ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#1,351
#1,351
alexmanu said:
Seems like UK is leaning towards starting military action in the form of airstrikes against ISIS. Conservative MPs were consulted on this by Senior Whips today.

I'm all for a joint, co-ordinated military effort against ISIS by the West and major powers in the Middle East. It's about time this disgusting organisation was wiped from the face of the Earth. Al Qaeda is pretty much in desperation mode at this point as a result of recent military operations e.g. drone strikes, the same can be done to ISIS.

I also hope that Obama and Cameron are considering deploying special forces to rescue the hostages. I'd like to see SAS and Delta Force kick some Jihadi butt.
Click to expand...

Last opinion poll I saw had roughly 60% of population opposed to joining any strikes I thought?
 
#1,352
#1,352
Burhead said:
Last opinion poll I saw had roughly 60% of population opposed to joining any strikes I thought?
Click to expand...

I'd question the accuracy of that statistic. You're always going to get your isolationist, hippy and pacifist brigade that make up like 10-15% of the population. Most of the rest are either indifferent or don't know enough about the situation to comment.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that has been reading about the ISIS situation in depth that some joint military action is required to diminish the risk of terrorism hitting Western shores. Air strikes seem the most effective way of supplementing Kurdish and Iraqi ground forces in pushing ISIS out of the region.

At the end of the day though, the West will need to negotiate with Assad and come to some sort of agreement or we will not be able to wipe ISIS out in Syria. Even if you push them out of northern Iraq, they will find haven in rebel-controlled areas of Syria.
 
#1,353
#1,353
Burhead said:
Last opinion poll I saw had roughly 60% of population opposed to joining any strikes I thought?
Click to expand...

since we have a 30% approval rating of the government can we send them to ISIS? Seems like this would be a good way to get them work together and get stuff done.
 
#1,354
#1,354
LouderVol said:
pretty sure that that was part of the original pull out plan set up by Bush, the hand over of Iraqi POWs/terrorists to Iraq. But I am sure somebody will come along and correct me or jump on me for mentioning Bush's part.
Click to expand...

I saw it on twitter so it must be 0s fault
 
#1,355
#1,355
"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."
Click to expand...

G.W. Bush on 7/12/07
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,358
#1,358
lawgator1 said:
Translation: due to my mistake, we have to stay there and have a dozen or so of our troops killed by ied's every week, with no way to end it.
Click to expand...

I have no qualms about the mistake part. But, either he or whoever wrote that for him, had a very good idea of what would happen if we left early and the dangers it would cause.
 
#1,359
#1,359
lawgator1 said:
Translation: due to my mistake, we have to stay there and have a dozen or so of our troops killed by ied's every week, with no way to end it.
Click to expand...

You've been suspiciously absent from the partisan threads as of late.

The new conservative girlfriend making you mind your manners?
 
#1,366
#1,366
allvol123 said:
Irrelevant. Obama can only work with the situations left in his lap when he started, and with those, he has failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Obama has been a failure , at the same time if Bush had not invaded in the first place Iraq would not be in this mess. Iraq all falls back on W. He screwed up royally and we and the people of Iraq will be paying for his mistake for years. I see very little difference in W and O, both have been terrible presidents. I sincerely believe history will look at both as being in the worse 5 presidents in history list. Jmo
 
#1,367
#1,367
Gramps said:
Obama has been a failure , at the same time if Bush had not invaded in the first place Iraq would not be in this mess. Iraq all falls back on W. He screwed up royally and we and the people of Iraq will be paying for his mistake for years. I see very little difference in W and O, both have been terrible presidents. I sincerely believe history will look at both as being in the worse 5 presidents in history list. Jmo
Click to expand...

It really just seems the middle east needs evil bastards in charge to keep things in line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,369
#1,369
Gramps said:
Obama has been a failure , at the same time if Bush had not invaded in the first place Iraq would not be in this mess. Iraq all falls back on W. He screwed up royally and we and the people of Iraq will be paying for his mistake for years. I see very little difference in W and O, both have been terrible presidents. I sincerely believe history will look at both as being in the worse 5 presidents in history list. Jmo
Click to expand...

Yes, yes but W was supposed to be a dolt and Obama was supposedly a genius. Bush (mistakenly or not) accomplished his goal of taking out Sadam and stabilizing Iraq. Obama has failed and pissed away what a dolt left for him.
 
#1,370
#1,370
hog88 said:
Yes, yes but W was supposed to be a dolt and Obama was supposedly a genius. Bush (mistakenly or not) accomplished his goal of taking out Sadam and stabilizing Iraq. Obama has failed and pissed away what a dolt left for him.
Click to expand...

"Stabilizing Iraq" Ha....HA..HAHAHAHAHAHA
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top