Obama's Foreign Policy Displayed?

Their approach was probably the best in the previous century, when they controlled North Africa and provided safe havens in Africa for people to flee to during times of stress and then they'd mobilize to deal with the thread causing the refugees, so they could return back home.

So we should be working on a time machine?

...get to work on it immediately. No time to waste, pardon the pun. Don't waste time posting here until you've completed it. Bye and good luck in your endeavor.

Stop responding and I'll get right on it.

were fleeing Iraq during our time there? There wouldn't BE any now IF BO hadn't backed off his 'red line' threat to Syria and IF he had bombed the hell out of ISIS in Iraq immediately when he had the opportunity to because they were all traveling in packs.

Were does Bush setting a timeline for troop withdrawal in Irag fit in your scenario?

IF that didn't happen.....BUT it did.

it's Obamas fault that he followed the agreement made by Bush?

He pulled out ALL troops even though that timeline from Bush allowed for an agreement with the new Iraqi government to leave some there....and BO refused to make those arrangements because HE ran on leaving. His military advisors told him ahead of time what would happen if he didn't leave a residual force there and he didn't care. He only cares about his 'legacy'..........

allowed for an agreement with the new Iraqi government to leave some there

In order to be an "agreement" all sides MUST agree.

The agreement failed over a demand that American troops be given immunity from prosecution by Iraqis, a very touchy political issue within the Iraqi Parliament. Some experts said Iraqi leaders may not have been willing to take great political risk with their citizens in exchange for a relatively small American force.

But no immunity meant no sizable residual troop presence.

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October 2011 news conference. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

Is the US ready to "occupy Iraq"?

who had completely wiped clean his elected government officials says 'that's not possible' and the 'leader' of the Free World just says 'ok' and backs away with his tail between his legs?

Yep........BO got exactly what he wanted........everybody gone with Maliki in Iran's pocket, and didn't care that our military was literally defeated by their Coward in Chief.

If he can spend over two years in secret negotiations with Cuba and two years in negotiations with Iran, he wasn't able to negotiate with that Superman Maliki? Why do you suppose that was?

Move to Russia, OR the Ukraine...Putin is there uninvited, just as America would be in Iraq.

THEN you'll have "your kind of leader".

Neville Chamberlain in his dealings with Iran. Maybe you could just move to Iran and wait for the fun to begin. Then you'll get to enjoy what Obama has done for peace, just like your hero Neville Chamberlain.

Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Lenin, Khrushchev, Hugo Chavez, Keith Olbermann, Stalin, Ethel Rosenberg, Huey Newton,.....Oh wait, I remember that last guy



He reaped what he sowed.

Neville Chamberlain in his dealings with Iran. Maybe you could just move to Iran and wait for the fun to begin. Then you'll get to enjoy what Obama has done for peace, just like your hero Neville Chamberlain.

Your assumption is asinine....

Second, I think millions of refugees would actually welcome ISIS being wiped out so they could go home.....too late for hundreds of thousands of others who have been killed or put into 'servitude' by ISIS....but still.......wouldn't YOU rather be able to go back home to a safer environment or would YOU rather keep getting people onto refugee boats that sink and people drown trying to escape the horror in their (literal) backyards?

And a Good morning to you

If ISIS was already there, your family and friends were either refugees as well, dead because they didn't 'play well' or were Christians....or they joined ISIS and deserve to be 'not alive' anyhow. So where do your family and friends fall in those scenarios? If your family weren't refugees with you, why not?

ISIS wouldn't be a problem.

in one fell swoop in order to appease his supporters AND if he hadn't made a 'red line' threat to Syria and backed off, ISIS wouldn't be a problem there.......remember ISIS started in Syria.........

Obama's Presidency. It started right after we invaded Iraq and went together with al-Qaeda and became more and more militant until even al-Qaeda disowned them. They proclaimed the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006. They did go into Syria during Obama's Presidency but were around long before that.

Saddam kept al-Qaeda in check in Iraq but Bush fixed that.

All this now is on Obama whom took over and let it get out of control.

"If this, then not that..."

I could also say that "If Salk and others hadn't formulated vaccines against deadly diseases, we'd have fewer people dying of cancer". It just might be true.

"bomb the hell"?

Unfortunately they don't make a "bomb" that only kills the enemy.......And innocent victims can become "the enemy" when too many innocent people are "collateral damage".

civilian casualties if he had taken this group seriously from the beginning and bombed them as they were traveling in large numbers.....NOW, yes, it would kill those that ISIS is hiding behind and using as human shields just as Hamas does in Palestine.

Besides....we never worried about collateral damage in previous wars....and won them in short order until VietNam's political interference.

AND the enemy wore a "uniform".

Those were the days.

during Viet Nam..........

If the 'in country' military won't fight them off, then it's on them if civilians are killed because ISIS is killing them anyhow so why should we worry about that if we can stop them from spreading further? Once we level the place, the refugees can come home.

About the last time a US president took decisive action to stop an invading army (or hoard) was GHWB. Circumstances were different, of course, but I'd like to think that innocent lives can be preserved by taking his "sooner rather than later" approach. ISIS is more like a cancer and we already know what doctors suggest as offering the best chance of success against those diseases. They take quick and aggressive action. Some are lost but more will make it using this approach. Any killing is an act of evil and justification can only be made when an evil act prevents a greater evil.