reddogblitz Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you fix it". We have an obligation to do the right thing. We never should have pulled all of our troops out in the first place. In doing so we sent a message that we weren't going to stand by Iraq until they could stand by themselves. Regardless, we have a group that wants to kill all infidels trying to take over both Syria and Iraq and possibly Jordan too. They are our enemy. That enemy is attacking a friend that we weakened. Nearly all of the Arab world is afraid of ISIS (Muslim Brotherhood) and I would assume they are ripe for not only a coalition but funding our involvement. With that said, let's fight our enemy over there before they gain any more strength. If only we had a Commander-in-Chief. So how do we "fix it"? Are you proposing 100,000 + troops which it would probably take, plus war ships and Patriot missiles and who knows how many bombing missions? And then when we do kick ISIS out and severely weaken them to the point of being no more a threat, then what? We'd probably need to keep another 50,000 + troop there indefinitely to keep the whole region from blowing up again. We will create another vacuum of power. Who will fill when we leave which we will at some point. Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here. Give them time to build up a new democratic government. As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. This all sounds so familiar. With us now supporting the Kurds and us anointing them the good guys, we have now supported all 3 sects in Iraq. We supported Saddam (Sunni) when he was warring with Iran. We helped the Shiites by kicking Saddam out and giving the majority power. Now we're helping the Kurds. Is this important enough for you to send your son or daughter or mother or father or niece or nephew to go over and fight and die for? I don't know what the answer is and there is probably not a good one. However I really wonder if picking yet another side and going whole hog back into Iraq is it. This is a religious war. More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else. They are used to fighting wars for thousands of years in that part of the world. Should we really get involved? Again, my solution is help the refugees and bring as many back the the US that want to come. Let's fix it that way this time. Wait, but I thought sending people back to their country of origin was racist? I don't have a response to this, but I've been meaning to tell you for a long time. You have the coolest handle of anyone on TBD. /dev/null - Love it. Edited August 16, 2014 by reddogblitz
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 So how do we "fix it"? Are you proposing 100,000 + troops which it would probably take, plus war ships and Patriot missiles and who knows how many bombing missions? And then when we do kick ISIS out and severely weaken them to the point of being no more a threat, then what? We'd probably need to keep another 50,000 + troop there indefinitely to keep the whole region from blowing up again. We will create another vacuum of power. Who will fill when we leave which we will at some point. Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here. Give them time to build up a new democratic government. As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. This all sounds so familiar. With us now supporting the Kurds and us anointing them the good guys, we have now supported all 3 sects in Iraq. We supported Saddam (Sunni) when he was warring with Iran. We helped the Shiites by kicking Saddam out and giving the majority power. Now we're helping the Kurds. Is this important enough for you to send your son or daughter or mother or father or niece or nephew to go over and fight and die for? I don't know what the answer is and there is probably not a good one. However I really wonder if picking yet another side and going whole hog back into Iraq is it. This is a religious war. More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else. They are used to fighting wars for thousands of years in that part of the world. Should we really get involved? Again, my solution is help the refugees and bring as many back the the US that want to come. Let's fix it that way this time. I don't have a response to this, but I've been meaning to tell you for a long time. You have the coolest handle of anyone on TBD. /dev/null - Love it. Obama never followed through on this and that is why we are in the position we are in. His views are naive and designed for his own perceived political reasons.
B-Man Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: The Agony of Obama’s Middle East Policy. As Nouri al-Maliki agreed to step aside earlier this week, and even though the U.S. doesn’t have a lot of confidence (“muted enthusiasm”) in his replacement, President Obama’s reluctant re-engagement with Iraq continued. It has been agonizingly painful for the man who made opposition to the war in Iraq the cornerstone of his national political appeal and who trumpeted his withdrawal from Iraq as a mission accomplished to recommit U.S. forces to the country, but President Obama has had little choice. With Maliki is gone, his choices get harder. The biggest problem is going to involve the fight against ISIS. So far, the administration’s strategy seems to have three main components: bomb ISIS when it goes on the offensive beyond its current holdings, arm the Kurds, and use the carrot of more aid to persuade the Baghdad government to do a somewhat less awful job of running the country—less discrimination against Sunnis, less politicization of the army. The trouble is that all these strategies so far are half hearted—and hedged about with the typical hesitations, restrictions and cautionary measures that are the hallmark of this president’s foreign policy style. Bomb ISIS—but not too much. Help the Kurds—a little. Those policies are more likely to produce a stalemate than anything else, and at this point, a stalemate is a huge ISIS win. Every day ISIS controls huge chunks of territory is another day that hundreds and thousands of radicalized militants will see the ‘caliph’ as their leader. It is another day of collecting taxes, training fighters, teaching bearers of Western passports to carry the fight back into their home countries and otherwise building the legend of ISIS. It is also another day in which ISIS can go on slaughtering moderate Sunni opponents in Syria. The core problem with President Obama’s strategy isn’t, in this case, the ‘split the difference’ approach that undermined his administration’s effectiveness in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It’s about substance. The only way to beat ISIS and bring about some kind of stability in the Middle East is to reach out to conservative Sunni forces who favor stability. In Iraq, this would be the tribal leaders and military figures responsible for the Anbar Awakening. In Syria and Lebanon it is a combination of the remnants of the sane wing of the Syrian opposition with the forces who support people like Hariri in Lebanon. Ultimately, it is about working with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stabilize the Sunni world. This is probably the safest and the most practical course for American policy, but it’s likely that a solid U.S. commitment to this strategy would alienate Iran. Valerie Jarrett wouldn’t like that, so it won’t happen.
Nanker Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Greg Guttfeld said it best: "Obama's foreign policy is like a cheap, really cheap hotel's shower."
Security Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Hahaha, CBS News, Obama will be talking about Ferguson, Iraq
dayman Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215549-reports-isis-beheads-american-journalist ISIS releasing beheading videos of American journalists.
DC Tom Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 http://thehill.com/p...ican-journalist ISIS releasing beheading videos of American journalists. That upsets me only because it wasn't a lawyer.
/dev/null Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 http://thehill.com/p...ican-journalist ISIS releasing beheading videos of American journalists. I have no interest in seeing a person beheaded so I'm not clicking that link But out of curiousity, does the journalist look like he might possibly Obama's son? If not, then really. What difference does it make?
FireChan Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) http://thehill.com/p...ican-journalist ISIS releasing beheading videos of American journalists. Damn. If only he deserted and defected to ISIS. Edited August 20, 2014 by FireChan
....lybob Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 http://thehill.com/p...ican-journalist ISIS releasing beheading videos of American journalists. "Today your military airforce is attacking us daily in Iraq," he says. "You're no longer fighting an insurgency. We are an Islamic army and a state that has been accepted by a large number of Muslims worldwide." They don't really understand the United States, we have trouble fighting terrorists and insurgents but we can destroy an army and a state like nobodies business.
FireChan Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) I have no interest in seeing a person beheaded so I'm not clicking that link But out of curiousity, does the journalist look like he might possibly Obama's son? If not, then really. What difference does it make? Honestly, it looks like something is up with it. I don't know if I'm being a conspiracy nut, but something about it just seems, "off." Even when they grab him, he doesn't look too scared. The ISIS guy also saws at his neck like 3 times and there is no spurt of blood. Then it fades to black and shows his severed head on top of his prone body. Maybe I'm not used to the high video quality or something, but it's a strange video. I realize that many of these things may be coincidences or false expectations. But it's what I first thought. Edited August 20, 2014 by FireChan
truth on hold Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) so the IS guy has a British accent. nice work jerks, looking the other way while these Jihadists were leaving from western countries to fight in Syria. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grb_HHBGhoU&bpctr=1408538254 British national may have beheaded US journalist James Foley LONDON: British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond on Wednesday voiced his "absolute horror" at the apparent beheading of US journalist James Foley, which he said showed the "brutality" of Islamic State jihadists. Hammond said the executioner in the beheading video appeared to be British and work was under way to verify his background. http://timesofindia....ow/40502369.cms Edited August 20, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
Azalin Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 so the IS guy has a British accent. nice work jerks, looking the other way while these Jihadists were leaving from western countries to fight in Syria. well, at least we know he's not one of the ones that the president released from Gitmo.
truth on hold Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 More on the guy in the video and UK's disgraceful record. "The killer, who is clad in black and covers his face during the video, appears to have a London accent, appears to be left-handed and is of average height. At least 400 people are known to have travelled from the UK to Syria and Iraq to fight for Islamic State (IS) - formerly known as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." http://news.sky.com/story/1321932/who-is-briton-who-beheaded-james-foley
B-Man Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 ISIS had recently threatened to kill U.S. journalist James Foley to avenge airstrikes the United States has conducted in Iraq, a senior U.S. official told ABC News,” ABC reporters Arlette Saenz and White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported on Wednesday. The White House had been aware of the threat prior to the release of a video Tuesday night that appears to show the beheading of Foley and warns that militants will carry out a similar act against U.S. journalist Steven Sotloff, who went missing in August. President Obama was briefed on the video aboard Air Force One Tuesday night as he returned to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, from Washington to resume his August vacation. The White House said the intelligence community is working to authenticate the gruesome video that allegedly shows Foley’s beheading. Combined with the unconfirmed revelation that Foley’s killer, an ISIS militant with a pronounced British accent, may have been a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, this is shaping up to be a particularly bad news cycle for the White House .
DC Tom Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 ISIS had recently threatened to kill U.S. journalist James Foley to avenge airstrikes the United States has conducted in Iraq, a senior U.S. official told ABC News,” ABC reporters Arlette Saenz and White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported on Wednesday. What, we couldn't trade five detainees for a reporter?
IDBillzFan Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Combined with the unconfirmed revelation that Foley’s killer, an ISIS militant with a pronounced British accent, may have been a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, this is shaping up to be a particularly bad news cycle for the White House If this guy turns out to be someone released from Gitmo by Obama, it's impossible to imagine the fallout.
DC Tom Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 If this guy turns out to be someone released from Gitmo by Obama, it's impossible to imagine the fallout. "It's not my fault, it's because of Republican obstructionism in Congress." If that happens, watch for the Democrats to start talking impeachment again.
IDBillzFan Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 "It's not my fault, it's because of Republican obstructionism in Congress." If that happens, watch for the Democrats to start talking impeachment again. This post has multiple layers of funny.
Recommended Posts