

 

[CMike]

What exactly will that do? All of the signs point to our presence actually hurting our effort for stability. Your right. We broke Iraq. And staying there would only break it more.

All the signs from whom?

Two brigades would stop ISIS from doing what they are doing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Obama's policy of vacationing at Martha's Vineyard(sarcasm) gives the image of a weak US. This gives Putin and Islamists the image, that US wont do much whatever they do. With the current state of affairs, I wouldnt be surprised if Russia conquers the whole Ukraine and heck even Baltics, and we find Obama still at Martha's Vineyard.
We should be sending troops to Ukraine, but we wont even have to fire single shot at Russia. Just the presence of a few thousand US troops, would be strong enough for Russia to stop going deeper into Ukraine and stop any planned future playing with Baltics. Russia knows it cant afford a direct War with US and its aggression in E. Europe should stop.

Nobody has invaded the USA, full stop. Ukraine is not a NATO member. Therefore US soldier's lives will not be spent defending Ukraine.

 

[metis]

I think we should have two brigades in Iraq.

How many thousands of chrisitans have been barbarically and savagely murdered in Iraq.

The world was silent when the nazis murdered the jews.

We owe it to humanity to stop ISIS from their heinous acts.

We cannot do it alone as an occupation force because sooner or later we will leave. If there's not some sort of regional cooperation to go after ISIS, any action on our part will be both limited and fruitless in the long run. How many more American soldiers do we want to see coming home in body-bags until we get this through our heads? After Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you'd think we would have learned our lesson, but the unfortunate reality is that too many haven't.

Unless there's some sort of regional cooperation, the only real recourse we have is to continue our attacks by air to diminish ISIS' ability to occupy the region, and this will have to be extended into Syria as well, imo. Yes, we can protect our own people in Iraq with some additional troops for protection, and I have no problem with that as a short-term action.

Turkey and the Saudis have played a major role in the creation of ISIS, so I thinks it's time that we and the NATO powers lean heavily on the former at the least. It's "put-up or shut-up time" for them, as far as I'm concerned, and if they aren't willing to do either, then we should reconsider our commitment to both of them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All the signs from whom?

Two brigades would stop ISIS from doing what they are doing.

Ten years and we didn't accomplish anything. In fact it was worse when we left. If we can't do it in a decade how long do you think we would have to keep our soldiers there? Or is your plan to have soldiers stationed in every single unstable country in the world at all times?

 

[Delta-9]

It's not like anyone that has a cursory understanding of ME history didn't know that as soon as we invade Iraq, the moment we pull out things will go insane. There have been something like half a dozen incursions from the West to clean house so to speak, and every time local 'terrorist' groups lay low until the foreign power leaves. We knew in 2001, or should have, that as soon as we pull out something like ISIS would happen.

The Iraqi military we spent years training is dropping their weapons and running away, our only real option is an indefinite large-scale military presence for the foreseeable future. Either that or have the West/USA stop trying to police the world.

 

[metis]

Ten years and we didn't accomplish anything. In fact it was worse when we left. If we can't do it in a decade how long do you think we would have to keep our soldiers there?

And the above is a very important point to consider. All too often we Americans tend to only look at things over the short-haul, and that has gotten us into more trouble than we can shake a stick at. And even this short-sighted attitude all too often permeates even various administrations, such as "Mission Accomplished" whereas the Bush administration had literally no clue what to do next.

 

[metis]

It's not like anyone that has a cursory understanding of ME history didn't know that as soon as we invade Iraq, the moment we pull out things will go insane.

Exactly. Iraq has three major elements and some minor ones that simply hate each other, and only tyrants have been able to keep them in check, unfortunately. Then we come in with the pathetically naive idea that we'll create a Jeffersonian democracy there, thus ignoring the previous history of the many animosities there.

 

[CMike]

Ten years and we didn't accomplish anything. In fact it was worse when we left. If we can't do it in a decade how long do you think we would have to keep our soldiers there? Or is your plan to have soldiers stationed in every single unstable country in the world at all times?

We deposed a mad dictator who had WMD and would soong get nukes.

That is not nothing.

The problem is by completely leaving with no forces there it creates a vacuum for the enemies to take over.

 

[CMike]

It's not like anyone that has a cursory understanding of ME history didn't know that as soon as we invade Iraq, the moment we pull out things will go insane. There have been something like half a dozen incursions from the West to clean house so to speak, and every time local 'terrorist' groups lay low until the foreign power leaves. We knew in 2001, or should have, that as soon as we pull out something like ISIS would happen.

The Iraqi military we spent years training is dropping their weapons and running away, our only real option is an indefinite large-scale military presence for the foreseeable future. Either that or have the West/USA stop trying to police the world.

Not really.

A minimal presence would be enough. A zero presence we go to back to zero.

ISIS is getting funded by Syria.

The Iraqi government needs support as well.

 

[esmith]

But any military operation must balance the risks that are involved.

The military presented the plan to Obama, it is their responsibility to insure that the proposed plan is viable and will work. All Obama has to do is say go no go. One must also remember that most plans do not survive the first shot fired.

 

[icehorse]

We cannot do it alone as an occupation force because sooner or later we will leave. If there's not some sort of regional cooperation to go after ISIS, any action on our part will be both limited and fruitless in the long run. How many more American soldiers do we want to see coming home in body-bags until we get this through our heads? After Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you'd think we would have learned our lesson, but the unfortunate reality is that too many haven't.

Unless there's some sort of regional cooperation, the only real recourse we have is to continue our attacks by air to diminish ISIS' ability to occupy the region, and this will have to be extended into Syria as well, imo. Yes, we can protect our own people in Iraq with some additional troops for protection, and I have no problem with that as a short-term action.

Turkey and the Saudis have played a major role in the creation of ISIS, so I thinks it's time that we and the NATO powers lean heavily on the former at the least. It's "put-up or shut-up time" for them, as far as I'm concerned, and if they aren't willing to do either, then we should reconsider our commitment to both of them.

Bingo!

To be optimistic, this might be Obama's strategy - wait until the regional powers step up and support them - as opposed to yet another, ham-handed "western intervention". in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if behind-the-scenes talks to that effect are underway.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not really.

A minimal presence would be enough. A zero presence we go to back to zero.

ISIS is getting funded by Syria.

The Iraqi government needs support as well.

How did minimal presence do in Benghazi?

We deposed a mad dictator who had WMD and would soong get nukes.

That is not nothing.

The problem is by completely leaving with no forces there it creates a vacuum for the enemies to take over.

I am glad we overthrew Saddam. But we did that within the first few years. Since then we have done nothing and doesn't really seem as if we CAN do anything further.

 

[esmith]

No Obama did not "get" OBL, Seal Team Six and supporting military, and intelligence assets took out OBL. Obama was just President at the time all the pieces came together.
As far as Iraq goes, Obama could have cared less about what the results of his decision not to press for a SOFA agreement. It was strictly a political and ideological move. We broke Iraq and failed to insure that it was stable prior to pulling military assets out of country. The same has occurred in Libya an will occur in Afghanistan.

Bingo!

The hypocrisy is comical

Not exactly sure where you see the hypocrisy. Obama did not "get" OBL

 

[metis]

The military presented the plan to Obama, it is their responsibility to insure that the proposed plan is viable and will work. All Obama has to do is say go no go. One must also remember that most plans do not survive the first shot fired.

It is a dual responsibility since the president is Commander-In-Chief.

BTW, how come you didn't bring up the fact that "W" dropped the ball dealing with Ob-L in regards to Tora Bora? Heck, one might come to believe that you may be very partisan.

 

[metis]

Obama did not "get" OBL

Oh, c'mon, you know darn well that if "W" had done it that you would still be singing his praises from the rooftops even today, much like so many R's think Saint Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union.

 

[FearGod]

Islamic militia group says it has 'secured' US compound in Libya | Fox News#

His recklessnes and idiocy is tearing the world apart.

He is in way over his head.

Yes indeed Obama causing trouble to the world and to America.

He should make his decision to send the Americans to fight the Islamists,Iran,Syria,Lybia,the ISIS and then to move to Russia, otherwise the world will think America is a weak country.

I wonder if America will survive if thinking in such a stupid way.

Do you think the president think and discuss the world issues with his wife or debating in the forums.

 

[icehorse]

Yes indeed Obama causing trouble to the world and to America.

He should make his decision to send the Americans to fight the Islamists,Iran,Syria,Lybia,the ISIS and then to move to Russia, otherwise the world will think America is a weak country.

I wonder if America will survive if thinking in such a stupid way.

Do you think the president think and discuss the world issues with his wife or debating in the forums.

Do I detect sarcasm? Humor even? well done!

 

[esmith]

It is a dual responsibility since the president is Commander-In-Chief.

BTW, how come you didn't bring up the fact that "W" dropped the ball dealing with Ob-L in regards to Tora Bora? Heck, one might come to believe that you may be very partisan.

Seems that you are misinformed on the Tora Bora operation in 2001and Bin Laden. Basically it was a cluster ****. By the way this was during the Clinton years, if you forgot.

How Bin Laden Escaped in 2001

As far as President Bush's administrations problems with Bin Laden. I agree with Col David Hunt.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/10/23/america-could-have-killed-usama-bin-laden-151-but-didnt/

Oh, by the way did you happen to notice this is a Fox News source. Hmmmm, and I thought there are those that say Fox News always is on the side of Republicans.