Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously

[Lethn]

Why would they label IS as evil?  They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner.

Because they're different from us! And being different means you're evil!

[wassupman]

So then, the guy that was the lead of terrorists and thought to be in Iraq is not noticed or understood.  How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what?   Bush was in office for ten years??? NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Better ask the countries that were there.  Obviously 9/11 and those results  is not rememered or carred about?

[umair127]

So then, the guy that was the lead of terrorists and thought to be in Iraq is not noticed or understood.  How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what?   Bush was in office for ten years??? NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Better ask the countries that were there.  Obviously 9/11 and those results  is not rememered or carred about?

Not entirely sure what you are asking here (there's those language skills of yours), but let's just talk about those terrorist camps in Iraq prior to our invasion. They were actually there because WE were protecting them.  Surprised by that?  Well, it's essentially true. We set up these no fly zones and strictly enforced them against the Iraqi government.  The thing is, we didn't prepare for the side effect of the Iraqi government (under Saddam Hussein) not being able to mobilize against those terrorist groups - who hated him as much as they did us. Saddam Hussein was NOT supporting Al Qaeda, as was claimed by the Bush administration in the run-up to the invasion. They hated him, and he hated them.  And this was debunked before we invaded. So no, we did not invade Iraq to stop terrorism. And in the 20-20 vision of hind sight (and as many of us who opposed the invasion in the first place predicted) we have created a breeding ground for terrorism.

[umair127]

How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what?

I'm not sure what the numbers were when Bush left office, but I'm sure it's information available if we were to look for it. The thing is, the number is irrelevant to the point. The fact is, the agreement for our withdrawal was negotiated under President Bush. It was not COMPLETED until Obama was in office, but it was still negotiated under Bush. As the deadline approached, the Iraqis expressed that they were not ready to take over security in their country (after all that time, they well should have been, but they became entirely too dependent on our forces to do it for them).  President Obama tried to negotiate an extension, but the Iraqis were unwilling to allow us to stay under the same terms they'd agreed to before - with an immunity for our personnel from prosecution under Iraqi civil authority. So, with that refusal, the Obama administration continued with the withdrawal. Responsibility for Iraq not being able to defend itself falls exclusively with Iraq - first, because after all that time, they should have been able to put together an Army that wouldn't drop their guns and run the moment someone says "BOO!" in their general direction, and second because they COULD have had us staying on to help them if they hadn't insisted on being able to arrest and jail American servicemen.

[umair127]

Bush was in office for ten years???

Easy one. This comes under the heading of your weak language skills. Bush was in office for 8 years. The invasion of Iraq was in 2003, and the withdrawal was completed in December of 2011, as per the terms of the withdrawal agreement negotiated between the Iraqi and Bush governments -  also around 8 years. 8 years is, as I said, "the better part of 10 years". Do you need further help in understanding this language?

[umair127]

NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq?

Not really, no. This was "the coalition of the willing" which was mostly the US and Great Britain. NATO as an organization was NOT involved in the decision to invade, and some members of NATO did not participate - in fact, refused to participate. NATO itself had a training mission of 150 advisors involved, but had no part in authorizing, planning or carrying out the mission.

[umair127]

Better ask the countries that were there. 

As I stated above (you can look this up), the multi-national force involved in the invasion of Iraq was NOT under the auspices of NATO.

[umair127]

Obviously 9/11 and those results  is not rememered or carred about? 

Apparently, you need a reminder - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Qaeda, and we invaded Afghanistan to go after them, not Iraq.

I know that the time and effort I took to answer this was a waste, because I'm talking to a guy with the IQ of your average door knob, and I expect nothing but another indecipherable jumble of words in response, but hey - no one can say I didn't answer your questions.

[wenben]

Why would they label IS as evil?  They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner.

Because they're different from us! And being different means you're evil!

That has been to motto for the foreign policy for US for the last 40+ years.

Being a communist in the old day mean we will attack you even if you are 10 millions miles away.

[Snail2]

Lets ask you righties a question.  Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria.  You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad.  So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad.  You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against.

You leftists and other PC maniacs do not understand that these guys will not stop when they reached the Syrian borders. In addition they don't have to go to the States for doing some harm, because of they are already there. These blokes are capable (or they will be capable shortly) to redraw the maps of the Middle-east, but today maybe not to late to hunt them down. You guys just doing the same what Baldwin and Chamberlain did in the thirties.

[wasserman99]

Lets ask you righties a question.  Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria.  You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad.  So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad.  You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against.

You leftists and other PC maniacs do not understand that these guys will not stop when they reached the Syrian borders. In addition they don't have to go to the States for doing some harm, because of they are already there. These blokes are capable (or they will be capable shortly) to redraw the maps of the Middle-east, but today maybe not to late to hunt them down. You guys just doing the same what Baldwin and Chamberlain did in the thirties.

The ISIS is much more dangerous then the government in Syria is. Syria can easily be wiped out by the rest of the world. The ISIS on the other hand is a terrorist organization who is actively committing genocide.