Deranged Rhino Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Sounds specious. After the great lengths we went to to collect "rogue" Stingers in the past decade, we abandon crates of them pulling out of Iraq? Wouldn't surprise me if ISIL had some...but I highly doubt they found them laying around. I would be entirely unsurprised to find out we supplied them for use in Syria, in fact. And airliners are more resilient than people think. A Stinger might be able to down one, but it's not likely. That would make sense. I just stumbled across a link to that story so I have no idea if it's a reputable source. Your scenario sounds far more plausible to me.
truth on hold Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 That would make sense. I just stumbled across a link to that story so I have no idea if it's a reputable source. Your scenario sounds far more plausible to me. Raises the other question though what weapons are they using? The guns, RPGs, etc you see them with ... where were they made? How did they get them? Who trained them how to use the more sophisticated ones?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Raises the other question though what weapons are they using? The guns, RPGs, etc you see them with ... where were they made? How did they get them? Who trained them how to use the more sophisticated ones? Looks like a lot of ak47s. Ak74s RPKs and RPGs. Typical armament for 3rd world terrorists and militias. Very common As tom said good chance some of their equipment came supplied by us either in benghazi or via syria.
B-Man Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/16/9-quotes-from-obamas-2011-remarks-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-iraq-that-show-his-total-lack-of-foresight/ 9 quotes from Obama’s 2011 “Remarks on the End of the War in Iraq” that show his total lack of foresight by Mary Katherine Ham From his speech given Dec. 14, 2011 at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. FTA: Here’s the thing. I’m quite aware that the American appetite for interventionism is close to nil. Some of that is a justified backlash to 10+ years of war and the understandable weariness of our people of the deaths of our fellow Americans in those conflicts. While I think it’s important to learn lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, I also think it’s a fool’s move to become entirely disengaged from the region. As I noted up top, if you had a choice, you’d choose 2011 Iraq over pretty much every other major Middle Eastern country post-Arab Spring when you’re considering the security of Americans and American interests. Given the low tolerance of Americans for interventionism, wouldn’t it have been smarter to try to preserve the residual force in relatively stable (by Obama’s own admission) Iraq, which had the bonus of being a Congressionally authorized endeavor, instead of wasting that tiny bit of good will on airstrikes in Libya, which was both unauthorized and basically useless? We could have preserved the hard-fought and very real victories we had established in Iraq, earned at the cost of friends’ life and limb. We didn’t. It was forseeable. And, now it’s utterly gut-wrenching to watch it all fall apart. . Edited June 17, 2014 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Looks like a lot of ak47s. Ak74s RPKs and RPGs. Typical armament for 3rd world terrorists and militias. Very common As tom said good chance some of their equipment came supplied by us either in benghazi or via syria. AKs and RPGs you can practically pick up off the ground in the Third World.
B-Man Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 The Obama administration set its agenda for 2014, and it won't let little things like world events get in the way U.S. State Department home page right now: pic.twitter.com/VcVhi9RPu7 Here’s a Tweet from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Monday morning: But the Obama administration has set its agenda for 2014, and it’s not going to let little things like world events get in the way. Obama intends upon running upon climate change, the minimum wage, the need for “common sense” gun control, and workplace equality. He’ll campaign upon the need for “comprehensive immigration reform,” complete with a “path to citizenship,” even though we’re facing a humanitarian crisis on the border from a sudden influx of unattended children — an entirely predictable response to a policy change that provides a path to U.S. citizenship to children who enter the country illegally. And he’ll spend the summer on his traditional golf and fundraising schedule. .
Dante Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Its because of the ongong rift between shia and sunni, and the messed up way British carved up Iraq. So was Saddam so bad or was he a reflection of the elements he had to deal with? I dunno but we sure loved him when he invaded Iran. And seems like every time we install someone else it does get worse .... For us and them. Of course, it's the west's fault. Could it be some cultures are just inclined to be at each others throats like history illustrates? Let them do what they do.
/dev/null Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 AKs and RPGs you can practically pick up off the ground in the Third World. After a background check of course
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Of course, it's the west's fault. Could it be some cultures are just inclined to be at each others throats like history illustrates? Let them do what they do. Bit of both. The post-colonial national boundaries drawn by the West created quite a few unstable or unviable countries because they ignored those cultural differences. But those cultures would still hate each other even if the boundaries were drawn sanely...there's just be more international conflict, and less internal conflict. We also tend to oversimplify things in the West: we see Iran and Iraq, and discount Sunni vs. Shi'ia, and tribe vs. tribe, and Arab vs. Persian differences. We think in terms of international borders and national identity, where a good chunk of the world doesn't. And we simply refuse to understand their point of view - interestingly enough, the Bush administration is one administration that had a relatively good understanding of that, certainly better than the current administration's.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Bit of both. The post-colonial national boundaries drawn by the West created quite a few unstable or unviable countries because they ignored those cultural differences. But those cultures would still hate each other even if the boundaries were drawn sanely...there's just be more international conflict, and less internal conflict. We also tend to oversimplify things in the West: we see Iran and Iraq, and discount Sunni vs. Shi'ia, and tribe vs. tribe, and Arab vs. Persian differences. We think in terms of international borders and national identity, where a good chunk of the world doesn't. And we simply refuse to understand their point of view - interestingly enough, the Bush administration is one administration that had a relatively good understanding of that, certainly better than the current administration's. And despite that "relatively good understanding" the Bush administration still said, "Ah, !@#$ it, we can still make it work if we bomb them back to the stone age first." #shockandawe
Dante Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Bit of both. The post-colonial national boundaries drawn by the West created quite a few unstable or unviable countries because they ignored those cultural differences. But those cultures would still hate each other even if the boundaries were drawn sanely...there's just be more international conflict, and less internal conflict. We also tend to oversimplify things in the West: we see Iran and Iraq, and discount Sunni vs. Shi'ia, and tribe vs. tribe, and Arab vs. Persian differences. We think in terms of international borders and national identity, where a good chunk of the world doesn't. And we simply refuse to understand their point of view - interestingly enough, the Bush administration is one administration that had a relatively good understanding of that, certainly better than the current administration's. I think it's said how these people live but is seems to be what they choose as a culture. And that's fine for them. Just don't blame the US or the west because your religious devotion that dominates your society retards your quality of life. And certainly don't blame us if we don't accept it. Only thing we can and should do is sit back and let them sort out their nonsense. I'm all for undercover monitoring so we can predict and prevent any strikes on us but thats about it. Now if they decide or plan to start doing nukes on us we may have to step it up a bit. As for the current administration, I'm feeling that Obama actually has empathy for them. Somehow in his brain it's our fault for all of this. He's pretty anti US so I'm probably right.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 I think it's said how these people live but is seems to be what they choose as a culture. And that's fine for them. Just don't blame the US or the west because your religious devotion that dominates your society retards your quality of life. And certainly don't blame us if we don't accept it. Only thing we can and should do is sit back and let them sort out their nonsense. I'm all for undercover monitoring so we can predict and prevent any strikes on us but thats about it. Now if they decide or plan to start doing nukes on us we may have to step it up a bit. As for the current administration, I'm feeling that Obama actually has empathy for them. Somehow in his brain it's our fault for all of this. He's pretty anti US so I'm probably right. :lol:
Tiberius Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 - interestingly enough, the Bush administration is one administration that had a relatively good understanding of that, certainly better than the current administration's. Oh whatever. Had they any understanding a all they wouldn't have kicked over this hornets nests to begin with. I remember Condi rice saying how ready for democracy they were, most educated grop in the middle east, oh brother! and Bush talking about the seeds of Democracy in Iraq. They didn't know their butts from holes in the ground over there. I think you turn temporarily insane when Bush is brought up.
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 And despite that "relatively good understanding" the Bush administration still said, "Ah, !@#$ it, we can still make it work if we bomb them back to the stone age first." #shockandawe No, they actually did engage the tribes directly in Afghanistan. Everyone bitched about it because they were using locals to fight...but it actually demonstrated a sound understanding of the realities on the ground. Ditto the latter stages of the occupation of Iraq...the real !@#$-up was treating Iraq as a solid nation-state in the immediate post-invasion period. Which was odd, since they did actually get it right in Afghanistan. Oh whatever. Had they any understanding a all they wouldn't have kicked over this hornets nests to begin with. I remember Condi rice saying how ready for democracy they were, most educated grop in the middle east, oh brother! and Bush talking about the seeds of Democracy in Iraq. They didn't know their butts from holes in the ground over there. I think you turn temporarily insane when Bush is brought up. You're a !@#$ing retard.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 No, they actually did engage the tribes directly in Afghanistan. Everyone bitched about it because they were using locals to fight...but it actually demonstrated a sound understanding of the realities on the ground. Ditto the latter stages of the occupation of Iraq...the real !@#$-up was treating Iraq as a solid nation-state in the immediate post-invasion period. Which was odd, since they did actually get it right in Afghanistan. With Afghanistan you're dead on. I didn't mean to lump that war into Iraq II. The arrogance was more in the idea -- which I bought into at the time, stupidly in hindsight -- that a democracy could be sustained without a permanent US (or allied) presence. It sounds like we agree on that element.
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 With Afghanistan you're dead on. I didn't mean to lump that war into Iraq II. The arrogance was more in the idea -- which I bought into at the time, stupidly in hindsight -- that a democracy could be sustained without a permanent US (or allied) presence. It sounds like we agree on that element. We absolutely agree on that element. It's why I supported the occupation - even if the invasion was a dumbass idea, seeing the occupation through to setting up a viable, stable country was an absolute post-requisite. Otherwise, you end up kicking the can down the road and having to deal with it later. Kind-of like we're seeing now.
Tiberius Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 We absolutely agree on that element. It's why I supported the occupation - even if the invasion was a dumbass idea, seeing the occupation through to setting up a viable, stable country was an absolute post-requisite. Otherwise, you end up kicking the can down the road and having to deal with it later. Kind-of like we're seeing now. This is so stupid. "Seeing the occupation thorough"? That means propping up a regime that was using its and our power to repress the minority. It ties us into a criminal regime, and that's something we needed no part of. The invasion was a stupid idea because there really can't be an end game when these people hate each other so much, want revenge and have no respect for each other. Your occupation forever isn't going to make these people get along. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been interested in Rand Paul's position on Iraq, seems there isn't one: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/rand-paul-keeps-his-iraq-stance-a-mystery.html# Asked by reporters Tuesday morning whether he supported launching U.S. air strikes in Iraq, Paul said he had to get to the Senate floor to vote. Pressed on the issue Tuesday evening, he said, “We’ll talk to you over time, but I’m not going to make any statement on this.” “He’s trying to be very thoughtful on this,” a Paul aide explained to The Daily Beast. “There are no easy solutions.”
Deranged Rhino Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 #Bring Back our Humvees I guess it's a good thing we didn't armor those humvees after all?
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 I've been interested in Rand Paul's position on Iraq, seems there isn't one: http://www.thedailyb...a-mystery.html# Asked by reporters Tuesday morning whether he supported launching U.S. air strikes in Iraq, Paul said he had to get to the Senate floor to vote. Pressed on the issue Tuesday evening, he said, “We’ll talk to you over time, but I’m not going to make any statement on this.”“He’s trying to be very thoughtful on this,” a Paul aide explained to The Daily Beast. “There are no easy solutions.” It refreshing to see a Federal office holder, when he doesn't have enough information to come down on one side or another, or formulate an alternative strategy; thoughtfully admit that to be the case rather than telling a blatant lie, doing what the polls say, or toeing a partisain line, isn't it?
Recommended Posts