Turkey Has Proof of US/ISIS Cooperation

[Okeefenokee]

How could the Obama Administration have prevented AQI from metastasizing into the Daesh in Syria?

This is the topic.

AQI does not become ISIS as it was at it's height, because it's pretty much done now, without a successful invasion of Iraq. No chance whatsoever. We'd never have even known their name, much like most of us don't know the names of any of the myriad rebel groups in Syria, because they are largely inconsequential.

Daesh in Syria is no more consequential than the Free Syrian Army without invading Iraq. US troops in Iraq means no Iraq invasion. No Iraq invasion means no ISIS. Regardless of the warranted arguments to get out of Iraq, a US force in Iraq would have prevented ISIS. The FSA is still fighting in Aleppo, but that's not really meaningful. The FSA isn't inspiring attacks around the world. ISIS is. ISIS exists because one group of rebels in Syria had the smarts to invade the decrepit Iraqi state. That success made them. A US force in Iraq would have made that a non-starter, and there would have been no ISIS.

[Smitty-48]

The Syrian civil was happening, nothing was going to stop that, the Wahhab were backing the Sunni Jihadists, whatever name you want to give them, that was happening, nothing was going to stop that. Those Sunni Wahhabists were going to contest the Anbar in Iraq, from their stonghold in Syria, that was going to happen, nothing was going to stop that, it's just a question of when were they going to do it.

America was leaving, that was going to happen, it was just a question of 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012. Obama simply saved you the inevitable trouble and blood, by just biting the bullet, and making it quick and dirty, in 2009.

ISIS was coming, nothing was going to stop them, America was in the way, but not for long, you weren't staying, so there was no point in delaying, you were going to cede the Anbar to ISIS, one way or the other, Obama's way, simply saved you from yourselves, by getting it done sooner, rather than a year or two later.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I just want to say, THIS was the conversation I wanted to see.

But, to bring it to the OP, is this what Turkey is saying, or are they saying there was some sort of intentional material collaboration between the US and ISIS (ISIS as ISIS, not some other group of whackjobs that then jumped on the Daesh train) forces?

[Smitty-48]

A US force in Iraq would have made that a non-starter, and there would have been no ISIS.

There wasn't going to be a US force in Iraq, because the American electorate voted to withdraw them, so there would have been an ISIS, it's just ISIS 2009, ISIS 2010, or ISIS 2011, in the meantime, you're taking casualties trying to hold the Anbar to no good purpose, since you're about to cede it to these Sunni Jihadists within a matter of months anyways.

Where your whole argument falls apart, is the part where you make the assertion of a US force that wasn't about to withdraw, when it fact, there was no such US force, the US force was withdrawing, and not in five years, withing one or two, and when they dud, ISIS was going to be there waiting in the wings, so there was no point in delaying the inevitable, just for the privelege of having more Americans killed in a quamire to nowhere.

[Okeefenokee]

The Syrian civil was happening, nothing was going to stop that, the Wahhab were backing the Sunni Jihadists, whatever name you want to give them, that was happening, nothing was going to stop that. Those Sunni Wahhabists were going to contest the Anbar in Iraq, from their stonghold in Syria, that was going to happen, nothing was going to stop that, it's just a question of when were they going to do it.

America was leaving, that was going to happen, it was just a question of 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012.

Obama simply saved you the inevitable trouble and blood, by just biting the bullet, and making it quick and dirty, in 2009.

ISIS was coming, nothing was going to stop them, America was in the way, but not for long, you weren't staying, so there was no point in delaying, you were going to cede the Anbar to ISIS, one way or the other, Obama's way, simply saved you from yourselves, by getting it done sooner, rather than a year or two later.

I agree. Shit was gonna happen sooner or later. You might not remember, but I said this was going to happen before it happened, and when it happened, I got my due credit on the DCF for calling it before it happened.

I've been saying this since before any of it happened. When we finally let the tiger loose, it's gonna bite.

I don't disagree with you on that. I'm making one specific point. In our timeline, no Iraq withdrawal, no ISIS. The Iraq withdrawal coming later means, of course, an ISIS later.

That's what I was talking about in my post a few days before ISIS burst onto the scene. I said after we left, shit was gonna blow up, and we would be tempted to grab the tiger by the tail again once we saw it's teeth, and unless we were willing to deal with it, rather than grab it again, we would find ourselves in the same place we had just tried to leave, holding the tail.

But, purely hypothetically, a Syrian rebellion taking place with a US force in Iraq would have remained a Syrian dilemma. There would not have been a rebel army overrunning the IA, and there would not have been ISIS.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am also not certain ISIS (as such) was inevitable.

They only started gaining traction and securing a global following after taking over government controlled cities. Without those wins, ISIS doesn't get momentum.

It could very well be that ISIS doesn't happen without the withdraw coinciding with neighboring civil conflicts.

[ssu]

BUMP

It's pretty simple folks; Obama was elected on a mandate to end the Iraq War, that was not up for anymore debate, the election decided that, it was gonna happen, because that is what America elected him to do.

And what happened when the Americans left is that the Shiite dictator really fucked immediately everything up that the US military had done. Absolutely everything. He immediately fired and imprisoned his Sunni Vice Prime Minister, then got away with the "Sunni Awakening" the US military had done, that actually ended AL Qaeda rule in the Sunni parts of Iraq. Then it was no surprise that the Sunni areas fell so quickly into ISIS hands.

At least Obama did keep his campaign promise. Hooray.

[Okeefenokee]

A US force in Iraq would have made that a non-starter, and there would have been no ISIS.

There wasn't going to be a US force in Iraq, because the American electorate voted to withdraw them, so there would have been an ISIS, it's just ISIS 2009, ISIS 2010, or ISIS 2011, in the meantime, you're taking casualties trying to hold the Anbar to no good purpose, since you're about to cede it to these Sunni Jihadists within a matter of months anyways.

Where your whole argument falls apart, is the part where you make the assertion of a US force that wasn't about to withdraw, when it fact, there was no such US force, the US force was withdrawing, and not in five years, withing one or two, and when they dud, ISIS was going to be there waiting in the wings, so there was no point in delaying the inevitable, just for the privelege of having more Americans killed in a quamire to nowhere.

Except I don't contend that we weren't about to withdraw. I knew we were, and I knew what was going to come after, and I still know the Syrian civil war would not have resulted in anything more than Aleppo being in ruins if US troops had been in Iraq.

When those troops did leave Iraq, even without a Syrian civil war, we would have had something like ISIS, but it wouldn't have come from Daesh in Syria.

That's the point. In our timeline, the Syrian civil war does not expand to a global ISIS if US troops are in Iraq. When US troops do leave Iraq, something else happens, but not ISIS.

[Smitty-48]

That's the point. In our timeline, the Syrian civil war does not expand to a global ISIS if US troops are in Iraq. When US troops do leave Iraq, something else happens, but not ISIS.

You were fighting ISIS the whole time, AQI, ISIS; same thing, Zarqawi is ISIS, al-Baghdadi is AQI, it's the same Sunni Jihadists/Baathists, the whole time, you never defeated them, they never went away, you're creating a fasle dichotomy; AQI v ISIS, distinction without a difference, they were just waiting you out, because they knew you were leaving, and they were going to fill the vacuum when you did, in 2009, or 2010, or 2011, you were still fighing them as you withdrew, there was no actual point where they went away, and then came back, that's a false assertion, in order for the Pentagon to prop up the Surge as being a "success".

[ssu]

Except I don't contend that we weren't about to withdraw. I knew we were, and I knew what was going to come after, and I still know the Syrian civil war would not have resulted in anything more than Aleppo being in ruins if US troops had been in Iraq.

When those troops did leave Iraq, even without a Syrian civil war, we would have had something like ISIS, but it wouldn't have come from Daesh in Syria.

That's the point. In our timeline, the Syrian civil war does not expand to a global ISIS if US troops are in Iraq. When US troops do leave Iraq, something else happens, but not ISIS.

What started from Tunisia didn't exactly happen because of Iraq. Hence the so-called "Arab Spring" might be a bit different if Saddam was in power in Iraq and no US invasion & occupation had happened, who knows what would have taken place. An Iraq left to Saddam might have started to topple just like Syria, and oh boy, would the US been then there just like with Ghaddafi or Assad.

But what is sure that once you had ISIS in Iraq, because the US had withdrawn and the Shiite government fucked everything up, it would then come into play in Syria as a major player once Syria did have it's civil war.

Sad thing is that now in hindsight you can see that the US was indeed winning clearly and outrooting the Sunni insurgency and keeping by it's presence the shiite idiots in Baghdad at Place (not to fuck things up, which they did).

You were fighting ISIS the whole time, AQI, ISIS; same thing, Zarqawi is ISIS, al-Baghdadi is AQI, it's the same Sunni Jihadists/Baathists, the whole time, you never defeated them, they never went away

Or withdrew to Syria, basically.

But that's true. They indeed were from AQI.