Trump/Sanders debate its on

[TopSecretBoiler]

Then it's Bush's fault that ISIS was able to form because he didn't have an adequate regime left in Iraq when he deposed Saddam.

Yes, I know ISIS really started in Syria, and I'm sure Syria is Clinton's fault as well, but you guys seriously overestimate how much influence the US has in that part of the world today. In some countries, we have a lot; in others, far, far less. Those people have free will over there, and frankly, the west's wanton exercise of influence without regard to the actual people that live there is a big part of the problem, particularly early in the last century.

tis but a man of straw. With Iraq there was a claim of WMDs. Iraq was in decent shape before we abandoned it. Utilities and businesses were open, it was relatively safe. But in the sense that the regime change was probably a mistake you are correct and I would not defend the action. But still it does not absolve either from some blame. I'm not saying "it's all her fault" but it is partly her fault. If you don't want to blame her that's fine, but I wouldn't expect many to go along with that line of thought.

 

[qazplm]

tis but a man of straw. With Iraq there was a claim of WMDs. Iraq was in decent shape before we abandoned it. Utilities and businesses were open, it was relatively safe. But in the sense that the regime change was probably a mistake you are correct and I would not defend the action. But still it does not absolve either from some blame. I'm not saying "it's all her fault" but it is partly her fault. If you don't want to blame her that's fine, but I wouldn't expect many to go along with that line of thought.

So your position is we should have left 10K Soldiers there yes? Because at the time, that was the argument. We'll ignore that Bush was the one that negotiated the withdrawal, and we'll ignore that the Iraqi's no longer wanted us there, and refused to give our troops immunity.

Those 10K Soldiers (who would mostly NOT have been combat ground troops) would have:

1. Kept Iraq from electing a Shite, pro-Iran government
2. Convinced that government to give immunity to our Soldiers
3. fought all the battles for Iraq against ISIS which was born out of the same folks that were displaced out of power by us and kept out of power by that same Shite Iraqi government
4. Fixed the rampant corruption in the Iraqi government
5. Kept Syria from falling apart which is the primary reason why ISIS was able to establish a beachhead, their capital is in Syria after all

Do tell. You know what would have stopped ISIS in Iraq? Having Saddam Hussein still in charge. You know what would have stopped ISIS in Syria? Considering it's primarily run (certainly at least initially) by former Baathists, having Saddam Hussein still in charge.

You know what 10K troops wouldn't have done, 1-5. 20K troops wouldn't have done it.

If folks want to put real finger on the cause of the strife in the ME today, the fault actually lies not with Obama, or Clinton, or even really Bush, it lies with imperial European powers carving up the ME without zero regard to religion, ethnicity, tribes, or anything other than lines on a map. A ME left to evolve under it's own influences would have developed, for the most part, states that fell into those lines. And the conflicts would be more nation state to nation state vice what we have now.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

So your position is we should have left 10K Soldiers there yes? Because at the time, that was the argument. We'll ignore that Bush was the one that negotiated the withdrawal, and we'll ignore that the Iraqi's no longer wanted us there, and refused to give our troops immunity.

Those 10K Soldiers (who would mostly NOT have been combat ground troops) would have:

1. Kept Iraq from electing a Shite, pro-Iran government
2. Convinced that government to give immunity to our Soldiers
3. fought all the battles for Iraq against ISIS which was born out of the same folks that were displaced out of power by us and kept out of power by that same Shite Iraqi government
4. Fixed the rampant corruption in the Iraqi government
5. Kept Syria from falling apart which is the primary reason why ISIS was able to establish a beachhead, their capital is in Syria after all

Do tell. You know what would have stopped ISIS in Iraq? Having Saddam Hussein still in charge. You know what would have stopped ISIS in Syria? Considering it's primarily run (certainly at least initially) by former Baathists, having Saddam Hussein still in charge.

You know what 10K troops wouldn't have done, 1-5. 20K troops wouldn't have done it.

If folks want to put real finger on the cause of the strife in the ME today, the fault actually lies not with Obama, or Clinton, or even really Bush, it lies with imperial European powers carving up the ME without zero regard to religion, ethnicity, tribes, or anything other than lines on a map. A ME left to evolve under it's own influences would have developed, for the most part, states that fell into those lines. And the conflicts would be more nation state to nation state vice what we have now.

I never said it was the right thing to go into Iraq. I agree we could have left him place, for the same reasons HRC could have left the others in place. Muslims don't respect democracy. It's not in their past. They don't teach the French revolution or other western government foundational principles. They think if you're in power it's because it is god's will. They believe in a religion with rule of law baked into it. Establishing democracies for people who don't necessarily know what it is or really want it is a mistake we keep making. However, since we already went in there, the correct thing would have been to stay. 1. is not our problem. those were the election results. 2. we didn't need any permission. 3. yes, they could hold back ISIS. They could keep the roads free and the power on and the water running. 4. see 1. 5. you'd have to ask CIA/HRC. NOW BACK TO THE POINT. NONE of this should shield HRC from her role in the current crisis there. You guys just build strawmen. It's so annoying. Her bad choices are independent of bush's bad choices or anyone else. The only difference is, you don't want to hold her accountable, so you keep deflecting. It's ok rake bush over the coals but not clinton...right. some debate...

 

[qazplm]

I never said it was the right thing to go into Iraq. I agree we could have left him place, for the same reasons HRC could have left the others in place. Muslims don't respect democracy. It's not in their past. They don't teach the French revolution or other western government foundational principles. They think if you're in power it's because it is god's will. They believe in a religion with rule of law baked into it. Establishing democracies for people who don't necessarily know what it is or really want it is a mistake we keep making. However, since we already went in there, the correct thing would have been to stay. 1. is not our problem. those were the election results. 2. we didn't need any permission. 3. yes, they could hold back ISIS. They could keep the roads free and the power on and the water running. 4. see 1. 5. you'd have to ask CIA/HRC. NOW BACK TO THE POINT. NONE of this should shield HRC from her role in the current crisis there. You guys just build strawmen. It's so annoying. Her bad choices are independent of bush's bad choices or anyone else. The only difference is, you don't want to hold her accountable, so you keep deflecting. It's ok rake bush over the coals but not clinton...right. some debate...

That's just a whole bushel of ignorance:

1. So the fact that the folks we put in charge are a) favorable to one of our biggest adversaries in the region and b) block the ability of the very folks who started up ISIS to have any control in Iraq (thus causing them to find another way to get power) is "not our problem?" lol

2. Yes, we did. Unless you've decided international law applies to everyone but us...which is a very Trump-like mindset.

3. No, they couldn't. Most of those 10K troops wouldn't have been combat troops. You clearly don't understand the support to trigger puller ratio in the military.

4. SMH, so the fact that the Shite Iraqi folks in charge are corrupt, and are re-visiting the sins of the Sunnis against them on the Sunnis which drives Sunni disenchantment which helps drive ISIS support and recruitment is "not our problem?"

5. No, 10K troops in Iraq would have had zero effect on what was going on in Syria. I don't have to ask anyone for that softball.

THIS IS THE POINT. You appear to blame HRC for Syria and ISIS because somehow the only thing keeping Iraq from falling apart was 10K US troops in your mind.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

That's just a whole bushel of ignorance:

1. So the fact that the folks we put in charge are a) favorable to one of our biggest adversaries in the region and b) block the ability of the very folks who started up ISIS to have any control in Iraq (thus causing them to find another way to get power) is "not our problem?" lol

2. Yes, we did. Unless you've decided international law applies to everyone but us...which is a very Trump-like mindset.

3. No, they couldn't. Most of those 10K troops wouldn't have been combat troops. You clearly don't understand the support to trigger puller ratio in the military.

4. SMH, so the fact that the Shite Iraqi folks in charge are corrupt, and are re-visiting the sins of the Sunnis against them on the Sunnis which drives Sunni disenchantment which helps drive ISIS support and recruitment is "not our problem?"

5. No, 10K troops in Iraq would have had zero effect on what was going on in Syria. I don't have to ask anyone for that softball.

THIS IS THE POINT. You appear to blame HRC for Syria and ISIS because somehow the only thing keeping Iraq from falling apart was 10K US troops in your mind.

No that's not what I said...at...all. You are so hell bent on pre-determining what I think instead of reading what I write. I work for the army so you're not going to tell me what it is or isn't going to do.

 

[qazplm]

No that's not what I said...at...all. You are so hell bent on pre-determining what I think instead of reading what I write. I work for the army so you're not going to tell me what it is or isn't going to do.

Oh, you work for the Army. Well, interesting, so do I, wear the boots and everything. And I know that 10K troops are not going to do much at all. if you "work for the Army" and don't know that, I'm pretty skeptical about what it is you do "for the Army."

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Oh, you work for the Army. Well, interesting, so do I, wear the boots and everything. And I know that 10K troops are not going to do much at all. if you "work for the Army" and don't know that, I'm pretty skeptical about what it is you do "for the Army."

how big do you think isis is? 10k holds easy.

 

[qazplm]

how big do you think isis is? 10k holds easy.

Wow...you don't work for the military at all, or if you do it is in such a narrow fashion that you have no clue how the Army works at a base level.

10K troops is not 10K COMBAT troops. The vast majority of those troops would be support troops. Trainers, advisers, attorneys, logistics, transportation, communication, docs, security, etc, etc.

It's basically the size of two BCTs or Brigade Combat Teams plus a couple more folks. You are talking probably 2500-3000 max combat folks, the rest is support or service support.

But of course, we weren't talking about leaving BCTs in Iraq. So it wouldn't be nearly that many. But let's assume it was. That is not remotely enough to occupy the ground needed in the vast Iraqi desert AND Syria to "stop ISIS." We required a surge of troops into the six figures JUST to deal with Anbar Province (you know, the area where ISIS is strongest in Iraq).

What am I doing, I'm wasting my time...

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Wow...you don't work for the military at all, or if you do it is in such a narrow fashion that you have no clue how the Army works at a base level.

10K troops is not 10K COMBAT troops. The vast majority of those troops would be support troops. Trainers, advisers, attorneys, logistics, transportation, communication, docs, security, etc, etc.

It's basically the size of two BCTs or Brigade Combat Teams plus a couple more folks. You are talking probably 2500-3000 max combat folks, the rest is support or service support.

But of course, we weren't talking about leaving BCTs in Iraq. So it wouldn't be nearly that many. But let's assume it was. That is not remotely enough to occupy the ground needed in the vast Iraqi desert AND Syria to "stop ISIS." We required a surge of troops into the six figures JUST to deal with Anbar Province (you know, the area where ISIS is strongest in Iraq).

What am I doing, I'm wasting my time...

LOL no, that wasn't JUST to deal with anything. That was to overmatch, overwhelm and make it anything but a fair fight. If you knew anything about the army, you'd know they don't get sent in to "just" deal with something. And for the record Anbar is about 30% of Iraq, so...it's not some small area. There's no chance ISIS is freely roaming the highways with a US presence. It's not like we'd be out combing the desert. We'd have some armor and air support and they wouldn't be able to do shit about it. They got cut down 30:1 during the first few missions there and that was including Saddam's elite guard.

 

[Bruce1]

The President's job isn't to negotiate with everyone on all sides as an adversary. Being President isn't doing a real estate deal. It's a wee bit more than that. America is supposed to be an ideal, a beacon, a fount of stability and guidance in an unstable world.[/QUOTE

yeah right. When we were the beacon of the world it was because we had the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen. We also stood for freedom and democracy. Remember that? The President has a responsibility to oversee more than the ACA, downsizing our military and driving wedges between the different segments of our population. It is time to change direction. My Opinion.

 

[Purdue97]

Trump and Sanders have agreed to a California debate on Fox. Hillary has to going ballistic right now.

Since when does the winner of the party of one primary debate the second place finisher in the primary of another party?

FOX is just looking for a pay day.

Stupid.