I'm not so sure we can ever make it right. I think the best we can do is keep them from doing all those things you think they want to do.
I'm not so sure we can ever make it right. I think the best we can do is keep them from doing all those things you think they want to do.That is an excellent and necessary question and I've been thinking about it. I can tell you that ISIL isn't "just" a terrorist organization. It's announced intentions which it has been pursuing is a Caliphate, a nation that would execute anyone who does not bow to their government. I can tell you that it is not crying out for ignorant martyrs to bomb buildings with no regard to it's goals. No, it's malicious and intelligent. Rather than hoping for aid from sympathetic sources it is working on becoming a regional financial by the forced acquisition of resources. It is self financing and money buys a great deal of power. It ultimately wants religious control, but not for religion sake, but for complete control. ISIL and Saudi Arabia are Sunni, but the former will kill the latter if possible to gain that ultimate power. This goes way beyond anything Al Qaeda wanted, and they were a demonstrable threat. An unopposed ISIL is a disaster in the making, for us, those in the region, and the West in general. The region is of vital importance and it is entirely possible, probable perhap, that they could ultimately shut down ME oil with a resulting economic collapse. There is little evil I can imagine that I believe would be off limits to them if they feel the desire and have the means.
There's all that and I think the argument for the destructive will and potential of ISIL is a good one.
But the real reason I entertain substantial military action happened at 0315 GMT on 19 March 2003. That was the moment where the US declared war on Iraq. That was the beginning of something based on untruths which ultimately unleashed ISIL on the region. We broke Iraq and we bought it. Much ill happens elsewhere, such as in Africa, but what people face in and around Iraq is in great part our fault. So yes I could say it's their problem and leave it at that, but we owe them in ways we cannot repay. Done with careful consideration the removal of ISIL outweighs the accompanying destruction. That's a very cold and calculating statement on my part, but the world is not amenable to arrests and trials. Sanctions, diplomacy, all of that are entirely alien to the mentality of those who go about beheading by the hundreds because they can.
So for me it's mostly about a sense of duty and responsibility to people we supposedly went in to liberate. Lie or not, we went in and are morally obligated to aid where we can.
Just how, when, where, and to what degree that action takes is not something I'm going to guess, but I think we'd better be serious about making things as right as we can.
Damned well said, sir, for both posts. I'll add a question though - CAN we win? A significant part of Iraq (and every Islamic nation) sides with ISIS. We're cutting our military drastically. Our allies are mostly paralyzed by their own radical Muslim populations. The resources we're willing to use are difficult to effectively use without extensive boots on the ground intelligence, and we've learned over and over that when we use locals for intel they mostly target those with whom they have a grudge or in whose removal they see a personal advantage. If we cannot win, then we're better off abandoning them now than fighting ISIS for years only to turn over our allies to their brutal reign. We say we have a ready-made ground force in the Kurds, but we both might be better off strengthening the Kurds as a strong de facto nation than in attempting to use them as our proxy and possibly leaving them too weak to withstand ISIS in their own lands. He who would protect everything, protects nothing. The only thing of which I am absolutely sure is that I'm glad it's Obama who must decide and not me, 'cause either way a lot of good people are going to die and he'll never know if he made the right call.That is an excellent and necessary question and I've been thinking about it. I can tell you that ISIL isn't "just" a terrorist organization. It's announced intentions which it has been pursuing is a Caliphate, a nation that would execute anyone who does not bow to their government. I can tell you that it is not crying out for ignorant martyrs to bomb buildings with no regard to it's goals. No, it's malicious and intelligent. Rather than hoping for aid from sympathetic sources it is working on becoming a regional financial by the forced acquisition of resources. It is self financing and money buys a great deal of power. It ultimately wants religious control, but not for religion sake, but for complete control. ISIL and Saudi Arabia are Sunni, but the former will kill the latter if possible to gain that ultimate power. This goes way beyond anything Al Qaeda wanted, and they were a demonstrable threat. An unopposed ISIL is a disaster in the making, for us, those in the region, and the West in general. The region is of vital importance and it is entirely possible, probable perhap, that they could ultimately shut down ME oil with a resulting economic collapse. There is little evil I can imagine that I believe would be off limits to them if they feel the desire and have the means.
There's all that and I think the argument for the destructive will and potential of ISIL is a good one.
But the real reason I entertain substantial military action happened at 0315 GMT on 19 March 2003. That was the moment where the US declared war on Iraq. That was the beginning of something based on untruths which ultimately unleashed ISIL on the region. We broke Iraq and we bought it. Much ill happens elsewhere, such as in Africa, but what people face in and around Iraq is in great part our fault. So yes I could say it's their problem and leave it at that, but we owe them in ways we cannot repay. Done with careful consideration the removal of ISIL outweighs the accompanying destruction. That's a very cold and calculating statement on my part, but the world is not amenable to arrests and trials. Sanctions, diplomacy, all of that are entirely alien to the mentality of those who go about beheading by the hundreds because they can.
So for me it's mostly about a sense of duty and responsibility to people we supposedly went in to liberate. Lie or not, we went in and are morally obligated to aid where we can.
Just how, when, where, and to what degree that action takes is not something I'm going to guess, but I think we'd better be serious about making things as right as we can.
Maybe instead of bitching about Obama's lack of foreign policy re: ISIS we should just be glad the Messiah is spending his time on the links rather than in the Situation Room
On Saturday, Fox News Channel’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine” host Jeanine Pirro slammed President Obama’s “weak, wimpy” response to the beheading of journalist James Foley. “President Obama's response in both words, and action, to the beheading of American James Foley was so weak, wimpy, and pathetic that it's embarrassing” she declared. And “Americans are justifiably outraged and wonder if you are disengaged, tired, overworked, bored, or just clueless. But then again, at this point, what difference does it make? What difference do you make? What difference can you make?”
Pirro also criticized Obama’s attempt to blame the intelligence community, and his claims that the US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, saying “you, Mr. President, fist bump your friends within minutes on the golf course? You are so weak.
Getting a bit odd out there, don't ya think.Damned well said, sir, for both posts. I'll add a question though - CAN we win? A significant part of Iraq (and every Islamic nation) sides with ISIS. We're cutting our military drastically. Our allies are mostly paralyzed by their own radical Muslim populations. The resources we're willing to use are difficult to effectively use without extensive boots on the ground intelligence, and we've learned over and over that when we use locals for intel they mostly target those with whom they have a grudge or in whose removal they see a personal advantage. If we cannot win, then we're better off abandoning them now than fighting ISIS for years only to turn over our allies to their brutal reign. We say we have a ready-made ground force in the Kurds, but we both might be better off strengthening the Kurds as a strong de facto nation than in attempting to use them as our proxy and possibly leaving them too weak to withstand ISIS in their own lands. He who would protect everything, protects nothing. The only thing of which I am absolutely sure is that I'm glad it's Obama who must decide and not me, 'cause either way a lot of good people are going to die and he'll never know if he made the right call.
One other point - we have a history of our meddling in the Islamic world turning back on us. We fund the Afghans to stop the Russians short of Pakistan, and some of them morph into al Qaeda. Obama arms the supposed moderates in Syrian and Libya and they morph into ISIS/ISIL. Maybe instead of bitching about Obama's lack of foreign policy re: ISIS we should just be glad the Messiah is spending his time on the links rather than in the Situation Room before we find we've funded a freakin' Death Star.
And you really have no clue.Obama does what his handlers want him to do.
I'm not sure if it's like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nU9QSNoq_qY
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248877/obama%E2%80%99s-communist-mentor-paul-kengor/page/0/2?splash=
or he answers to the muslim brotherhood..
or a combination of both.
He was raised Communist for 9 of the most formative years of his life by his father.
I suspect that the response to both possible responses to most political decisions are written at the same time.Your response to that eventuality has already been written:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/23/Pirro-Obama-Weak-Wimpy-on-ISIS
What can I say, I'm a wordy old fart.Getting a bit odd out there, don't ya think.
I'm not making light of it, just no need to repeat most things.
What can I say, I'm a wordy old fart.
I suspect that the response to both possible responses to most political decisions are written at the same time.
Oh.I wasn't being critical, you had pretty much typed what I would have more or less all ready, I meant to say
I project things wrong now and then I guess, I've never been fantastic on my communication skills.
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
What kind of clue do you have?And you really have no clue.
Shouldn't even be trying to comment, same old drivel.
You sound 6 years out of date, at least, and someone that never reads anything informative than ingesting old BS from talk radio.
He's got a point though. This is exactly what was said about Bush, though for slightly different reasons. The reality is a bit more nuanced. The President (whomever he may be) has no one who can tell him he cannot do something or must do something. He does have people who can and do give him very good reasons to do something, and very good reasons to not do that thing (or do its opposite), and political reasons why he should do something or not.What kind of clue do you have?
All I see is an insult and a .gif
Let me explain a little further:Obama has no interest in protecting the American people.
It is not something he wants or would like to do.
As for being 6 years out of date:That book was just released this week.
Obama does what his handlers want him to do.
I'm not sure if it's like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nU9QSNoq_qY
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248877/obama’s-communist-mentor-paul-kengor/page/0/2?splash=
or he answers to the muslim brotherhood..
or a combination of both.
He was raised Communist for 9 of the most formative years of his life by his father.