Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I seriously haven't found too many, even on the far right, who want to re-engage in a major war in Iraq. If you have evidence to show otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Yes, Obama's strategy may fail, but until it does, I think it deserves a chance to work before we ask those same soldiers who have already been there multiple times to go back and start all over again, don't you?
Republicans are the only political group in which a majority (57%) supports sending troops to combat ISIS, even though a majority (51%) also expects it would last 4 years or more. In contrast, only 35 percent of independents and 37 percent of Democrats support boots on the ground. Tea party Republicans seem to be driving some of this difference: 59 percent of tea party supporters favor sending troops, compared to 48 percent of Republicans who don’t support the tea party.
This is consistent with other polling I've seen on the issue.
It's obvious we couldn't stay forever. At some point, we had to leave. The problem which ultimately led to everyone leaving was that the Maliki government insisted that any remaining US troops be subject to Iraqi law and the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts. Obama rightly would not agree to that and, after warning Maliki that continued insistence upon that would result in all US troops leaving, he pulled them out.
Kharzia in Afghanistan tried the same thing, but unsuccessfully. That's why there will be a residual force in that country.
The Maliki government would've approved a security pact without that (and investigative journalism has shown as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/wo...akes-hope.html) requirement; specifically, Maliki was willing to sign an executive order granting immunity to US troops to get them to stay. Yes, there was some concern over the legality of the proposed executive order, but the US administration didn't even want to work out alternatives. Quite simply, the administration, trying to achieve a promise made during Obama's campaign, wanted the troops out, so we got out.
I understand that we couldn't have stayed forever; I'm not claiming that. Still, I think we pulled out prematurely and could've done more to help stabilize the country vs. pulling out when we did.
This is consistent with other polling I've seen on the issue.
It's actually disturbing to see those results. Based upon my conversations with right leaning folks on this subject, I wouldn't suspect the support for large numbers of ground troops to be nearly that high. Of course, a lot of any poll turns upon what questions were asked, and to whom, and there are always those who will answer a general question one way, but answer differently when confronted with specifics. Maybe that's the case here, maybe not.
All I know, which I can't prove of course, is that among my right leaning friends and acquaintances and responders to threads I've started here and on another social media site, if you ask whether or not Obama is doing enough or could be doing more, the general answer is in the negative. But, when the question of whether or not they support sending in the ground troops is asked, not many will agree. When it's personalized by asking if they would be willing to send their own children off to Iraq again, I've only found one who said yes.
I didn't say that. Don't try putting words in my mouth.
But I will say this: he has gone to great lengths to appear very pro-Islam, much moreso than all of his predecesors (combined). He has made it appear that his sympathies lie with Muslims, regardless of whether he is one or not.
We are already in a war with ISIS. And who cares what the Muslim world's response is? Any of them who aren't helping fight radical Islam are complicit.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. It was a legitimate question. Hence, why I proceeded to answer your question properly.
As for caring what the Muslim world's response is, well, I'm not sure about you, but I'm pretty certain I'm far from being the only one who who would rather NOT have 23% of the world's population at war with our country -- 23% who believe in martyrdom and Jihad, which, if we start a holy war, would be entirely justified in not only extremist views, but practically ALL Muslim's views. Do you not understand this?
The Maliki government would've approved a security pact without that (and investigative journalism has shown as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/wo...akes-hope.html) requirement; specifically, Maliki was willing to sign an executive order granting immunity to US troops to get them to stay. Yes, there was some concern over the legality of the proposed executive order, but the US administration didn't even want to work out alternatives. Quite simply, the administration, trying to achieve a promise made during Obama's campaign, wanted the troops out, so we got out.
I understand that we couldn't have stayed forever; I'm not claiming that. Still, I think we pulled out prematurely and could've done more to help stabilize the country vs. pulling out when we did.
I'm not convinced staying longer would have done much good. I'm not convinced it will in Afghanistan either. But, that's just my opinion.
I do think the Obama administration seriously dropped the ball after we left by not staying on Maliki about what he was doing to the Sunni minority. We pretty much turned a blind eye when he rid the armed forces of Sunni officers and basically turned them into an oppressed minority rather than partners in the same country. We had plenty of leverage over him which Obama did not use until it was too late.
The list of mistakes we've made in Iraq and that whole region is long and goes back several decades. All of it together got us to where we are now. We can, and should, learn from our mistakes, but the reality on the ground right now is the reality we have to deal with and I think Obama is doing about as well as can be done. I don't think repeating the major mistake we made by re-invading and occupying Iraq would do anything more than make a bad situation incredibly worse.
What do you consider "a few"?
And along those lines those "few" also profess loudly/frequently that they're doing what they're doing in the name of Islam so what's wrong with calling 'em what they themselves profess to be? Muslim jihadists or "radical muslims" or simply muslim terrorists.
A "Few" compared to the number of Muslims in the World.
So if a person Murders some one, and tells the Police he did it because God told him to do it, would you tell it like it is, and denounce the Murdering Christian ? He fits your criteria as a "Christian Murderer" professing that he is doing it for God. Would you address him as that, knowing its contrary to Christian beliefs ? .
I have seen folks on sidewalks, Preaching doom and gloom to people passing by, and claiming the end of the World coming in days by Gods hand, clearly with mental problems. Maybe harmless but not all there. What do we call them? Loony Christians?
The point is, that your religion, race, color, Nationality, nor anything else matters . You are what you are, regardless, and everyone can fit the same mold. A Murderer can be anyone. Does not have to be a specific entity.
"Republicans are the only political group in which a majority (57%) supports sending troops to combat ISIS, even though a majority (51%) also expects it would last 4 years or more. In contrast, only 35 percent of independents and 37 percent of Democrats support boots on the ground. Tea party Republicans seem to be driving some of this difference: 59 percent of tea party supporters favor sending troops, compared to 48 percent of Republicans who don’t support the tea party."
They are also in favor of sending others to fight because god forbid one of them or their kids would actually ever enlist to fight ISIS. Cheney got 5 deferments to avoid Viet Nam. Bush ducked into the reserves. Chicken hawks.
They are also in favor of sending others to fight because god forbid one of them or their kids would actually ever enlist to fight ISIS. Cheney got 5 deferments to avoid Viet Nam. Bush ducked into the reserves. Chicken hawks.
No, he's hardly mistake free. In fact, he's made a mess of a lot of things, most of which was left to him as a mess in progress by the previous administration. And, he's on the verge of making a bigger mess with greater consequences in Ukraine.
But, in the case of ISIS, I fail to see what he's doing wrong or what he could do differently. Since you don't seem to like what he's doing, maybe you can tell me.
There is no doubt Bush messed things up in different areas. However, Obama or any president for that matter cannot continue to blame the previous administration, especially in their 2nd term. We did not elect Obama to complain and play the blame game, as anyone, including you or I, could have done that as president.
As to the topic of ISIS, his biggest blunder was pulling almost all our troops out way too soon. It was predicted that such a move would result in an even greater problem than we had before. Yet Obama announced it and did it despite these warnings. Then the "JV of ISIS" came along, went from city to city and took not only stockpiles of cash like old western bank robbers, but also took many sophisticated weapons as well. Now they are on a killing spree of innocent civilians and aid workers in the most vile and despicable way.
The fact you fail to see what he is doing wrong does not surprise me since you are a self anointed "conservative thread killer". As to what could be done differently, I'd bet dollars to donuts Hillary could come along and say, I'd do XYZ, and you will be in lock step behind her. Even if you thought her plan wouldn't work, you'd still vote for her.
As to your Ukraine comment, Russia is certainly taking advantage of Obama's ineptitude in foreign policy. How far Putin will go to rebuild the former Soviet Union is yet to be seen, but I have little hope Obama is up to the task of dealing with such a formidable adversary.
`
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
