"Corepsman."
If you can't argue my points but rather belittle me with nonsensical BS like spelling typos, then frankly you lost!
Personally, if I were President I would consult with my advisers, Pentagon, CIA, etc and build a coalition with countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and quit a few others.
I would terminate Assad and let people who want peace create a new government. Unlike Iraq, troop presence must precisest. I would also build a military base in Iraq. We need a foot hold in the middle east this post 9/11.
This shit isn't improving folks and we can't afford to have a lazy faire attitude with the threat of a caliphate.
In order to be a good leader some toes have to be stepped on and I know many here just got their toes stepped on and will be quoting me by saying, "look at Iraq" and crap. Iraq was a failure because Obozo made it a damn failure. Once you commit to something you stay the course. Now the vacuum was filled with ISIS. Same for Afghanistan.
I really don't have all the Intel. etc that a Commander In Chief has. But based on Obozo's past and now with the altering Intel reports from some 50 annalist's my money is on the fact this guy (The President) has very little appetite for war and lacks leadership on the global stage.
"The bottom line is: Our allies can't trust us, our enemies don't fear us- and you can't blame that on Bush." - Lt Col. Ralph Peters
I know this will become and election football to kick around. I fail to see how this is bad news. Nobody wants to be in Syria, Russians aren't going to tolerate ISIS.
I know Assad is an evil bastard and Russia is there to prop him up
I know Syria won't be a free place afterward but its not free now
I know Russia's interests don't involve helping refugee's
I don't see an immediate downside to this. Someone educate me please.
Point is nobody likes your solution. That is a big part of why Obama was elected, why nearly no voter cared about the Iraq withdrawal too.
I get your point that there are times to be a hawk. I don't agree Syria is one of those times.
If Russia wants to take the hits to stabilize that shit show good for them.
A coalition between arab states with their own sectarian and regional political agendas that have helped create the current situation. If it didn't work the first time try try try again.
Iraq, quite frankly would welcome our boots on the ground. When I say people who want peace I don't mean Assad stays and I sure as hell don't mean ISIS stays. It's a bad gang vs a bad gang. The people who are fleeing Syria would be the ones to allow a better government for themselves.Such military action would require Congress to authorize the President to use force to that end, unless you want to end up impeached. Also the fall of the Assad regime would now almost certainly hand what's left of Syria over to ISIS. Iraq would need to consent to such basing under their terms…which is why we don't have one there now.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014...-lying-about-iraq-status-of-forces-agreement/Obama withdrew from Iraq per the the set plans of his predecessor under the US-IRAQ SOFA (status of forces agreement).
When we went to Iraq, Gaddafi said he would give up his WMD. Now if that simple fact doesn't reflect a stance of leadership I don't know what does. Russia is constantly testing us, invaded Ukraine and now you have ISIS. Something ain't right here.Just because he hasn't invaded everything that looks at us sideways doesn't mean he's weak. A lack of bellicose rhetoric hasn't kept him from being President Death From Above wrt the drone program or expanding/defending intelligence operations that are highly questionable.
Yep!Meaningless drivel.
Are you high? So all Muslims are radical? The ball is in Obozo's court and there are many Arab nations that would partner with us if Obozo had the testicular fortitude.
Iraq, quite frankly would welcome our boots on the ground. When I say people who want peace I don't mean Assad stays and I sure as hell don't mean ISIS stays. It's a bad gang vs a bad gang. The people who are fleeing Syria would be the ones to allow a better government for themselves.
When we went to Iraq, Gaddafi said he would give up his WMD. Now if that simple fact doesn't reflect a stance of leadership I don't know what does. Russia is constantly testing us, invaded Ukraine and now you have ISIS. Something ain't right here.
Do I need to mention Obozo's altering of Intel data and his lack of attending CIA briefings. The man just doesn't give a shit.
Propping up the Assad regime is the least shitty outcome in this conflict. Our idea that collapsing the regime and anybody but ISIS comes to power is some serious delusion. Air Force One has to be making daily runs to CO for tons of weeds for this policy to make any sense.
But we are too effing stubborn or stupid to back off and let Syrias regime take care of their own problem.
Are you high? So all Muslims are radical? The ball is in Obozo's court and there are many Arab nations that would partner with us if Obozo had the testicular fortitude.
Iraq, quite frankly would welcome our boots on the ground. When I say people who want peace I don't mean Assad stays and I sure as hell don't mean ISIS stays. It's a bad gang vs a bad gang. The people who are fleeing Syria would be the ones to allow a better government for themselves.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014...-lying-about-iraq-status-of-forces-agreement/
When we went to Iraq, Gaddafi said he would give up his WMD. Now if that simple fact doesn't reflect a stance of leadership I don't know what does. Russia is constantly testing us, invaded Ukraine and now you have ISIS. Something ain't right here.
Yep!
Do I need to mention Obozo's altering of Intel data and his lack of attending CIA briefings. The man just doesn't give a shit.
PS. Iran? LMFAO!^10
Russia's increasing participation is bad news IMO.
That is a highly volatile region and interjecting large outside nations who have differing agendas is a recipe for big problems. There are already numerous opposing factions/interests operating there. 'Turbo charging' the situation with powerful outside countries aligning themselves with different players who are in opposition to each other is how some major wars have begun.
Imagine this 'cocktail':
1.Taliban/AQ/ISIS/ISIL - Sunnis who hate Shi'a, us and everybody else.
2. Iran - Shi'a who hate Sunnis, AQ/ISIS etc, us, and most countries in the region.
3. The USA - enemies of Iran/Assad, ISIS and Russia.
4. Russia - Supporters of the Iran & Syria/Assad group and opponents of the USA and the many countries in that region opposed to Iran.
Add in the arms buildup that Obama and Putin are doing and this could potential lead to something resembling WWIII (as some European leaders have recently been expressing publicly).
Oh, and Turkey is basically in a civil war, or damn near, right now. I guess the Kurds should be added in with the other 'ingredients' mentioned above.
Everybody has long known that Israel lives in a 'bad neighborhood'; it's now getting much worse, rapidly.
Fern
Spread the fear, brother.
If we think about it at all, we've been Israel's dupe all through our recent adventures in the Middle East because they're the only ones who benefit.
-snip-
Yes, because the global economy, of which we are a large part, will get by just dandy-doo if/when fighting causes ME oil to go offline.
I just have no, no idea why it would be in the USA's best interest to keep a lid on the place.
(And our recent lack of effort there hasn't had any other negative consequences, has it? Good thing unfettered illegal immigration and refugees hasn't begun. huh? We'll be enjoying the 'fruits' of Obama's ME foreign policy for many many years to come.)
Fern
You'll have to forgive Jhhnn. He hates Israel and the GOP so nearly all of his rants regarding the ME have to include shitting on one, or preferably, both. It's the way he's built. It's the way most partisan assholes are built, and that includes the assholes from both sides.What does Israel have to do with the shit the US created in Iraq? Destabilizing the region and getting rid of dictators works against EVERYONE's interests in the area.
Do you really think the barbarian hordes composed of ISIS and multiple other organizations will stop and say "mission accomplished" once they're in total control of Syria?
The fall of Iraq only served to strengthen Iran's position and fuel the endless Sunni-Shiite war, which is basically what the ME is all about. Not oil, not land, not countries or borders. Just Islamic sect violence that will end when one side is dead.
The thing is, US leadership just doesn't "get" the ME.
Best thing to do would be to stay out of it - completely! That includes "advisors" helping rebels and similar stuff. It will only bite you back one day!
ISIS had reached Damascus. Syria is on the verge of falling. _ENTIRELY_
Instead of handing Syria over to ISIS, Russia has stepped in to hold the last line of defense. Maybe the United States should be helping them.
ISIS had reached Damascus. Syria is on the verge of falling. _ENTIRELY_
Instead of handing Syria over to ISIS, Russia has stepped in to hold the last line of defense. Maybe the United States should be helping them.
Daesh even has a working air force there ?
Russia must be slacking off.
I think they captured an airport once. Might have grabbed a couple of helicopters and an old jet or two.
But hey, new missile defense system and don't forget the naval maneuvers. A Russian line has been drawn. Youbetcha!
Assad is gone. It's just a question of how broken Syria will be when he's finally either dead or in exile.
You'll have to forgive Jhhnn. He hates Israel and the GOP so nearly all of his rants regarding the ME have to include shitting on one, or preferably, both. It's the way he's built. It's the way most partisan assholes are built, and that includes the assholes from both sides.
Syria: 1000 Iranian Marines Join Russian Troops in Jablah Base
Don't know why you think this will be the full extent of military build up in Syria. You don't make this investment with the intent to lose your time, effort, and soldier's lives.
I mean... are you really wish casting them to lose the war because you... what, want ISIS to win? That is what is on the verge of happening. United States policy needs to be to help Russia / Iran / Syria / Anyone Else DESTROY ISIS. Syria should absolutely not be handed over to genocidal terrorism.
You think of this war as "house to house" and 100k troops, but that's not how it should be fought. That's how the US played policeman over in Iraq and that's how you lose a war. I can only hope that these military units take off the kid gloves and teach you what winning looks like. A real military leader will be there for killing the enemy, not playing policeman on the streets with their soldiers' lives.
ISIS is a mere militia, easily dispatched on the battlefield.
There is no excuse good enough for their continued existence.
Agreed. If we really want to defeat ISIS - and I don't believe Obama has made that decision - then training "freedom fighters" won't work. We need trained soldiers, preferably other nations' trained soldiers. We have to use Arab humint coupled with our signal and electronic intercepts to guarantee that ISIS' leaders have no safe haven, so any public appearance or radio commands leads to a missile or bomb dropping in. When those leaders have to send and receive info via circuitous routes, we can easily get inside their decision cycle, which coupled with aggressive ground action means ISIS is constantly making poor military decisions. But that requires working with Russia and, gasp, Iran. Their troops have to be the ones on the ground. We need to either acknowledge this and cut the deal, or back out of Syria, decide how much of Iraq is salvageable, and defend that. Turkey is only concerned with ISIS as a means of legitimizing its strikes against Kurdish separatists, Egypt has its hands full domestically, the Saudis only care about threats to themselves, and the rest of the Arab world lacks the power to make any difference. It's Russia (and with them, their Iranian ally) or it's nothing. I'm okay with either, but Obama needs to pick a lane.Syria: 1000 Iranian Marines Join Russian Troops in Jablah Base
Don't know why you think this will be the full extent of military build up in Syria. You don't make this investment with the intent to lose your time, effort, and soldier's lives.
I mean... are you really wish casting them to lose the war because you... what, want ISIS to win? That is what is on the verge of happening. United States policy needs to be to help Russia / Iran / Syria / Anyone Else DESTROY ISIS. Syria should absolutely not be handed over to genocidal terrorism.
You think of this war as "house to house" and 100k troops, but that's not how it should be fought. That's how the US played policeman over in Iraq and that's how you lose a war. I can only hope that these military units take off the kid gloves and teach you what winning looks like. A real military leader will be there for killing the enemy, not playing policeman on the streets with their soldiers' lives.
ISIS is a mere militia, easily dispatched on the battlefield.
There is no excuse good enough for their continued existence.
Or, as in this case, when the messenger's messages are always bug-ass stupid.When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.