Obama's address to the Nation [Archive]

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 10:00 AM

Gawt damn racist, GWB

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/george-w-bushs-legacy-on-africa-wins-praise-even-from-foes/

GWB didn't have the 2010+ teabagging/sociopaths in the House.

Praising GWB to excuse today's Repug House nutters is like saying today's Repugs are not racist because of Abe Lincoln, or 60s Repugs passed Medicare, Medicaid, VRA.

btw, this is GWB in Africa:

"A senior United Nations official has accused President George Bush of "doing damage to Africa" by cutting funding for condoms, a move which may jeopardise the successful fight against HIV/Aids in Uganda.Stephen Lewis, the UN secretary general's special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, said US cuts in funding for condoms and an emphasis on promoting abstinence had contributed to a shortage of condoms in Uganda, one of the few African countries which has succeeded in reducing its infection rate.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]," Mr Lewis said yesterday. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

The condom shortage has developed because both the Ugandan government and the US, which is the main donor for HIV/Aids prevention, have allowed supplies to dwindle, according to an American pressure group, the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (Change).

In 2003, President Bush declared he would spend $15bn on his emergency plan for Aids relief, but receiving aid under the programme has moral strings attached.

Recipient countries have to emphasise abstinence over condoms, and - under a congressional amendment - they must condemn prostitution."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

Puritanical America trying to impose its morals and ethics on Africa :lol

Christian Taleban abstinence is a huge failure in USA, never mind Africa.

TeyshaBlue

09-11-2014, 10:03 AM

You miss NBADan that much?

nbadan had quality takes on education tbh.

Darius McCrary

09-11-2014, 11:14 AM

I miss Clandestino, tbh.

vy65

09-11-2014, 11:23 AM

Obama's legal rationale for Isis strikes: shoot first, ask Congress later

For expanded Isis strikes, president relies on legal authority he disavowed only a year ago

In the space of a single primetime address on Wednesday night, Barack Obama dealt a crippling blow to a creaking, 40-year old effort to restore legislative primacy to American warmaking - a far easier adversary to vanquish than the Islamic State. Obama’s legal arguments for unilaterally expanding a war expected to last years have shocked even his supporters.

Ahead of Wednesday’s speech the White House signaled that Obama already “has the authority he needs to take action” against Isis without congressional approval. Obama said he would welcome congressional support but framed it as optional, save for the authorisations and the $500m he wants to use the US military to train Syrian rebels. Bipartisan congressional leaders who met with Obama at the White House on Tuesday expressed no outrage.

The administration’s rationale, at odds with the war it is steadily expanding, is to forestall an endless conflict foisted upon it by a bloodthirsty legislature. Yet one of the main authorities Obama is relying on for avoiding Congress is the 2001 wellspring of the war on terrorism he advocated repealing only last year, a document known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that few think actually applies to Isis.

Taken together with the congressional leadership’s shrug, Obama has stripped the veneer off a contemporary fact of American national security: presidents make war on their own, and congresses acquiesce.

The constitution envisions the exact opposite circumstance. A 1973 reform, the War Powers Resolution, attempted a constitutional restoration in the wake of the Vietnam war, ensuring that the legal authorisation for conflict deployments were voided after 60 days. Yet its restrictions on military action have proven far less durable in conflicts like Grenada, Kosovo, Libya and now the 2014-vintage Iraq war.

For the Obama administration, an allergy to congressional authorisation is enmeshed with the president’s stated desire to end what he last year termed a “perpetual war” footing. It has led Obama in directions legal scholars consider highly questionable.

Some of Obama’s legislative brushoffs are straightforward. The administration did not seek legislative authority for its 2011 Libya air war, something Congress was unlikely to grant. Scepticism also mounted in Congress last year when Obama proposed attacking Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Secretary of state John Kerry told the Huffington Post that Obama could bomb Assad even if Congress voted against it.

But not only has Obama rejected restrictions of his warmaking power, he has also rejected legislative expansions of it - a more curious choice.

In 2010, shortly after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the incoming chairman of the armed services committee, Buck McKeon of California, endorsed passing a new congressional authorisation for the so-called war on terrorism. McKeon reasoned that a mutating terror threat had pushed the legal boundaries of the brief 2001 AUMF and that a new generation of legislators had not granted their endorsement.

Yet when McKeon’s committee invited the administration’s thoughts, its representative rejected the effort. Jeh Johnson, then the Pentagon’s chief lawyer and now secretary of homeland security, said the 2001 law - passed before al-Qaida’s contemporary affiliates in Yemen, Somalia and north Africa existed, let alone the emergence of Isis, which is no longer part of al-Qaida - provided “sufficient” legal authority for contemporary US counterterrorism.

According to several administration officials over the years, Obama has been wary that Congress will offer up new laws that entrench and expand an amorphous war that, in his mind, he has waged with the minimum necessary amount of force. Obama last year advocated the eventual repeal of the 2001 authorisation - as well as the 2002 congressional approval of the Iraq war - to aid in turning a page on a long era of US warfare.

Yet on Wednesday a senior administration official told reporters that the 2001 authorisation covered the war against Isis. Legal scholars have already debated its coverage of al-Qaida affiliates that did not exist in 2001. Isis, however, is not an al-Qaida affiliate, having been specifically disavowed by al-Qaida’s leader, Ayman Zawahiri. Ken Gude of the liberal Center for American Progress, a thinktank close to the administration, tweeted that he was “utterly shocked” the administration would contend the 2001 authority applied - an argument he had earlier in the day called “laughable.”

Asked to explain the administration’s reasoning, a different senior US official acknowledged the “split” between al-Qaida and Isis but indicated the administration considered it legally immaterial. In an email, using the administration’s preferred acronym for Isis, the official wrote:

Based on ISIL’s longstanding relationship with al-Qa’ida (AQ) and Usama bin Laden; its long history of conducting, and continued desire to conduct, attacks against U.S. persons and interests, the extensive history of U.S. combat operations against Isil dating back to the time the group first affiliated with AQ in 2004; and Isil’s position - supported by some individual members and factions of AQ-aligned groups - that it is the true inheritor of Usama bin Laden’s legacy, the President may rely on the 2001 AUMF as statutory authority for the use of force against Isil, notwithstanding the recent public split between AQ’s senior leadership and Isil.

Obama’s read on Congress has merit. Legislators who endorse congressional authorisation of war against Isis have offered packages that already look beyond the group. Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, would give Obama and his successors power to attack all groups sharing “a common violent extremist ideology” - not defined - with Isis and contemporary al-Qaida affiliates. A bill from Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, would empower the president to confront Isis “and any successor terrorist organisation.”

However, the prevailing view in Congress driving a deferral of legislative authorisation for the Isis war is political. Neither Republicans nor Democrats wish to introduce a wild card into the forthcoming congressional elections. Representative Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who favours a vote, observed to the New York Times that many of his colleagues reason: “We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.” Explanations like those contextualise Congress’s diminishing dissatisfaction with violations of the War Powers Resolution over the course of four decades.

Still, that confluence of interests between Obama and the legislature has left Congress on the margins of what might be considered the Third Iraq War. Members of the US public who do not want a return to war in Iraq, nor an expansion of war into Syria, are left without a mechanism to prevent it.

While Obama may think of himself as a bulwark against perpetual US war - and while his political adversaries consider him insufficiently martial - his actions tell a different story. Obama’s foreign-policy legacy is marked by escalating and then extending the Afghanistan war beyond his presidency; empowering the CIA and special-operations forces to strike on undeclared battlefields in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya; the 2011 Libya war; and now returning US warplanes to the skies above Iraq, and, soon, expanding their mission to eastern Syria.

Though Obama typically forswears conventional ground combat in his wars, a factor that tends to blunt congressional outrage, the new war Obama unveiled on Wednesday looks like a different test case. His ostensible prohibition on US ground “combat” forces in Iraq elides the 1,100 ground troops he has ordered back into Iraq since June, a figure certain to expand once the US military revitalises training for its Iraqi counterparts and Syrian anti-Isis rebels. Administration officials anticipate a years-long war against the well-financed Isis, and any vote Congress will cast will come after it has begun, making legislative rejection unlikely. All that creates a precedent for future presidents: shoot first, ask permission later, if at all.

The American and global publics can reasonably ask what 13 years of US war have durably achieved. One answer, unlikely to have been anticipated by the architects, caretakers and practitioners of this conflict, is the hobbling of legislative restrictions on war enshrined in the constitution, and the expansion of a legal authority Obama said last year kept the country on an unacceptable footing of perpetual war.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

crofl buttons

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 11:35 AM

Obama's legal rationale for Isis strikes: shoot first, ask Congress later

For expanded Isis strikes, president relies on legal authority he disavowed only a year ago

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

crofl buttons

vy65 :lol ... has NO PROBLEM with all the illegal shit and lying and violation of civil liberties by dubya, dickhead, their CIA, their DoJ, Dept of der Heimland Security state, etc.

Patriot Act! :lol

AUMF! :lol

John "Aluminum tits" Ashcroft! :lol

Gonzalez :lol

John Yoo! :lol

WMD! :lol

Saddam did 9/11! :lol

America goes nuts over beheadings of two American journalists, but doesn't give a peep about USA blowing up 100s weddings, funerals, and all kinds of other collateral murdering of non-combattants.

vy65

09-11-2014, 11:37 AM

vy65 :lol ... has NO PROBLEM with all the illegal shit and lying and violation of civil liberties by dubya, dickhead, their CIA, their DoJ, Dept of der Heimland Security state, etc.

Link?

Crofl The Guardian ethering Uncle Tom.

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 11:39 AM

Link?

Crofl The Guardian ethering Uncle Tom.

I'd much prefer that Obama do whatever the Congress allows him to do, iow, Constitutionally, but seeing how fast House Repugs have "fixed" the VA mess :lol ...

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 12:22 PM

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic,”

:lmao

Why ISIS Is Not, In Fact, Islamic (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/)

Conservatives reacted harshly (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/obama-isil-not-islamic/index.html) :lol duh!!

to President Obama’s claim on Wednesday night that the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) “is not Islamic,” accusing the commander-in-chief of naiveté and ignorance. “What kindergartner briefs the President on terrorism?” Ron Christie, a GOP strategist tweeted. “ISIS says it’s Islamic, lots of people say it’s Islamic, only the president won’t,” George Will told Fox News shortly after the speech.

But the full context of Obama’s remark points to an important distinction between Islam and the extremist ideology that’s sweeping parts of Iraq and Syria. “No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim,” Obama said. “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

Indeed, even from the viewpoint of a casual observer, ISIS is an abomination to Islam.

Explosions tend to capture the media’s attention more than peaceful coexistence, and a minuscule minority of extremist groups claiming to be Islamic have exploited this fact as a way to reinvent Islam as a “violent” religion.

But just because you shout God’s name while committing murder doesn’t make your actions righteous.

Islam, as millions of Muslims can attest (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/06/18/3450055/islam-peace-movement-heritage/), is a peaceful religion that calls on its followers to choose community over conflict, or, as it says in Surah al-Hujurat of the Qur’an (49:13) (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/049.013.html): “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise [each other]).”

But ISIS clearly has little regard for this or other fundamental tenets of Islam. They have sparked the rage of Iraqi Muslims by carelessly blowing up copies (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/iraqis-isis-mosul-resistance?CMP=twt_gu) of the Qur’an, and they have killed their fellow Muslims, be they Sunni or Shia.

Even extremist Muslims who engage in warfare have strict rules of engagement and prohibitions against harming women and children, but ISIS has opted to ignore even this (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/10/3565635/the-book-that-really-explains-isis-hint-its-not-the-quran/) by slaughtering innocent youth and using rape and sexual slavery (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/rape-and-sexual-slavery-inside-an-isis-prison.html) as a weapon.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/

Of course, the above is WAY TOO SUBTLE for you bubbas and your knees jerking everytime Fox, etc tells you jerks to jerk.

ISIS is Islamic like Irish Republicans in Northern Ireland "troubles" were Catholic.

And of course, the "conservatives" who claim to be "Christian" in a "Christian" God's-own-favored country were 100% silent when dubya and dickhead Christian-ly invaded Iraq-for-oil and caused 100Ks of injuries and deaths and CREATED ISIL.

RandomGuy

09-11-2014, 12:24 PM

What no thoughts on his plan to take us back into war?

This forum sure is missing the good ole days of having a Republican in office for everyone to criticize.

Meh. Bush was mediocre, other than his handling of the Iraq occupation, which was downright criminally negligent. There were even some things he did that I liked.

Obama's overall strategy was cautious and risk-averse, much like a lot of his other gambits.

I have little doubt, and that was borne out almost instantly that whatever he decided the GOP would criticize it, just because he said it.

Much of Bush's criticisms by the Democrats was just as vacuous and vapid, but the sheer vitriol is far greater, due to the right-wing echo chamber, and conservative info-bubble.

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 12:31 PM

"Bush's criticisms by the Democrats was just as vacuous and vapid"

like what, Mr False Equivalence?

"Iraq occupation, which was downright criminally negligent." his INVASION was criminal

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 12:35 PM

John Boehner: Republicans doubt Obama’s plan can destroy Islamic State

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/11/john-boehner-republicans-doubt-obamas-plan-can-destroy-islamic-state/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

So what's flaccid Boner's plan?

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 12:37 PM

lol we are beginning a new multi-year military campaign that involves going back into Iraq and now getting involved in Syria's civil war and Obama fanboy says...

Meh.

My how things have changed.

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 01:07 PM

The Book That Really Explains ISIS (Hint: It’s Not The Qur’an) (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/10/3565635/the-book-that-really-explains-isis-hint-its-not-the-quran/)

In 2004, a PDF of a book entitled “The Management Of Savagery (http://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the-management-of-savagery-the-most-critical-stage-through-which-the-umma-will-pass.pdf)” was posted online and circulated among Sunni jihadist circles. Scholars soon noticed that the book, which was published by an unknown author writing under the pseudonym “Abu Bakr Naji,” had become popular among many extremist groups such as al-Shabaab in Somalia, and was eventually translated into English for study in 2006 by William McCants, now the director of the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution. The book, McCants told ThinkProgress, was written as an alternative to the decentralized, “leaderless” approach to jihadism popular in the mid-2000s. Instead of using isolated attacks on super powers all over the globe, “The Management Of Savagery” offered an expansive plan for how a group of Muslim militants could violently seize land and establish their own self-governing Islamic state — much like ISIS is trying to do today.

“[The book] provides a roadmap for how to establish a caliphate,” McCants said. “It lays out how to create small pockets of territorial control … and how to move from there to a caliphate. It would not surprise me if the book were popular among the crew in Iraq [ISIS].”

McCants was quick to note that while “The Management of Savagery” is “the only text out there that really addresses the question of how [jihadists] can capture and hold territory,” the black-clad troopers in Iraq and Syria haven’t taken all of Naji’s advice to heart. ISIS has clearly ignored the author’s recommendation that fighters abide by traditional Islamic rules of engagement, such as refraining from violence against women or children. Among other horrors, reports abound of ISIS regularly using rape and sexual slavery (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/rape-and-sexual-slavery-inside-an-isis-prison.html) as a weapon.

“The Islamic State stands apart from other [extremist] organizations,” McCants said. “They are not bound by the structures of traditional Islamic warfare.”

Nevertheless, other analysts, such as Lawrence Right (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/isiss-savage-strategy-in-iraq) of The New Yorker, former MI-6 agent Alastair Crooke (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/iraq-isis-alqaeda_b_5542575.html), and Terrence McCoy of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/12/the-calculated-madness-of-the-islamic-states-horrifying-brutality/), have also observed echoes of the book in the actions of ISIS. They argue that while ISIS leaders haven’t openly acknowledged the influence of Naji’s writing, their machinations in the Middle East — especially how the group exploits destabilized regions and stokes intra-religious conflict — closely match several aspects of Naji’s plan. “The Management Of Savagery,” for instance, recommends inciting violence between Muslims and stretching the military forces of a target nation by temporarily laying claim to energy sources. This destabilization is supposed to create “regions of savagery” — or true chaos wrought by war — where shell-shocked inhabitants willingly submit to an invading force such as ISIS to end conflict. This, Naji argues, eventually leads to the establishment of an extremist version of a Sunni caliphate.

“The key idea in the book is that you need to carry out attacks on a local government and sensitive infrastructure — tourism and energy in particular,” McCants said. “That causes a local government to pull in security resources to protect that infrastructure that will open up pockets where there is no government — a security vacuum.”

ISIS has operated similarly in Iraq and Syria, using a divide-and-conquer approach to recruit followers and take cities. It has exploited the conflict between Sunnis and Shias in most of its land holdings, but especially in Iraq (http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS), where militants from both religious groups have been locked in various levels of armed conflict since the U.S. invaded in the early 2000s. ISIS has also targeted important power sources such as Iraq’s largest dam (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/08/07/3468739/isis-mosul-dam/) near Mosul, which their soldiers temporarily captured in August. Similar to Naji’s prediction, the move pressured the U.S. to launch airstrikes as Iraqi forces mustered their forces to reclaim the dam, a strategy that is being repeated (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/world/middleeast/iraq.html) now that ISIS has laid claim to the Haditha Dam near Baghdad.

ISIS’s grandiose use of violence is also foreshadowed in Naji’s writing. He dedicates an entire chapter to “Using Violence” in the book, explaining that it can be an effective tool for volunteer recruitment and instilling fear, noting, “Those who have not boldly entered wars during their lifetimes do not understand the role of violence and coarseness against the infidels in combat and media battles.” The author makes several references to the influence and power of media in general, adding that violent communication is crucial part of frightening an enemy.

“It behooves us to make [our enemies] think one thousand times before attacking us,” the book reads.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/10/3565635/the-book-that-really-explains-isis-hint-its-not-the-quran/

spurraider21

09-11-2014, 01:12 PM

:lol the oblamo semen shield has arrived

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 01:13 PM

Guess who? :lol

Republicans criticize Obama for not wanting enough war (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/11/1328949/-Republicans-criticize-Obama-for-not-wanting-enough-war)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat from ISIS is” on CNN.“The President’s plan will likely be insufficient to destroy ISIS, which is the world’s largest, richest terrorist army,” McCain said in a subsequent statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

It is also a cause for concern that the president appears to view the effort against ISIL as an isolated counterterrorism campaign, rather than as what it must be: an all-out effort to destroy an enemy that has declared a holy war against America and the principles for which we stand.

Of course, as long as Republicans are objecting to something about Obama's plans, they canstick with the path (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/09/1328322/-GOP-congressman-explains-why-his-colleagues-don-t-want-to-vote-on-military-strikes-against-ISIS) Rep. Jack Kingston recently explained:

"Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/11/1328949/-Republicans-criticize-Obama-for-not-wanting-enough-war?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

Dick Cheney lectures Obama on the Islamic State and the ‘war on terror’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Former-vice-president-Dick-Cheney-AFP.jpg

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/11/dick-cheney-lectures-obama-on-the-islamic-state-and-the-war-on-terror/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

so, dickhead, who destabilized the M/E and started/botched the GWOT? :lol

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 01:26 PM

Coming from boutons and thinkprogress I was expecting this...

The Book That Really Explains ISIS (Hint: It’s Not The Qur’an) (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/10/3565635/the-book-that-really-explains-isis-hint-its-not-the-quran/)

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/159/Rush-Limbaugh-9781595230638.jpg

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 01:30 PM

Coming from boutons and thinkprogress I was expecting this...

SB, bitch slapped, yet again

DarrinS

09-11-2014, 01:48 PM

The Four Most Depressing Moments in Obama's Speech

http://www.newsweek.com/four-most-depressing-moments-obamas-speech-269688

In a perfect world, Obama would have had a phone on his podium during the speech and called the Saudis: “Hey, can I put you on speaker? Look, hey, is there any way you could take the lead on this one? We did the two Iraq wars and are dealing with Iranian nukes. Can you field this ISIS? Cool, thanks.”

Instead we got a confident-sounding but ultimately dispiriting address. Obama may have presented a plan and reassured us that the Islamic State (IS) problem was manageable. But Obama’s confidence rings as hollow as George W. Bush’s. In fact, just as 43 often cited Saddam’s “rape rooms” 44 invoked rape, and while it’s true and tragic in both cases it’s also true in Sudan and Congo. Indeed, Obama’s “degrade and destroy” sounds a lot like Bush’s “shock and awe.” To be fair, Obama didn’t hype the threat to the homeland, to use that grim word. There was no talk of nukes, only the fact that ISIS had threatened us and might at some point down the road be able to actually hurt us. Still, the speech was depressing—not just because the president faces such a complicated situation but also because he engaged in rhetorical tricks.

Somalia and Yemen are successes? Good lord. At least when Bill Clinton famously pointed to Bangladesh as an economic model for micro businesses, he had a point, albeit one that seemed jaw-dropping at the time. It’s not that anyone expects Somalia and Yemen to be Swiss-like after hearing from our drones and special forces. But Somalia is utterly chaotic and Yemen is still terrorist rich. We haven’t destroyed any groups there, only clipped them at times which barely counts as degrading their organizations.

A broad-based coalition? Let’s see. There’s a lot of reason to doubt that the countries we need the most will do much. Turkey is the transit point for would-be terrorists who want to join ISIS. Maybe John Kerry will work a miracle, but this coalition, even with encouraging signals from the Saudis, feels more like George W. Bush’s than his father’s.

The myth of moderates we can support. The history of post-World War II America is filled with efforts to find moderates amidst chaos. Graham Greene’s novel, The Quiet American, chronicles this naivety in Vietnam. We sought such moderates in South and Central America and elsewhere. Maybe the Syrian Free Army are all democrats, led by John Adamses. At this point we’d settle for them being better than Assad or ISIS. Would you bet on them being freedom fighters?

What Iraqi Army? Um, we just spent countless dollars to train the Iraqi army for the past ten years. And what did it get us? A force that collapsed when ISIS rolled across Iraq. Maybe, as Obama said, there will be a new inclusive government in Iraq and that will make for a stronger national army. But what makes us think that we can get this worthless army can now be turned into the essential fighting force that Obama touted? Could that possibly be done with a few hundred more troops/advisors? Please.

cantthinkofanything

09-11-2014, 01:53 PM

http://drudgereport.com/ohh.jpg

DarrinS

09-11-2014, 02:02 PM

Much of Bush's criticisms by the Democrats was just as vacuous and vapid, but the sheer vitriol is far greater, due to the right-wing echo chamber, and conservative info-bubble.

Meh, not really.

hater

09-11-2014, 02:23 PM

:lol a couple of beheadings turned a black pot smoking hawaiian into John Mccain :lol

what a joke

hater

09-11-2014, 02:26 PM

Could be worse fellas. If OJ Simpson had happened today, Obama would have declared war on all NFL running backs :lmao

pgardn

09-11-2014, 02:42 PM

lol we are beginning a new multi-year military campaign that involves going back into Iraq and now getting involved in Syria's civil war and Obama fanboy says...

My how things have changed.

We are not going back in anywhere.
Obama has made this war numb to ordinary Americans.
Drones, planes, missiles fired from boats.
We are so far removed from any REAL war.
Do you fear getting drafted?

This may be the biggest tragedy, it's sanitized warfare for us.

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 04:04 PM

We are not going back in anywhere.
Obama has made this war numb to ordinary Americans.
Drones, planes, missiles fired from boats.
We are so far removed from any REAL war.
Do you fear getting drafted?

This may be the biggest tragedy, it's sanitized warfare for us.

Obama? still blaming him for the shitstorm the Repugs started 13 years ago and didn't finish?

The side effect of dropping the draft and going to a professional army was that 99% of Americans of fighting age don't ever have to fight, no risks.

The professional, voluntary military is the rest of America's (actually the MIC's) mercenaries, hired by the corporatocracy to maintain Imperial America's economic empire.

I still think the VN war would not have been so vehemently, and successfully, protested if there wouldn't have been conscription.

We don't see any VN-type protests against the GWOT because the would-be-protesters aren't being conscripted.

And of course the propaganda skills of the MIC, feds, media, corporatocracy are much more sophisticated now.

InRareForm

09-11-2014, 04:12 PM

Republicans trying to make George Bush seem like a genius now, smh

DarrinS

09-11-2014, 04:18 PM

Republicans trying to make George Bush seem like a genius now, smh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyqfbjYD0mk

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 04:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyqfbjYD0mk

bu..bu..bu..bu..bu...but it's all George Bush's fault.

baseline bum

09-11-2014, 04:29 PM

bu..bu..bu..bu..bu...but it's all George Bush's fault.

CROFL, how is it not when he took out their secular leader that crushed all those Islamic faggots?

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 04:35 PM

CROFL, how is it not when he took out their secular leader that crushed all those Islamic faggots?

because Obama said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKSb2ukQxvY

sovereign, stable, self reliant :lol

baseline bum

09-11-2014, 04:37 PM

because Obama said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKSb2ukQxvY

No way he believed that. Just said that shit to get out of Bush's clusterfuck.

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 04:42 PM

No way he believed that. Just said that shit to get out of Bush's clusterfuck.

Doesn't matter... he said it, he declared victory, he took credit for the victory...he owns what is happening now. Now he's getting us back into a clusterfuck.

baseline bum

09-11-2014, 04:48 PM

Doesn't matter... he said it, he declared victory, he took credit for the victory...he owns what is happening now. Now he's getting us back into a clusterfuck.

LOL bullshit.

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 04:57 PM

LOL bullshit.

Blame who you want but Iraq is now a failed state that will never recover and we're jumping right back into it. We are also going to assist the Syrian rebels in taking down their own secular leader that crushed all those Islamic faggots. Why? because it might help Obama hold on to the Senate in November. And the next president can figure out how to get out of the mess.

hater

09-11-2014, 05:23 PM

Blame who you want but Iraq is now a failed state that will never recover and we're jumping right back into it. We are also going to assist the Syrian rebels in taking down their own secular leader that crushed all those Islamic faggots. Why? because it might help Obama hold on to the Senate in November. And the next president can figure out how to get out of the mess.

this motherfucker went from a nobel peace prize winner who extended an olive branch to Russia, China and all Islam

to a guy who resembles a genetic experiment involving genes from John McCain, W Bush Jr, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Bibi netanyahu

:lmao talk about out of the frying pan into the fire :lol

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 06:11 PM

bu..bu..bu..bu..bu...but it's all George Bush's fault.

GWB signed the withdrawal agreement, Obama didn't

Iraq, ISIL, the destabilized M/E, north africa are 100% on your Repugs' oilmen, not on Obama

baseline bum

09-11-2014, 06:13 PM

Blame who you want but Iraq is now a failed state that will never recover and we're jumping right back into it. We are also going to assist the Syrian rebels in taking down their own secular leader that crushed all those Islamic faggots. Why? because it might help Obama hold on to the Senate in November. And the next president can figure out how to get out of the mess.

Iraq was already a failed state when W, Dick, and Rumsfeld let it fall into a civil war after we were greeted as liberators.

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 06:19 PM

GWB signed the withdrawal agreement, Obama didn't

Iraq, ISIL, the destabilized M/E, north africa are 100% on your Repugs' oilmen, not on Obama

blah, blah, blah...just don't try to blame Reagan for it.

pgardn

09-11-2014, 06:36 PM

Obama? still blaming him for the shitstorm the Repugs started 13 years ago and didn't finish?

The side effect of dropping the draft and going to a professional army was that 99% of Americans of fighting age don't ever have to fight, no risks.

The professional, voluntary military is the rest of America's (actually the MIC's) mercenaries, hired by the corporatocracy to maintain Imperial America's economic empire.

I still think the VN war would not have been so vehemently, and successfully, protested if there wouldn't have been conscription.

We don't see any VN-type protests against the GWOT because the would-be-protesters aren't being conscripted.

And of course the propaganda skills of the MIC, feds, media, corporatocracy are much more sophisticated now.

Boots. We are out of Iraq and soon Afghanistan. You don't think there was any domestic resistance to having Americans killed there? Obama has now perfected the art of sterile war. He is the drone man, he is the Walrus.

This is not a dem v. rep. thing. The great decision to fight ISIS will cost very few American lives if any. Technology has removed Americans from real war. We will read of convoys hit and get to see grainy black and white explosions.

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 06:38 PM

Boots. We are out of Iraq and soon Afghanistan.

Up to 1500 troops in Iraq now. More to come. They'll probably have to wear tennis shoes so Obama can keep saying no boots on the ground.

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 06:46 PM

My bad everyone, this isn't going to be a war just an expanded manmade crisis operation.

pgardn

09-11-2014, 07:01 PM

This is not a dem v. rep. thing. The great decision to fight ISIS will cost very few American lives if any. Technology has removed Americans from real war. We will read of convoys hit and get to see grainy black and white explosions.

Im holding to the above snakes alive.

Th'Pusher

09-11-2014, 07:48 PM

Im holding to the above snakes alive.

snakeboy only knows dem v rep. it's his MO. He has no capacity to think rationally when it comes to Obama in particular.

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 09:30 PM

blah, blah, blah..

the sound of bitch-slapped SN as he fires blanks

ElNono

09-11-2014, 09:36 PM

Air campaign expanded in Iraq and extended to Syria, sending another 450 troops, arming Syrian rebels, and he thinks it would be cool if congress gives him authority but if not he's doing it anyway.

And the rest amounted to USA! USA! although he said it more like usa usa usa

thanks for the cliff notes... been working too much I guess, didn't even know he spoke

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 09:59 PM

Boots. We are out of Iraq and soon Afghanistan. You don't think there was any domestic resistance to having Americans killed there? Obama has now perfected the art of sterile war. He is the drone man, he is the Walrus.

This is not a dem v. rep. thing. The great decision to fight ISIS will cost very few American lives if any. Technology has removed Americans from real war. We will read of convoys hit and get to see grainy black and white explosions.

"domestic resistance" link to this "resistance"?

VN "resistance": 100Ks in the streets, repeatedly, all across the country, universities shut down with students and faculty on strike , etc, etc.

Even dickhead Cheney resisted fighting in VN because he "had better things to do" thanks to 5 educational deferments. And dubya went AWOL just to "resist" National Guard service.

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 09:59 PM

My bad everyone, this isn't going to be a war just an expanded manmade crisis operation.

manmade by your adored men dubya and dickhead

pgardn

09-11-2014, 10:05 PM

"domestic resistance" link to this "resistance"?

VN "resistance": 100Ks in the streets, repeatedly, all across the country, universities shut down with students and faculty on strike , etc, etc.

Even dickhead Cheney resisted fighting in VN because he "had better things to do" thanks to 5 educational deferments. And dubya went AWOL just to "resist" National Guard service.

So you don't think the public was sick and tired of our kids dying in Iraq?
You detected no dissent?
Really?

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 10:16 PM

CIA raises estimate of Islamic State fighters

A CIA spokesman says Thursday that a new intelligent assessment estimates the Islamic State group "can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria.''

The estimate is based on a review of intelligence reports and is up from a previous figure of 10,000, CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani says.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/11/cia-raises-is-fighter-estimates/15484947/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWorld-TopStories+(USATODAY+-+World+Top+Stories)

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 10:17 PM

the sound of bitch-slapped SN as he fires blanks

Damn you resisted going off on a Reagan rant. Good job! You must be taking your meds.

boutons_deux

09-11-2014, 10:19 PM

So you don't think the public was sick and tired of our kids dying in Iraq?
You detected no dissent?
Really?

sure plenty of people, esp the intelligent ones, were against the Iraq war. Obama distinguished himself by voting against it.

But Iraq anti-war demonstrations weren't even in the universities, and certainly not among adults, many of whom were in the streets 45 years ago against the VN war.

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 10:22 PM

sure plenty of people, esp the intelligent ones, were against the Iraq war. Obama distinguished himself by voting against it.

:lol

Th'Pusher

09-11-2014, 10:42 PM

:lol

Honest question, do you consider O's strategy in any way shape or form comparable to W's? In your mind, Are these the same thing? I'm just trying to understand what I'm dealing with intellectually.

hater

09-11-2014, 10:46 PM

:lmao CIA pulling the numbers out of their ass as usual :lol

UZER

09-11-2014, 10:55 PM

Everything he says is like a maze of carefully chosen words that allow him to take credit if it works and pass the blame if it doesnt work. I expect that from most politicians, but dammit youre the CIC. Have a damn backbone.

SnakeBoy

09-11-2014, 11:04 PM

Honest question, do you consider O's strategy in any way shape or form comparable to W's? In your mind, Are these the same thing? I'm just trying to understand what I'm dealing with intellectually.

They aren't remotely the same strategies.

W's strategy in Iraq was to take out a dictator and establish a peaceful democracy and ally against terrorism "in the heart of the middle east". Which we now know was a really stupid idea.

O's strategy is to enter into a long term military campaign in Iraq and Syria with no end game in hopes of retaining a few senate seats. Time will tell if this is a stupid idea but I'm guessing that it is...just a guess though.

cheguevara

09-12-2014, 12:19 AM

Everything he says is like a maze of carefully chooses his words that allow him to take credit if it works and pass the blame if it doesnt work. I expect that from most politicians, but dammit youre the CIC. Have a damn backbone.

if you run his speech through Isaac Asimov's bullshit filter this is what you end up with:
they bad guys, they gone kill us, they want to kill your family and your children. we need to burn all the money we can on weapons and bombs so we can protect your women and children. if we do not go and kill these people we never met or will ever see, your children will die a horrible death.

Yes we might happen to go bomb foreign lands including Syria and Iraq. Yes, we might kill off civilians and destroy the governments in those countries. Yes we might end up doing more harm than good, but let me be clear, we are doing all this just to protect your women and children.

ughaa ughaa ughaa

z0sa

09-12-2014, 04:50 AM

Rand Paul acts like he's a real expert on the Constitution. How loosely his interpretation becomes when the majority of Americans support military action.

It's like Afghanistan in 2001.... some 91%, IIRC, supported the invasion. No one cared it was a war that couldn't be won without extreme bloodshed. No one cared it was fame for being unconquerable in the first place. All that mattered was KILL KILL KILL. Only decades+ later do we contemplate on our reaction. Half heartlessly as well. I mean, me personally, I don't fear being bombed in the street. I don't even fear nukes - considering south TX's strategic importance, if there's any anti-nuclear defenses, we're high priority. What's the point? When does it end? When do we get our trillions of dollars back?

boutons_deux

09-12-2014, 07:28 AM

Arabs Give Tepid Support to U.S. Fight Against ISIS

Many Arab governments grumbled quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence. Now, the United States is back and getting a less than enthusiastic welcome, with leading allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all finding ways on Thursday to avoid specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.

As the prospect of the first American strikes inside Syria (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-speech-isis.html) crackled through the region, the mixed reactions underscored the challenges of a new military intervention in the Middle East, where 13 years of chaos, from Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring revolts, have deepened political and sectarian divisions and increased mistrust of the United States on all sides.

“As a student of terrorism for the last 30 years, I am afraid of that formula of ‘supporting the American effort,’ ” said Diaa Rashwan, a scholar at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-funded policy organization in Cairo. “It is very dangerous.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/arabs-give-tepid-support-to-us-fight-against-isis.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Sounds like US won't build another Coalition of The Billing

boutons_deux

09-12-2014, 07:30 AM

pgardn

09-12-2014, 08:53 AM

sure plenty of people, esp the intelligent ones, were against the Iraq war. Obama distinguished himself by voting against it.

But Iraq anti-war demonstrations weren't even in the universities, and certainly not among adults, many of whom were in the streets 45 years ago against the VN war.

We were not pulling kids out of universities. There was real people involvement in VN. Lots of people dying. Compare the numbers of deaths. These new wars are sanitized. The real death toll is not in the US. Yet there was still a view of "what the hell are we doing"

This so called war with Isis will not be the same. The argument will be even more about $ compared to progress. Deaths will occur elsewhere. It's nice to see Snake referring to this as a war as he is concerned for the long term death toll of others outside of the US.

The long term strategy here is not clear to me. Do we really expect fair and decent people to rise to the top and take charge? We just seem to leave holes filled by successive bouts of brutality. The rest of the world seems more willing as well. I can see bombing to assist 20,000 people from being slaughtered. I can see bombing to prevent groups from destroying big infrastructure projects (dams). Other than these emergency situations, I don't really get it. So as Obamas spokesperson, you explain it.

pgardn

09-12-2014, 08:59 AM

And maybe the past, how we got here, that can stop. The blame game is endless.
Start today and tell me what we expect out of this? Other than preventing large losses of life in immediate fashion. (Selected strikes like the mountain and dams) And I would like more news on the food, medicine, and shelter assistance. This always seems to be uninteresting, but does happen on a large scale. Where is Winehole...

xrayzebra

09-12-2014, 10:16 AM

The great wounded Vietnam veteran declares:

Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN in an interview that the administration's strategy includes "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war."

"What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN's Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."

Kerry made a distinction between ISIS and terror groups operating in Somalia and Yemen.

"ISIL is an animal unto itself," he said. "And it is significantly such a threat because of the foreign fighters that are attracted to it -- which you don't see in Somalia or ... Yemen." Most importantly, Kerry said, ISIL has attracted a "significant coalition" that is determined to go and destroy it.

(more)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/kerry-mideast-visit-isis/

How does blaming Bush make Obama right? Everyone is getting worked up, hell, Obama hasn't done anything he says he is going to in six years in foreign policy, so why get in a lather. He just needs his poll numbers to come back up and he will be happy. And he will declare victory again and take credit for winning a second time.

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 11:38 AM

Meh, not really.

I beg to differ. The sheer anti-Obama hysteria far exceeds the volume and nature of that leveled at Bush.

I think you were merely more attuned to the anti-Bush stuff, because you were gamely trying to defend the stupidest shit he did, and it seemed greater.

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 11:49 AM

lol we are beginning a new multi-year military campaign that involves going back into Iraq and now getting involved in Syria's civil war and Obama fanboy says...

My how things have changed.

Two whole sentences. Don't wear yourself out there, buddy.

The first invasion of Iraq was pretty clearly unnecessary to our overall security.

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

We are now experiencing some of the knock-on effects of Republican ignorance about the rest of the world on several levels.

I put very little stock in most criticisms of Obama's policy on this matter at this point because they are so obviously partisan-driven. No matter what the president does, the GOP will find something to criticise, and the actual merits will not really be much of a consideration in the formation of the talking points that the mindless FOX drones will breathlessly parrot as if they were some sort of topical expert after being told what to think in a forwarded email.

We have begun a long process for a very complicated problem. I will wait for some time to pass before trying to pass judgment.

A better question is:

Should we have gotten out of Iraq to begin with?

What a freaking tar-baby that ended up being.

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 11:57 AM

W's strategy in Iraq was to take out a dictator and establish a peaceful democracy and ally against terrorism "in the heart of the middle east". Which we now know was a really stupid idea.

O's strategy is to enter into a long term military campaign in Iraq and Syria with no end game in hopes of retaining a few senate seats. Time will tell if this is a stupid idea but I'm guessing that it is...just a guess though.
http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/double_facepalm.jpg

You NOW know know it was a stupid idea. I was saying as much before we went in. It was patently obvious that the no-nothings in the Bush administration had no clue what they were doing.

If you think that O's strategy is based on regaining senate seats, that is fucking stupid. I call bullshit.

Guess all you want, your only basis for claiming that is your own moronic rank partisanship, unless you are somehow party to the inner deliberations of Obama's staff.

ISIS is a direct and real threat, and if you are too ignorant to see that, then you need to get off your lazy ass and do some reading. There is more than enough information out there and judgment by competent experts to support that.

"Obama is doing this to win seats in an election, durr."

Really?

vy65

09-12-2014, 11:59 AM

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

We are now experiencing some of the knock-on effects of Republican ignorance about the rest of the world on several levels.

But as President Obama prepares to send the United States on what could be a yearslong military campaign against the militant group, American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.

Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a “farce,” with “members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.”

“It’s hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systems — all on the basis of no corroborated information,” said Mr. Benjamin, who is now a scholar at Dartmouth College.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/struggling-to-gauge-isis-threat-even-as-us-prepares-to-act.html?_r=1

vy65

09-12-2014, 12:01 PM

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 12:02 PM

snakeboy only knows dem v rep. it's his MO. He has no capacity to think rationally when it comes to Obama in particular.

Republicans are calling for President Barack Obama to present a detailed strategy to Congress on how the U.S. plans to defeat Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria ahead of his primetime address to the nation Wednesday.

“It's time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-obama-we-need-your-terror-strategy-n199146

The stupidest part of this, is that the GOP, you know the ones Obama is hoping to "win a few seats" against, wanted Obama to do this.

So not only does he think the President is doing this purely for cynical reasons, he think the Republicans are too stupid to realize how many seats Obama stands to gain from it.

That is how blindingly stupid that assertion or "guess" is.

SnakeBoy

09-12-2014, 12:07 PM

RG fully supports Obama's plan...shocking :lol

Be afraid everyone...RandomGuy says the terrorists are gonna getcha.

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 12:15 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/struggling-to-gauge-isis-threat-even-as-us-prepares-to-act.html?_r=1

ISIS, at the present time, represents no immediate threat to the US, and that is correct.

What will happen, if left to their own devices is something far more akin to the Taliban, and a continued magnet to every muslim looney that feels their irrational religious beliefs are "under attack". No small number of them are Westerners.

We have no indications in open sources that they are thinking about attacking the US, but to think that, if left alone, they wouldn't, is horribly naive.

The quoted sources are right to point out that they lack the capability TODAY to do something, but that gives little indication as to what will happen six months or six years from now.

This is a well financed and much larger group than initially thought.

Further, in assessing them as a threat is that we have almost no human assets within that area, so our ability to accurately ferret out intent and so forth will be limited.

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 12:21 PM

“As formidable as ISIL is as a group, it is not invincible,” Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last week, using an alternate name for the group. “ISIL is not Al Qaeda pre-9/11” with cells operating in Europe, Southeast Asia and the United States. Mr. Olsen’s assessment stood in contrast to more pointed descriptions by other American officials like Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said that ISIS poses an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”

Lol RG

Again, it is a correct assessment. No "immediate" threat. Hagel was utilizing a bit of hyperbole, and they rightfully called him on it.

I know what it is, and isn't, and have a far more nuanced view.

It is a threat.

Do you think it isn't?

vy65

09-12-2014, 12:23 PM

ISIS, at the present time, represents no immediate threat to the US, and that is correct.

Wait, I thought ISIS was a threat -- one greater than AQ ever was?

What will happen, if left to their own devices is something far more akin to the Taliban, and a continued magnet to every muslim looney that feels their irrational religious beliefs are "under attack". No small number of them are Westerners.

I dunno what will happen if they're left to their own devices. But I do know that it will be a much, much better scenario than if we get involved in a third war.

We have no indications in open sources that they are thinking about attacking the US, but to think that, if left alone, they wouldn't, is horribly naive.

Why? Because they've said so? You believe them?

The quoted sources are right to point out that they lack the capability TODAY to do something, but that gives little indication as to what will happen six months or six years from now.

6 months to a year? You're kidding me. These are guys with ak-47s and busted toyota trucks. What indication do you have that they'll be at our shores in Spring 2015?

This is a well financed and much larger group than initially thought.

Further, in assessing them as a threat is that we have almost no human assets within that area, so our ability to accurately ferret out intent and so forth will be limited.

Except that getting involved, again, for the third time is exactly what gives rise to these groups in the first place. It doesn't work -- it never has and never will.

Would ISIS exist if we ever invaded Iraq?

vy65

09-12-2014, 12:23 PM

Again, it is a correct assessment. No "immediate" threat. Hagel was utilizing a bit of hyperbole, and they rightfully called him on it.

I know what it is, and isn't, and have a far more nuanced view.

It is a threat.

Do you think it isn't?

Please educate us on your far more nuanced view.

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 12:26 PM

RG fully supports Obama's plan...shocking :lol

Be afraid everyone...RandomGuy says the terrorists are gonna getcha.

I will wait for some time to pass before trying to pass judgment.

It is a threat that needs to be addressed, and the Republicans have said as much.

Are the Republicans wrong?

If so, how?

It might take more than two sentences to outline.

vy65

09-12-2014, 12:26 PM

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

“As formidable as ISIL is as a group, it is not invincible,” Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last week, using an alternate name for the group. “ISIL is not Al Qaeda pre-9/11” with cells operating in Europe, Southeast Asia and the United States. Mr. Olsen’s assessment stood in contrast to more pointed descriptions by other American officials like Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said that ISIS poses an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”

Not just Hagel's hyperbole now is it?

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 12:28 PM

Please educate us on your far more nuanced view.

Lunch hour is up, but hold me to it, I will be happy to fill in the blanks, as I should. Will have to wait until weekend, or possibly later tonight.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do you think ISIS is not a threat?

vy65

09-12-2014, 12:29 PM

Lunch hour is up, but hold me to it, I will be happy to fill in the blanks, as I should. Will have to wait until weekend, or possibly later tonight.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do you think ISIS is not a threat?

I'd have thought it was obvious that I don't think they threaten the US. Hence all the articles about ISIS not being a threat to the US.

SnakeBoy

09-12-2014, 12:30 PM

It is a threat that needs to be addressed, and the Republicans have said as much.

Are the Republicans wrong?

If so, how?

It might take more than two sentences to outline.

meh

DarrinS

09-12-2014, 12:30 PM

I beg to differ. The sheer anti-Obama hysteria far exceeds the volume and nature of that leveled at Bush.

I suppose you have some data to back this up.

RandomGuy

09-12-2014, 12:30 PM

Not just Hagel's hyperbole now is it?

Re-posting the same quote won't get you where you need to go, counselor.

DarrinS

09-12-2014, 12:34 PM

I put very little stock in most criticisms of Obama's policy on this matter at this point because they are so obviously partisan-driven.

What about policy criticisms from the left? I guess those have merit, huh?

vy65

09-12-2014, 12:34 PM

Re-posting the same quote won't get you where you need to go, counselor.

Missing the point, per the par.

TheSanityAnnex

09-12-2014, 12:51 PM

I put very little stock in most criticisms of Obama's policy on this matter at this point because they are so obviously partisan-driven.

http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/double_facepalm.jpg

And what of the many criticisms coming from his own party?

Care sharing what parts of Obama's foreign policy has been a success in your opinion?

TeyshaBlue

09-12-2014, 12:54 PM

I beg to differ. The sheer anti-Obama hysteria far exceeds the volume and nature of that leveled at Bush..

You have got to be kidding me.

boutons_deux

09-12-2014, 01:32 PM

You have got to be kidding me.

TB :lol pushing the repug-dem false equivalence.

What dubya/Repug did (or blocked or ignored like the credit/financial bubble) was 100x worse than anything Obama/Dems wanted to do but were BLOCKED by the Repugs.

USA is still, and will be for decades more, suffering from the shit dubya, dickhead, Repugs did in their Rain of Errors.

otoh, ACA, even with the ongoing scorched-earth attacks, is already a huge DEM win, will be a decades one POSITIVE for USA.

TeyshaBlue

09-12-2014, 02:24 PM

You lie, shill.

Quick...post a think progress shit take. :lol

hater

09-12-2014, 08:25 PM

US Backed Syrian Rebels and ISIS sign a truce
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-backed-moderate-group-syria-signs-truce-isis-reports-1687662

:lol Obama

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

SnakeBoy

09-12-2014, 09:27 PM

US Backed Syrian Rebels and ISIS sign a truce
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-backed-moderate-group-syria-signs-truce-isis-reports-1687662

:lol Obama

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

:lmao

There's only one good option in Syria...Assad. Can't wait to see Obama spin eating that crow.

Th'Pusher

09-12-2014, 10:21 PM

I'd have thought it was obvious that I don't think they threaten the US. Hence all the articles about ISIS not being a threat to the US.

Obama this week...

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region — including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners — including Europeans and some Americans — have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

what do you disagree with there Vy?

vy65

09-13-2014, 12:20 PM

what do you disagree with there Vy?

I'd have thought it was obvious that I don't think they threaten the US. Hence all the articles about ISIS not being a threat to the US.

Reading is fun-damental!

Th'Pusher

09-13-2014, 12:24 PM

Reading is fun-damental!
So you and Obama and RG are all on the same page. :tu for unnecessary argumentation...

vy65

09-13-2014, 12:48 PM

Lol unnecessary argumentation.

You truly are a fucking moron

Th'Pusher

09-13-2014, 12:53 PM

Lol unnecessary argumentation.

You truly are a fucking moron
What's moronic about that. You don't think IS is an immediate threat to the US, neither does Obama nor RG. What's to argue? Why are you getting emotional?

Infinite_limit

09-13-2014, 12:55 PM

Does anyone have a link to where I can sign up for ISIS?

vy65

09-13-2014, 12:55 PM

No you idiot. I don't think it's a threat. Period. Short term or long term. Not a threat.

Why are you so insistent on blowing RG and Obama. Did your parents not love you enough?

Infinite_limit

09-13-2014, 01:00 PM

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003209009/3414334696_Obama_Rapper_43647_answer_3_xlarge.png

Th'Pusher

09-13-2014, 01:15 PM

No you idiot. I don't think it's a threat. Period. Short term or long term. Not a threat.

Why are you so insistent on blowing RG and Obama. Did your parents not love you enough?

I'm not blowing RG or Obama. I was simply wondering what the hell you were arguing about. The fact that you don't think they can ever pose a threat to the US is both naive and presumptive IMO.

Th'Pusher

09-13-2014, 01:23 PM

Tbh, I don't even think you believe IS can never pose a threat to the US if left unchecked. You just painted yourself into a corner with your eagerness to argue on the internet.

The Reckoning

09-13-2014, 06:57 PM

another beheading...such a shame. maybe if the US stopped giving aid to all these nations that allow ISIS to run through them, they'd turn them over in a second. use our seals to destroy them from within in the meantime. the US doesn't need another aimless war imo.

ElNono

09-13-2014, 07:49 PM

http://i57.tinypic.com/nbx5jk.png

boutons_deux

09-13-2014, 08:08 PM

"US doesn't need another aimless war"

this isn't another, it's the next chapter of the dubya/dickhead/BigOil war.

cheguevara

09-13-2014, 09:35 PM

"US doesn't need another aimless war"

this isn't another, it's the next chapter of the dubya/dickhead/BigOil war.

Cosigned by Omama

TDMVPDPOY

09-14-2014, 01:35 AM

remember hiim sayin he wont deal with terrorists...lol

cheguevara

09-14-2014, 02:39 AM

remember hiim sayin he wont deal with terrorists...lol

That was Bibbi Netanyahu and yet the fuck is purchasing oil from ISIS :lol

boutons_deux

09-14-2014, 03:56 AM

Cosigned by Omama

What's in Your M/E Policy?

Fabbs

09-14-2014, 11:40 AM

cheguevara
Cosigned by Omama

What's in Your M/E Policy?
Starting on Jan 1, 2009.
You deal with the cesspool Dickhead and DouBullyou left.
Ya lets hear it.

ChumpDumper

09-14-2014, 12:35 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyqfbjYD0mk

bu..bu..bu..bu..bu...but it's all George Bush's fault.The invasion of Iraq was his decision.

The timetable to leave Iraq was approved by Bush. He thought the timing was just right.

DarrinS

09-15-2014, 12:36 PM

The invasion of Iraq was his decision.

The timetable to leave Iraq was approved by Bush. He thought the timing was just right.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

ChumpDumper

09-15-2014, 12:44 PM

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision.

boutons_deux

09-15-2014, 12:50 PM

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

dubya, dickhead, NSA/CIA LIED about ALL the "reasons" to invade Iraq, which was dickhkead's secret "national energy plan" discussed in private with BigOil industry execs.

DarrinS

09-15-2014, 01:11 PM

dubya, dickhead, NSA/CIA LIED about ALL the "reasons" to invade Iraq, which was dickhkead's secret "national energy plan" discussed in private with BigOil industry execs.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

boutons_deux

09-15-2014, 01:41 PM

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

dubya, dickhead, NSA/CIA LIED about ALL the "reasons" to EVERYBODY to invade Iraq, which was dickhkead's secret "national energy plan" discussed in private with BigOil industry execs.

boutons_deux

09-15-2014, 07:20 PM

On Fox, of course, non-stop anger-mongering and fear-mongering by Fox and Repugs, and their viewers, base falls for it every time.

Here's TX fucktard in a fucking cowboy hat

Texas Sheriff Claims ‘Quran Books’ Found At Mexican Border May Mean ISIS Infiltration (http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2014/09/15/3567351/texas-sheriff-claims-isis-penetrate-united-states/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Sheriff-Gary-Painter-on-Fox-news-638x374.jpg

“I received an intelligence report that said that there were ISIS cells that were active in Juarez [Mexico] and that there was some activity for the sheriffs along the border to be on alert,”

ISIS members are poised to infiltrate the border, that “we’ll send them to hell.”

. “I’m saying the border is wide open. We have found copies, or people along the border, have found Muslim clothing, they have found Quran books that are laying on the side of the trail. So we know that there are Muslims that have come across, have been smuggled in the United States.”
“If they show their ugly head in our area, we’ll send them to hell,”

“I think the United States needs to get busy and they need to bomb them. They need to take them out. I would like for them to hit them so hard and so often that every time they hear a propeller on a plane or a jet aircraft engine that they urinate down both legs.”

http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2014/09/15/3567351/texas-sheriff-claims-isis-penetrate-united-states/

You Stay Classy, Texas! :lol

SnakeBoy

09-16-2014, 12:54 PM

The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision.

The decision to withdraw was Obama's.

The decision to go back to war in Iraq is Obama's.

ChumpDumper

09-16-2014, 12:55 PM

The decision to withdraw was Obama's. The plan approved by Bush. Did you want to stay forever?

The decision to go back to war in Iraq is Obama's.Bushy broke it, you bought it.

boutons_deux

09-16-2014, 01:12 PM

The decision to withdraw was Obama's.

The decision to go back to war in Iraq is Obama's.

So in your fucked up brain, you simply FORGET that the Repugs fucked up the M/E for decades and the economy for decades and SCOTUS for decades, and Obama starts with a clean page? :lol

SnakeBoy

09-16-2014, 01:28 PM

http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/08/Obama-Buck-Stops-copy.jpg

RandomGuy

09-16-2014, 04:08 PM

“As formidable as ISIL is as a group, it is not invincible,” Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last week, using an alternate name for the group. “ISIL is not Al Qaeda pre-9/11” with cells operating in Europe, Southeast Asia and the United States. Mr. Olsen’s assessment stood in contrast to more pointed descriptions by other American officials like Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said that ISIS poses an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”

Lol RG

I went back through the article, and read through it.

Can you tell me where exactly Mr. Olsen said ISIS poses no threat at all?

RandomGuy

09-16-2014, 04:17 PM

I'd have thought it was obvious that I don't think they threaten the US. Hence all the articles about ISIS not being a threat to the US.

And as of now, I only marginally agree.

I think your calculus seems to be missing the shia/sunni dynamic, and the ultimate declared goal of this group is an entirely new country that will disrupt global oil supplies in a very major way.

The conflict that ISIS is carrying out to establish itself is touching off and making a lot of recent sunni-shia violence much worse.

This violence is not limited by national borders.

To claim there is no threat also misses the kinds of future threat that such a group poses. The Taliban didn't pose a direct threat to the US either, but it provided operating space to people who were ultimately responsible for thousands of US deaths.

ISIS is something new entirely, although not exactly unexpected given the radicalization that has taken place in many countries as a second or third order consequence of the Iraq invasion by the US.

RandomGuy

09-16-2014, 04:19 PM

http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/double_facepalm.jpg

And what of the many criticisms coming from his own party?

As I have said before, I put very little stock in MOST criticisms of Obama's foreign policy.

Criticisms from Democrats, since they are from his own party I tend to give a bit more credence as they are less obviously partisan.

Is this hard to understand?

boutons_deux

09-16-2014, 04:23 PM

O's foreign policy polls poorly with the public. But does public know or GAF what his foreign policies are? and what foreign policies would they approve of?

RandomGuy

09-16-2014, 04:39 PM

Wait, I thought ISIS was a threat -- one greater than AQ ever was?

I dunno what will happen if they're left to their own devices. But I do know that it will be a much, much better scenario than if we get involved in a third war.

Why? Because they've said so? You believe them?

6 months to a year? You're kidding me. These are guys with ak-47s and busted toyota trucks. What indication do you have that they'll be at our shores in Spring 2015?

This is a well financed and much larger group than initially thought.

Except that getting involved, again, for the third time is exactly what gives rise to these groups in the first place. It doesn't work -- it never has and never will.

Would ISIS exist if we ever invaded Iraq?

This would be a lot easier to address if you would parse it out into separate posts.

Again, I find your general attitude somewhat naive, and simplistic, per par, although in this case there aren't any poor people for you to feel superior to for imagined personal failings.

It doesn't take much more than simply looking at a map with some important overlays to note why this might be important you.

http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/6a2124fcdbe5645469_0wm6y9587.jpg

These guys have more than AK's and busted toyota trucks.

http://www.blackboxwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ISIL-Captured-SCUD-Missile_June-2014.jpg

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/headline/public/2014/07/08/isis.jpg?itok=DIgU9fLC

The possibility they could possibly overrun whatever of Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles remain is also something that should worry you.

None of this will directly threaten the US mainland right now, but if you think that such a strong de-stabilizing force so close to a very sizable percentage of the world's oil supply as well as NATO members isn't a threat, perhaps you need to do some more reading beyond your own confirmation bias.

The articles you posted to support your position never really said that this group isn't a threat. While some will exaggerate the current threat, I couldn't find many, even Mr. Olsen, who seems to credibily imply, as you seem to here that they are NO threat.

Their own statements fully outline what they intend.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/30/article-2674736-1F46221200000578-100_634x381.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html

They seem to be pretty clear about doing this, and don't really care much who gets hurt in the process.

If you can't see that, you obviously have not been paying attention.

RandomGuy

09-16-2014, 04:52 PM

Please educate us on your far more nuanced view.

Done.

Threat = increasing sunni-shia animus in an area already experiencing tit for tat killing.

This de-stabilizes an important part of the world.

threat = provides money and training for people who pretty much would, and have killed westerners that they feel directly threaten their way of life.

This islamist ideology views the US and Israel as fighting some imagined "anti-muslim" war. This is part and parcel of what drives the rank and file, and can be seen explicitly in al-Baghdadi's statements. Google them, this ideology is not hard to find, nor understand.

threat = Allowing them to continue to hold land is handing tens of millions of dollars monthly to a group of people who subscribe to an ideology that has pretty much already long ago declared a war on us.

Hope that provides a bit more substantiation for viewing them as a threat. They will not be attacking the US tomorrow, no.

How many people would they have to kill before you would suddenly view them as important enough? 1? 100? 2,977?

SnakeBoy

09-16-2014, 04:59 PM

The possibility they could possibly overrun whatever of Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles remain is also something that should worry you.

:lol WMD's...RG is going full Bush defending Obama.

TheSanityAnnex

09-16-2014, 05:06 PM

As I have said before, I put very little stock in MOST criticisms of Obama's foreign policy.

Criticisms from Democrats, since they are from his own party I tend to give a bit more credence as they are less obviously partisan.

Is this hard to understand?

Care sharing what parts of Obama's foreign policy has been a success in your opinion?

vy65

09-16-2014, 05:16 PM

I went back through the article, and read through it.

Can you tell me where exactly Mr. Olsen said ISIS poses no threat at all?

He was cited for the proposition that ISIS does not pose the same threat that AQ once did. I was responding to this gem:

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

vy65

09-16-2014, 05:25 PM

And as of now, I only marginally agree.

I think your calculus seems to be missing the shia/sunni dynamic, and the ultimate declared goal of this group is an entirely new country that will disrupt global oil supplies in a very major way.

That same dynamic will see regional actors (i.e., Turkey) check whatever progress the Caliphate makes

The conflict that ISIS is carrying out to establish itself is touching off and making a lot of recent sunni-shia violence much worse.

Not saying there's no violence - or that ISIS doesn't represent a threat to certain groups in the region. But you still haven't shown why ISIS threatens the US outside of making numerous large inferences and assumptions of how geopolitics will play out.

This violence is not limited by national borders.

While true, they're not storming our shores. If anything, the fact that the most "shock-value" strike they've done -- beheadings -- are localized to Syria should tell you about the threat level they represent. If they're so well funded and sophisticated, why chop off 3 journalists heads instead of attacking the US directly?

To claim there is no threat also misses the kinds of future threat that such a group poses. The Taliban didn't pose a direct threat to the US either, but it provided operating space to people who were ultimately responsible for thousands of US deaths.

The Taliban were also sheltered by the Afghani government at the time (they were kinda the government at the time). Assad is trying to bomb ISIS out of his country, as are the Kurds, so I don't see the "slippery slope" analogy there. Moreover, What evidence do you have that ISIS is anywhere near the level of AQ such that they could take advantage of a failed state and do some bad shit?

ISIS is something new entirely, although not exactly unexpected given the radicalization that has taken place in many countries as a second or third order consequence of the Iraq invasion by the US.

No its not. It's a different iteration of regional theo-nationalism mixed in with some terrorism. What's so novel beyond its claims of creating a caliphate (which, you know, are just words and don't hurt)?

boutons_deux

09-16-2014, 05:33 PM

I'm much more worried about the American Christian Taliban unending attempts to create a theocracy in the USA, than any ISIL caliphate.

vy65

09-16-2014, 05:33 PM

I never knew liberals could be such good fear-mongers. Posing with a rocket and a tank doesn't inspire fear. Nor do claims of wanting to re-impose the Caliphate.

I don't get what point you're trying to make about the pipelines. The picture doesn't show where all the wells are or how much their producing (in fact, one of the pipelines is defunct). The oil reserves are outside of ISIS land and are all near borders with Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi (representing a pretty strong deterrent to the Caliphate's advancement).

Use your words, pictures don't mean shit.

SnakeBoy

09-16-2014, 05:41 PM

I never knew liberals could be such good fear-mongers.

Liberals and Neocons are cut from the same cloth.

http://www.toonpool.com/user/997/files/liberals_and_neocons_1590725.jpg

vy65

09-16-2014, 05:43 PM

Done.

Threat = increasing sunni-shia animus in an area already experiencing tit for tat killing.

This de-stabilizes an important part of the world.

threat = provides money and training for people who pretty much would, and have killed westerners that they feel directly threaten their way of life.

This islamist ideology views the US and Israel as fighting some imagined "anti-muslim" war. This is part and parcel of what drives the rank and file, and can be seen explicitly in al-Baghdadi's statements. Google them, this ideology is not hard to find, nor understand.

threat = Allowing them to continue to hold land is handing tens of millions of dollars monthly to a group of people who subscribe to an ideology that has pretty much already long ago declared a war on us.

Hope that provides a bit more substantiation for viewing them as a threat. They will not be attacking the US tomorrow, no.

How many people would they have to kill before you would suddenly view them as important enough? 1? 100? 2,977?

You're just taking them at their word and asserting that eventually they'll do something bad. Where's your evidence?

Oh and lol stability. Because the region is known for its stability and we wouldn't want to do anything to destabilize it.

vy65

09-16-2014, 05:46 PM

If you think that everyone who says mean things about the US and has a gun is a threat, you're going to have to bomb the entire planet ...

Th'Pusher

09-16-2014, 08:54 PM

I don't think it's [IS] a threat. Period. Short term or long term. Not a threat.
Lol.

Talk about presumption.

vy65

09-16-2014, 09:34 PM

Lol.

Talk about presumption.

As always, awesome contribution to the conversation. Keep up the good work

TheSanityAnnex

09-16-2014, 09:36 PM

As always, awesome contribution to the conversation. Keep up the good work
Why are you so emotional?

Th'Pusher

09-16-2014, 09:52 PM

As always, awesome contribution to the conversation. Keep up the good work

My contribution to the conversation was to get you to paint yourself into a ridiculous corner claiming that IS will never pose a threat to the US.

Th'Pusher

09-16-2014, 09:57 PM

Calculated shitbombs tbh

vy65

09-16-2014, 10:05 PM

Lol you truly are the Bobby Fischer of this board. Masterful, bravo

vy65

09-16-2014, 10:06 PM

My contribution to the conversation was to get you to paint yourself into a ridiculous corner claiming that IS will never pose a threat to the US.

It won't, btw, and you're not smart.

Th'Pusher

09-16-2014, 10:08 PM

Lol you truly are the Bobby Fischer of this board. Masterful, bravo
Seriously dude. Your shit claim was ridiculous and you abandoned it as soon as I called you on it. Stop being an internet pussy and admit you fucked up in your eagerness to argue.

Th'Pusher

09-16-2014, 10:09 PM

It won't, btw, and you're not smart.
Lol. Doubling down. WC style.

vy65

09-16-2014, 10:10 PM

Seriously dude. Your shit claim was ridiculous and you abandoned it as soon as I called you on it. Stop being an internet pussy and admit you fucked up in your eagerness to argue.

I never abandoned it. They're not a threat to the us now or in the future. For all your celebratory mental masterbation, I dunno how you're not getting this. You truly are retarded, like product of incest retarded

Th'Pusher

09-16-2014, 10:13 PM

I never abandoned it. They're not a threat to the us now or in the future. For all your celebratory mental masterbation, I dunno how you're not getting this. You truly are retarded, like product of incest retarded

Doubling down followed by personal attacks. Just call me a Libtard and complete your devolution into WC.

vy65

09-16-2014, 10:17 PM

Doubling down followed by personal attacks. Just call me a Libtard and complete your devolution into WC.

Sorry did you have a point in all of this? Or are you just wanting to contribute nothing per the par?

Th'Pusher

09-16-2014, 10:25 PM

Sorry did you have a point in all of this? Or are you just wanting to contribute nothing per the par?
IS, while not an immediate threat to the US, if left unchecked, can become a threat to the US. To claim otherwise (like you) is fucking presumptuous, naive and stupid.

Now if you want to discuss whether Obama's proposed strategy to address the potential threat will be effective, we can go down that road and we'll likely find more common ground. But, presuming IS will never be a threat to the US is stupid. You know it, I know it and anyone reading this tread knows it.

cheguevara

09-17-2014, 12:08 AM

IS, while not an immediate threat to the US, if left unchecked, can become a threat to the US. To claim otherwise (like you) is fucking presumptuous, naive and stupid.

Everything "could" potentially become a threat. Does that mean we should bomb everything?

Now if you want to discuss whether Obama's proposed strategy to address the potential threat will be effective, we can go down that road and we'll likely find more common ground. But, presuming IS will never be a threat to the US is stupid. You know it, I know it and anyone reading this tread knows it.

I dont see IS becoming athreat in the next 50 years.

Hell north korea is not even a threat and they possess nuclear weapons and have vowed to kill all of us :lol

howcome we have not blown up NK??? Or even better question howcome they have not blown us up???

This IsIS boogeyman witchunt is one of the most laughable bullshit lies in recent history. Remember the Iraq WMDs bullshit? This is worse :lmao

RandomGuy

09-19-2014, 09:55 AM

You're just taking them at their word and asserting that eventually they'll do something bad. Where's your evidence?

Oh and lol stability. Because the region is known for its stability and we wouldn't want to do anything to destabilize it.

Australia raids foil reported ISIS beheading plots
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/18/australia-terror-raid-prompted-by-isis-plans-for-public-killing-pm-says/

I take them at their word, because they do what they say, and have had a pretty clear pattern of doing so.

As I said, to think otherwise is naive.

RandomGuy

09-19-2014, 09:56 AM

That same dynamic will see regional actors (i.e., Turkey) check whatever progress the Caliphate makes

Not saying there's no violence - or that ISIS doesn't represent a threat to certain groups in the region. But you still haven't shown why ISIS threatens the US outside of making numerous large inferences and assumptions of how geopolitics will play out.

While true, they're not storming our shores. If anything, the fact that the most "shock-value" strike they've done -- beheadings -- are localized to Syria should tell you about the threat level they represent. If they're so well funded and sophisticated, why chop off 3 journalists heads instead of attacking the US directly?

The Taliban were also sheltered by the Afghani government at the time (they were kinda the government at the time). Assad is trying to bomb ISIS out of his country, as are the Kurds, so I don't see the "slippery slope" analogy there. Moreover, What evidence do you have that ISIS is anywhere near the level of AQ such that they could take advantage of a failed state and do some bad shit?

No its not. It's a different iteration of regional theo-nationalism mixed in with some terrorism. What's so novel beyond its claims of creating a caliphate (which, you know, are just words and don't hurt)?

What is novel about it, is that it holds territory and has a monthly income in the eight figure range. Something you might be aware of, if you dug a little.

RandomGuy

09-19-2014, 09:58 AM

He was cited for the proposition that ISIS does not pose the same threat that AQ once did. I was responding to this gem:

So he didn't actually say it posed NO threat now, or no threat in the future?

What were his exact words per the article?

RandomGuy

09-19-2014, 10:23 AM

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

[Here is a guy saying it isn't an immediate threat]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/struggling-to-gauge-isis-threat-even-as-us-prepares-to-act.html?_r=1

Again, it is a correct assessment. No "immediate" threat. Hagel was utilizing a bit of hyperbole, and they rightfully called him on it.

I know what it is, and isn't, and have a far more nuanced view.

It is a threat.

Do you think it isn't?

[repost of article]Not just Hagel's hyperbole now is it?

Lunch hour is up, but hold me to it, I will be happy to fill in the blanks, as I should. Will have to wait until weekend, or possibly later tonight.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do you think ISIS is not a threat?

I'd have thought it was obvious that I don't think they threaten the US. Hence all the articles about ISIS not being a threat to the US.

Re-posting the same quote won't get you where you need to go, counselor.

Missing the point, per the par.

I went back through the article, and read through it.

Can you tell me where exactly Mr. Olsen said ISIS poses no threat at all?

He was cited for the proposition that ISIS does not pose the same threat that AQ once did. I was responding to this gem:
"In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was."[-RG]

T
The articles you posted to support your position never really said that this group isn't a threat. While some will exaggerate the current threat, I couldn't find many, even Mr. Olsen, who seems to credibily imply, as you seem to here that they are NO threat.

If you can't see that, you obviously have not been paying attention.

I get what you are driving at, and again, Mr. Olsen is correct.

ISIS is not now, the same level of threat as Al Qaeda was pre-9-11

My ultimate point was that they will be, if left unchecked, and that is patently obvious for a host of factors, as I have pointed out.

Be happy to walk back the unqualified "ever was" since ISIS currently does not pose the same level of threat that Al Qaeda did for the decade or so that we somewhat ignored them. That was inaccurate.

Lets try something a bit more accurate:

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and will become a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

Again, to think otherwise is naive, and a bit ignorant of who/what composes and motivates this group, and how they are financed.

vy65

09-19-2014, 11:07 AM

I get what you are driving at, and again, Mr. Olsen is correct.

ISIS is not now, the same level of threat as Al Qaeda was pre-9-11

Ok. Glad you've backed off your initial IS>AQ claim.

My ultimate point was that they will be, if left unchecked, and that is patently obvious for a host of factors, as I have pointed out.

I disagree. In a vacuum, I don't think they threaten us. At all, now or in the future. Call me naive, but we disagree here.

But ISIS operates in the real world, not a vacuum. And in the real world, a number of regional actors, e.g., Turkey, the Kurds, President Assad, all check ISIS aggression. Point being a) they're not a threat now b) they won't be threat in the future and c) we should leave the region the fuck a

Be happy to walk back the unqualified "ever was" since ISIS currently does not pose the same level of threat that Al Qaeda did for the decade or so that we somewhat ignored them. That was inaccurate.

Lets try something a bit more accurate:

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and will become a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

Again, to think otherwise is naive, and a bit ignorant of who/what composes and motivates this group, and how they are financed.

This is just reading tea-leaves, and a reading that leaves out the interplay of other regional forces. See above.

Getting more involved in the region, arming rebels who may or may not be allied with ISIS, and further destabilizing another government in the region is a failed strategy. It is exactly how entities like ISIS come about in the first place. And its a waste of lives and money and resources to get involved in a region to combat an actor that poses no threat to us. I don't see a winning way out here, do you?