Who Is Our Biggest Foreign Intelligence Threat?

People just don't get that power doesn't sit well with "nice" and that it's rare for the right choice to also be the moral choice.

Nations don't have morals and national leaders don't have the luxury of keeping theirs. Upon ascending to the ranks of sovereign executive any morals one had previously need be discarded for the betterment of ones own peoples. Priests and hecklers can afford morals and to cry about "the right thing", the ones making these decisions need to worry about much larger things, like the future of their own people.

Leaders use 'the future of their own people' as a mere throwaway for their own preservation. As Assad does right now!

The protests against Assad's regime started peaceful and then crackdowns started leading to jihadists and a civil war. But yeah, lets pretend it has *** all to do with that.

Like Saddam we could say he was better than a protracted civil war and nest for jihadists but that could also be constued as a failure on Obama's part to act before everything went to ***.

Crackdowns on political protests is nothing new. Especially when they get out of control.

This was an attempt at a coup under the guise of protecting protestors that blew way out of control.

To say protestors turned to jihad because of government crackdowns on said protestors, please...

If someone is that close to jihad, then a secular government would have even more reason to shut them up.

"The government killed a protestor, quick give me my machete so I can chop off people's heads and eat their hearts while they're still warm."

People protested, the government was like hell naw get out, sieges occurred, Assad took action to quell an uprising and voila - instant jihadis pouring in to join the fight, for their own reasons.

Of course, when you're now an enemy of the state, the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend and now you've got a shitstew of factions and warfare. Some people joined the jihadists and others well... died. Jihadis tend to be well organized and adept at existing in hellholes.

Every leader ever is going to say they have 'the will of the people' but from the American perspective *** the people, we just want places to be stable by *any means*. Assad himself promised reforms and ducked on 'em.

This is very true.

Fine, you want to know what I would have done differently than what Obama did.

I wouldn't have left the weapons there when we left. You already said that the region is screwed regardless, I rather it be so without our weapons to kill each other with.

God, you will say anything to deflect blame away from Obama.

If anything I'd say it's a fair assessment to say that Obama's administration did not forsee that the Assad conflict would be so protracted gambling that taking the moral imperative would score them points when Assad became deposed, a la Gaddafi.

Syria has become a years long dragout, IS has spawned between the fail in Iraq and fail in Syria and now we've got an uncertain plan for going forward. Assist and stay out until the next administration seems the plan.

I wasn't referencing to domestic actions, there is a reason you have another elected body responsible for those and limits on the power of the central executive. I'm talking about actions taken on foreign entities that the central leader has zero responsibility towards, aka foreign policy. The USA under Obama has been rather gutless and basically become a doormat because he's too focused on "being nice". Foreign policy is one of those things that the presiding President takes full responsibility for, the Republicans sending dumb nasty letters notwithstanding, and thus I always feel they should be held 100% accountable to it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

1. We sold and funded the Iraqi army with weapons, as per the training and fortifying. When IS arrived, they abandoned them leaving a treasure trove for terrorists. Last I checked, no amount of training can instill the need to hold positions. Further, many of the Iraqi soldiers were corrupt and had little will to fight. Paycheck and power? Sign me up.

(Certainly not against well trained, well organized jihadists who take no prisoners.)

2. The US military chose to leave behind a number of weapon stockpiles aside from the stuff the Iraqis were sold/given. Shipping stuff back to US territory costs money and accounting for every piece of equipment sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. When you leave a region, ***always gets left behind.

So. In short, your position is impossible. Unless you think we should have provided the Iraqis with nothing. Or that we should have stayed and tusseled with IS ourselves.

And you will say nothing that actually puts the blame on Obama. You countered with nothing because you don't know anything.

It's harder to tax dead men.

1) I wouldn't have left weapons there unless I knew for a fact without a reasonable doubt that they were going to be used for the protection of the people we are leaving those weapons for. I would have asked questions in the capabilities of those people using those weapons and the likelihood of using those weapons to protect their interests and how likely those weapons would fall in the hands of terrorists.

Obviously you are going to say that Obama would have asked those questions, but I highly doubt it. I mean, he apparently gets his information more from the local newspaper about what's going on in his administration than from his own people.

2) It is still better to get those weapons away from incompetent people than to let them rust/rot where they were. But I guess doing nothing is a good thing for you...

You of all people should not accuse anyone of not knowing. You know just as much information as Lordgrim does. The problem is, you are willing to spin it anyway you can just so your lord and savior Obama is praised and worshiped.

I know that's a saying, but IRS does give a good fight against deceased people.

Can always go after their estate, lol.

that's a one time donation though. alive, they can milk you for years, then take whatever's left when you do finally die.

Some cases they go after their spouse and kids.

That's why you put your assets in a trust and give the trust to your kids while you are still alive.

As long as the trust doesn't pay taxes, the wealth can grow and you still live easy.

So you're going to train soldiers to fight then leave no weapons unless they promise to use them for protecting the people? Beyond reasonable doubt? What.

Your argument: Obama didn't 'finish the job'

1. What's the point of training if the soldiers are going to be unarmed? You do see how one thing (training) leads to another (weapons) right?

Without weapons you aren't even a defence force, nevermind a military outfit. Even if the report is that the Iraqi military is a shitshow, what are you going to do? Hunker down and soak another 10 years of costs? Amidst an unpopular war? Both sides agreed that Iraq is a lost cause and the political will to stay has long since checked out.



And when the Iraqi army was annihilated or flat deposed for lack of arms, you'd have blamed Obama for leaving these brave defenders of freedom wholly undefended against the savage jihadi hordes.

You're grasping man. Grasping.

Is the technology available to resurrect Saddam? Do that.

I'm tempted to edit the Wikipedia page on the Iraq War to:

Victor: Saddam Hussain

Saddam's last words: "If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could ever imagine!"

Sounds like something Hillary would say !

We have the technology !

I would have set guidelines in how well their training was, and stayed there until it was completed to the satisfaction of the defense. If they weren't getting it, I would give them an ultimatum: Get with the program or survive on your own.

Yes, I would have left them to fend for themselves if they weren't showing any progress nor reasonable willingness to defend themselves. No, I would not have blamed anyone if it was shown that the people you are trying to keep alive are unwilling to do so, and wanted us to defend them for them.

I would have given at least a reasonable effort to do so, not just drop off the weapons and instructions and hope they didn't go to the wrong people.

Nice ultimatum, too bad it has no bite when you have more to lose than the Iraqis.

When the whole country falls into chaos, who suffers? The defunct government or the empire that needs stability in the region I wonder?

Lol, weapons and instructions. I guess the military guys just handed out arms like candy. Hey you! Kid! Want a STINGER MISSILE?! Come get one.

Well good thing KN's criteria was met so he is actually arguing for Obama. The Iraqi army was fully trained and equipped to defend themselves. All they had to do was pull the trigger, instead they ran. But like I said, KN has no idea what he is talking about whenever he attempts to speak on foreign policy, but he sure will insult others while providing no actual facts or details. Very easy to debunk.

Obama, Saint Seiya edition.