ISIS. I think they are

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Negotiations continued well after Bush had left office, from 2010 right into 2011. Negotiations were held just up to months prior to the withdrawal.

If Obama had wanted to leave troops in Iraq, I have no doubt he could have arranged to have done so. I believe Romney would have found a way to keep a force remaining, because he actually wanted to do just that. Obama didn't like the agreement being offered, so he didn't push hard to change it, but that was ok, because he didn't want to leave the troops there anyway. Numerous White House officials have stated on record pretty much exactly that. Leon Panetta, Obama's own Secretary of Defense during those negotiations, had this to say about it, "To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country."

You are correct, Obama took credit for having pulled all the troops out of Iraq. It was what he promised he would do, it is what he wanted to do, it is what he did, and in the end, it is what he took credit for having done. To dispute that, isn't to tell me that I'm wrong about it, but to dispute the words of Obama himself.

But as I said, this is past history, and while important, isn't nearly important as what is being done today. But I don't think our leadership has a clue. While the leader of France has declared war on ISIS, the best our president could muster about the attack was that is a 'setback'. Well, maybe our Secretary of State, John Kerry, would say something a bit more forceful about the attack. But no, he proceeded to compare it to the Charlie Hebdo attack in which he said that attack had a certain "legitimacy"....no better not use that word, instead a certain "rationale", because they were very angry about the cartoon you know. Our leadership has our allies scratching their heads, and our enemies taking advantage. Obama isn't even leading from behind, he is now just being dragged along. I am not that highly partisan, so I can write a good bit about what a bafoon George Bush was. But Obama and his administration are completely inept and over their heads as well. I even have friends who are staunchly liberal that are admitting as much.
 
If I recall correctly US troops, staying after the withdrawal deadline, would have had no immunity from prosecution even though they would be operating in cooperation with Iraqi forces.
 
If I recall correctly US troops, staying after the withdrawal deadline, would have had no immunity from prosecution even though they would be operating in cooperation with Iraqi forces.

You recall correctly Gordon. The point I'm making, as well as some of those who were connected with the administration at the time, including Leon Panetta, is that there was no hard attempt by Obama to change that language and come to an agreement. Could he have talked Iraq into accepting another agreement that changed that language? That I don't know for sure. But he never really tried so we will never really know the answer. It's sort of like walking into a car dealership with a $28,000 budget, asking for a best price on a vehicle, having them say $30,000 and then leaving without making an attempt to get the price lower, because you didn't want to buy your wife the car from the start. By all accounts, he made no effort, despite being encouraged by many to do so. My belief is still that had Romney won the presidency, he would have found a way to leave a small force of troops within Iraq. However, at this point, it's all water under the bridge.
 
Kevin,

There's no doubt that Obama wanted US troops out of harms way in the Middle East which, I believe was and still is consistent with the majority opinion in the US.

Whether that turns out to be a mistake in the long run remains to be seen but it has a strong nexus in the current political environment of our country.

I sincerely doubt that the citizens of this country will support any effort to place American boots of the ground for a long time to come. Even the Reps running for President recognize this reality.

Gordon
 
I don't disagree with that Gordon. However, putting boots on the ground, now that ISIS has grown and already controls vast territory, is very different than having left some boots on the ground in Iraq from the beginning. It's much harder to conquer than it is to defend. But I'm not sure how much this president cares about majority opinion. The majority of Americans currently oppose bringing Syrian refugees into the US, but that hasn't stopped the president for calling out republicans for trying to stall it until we can make sure they are properly vetted, even while ignoring some in his own party who are expressing the same concerns. If we have anything going for us, it's the fact that an ocean separates us and ISIS, but that means nothing if we invite them in.

I'm not sure if boots on the ground is the answer, and as I have said, should we commit to that, we certainly shouldn't be the only ones contributing towards the effort. But even in our air campaign, we have only averaged 7 airstrikes a day on ISIS. By comparison, in Kosovo we averaged 138. He seems to want to be able to point out that he's do something, while at the same time making a very minimal effort. It's not just republicans pointing this stuff out, Dianne Feinstein has actually been one of his harshest critics as of late. In your first post, you mentioned that this is "pretty scary stuff". I agree. I just don't get the feeling that this president agrees with us.
 
I don't know if a majority of Americans are against us bringing in any refugees. I am sure many don't want them, but I am also sure that many feel it is un-American to turn them away. In any case, from what I've read, the U.S. is taking in fewer than other countries.
 
I wouldn't have said that the majority of Americans oppose bringing in Syrian refugees unless I knew that to be true. The NBC/surveymonkey poll shows 56% disapprove and 41% approve. The washpost/abc poll scores it at 54% disapproving and 43% approving taking in refugees. Even at that, the bill recently passed by the House was just making sure we have a tougher vetting process for those coming from that region, there is nothing wrong with that, and it was supported by a good number of democrats. But Obama insists upon scoring political points whenever he see's the opportunity, so he is saying it is un-American. I don't know if I trust our existing vetting process, when we were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers by Russia, and the FBI subsequently looked into them and found them to check out ok. They later went on to kill and badly injure many people in the Boston bombing.
 
This is what the CATO institute says.."Of the 859,629 refugees admitted from 2001 onwards, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United States, and none was successfully carried out. That is one terrorism-planning conviction for every 286,543 refugees that have been admitted. To put that in perspective, about 1 in every 22,541 Americans committed murder in 2014. The terrorist threat from Syrian refugees in the United States is hyperbolically over-exaggerated and we have very little to fear from them because the refugee vetting system is so thorough."
 
I'm part of the 56% ……………and I am most certainly American !
 
With all due respect my friend, when one sees this spike of nationwide fear resulting from recent events, ISIS has won.

And no one is questioning your loyalty to this country.

Very sad.

And Steve, don't confuse me with facts.

One must ask where does it stop?
 
Even at that, the bill recently passed by the House was just making sure we have a tougher vetting process for those coming from that region, there is nothing wrong with that, and it was supported by a good number of democrats. But Obama insists upon scoring political points whenever he see's the opportunity, so he is saying it is un-American. I

Kevin,

As I understand the bill, it would require three top administration officials to personally sign off on every immigrant approved for entry. I think one of those individuals is the FBI Director.

Does anyone believe that this is a realistic vetting process?

Regarding Obama scoring political points, you are merely speculating based on your personal biases. That's fine but I clearly disagree.

As I stated above, we are in the midst of a hyperbolic, emotional knee jerk reaction to recent events.

Does anyone believe this is the appropriate environment to make justifiable, defensible long term decisions regarding our refugee policy?

Who will be the next group after the Syrians?

Gordon
 
With all due respect my friend, when one sees this spike of nationwide fear resulting from recent events, ISIS has won.

sad but true Gordon…………. but then it's been that way for a while now
 
Gordon, the FBI director you mentioned, James Comey, has himself expressed doubts on the vetting process. He said this weeks ago, before the attacks on France, “And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.” Officials have mentioned that our vetting process is now much better than it was years ago, but at the same time, they are making statements that when it comes to Syria, they don't have much data to use for vetting someone.

Of course, in the past, even when we did have people in our database, our vetting system has shown serious flaws. Two Iraqi refugees were arrested in Kentucky, after it was discovered that they had links to Al Qaeda. Iraq had them in a database we had access to, because they were implicated for a bomb that killed Americans. At that time, it was reported by the FBI, that as many as several dozen more could have also been allowed into the US that had bomb making experience. I do not know if they have since ruled out that fear of others making it here or not. It's not like they attack right away. They have the patience to wait years for a large attack. Of course, we were told to be on the lookout for the Boston bombers, and yet still, they checked out just fine. But given instances such as this, saying that our vetting system is better than it was before, does not give me great confidence in the process.

But lets say that our vetting system is now so good that it will be able screen 100% of those who may potentially cause us harm. According to the president recently, you can turn a peaceful follower of Islam, into a terrorist, simply by suggesting that Islam has a problem with terrorism. Geesh, the president my feel that followers of Islam are all peaceful, but apparently he thinks they have very thin skin. He was asked recently about the France attack, about how while the attacks were done under the name of Islam, how do you approach handling it as so not to offend Muslims, and here was part of his response. Obama: "And so to the degree that anyone would equate the terrible actions that took place in Paris with the views of Islam, those kinds of stereotypes are counterproductive. They’re wrong. They will lead, I think, to greater recruitment into terrorist organizations over time if this becomes somehow defined as a Muslim problem as opposed to a terrorist problem." So don't use the term "radical Islamist" or Islamic terrorist", as they are then easier to recruit into a terrorist organization. So I guess we should be safe letting in Muslims from Syria and elsewhere into the US. Just hope someone in your community doesn't make a youtube video, draw a cartoon of Allah, burn a copy of the Koran, or offend them is some other manner, or according to our president, any of them have the potential at that time to become radicalized. Of course, it's the view of John Kerry that should they kill us, as the result of being offended, that's a rational response to having been offended. Kind of strange that the president is so keen and careful about not offending a group based upon the actions of a very few, and yet just in February, Homeland Security issued a report on "right-wing sovereign citizen extremists". Do I have a bias against this president? Why wouldn't I?

The president has used, as he often does, a straw man argument against the republicans for their wanting a more thorough vetting process. Saying they are against allowing 3 year olds and widows to enter the country. Perhaps it could be that not all of the 10,000 refugees are toddlers and widows? But he didn't seem to have that same concern for them when ISIS was first growing and marching across Syria and Iraq, when they were killing many children and making those women 'widows'. His response then to how his administration was handling the growing threat was to dismiss them as the JV team. But I'm supposed to believe that on the issue of allowing in 10,000 Syrians, he has it correct this time? I sure hope he has it correct, because we need to be correct 100% of the time, only one individual needs to slip through to potentially do serious damage at some point.

I don't even view this as a partisan issue, although, it has obviously become one and both sides share blame for that. Should anyone in the US find themselves in a hostage sort of situation by these guys, I don't think they'll ask, "are you democrat or republican"? Perhaps I need to remember a few verses of the Koran?
 
Last edited:
Good post Kevin …………which reminds me ………We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, yet we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
 
Good post Kevin …………which reminds me ………We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, yet we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

I would imagine that if Southern Baptists were responsible for the atrocities that we are seeing from the radical Islamists, the president would have no issues attaching the correct label to the problem.

Speaking of guns and terrorist. The local news here is that the DC police chief, Cathy Lanier, was asked Sunday night on a 60 Minutes interview what would be the correct response for DC residents, should they find themselves in an active shooter situation such as what occurred in Paris. Her response was, "Your options are run, hide, or fight. If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.” She made no mention as to how a resident of DC, with the highly restrictive gun laws there, basically making it next to impossible to own a handgun, should take the gunman out. Perhaps with a rock or tree branch? Of course, she is a strong supporter of the restrictive laws for guns in DC. When Ben Carson made the suggestion that he personally, "would not just stand there and let them shoot me", the liberal media blasted him for blaming the victim. Despite the fact that I can't recall him saying that others should do that, only that would be his response, because he was asked what "he" would do. I don't think you'll see the media going after the DC police chief for suggesting the same thing. In her case, they are probably totally in agreement.
 
Kevin, your opinion is simply that, your opinion. The president makes sense to me. If, as the right wing wants it to be a holy war, of course those that are Muslim will defend themselves. That's not a rediculous assumption. Frankly, I'm much more concerned about Americans with guns who kill thousands of other Americans. The chances of a terrorist attack from the refugees is insignificant and I'm not concerned one iota about the danger they represent. We have an extensive vetting process in place. It's clear you don't like our president and you don't believe him. You choose to believe what you choose to believe, which in my opinion is right wing paranoia, which seems to be all the right wing is about these days.
 
Kevin, your opinion is simply that, your opinion.

as is yours Steve, mine and everyone else's ……..



The president makes sense to me.

now that one is most definitely 'yours' !!

BTW, and FWIW, not that you care…… but of note , many of my left wing 'Chicago buds' are not to happy with your 'buddy' right now


If, as the right wing wants it to be a holy war, of course those that are Muslim will defend themselves. That's not a rediculous assumption. Frankly, I'm much more concerned about Americans with guns who kill thousands of other Americans. The chances of a terrorist attack from the refugees is insignificant and I'm not concerned one iota about the danger they represent. We have an extensive vetting process in place. It's clear you don't like our president and you don't believe him. You choose to believe what you choose to believe, which in my opinion is right wing paranoia, which seems to be all the right wing is about these days.

OMG………I don't even know where to begin with this one ………….'Americans with guns' ………….. and you live in Texas !
 
You guys call it the way you see it. Fine with me.

In the end, you are just putting a dress on the pig. And that pig is hyperbolic Islamic phobia.

And the historic refugee numbers simply don't support that phobia.
 
Steve- I don't even think I have given my "opinion" that much. For the most part, I have been quoting the statements made by Obama and those under his administration. I said last week that Dianne Feinstein, the lead democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, has been one of the harshest critics of Obama's ISIS strategy. She doubled down on that assessment just this Sunday, saying among other things that ISIS is now enormously strong, and is "big, big problem", and adding that the administrations response so far has not been "sufficient". For his assessment on ISIS this past Sunday, Obama said, "They're a bunch of killers with good social media." The capital of France just lost 127 citizens in 6 simultaneous attacks, and our president still downplays the threat of ISIS. Or is that just my opinion again? You are correct that I don't like Obama, that is my opinion, and he gives me many legitimate and rational reasons for holding that opinion, to borrow a bit of phrasing from John Kerry.

Gordon- In the history of our taking in refugees, I am not aware of a terrorist organization saying they will use the program to attack us and others. There is already evidence that they have attempted to do just that. It may not matter, however, because what is a few more terrorists? The FBI has stated that it currently has active investigations into ISIS related links in "all 50 states". You started this thread saying that you think ISIS is "winning" and that world leaders are "in a panic". You then went on to state that, "it seems that our collective "intelligence gathering systems", to prevent these types of incidents from occurring, are overloaded and somewhat powerless." Gee, I hope that "collective intelligence gathering" doesn't include the vetting process, which appears to start with a referral from the United Nations. You finish off by stating that it is scary stuff. And yet you label the opinion of the majority of Americans as being "hyperbolic Islamic phobia", for having the opinion that perhaps we shouldn't be bringing 10,000 people from Syria into the United States. Perhaps Canada is dressing that pig as well, as they have stated that they will not accept any single males of combat age within their list of acceptable refugees. Those wacky right wingers.
 
as is yours Steve, mine and everyone else's ……..





now that one is most definitely 'yours' !!

BTW, and FWIW, not that you care…… but of note , many of my left wing 'Chicago buds' are not to happy with your 'buddy' right now




OMG………I don't even know where to begin with this one ………….'Americans with guns' ………….. and you live in Texas !

Simple math. Over 30,000 Americans killed by other Americans with guns every year. Every damn year. How many Americans killed by refugees? Down here we have idiots standing guard at Mosques carrying their assault rifles, saying they are there in case there is a problem. The only problem is the one they create. That's not protection, it's harassment. I can't remember the last time some religious Muslim left one of their places of worship and needed to be put down by these right wing clowns and their assault guns, can you? It's irrational fear and these clowns are allowed to carry guns? That's idiotic. It's the Old West again. We have old ladies shooting at people in a parking lot because she thought they were doing something wrong. Guess what she was wrong, but hey, it's ok for her to carry a gun. That's stupidity. Now we have every right wing nut carrying a gun around and by god, you better not try to do something that they think is un-American or they'll shoot first. No, I don't feel safe around these mental midgets and their guns. I don't believe a single thing the right wing says because every time they are proven wrong, it doesn't matter, they're right back at the paranoia spreading, in order to scare people, as that is their schtick.
 

Similar threads

Latest posts

Back
Top