Thread: To many problems with ISIS

As it is now there aren't that many ISIS troops that are over there perhaps 5000 or so. As I suggested before about arming the terrorists in Syria to fight the dictator wouldn't be a very good idea and now you see why. Most of the weapons that would have been sent to the terrorists would have ended up in ISIS hands because ISIS troops are better at getting things done and would have stolen those weapons to be used against all those opposed to them as they are doing now.

So the Iraqi military isn't doing much to protect its own interests and have run away from the fight. Why should American troops help a country that won't help itself?

It kind of makes you wonder if removing Saddam was the right move after all.

Ah well. 20/20 vision into the past but 20/400 into the future.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

It kind of makes you wonder if removing Saddam was the right move after all.

Ah well. 20/20 vision into the past but 20/400 into the future.

This group, ISIS, I believe is a part of Saddams army for they are doing the same thing now as they did while he was in power.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

This group, ISIS, I believe is a part of Saddams army for they are doing the same thing now as they did while he was in power.

Not likely. Saddam was a secularist and would have fought against these religious extremists.
Groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS were his enemies.

I wonder where ISIS is getting their weapons besides taking the ones America left there. I know their money comes from Qatar and other muslim countries.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I wonder where ISIS is getting their weapons besides taking the ones America left there. I know their money comes from Qatar and other muslim countries.

They are buying them with the 500 million that the obama administration gave them.

I see that even the Washington Post is now using the "c" word (competence) in reference to Obama. Too bad they didn't figure it out 6 years ago.
President Obama needs to focus on how the United States can meet global challenges - The Washington Post

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S acknowledgment that “we don’t have a strategy yet” in Syria understandably attracted the most attention after his perplexing meeting with reporters Thursday. But his restatement of the obvious was not the most dismaying aspect of his remarks. The president’s goal, to the extent he had one, seemed to be to tamp down all the assessments of gathering dangers that his own team had been issuing over the previous days.
This argument with his own administration is alarming on three levels.
The first has to do with simple competence.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I see that even the Washington Post is now using the "c" word (competence) in reference to Obama. Too bad they didn't figure it out 6 years ago.
President Obama needs to focus on how the United States can meet global challenges - The Washington Post

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S acknowledgment that “we don’t have a strategy yet” in Syria understandably attracted the most attention after his perplexing meeting with reporters Thursday. But his restatement of the obvious was not the most dismaying aspect of his remarks. The president’s goal, to the extent he had one, seemed to be to tamp down all the assessments of gathering dangers that his own team had been issuing over the previous days.
This argument with his own administration is alarming on three levels.
The first has to do with simple competence.

Kind of late. Hypocritical as well, considering how instrumental they were in his election and re-election.