The United States Has Attacked ISIS

Politics International Politics
101

Hey, everybody. Before we go about stamping out all the evil in the world, we need to clean house at home. Our current administration just isn’t up to the task. The Commander in Chief is utterly delusional. He’s a combination of Neville Chamberlain, Harry Flashman and Philip Francis Queeg, with a lot of Tiger Woods thrown in. He snookered a lot of gullible people into thinking he was a leader with a bunch of neurolinguistic programming and community organizer flimflam. He’s no leader. He’s making it up as he goes along. He’s cranky from the 3AM phone call, and would rather be taking a nap, dreaming about how great he is.

Also, the US military is a mess. It’s been mismanaged for years.

We’re not up to this right now. The world needs to start policing itself for a change. Time for the human race to grow up.

102

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Don’t meddle in areas you have no current intelligence for, or unreliable intelligence.
Don’t make grandiose claims about what your meddling will achieve when the above pertains.

Those are some lessons.

Be humble and realistic over what you can actually achieve.
Know when you are beat.
Honesty is the best policy.
Don’t alienate people on your side because they do not side with you on every issue.

These are good lessons too.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for those lessons…[/quote]

You’re welcome.

103

Right! The Democrats agreed with taking out Saddam until they disagreed.[/quote]

When was that? The 2002 vote was supported by 40% of Dems in the House and 58% of Dems in the Senate- basically they were split.
In 1991 only 18% of Dem Senators and 32% of Dem House members voted in favor, and that was only to drive Saddam out of Kuwait.[/quote]

Nobody is referencing 1991 at the moment. :unamused:

Of course… forgive me for stating the fact in an absolute. Some Dems ideed did not agree. But, many did… the point is that opinion is fickle.

See this Snopes post, as if I really need to cite this… :unamused:[/quote]

There are two quotes in the list supporting action to overthrow Saddam Hussein; both by John Kerry in 2003. As stated in the article, several of the quotes are given while the speaker was arguing against attacking Iraq; others are from before the 1998 “Desert Fox” bombings which according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Shelton and SecDef Cohen “had been successful in degrading Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons”, to which Colin Powell agreed:

[quote]In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: “He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours…On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”.”
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. “Saddam does not control the northern part of the country,” she said. “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
[/quote]
johnpilger.com/articles/colin-po … t-a-threat

Now, if I were to quote these two statements plus something from Ron Paul and say “Republicans were opposed to taking out Saddam Hussein” you would rightly call B.S.- which is what your statement was.

To say you oppose Saddam Hussein having WMD is not to propose taking out Saddam Hussein, any more than to say you oppose North Korea having nuclear weapons is to say you propose “taking out” Kim Jong Un or saying you oppose Russia’s action in the Ukraine is to say you are in favour of “taking out” Putin.

If by your statement you mean " Democrats disliked Saddam Hussein and hoped he would be overthrown and proposed restrictions on his re-armament, but most opposed taking major military action to topple him except for a brief period in Spring of 2003 when a slight majority of Democrats in the Senate and in opinion polls favored it" then, well, yes.

104

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Tigerman”]
Nobody is referencing 1991 at the moment. :unamused:

Of course… forgive me for stating the fact in an absolute. Some Dems ideed did not agree. But, many did… the point is that opinion is fickle.

See this Snopes post, as if I really need to cite this… :unamused:[/quote]

the democrats who voted yes back in 2002 believed in the government intelligence that there would be WMD.[/quote]

Riiiight! So, what better intelligence did we have in 1998 when so many Dems were calling for air strikes to deal with Saddam’s WMD? The only difference I see is in the party of the POTUS sitting in the WH at the time. :laughing:[/quote]

Uh, did you even bother to read the article you linked to?

105

Where does it say that in the Rules?

106

There were plenty of Dems, even big player Dems, who believed that Saddam was a threat.

Which goes to prove my point, which was that public opinion is fickle. Yes, Kerry was supporting the overthrow of Saddam while he was arguing against attacking Iraq… :laughing:

Fickle - Characterized by erratic changeableness or instability, changeable in purpose, likely to change, esp. due to caprice, irresolution, or instability; casually changeable, changing opinions often…

107

No he wasn’t. Obama has been highly reluctant to get the US involved in Syria, even when the Assad regime used chemical weapons. I have no doubt that part of his reluctance is recognition of the fact that who replaces Assad may well be worse.

What a moronic statement. Obama is not “friends” with ISIS. :unamused: He’s currently launching airstrikes to kill members of ISIS.

You’ve cherry-picked one fact, i.e., Obama expressing limited sympathy with the highly diverse group of people who oppose the Assad regime, and morphed it into some bizarre notion that Obama has been long-time allies of ISIS. What an absurd, crazy idea. :loco:

108

Again, what do you get out of this? You’re not contributing, just randomly slamming Obama. You’re not even providing any arguments or evidence, just unfounded assertions. If what you said was even remotely true, Obama would never been elected, much less re-elected.

No it isn’t, and no it hasn’t. If you think it is, make an actual argument and back it up with objective evidence.

109

Supposedly ISIS were so extreme they were rejected by Al Qaeda in Iraq and Jabat Al Nusra, two extreme fundamentalist organisations themeslves. Those two organisations were supposedly partially supported by American money as part of a broader Syrian rebel force. They kicked ISIS out of parts of Syria but it seems ISIS regrouped in weaker Northern Iraq and leveraged the arms and money and support it found there to become a terrifying war machine in the region. With the momentum they are picking up wavering supporters from the other groups who figure out its better to join them than go against them. That they targeted Northern Iraq for money and arms seems pretty obvious in hindsight, somebody put two and two together and figured out it was a small risk for a game changing win. The real aholes are the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and Qataris pumping their blood money into the region spreading their evil religious ethos.

110

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]

No it isn’t, and no it hasn’t. If you think it is, make an actual argument and back it up with objective evidence.[/quote]

Is there anything you’re not in denial about?

military.com/military-report … rif-boards

themilitarywallet.com/army-reduc … 00-troops/

americanelephant.wordpress.com/2 … rrectness/

newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Pol … id/510048/

cnsnews.com/news/article/interna … -political

news.yahoo.com/pentagon-not-read … itics.html

allenbwest.com/2014/02/us-milita … ket-obama/

nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/po … .html?_r=0

reuters.com/article/2014/02/ … IO20140224

washingtontimes.com/news/201 … rrectness/

[quote]Of particular concern, according to the report, is the threat posed by radical Muslims to U.S. military communities. The terror threat to military communities is “severe” and growing. It includes the use of “insiders,” such as Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of carrying out the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.

The report faulted the U.S. military for “political correctness” toward Islam, which the report called a “potentially devastating development” for the security of troops and their families.

The Obama administration “chose political correctness over accurately labeling and identifying certain terrorist attacks appropriately, thereby denying Purple Heart medals to killed and wounded troops in domestic terror attacks,” the report said.

The report stated that the June 2009 shooting attack by a U.S. Muslim convert, Carlos Bledsoe, on a U.S. Army recruiting office in Arkansas highlighted homegrown terrorists’ targeting of military facilities.[/quote]

111

…and derail another thread with nonsense.

112

Speaking of the delusional, here’s another one with zero self awareness:

theatlantic.com/internationa … is/375832/

[quote]Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid s**t” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters).

This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”[/quote]

It would do for a start. But I have a feeling it’s just not actionable for this crowd.

If she were my mother, I’d have Nancy Pelosi wheel her down Skid Row in a shopping cart, screaming “Don’t do stupid s**t!” at passersby.

Ah, well. What difference - at this point - does it make?

113

Rowland,

I don’t respond to context-free links, but let’s look at the one you did quote in favor of your “argument” that the US military is “a complete mess” and “has been for years”.

[quote]Of particular concern, according to the report, is the threat posed by radical Muslims to U.S. military communities. The terror threat to military communities is “severe” and growing. It includes the use of “insiders,” such as Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of carrying out the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.

The report faulted the U.S. military for “political correctness” toward Islam, which the report called a “potentially devastating development” for the security of troops and their families.

The Obama administration “chose political correctness over accurately labeling and identifying certain terrorist attacks appropriately, thereby denying Purple Heart medals to killed and wounded troops in domestic terror attacks,” the report said.

The report stated that the June 2009 shooting attack by a U.S. Muslim convert, Carlos Bledsoe, on a U.S. Army recruiting office in Arkansas highlighted homegrown terrorists’ targeting of military facilities.[/quote]

So your evidence that the US military is a complete mess is…one or two nutcases? As of 2011, there were at least 6,024 Muslims who served in the US military since 9/11, 14 had been killed in action (all in Iraq), and 4 of them are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. They’re heroes, not terrorists. Every military in history has had to deal with soldiers going nuts and killing their own people. The fact that two of them in our history happen to be Muslim doesn’t mean our military is, in your words, a “mess”.

114

Here’s a little advice. Constantly referring to older women you hate and saying, “If she were my mother I’d…” followed by some horrible shit, makes you sound like a total lunatic. You do realize that people are supposed to treat their mothers with love and respect, right? :loco:

115

Anyways, back on topic. The president of Iraq has ousted Maliki and named Haidar al-Abadi as the new prime minister. Maliki is defiant, stating he considers the move unconstitutional. His supporters have vowed to take it to federal court (at least they’re not promising bloodshed, but that may come).

President Obama has stated that he will not provide a timetable for withdraw, but at the same time he’s continuing to promise no troops on the ground, and limited engagement to protect Iraqi minorities from genocide. He has stated that Iraq must solve its own problems. Obama’s Republican opponents have seized the opportunity to call Obama “weak”. Apparently, being “strong” would mean engaging the US in yet another war.

I laugh at the chest-thumping jingoism of the GOP. What tired, trite responses from the Republican partisans. Personally, I am glad that we have a president who exercises caution in drawing the United States into foreign conflicts. I support the decision to stop genocide of the Yazidi people, and I’m glad our humanitarian air drops to them have also been successful. I am fine with continuing air strikes to weaken ISIS and allow the Kurdish peshmerga militia and Iraqi army a chance to regroup and respond. I would not approve of another ground war in Iraq. If the American people want another warmonger, they’ll get their chance in 2016. Until then, the adults are in charge. :thumbsup:

116

Where does it say that in the Rules?[/quote]
It is not a rule.
More like a convention.

117

[quote=“fred smith”]Yes, what did the Democrats believe and when did they believe that they believed it until they stopped believing it because they believed something else… Many, MANY conveniently forget that the US was ALREADY COMMITTED to regime change in Iraq by LAW through the following CONGRESSIONAL ACT passed by ALL Democrats in the Senate and the VAST MAJORITY in the House.

The law allows the US to commit in supporting Iraqi opposition to push for an regime change. It was also necessary because at the time Saddam was being uncooperative with UN inspections. By 2002 Saddam was cooperative and the US invasion is not outlined in the Iraq Liberation Act.

118

So let’s review what we’ve learned so far about the quagmire in Iraq:

  1. Shock and awe started this mess and it’s unlikely it’s going to end it.

  2. Calling something that was 100% wrong ‘intelligence’ is stupid.

  1. And last but not least, don’t use monster fonts, even if it’s not against the rules.
119

Hansioux: Great. You think that Iraq was cooperative in 2002? I would suggest to you that there are 17 UN Resolutions that would disagree. Now, there was disagreement about how to force compliance but not that Saddam was NOT in compliance.

The US was committed to regime change in 1998. In 2002, that “commitment by law” in the form of a Congressional Act/declaration no less was STILL in force. Your interpretations are interesting… to you, but not relevant to this conversation.

GBH: I really struggle to sympathize with those who now tire of the tiresome attacks on Obama’s policy… we all went through this nonsense when W. was president and I think that W.'s policies were MOSTLY right.

Now, I DO AGREE that Obama is wise to stay out of this mess until the Shias and especially Al Maliki agree to reach out to the Sunnis otherwise any involvement on our part would be pointless. Perhaps, he was wise to let this fall apart to the degree that it has to show the Iraqi administration that we will not a) do everything and anything to save it; b) allow Iran to get involved to show just what it is capable of or more important what it is incapable of and thus remind the Iraqi leadership that it had better be a bit more circumspect in its choices.

Several positive things may come out of this. The Shias may agree to allow the Kurds to keep Kirkuk (a major demand), the Iraqi population may once and for all see that all forms of religious extremism are bad and thus everyone has a stake in getting along and the Sunnis may find out once and for all that they are not in a position to run/dictate anything in Iraq and that their substantially smaller percentage of the population may require some major rethinks in how they view their role in any unified, more democratic, more pluralistic Iraq. They have a history of oppressing the Shias. They have received payback twice. Now, let’s see if everyone can agree to move forward. Iraq has potential. This could even lead to a reconciliation between Kurds and thus bring Turkey into a more responsible, positive role in the region. Increased trade would certainly be a bonus to all in the region.

120

You’re right, of course. Saddam had a massive secret weapons of mass destruction stockpile which was then shipped off to Syria under the very noses of the Coalition of Crocodile Tears which has since vanished into thin air somehow now that Syria’s weapons of mass destruction stockpile has been turned over to the proper authorities. Keep up the good work.

If you’re available for birthday parties PM me.