- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 92,178
- Reaction score
- 91,341
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
if we can afford foreverwar, then we can afford social safety nets. i would put social safety nets well above perpetual war on the priority list.
We have been borrowing money to pay for everything for a long time. It is not wars that are breaking the bank. It is a runaway entitlement system. That's what we need to get control of.
That is absolutely wrong.
Russian support of al-Assad has always been of importance and I would argue is a key reason to the US calling al-Assad a problem, there was little in it for us where as other dictators we do work with and overlook their method of rule. Similar story with Iran, who we have been calling a problem for a very long time.
The truth is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (and eventually ISIS) used to have a different name in the region, which included fighters operating in Syria and Iraq and many other places; that would be al-Qaeda. US Troops and allied Sunni had al-Qaeda fairly well under control around the 2006 surge, but they were never destroyed and that includes taking out Bin Laden. Those still there in 2010 were fundamentally the same looking for opportunity. It was handed to them in the civil war in Syria and the weakness of Iraq's government (the former not our issue, the latter our direct caused issue.) As early as 2011 who became ISIS in Iraq was successful in getting freed prisoners held by the Iraqi government, successful in recruitment and dealing with older experienced soldiers who at one time were under Saddam. In short they rebuilt their strength just in time to take advantage of these conditions already mentioned. As such were in Syria as well operating not in conjunction with the Free Syrian Army but rather in competition, allowing the civil war to alter into a multiple way civil war. Enough so that these so called "moderates" already agreed to not engage ISIS even with our repeated calls to arm these so called "moderates."
But even before Iraq, by principle ISIS is the product of genocide happening in Syria. There was not enough momentum for the Free Syrian Army in 2012 to topple al-Assad and some of the attacks on these people predate that time frame. Facing al-Assad's intelligence services, military, and violent attacks those in opposition became divided and disenfranchised only to soon thereafter become radicalized and militant. Carrying out operations before 2012. At one time these people turned to the world, were ignored, and embraced the idea of Islamic State independence. That could not by design include "moderates" fighting under the Free Syrian Army banner. Just across the border there were other groups disenfranchised in Iraq, by another problem that from their point of view the US created.
Syria is the real reason for this and it predates 2012. The break point, between the now established ISIS and al-Qaeda, occurred because of what is happening in Syria. And why? ISIS wants something they have always wanted, independence from other factions in the same religion. And there is zero evidence that arming the Free Syrian Army would have prevented ISIS operations in Iraq or Syria. al-Assad already made the bed we are living in, which is why Obama got punked so badly by Putin on Syria. It is so bad now that in some ways you could look at al-Qaeda and ISIS in competition with one another when you would think the synergy between the two would produce world wide attacks. But what we really see are the fruits of two terrible trees. Iraq's government weakness and how well al-Assad has handled dealing with the US. The "moderates" there will drag this multiple way civil war in Syria for years. There is no evidence our arming them alone would speed things up... or undo what al-Assad already did to those that became ISIS.
according to Bloomberg, we generally raised rates or added a surtax until recently.
Bush Breaks 150-Year History of Higher U.S. Taxes in Wartime - Bloomberg
if you want a constant state of war, you should have to pay more to fund it. shared sacrifice.
Iranian support ramped up significantly in late 2012. Forces that became ISIS were negligible in early 2012.
Oh I don't disagree at all about raising taxes in time of war. I think failure to do so was GWB's greatest mistake. Nonetheless, every war in US history has required deficit financing.
First is was non-existent, now it is negligible... which is it?
Either. Point is they were too weak to matter.
A point history does not agree with, but it sounds good politically.
Had we acted in Syria in 2012 the civil war would have ended that year. There would never have been an ISIS. Had BHO not talked so openly of leaving Iraq completely, and had he not reduced planned US force levels below a worthwhile figure, Maliki would have been easier to deal with.
Now you are going off the deep end. After what happened in Libya you are now insisting that if the U.S overthrew Assad in 2012 everything would be peachy? You have a neocon-like knack for oversimplifying things and then getting in over your head. Next you will be wanting Obama to chant "Bring it on". You also have no respect for our military. Asking them to remain where they are not wanted and be subjected to endless attacks and IED's just so we can keep an eye on Maliki is a disgusting waste of American lives.
Afghanistan was also forced regime change.
Those people were Al Qaeda. But since the Islamofascist supporter on the golf course claimed they were defeated they needed a new name. Cool, no?Let's see...we bombed a group no one has ever heard of (seems they a were about to attack the US) and our secondary target was ISIS command and control centers that seem to still be mostly standing.
Paint my ass confused.
Why of course it is! Combating aggression with aggression never solves anything. That's why the U.S. never should have overreacted like it did on December 7, 1941. Every time U.S. forces killed a Japanese, it just made more Japanese mad at us. If only we had tried to see things their way, I'm sure everything would have been fine.
Can you name an event equivalent to December 7, 1941? Don't use 9/11, that was Al-Qaeda, this is a different group.
Those people were Al Qaeda. But since the Islamofascist supporter on the golf course claimed they were defeated they needed a new name. Cool, no?
What's your point? You said, in so many words, that it's foolish to respond to aggression with aggression. You didn't make the time the aggression took place a condition of your claim, although it seems like you're doing that now. Are you now saying that the U.S. should only respond to aggression with aggression at certain times, but not others? If it's foolish to respond that way now, why was it ever any less foolish? Do you let people punch you in the face, as long as they don't do it too hard?
You mentioned 9/11. I wonder what makes you think this country will be safe from something like that or even worse, if it allows equally depraved jihadists, who want us all dead, to set up another safe haven even better than the one they had fifteen years ago in Afghanistan. Apparently you are content to let these bastards remain there unmolested, with tons of money at their disposal, and hatch all the mass murder plots they please, at their leisure, against us and God knows who else.
George Bush claimed that they were on the run and not a problem anymore in May of 2003 already, long before most people even knew who Barack Obama was. But, Al Qaeda went on to kill another 4,000 US soldiers. In fact, George Bush never did destroy Al Qaeda, they are still alive and well. What a partisan empty shirt.
Bush, May 5, 2003: Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore.
There is a difference between a country and a terrorist group. You cannot declare war on an ideology.
To your last point. we can still monitor and intel share. We can improve our defense here at home without killing innocent civilians and creating new enemies.
Those people were Al Qaeda. But since the Islamofascist supporter on the golf course claimed they were defeated they needed a new name. Cool, no?
Social Security pays for itself by law. Are you saying we should do the same with the defense budget?
You must be kidding.....they have had a constant war since we invaded. Nothing is worse than war.
LOL There was nothing stabile about Maliki's tyrannical government. That is why you think we should have stayed against the Iraqi's will I bet. We went to Iraq to free them not put another tyrant in place. They are closer now to stability then when Maliki was anointed by Bush.
Perhaps, but the new Iraq government did not seem to excited about the idea else negotiations for our long term occupation would have occured differently. For both Bush 43 and Obama, who wanted entirely different things.
according to Bloomberg, we generally raised rates or added a surtax until recently.
Bush Breaks 150-Year History of Higher U.S. Taxes in Wartime - Bloomberg
if you want a constant state of war, you should have to pay more to fund it. shared sacrifice.
if we can afford foreverwar, then we can afford social safety nets. i would put social safety nets well above perpetual war on the priority list.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?