The United States Has Attacked ISIS

And the great thing about this is that we don’t have to take your opinion or MY KNOWLEDGE of the matter. We have 17 UN Resolutions, A Congressional Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, A Congressional Act of War in 2003 and three follow-up reports ALL OF WHICH determined Saddam was

  1. not in compliance
  2. had the capabilities AND the will/intent to develop wmds.
  3. no Western intelligence agency sexed up or misrepresented data

Back to you and thanks for playing but cynical conspiracy theories do not always win the day but GOOD NEWS!!! a job is waiting for you at Russia Today TV. I suggest that “Just My Opinion” segment. You would fit in perfectly!!!

I am fine with reasoned critiques. It’s the negativity and one-liners that are so pointless and annoying. I just don’t get it. How does a person benefit by randomly posting insults of the president? :loco: I never did that shit with Bush, so don’t pretend I did.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Well said. I hope you’re right, but I’m skeptical the Iraqis can really pull together. I read an article this morning arguing in favor of full Balkanization; i.e., giving the main three ethnic groups their own nations. I think the Kurds would go for it, since they’ve got plenty of oil in the de facto Kurdistan region. But the Sunni Arabs would be left with the effectively useless western region, while the Shia get Baghdad and the oil-rich south. Discontent among Sunni Arabs is what has made ISIS so attractive to them in the first place. Probably the best solution would be to let Kurdistan become its own nation (with the Iraqi Kurds continuing their agreement with Turkey not to help the Turkish Kurds), and the rest of Iraq remaining unified, but hopefully with a less Shia-nationalist leader. What a mess.

Am I the only one to notice that the American bombing campaign against ISIS is getting few headlines? I would like to know what’s going on, what’s the latest, but all of the media outlets are filled with news of Robin Williams’s suicide. I loved the guy, but aren’t we at war? And didn’t it just start? Besides the ubiquitous Robin Williams coverage, one is more likely to find an article on the latest James Franco stunt or statement from Hillary Clinton or the latest shark attack than anything about the new campaign. Extraordinary.

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.[/quote]

You may not have been here when TainanCowboy posted the definitive proof, showing Soviet spetsnasi smuggling it out of Iraq in private planes, cleverly concealed in florescent yellow barrels with large skull-and-crossbones stenciled on the side, because where else would an Evil Dictator hide his chemical weapons from international inspectors?

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:[/quote]

Meanwhile John McCain is advocating bombing both sides in the Syrian Civil war.

Interesting (i.e. I agree with lots of it) comment by John Wilkerson, former adviser to Colin Powell:
"The Solution to the Crisis in Iraq is to Craft a New Balance of Power
washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi … 051623.php

[quote=“MikeN”]So the current situation is roughly

-The U.S. is bombing ISIS to protect the Yazidis and support the Kurds.
-The Kurds, who were happy to take advantage of the Baghdad government’s humiliating defeat to expand their territory, are now being pressed by ISIS and asking for American help.
-The Shia-supremacist government of Maliki Baghdad, instead of compromising, has insisted on maintaining Shi’ite dominance.
-The Iraqi government also opposes American aid to the Kurds, on the grounds they’ll simply use it to make themselves even more independent.
-The Sunni tribes whose defection was vital to the success of the Surge won’t oppose ISIS if it simply means placing themselves once more under the control of the Shi’ites.
-Iran has moved in to pick up the pieces and is basically running the Iraqi government’s fight against ISIS.
-The evil butcher Assad in Damascus is now the mainstay preventing ISIS from taking over most of Syria.
-The Turks, who used to be the fiercest of opponents of the idea of Kurdistan, have come to an accommodation with the Iraqi Kurds in exchange for them dropping support of the Kurds in Turkey. Turkey has helped the Iraqi Kurds ship oil to Israel, which the (mildly) Sunni Islamist government of Turkey claims to despise. This shipment was opposed by the governments of Iraq- and the U.S.
-Saudi Arabia opposes the government in Iraq and Iran, because of their Shi’ite fundamentalist theocracy; and ISIS, because that kind of Sunni fundamentalist theocracy threatens their own kind of Sunni fundamentalist theocracy

-So we have Maliki’s government in Baghdad (supported by Iran and the U.S.) which opposes ISIS, the Kurds, and Saudi Arabia, but supports Iran and the Assad regime;
-The Iranians, opposed by the West, Saudi Arabia and ISIS, which supports the Iraqi government but opposes ISIS- and the Kurds, because an independent Kurdistan appeals to the Kurds of northern Iran and lessens the power of the Shia government in Baghdad;
-The Kurds, who oppose ISIS and the Maliki government;
-Ashir Bassad in Syria, who opposes ISIS but is opposed by the U.S., Europe and Saudi Arabia but is supported by Iraq and Iran;
Saudi Arabia, which opposes Iraq, Iran, Syria - but also opposes ISIS;
The USA, which supports the Maliki government but opposes the Iranians who are propping up that government; opposes ISIS but also the governments of Syria and Iran who are fighting ISIS; and sort of supports the Kurds, but only up to a point and on some things i.e. fight ISIS yay, fight ISIS to increase indepence from Baghdad , boo.

Then there’s Israel, Gaza, Hamas, the West Bank, the PA, democracy-crushing generals in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the fighting in Libya.

Personally, I blame it all on Obama.[/quote]

Brilliant post, MikeN. Your grasp of international politics is truly amazing. :thumbsup: I don’t envy the president or the secretary of state in trying to sort out that mess. I don’t just mean Obama and Kerry, but all people who have been and will be in their positions. Who to trust? Who to support, and when, and how? Not an easy nut to crack.

America is at war, are you sure about that?
Doesn’t look like there’s any appetite for that.

Yes, we’re at war at ISIS. Do you read the thread? :laughing:

That has nothing to do with whether or not we’re at war. I’m pretty sure ISIS considers itself at war with the US, since we’re currently in the process of killing their soldiers.

Right…so that would mean America is at war in every country where it has drones and kills people. Okay. I don’t think America is going for war no.3
In Iraq anytime soon.

The U.S. is going to be at war as long as there’s an Islam and the Chinese are willing to keep on lending. Such is the nature of religious war.

My, aren’t we ghoulish?

It’s a half-hearted, half-assed war effort. Besides, it’s a remake. Even Ogolfa isn’t paying attention.

Did someone say shark attack?

Breaking news: Maliki is stepping down as prime minister.

Shouldn’t tracking down Saddam’s massive weapons of mass destruction arsenal which everybody knows was secreted to Syria just befoe Operation Fool Me Once was launched be Defcon 1 by now? If IS fanatics get their hands on it the U.S. will wish it had never heard the name Curveball.

Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one paying attention around here.

[quote=“Winston Smith”]Shouldn’t tracking down Saddam’s massive weapons of mass destruction arsenal which everybody knows was secreted to Syria just befoe Operation Fool Me Once was launched be Defcon 1 by now? If IS fanatics get their hands on it the U.S. will wish it had never heard the name Curveball.

Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one paying attention around here.[/quote]

Right now, the administration’s top priorities are:

  1. Golf
  2. Parties
  3. Petulant sulking
  4. Race baiting
  5. Subverting the Constitution
  6. Fundraisers
  7. Stonewalling various investigations

More on priorities:

cnsnews.com/news/article/lau … list-james

So true. So true.

Back in the good old days adminiistration priorities would have been completely different:

  1. endless recreational warfare
  2. endless “bad intelligence” laced speeches justifying said warfare
  3. regular trips to China hat in hand to borrow more money to pay for said wars
  4. completely ignoring brewing subprime mortgage crisis which almost took down U.S. economy
  5. manning the Neodefcon national security lighthouse
  6. presidential signing statements declaring the Constitution “null and void”
  7. denying ever making any “bad intelligence” laced speeches
  8. torture

No wonder true patriots are frustrated with the Obama Administration’s focus on golf and national healthcare instead.

[quote=“rowland”]
Right now, the administration’s top priorities are:

  1. Golf: Bush playing golf and ignoring the terrorist threat of 911, as proposed by Michael Moore
  2. Parties: Every White House has parties, never really heard this one before :bravo:
  3. Petulant sulking: :loco:
  4. Race baiting: Republicans generally take the prize on this one (welfare queens, Willie Horton, just watch Fox news for 10 minutes on any given day…)
  5. Subverting the Constitution: :roflmao:
  6. Fundraisers: :unamused:
  7. Stonewalling various investigations: Oliver North, Weapons of Mass destruction, the 9/11 commission
    [/quote]This is the kind of generalized nonsense that only highly partisan people argue about the president who is not a member of the party they support. It has zero depth. It takes about 5 brain cells to come up with this kind of drivel.

[quote=“Cooperations”]
This is the kind of generalized nonsense that only highly partisan people argue about the president who is not a member of the party they support. It has zero depth. It takes about 5 brain cells to come up with this kind of drivel.[/quote]

It seems I hit a nerve.

Take some valium and have a nap.

Not really. As he said, your statements are so highly partisan and nonsensical as to not really mean anything. You may notice that some of the other conservatives around here are able to present logical, cohesive arguments to support their positions, as well as concede points, recognize areas of gray, and generally just be civil and friendly. We liberals show the same courtesies. We’re all here to have fun and lively discussions. You’re welcome to join us any time.

[quote=“Cooperations”][quote=“rowland”]
Right now, the administration’s top priorities are:

  1. Golf: Bush playing golf and ignoring the terrorist threat of 911, as proposed by Michael Moore
  2. Parties: Every White House has parties, never really heard this one before :bravo:
  3. Petulant sulking: :loco:
  4. Race baiting: Republicans generally take the prize on this one (welfare queens, Willie Horton, just watch Fox news for 10 minutes on any given day…)
  5. Subverting the Constitution: :roflmao:
  6. Fundraisers: :unamused:
  7. Stonewalling various investigations: Oliver North, Weapons of Mass destruction, the 9/11 commission
    [/quote]This is the kind of generalized nonsense that only highly partisan people argue about the president who is not a member of the party they support. It has zero depth. It takes about 5 brain cells to come up with this kind of drivel.[/quote]

Rowland kind of channels Fred. That is if the Mystic/Seer/Channeler had tourett’s.