[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Steamtopia]

ISIS exists because it eventually broke away from Al Qaeda. Before it did, it was part of Al Qaeda. Specifically, it was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, the Islamic State itself came into existence as early as 2006 and the US did fuck all before withdrawing.

Except fight a nearly decade long war, which saw said Al Qaeda affiliate basically destroyed. The only reason ISIS came about is a lack of action with regards to Syria, engendering spillover into Iraq. To say the US did nothing is not only false, it's patently ignorant of the details concerning the Iraq War.

It was more than spillover. Al Qaeda in Iraq existed despite the USA's campaign (which was obviously not successful enough). Al Qaeda in Iraq came into prominence because the Iraqi state was toppled by the US.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Except fight a nearly decade long war, which saw said Al Qaeda affiliate basically destroyed. The only reason ISIS came about is a lack of action with regards to Syria, engendering spillover into Iraq. To say the US did nothing is not only false, it's patently ignorant of the details concerning the Iraq War.

It was more than spillover. Al Qaeda in Iraq existed despite the USA's campaign (which was obviously not successful enough). Al Qaeda in Iraq came into prominence because the Iraqi state was toppled by the US.

Not to mention that Reagan ordered the CIA to fund and train the embryonic version of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Washington never learns.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except fight a nearly decade long war, which saw said Al Qaeda affiliate basically destroyed. The only reason ISIS came about is a lack of action with regards to Syria, engendering spillover into Iraq. To say the US did nothing is not only false, it's patently ignorant of the details concerning the Iraq War.

It was more than spillover. Al Qaeda in Iraq existed despite the USA's campaign...

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" existed BECAUSE OF the USA's campaign. Not despite it.

[Steamtopia]

It was more than spillover. Al Qaeda in Iraq existed despite the USA's campaign...

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" existed BECAUSE OF the USA's campaign. Not despite it.

Yes, it existed because of and despite it. It existed because it toppled Saddam, and then continued to exist despite their attempts to reverse the damage.

[Oil exporting People]

An insurgency in a neighboring country spilled over. You know, the exact thing this great COIN strategy should have been perfectly suited to prevent?

This would be a good point to make, if you know, the US had ever went into Syria to use our COIN strategies. You also confuse ISIS with an insurgency, when it is exactly the opposite.

ISIS didn't roll into Iraq with armored columns and air support.

Yeah, they lacked air support.

Yet after 10 years and billions of dollars training and equipping the Iraqi military, they promptly lost control of half their country to the first pack of loons with AK's and pipe bombs to come screaming in from the desert.

More or less, ISIS took the dissaffected Sunni areas of Iraq and were stopped by the Iraqi army from Baghdad largely without outside support. You also seem to think that ISIS is Al Qaeda, which shows an ignorance of what ISIS actual is in terms of operations.

So what are we figuring, another 20, 30 years tops? Couple trillion dollars more? and then finally maybe an Iraqi military that could handle an unruly house party without overwhelming US support?

They've went back on the offensive, with minimal US support and stopped ISIS without said support.

Dead for as long as there were US boots on the ground and rifles pointed in their general direction.

You seem to forget the years between 2010 and 2014.

And details of those reports please? I've noticed it's a theme among conservatives , much whining about the super-simple-trained-monkey-could-have-done-it steps to an ironclad SOFA amenable to the US, but when asked about what those steps were much coughing and shuffling of feet and "Uh, well, they're so obvious and simple I'm insulted you would even ask! So I'm not gonna tell!"

Well for one, when in a debate, you kind of expect your opponent to at least be willing to research something if they didn't know it before coming into said debate. With regards to a SOFA, several thousand US troops were expected to stay and help train, support, and equip the Iraqi army. We didn't do that, and basically left Iraq alone until late last year.

And of course it does raise the question of why the Administration that started the war, and had an overabundance of trained monkeys, decided they'd rather pass on a deadline for total withdrawal than a SOFA.

Son, please go do some research before attempting to debate because this right here shows you don't know the basics to begin with. It was the Obama administration that failed to do the SOFA, not Bush.

[Oil exporting People]

Not to mention that Reagan ordered the CIA to fund and train the embryonic version of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Washington never learns.

Save the face palm, because that never happened. The fact you confused Ahmad Shah Massoud with OBL's gang shows a keen lack of understanding of the last thirty years in Afghanistan.

[Oil exporting People]

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" existed BECAUSE OF the USA's campaign. Not despite it.

Ahem, it was because "despite it". Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the guy who founded Al Qaeda in Iraq, was already in country long before the invasion and was receiving treatment in Baghdad in 2002. I also encourage you to look up Ansar al-Islam, which is today a part of ISIS and was running a WMD facility before Anglo-American Spec Ops took them out in early 2003, was was allowed to operate unmolested by Saddam.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

I'm a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but I'm willing to consider the policy positions of George Pataki and other moderate Republicans. I have great respect for Congressman Pete King (R-NY), who criticized the Cruz/Paul faction of his party for not being amicable to compromise.

[Our Governator]

I'm a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but I'm willing to consider the policy positions of George Pataki and other moderate Republicans. I have great respect for Congressman Pete King (R-NY), who criticized the Cruz/Paul faction of his party for not being amicable to compromise.

This again. The anti-deficit Republicans have been more than open to congress. Remember the debt ceiling battle, and how liberals everywhere cried that the Tea Party was holding the country hostage? Rand Paul said he was willing to vote for any budget that had an amendment that just said that congress would promise to work towards a balanced budget over the next 8 years. That's literally it. That's all he wanted. It was the establishment GOP and the Harry Reid Dems who refused to go along with it.

[Ravenflight]

Sorry to come in but tell me I'm not the only one who started to LMAO when I saw this, then laughed more when I heard it http://order-order.com/2015/06/05/rick- ... bjho4RcAlw

[Our Governator]

Sorry to come in but tell me I'm not the only one who started to LMAO when I saw this, then laughed more when I heard it http://order-order.com/2015/06/05/rick- ... bjho4RcAlw

Jesus H. Christ. This is as laughable as "I Feel Good" being Lindsey Graham's theme song.

[Neu California]

I'm a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but I'm willing to consider the policy positions of George Pataki and other moderate Republicans. I have great respect for Congressman Pete King (R-NY), who criticized the Cruz/Paul faction of his party for not being amicable to compromise.

This again. The anti-deficit Republicans have been more than open to congress. Remember the debt ceiling battle, and how liberals everywhere cried that the Tea Party was holding the country hostage? Rand Paul said he was willing to vote for any budget that had an amendment that just said that congress would promise to work towards a balanced budget over the next 8 years. That's literally it. That's all he wanted. It was the establishment GOP and the Harry Reid Dems who refused to go along with it.

Which debt ceiling battle? 2011 or 2013?

(After some research, I found that you mean 2013. Please specify in the future) I found one resolution during the 2013 budget crisis by Rand Paul, and it would have raised the debt ceiling to last until March to create a triple crisis (debt ceiling, sequester, and the continuing resolution to allow government to keep functioning), which I have to assume was the real reason for the decision. The Rebubs also had to work with the Dems there because of what happened with the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations and shutdown (where Americans blamed them instead of the dems). (source). Do you have a source for him proposing the one you talk about?

Also, fun fact. The public blamed the rebublicans more then the democrats for the fiscal crisis, according to two polls conducted afterwards (source 1, source 2). Just felt like mentioning that.

[Diopolis]

Sorry to come in but tell me I'm not the only one who started to LMAO when I saw this, then laughed more when I heard it http://order-order.com/2015/06/05/rick- ... bjho4RcAlw

Is it wrong that I actually like that song?

[Ravenflight]

Sorry to come in but tell me I'm not the only one who started to LMAO when I saw this, then laughed more when I heard it http://order-order.com/2015/06/05/rick- ... bjho4RcAlw

Jesus H. Christ. This is as laughable as "I Feel Good" being Lindsey Graham's theme song.

Seriously though this is going to be my comic relief for the next year

[Ravenflight]

Sorry to come in but tell me I'm not the only one who started to LMAO when I saw this, then laughed more when I heard it http://order-order.com/2015/06/05/rick- ... bjho4RcAlw

Is it wrong that I actually like that song?

No your allowed your own opinion We're all equal no matter who you are

[Myrensis]

They've went back on the offensive, with minimal US support and stopped ISIS without said support

Yes, they swapped it out for Shia Militias and Iranian support.

Well for one, when in a debate, you kind of expect your opponent to at least be willing to research something if they didn't know it before coming into said debate. With regards to a SOFA, several thousand US troops were expected to stay and help train, support, and equip the Iraqi army. We didn't do that, and basically left Iraq alone until late last year.

Because we didn't have a SOFA. "Well under the SOFA we would have done X" does not actually address the question of getting a SOFA. So, still waiting on the super easy things Obama could have done to secure an airtight SOFA on terms agreeable to the US.

Son, please go do some research before attempting to debate because this right here shows you don't know the basics to begin with. It was the Obama administration that failed to do the SOFA, not Bush.

Little boy, SOFA's do not become void and have to be renegotiated after every election. There was nothing stopping the Bush Administration, what with their commitment to the cause, supreme foreign policy wisdom, and excellent relationships with the Iraqi and Afghan governments, from securing a solid SOFA to pass down to their successors. And in fact given that they, ya know, started the wars, it actually seems like something they should have been expected to do. Especially considering how easy they, and their supporters, keep telling us it would have been.

[Oil exporting People]

Yes, they swapped it out for Shia Militias and Iranian support.

Still receiving significant support from US/NATO, and Post-2003 Iraq has always been pretty reliant on Shias.

Because we didn't have a SOFA.

As you know, Bob....

"Well under the SOFA we would have done X" does not actually address the question of getting a SOFA. So, still waiting on the super easy things Obama could have done to secure an airtight SOFA on terms agreeable to the US.

Actually have attempted to get one, as I've previously stated and it appears you have unfortunately failed to read. The Iraqis were playing hardball to get the best deal they could, and Obama basically just decided "Screw it" and completed the pull out.

Little boy,

General rule of thumb, petty insults usually mean you've lost the debate because you have nothing substantive to say.

SOFA's do not become void and have to be renegotiated after every election.

Point being what, exactly?

There was nothing stopping the Bush Administration, what with their commitment to the cause, supreme foreign policy wisdom, and excellent relationships with the Iraqi and Afghan governments, from securing a solid SOFA to pass down to their successors.

Except for the fact Bush was out of office by the time establishing a SOFA came up. Again, you need to do some research on this.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A new "I side with" test for anyone who still has an open mind about the candidates, or is simply undecided.

(I got Bernie Sanders, but I'm really putting it here for the Republicans, since we don't have a general election thread yet).

[Patridam]

A new "I side with" test for anyone who still has an open mind about the candidates, or is simply undecided.

(I got Bernie Sanders, but I'm really putting it here for the Republicans, since we don't have a general election thread yet).

Ah, I have a 15% match with Hillary Clinton with "no major issues" that I side with her upon. I have an 85% match to Rand Paul and an 83% match with Rick Santorum, with the rest of the Republican field falling between 80 and 60 percent, then Bernie Sanders with 32%.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A new "I side with" test for anyone who still has an open mind about the candidates, or is simply undecided.

(I got Bernie Sanders, but I'm really putting it here for the Republicans, since we don't have a general election thread yet).

Ah, I have a 15% match with Hillary Clinton with "no major issues" that I side with her upon. I have an 85% match to Rand Paul and an 83% match with Rick Santorum, with the rest of the Republican field falling between 80 and 60 percent, then Bernie Sanders with 32%.

From what I've seen of your posts, that seems to be quite close.

[Patridam]

Ah, I have a 15% match with Hillary Clinton with "no major issues" that I side with her upon. I have an 85% match to Rand Paul and an 83% match with Rick Santorum, with the rest of the Republican field falling between 80 and 60 percent, then Bernie Sanders with 32%.

From what I've seen of your posts, that seems to be quite close.

Some of it is thrown by the unexpressed positions from many of the candidates, but yes it seems pretty fair. It is unfortunate that the things I don't stand with the ~80% field (Santorum, Carson, Rubio) are some of the things I find most relevant; military interventionism, gay marriage, marijuana.

I was most surprised by the hate on national parks though, I wasn't really aware their continued presence was even an issue.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

From what I've seen of your posts, that seems to be quite close.

Some of it is thrown by the unexpressed positions from many of the candidates, but yes it seems pretty fair. It is unfortunate that the things I don't stand with the ~80% field (Santorum, Carson, Rubio) are some of the things I find most relevant; military interventionism, gay marriage, marijuana.

I was most surprised by the hate on national parks though, I wasn't really aware their continued presence was even an issue.

You say "National Parks", they say "Artificially imposed limitation of resources".

[Diopolis]

A new "I side with" test for anyone who still has an open mind about the candidates, or is simply undecided.

(I got Bernie Sanders, but I'm really putting it here for the Republicans, since we don't have a general election thread yet).

I got Bernie Sanders 61%, Rick Santorum 58%.
I'm a little surprised at the gap, but more surprised at the order. Overall, it seems pretty accurate though.

[AiliailiA]

A new "I side with" test for anyone who still has an open mind about the candidates, or is simply undecided.

Haha.

Bernie Sanders 90%
Hillary Clinton 69%
Martin O'Malley 54%
Jeb Bush 24%
Rand Paul 20%
Ben Carson 13%
Scott Walker 4%
Carly Fiorina 1%
Ted Cruz 1%

No surprises there. Except that ISideWith considers Fiorina to even be in the race.

[Ashmoria]

so now that jeb (Jeb!) is officially declaring im wondering if anyone is EXCITED about any of these republican candidates.

there are democrats who are very enthusiastic about mrs Clinton or mr sanders. there is real excitement there. is anyone as enthusiastic about one of the republican candidates? if so, who?