Getting back to DF's opinion that Obama was responsible for the power vacuum in Iraq and then Syria that led to the creation of ISIS, I think that the catastrophic decision to invade Iraq is still the main culprit and unless we were willing to sustain thousands of casualties maintaining a large military presence in Iraq it's doubtful we could have stopped it.

Let's remember how horrible that decision was.There is an Emperor Has No Clothes quality about it. The idea 13 years after the Persian Gulf War to invade Iraq was absurd. Invading Iraq because of 9-11 was absurd when Iraq was not involved in 9-11.The idea that we would invade a country and topple its leader over some vague assertions over WMD was absurd. The idea that Hussein posed a threat to the US or anyone else was absurd. Statements from the Adminustration that Hussein was involved in 9-11 were lies. Statements that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda were lies. Evidence for existence of WMD was completely non-existent. Even the chemical and biological programs that Hussein previously had posed very little risk to the US and the chance that he had a nuclear program capable of building a nuclear weapon was absurd (though Bush tried to scare people with his false claim that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake). The Teams from UN going in looking for weapons found nothing but again absurdly Bush II and Cheney refused to wait. You talk about Hillary being a criminal for mishandling of email? Bush II and Cheney are war criminals, responsible for causing hundred of thousands of deaths, including 5,000 American ones (and of course many more seriously wounded).

Now, what could Obama could have done to stop the creation of ISIS? Remember, by 2008 Americans were tired of being in Iraq; the military was exhausted after 7 years of war and multiple deployments for many of its troops. We were sending National Guard units and reserve units over that were clearly over their heads over there because we did not have enough regular troops. Obama got elected partially on a platform about getting out of Iraq. It was not politically or probably even militarily feasible to keep a large military force to secure Iraq. Americans were not going to allow our a large US military force in Iraq indefinitely while taking casualties.

Now would 5,000 US troops left in Iraq made a difference? I seriously doubt it. First they would have made a big target for insurgents and now US forces would have been much weaker and more susceptible to attack. How could 5,000 troops have secured the whole of Iraq. We have seen how poor Iraqi troops have been. If we kept 100,000 troops in Iraq the past 8 years ISIS would not have developed. But that was impossible for a number of reasons (one not previously mentioned is that Iraq was not going to permit it).

Of course the rebellion in Syria helped create ISIS...should we have assisted Assad against the rebels...how's that for realpolitik? I assume you don't think we should have done that?

So where is your evidence, where are your arguments that Obama could feasibly have done something to stop ISIS?

So yes we need to stop ISIS--conservatives are right about that. But before they clap themselves too much on the back, remember who created the problem in the first place...

sure, but what about the mess in Yemen and Libya? What is Obama's responsibility? And how about Syria? Maybe some of this is the result of the Iraq vacuum, but some of it is because of Obama's inaction.

i don't know that the US can solve all of the world's problems. Government is weak in Libya and Yemen but what we can do about it? We are not going to send our troops everywhere. Given the flood of immigrants from Libya, European countries would seem to have an interest in a stable government there--do they have any solution? Is there something Obama could have done in Yemen and Libya to get stable governments there? He's only responsible if there is something he could have done that would have solved the problem and he failed to do it.So what did he fail to do? He did help to get Khaddafi out--was that a bad decision?

As for Syria the biggest criticism about Obama is that he has been weak acting against Russia and Syria--so that did not help create ISIS

bbauska

The request for you to read the bible and research Christianity was what I was asking. As of yet, that has not happened.

But I did.... Here...

But here's a discussion of the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed.
It appears to me from this that there is much dissention on the central points.

And linked you here....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savc.htm

Where it says this...

Many faith groups teach that the unsaved will spend eternity being punished in hell. This makes salvation a matter of unprecedented importance in some Christians' lives. Because of the critical nature of salvation, one would expect that the Bible would define precisely and clearly what one must do to be saved. Unfortunately, Bible passages seem to speak with multiple voices over this matter:

"Salvation Requires Good Deeds": Some passages in the Bible imply that one is saved through works. That is, God weighs the good and bad deeds that each person commits during their lifetime. If the balance is reasonably positive, the individual goes to heaven. This is the most popular belief among American adults. However, it is opposed by all conservative denominations.
Verses supporting this belief are seen mostly in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and in the gospels when they discuss the religion of Jesus:

Micah 6:8:

"...and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (ASV)

This implies that God wants everyone to act in a kind manner and justly to others while walking humbly with God. If the concept of Heaven and Hell and been thought of at the time that the book of Micah was written, this verse probably would have contained some reference to both destinations after death, and the criteria used to determine where one spent eternity.


Matthew 25:31-46: These verses explain the Last Judgment in precise detail. The verses describe how Christ:

"... will sit on his glorious throne. Before him are gathered all the nations and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats..." (KJV) Addressing those on his right, he says that they will "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." He orders those on his left hand to "depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." where they will go away into eternal punishment."

The sole criteria for routing individuals either to heaven or hell is whether the person gave food, drink or clothing to the destitute, and welcomed strangers and visited the sick or persons in prison. That is, salvation is totally dependent upon one's treatment of other people -- one's good works. Trust in God or Christ, or repentance, or baptism is not even mentioned.

And the point was not to get into a theological argument, it was to establish that there was a theological debate about something Fate stated was a fact.

freeman3 wrote:Getting back to DF's opinion that Obama was responsible for the power vacuum in Iraq and then Syria that led to the creation of ISIS, I think that the catastrophic decision to invade Iraq is still the main culprit and unless we were willing to sustain thousands of casualties maintaining a large military presence in Iraq it's doubtful we could have stopped it..

Oh come on! I'm going to let you argue with Obama:

Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.”

“And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011,” said Obama. “We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”

Almost three years later, on Dec. 14, 2011, when he was removing the last U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama gave a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Here he said his strategy based on building a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq had succeeded.

“It’s harder to end a war than begin one,” Obama said at Fort Bragg. “Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq--all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering--all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making.”

rickyp wrote:And the point was not to get into a theological argument, it was to establish that there was a theological debate about something Fate stated was a fact.

But, you did get into a theological argument . . . because you started one.

Furthermore, you have never answered my question.

Is ISIS theologically diverse? Are there a multitude of, or even several, different sects?

You started it and yet you refuse to answer the question.

I thought we were arguing about causes of ISIS...not the accuracy of PR statements. My mistake...

freeman3 wrote:I thought we were arguing about causes of ISIS...not the accuracy of PR statements. My mistake...

We are arguing that. Obama said he had everything under control. Are you calling him a liar or a hack?

He's also the clown that said ISIS was the jayvee team.

He's also got a Secretary of State who says the Brussels attack is proof that we're winning.

Here's the point: the Administration is delusional and you want to blame ISIS on Bush?

Whatever.

Obama knew what he was signing up for. So, in effect, continuing to blame Bush is admitting Obama has done a poor job managing the situation he KNEW he was inheriting.

freeman3

If we kept 100,000 troops in Iraq the past 8 years ISIS would not have developed.

Since Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is considered one of the originators of ISIS, and he was in Iraq prior to the invasion, its hard to conceive how an American presence would have stopped ISIS from forming.
Part of the reason Iraq became a battleground was because foreigners like Zarqawi flocked to Iraq to fight the American occupation. It was a major attraction.
Even when there were over 100K American troops in Iraq, it took a lot of US taxpayers money money to pay off the Sunni militias to get the violence to abate for awhile. The so called Surge...

There's no reason to believe that when the payments stopped, the violence wouldn't commence again if the US didn't also leave and leave the Iraqis to their own resolution.

Most of the organization of ISIS by Baghdadi occurred while he was held in detention by the US along with ex Sadaam loyalists who later formed his military command...
Unless the US decided to execute all the detainees it ever held, committing genocide, there were going to be committed men willing to join Daesh and fight the occupiers the second they gained freedom from detention.

One of the goals of Daesh today is to draw the US into sending ground troops to do battle... They hope for An American presence as it gives them credibility with the citizens, as they would then be fighting the crusaders. It was easier to justify their methods when Iraq was occupied, then now.

Ricky...(Scratches head, pulls hair, gnashes teeth)...let it not be said that you are afraid to argue against someone holding the same views on an issue...

The conservative narrative (as I understand it) is that Obama is a weak president and that emboldens our enemies. But I would argue that his cautiousness was needed in 2008. We needed to draw back, we needed to focus on our economy, we needed to allow our military to rest.

For all the criticism of Obama, I just don't think that our strategic interests have been significantly weakened. Think of the counter-factual of McCain being elected. Judging from the policies he espoused we would probably expect that thousands of more casualties would have suffered,more money sunk down the drain, a tired and exhausted military. And for what exactly? How would a large, unwelcome US military presence for 13 years have played in the Middle East? Maybe no ISIS but a lot of Arabs very unhappy with the US.

So I think a cautious approach until threats ripen to pose a threat to the US is not a bad approach. For those critical of Obama they have the burden of showing a link between his policies and whatever negative occurrence in the world being blamed on him. They also need to acknowledge the costs of a more aggressive foreign policy. The he's a weak president and the world is going to hell because he is weak criticism needs to be supported.

Since it was not your intent to get into a theological discussion, I will not discuss that further (that is unless you feel you would learn from an alternative view).

freeman3 wrote:The conservative narrative (as I understand it) is that Obama is a weak president and that emboldens our enemies. But I would argue that his cautiousness was needed in 2008. We needed to draw back, we needed to focus on our economy, we needed to allow our military to rest.

For all the criticism of Obama, I just don't think that our strategic interests have been significantly weakened. Think of the counter-factual of McCain being elected. Judging from the policies he espoused we would probably expect that thousands of more casualties would have suffered,more money sunk down the drain, a tired and exhausted military. And for what exactly? How would a large, unwelcome US military presence for 13 years have played in the Middle East? Maybe no ISIS but a lot of Arabs very unhappy with the US.

So I think a cautious approach until threats ripen to pose a threat to the US is not a bad approach. For those critical of Obama they have the burden of showing a link between his policies and whatever negative occurrence in the world being blamed on him. They also need to acknowledge the costs of a more aggressive foreign policy. The he's a weak president and the world is going to hell because he is weak criticism needs to be supported.

1. There is no doubt Obama understated or misunderstood the threat of ISIS.

2. There is no doubt he threw Mubarak under the bus because he got caught up in some kind of neo-neo-con fervor, thinking democracy was going to bust out all over the place.

3. He overthrew Qaddafi and had no plan for the aftermath.

4. He drew a "red line" in Syria and backed off like a weasel.

5. He invited Russia into the Middle East.

6. He ignored (and continues to) Iran's illegal behavior because getting the agreement was more important to him than actually stopping Iran from getting a nuke.

7, He has strengthened Putin. He unilaterally took ABM systems out of Europe. He's done nothing but tsk-tsk Putin no matter what he does.

8. He's done little to check China as it flexes its muscles in the Pacific and as it hacks into sensitive areas of our cyber-systems.

9. He has made many of our allies wonder if they can count on us for anything.

The list is endless.

http://www.theonion.com/article/@#$!

Apologies for the profanity...

bbauska wrote:http://www.theonion.com/article/@#$!

Apologies for the profanity...

This is what I found:

The page you were seeking burned down.

The Cambodian sweatshop where every letter of The Onion is hand-stitched onto the internet recently burned to the ground, claiming the lives of hundreds of underage laborers and webpages. The URL you were looking for was tragically among those lost.

Please return to The Onion homepage, search for a new article below, or call our Recovery Fund toll-free at 1-888-989-7797 to provide the village’s surviving minors with the training and materials they need to rebuild the beloved webpages that perished.