Turkey Has Proof of US/ISIS Cooperation

[Smitty-48]

The withdraw from Iraq allowed the Syrian civil war which could then bounce back into Iraq... fine, but you were just arguing that the Syrian civil war happens no matter what, and thus, American troops couldn't stop ISIS from growing.

Setting aside the mandate, since it doesn't matter here, the question is, "how do you get an ISIS if the US maintains an occupying force in Iraq."

And we aren't even addressing whether US meddling in the Syrian conflict help to perpetuate it. It is possible Assad just puts the but on and mops up the rebels before any apocalyptic cult can take off and start claiming to be a Caliphate.

There are a couple of places to be critical of the administration beyond the withdraw from Iraq.

You can be as critical of Obama as you like, I don't care, I think it was a failed presidency, but withdrawing from Iraq, ASAP, was not one of its failures, that was one of his few laudible accomplishments.

ISIS was not going to be stopped when it rampaged into the Anbar in 2011, by the skeleton crew of US troops left, which were in the process of pulling out, and it wasn't going be ejected from the Anbar, unless Obama essentially reinvaded Iraq, against the will of the Shia government in Bagdad, which was backed up by the Iranian Quds Force, so I would submit, that would have been a collosal mistake, even if ISIS be your mandate, because it would have been too late to stop ISIS from exploding by then, they were already on the march.

[Okeefenokee]

Bull. Shit.

ISIL wouldn't have taken a square inch of ground from an army having spent the past five years wishing there was still any fighting left in Iraq. With cocks as hard as concrete, every single ISIL goat fucker would have been put down like a scythe clearing the fields. You're out of you mind first stating that ISIS was never a conventional force, and in the same breath stating that US troops would retreat from them. Fuck off with that noise.

Kurds have been mopping the floor with them for years, and you suppose that the strongest army in human history would shirk. Fuck off with that noise. You forget that a couple operators and some stateless militias have been pushing them back mile after mile? You think ISIS could invade Iraq under Saddam? How the fuck could that ragtag bunch of goat fuckers stand up the army that wiped out an army they couldn't hold a candle too?

A fucktarded moron blah-blah-blah's what? What gibberish is this? Did you just take a retard pill in the last five minutes, shitbird?

Hey, breath into a bag to calm down, you hysterical fuckin' pussy, we'll just wait until you've composed yourself, faggot.

Well, you're done for the night then. Happy new year.

[ssu]

It is possible Assad just puts the but on and mops up the rebels before any apocalyptic cult can take off and start claiming to be a Caliphate.

There are a couple of places to be critical of the administration beyond the withdraw from Iraq.

As long as ISIS fights other rebel groups in Syria, Assad shouldn't focus much on ISIS. First finish the ex-US-backed rebels and other rebels, then go for ISIS at the latest stage.

[Smitty-48]

Well, you're done for the night then. Happy new year.

Eat shit and die, you fuckin' pogue.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You can be as critical of Obama as you like, I don't care, I think it was a failed presidency, but withdrawing from Iraq, ASAP, was not one of its failures, that was one of his few laudible accomplishments.

ISIS was not going to be stopped when it rampaged into the Anbar in 2011 by the skeleton crew of US troops left, which were in the process of pulling out, and it wasn't going be ejected from the Anbar, unless Obama essentially reinvaded Iraq, against the will of the Shia government in Bagdad, which was backed up by the Iranian Quds Force, so I would submit, that would have been a collosal mistake, even if ISIS be your mandate, because it would have been too late to stop ISIS from exploding by then, they were already on the march.

I wasn't explicitly endorsing the idea the Obama caused ISIS with the withdraw in my original post.

I tend to agree with whoever made the most recent post on this one, because both arguments seem entirely plausible.

[Okeefenokee]

Well, you're done for the night then. Happy new year.

Eat shit and die, you fuckin' pogue.

Kiss my what?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It is possible Assad just puts the but on and mops up the rebels before any apocalyptic cult can take off and start claiming to be a Caliphate.

There are a couple of places to be critical of the administration beyond the withdraw from Iraq.

As long as ISIS fights other rebel groups in Syria, Assad shouldn't focus much on ISIS. First finish the ex-US-backed rebels and other rebels, then go for ISIS at the latest stage.

Exactly. If the proto ISIS fighters are the only game in town, how does the Caliphate get going? The Baathists sure as shit don't want a Theocrat threatening their claim to power, but they will let that slide if there are US-backed rebels on your heals.

[ssu]

It is possible Assad just puts the but on and mops up the rebels before any apocalyptic cult can take off and start claiming to be a Caliphate.

There are a couple of places to be critical of the administration beyond the withdraw from Iraq.

As long as ISIS fights other rebel groups in Syria, Assad shouldn't focus much on ISIS. First finish the ex-US-backed rebels and other rebels, then go for ISIS at the latest stage.

Exactly. If the proto ISIS fighters are the only game in town, how does the Caliphate get going? The Baathists sure as shit don't want a Theocrat threatening their claim to power, but they will let that slide if there are US-backed rebels on your heals.

Hanarchy, it's less a thing of ideology for the Sunni's in Iraq, more of like survival, choosing a victorious side when you have to. So it may be that some ex-baathist officers are there in ISIS, not because they believe in the whacky ideology, but because that it looked like a good idea if the other option is to be killed by some roaming Shiite militia.

What is at first seems counterintuitive is that the only force that could uphold peace without ethnic cleansing was the US Armed Forces and some general like Mattis.

And should it noted that once you occupied the Axis countries, you never left. And that the countries actually like you to be there, even if on some Island like Okinawa the relations can be a bit strained.

[Smitty-48]

Exactly, the Iraqi Baathists all went over to the Fedayeen, when that ran out of steam, they went over to AQI, when that became IS, they went over to IS, the Sunnis are just trying to survive the knife fight in the phone booth with the Shia and Kurds, they will go with whatever Sunni force is strongest, IS is mostly ex-Baathist Sunnis...

... they're just not the Syrian Baathists, bear in mind, the Syrian Baath party is dominated by the Alawites, who are enemies of the Wahhabist Sunni's, so Baath in Iraq, and Baath in Syria, same Baath national socialism, but in Iraq it's the Sunni Nazis, while in Syria it's the Alawite Nazis.

Baath is basically an Arab Nazi movement, Pan-Arab National Socialists, but Iraq and Syria have different Baath parties, which are dominated by different sects, both the minority sect in the countries, which is why they had to be Nazis, in order to terrorize the majority into submission.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I meant the Syrian Baathists... Assad's, if you will.

They didn't like proto-ISIS, but they liked US-backed rebels even less, giving the actual ideologues time to thrive.

ssu, you keep writing things I don't disagree with as if you are arguing with me.