Forum: pol
Page 3776
Subject: Thoughts on ISIS


  Posted by: WiddleAvi - [506382610] Thu, Oct 02, 2014, 21:54

Just wondering what everyone here thinks about the US fighting ISIS? There was a lot of different opinions when it came to the war in Iraq and am wondering if the people who were against the war in Iraq are also against the US bombing ISIS.
 
1Mith
      ID: 14102186
      Fri, Oct 03, 2014, 07:59
We broke it, we bought it. As long as Iraqis want our help, we owe them.

And the moment they want us out, we owe them that too.
 
2Tree
      ID: 55815821
      Fri, Oct 03, 2014, 08:41
MITH put it simply, but accurately.

we went in there, and f*cked shit up. royally. we meddled somewhere we had business meddling, and many of us who were against the war warned of this sort of thing.
 
3Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Oct 03, 2014, 11:23
A horrible idea, IMO. And the bombings we are doing right now aren't in Iraq, but in Syria.

Throwing more money away for threats against the that don't really exist? We should be better than that.
 
4Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Oct 04, 2014, 10:51
My natural opposition to foreign military adventures that have nothing to do with national defense is overridden by the moral objective of helping the Kurds defend themselves against the modern US military weaponry ISIS acquired when the Iraqi army abandoned it.

The continued opinion that a strong, inclusive central Iraqi government is necessary to combat radical elements is simply the wrong approach. Borders drawn by Western powers nearly a century ago have proven to be as flawed as the borders of the former Soviet Union. Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, Ukranians, Khazaks, Uzbekis, etc., have thrived as independent entities, for the most part. Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi Shia and Iraqi Sunni want independent status. That should have been the diplomatic course taken a decade ago, and it remains the most plausible diplomatic and political solution for the present and future.
 
5Seattle Zen
      ID: 576301411
      Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 16:34
I'm totally in agreement with PV, in fact, I know a lot more about the Kurds simply by reading the nearly book-length amount of information he has posted about them over the years.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with Turkey and their militant resistance to a Kurdistan composed completely out of Iraqi land.

I'm against bombing because I believe that bombing without ground troops actually helps ISIS more than harms them. I am opposed to ground troops. I am also thoroughly disgusted that the only and I mean ONLY thing that both parties in the House and Senate can agree upon is killing foreign people.
 
6sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 00:58
posts 4 and 5....spot on.
 
7Khahan
      ID: 3699108
      Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 09:36
ISIS needs to be eliminated. I have no problem with the US helping in this case.
 
8Bean
      ID: 1696920
      Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 10:40
I would prefer we were not involved, but it appears it's too late for that. Its not the fight that's at issue, we could win that easily and quickly with our own forces. It's the police action after the victory that's costly.

If we could get agreement from our "allies" on who will be the occupying force, we can greatly reduce American losses and greatly increase the chance for long term success. The best occupying forces are those familiar with the culture and language (That would not be Americans for the most part). It's all about getting Muslim allies to agree to a long term comittment.
 
9Boldwin
      ID: 14939117
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 08:39
My thots:

If you voted for Barack and/or supported the pullout...

ISIS is your baby. Could not have happened without your support.
 
10Mith
      ID: 14102186
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 08:51
Hahaha.

Isis = Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Which did not exist until...


Ahh never mind.
 
11Mith
      ID: 14102186
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 08:55
America's War on Terror: Efficiently cultivating Islamist-inspired violence and terrorism since 2001.
 
12sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 10:36
#9...incoherent, inaccurate rant, as usual.

I find that I agree with Bean in #8 as well. Yes ISIS needs to go, but if we are to make real headway, that needs doing by other Arab militaries and not the US.
 
13Boldwin
      ID: 14939117
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 15:14
ISIS is not al qaeda...

[altho I imagine Obama would consider forcing the reins of ISIS over into islamist mainstream al qaeda/hamas/MB a personal victory and a future defeat for America][if a worse outcome for America can be snatched out of the jaws of a bad outcome, Obama will manage to achieve' it]

...ISIS was a creation of Obama and Soros and the John McCains of the world initially to hand Syria [which is one of the jewels if the shia world tho it is not numerically the majority] over to sunni control.

ISIS then accepted Obama's welcome mat into Iraq...

Where they can threaten the other Shia stronghold, namely Iran.

When 'the caliphate' has consolidated under one branch of Islam all you Obama supporters can burp that baby too.

You prolly heard that angle here first too.
 
14Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 15:53
And we are officially derailed. 13 posts in.
 
15Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 16:18
huh. how did that happen?
 
16sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 23:29
I am reminded of a suggestion from SOX:

ISIS is not al qaeda...
...


becomes

UFO's are not al qaeda...

it doesnt make the statement any more or less accurate, just funnier.

 
17Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Oct 12, 2014, 10:45
If Obama's plan is to hand Syria over to Sunni control, he has the perfect opening by capitulating to Turkish demands that any Turkish help keeping Kobane from falling into ISIS control be accompanied by a US commitment to remove Assad as part of an overall Syrian strategy. But that hasn't happened, and odds are it won't.
The entirety of post #13 is based on a pre-conceived notion that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The vast majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims, and making the case that they're eager to join a consolidated caliphate doesn't exactly fit into such weak-minded analysis, given the reality of current events. Throwing Soros' name into the mix is sheer comedy, cosmic musing presented only to make it seem like Obama is complicit in some non-existent global conspiracy.

Isis welcome mat into Iraq precedes Obama's presidency, and can be directly traced to the Baghdad leadership coming under Shia control, a circumstance that would have never existed had the Bush regime allowed for an autonomous Sunni region that welcomed ISIS as a preferable alternative to Shia rule. Go back even further to Bush Sr. encouraging outright rebellion among Shia and Kurds after Desert Storm, only to see Saddam massacre them while we retreated to protect Kuwaiti oil fields. How are you going to pin that on Obama, when the seeds were sown for chaos in the region decades before his administration?
 
18Boldwin
      ID: 14939117
      Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 11:34
Turkish demands that any Turkish help keeping Kobane from falling into ISIS control be accompanied by a US commitment to remove Assad as part of an overall Syrian strategy.

Always has been Obama's objective.

The Kurds are obviously not allying with ISIS. WTF are you talking about? I have never suggested all sunnis are eager to join them...until the choice is join or step over to the mass grave awaiting you.

Soros was a huge player in convincing opinion leaders and world leaders of the rationale for building an anti-Assad war. I've talked on twitter with people working directly for Soros in Syria. Until they found out what I thot of their stupid cause.

Isis welcome mat into Iraq precedes Obama's presidency

ISIS never existed until Obama and allies encouraged them into an uprising in Syria and armed them, and they never had a chance of gaining a foothold in Iraq until America left.
 
19Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 13:59
You got that, PV? Soros and Obama. Everything, literally, is their fault. You need look nowhere else.
 
20biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 14:01
Tweets don't lie.

 
21Boldwin
      ID: 14939117
      Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 15:36
PD for some reason omits the McCain wing of the republican party.
 
22Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 20:30
ISIS never existed until Obama and allies encouraged them into an uprising in Syria and armed them, and they never had a chance of gaining a foothold in Iraq until America left.

ISIS morphed from Sunni jihadists from Iraq, Syria and foreign entities with the same agenda of establishing a caliphate in the region. Saying they never existed until Obama encouraged them is plain and simple Obama Derangement Syndrome, which clearly eliminates any further analysis from serious consideration.
 
23Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 22:26
More and more, I'm finding Al Jazeera to be one of the best news outlets around. This article on the PKK is outstanding.
 
24sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 00:49
Totally agreed with 23. Al Jazeera and NPR.
 
25nerveclinic
      ID: 8832812
      Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 16:22

Baldwin my "thoughts"

Why would anyone take seriously a debator who uses words like "prolly", "thots", and "caliphate"?

You lost the plot a long time ago.

If you think Obama "the puppet" has anything to do with "creating" ISIS you are truly tripping brah. You are giving him too much credit.

Plot = Lost


 
26Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Fri, Nov 14, 2014, 23:13
I'm not saying, of course, that the sunni radicals that make up ISIS were born and raised by Obama. I am saying that they would be dead and buried like they were in the 1982 Hama Massacre and you never would have considered them on the world stage without Obama, and the people behind 'the Soros' doctrine' aka 'Responsibility to Protect.

Now thanks to Obama and his supporters, they are now instead driving our M1 tanks thru Iraq, Syria and Iran soon enuff, I imagine. As well as carrying the weapons that the now dead American ambassador to Libya procured for them. Among other revolting and completely unnecessary developments.
 
27Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 09:55
Of course, one could just as easily say that thanks to Obama and his supporters, The Kurdish capital of Irbil has been successfully defended, the Mosul and Haditha dams have been kept out of ISIS control, thousands of Yazidis and Christian minorities have been spared genocide at the hands of ISIS, and the Kurdish Syrian town of Kobani remains a symbol of the fight for freedom against the caliphate.

I am saying that they would be dead and buried like they were in the 1982 Hama Massacre and you never would have considered them on the world stage without Obama, and the people behind 'the Soros' doctrine' aka 'Responsibility to Protect.

That's just juvenile, simplistic self-serving analysis wrapped in faux intellectualism. If you want to go back 32 years, why not bring up the Reagan administration policy of stoking the fires of hatred between Sunni and Shia by arming both sides in the Iraq/Iran conflict, then gleefully watching as millions died. Since you can't lay the blame for that on Obama, you do the next best thing - blame it on Jimmy Carter.






 
28Mith
      ID: 3692387
      Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 11:37
Don't you guys remember that the Sunni radicals were just a bunch of "dead enders" who were in their "final throes" of insurgency back in 2004, just before we had a lasting peace in Iraq that was only disrupted when Obama pulled the troops out?
 
29Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Nov 19, 2014, 16:50
PV

Of course I haven't blamed the mess on Jimmy Carter and you trying to spin my comments to nothing more than that is just pathetic.

Liberals who feigned indignation at the meddling of neocons and their "Project For a New Century"...

Need to explain why they had no problem with an equally meddlesome and interventionist 'Responsibility To Protect' which toppled middle east governments and brought the most radical Islamists to a position of real power and influence.

Why do liberal policies directly produce Islamist outcomes?

If we can't be or shouldn't be the world's policeman...would it be too much to ask if you would stop being policemen on behalf of Islamists?
 
30Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Mon, Dec 22, 2014, 19:26
ISIS recruits disorganized meat shields...



Fat, Islamic and stupid is no way to go thru life, son. - [at least I read that somewhere]

Parents cling to the hope that they've been tricked. They supposedly showed no signs of having been radicalized and they do seem like dumb as a box of rocks, babes in the woods. They missed their flight and had to pay a $1000 rebooking fee.
"They're simple boys, they can't get their act together," Dr Rifi said. "They are not sophisticated, they don't have much life experience, and they have been taken for a ride.

"The mother, she's questioning why would they go there. Two of them barely can walk; they're very unfit, and obese.

"We are hoping that these people over there [in Syria], they say 'They are coming to eat all of our food. You may as well go back to Australia.' "
One had just laid down $13,000 for a honeymoon. The 'wife' is distraught. Perhaps she didn't know she was just a parting gift.

Just a religion of peace. Nothing to fear from a billion of them 'who don't seem radicalized'. They seem nice. Move along.
 
31Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 15:30
Does anyone think this is defensible?
The United States has blocked attempts by its Middle East allies to fly heavy weapons directly to the Kurds fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, The Telegraph has learnt.

Some of America’s closest allies say President Barack Obama and other Western leaders, including David Cameron, are failing to show strategic leadership over the world’s gravest security crisis for decades.

They now say they are willing to “go it alone” in supplying heavy weapons to the Kurds, even if means defying the Iraqi authorities and their American backers, who demand all weapons be channelled through Baghdad.

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. The Senate voted down one attempt by supporters of the Kurdish cause last month.

The officials say they are looking at new ways to take the fight to Isil without seeking US approval.
What do the elites have against those poor Kurds anyway?!?!?!

Here is an example of muslims willing and able to fight Islamist extremism and our president and even more amazingly our congress is preventing them.