Some people warned of this "mess"...

[politicman]

11. its a legitimate question they ask that needs to have a proper answer..

What I am asking is a legitimate question that I haven't yet picked a stance on.

Your argument is a valid one to support your view.

But playing devils advocate, there is also an opposite view, that if Obama had of not listened to the Iraqi government and left troops in Iraq, then ISIS most likely would not have captured half the country and be threatening the Kurds.

Either ISIS is such a bad group that it requires U.S intervention again, OR ISIS is not so bad that we can sit on the sidelines and let the Iraqi's battle it out on there own.

If ISIS is such a bad group that military intervention is needed to stop their advance and weaken them, THEN naturally the argument follows as to why did Obama remove troops and allow ISIS to over run the Iraqi military in the north and fill a power vacuum?

Conservatives argue that Obama should not have listened to the Iraqi government and instead used intelligence to know that there was an incapable Iraqi army and a power vacuum that could be filled by a very unsavoury group, and left troops in Iraq.

Can anyone honestly arhue against their point of view when Obama intervenes militarily again after pulling troops out?