LucidElement Posted September 27, 2014 #1 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Hey guys, I was just thinking about something.... Do you think when Obama pulled out U.S troops a couple years ago it was a big mistake? Is that how ISIS had been able to form so easily? More importantly, do you think the U.S would be calling on ARAB nations as well as France and England (who are Airstriking Syria now) because ISIS isnt a threat?.. Which reinstates my question, Why did Obama underestimate this new terror organization a year ago (when he thought they were petty) only to have to call on many other counties for help? And now Al-Abadi is Prime Minister and hes looking to strike in hours on ISIS... WOULDN'T THIS BE KNOWN AS A WORLD WAR ... UPON ISIS? Think about it.. they were beheading people left and right (SADLY, R.I.P!) but know you havent heard of them "spreading" or "taking over anything" some victorious stuff is happening from the allies that we wont hear about for a while. =) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted September 27, 2014 #2 Share Posted September 27, 2014 The wrong thing was bombing Iraq in 2003 as we all know. ISIS emerged after Sunnis and Shias started to fight over each other. And also with the Iraqi government and the Arab uprisings, ISIS started to get momentum. There was always going to be a power vacuum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 27, 2014 #3 Share Posted September 27, 2014 IS has been around since the mid 2000s at least. It was originally called AQ in Iraq. I believe the current more virulent form gained hold because of the chaos caused by the "Arab Spring" which led to the horrors in Syria. And, IMO, that "Arab Spring" can at least partially be laid to the instigation of a speech given by the American president in Cairo... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted September 28, 2014 #4 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I dont think leaving Iraq would have been as big a deal if we didnt fund and train al CIA da, aka ISIS. Or if we had not let them steal mass amounts of weapons that we somehow forgot to take with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted September 28, 2014 #5 Share Posted September 28, 2014 The wrong thing was bombing Iraq in 2003 as we all know. ISIS emerged after Sunnis and Shias started to fight over each other. And also with the Iraqi government and the Arab uprisings, ISIS started to get momentum. There was always going to be a power vacuum Sunnis and Shias have been fighting each other for ages. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted September 28, 2014 #6 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Sunnis and Shias have been fighting each other for ages. i know but without Saddam controlling things, it jumped up the scale like 900% 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted September 28, 2014 #7 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Hey guys, I was just thinking about something.... Do you think when Obama pulled out U.S troops a couple years ago it was a big mistake? Is that how ISIS had been able to form so easily? More importantly, do you think the U.S would be calling on ARAB nations as well as France and England (who are Airstriking Syria now) because ISIS isnt a threat?.. Which reinstates my question, Why did Obama underestimate this new terror organization a year ago (when he thought they were petty) only to have to call on many other counties for help? And now Al-Abadi is Prime Minister and hes looking to strike in hours on ISIS... WOULDN'T THIS BE KNOWN AS A WORLD WAR ... UPON ISIS? Think about it.. they were beheading people left and right (SADLY, R.I.P!) but know you havent heard of them "spreading" or "taking over anything" some victorious stuff is happening from the allies that we wont hear about for a while. =) France and the UK aren't bombing in Syria. They are in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry_Dresden Posted September 28, 2014 #8 Share Posted September 28, 2014 France and the UK aren't bombing in Syria. They are in Iraq. Of course this too is a blessing in disguise for Obama cause now American troops and air power are soon to be in not just striking range of ISIL terrorists but Shia Syria. Sometimes you don't need to win every hand in a poker match... just having enough chips to stay in the game is sufficient to get a favourable result. And the result is removing Assad indirectly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidElement Posted October 2, 2014 Author #9 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Of course this too is a blessing in disguise for Obama cause now American troops and air power are soon to be in not just striking range of ISIL terrorists but Shia Syria. Sometimes you don't need to win every hand in a poker match... just having enough chips to stay in the game is sufficient to get a favourable result. And the result is removing Assad indirectly. I just read your post and I think that phrase you tied together is brilliant. The whole statement you said makes a lot of sense. Although.... "staying in the game" sounds like the U.S isnt the biggest super power in the world still (of course i could be reading to much into it?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted October 2, 2014 #10 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Who or what will replace Assad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted October 2, 2014 #11 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Who or what will replace Assad? I couldn't guess. But I believe it will depend in large part on how important Putin feels Syria is to his plans. Even Iran might get around to a more generous continent of support if it looks like he will fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry_Dresden Posted October 2, 2014 #12 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I just read your post and I think that phrase you tied together is brilliant. The whole statement you said makes a lot of sense. Although.... "staying in the game" sounds like the U.S isnt the biggest super power in the world still (of course i could be reading to much into it?) America is the undisputed and only superpower per se so you'll have no argument from me, and no one could or dare confront it head on. But others have sufficient reasons and means to disrupt Western plans as is the case of Russia and Iran and their support for Assad and the Shia cause. Russia has a military base (Tartus), that is the only military base in the Mediterranean that they have and can't afford to lose and the Iranians have Shia religious kin that makes them hard to just brush aside, even by the USA. I guess it's a case of how badly does the USA want Assad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogbin Posted October 2, 2014 #13 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Who or what will replace Assad? Most likely someone far worse and more evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now