On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
wrote:
That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were
developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave
them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi
soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless
there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American
soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a
vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American
lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if
we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even
more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something
worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and
General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had
accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition.
>
In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S.
funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or
immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able
to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or
ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back
Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where
to spend it.
>
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, "jr_...@yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Richard,
As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against
ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground
to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not
be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from
the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :
On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... <mailto:noozguru@...>
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in
Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their
hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in
the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first
place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman
to get the American people in a "war mood" and support spending
heavily on defense which of course profited the military
industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow
the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up
more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not
support them in the first place.
>
The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best
way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that
will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to
defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President
Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the
European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat
ISIS. It's not complicated.
>
On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... <mailto:jr_esq@...>
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to
Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all
approaches, along with the necessary support from world
governments to defeat ISIS.
https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
