.... special forces.

al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist prior to our invassion and that morphed into ISIS.

Saddam Hussein used to shoot al Qaeda people on the spot.

.... listen? No but idiots on the right talked about Freedom Fries.

For all we know the US could have decided not to invade but soon after Saddam could have just up and croaked from a heart attack and it could have destabilized the region and there are an infinite number of other "what if's" but we have to deal with the reality and in reality they did invade causing the region to destabilize.

The French told us 3 things:

1) They did not think that Iraq had any WMDs and that we should let the inspections
continue and if they did find some WMDs they would help out in a military effort.

2) That the people we were getting info from could not be trusted. aka Chalibi & Curveball.

3) And that any invasion of Iraq would have blowback and the area would see more
violence and unrest.

Tony Blair on the creation of ISIS

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis

Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State

Only one of Tony Blair’s mea culpas in his CNN interview stands out as truly significant: his partial acknowledgment that without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State (Isis).

Until now, Blair had refused to link the two, insisting instead in the lead-up to the war that sending western troops would deny jihadis an arena and prevent Saddam Hussein from using them as proxies in his standoff with the west.

The 12 years since have constantly disproved both claims. Within six months of British troops landing in Iraq, the SAS was sent to Baghdad’s western outskirts to attack jihadis who had taken up residence in Ramadi. Back then, they were a mob of foreigners and Iraqis who fed off a broad Sunni discontent fuelled by the invasion; a serendipitous vanguard that not long afterwards organised into al-Qaida in Iraq, then the Islamic State of Iraq and, since mid-2013, Isis.

There is way more to this than cheerleading. You might want to read the link below instead of outlookindia. Oh - and they have half the city as hostages. Telling folks to put a white sheet on their roof or to leave is suicidal.

"Even if the city is “liberated”, the mainly Sunni population of Fallujah still has reason to fear. Iraqi government troops are being supported by Iranian-backed Shia militias, who in the past have massacred Sunni civilians and plundered their homes. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/28/islamic-state-creates-city-wide-hostage-crisis-in-battle-for-fal/

Aren't we just so proud to be there and know that this will continue interminably with the status quo candidate...

It's a right wing British newspaper. It was an enthusiastic cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (see eg https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-e-YCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT217&lpg=PT217 : "Allies launch their onslaught on tyranny from air, land and sea&quot , and are fully in favour of the UK and USA attacking ISIS, not only in Iraq (where that is in conjunction with the government) but in Syria too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/12001249/Jeremy-Corbyn-cannot-be-allowed-to-stand-in-the-way-of-military-action-in-Syria.html . And the article you link to is just as much cheerleading for the US bombing as outlookindia's is. It's all about how violent ISIS is - which is true.

Last edited Sat May 28, 2016, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

read both, decide for yourself.

or read this one: Iraqi Sunni politicians reject visit by Iran's Soleimani to Falluja
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-iran-falluja-idUSKCN0YJ0G1

You will begin to see by reading many different viewpoints that this is both volatile and complicated - a lot more so than simply bombing the enemy to win. I have real problems some days figuring out who or what we're supporting and wondering who/how our bombing campaign is really helping...

I hope our air strikes and Iraqi allies kill a lot more ISIS scum!