US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

[MisterBeale]

Liberals would love for everyone to forget that fact. They may have already managed to wipe it from their own realities.

Fuck the so called "liberals." They are all owned these days too. They don't exist anymore. The corporate masters who owned congress redistricted ANYONE who could possibly be a threat and bought off everyone else. Where is Dennis Kucinich? Where is Cynthia McKinney? Yeah, they made sure only folks they had in their pocket are there. Friends of Zion, etc. No one in congress cares, no one. The game is rigged.

"Everybody Knows."

Progressive Democrats Follow Obama to War in Syria
Progressive Democrats Follow Obama to War in Syria nsnbc international

The “quiet support” of war by the progressive Democrats is especially noteworthy. The progressive superstar, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, has been especially vocal in her support of Obama’s war plans, saying that ISIS should be the nation’s “number 1 priority.” But Warren always conditions her war support with populist catchphrases such as “we can’t be dragged into another Middle East War,” as if investing in the Syrian rebels wasn’t doing exactly that.

The other progressive figurehead, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, also hides his war support under a populist glaze. Sanders shamefully agrees that Obama should ramp up support to the Syrian rebels, while giving the same hollow warning about avoiding another prolonged military adventure. Either the Democrats don’t understand the basic arithmetic of war or they assume the American public is stupid.

Sanders has repeatedly argued in favor of Obama’s plan as he grumbles about the “enormously complicated” problem of ISIS. But it’s actually quite simple; the U.S. military’s campaigns in the Middle East are creating more enemies with each bomb dropped. And the ongoing U.S.-led proxy war against the Syrian government has directly contributed to the rise of ISIS and other extremists.

But these simple truths are considered taboo in the war-hungry Congress. Most Americans still don’t know that Obama has coordinated the proxy war against the Syrian government since at least 2012. By doing this Obama and his regional allies have artificially lengthened the Syrian war, directly contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people while giving rise to the Islamic extremist Syrian opposition fighters.

 

[dilloduck]

Liberals would love for everyone to forget that fact. They may have already managed to wipe it from their own realities.

Fuck the so called "liberals." They are all owned these days too. They don't exist anymore. The corporate masters who owned congress redistricted ANYONE who could possibly be a threat and bought off everyone else. Where is Dennis Kucinich? Where is Cynthia McKinney? Yeah, they made sure only folks they had in their pocket are there. Friends of Zion, etc. No one in congress cares, no one. The game is rigged.

"Everybody Knows."

Progressive Democrats Follow Obama to War in Syria
Progressive Democrats Follow Obama to War in Syria nsnbc international

The “quiet support” of war by the progressive Democrats is especially noteworthy. The progressive superstar, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, has been especially vocal in her support of Obama’s war plans, saying that ISIS should be the nation’s “number 1 priority.” But Warren always conditions her war support with populist catchphrases such as “we can’t be dragged into another Middle East War,” as if investing in the Syrian rebels wasn’t doing exactly that.

The other progressive figurehead, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, also hides his war support under a populist glaze. Sanders shamefully agrees that Obama should ramp up support to the Syrian rebels, while giving the same hollow warning about avoiding another prolonged military adventure. Either the Democrats don’t understand the basic arithmetic of war or they assume the American public is stupid.

Sanders has repeatedly argued in favor of Obama’s plan as he grumbles about the “enormously complicated” problem of ISIS. But it’s actually quite simple; the U.S. military’s campaigns in the Middle East are creating more enemies with each bomb dropped. And the ongoing U.S.-led proxy war against the Syrian government has directly contributed to the rise of ISIS and other extremists.

But these simple truths are considered taboo in the war-hungry Congress. Most Americans still don’t know that Obama has coordinated the proxy war against the Syrian government since at least 2012. By doing this Obama and his regional allies have artificially lengthened the Syrian war, directly contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people while giving rise to the Islamic extremist Syrian opposition fighters.

No doubt the fix is in. It doesn't matter what party anyone belongs to. The important thing is to get the job done and keep your job while doing it. The doves are gone lest they be accused of supporting an army who cuts people heads off. The neocon plan is still in tact and the Obama administration is knee deep in it along with the usual conservative warmongers. Appear to be fighting the evil ISIS while in reality fight to depose Assad.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Well dilloduck, if you were president and your advisors came to you and said that Christians and other minorities were being butchered enmass by thousands of barbaric religious zealots, and the Iraqi troops were of little to no help.....and recalling the Rwandan genocide, what would your instructions be?
1. F**k the minorities, not our problem.
2. Air strikes, better arm the Kurds and send advisors for the Iraqi troops.
3. Send in a massive air and ground force.
4. Your imaginative solution, whatever that is.

 

[protectionist]

I'll make it easy for ya. Americans have been complicit in arming Islamic fighters in hopes they would depose Assad. They named themselves ISIS and claim to have a new agenda that most likely still includes deposing Assad. There are now NO moderate rebels for the US to support in the region and Obama won't even bother to ask Syria or Iran to help eradicate ISIS. Why ? Because Obama wants both countries destabilized. Lebanon too.

Part of this is right. The first part is poppycock.

 

[protectionist]

Wasn't enacted ? How about Libya ? How about our continuing efforts to destabilize Syria, Somalia and the Sudan. Just wait--Lebanon will go as well.

What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.

Incorrect. The whole Benghazi scandal was an attempt by the administration to hide the involvement in funneling heavy weapons, WMD, etc. to the rebels and more radical elements in Syria. Elements that would later become ISIS. Apparently their cover-up job worked on you. Of course, sacking key people in the military and having the cooperation of the press never hurts. . . .

The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
Seymour M. Hersh The Red Line and the Rat Line Erdo an and the Syrian rebels LRB 17 April 2014

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (it it shows up)

US OK’d sending arms to Libya
US approved sending weapons from Qatar to Libyan rebels but then worried they were ending up in hands of Islamic militants - World - The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but US officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamist militants, according to US officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Moammar Khadafy to the attack that killed four Americans at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of Khadafy.

As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

 

[bodecea]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

Fair winds and following seas....when are you heading over there...and where can we send the care packages?

 

[protectionist]

Wasn't enacted ? How about Libya ? How about our continuing efforts to destabilize Syria, Somalia and the Sudan. Just wait--Lebanon will go as well.

What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.

Incorrect. The whole Benghazi scandal was an attempt by the administration to hide the involvement in funneling heavy weapons, WMD, etc. to the rebels and more radical elements in Syria. Elements that would later become ISIS. Apparently their cover-up job worked on you. Of course, sacking key people in the military and having the cooperation of the press never hurts. . . .

The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
Seymour M. Hersh The Red Line and the Rat Line Erdo an and the Syrian rebels LRB 17 April 2014

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

US OK’d sending arms to Libya
US approved sending weapons from Qatar to Libyan rebels but then worried they were ending up in hands of Islamic militants - World - The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but US officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamist militants, according to US officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Moammar Khadafy to the attack that killed four Americans at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of Khadafy.

As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

 

[protectionist]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

Fair winds and following seas....when are you heading over there...and where can we send the care packages?

I did my going "over there" 50 years ago.

 

[bodecea]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

Fair winds and following seas....when are you heading over there...and where can we send the care packages?

I did my going "over there" 50 years ago.

So? Can you still walk? Carry a gun? Contribute in some way? You're the one who wants us over there.....how about a little more than lip service on your part?

 

[georgephillip]

Wasn't enacted ? How about Libya ? How about our continuing efforts to destabilize Syria, Somalia and the Sudan. Just wait--Lebanon will go as well.

What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.

Incorrect. The whole Benghazi scandal was an attempt by the administration to hide the involvement in funneling heavy weapons, WMD, etc. to the rebels and more radical elements in Syria. Elements that would later become ISIS. Apparently their cover-up job worked on you. Of course, sacking key people in the military and having the cooperation of the press never hurts. . . .

The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
Seymour M. Hersh The Red Line and the Rat Line Erdo an and the Syrian rebels LRB 17 April 2014

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

US OK’d sending arms to Libya
US approved sending weapons from Qatar to Libyan rebels but then worried they were ending up in hands of Islamic militants - World - The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but US officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamist militants, according to US officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Moammar Khadafy to the attack that killed four Americans at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of Khadafy.

As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.

You don't have time to get informed on the topics on which you speak huh? What a big fucking surprise. What a waste of time discussing things with you.

Nothing is more important the facts and information. You can never have "too much information." If you are watching TV and lobbying for war, if you are wanting the US to put lives in harm's way based on too little information, you are being a fool. If you are wanting to start more carnage based on false and incorrect data, it is a fool's errand. Deciding you don't have time to educate yourself because you need to keep posting? That is the sign of someone that is either paid to post, or someone who's ego depends on their post count. Either way, it is the mark of someone who is a sell out. Obviously I am not here to address you, I am here to combat your propaganda in case there may be any young impressionable minds who are guests that might be reading this thread.

. . . or even not so young voters that might want to know the truth about what is going on in our world. Either way. . . War? For something as trivial as a few kidnappings? Please. Kidnappings and murders happen everyday within our own borders. WAY more horrible things are happening south of the border every year; and last I heard, no plans are in the works to go to war on Mexico. Any thinking person KNOWS this is a scam and an excuse to get the country in a war frenzy. Any person that has taken an eighth grade history class has seen the same shit done for all the other illegitimate conflicts this nation has gotten itself into throughout our history. The US-Mexican conflict? The US-Spanish war? Any of these ring a bell? Getting the folks revved up for war is the job of the media and the elites. When the elites decide they want a war, they will have their war.

The only difference now? The people absolutely DO NOT WANT THIS ONE. The solution? DO NOT EVEN GIVE THEM A VOTE.

That's right, subvert the constitution. Even though it is a war, don't call it a war. Very Orwellian. If it isn't a war, then the people can't vote on it. Very clever. . . .

TOO LONG. I'll read the condensed version (if it shows up)

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

 

[eagle1462010]

Well dilloduck, if you were president and your advisors came to you and said that Christians and other minorities were being butchered enmass by thousands of barbaric religious zealots, and the Iraqi troops were of little to no help.....and recalling the Rwandan genocide, what would your instructions be?
1. F**k the minorities, not our problem.
2. Air strikes, better arm the Kurds and send advisors for the Iraqi troops.
3. Send in a massive air and ground force.
4. Your imaginative solution, whatever that is.

You didn't ask me, but....................

When the video came out threatening to behead American Journalist...........................Do it and I'll order the U.S. military to destroy you.......................

Beheaded...................Massive air assaults against ISIS and ISIL in Syria and Iraq....................words to Assad you so much as fart in our direction I'll destroy you too..................Carpet bombing of know strong holds..........Moab's...........

U.S. forces of to Iraq at 50k with full armor with orders to kill ISIL..........Rules kill the bastards, try to avoid civilian casualties, but if you have ISIL firing at you and hiding behind civilians then destroy the target anyway...............

ALL OR NOTHING..........Gloves off and bust their ass...........

But that's just me.

 

[dilloduck]

Well dilloduck, if you were president and your advisors came to you and said that Christians and other minorities were being butchered enmass by thousands of barbaric religious zealots, and the Iraqi troops were of little to no help.....and recalling the Rwandan genocide, what would your instructions be?
1. F**k the minorities, not our problem.
2. Air strikes, better arm the Kurds and send advisors for the Iraqi troops.
3. Send in a massive air and ground force.
4. Your imaginative solution, whatever that is.

I would ask my advisors for a list of realistic options and consequences and pursue the best one. Unless of course I had already been told what I was supposed to do "or else". I strongly suspect that Obama is being told to do what is necessary to take out Assad. After all---he's a peaceful sorta guy.

 

[Flopper]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

I think we will eventually send some troops, but I think we should see the effects of our air campaign and determine how much military support is coming from the 30 counties who have promised it.

ISIS has somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 trained fighters with 5,000 to 10,000 tag alongs. The Iraqi army has in excess of a hundred thousand trained troops and much better equipment than ISIS, yet ISIS is kicking the shit out of them. Why? Structural problems at top. Before the US commits any troops to Iraq, the US should see that the Iraqis do their part. The US should not waste American lives and billions of dollars on a country that refuses to protect itself even thou they have the means to do so.

 

[Desperado]

Well dilloduck, if you were president and your advisors came to you and said that Christians and other minorities were being butchered enmass by thousands of barbaric religious zealots, and the Iraqi troops were of little to no help.....and recalling the Rwandan genocide, what would your instructions be?
1. F**k the minorities, not our problem.
2. Air strikes, better arm the Kurds and send advisors for the Iraqi troops.
3. Send in a massive air and ground force.
4. Your imaginative solution, whatever that is.

I would ask "Isn't this exactly why we have the United Nations?" What exactly is their role in this?
If they have no role, why even have a United Nations?

 

[MisterBeale]

I'll make it easy for ya. Americans have been complicit in arming Islamic fighters in hopes they would depose Assad. They named themselves ISIS and claim to have a new agenda that most likely still includes deposing Assad. There are now NO moderate rebels for the US to support in the region and Obama won't even bother to ask Syria or Iran to help eradicate ISIS. Why ? Because Obama wants both countries destabilized. Lebanon too.

Part of this is right. The first part is poppycock.

 

[Synthaholic]

Apparently, the McCain met with ISIL meme has been debunked. Although it's not clear if any of the ones he has met with have since joined ISIL.

 

[Desperado]

Apparently, the McCain met with ISIL meme has been debunked. Although it's not clear if any of the ones he has met with have since joined ISIL.

Really, got a link?

 

[MisterBeale]

Apparently, the McCain met with ISIL meme has been debunked. Although it's not clear if any of the ones he has met with have since joined ISIL.

Really, got a link?

Yeah, I read the "debunking." It was from the establishment. The debunking goes a little like this. "It's not who you think it is. Because we say so." Who is it? Well, they can't tell you. If they do, "lives might be put in danger."

This stuff is classic disinformation. I am not even sure I believe that crap about McCain fighting for ISIS. Really? You want us to believe an American went over there to fight for ISIS, and died? C'mon. Give me a break. After reading the WP article it doesn't pass the smell test. If he did, seems to me he fell in with some spooks.

Try as He May, John McCain Can’t Shake Falsehoods About Ties to ISIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/w...shake-falsehoods-about-ties-to-isis.html?_r=0

 

[Desperado]

Apparently, the McCain met with ISIL meme has been debunked. Although it's not clear if any of the ones he has met with have since joined ISIL.

Really, got a link?

Yeah, I read the "debunking." It was from the establishment. The debunking goes a little like this. "It's not who you think it is. Because we say so." Who is it? Well, they can't tell you. If they do, "lives might be put in danger."

This stuff is classic disinformation. I am not even sure I believe that crap about McCain fighting for ISIS. Really? You want us to believe an American went over there to fight for ISIS, and died? C'mon. Give me a break. After reading the WP article it doesn't pass the smell test. If he did, seems to me he fell in with some spooks.

Try as He May, John McCain Can’t Shake Falsehoods About Ties to ISIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/w...shake-falsehoods-about-ties-to-isis.html?_r=0

The debunking does seem shaky at best.

 

[protectionist]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

Fair winds and following seas....when are you heading over there...and where can we send the care packages?

I did my going "over there" 50 years ago.

So? Can you still walk? Carry a gun? Contribute in some way? You're the one who wants us over there.....how about a little more than lip service on your part?

There was 6 years of "more than lip service" on my part when I served in the military from 1964-1969. And if the military would let me fly over there and participate, I would, but I did my military service time in the 1960s. I don't really care to talk too much about it, but I did serve, and have 2 honorable Army discharges from it.