ISIS

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

No different than having that discussion with you.

Well, not quite.  I bring more to the table in a discussion about the Middle East than some hairy sub-simian talkin 'bout "mah bah-bal" and "mah wooman" and picking lice turds out of his beard.  But that wasn't really the point.  Hannity isn't interested in informing anyone.  If he was, he'd put some conservative on the show who is educated and knowledgeable about the topic, not some hog-pokin' pseudo-hillbilly.

You know, I love Jazmunda. He's really great and I'd do anything for him.  I'd also put him in a burlap bag and beat him with a shoebox filled with oily diarrhea if it meant not seeing any more of your fuckin posts on this site.  Why don't you go fuck yourself with a Justin Bieber lunchbox?

[WOTR]

I saw this and just about laughed myself silly thinking about this thread.  If you like Fox, just substitute ABC, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC as you see fit.
http://www.preoccupiedterritory.com/fox-acquires-rights-to-new-isis-reality-show-convert-or-die/
"(Convert or die) will follow the adventures and misadventures of twelve to fifteen Western journalists, human rights activists, researchers, and others who had the misfortune to encounter the wrong type of rebel in Syria or Iraq... They expect (the show) to run for fifteen episodes or until the last member of the group is beheaded by their captors, whichever comes first."

We can take this, wrap it into "Duck Dynasty" with Phil and whoever else is on the show with them slaughtering men named "Mohammed" who refuse to convert... Think of the ratings.

[Quick Karl]

We can take this, wrap it into "Duck Dynasty" with Phil and whoever else is on the show with them slaughtering men named "Mohammed" who refuse to convert... Think of the ratings.

Actually, that would be fricken awesome! I hope they cut you in on the profits for coming up with the idea!

Oh wait, it's Hollywood, never mind - you're fucked...

[PB the Deplorable]

... I think the Obama Doctrine is geared toward answering challenges through diplomacy, back channel communication, and through intermediary rather than shaking our fists all the time. 

... People like me elected him to do this; I am beyond sick and tired of chicken hawk diplomacy. We have values, we should live up to them.  We have "interests", we should negotiate for them.  If there's a direct threat to this nation, we have more than enough defense to defend our country.

... why should we carry the freight for the Middle East? Do you really think is ISIS is committed to attacking us that fighting a non-stop war in Iraq will "keep them there"?  Unlikely.

... You resent Barack Obama.  I don't see, however, how he has harmed this country from a foreign policy position...

The US keeps international waters and air space open because it's in the best interests of our country.  And because there is no one else to do it. 

We respond to tragedies around the world with aide and support - public and private - because we can and because it's the right thing to do.

We stand up for freedom and democracy around the world because it's in our interests and because it's the right thing to do.  When we make trade or alliances with undemocratic nations for strategic or tactical purposes, we also do our best to nudge them towards democracy and we emphasize areas such as humans rights.

We get involved in conflicts that affect our national security, and peripheral conflicts where we have access and can be of great help at modest cost - either because we have allies involved or to stop or prevent massive civilian deaths

We do all this because it's ultimately in the best interests of the United States.  Regardless of what other nations do or don't do.


When we get a weak President, like a Carter or an Obama, our adversaries take full advantage.  The worldview of the American Left is the US is evil, that we 'provoke' our adversaries, and if we disarm and withdraw peace will break out.  And if it doesn't, it won't affect us so who cares.

But take a look - after 6 years of weakness, withdrawal, and hollowing out our military, our adversaries have taken measure of this President and are on the move.  You speak of diplomacy - this Administration doesn't even do the minimum, they are only interested in fundamental change within the US, and pay little attention to the rest of the world.  They care about it very little.

China has seized disputed islands and annexed huge portions of what is supposed to be international waters and airspace in the South China Sea and in the East China sea.  Putin is busily seizing land in Georgia and the Ukraine and threatening to continue - there and in other countries.  The worst of the Islamists are filling the vacuum left by us in Iraq and terrorizing that part of the world - and the longer Obama dithers and the more weakness he projects, the worse it will get. 

The rise ISIL from the ashes of AQII (al Qaeda in Iraq) is a direct result of Obama's actions, of withdrawal for domestic political reasons instead of what the situation in Iraq called for.


So yeah, people like you elected him to do this.  I get that.  What I'm saying is your worldview is wrong and dangerous, and it gets more of us killed and makes the world a far more dangerous place than the policies you rail against. 

The other day I heard someone say if Obama had been President during WWII, we'd have lost.  I agree, and what would the post WWII world have looked like? 

[West of the Rockies]

Of course, we had a Democratic president (two) at the helm during WWII, and FDR is often blamed for what many conservatives perceive to be big problems (a hand-out society).  I am disinclined to blindly assume Obama would have lost the war.

[PB the Deplorable]

Of course, we had a Democratic president (two) at the helm during WWII, and FDR is often blamed for what many conservatives perceive to be big problems (a hand-out society).  I am disinclined to blindly assume Obama would have lost the war.

FDR did not project weakness abroad, and he was not an isolationist.  Same with Truman, same with JFK, same with LBJ, same with Clinton.   And the same with nearly all Democrat Senators and House members historically.

There is a big difference between a Liberal and the hard Left 'Progressives' who have seized the party - whether the people who support the Democrat Party believe it, realize it, understand it, or not.

[albrecht]

Of course, we had a Democratic president (two) at the helm during WWII, and FDR is often blamed for what many conservatives perceive to be big problems (a hand-out society).  I am disinclined to blindly assume Obama would have lost the war.

Considering the attack on Hawaii and being allies with the Soviets I imagine Obama would've still prosecuted the war effectively, especially to open another front against Germany to defend fellow Leninists from attack. And considering his life in Hawaii he would've been mad at the Japanese.

ps: nobody has claimed it yet but a bunch of Syrian rebel leaders were just blown up. Not sure if it was Assad or ISIL/ISIS/IS who did it (these, supposedly, I think are the "good rebels.") But this is bad news for Obama and others who claim that there are "good rebels" and we should arm and help them against Assad.
http://news.yahoo.com/attack-meeting-kills-28-syria-rebel-leaders-185450303.html

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

this is bad news for Obama and others who claim that there are "good rebels"

What's his position on "good" cholesterol?

[albrecht]

What's his position on "good" cholesterol?

I think you would have to ask Michelle on that one. She seems to be the nation's nutritionist, self-appointed.

[ACE of CLUBS]

Reply # 12
Good post Paper Boy
Hope others will ponder it too
Thanks

[Rudolf Zlabinger]

I wonder, how you can make daily conversation under that horrible topic´s threat, yesterday there was a message coming from IS, they will rage and murder around the world 11.9., they will murder the president of France and make terror attacks in America, what I already apprehend the whole time, I hope they only are threatening with words. May all luck with you.

[George Drooly]

I'm tired of the "subtleties" of this 15,000-year old problem. There is only one proper solution, and that is to irradiate that portion of the globe until it turns into black glass. Any other discussion is merely war profiteering by politicos and media and the murdering inbreds they engender.

[Rudolf Zlabinger]

Its time to close this topic, whereas nobody there really will speak about, as if the horror did not exist, if we ignore it. For my opinion this topic ended by shortage of common interest. Lets close it by stop posting there, if you agree. It was a warning only and you should not ignore it. My intention was a honest one, please bear that in mind. All the best all the time, your topic author.

[FightTheFuture]

Its time to close this topic, whereas nobody there really will speak about, as if the horror did not exist, if we ignore it. For my opinion this topic ended by shortage of common interest. Lets close it by stop posting there, if you agree. It was a warning only and you should not ignore it. My intention was a honest one, please bear that in mind. All the best all the time, your topic author.

Ya done good, Rudolf. We do appreciate your interest in this topic.

Hopefully, we`ll be rid of these savages before much longer.

[PB the Deplorable]

We have a Presidential address on the subject tonight. 

Hopefully we aren't surrendering or arming al-Qaeda.

[bateman]

We have a Presidential address on the subject tonight. 

Hopefully we aren't surrendering or arming al-Qaeda.

Or are they "rebels"? So hard to tell.

[albrecht]

We have a Presidential address on the subject tonight. 

Hopefully we aren't surrendering or arming al-Qaeda.

You mean he hasn't announced that already? I thought that was done years ago.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

We have a Presidential address on the subject tonight. 

Hopefully we aren't surrendering or arming al-Qaeda.

You do an excellent Dick Cheney impression! 

[PB the Deplorable]

You do an excellent Dick Cheney impression!

Well, that's who he is. 

I realize the people who voted for him and supported him will never admit to their gross misjudgment in electing this hard-core far-Leftist determined to inflict as much damage on us and our allies as possible.  I get that every step of his destruction will be accompanied by those people distorting and downplaying his actions.


As with every other 'Arab Spring' uprising, Obama ignored the opposition to the Assad regime until the revolution was seized by the Sunni Terrorists - in this case al-Qaeda and their offshoots.  There were ordinary Syrians demonstrating and legitimate opposition forces we could have supported and worked with earlier, but we didn't.  Al-Qaeda and their splinter groups ultimately moved in, seized the revolution, and mostly eliminated these forces - it was at that point that Obama came alive, eagerly jumped in to arm al-Qaeda, and wanted to use the US Air Force to bomb the government targets they requested.

Due to that series of events, the choices in Syria are now Assad, al-Qaeda, or ISIS.


The Muslim Brotherhood is the fount of Sunni terror (and Iran, Shia terror).  Al-Qaeda (and others) were formed by Moslem Brotherhood members. Hamas sprung from the MB, and CAIR is the Hamas front group in the US.  CAIR and the MB have visited Obama's White House literally hundreds of times, and there are at least a half dozen MB members working at the Departments of State and Homeland Security.

I very much doubt Obama has given up - he is going to do what he can to help al-Qaeda in Syria.  This is another opportunity to do that.  He may not say it in so many words today, but be very suspicious if he asks for a 'blank check', or arms or other help for the 'rebels' in Syria.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

...this hard-core far-Leftist determined to inflict as much damage on us and our allies as possible.

So you're flat out accusing the President of deliberately trying to damage the U.S. and our allies.  That's pretty strong stuff; many would call that treason.  Are you?

...CAIR and the MB have visited Obama's White House literally hundreds of times

Hundreds of times seems like a bit of a stretch.  Do you have the evidence?  And Republican members of Congress have also met with the MB, notably Senators McCain and Graham, they also must be determined to "inflict as much damage on us and our allies as possible."

...there are at least a half dozen MB members working at the Departments of State and Homeland Security.

Can you name one?  Or do you just have a list of names in a briefcase?

And if Obama is hellbent on destroying this country, why isn't that reflected in the stock markets?  I've actively and fairly successfully played the markets for close to twenty years, and if the powers that be had the slightest fear that he was going to bring down the country, deliberately or otherwise, we would be seeing some serious panic instead of record high index levels.

[albrecht]

"Advisers" almost never works out. Recall last month the people we were "advising" killed a general during "advising?" Recall the escalation of Vietnam? Neither does arming Muslims (the ISIS/ISIL/IS today got many of their weapons from when we were supporting the "Arab Spring" radicals and from the Iraqi troops that we "advised.") More "advisors," not fighting, but "advising" means more "green on blue" attacks, more hostages, and more escalation. Why not just let Assad take care of business? Or the Kurds? Or even the Iranians and the Shites? Why does American blood need to be shed? Or if you are serious about the threat of radical Islam than REALLY go in, take care of business, and stay there (at least get a "status of force" agreement.) And deal with the funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. On the anniversary of 911 maybe it is time to address that problem? Stop funding madrases, radicals, terrorists, Palestinian groups, etc by those "royal" families? But I would rather take care of ourselves and our borders.

Bad Obama: go play golf and stop with politics and foreign policy. If you must try to help our national security how about putting "advisers" on our open-border and stop shuttling illegals (often criminal or diseased) into our cities and to flow across our open-border?

(But you know Bush is laughing to himself as how the press contorts itself to keep praising Obama as he starts a new war- or at least publicly declares it, as the Benghazi gun-running operation anniversary is tomorrow and the CIA has been helping Islamic "rebels", who often turn sides, for some time.)

[Rudolf Zlabinger]

Ok, lets continue, it seems to be interest though.

First I am calmed a bit recognizing that the worlds leaders also in the Arabic world are preparing to resist IS. Whoever by whatever fights against IS is my hero, beginning with your president.

Defeating ISIS however is only a puzzle, though a very important one, of the big irrational conflict between the poor people in the world and the rich one, that is not restricted to the Islamic world, and the main symptom is terrorism, as long this envious complex exists.

One part of this problem I try to hit by my topic "Africa´s redemption". a desperate attempt to approach a form of solution, as alfred already mentioned. The Chinese way, to take their money, going to the location where the money should work and building step by step an economy in Africa  is also a successful approach.

But the Chinese way does not help the people in stopping the parasitic elites and caring attentive for these children, as they are, but dangerous enough to bear terroristic monsters as soon they get weapons in their hands. More they cannot achieve, left alone they die, because they are unable to live alone.

So we should solve the worlds problems one by one, our planet will never be a paradise, but so livable as it lies in our abilities.

[FightTheFuture]

This is almost painful to watch, as Carney feels obliged to tow the old company lie against McCain who is in full command of the facts


FULL Heated Exchange: McCain vs. Jay Carney on CNN - 9/10/2014

[SciFiAuthor]

Ok, lets continue, it seems to be interest though.

First I am calmed a bit recognizing that the worlds leaders also in the Arabic world are preparing to resist IS. Whoever by whatever fights against IS is my hero, beginning with your president.

Defeating ISIS however is only a puzzle, though a very important one, of the big irrational conflict between the poor people in the world and the rich one, that is not restricted to the Islamic world, and the main symptom is terrorism, as long this envious complex exists.

One part of this problem I try to hit by my topic "Africa´s redemption". a desperate attempt to approach a form of solution, as alfred already mentioned. The Chinese way, to take their money, going to the location where the money should work and building step by step an economy in Africa  is also a successful approach.

But the Chinese way does not help the people in stopping the parasitic elites and caring attentive for these children, as they are, but dangerous enough to bear terroristic monsters as soon they get weapons in their hands. More they cannot achieve, left alone they die, because they are unable to live alone.

So we should solve the worlds problems one by one, our planet will never be a paradise, but so livable as it lies in our abilities.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I bet we could eventually make it into a paradise. The western world just needs to get everyone else on the same page, which we were doing pretty well with until recently. But then it somehow all fell apart. All of a sudden we have ISIS bringing 9th century politics back and Putin acting like it's 1936.

We just don't do things like we used to. Where is the UN? Why aren't we all in the UN talking about ISIS and forming a coalition to defeat them and then sending in peacekeepers on humanitarian grounds? That's what we would have done in 1991. It was flawed, but it mostly worked ok. Yet the UN seems to be out to lunch. Granted, Obama's making the right decision in stepping up airstrikes, but it's going to take more than that to defeat ISIS. You'd think we'd have a more effective way of dealing with this, like we did in 1991 in Iraq.

[FightTheFuture]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I bet we could eventually make it into a paradise. The western world just needs to get everyone else on the same page, which we were doing pretty well with until recently. But then it somehow all fell apart. All of a sudden we have ISIS bringing 9th century politics back and Putin acting like it's 1936.

We just don't do things like we used to. Where is the UN? Why aren't we all in the UN talking about ISIS and forming a coalition to defeat them and then sending in peacekeepers on humanitarian grounds? That's what we would have done in 1991. It was flawed, but it mostly worked ok. Yet the UN seems to be out to lunch. Granted, Obama's making the right decision in stepping up airstrikes, but it's going to take more than that to defeat ISIS. You'd think we'd have a more effective way of dealing with this, like we did in 1991 in Iraq.

I certainly agree about the United Nations bit. But, we are trying to build a coalition of the "anybody but us".

I do think there will be 10 to 15 thousand of our troops on the ground by the end of the year. I simply see no other way to accomplish what we need to do, without that minimum force.

[albrecht]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/us/james-foley-mother/index.html
""I think our efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance" to the U.S. government, Diane Foley told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that aired Thursday. "

[SciFiAuthor]

I certainly agree about the United Nations bit. But, we are trying to build a coalition of the "anybody but us".

I do think there will be 10 to 15 thousand of our troops on the ground by the end of the year. I simply see no other way to accomplish what we need to do, without that minimum force.

That's my sense of it too, it seems to be getting harder and harder to avoid sending in troops. I mean, we can sit and watch how the Peshmerga do with British weaponry and see if real gains can be made, but the longer we wait the chances increase that Assad will start lobbing mustard gas, Iran will increase involvement, and more atrocities will occur, or ISIS will continue to grow stronger and bigger. And then there's the matter of Turkey, a NATO member. If things spill into their borders, which it basically already has to a small degree, then mutual defense clauses come into play. 

[albrecht]

That's my sense of it too, it seems to be getting harder and harder to avoid sending in troops. I mean, we can sit and watch how the Peshmerga do with British weaponry and see if real gains can be made, but the longer we wait the chances increase that Assad will start lobbing mustard gas, Iran will increase involvement, and more atrocities will occur, or ISIS will continue to grow stronger and bigger. And then there's the matter of Turkey, a NATO member. If things spill into their borders, which it basically already has to a small degree, then mutual defense clauses come into play.

Not too long ago Assad, in particular his beautiful wife, were the toast of the town. So liberal etc for the Middle-East, protecting religious minorities, etc. Then, suddenly, he turned into the ultimate bad guy. So he has relations with Iran? So he has support of Russia? I would rather let Assad take back his territory and wipe out the likes of ISIL/ISIS/IS and Al Qaeda. These Arab Spring radicals that we support and arm too often turn crazy and fundamentalist. I'm getting convinced that Muslims, or the vast majority of them in the Arab world, need to have a strong leader who (basically) keeps them inline. They don't want democracy and cannot practice it. Take away the strong-man and it descends into internecine conflict, family feuds, Sunni/Shia clashes, genocides, etc.
Make the Saudis and the Qatar "royal" families pay to clean up this mess and defend themselves from the Islamic radical beast that they have unleashed. They fund most of the radicalism around the world with their schools and backwards (or even more backwards) version of Islam.

[paladin1991]

Make the Saudis and the Qatar "royal" families pay to clean up this mess and defend themselves from the Islamic radical beast that they have unleashed. They fund most of the radicalism around the world with their schools and backwards (or even more backwards) version of Islam.

Fucking A Skippy.

These assholes should pay.  ISIS will run through them like shit through a goose.  Beheading MoFo's left and right.  They can't stop this special kind of crazy fundamental BS without the US or a US lead coalition.

That being said, up thread it was said 15,000 + troops, shit, if you think the US military has that kind of restraint, I'll sell you some prime Kansas coastal prop where the surf breaks to the North and the South.  Another chance to go in with the latest gen of toys?  America, Fuck Yeah! 

Where this all went wrong was back with Bush 1, he should have let us drive all the way thru Bahgdad to the Northern borders.  The Arab world would have not supported it?  Fuck 'em.  We had the ppl and weps to fix their fucking wagons, as well. 

If we had prosecuted '91 like WW2 we wouldn't have this situation today.  We have been too damned civilized to conduct a war like a war.  War is a motherfucker.  I'm sure I'm not the only one on this board who has 'been there.'  The only way to conclude a war is as brutally and quickly as possible.  Make the fuckers fear you. 

Then, let the Israelis police the Northern continent.  Rise up in Gaza?  Rise up in Jeddah?  Ramadi?  Burn those cities to the ground, drive the ppl out, never to return.  The Fundies want to get Biblical?  We can play that game too. 
 
Let me quote that great American sage, Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

[albrecht]

Fucking A Skippy.

These assholes should pay.  ISIS will run through them like shit through a goose.  Beheading MoFo's left and right.  They can't stop this special kind of crazy fundamental BS without the US or a US lead coalition.

If we had prosecuted '91 like WW2 we wouldn't have this situation today.  We have been too damned civilized to conduct a war like a war.  War is a motherfucker.  I'm sure I'm not the only one on this board who has 'been there.'  The only way to conclude a war is as brutally and quickly as possible.  Make the fuckers fear you. 

Then, let the Israelis police the Northern continent.  Rise up in Gaza?  Rise up in Jeddah?  Ramadi?  Burn those cities to the ground, drive the ppl out, never to return.  The Fundies want to get Biblical?  We can play that game too. 
 
Let me quote that great American sage, Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

I agree, to a point. You still need logistics, money, and WILL especially when fighting an offensive war on someone's else land. Look at the Soviets. They were pretty brutal in Afghanistan but still couldn't win.

And they went pretty far "fighting fire with fire" and were pretty brutal fighting brutal people. Sad to say, but in their world "fear" is their daily bread. If not fighting outside forces the people in these regions resort to fighting themselves for various sectarian, sect, family, feuds, etc. They won't be cowed or change their strategy and behavior, like maybe much of the Western World would, by some beheadings etc.

Not to be TOO cynical but it could be "our" strategy to continue destabilization of the region. It helps fund military sales (to all sides and parties and countries afraid of the Muslim menace or to "royal" families in charge of a few rich countries over there), keeps energy prices volatile (liked by banks, not so much big producers- but the XOMs of the world can handle), and by attrition helps kill off crazies and Muslims. Not saying true but....it is odd how we never want to "win" or finish the game and how we change allies and partners so often. (And why do we support "arab spring" radicals that turn into ISIL/ISIS/SI?)