The Beginning of the End of ISIS?

[BruceVC]

 

Obola's new ISIS strategy has collapsed already: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/us-proxies-surrender-syria

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time.

 

 

I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS

 

 

So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS

 

Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country

[Namutree]

 

 

Obola's new ISIS strategy has collapsed already: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/us-proxies-surrender-syria

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time.

 

 

I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS

 

 

So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS

 

Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country

 

A republican? Some republicans didn't want to back the rebels at all. I think you are referring to a neocon. Yeah, they would be even worse than Obama.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Obola's new ISIS strategy has collapsed already: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/us-proxies-surrender-syria

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time.

 

 

I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS

 

 

So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS

 

Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country

 

A republican? Some republicans didn't want to back the rebels at all. I think you are referring to a neocon. Yeah, they would be even worse than Obama.

 

 

I have watched numerous interviews from prominent Republicans like John McCain who have said that Obama needs to be forceful and direct in places like Iran and Syria around the military options, I'm not sure if you consider him a Neocon?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

Obola's new ISIS strategy has collapsed already: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/us-proxies-surrender-syria

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time.

 

 

I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS

 

 

So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS

 

Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country

 

A republican? Some republicans didn't want to back the rebels at all. I think you are referring to a neocon. Yeah, they would be even worse than Obama.

 

 

I have watched numerous interviews from prominent Republicans like John McCain who have said that Obama needs to be forceful and direct in places like Iran and Syria around the military options, I'm not sure if you consider him a Neocon?

 

Technically he's not really a 'Neocon', but 'Neocon' or not, McCain is indeed probably worse than Obama in the foreign affairs department. He's a superficial POS that will say and do anything to remain in power, and gets his marching orders from various folks/entities in what's considering the 'military industrial complex'. While he certainly isn't alone in that respect on Capital Hill, McCain is up there with Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and few others on the sociopath/psychopath scale. Surrounded by a few hundred other superficial pathologically lying treasonous sh*tbags, he certainly stands out as a shining example sparkling sh*t.

 

In other words: The guy is a despicable example of humanity, and among the worst there is on Capital Hill.

[Namutree]

 

 

I have watched numerous interviews from prominent Republicans like John McCain who have said that Obama needs to be forceful and direct in places like Iran and Syria around the military options, I'm not sure if you consider him a Neocon?

 

I would.

[Zoraptor]

McCain went bonkers after Rove did his kneecaps in 2000, before that he was relatively sane.

 

You never really know whether politicians actually believe what they're spouting or are just saying it for effect, in McCain's case safe in the knowledge that having lost in 2008 he doesn't have the power to implement them anyway and trying to establish an alternative narrative where Pres McCain would have avoided all the pitfalls Pres BHO fell into. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

Obola's new ISIS strategy has collapsed already: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/us-proxies-surrender-syria

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time.

 

 

I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS

 

 

So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS

 

Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country

 

A Republican president would've kept some troops in Iraq until they were no longer needed, instead of recklessly throwing away all the sacrifice.

 

As far as McCain, he's always been a bit eccentric, but he does usually mean what he says, unless he's running for reelection, in which case he lies like any other politician.

[Namutree]

 

 

A Republican president would've kept some troops in Iraq until they were no longer needed, instead of recklessly throwing away all the sacrifice.

 

So... Eternity. The sacrifice was thrown away the moment it was made. The longer way stayed; the more we'd be sacrificing.

[Zoraptor]

It was also the Iraqi's decision not to renew the status of forces agreement, and the Iraqi's choice whether US troops stayed or not. If Obama tried to keep troops there- against the wishes of the Iraqi government- it could hardly be an improvement over the current situation, certainly not so as far as the US is concerned.

 

Which really illustrates how easy it is to pot shot Obama using hindsight. It was the right decision for the US to leave Iraq and the only realistic option, indeed it was the right option not to bomb Syria. Obama just ended up looking spineless and weak for doing both things, but that was far better than the alternative 'strong, but stupid' from a McCain or Bush.

[Wrath of Dagon]

By most accounts, including Leon Panetta's, Obola went through the motions but didn't try very hard to reach an agreement: http://www.newsweek.com/panettas-memoir-blasts-obama-his-leadership-blames-him-state-iraq-and-syria-276582

 

He was so ambivalent and disengaged often our negotiators didn't even know what our position was. Later he sometimes took credit for getting our troops out of Iraq and sometimes blamed Iraqis for the very same thing, whichever suited him at the moment. He also famously lied about what our position on the status of forces agreement was in the debate with Mitt Romney, though very few of our ignoramus media and voters noticed at the time.

[Zoraptor]

By most accounts, including Leon Panetta's, Obola went through the motions but didn't try very hard to reach an agreement: http://www.newsweek.com/panettas-memoir-blasts-obama-his-leadership-blames-him-state-iraq-and-syria-276582

 

Yes, because Nouri al-Maliki was so desperate to have US troops stay! He was chasing after Obama on hands and knees begging rather than offering to pack their bags and see them off from the airport while bouncing up and down with anticipation!

 

No, he wasn't. You weren't going to get troops staying because it wasn't what Maliki wanted. Both parties had to want the troops to stay and the Iraqis didn't want them, if they had they would have simply extended the old SoF. And if Obama had pushed strongly for an extension and failed it would be used as evidence of his failure (had to go on bended knee to Iraq then got rejected) and if he had accepted more restrictive conditions then he'd be criticised for that (went on bended knee and sold our guys out for Maliki/ didn't do enough/ broke his promise to withdraw).

[Namutree]

 

By most accounts, including Leon Panetta's, Obola went through the motions but didn't try very hard to reach an agreement: http://www.newsweek.com/panettas-memoir-blasts-obama-his-leadership-blames-him-state-iraq-and-syria-276582

 

Yes, because Nouri al-Maliki was so desperate to have US troops stay! He was chasing after Obama on hands and knees begging rather than offering to pack their bags and see them off from the airport while bouncing up and down with anticipation!

 

No, he wasn't. You weren't going to get troops staying because it wasn't what Maliki wanted. Both parties had to want the troops to stay and the Iraqis didn't want them, if they had they would have simply extended the old SoF. And if Obama had pushed strongly for an extension and failed it would be used as evidence of his failure (had to go on bended knee to Iraq then got rejected) and if he had accepted more restrictive conditions then he'd be criticised for that (went on bended knee and sold our guys out for Maliki/ didn't do enough/ broke his promise to withdraw).

 

Not to mention that even in the unlikely event that we did get an extension; who says it'll be long enough. It's not like ISIS showed up in Iraq the next week. We would need one hell of an extension to be around long enough to make a difference. 

 

Even that would just be a delay of what cannot be avoided. Staying would have only have made things worse.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Zoraptor, on 09 Nov 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

 

Wrath of Dagon, on 09 Nov 2014 - 5:53 PM, said:

By most accounts, including Leon Panetta's, Obola went through the motions but didn't try very hard to reach an agreement: http://www.newsweek.com/panettas-memoir-blasts-obama-his-leadership-blames-him-state-iraq-and-syria-276582

 

Yes, because Nouri al-Maliki was so desperate to have US troops stay! He was chasing after Obama on hands and knees begging rather than offering to pack their bags and see them off from the airport while bouncing up and down with anticipation!

 

No, he wasn't. You weren't going to get troops staying because it wasn't what Maliki wanted. Both parties had to want the troops to stay and the Iraqis didn't want them, if they had they would have simply extended the old SoF. And if Obama had pushed strongly for an extension and failed it would be used as evidence of his failure (had to go on bended knee to Iraq then got rejected) and if he had accepted more restrictive conditions then he'd be criticised for that (went on bended knee and sold our guys out for Maliki/ didn't do enough/ broke his promise to withdraw).

 

Of course having US stay would be a political problem for Maliki, and he was getting pressured by the like of Al Sadr and Iran. Nor would we ever allow having our troops put under Iraqi jurisdiction. But most knowledgeable people believe an agreement could have been reached, and certainly no one's ever accused Obola of doing his utmost, or utilizing all the tools at his disposal, as he did when he got Maliki to resign for example.

 

Edit: Btw, most people forget, or never found out, that in 2008 Obola ran on getting out of Iraq immediately, then re-invading if Al Qaeda ever came back. Well, it looks like he's getting his wish.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Namutree]

 

Edit: Btw, most people forget, or never found out, that in 2008 Obola ran on getting out of Iraq immediately, then re-invading if Al Qaeda ever came back. Well, it looks like he's getting his wish.

 

 

Did Al Qaeda come back? It seems like the guys in Iraq are ISIS. Well my technical BS aside; we'll see what he does. Re-invading Iraq would be a huge mistake; as was the original invasion. Let's hope Obama breaks this campaign promise too.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Edit: Btw, most people forget, or never found out, that in 2008 Obola ran on getting out of Iraq immediately, then re-invading if Al Qaeda ever came back. Well, it looks like he's getting his wish.

 

 

Did Al Qaeda come back? It seems like the guys in Iraq are ISIS. Well my technical BS aside; we'll see what he does. Re-invading Iraq would be a huge mistake; as was the original invasion. Let's hope Obama breaks this campaign promise too.

 

 

The Al-Qaeda element always existed in Iraq amongst the Sunni population and support for the ideology never necessarily went away from some sectors

 

But if Al-Maliki had incorporated the Sunnis in the new Iraqi Government the support for this more radical form of Islam would be much less

 

We also know that technically Al-Qaeda has actually distanced itself from ISIS but of course there are people within ISIS that use to  be aligned to the movement

 

So it gets  a little confusing if you ask the question " is Al-Qaeda still active in Iraq" ?  They are on some levels  but ISIS is the bigger threat to overall stability

 

Whtar

[Drowsy Emperor]

With allies like these, how could you lose?

 

The man even speaks in passable English, just in case you don't get the message.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLtwdaB6EMs

Edited November 13, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Drowsy Emperor]

Of course you know, if the US wanted ISIS gone they could have told their financiers and supporters a.k.a Saudi Arabia & Qatar to back off.

 

The whole media thing is a charade, oil from ISIS controlled refineries is still flowing through Turkey (a NATO country) and Israel, undercutting the price of oil in the world market (most damaging to Russia incidentally due to heavy economic dependence on oil prices).

 

Armies out of "thin air" indeed.

 

Both Turkey and the US want ISIS to keep doing what its doing in a bid to topple Assad. Turkey's prime minister even said so openly, as if Turkish inaction on the border conflict at Kobane isn't telling enough (and that Turkish airports and intentionally lax border controls made it THE place for international jihadists to go to join ISIS).

 

So chopping off the heads of western journalists, mass destruction of holy sites (both muslim and christian), extermination of christian and minority populations of Iraq - its all tolerable so as not to offend the Saudis and keep Assad under pressure.

 

Really short-sighted.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Namutree]

With allies like these, how could you lose?

 

The man even speaks in passable English, just in case you don't get the message.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLtwdaB6EMs

You can tell they're reasonable by the way they target a random sailor rather than their government which allows the sailor to be there. 

[BruceVC]

Of course you know, if the US wanted ISIS gone they could have told their financiers and supporters a.k.a Saudi Arabia & Qatar to back off.

 

The whole media thing is a charade, oil from ISIS controlled refineries is still flowing through Turkey (a NATO country) and Israel, undercutting the price of oil in the world market (most damaging to Russia incidentally due to heavy economic dependence on oil prices).

 

Armies out of "thin air" indeed.

 

Both Turkey and the US want ISIS to keep doing what its doing in a bid to topple Assad. Turkey's prime minister even said so openly, as if Turkish inaction on the border conflict at Kobane isn't telling enough (and that Turkish airports and intentionally lax border controls made it THE place for international jihadists to go to join ISIS).

 

So chopping off the heads of western journalists, mass destruction of holy sites (both muslim and christian), extermination of christian and minority populations of Iraq - its all tolerable so as not to offend the Saudis and keep Assad under pressure.

 

Really short-sighted.

 

Wait so the USA doesn't want to stop ISIS? Is that your observation because all the USA has to do is tell Saudi Arabia and Qatar to stop funding them and they will vanish?

 

So why is the USA even involved in the airstrikes, surly this doesn't help there end goal of toppling Assad

[Gfted1]

Its our double secret reverse psych out maneuver.

[BruceVC]

Its our double secret reverse psych out maneuver.

 

The complete illogical nature of the various conspiracy theories about the motives of the West never cease to make me laugh

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Wait so the USA doesn't want to stop ISIS? Is that your observation because all the USA has to do is tell Saudi Arabia and Qatar to stop funding them and they will vanish?

 

So why is the USA even involved in the airstrikes, surly this doesn't help there end goal of toppling Assad

 

No. ISIS is a creation of the USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Britain, Jordan, and Qatar.

 

The entire business was rooted in Syria. Those actors I listed above have been arming, training, funding, and equipping terrorists in Syria since....2011 really. Even the alleged chemical weapons attacks. Those crimes got hushed because it was discovered that Saudi Arabia had been supplying the chemicals. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia even boasted how no terrorist activity goes on in Chechnya without his blessing. Prince Bandar was then the head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence and secret police agencies.

 

Even the name ISIS screams western puppet. Why would a hardline Whabbist Islamic cult give itself an English name with an acronym that spells out the name of a pagan god? Really? ISIS is about destabilizing Syria for several reasons:

1. Permit the creation of a gas pipeline from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Europe, so that Russian gas may be forgone.
2. Further isolating the real prize, Iran by eliminating its ally--a perceived threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
3. Creating a boogeyman for USA domestic consumption so that The War of Terror can be justified.
4. Former denying Russia a warm-water port--though this has been outmoded by the secession of Crimea.

ISIS also has tacit support from Turkey, as ISIS is severely harming Kurds--of whom they are opposed. The frightening reality is that ISIS is just another western foil like that of Al Qaeda was, just refreshed for a new generation. ISIS does not exist outside of western funding, training, and general support.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The air strikes don't do squat. They're just PR. Using a 100000$ missile to whack a 10000$ truck every other day isn't going to do anything except pull more money out of american taxpayer pockets when a new batch of missiles is ordered. It is literally throwing away a country's wealth for show, to give the appearance of doing something. Its impossible to win a war with airpower alone anyway, which I'm sure everyone here is well aware of.

 

Any remotely competent army in the world would exterminate ISIS in a ground campaign in three months. Vast swaths of the territory they control is nothing more than desert, and bottom line is that they're just a bunch of bandits regardless of the gear they've pilfered.

 

The fact that the badly armed, untrained and poorly supported Kurds could give them a run for their money tells you everything you need to know about ISIS. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

With allies like these, how could you lose?

 

The man even speaks in passable English, just in case you don't get the message.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLtwdaB6EMs

You can tell they're reasonable by the way they target a random sailor rather than their government which allows the sailor to be there. 

 

 

Its mob mentality. But they are representative of the prevailing (and probably deserved, but that's besides the point) attitude towards the US in the region. All the while the US is antagonizing Russia with Ukraine even though respecting Russian interests would lead to a better relationship than the US can ever have with any Islamic state, particularly now when fundamentalism has all but replaced secularism in muslim states.

 

And yet, the US is hell bent on destroying one of the last, if not the last, secular state in the region - Syria.

 

'tis madness

[obyknven]

US puppeteers behind ISIS is too obvious to be don't noticed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/obama-syria-strategy-review/index.html

 

President Barack Obama has asked his national security team for another review of the U.S. policy toward Syria after realizing that ISIS may not be defeated without a political transition in Syria and the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, senior U.S. officials and diplomats tell CNN.

It's just fabolous. To win a religious fanatics Murica must overthrow secular regime who successfully fought against these fanatics. I wondering who is target auditory of Obama speeches, i don't believe in existence of so dumb people.

 

Meanwhile in Russia.

Some Western pet warlord (and "ex" member of intelligence services) threatens Russia and Chechnya by ISIS invasion.
As result he has been assassinated now. Yep, this prankster chose the wrong target.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a30_1415884714