So what is everyone's thoughts on Obama's plan for ISIS?

[TobiasFunke]

You still won't expand on finishing the job will you?

[floplag]

You still won't expand on finishing the job will you?

I dont know what it is you want me to say here aside from what ive already said. 

You want some master plan with bullet lists... just so you can come back and say you feel we did enough... youve made that clear, i think we ran like cowards when it suited us politically. 

Is there anything i could list that would have any effect on your view here?   i think we both know there isnt so why bother.

You yourself already said we could have stayed the course... if i offer up nothing else, that was a viable option.  we chose not to, the result is where we are now.  100 other bullets wont change that fact.

[TobiasFunke]

I dont know what it is you want me to say here aside from what ive already said. 

You want some master plan with bullet lists... just so you can come back and say you feel we did enough... youve made that clear, i think we ran like cowards when it suited us politically. 

 

Is there anything i could list that would have any effect on your view here?   i think we both know there isnt so why bother.

I'm not asking you to change my views, I'm asking you to back up your opinion. The only "bullet point" you've said when it comes to finishing the job is just keeping soldiers in the country for an indefinite time. Since you won't list any other things that we could finish the job I'm going to assume that's your definition of finishing the job and leave it at that.

[Tank]

i think 'finishing the job' should have included a permanent US military base with our soldiers for the foreseeable future, just as we've done in okinawa, germany, and south korea.

 

ISIS wasn't bothering iraq while we still had troops there.

[TobiasFunke]

 

ISIS wasn't bothering iraq while we still had troops there.

It wasn't bothering anyone until Syria hit the fan. I've read a lot of opinions on here saying that it's because we left Iraq that IS came to be a force, but all of these guys were fighting in Syria and decided to spread out. Before the Syrian civil war there was no ISIS. That's the reason they came to be, not because of us leaving Iraq.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong people.

[floplag]

I'm not asking you to change my views, I'm asking you to back up your opinion. The only "bullet point" you've said when it comes to finishing the job is just keeping soldiers in the country for an indefinite time. Since you won't list any other things that we could finish the job I'm going to assume that's your definition of finishing the job and leave it at that.

What other point do i need to make beyond that we should have stayed?  From what i can see that is more than enough to make the point so a bunch of speculation on line items is just silly.

Assume what you will, i see no need to back up my view to someone who wont agree with it regardless of how many times its said even when you yourself already said it was an option.  Argument for argument sake is the pissing in the wind of internet forums. 

 

[Tank]

It wasn't bothering anyone until Syria hit the fan. I've read a lot of opinions on here saying that it's because we left Iraq that IS came to be a force, but all of these guys were fighting in Syria and decided to spread out. Before the Syrian civil war there was no ISIS. That's the reason they came to be, not because of us leaving Iraq.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong people.

 

if you look at when the US left iraq and when ISIS entered iraq, i think it shows that while we still had troops on the ground, ISIS stayed away, regardless of what was going on in syria. without the US in iraq, and with a less than adequate iraqi military force, ISIS seized an opportunity.

 

i'd bet dollars to donuts that if we had stayed in iraq, ISIS would have stayed out of iraq, or at least stayed on the outside fringes of the country.

[TobiasFunke]

if you look at when the US left iraq and when ISIS entered iraq, i think it shows that while we still had troops on the ground, ISIS stayed away, regardless of what was going on in syria. without the US in iraq, and with a less than adequate iraqi military force, ISIS seized an opportunity.

 

Was IS even around when we left Iraq? I don't think so

 

Are you confusing them with Al Queda since IS broke away from Al Queda?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

So in your mind its acceptable to walk away when something gets hard or inconvenient?

 

I'm saying that at times one has to accept that there won't be a victory, no matter how much money or how many troops or how much hardware is committed to a given conflict. Once that realization is reached, there is no point in pursuing it further.

 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

- Albert Einstein

Edited September 17, 2014 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Tank]

Was IS even around when we left Iraq? I don't think so

 

Are you confusing them with Al Queda since IS broke away from Al Queda?

 

no, not confusing them at all.

 

i imagine ISIS coming to life had been percolating for a while. i believe that if we had stayed in iraq, they wouldn't have felt emboldened enough to invade.

[arch stanton]

no, not confusing them at all.

 

i imagine ISIS coming to life had been percolating for a while. i believe that if we had stayed in iraq, they wouldn't have felt emboldened enough to invade.

And we would have spent several billion more and had troops baking in the desert just waiting and they would have still been in Syria so the temptation might have been to send them in there. I really don't see any good endings to the invasion that should never have happened. If we had not invaded in '03 then maybe this anti-Ba'athist war in Syria gains legs in Iraq and the topple Saddam on their own. Of course, a stable middle east would put a huge dent in our defense exports. 

[nate]

After ISIS there will be another group.  It is naive to think we have some obligation or need to stop them.  It is an exercise in futility.

[floplag]

Was IS even around when we left Iraq? I don't think so

 

Are you confusing them with Al Queda since IS broke away from Al Queda?

 

ah, but thats part of the problem, would IS even exist if we hadnt left?

[floplag]

I'm saying that at times one has to accept that there won't be a victory, no matter how much money or how many troops or how much hardware is committed to a given conflict. Once that realization is reached, there is no point in pursuing it further.

 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

- Albert Einstein

 

victory isn't and frankly never was the issue, aftermath and follow up events are.

 

ostrich syndrome

Denying or refusing to acknowledge something that is blatantly obvious as if your head were in the sand like an ostrich.

-me

[Lhalo]

ah, but thats part of the problem, would IS even exist if we hadnt left?

IS wouldn't exist if we would have let Assad destroy them.

[Lhalo]

After ISIS there will be another group.  It is naive to think we have some obligation or need to stop them.  It is an exercise in futility.

Exactly. They'll be fighting each other until the end of time.

[TobiasFunke]

ah, but thats part of the problem, would IS even exist if we hadnt left?

 

Short answer? No

 

Quick answer? No

 

What Lawrence just said

[TobiasFunke]

Exactly. We'll be fighting them until the end of time.

 

fixed

[floplag]

Whether they will be fighting each other has nothing to do with our responsibility.
IF we chose to get involved, should we not see it thru? 

Thats the very simple question here.. the problem is that what that means appears to be completely different among the posters here.

[Adam]

I wish HaloThunder posted in this forum. 

 

ISIS marks for an exclamation point

[Lhalo]

Whether they will be fighting each other has nothing to do with our responsibility.

IF we chose to get involved, should we not see it thru? 

Thats the very simple question here.. the problem is that what that means appears to be completely different among the posters here.

We "saw it through" enough.

[floplag]

We "saw it through" enough.

 

Based on the results after we left, apparently not.

[Lhalo]

Based on the results after we left, apparently not.

 

The results are on the Iraqis, not us.

[TobiasFunke]

LOL we get it Flop, 300 years from now you'd still want us in the country. Fight the terrorist over there so we don't have to fight them over here right?

[Kevin]

I have never been in combat and don't pretend to know what it is like first hand (although being a military history nerd, I feel as if I can get a fraction of a sense reading veteran accounts). I'm sure Iraqi soldiers were feeling what is normal for soldiers to feel when doing battle with IS for the first time. I won't downplay that. However if the accounts are true that they basically fled with hardly a shot fired, I don't know what else the U.S. could have done to prepare them for this. A lot of money, equipment, time, and lives went down the drain.

Not to mention most of these soldiers have been in a war torn nation for sometime so it's not like they should not have been used to this type of situation. Just speculating but in the end, it might have been a nice job for these guys to have but their heart wasn't in it to fight to the death with IS. If that is the case, there is nothing the U.S. could have done to make the Iraqis fight. And thus would have been pointless to argue that we left to early.