Sec.Defense Hagel warns ISIS is-

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And our military understood and told Obama that it was too soon to withdraw all troops. It warned him that there was a definite possibility that the Iraqi military would act French.

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't.

People need to look at the constraints in the decision and not just fall back on what's now a talking point.

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

They have been aware of the monsters for a long time. Why do you think they usually resort to tyrannical regimes? To mollify the "good" Muslims? It has always been "this dangerous." And the only way to suppress the monsters has been the way of all tyrannies--force, coercion, suppression, pandering. It has been the "easy" option. Individual freedom and responsibility has not been inherent in their cultural and societal identities. A free people would have long ago revolted and taken "Responsibility" for self governance.

Yes, I'm sure the Iraqi Muslims who openly thanked Jim were just repressed savages.

Didn't the first Islamic Caliphate bring about great advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine while their western counterparts were sacking neighboring villages and fending off Vikings?

The dictatorships associated with the Middle East today are as much a product of Western conquest and geopolitics as they are self determination. It's a lens that's convenient to drop...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't

Really !!
Anybody with a Facebook page has seen Obama's own words taking credit for removing the troops as he had promised.
Or are they being taken out of context ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Really !!
Anybody with a Facebook page has seen Obama's own words taking credit for removing the troops as he had promised.
Or are they being taken out of context ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses

At the end he sounds like you

http://youtu.be/7DpBwmN66As
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

At the end he sounds like you

http://youtu.be/7DpBwmN66As
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I see the problem Buck. You're forming your opinions from Internet memes and misleading YouTube posts.

Your video conveniently cuts Obama's words short...he went on to say...

Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I think I see the problem Buck. You're forming your opinions from Internet memes and misleading YouTube posts.

Your video conveniently cuts Obama's words short...he went on to say...

Funny thing is that most people remember when he was campaigning for a second term and as he did all his fundraiser speaches up until recently. The words in the video his .
You conveniently found one instance ( maybe) that he may have used other words after his bragging .
What he said yesterday has no bearing on what he says tomorrow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Funny thing is that most people remember when he was campaigning for a second term and as he did all his fundraiser speaches up until recently. The words in the video his .
You conveniently found one instance ( maybe) that he may have used other words after his bragging .
What he said yesterday has no bearing on what he says tomorrow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, he campaigned on a promise to end the war. That means removal of active combat troops which we did aside from the Marines at the embassy.

The Administration did want a force to run counter-terrorism activities and continue to train the Iraqi military which fell apart. That was reported back in 2011...it's not one instance.

Perhaps you're confusion on what Obama says tomorrow is that you don't really know what he said yesterday?

[Raven]

SHARIA law is absolute HELL and has no place in America

so when we capture them on USA soil they should be simply SHOT
same as any foreign soldier attacking was

i don't think tax payers should have to pay for any trials