Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, Sep 2, 2014.
Call 'em scumbags and feel better for it.
Scumbags doesn't even touch words that I would use to describe these disgusting animals.
I was unlucky enough to see a couple frames of Foley's beheading (by accident when it was first on YouTube) and I think it has fundamentally changed me.
It affected me in the same way as 9/11 and I have a brother that was in the subway under the towers when they were hit. He was fine but just sayin. My memories of 9/11 were from a national and personal anger as all my siblings live in the city.
If I was a 10 years younger and didn't have a new daughter, I would enlist. I tried to after 9/11 but was rejected.
I'll take "What one says when he has no answer for the failure he elected." For 500 please Alex.
It took 6 posts for some one to duck the point and blame Bush.
Which sounds strangest in 2014?
I mean blaming a guy from 6 years ago for what is happening today sounds relevant to you?
...and blaming the current guy, for what is happening now, sounds odd?
It is Bush's fault. If we didn't take down Sadam in Iraq, there would be no ISIS there.
It's a simple fact. It might sound trite but how can you say otherwise? We needed to be in Afghanistan but not Iraq. This prophecy was said for years. Vacuum created by lack of power in Iraq. Lack of power was delivered by us. It's that simple as trite as it is.
Not questioning that. Questioning the fact that Shab thinks blaming the current guy, for how he is handling the current situation is odd, when he conveniently ignores the blaming of someone from a decade ago, just 3 posts later.
FTR. I think Bush is a good dude. Met him personally....but I feel that (for the second term especially) he was a poor POTUS.
Or Sadam could have been a state sponsor, bottom line is we can't say any American policy caused ISIS. Sometimes we give ourselves too much credit.
Fair enough. There is definitely some assumption in my comment.
But Bush didn't do anything in Syria, how do you explain the rise of Isis in Syria?
We are dealing with a religion where a portion of them have decided to reclaim their barbaric past.
What I want to know is when the rest of the world is ready to put their money and troops on the line to help eradicate this menace? Why does this fall in our laps while many other nations sit around with their johnsons in their hands basically doing nothing.
We are one of the very few forces in the world capable of deploying more than a battalion in an expeditionary manner right now. None of the European nations can do it without us and the local players in the region are afraid of having their militaries exposed. Iran could probably do it, maybe Russia. I don't think China could. The thought of air power as a panacea for this is naive. We can make ourselves feel better by bombing them but it's not going to destroy them. It took them about a day to move back into the cities...
Well, other nations can support us with money then. As far as the Europeans it sounds like it is time for them to get off their asses and get more involved. After all they have no problem when they muster up a war between themselves and kill off millions.
I'm not saying for us not to do anything but I am extremely tired of being the workhorse for the world with our own money and troops. My words to them would be simple.
Say what you will about Iraq's army of the Sadam years but I don't believe ISIS would have been able to march in and take over Iraq in less than a month.
Maybe I'm wrong. There is plenty of nuance and complexity to really know but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What matters is what's going on now and it needs to be dealt with, swiftly.
Personally I believe it was poor use of words by the president when he said we don't have a strategy yet but the media and the GOP used it as a political sabotage knowing full well that there is plenty of motion at the Pentagon right now trying to figure out the best way to deal with the situation.
After all, these things take a little time. It's a new world. Technologies are different. Everything is different and we need the most efficient and safest to both us and civilians to go in and remove ISIS. I believe he underestimated them but not anymore and is weighing the proper ways. Destroying that convoy is a perfect example. We killed much of the head on that snake with one strike and it should be commended.
I am sure there is more to come. War is a more surgical method than before and thank god for that.
The EU is such a disaster right now I don't think they could afford it. With a war weary America unwilling and a cash strapped EU/ NATO unable to project power the proverbial mice are going to play.
I don't think they're the ones we should really be looking to for money on this one.
The Gulf monarchies seem like the perfect folks to foot the bill for us wading back into the Middle East to tamp down a particularly virulent strain of Political Islam that happened to get out of control, no longer suits their regional goals, and would just so happen to pose a pretty serious threat to their hereditary rule if it gained wider traction.
Can you imagine the disaster that would be domestically for them. Not sure America is willing even if it were funded. Mid-term elections are coming up and I think every incumbent involved is trying to stay "off the record" on ISIS. Funding from outside of NATO would be political fodder, people would be screaming about using their kids as mercenaries etc. In my opinion we aren't going to see any meaningful action on this in the near future.
I agree. In this case it's a little like blaming a rape victim...
I'm not keen to trade our soldiers' lives for money. Much rather see the other nations provide military support
There was some talk when Syria first got fired up (before the ISIS specific mess really ramped up) that Saudi Arabia was floating the idea to the US of the Kingdom financing American intervention. I think the imaging concern of looking like the House of Saud's private army if we bit on that offer was a valid one then and remains so today, but I don't know that looking for the Kingdom to foot some of the bill (certainly not the complete "we'll pay for it" that got floated last year, but seeking some funding) is necessarily a complete non-starter though.
Nor do I suggest that we do. What I am looking for is support. If countries don't have troops they can send then let them contribute monetarily to help defray the other costs. My first choice is men and money but Bastogne thinks that many can't produce needed troops.