ISIS

[PB the Deplorable]

Actually it has everything to do with it. When it comes to mishandling that started way before Obama took office. Air strikes will achieve what exactly? Never in the field of warfare have airstrikes alone secured anything...

No, how or why we arrived at this point has zero to do with whether we should cut and run and let things spiral out of control, or whether we should destroy the ISIS army as it drives down the highway to Baghdad. 

No one is suggesting ground troops.  If you need an example of effective airstrikes, let me reiterate the destruction of Saddam's army on it's way back to Baghdad from Kuwait in 1991.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The West can barely comprehend this: Iraq and Syria were formed after the collapse of the Ottoman empire, trying to squeeze three distinct and separate groups into two. When there hasn't been trouble ever since in one form or another, it's because a dictator (Sponsored by the West) has ruled with ruthless and viscous authority. Power, or fighting.. Or both.

It isn't just Iraq and Syria, it's most of the Middle East.  The same was done in Africa.  Set national borders are a fairly recent European concept.

Those drawing lines on maps did so cynically - they separated some tribes among 2 or more 'countries' in order to weaken them, they put tribes together who had long histories of hatred towards each other.  They created countries with few people and great wealth, and countries with few natural resources and a lot of people.  All to keep them weak and fighting one another.

[Yorkshire pud]

No, how or why we arrived at this point has zero to do with whether we should cut and run and let things spiral out of control, or whether we should destroy the ISIS army as it drives down the highway to Baghdad. 

No one is suggesting ground troops.  If you need an example of effective airstrikes, let me reiterate the destruction of Saddam's army on it's way back to Baghdad from Kuwait in 1991.

Sure..and they destroyed airfields..but ultimately the war wasn't sustained solely from the air. It isn't possible to do it.

We arrived at this point because of Bush..He started the war...he sustained it. His war. In 2008 and signed the agreement to pull the troops out..Obama took office in 2009.

The shit that has ensued will play out one way or the other. But not before Rumsfeld goes on Fox news to apologise to the families of the thousends of dead fathers, mothers daughters and sons for sending them to a phoney war based on lies, based on the avarice of a few corporate thieves....So that will be never then.

[albrecht]

Sure..and they destroyed airfields..but ultimately the war wasn't sustained solely from the air. It isn't possible to do it.

We arrived at this point because of Bush..He started the war...he sustained it. His war. In 2008 and signed the agreement to pull the troops out..Obama took office in 2009.

The shit that has ensued will play out one way or the other. But not before Rumsfeld goes on Fox news to apologise to the families of the thousends of dead fathers, mothers daughters and sons for sending them to a phoney war based on lies, based on the avarice of a few corporate thieves....So that will be never then.

They aren't ever going to apologize because their policy worked. It is all about destabilization in regions of interest (to wit the policy in Ukraine now.) Obama has personal reasons to favor the Sunni factions but even he is, basically, just continuing the policy of destabilization in the MiddleEast and Eastern Europe that Brzezinski, Kissinger, and various Neo-Cons etc been advocating for years.

[VtaGeezer]

Conservatives want Obama to support Sunni insurgents against the Iranian-backed regime in Damascus, and to back an Iranian-supported regime in Baghdad against Sunni insurgents.  F'ing brilliance in action.

[Quick Karl]

Conservatives want Obama to support Sunni insurgents against the Iranian-backed regime in Damascus, and to back an Iranian-supported regime in Baghdad against Sunni insurgents.  F'ing brilliance in action.

Show me ONE "conservative" that supports what you just suggested - provide a factual basis for it.

[albrecht]

Conservatives want Obama to support Sunni insurgents against the Iranian-backed regime in Damascus, and to back an Iranian-supported regime in Baghdad against Sunni insurgents.  F'ing brilliance in action.

Who does? I understand this character Obama's reasons for throwing in with the Sunni side and with the more radical types (Indonesia and his family background and schooling was in the Sunni tradition and it seems Obama hasn't met a radical he didn't like during his life)  but I haven't seen many conservatives claim to want to support Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc in Syria or elsewhere. Though you always have folks like McCain who want to bomb everything and make war for any reason. Though it is questionable calling him a conservative. And you have the Kissinger, Brzezinski, and Neo-Con types who always want to see destabilization but again, I don't really think they are conservatives.

[Quick Karl]

Though it is questionable calling him a conservative.

That is the single funniest thing I have ever read on the Internet.

I just call him what his is - an asshole.

[PB the Deplorable]

Conservatives want Obama to support Sunni insurgents against the Iranian-backed regime in Damascus, and to back an Iranian-supported regime in Baghdad against Sunni insurgents.  F'ing brilliance in action.

The Conservatives - and the rest of the country - are the people that told Obama and McCain, and the rest of the DC politicians NOT to attack the Syrian government on behalf of the 'insurgents'.  Which is just the opposite of what you suggested.  The DC clown act backed down.  A clear victory for Conservatives and a defeat for Obama and the Republican Establishment. 


Since there is confusion, let's recap:

Syria and Iran are strategic allies.  Syria backed Iran during the Iran/Iraq war.  They coordinate against Israel.  Syria allows Iran to smuggle arms through their country to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Syria is predominately Sunni, but the Assad family and much of the government and military is Alawite, which is an offshoot of Shia.  (The Iranians are also Shia).  That Assad and his cronies are Alawite explains much of the reason for the civil war in Syria and their alliance with Iran.

The current government in Iraq is Shia, and has developed close relations with Iran


None of this really matters as far as the US strategic interests in the region.  Why should we choose between Sunni and Shia - that we've gotten in as far as we have already is problematic enough.  Our interests are to keep the worst elements from seizing power, from threatening our friends and allies, from interfering with trade, and the rest of the usual things our foreign policy is built around.

We should be supporting the government of Syria against al-Qaeda and ISIS, and Iraq against the same groups.  The ISIS are currently exposed on the highway to Baghdad.  Now is the time to kill as many of them as we can, and destroy as much of their war materiel as we can, with airstrikes. 

[b_dubb]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27852832

Bullshit. I believe Colin Powell said it best: "You break it; you bought it."

[albrecht]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27852832

Bullshit. I believe Colin Powell said it best: "You break it; you bought it."

Sort to burst your bubble there. But, guess what, "breaking stuff" is what it is all about. Why do those backwards lands even have the borders they do or the weapons? They don't make them! We've, using the "royal we" (no pun intended) been playing them game for centuries. Granted the US is a little naive on it, but the power players in the US, the Brzezinskis, Kissingers, Bushes, Neo-Cons etc know the plot but still not quite as sophisticated as the old masters. Destabilization, picking tribes, playing the Sunni/Shite stuff, etc etc. I suggest reading "The Great Game" by  Hopkirk as a beginning. (also a great read!)

[paladin1991]

I think the sky is the limit on gas prices with this crisis. Major economic damage can happen but I suppose the government would never drop thier 18.5 cents of tax on a gallon of gas no matter how high prices go.

Hell no!  That's righteous beer money for that crowd.

[paladin1991]

"Fuck 'em all.  Not one more drop of American or NATO blood should be spilled or one dollar spent for that medieval hellhole or the tribal cretins who inhabit it. "


Fucking A Skippy



" Or maybe we keep arming all sides in every Arab contest until there's a clear winner...then nuke that son of a bitch."


You can ask just about any elisted man for a reasonable solution and it would be to nuke Hadji and Johnny Muj.  But I like the way you think.  We could make it pay per view. 

[paladin1991]

Making you blame one side or the other, is the magic trick they pull, that keeps them doing what they're doing.

They play us like a fuckin' piano.

[paladin1991]

Cutting and running is not the right way to depart, regardless of how we got there. 

I agree.  But PB, having been there a couple of times.  I don't see a whole lot that I want to send my 16 year old son over to unfuck.  Each time I was there the fuckage got worse and worse.  I'm getting too old for them to force over there, hell, they could try, but I won't go again.  And I sure as hell won't let them take my son in a few short years.

I don't speak for anyone else here or about anyone else's tours of duty over there.  My family has done its time in the big catbox.  But my answer to folks at work or at church is, before you talk about sending the troops back in, you walk your son down to the enlistment center and sign him up for service in The Crotch for Combat Arms, Infantry.  Then I will know that you are truly engaged, balls deep and down for the cause.

[paladin1991]

What will the victories of ISIS and al-Qaeda in the Levant lead to?

A regional dark age.

[PB the Deplorable]

I agree.  But PB, having been there a couple of times.  I don't see a whole lot that I want to send my 16 year old son over to unfuck...

I'm not for any more troops either.  I've only advocated airstrikes on ISIS now that they are out in the open and moving. 

Since Obama took office I have not criticized his handling of Iraq or Afghanistan, because we should never have gone there and he inherited a mess.  He could and should have done a lot of things differently, but there weren't really any good solutions.  It was inevitably going to be a disaster, with the Taliban back in charge of Afg, and enemies of the US in charge of Iraq. 

But that doesn't mean let ISIS walk in, if we can easily prevent it from the air.  They are much more of a threat to the rest of the region than the Madhi army or reconstituted leftovers from Saddam's military.


It doesn't really matter, Barry's out on a golf weekend while Mooch is planning the summer getaway to Martha's Vineyard

[paladin1991]

I think I've said 'airstrikes on ISIS' enough times.  I'm not for any more troops either.

Yeah, I read what you said.  But somebody still has to fly the birds.  I'm just not sure anybody else is worth one more American life. 
Drone 'em to  death?  Sure.  Do we have enough drones?  I dunno.  Tomahawk their asses?  Range could be an issue unless Buffs and Stealths are humping them across the heavens.

Somebody said pull all the Christians out and let the arabs have at it.  Might be workable, pull them out, build them their own city down the road fm Lost Vegas.....

[paladin1991]

Yorkie.  Have read your comments in ref to others comments.  Hows the British press playing this?  What's the word fm your military mates?

[Yorkshire pud]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27852832

Bullshit. I believe Colin Powell said it best: "You break it; you bought it."

Oh yeah. Bliar will now be telling anyone who listens that 'It's nuffin to do wiv me guv'. . That criminal could be found in a bank vault with a bag full of money and the staff tied up and he'd claim it was nothing to do with him.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yorkie.  Have read your comments in ref to others comments.  Hows the British press playing this?  What's the word fm your military mates?

There's just been an interview on the BBC Breakfast prog with some professor of Middle East affairs. Summary: He said it's 'bizarre' that Blair has distanced himself from the consequences of the war and now. In other words 'he's talking bollox'. He said we might see (and he was serious) a situation where the West allies with Assad, Iran, and Iraq against the ISIS who are ostracised by Al Qaeda because they're too ( get this) extreme!.

That it's more complicated because the small anti Assad group was hijacked by ISIS. The result is likely to be very grim indeed, with no clear end. But the one light is the Kurds will get their own lands back. Apparently.

[paladin1991]

That it's more complicated because the small anti Assad group was hijacked by ISIS. The result is likely to be very grim indeed, with no clear end. But the one light is the Kurds will get their own lands back. Apparently.

Thanks for the quick run down fm your neck of the woods.  Seems to me, the Kurds might be the big winners.  The arabs may be 'allowed' to shoot the shit out of each other but another intervention could occur before the Iranians are allowed to sweep the board.  And I'm not looking at my magic 8 ball. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Thanks for the quick run down fm your neck of the woods.  Seems to me, the Kurds might be the big winners.  The arabs may be 'allowed' to shoot the shit out of each other but another intervention could occur before the Iranians are allowed to sweep the board.  And I'm not looking at my magic 8 ball.

This pile of filth sits there straight faced as he spouts his shit. I could punch this fuck in the face all day and not get bored.    Read the comments (well over a hundred when I typed this) NOT one supports Blair. Almost all want his head on a spike..and Bush get's a mention too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832

Security analyst Professor Eric Groves said he found Mr Blair's position to be "bizarre".

He told the BBC that had the UK intervened in Syria, it would have been against the Assad regime, which ISIS is fighting.

"So therefore, intervening in Syria might well have actually been in the interests of the ISIS people," he said.

Prof Groves, of Liverpool Hope University, added: "So saying this is a result of our non-intervention, if Mr Blair really thinks that going into Syria and basically fighting everyone was going to lead to a better situation, I think his views are somewhat bizarre actually. I can see very little logic in this."

BBC political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said there would be "many who take issue" with Mr Blair's comments.

Mike O'Brien, who was a foreign office minister in Mr Blair's government, also rejected the former prime minister's claims about the Iraq War.

"The future of Iraq depends on the Sunni having [a] stake," Mr O'Brien said.

"And that's what Barack Obama is saying. And that's why I think Tony is not quite right about this."

[VtaGeezer]

Show me ONE "conservative" that supports what you just suggested - provide a factual basis for it.

Turn on/read the MSM and see what McCain-Graham, Cheney, Romney, Fox News, Krystal, right wing radio, and virtually all the conservative opinion makers are and have been saying about the current Iraq crisis, and about the Syrian civil war for the past two years.  That you don't like what they say doesn't negate the fact that they say it, and most conservatives swallow it daily.  Break out of the bubble.

[Quick Karl]

Turn on/read the MSM and see what McCain-Graham, Cheney, Romney, Fox News, Krystal, right wing radio, and virtually all the conservative opinion makers are and have been saying about the current Iraq crisis, and about the Syrian civil war for the past two years.  That you don't like what they say doesn't negate the fact that they say it, and most conservatives swallow it daily.  Break out of the bubble.

They are NOT conservatives, my friend...

They are corporatists, pretending that they are conservatives. Part of the reason it is so easy to fool some people in this country, on the communist side, and on the capitalist side, is because our system of dis-education produces stupid people, on the communist side, and on the capitalist side.

PS. I've been trying to type nicer, now that Dr. Onan is upset with the principles I express in rebuttal to his royal proclamations (see, no mean words!).

[VtaGeezer]

They are NOT conservatives, my friend...

"...my friend"?  Gee, does that mean I'm off the death list? 

You may call them Pleiadians if you wish, QK.  The fact is that until replaced, the GOP is the conservative party in US politics, holds the House, and those I mentioned are among its key policy definers and, by definition, they represent the conservative position in American politics.  Conservative babbler Lindsey Graham now wants the US to open a dialogue about Iraq's future with Iran; whom he and his pal Cap'n Crunch was complaining Obama wouldn't bomb a few months ago. 

[Quick Karl]

"...my friend"?  Gee, does that mean I'm off the death list? 

You may call them Pleiadians if you wish, QK.  The fact is that until replaced, the GOP is the conservative party in US politics, holds the House, and those I mentioned are among its key policy definers and, by definition, they represent the conservative position in American politics.  Conservative babbler Lindsey Graham now wants the US to open a dialogue about Iraq's future with Iran; whom he and his pal Cap'n Crunch was complaining Obama wouldn't bomb a few months ago.

You're wrong, and you are intentionally misrepresenting the intentions of conservative voters, to suit your political agenda. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of conservative voters in America LOATHE the dirt bags you reference - but the system IS STACKED, and to deny that is disingenuous. Cleaning the scum out of the Republican party, and replacing them with Constitutionalist, Libertarians, will NOT happen in one election, or over-night, but it will happen...

And, we can still be friends, even if you are wrong and disrespect Americans that hold different political philosophies than you do.

Gee, I'm starting to sound more and more like Dr. Onan, already! All I need now is a robe!

[yumyumtree]

Thanks for posting, Quick Karl. I've been watching this story blossom over the weekend and it seems scary, especially that cryptic Alamo message. But a lot of people on the Internet would rather talk about the San Antonio Spurs or some rapist Hillary defended decades ago.

[yumyumtree]

What is it with the Democrats?

In addition to abandoning the South Vietnamese and the people of Iraq, we have everything from Obama abandoning the consulate in Benghazi while it was under attack, to JFK abandoning the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs, to the Democrat Congress in the 1980s trying to force Reagan to abandon the Contras in Nicaragua, abandon the government of El Salvador trying to stave off the FMLN, abandon the government of Columbia fighting FARC.  And that is not nearly the complete list.

It's a dangerous world out there, and certain decisions can mean life or death to millions.  And make us either more or less safe here in the US.  This time, victorious Islamo-fascism may very well ultimately follow us back home - to join those we've already let in.  What will it look like when bombs start going off in our cities?

There were articles in both the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald today about homegrown jihadists in Canada today. Actually it was the same article. I'll try to post it when I get to a regular computer.

[albrecht]

There were articles in both the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald today about homegrown jihadists in Canada today. Actually it was the same article. I'll try to post it when I get to a regular computer.

The guy who recently shot people at the Jewish museum in Belguim had returned from being with the ISIS apparently. Lots of people currently living in Europe, Canada, and USA thanks to our immigrationn policies have gone over to fight with various radical groups and them come back. Not to mention the gang members n criminals coming through.