Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Um... no? Al Qaeda is still alive and well.
Hello Polgara, true enough, but then it's not that we're just there to interfere in feuds between the Sunni and the Shia.
Chuck Hagel, 2007
People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.
Interesting response from some of the left:
The Baghdad Bureau Chief for the NY Times also pretty much admitted that the President had ignored the collapse of Iraq and growth of ISIL for political reasons.
"Annexing" "countries", lol. Exaggerate much. You still don't understand where Russia and China are in regards to US interference and regime change in the ME. Their articulated positions at the UN have missed you somehow.
I love how you assume things and then think that makes them facts. Obama certainly knew that the allies would not participate in Syria. He doesn't care. Just like with Bin Laden.
Um... no? Al Qaeda is still alive and well.
I know they both signed on to Resolution 1501 if that's what you are referring to. And yes, when you move troops into a country, and force them into a vote with no monitors whatsoever, I do call that annexing what Russia did with Crimea, because that's what it was. Ultimately, that's the difference between the US and China and Russia. If we do go into a country, we don't go in there with designs of taking it over for ourselves. Have we forgotten about Tibet? Georgia?
I didn't say anything about their numbers being too few to do whatever it is they're going to do either. Try again. Will they be in more danger because of their small numbers? Well, there will be 475 of them against an estimated 27,000+ ISIS fighters in Iraq and who knows how many other fighters with other terrorist groups? How effective has the Iraqi military been in keeping these people from seizing major portion of Iraq? How much do you trust the Iraqi government to put themselves at risk to protect and defend our 475 people?
The people being kidnapped, tortured, beheaded, and blown up are almost never in direct conflict or combat or contact with the terrorists. But they are just as dead.
Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?
Which isn't cool. He lost me as candidate Obama when he announced in June/July of 08 that he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan, with or without the Pakistani's permission. Don't remember that being Bush's reason for not doing it himself, but if it was, good for him.
I love how you assume things and then think that makes them facts. Obama certainly knew that the allies would not participate in Syria. He doesn't care. Just like with Bin Laden.
So you think ISIS should be given safe haven in Syria?
Reminds me of the treaty of Hidalgo. Btw, imperialism can include annexation of territory, but isn't necessary. US has a history of imperialism.
Oh good gawd. For the umpteenth time. IS was hiding under a rock until we conducted regime change and overthrew, or otherwise supported the overthrow of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad.
Arming the MB Backed Rebels now.....training them and giving them weapons, so they can fight ISIL will allow them to take the fight to Assad. Which Iran will not go for that. Its Iran who has been arming the Shia in Iraq and putting together Militias. They already have played their games with the Nuke Talks. Plus now they see BO doesn't even have the backing of our closest allies. That he really doesn't want to deal with this problem.
Which btw....did you hear Reid on the Senate floor talk about these terrorists? He is all for arming the and funding the MB backed Rebels.
Oh good gawd. For the umpteenth time. IS was hiding under a rock until we conducted regime change and overthrew, or otherwise supported the overthrow of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad.
Assume? What are you trying to make me laugh or something. What the hell you copied and pasted it yourself. Reading is fundamental.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.....snip~
Now who was assuming Obama knew his allies would not participate......especially when they say they weren't talked to about it? Do you always look to Lie for BO peep?
Oh yeah? How many of those territories are we holding right now? Let's see... we let go of the Phillipines, Panama, Grenada, Panama, Iraq... In fact, I'm having a harder time thinking of a case where the Russians or the Chinese, didn't try and keep their territory. Only reason the Cold War ended was because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of a failed economic model, and couldn't keep down the peasants any more...
I've never actually heard you come out and say it, but knowing the view you have with Ukraine, I have to ask, Do you think the whole Arab Spring was just some giant CIA operation or something?
I agree but now that we broke it we bought it. We created Isis. Now we need to destroy it.
So you were in favor of leaving a residual force which would have continued losing
lives as well as continuing the overload of the VA with thousands of more lives?
Not to mention that Americans were never going to allow Palin to be a heartbeat away from the President.
A President who finally got another war, one he doesn'ty want to vote on either .
You know what?
That 500 or whatever look a lot like the "advisers" first sent into Vietnam..
We will see how many there are in November....after the mid terms
You have problems with comprehension. Saying they were not asked to participate does not mean they were not informed.
All I can say is that if the horror of ISIS is not enough to get the Iraqi's to fight for their homeland I don't know what will. MeanwhileAnd what happens if they hunker down in the cities they've already captured? Destroy the cities and everyone in them?since ISIS is an ARMY we can stomp them real good from the air. Their tanks and heavy artillery will be toast real soon.See aboveThey can run but they cannot hide tanks on the move.
I'm personally indifferent. Like any president speech its all about talking points. I honestly dont think we should be directly involved militarily in this conflict meaning I dont think we should have boots on the ground or commence airstrikes. I think we need to take the training wheels off the Iraqi gov, and strongly support the Kurds. I do however honestly can see the argument for airstrikes. But I see the long term benefits of airstrikes doing much to nothing.
Arming the MB Backed Rebels now.....training them and giving them weapons, so they can fight ISIL will allow them to take the fight to Assad. Which Iran will not go for that. Its Iran who has been arming the Shia in Iraq and putting together Militias. They already have played their games with the Nuke Talks. Plus now they see BO doesn't even have the backing of our closest allies. That he really doesn't want to deal with this problem.
Which btw....did you hear Reid on the Senate floor talk about these terrorists? He is all for arming the and funding the MB backed Rebels.
Well Russia wasn't the only one DS.....but they do have a point as BO and team do want to get rid of Assad. But then from BO's speech and his calling it a 4 pronged attack. He talked about our allies are helping out with the Airstrikes in Iraq. Aid and Airstrikes.
But now Syria.....that's a different story. Here from our #1 Strategic Ally.
Britain’s foreign secretary says his country won’t participate in airstrikes on Syria, following an announcement from Washington that it would begin hitting targets inside the country.
Speaking Thursday after talks with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Philip Hammond said Britain won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.....snip~
Britain: Won't take part in airstrikes on Syria
Now Germany.
The foreign ministers of Germany and Britain said on Thursday they would not be taking part in air strikes in Syria against the Islamic State militant group.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.....snip~
Germany, Britain say won't take part in anti-IS air strikes in Syria | Reuters
It looks as though BO, and his political team wrote a speech without building the necessary commitment from allies to allow them to be part of a united front on global security.
Hows that in comparison with his Speech? If he didn't even talk with our closest allies before this speech. Where do you think that leaves him on the rest of his 4 prong attack?
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?