patrick.net

No...
Bigsby says

Sure, sure, everyone in your country wanted the troops to remain

Yes...
Bigsby says

and it's all Obama's fault they didn't.

A true leader makes the right moves...not the popular ones...

Yeah, yeah, hindsight makes it so easy. Let me imagine the reaction if those troops had stayed and US forces were then being attacked by ISIS from Syria on a day-to-day basis. Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.
And you didn't answer my question - why was the Iraqi standing army so easily routed by a few thousand relatively lightly armed fanatics? Who's fault do you imagine that to be? A well functioning army doesn't need to have another army standing alongside it in order to operate. You understand that I presume. So again, why was the army in the state it was?

Why would anyone have to "imagine" chronicled history?
Bigsby says

Who's fault do you imagine that to be?

Not to worry. We'd put the British segment of coalition forces on the Syrian border. Problem solved...
Bigsby says

Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.

SoftShell says

Why would anyone have to "imagine" chronicled history?

Bigsby says

Who's fault do you imagine that to be?

Who's asking you to imagine actual history? I asked you to imagine the reaction to him not removing the troops as everyone wanted. You would have been on here screaming to high heaven, or do you want us all to believe now that you wanted the troops to remain? It's you who is making up an alternate history.

SoftShell says

Not to worry. We'd put the British segment of coalition forces on the Syrian border. Problem solved...

Bigsby says

Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.

That would be difficult seeing as the vast majority of British forces withdrew in 2009.

mell says

Come on, don't play dumb. Messing with and trying to topple Assad, arming "moderate" rebels was likely much more important to strengthen the terrorists than Iraq was, at least the same. And as I said, there was no pressure to topple Assad but there was international pressure to topple Saddam.

I think you are overestimating the role of the US in that particular scenario. This is a power game between the Sunni and Shiite blocks in the region. The US was simply unable to manipulate events in its favour because the reality on the ground is far too muddled to effectively manage.

Right. Obama - and I believe he was dragged into Syria after being fooled on Libya by Nuland, Clinton, etc - caused the Syrian and Libyan messes.

Somebody bragged they killed some ISIS dude in Libya. That dude would have been killed years ago if Qaddafyi's jails were still working. Extra added benefit: No tens of thousands of boat people from Africa landing in Italy, too.

Ironman says

Sure looks like the death toll was "mounting" the last few years while we were still there.

Are you really that thick? Where is ISIS in your little death toll scenario?

Ironman says

Exactly.... They didn't come to strength until AFTER we left.... Duh...

I never knew the US withdrew their troops from Syria. How interesting. And what do you imagine the death toll to be if the US troops had stayed and were being attacked by ISIS as that was the point? Did I really need me to spell it out to you again? Stop wasting everyone's time on here and go and play with your Lego.

Ironman says

AQI saw an opportunity to regain its power and expand its ranks in the Syrian conflict that started in 2011, moving into Syria from Iraq. By 2013, al-Baghdadi had spread his group’s influence back into Iraq and changed the group’s name to ISIS, “reflecting its greater regional ambitions,” according to the U.S. State Department.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-25053190

When did we pull out all our troops again?

What has that got to do with being attacked by ISIS if you had remained? Where did they attack Iraq from you buffoon? A name change is irrelevant - they drew their strength from the conflict going on in Syria.

Ironman says

Are you really that big of an idiot to think that our troops, if left there, couldn't easily handle this "JV" team?

Your troops were being killed on a fairly regular basis even before things got worse in Syria, so yes, I quite obviously can imagine a much higher death toll with insurgents crossing the border and attacking US targets. Or do you think that the US ground forces would have been dragged into Syria? And how many deaths would have come from that? Your army is geared to battle another massive standing army. It struggled with insurgents throughout its time in Iraq just as the Russians did in Afghanistan. And your troop deaths declined because they weren't on the front line any more - they were being withdrawn back and replaced by Iraqi regulars. What do you imagine would have happened if they'd been front line again?

Ironman says

Sure thing Bigs, ISIS would have just taken a nice Sunday ride into Iraq, even with the US military sitting there waiting for them. Maybe they would have had lunch together or a picnic!!

Duh. Insurgency CIC. Insurgency.

Ironman says

Sure thing Bigs, the chart I posted confirms that...

Oh wait, it doesn't....

US troops had already been pulled back and weren't facing a massive insurgency at that time, which is why numbers were dropping. Change that and you change the death toll. Not that complicated to understand even for you.

Strategist says

How many are we bringing in?

Obama, in his usual grand liberal stupidity, promised to bring in at least 250,000 refugees from Syria.

That second amendment is going to come real handy for self-defense with those crazies running around.

FortWayne says

Obama, in his usual grand liberal stupidity, promised to bring in at least 250,000 refugees from Syria.

When did he ever say that? It's increased from 2000 to 10000.

Bigsby says

When did he ever say that? It's increased from 2000 to 10000.

http://realnewsrightnow.com/2015/09/u-s-to-house-250000-syrian-refugees-at-navajo-standing-rock-indian-reservations/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/as-pressure-mounts-for-us-to-open-its-borders-to-syrian-refugees-some-lawmakers/

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced in December that Western nations had pledged to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 and is calling for 130,000 Syrians to be resettled by the end of 2016.

This is just from googling it now, I remember hearing a lot of news a month ago about that number.

FortWayne says

http://realnewsrightnow.com/2015/09/u-s-to-house-250000-syrian-refugees-at-navajo-standing-rock-indian-reservations/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/as-pressure-mounts-for-us-to-open-its-borders-to-syrian-refugees-some-lawmakers/

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced in December that Western nations had pledged to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 and is calling for 130,000 Syrians to be resettled by the end of 2016.

This is just from googling it now, I remember hearing a lot of news a month ago about that number.

So you've just proved yourself wrong. 250,000 isn't what Obama agreed to bring in. It's European nations that agreed to take in the vast majority of those refugees despite the fact most of this mess is down to Bush and his pals' incompetency.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

It's increased from 2000 to 10000.

The proposed resettling of at least 10,000 Syrian refugees would be allocated out of a U.S. quota of 75,000 refugee admissions slated for next fiscal year, beginning October 1, a senior administration official said.

Already, a Senate aide said that Kerry had told senators that "they'd seek an additional increase beyond that," referring to the 75,000 quota.

"He gave a range of numbers," the aide said. Kerry mentioned a potential new total as high as 100,000, as well as other possible maximum numbers, according to the aide.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/u-s-take-10000-syrian-refugees/

And again, you've just reinforced my point - that 75,000 number isn't 250,000, nor is it the figure for refugees from Syria - it is the entire quota for the world, 10,000 of which are from Syria. What was the number I posted again?

How are all the Somalis settling in?

Gang Violence, Extremism, Record Rapes, Random Assaults on Joggers, and now the Government is working overtime to deport the worst of them.

www.startribune.com/feds-step-up-deportation-of-somalis-in-trouble-in-minnesota/224729142/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/30/seven-somali-men-attack-two-joggers-in-minneapolis-for-no-reason-whatsoever/

Oh, and Sex Trafficking and Grooming, another Third World Gift.
http://www.standard.net/topics/prostitution/2010/11/09/29-accused-using-somali-girls-human-trafficking-ring

What was promised when they came in? Give me your poor, huddled masses, great boon for the services industry, Scandinavian-German Whites are Lazy who won't work their asses for rock bottom shit wages I want to pay them, soon they'll be educated and help America with the high tech jobs of the future, etc. etc.

Saint Cloud - not Minneapolis - is where the Somali Ghetto is. It's one of a tiny handful of Minnesota Cities that experienced a rise in violent crime since the early 90s.

BTW, lavish amounts of money and careful government-religious action to assimilate and help them, too.

It's all the fault of White America, though.
http://www.voanews.com/content/congressman-ellison-militant-recruitment-somali-american-youth-halted/1638722.html

bgamall4 says

That was part of Zionist regime change. Right?

I'm sure Marty Silverman enjoys spending thousands on extra-reinforced locks and CCTV for his Electronics Store, whereas 20 years ago he didn't have to.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

that 75,000 number isn't 250,000,

It's also not 10,000..

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That article states the refugee quota for the US is 75,000 from ALL countries. 10,000 is the figure for Syrian refugees. Why not just quit your trolling and grow up?

Ironman says

Ironman says

Syrian refugees would be allocated out of a U.S. quota of 75,000

Yes....., and what do you think that means the number for Syrian refugees will be out of the total of 75,000 for ALL refugees?

Ironman says

Bigsby says

What was the number I posted again?

The wrong one.

Oh, you mean the number that your own government stated is wrong? Rather than the 250,000 figure which clearly has nothing to do with what the US is going to take in? I see.