US and Coalition strikes Syria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

we don't know which rebel group we are going to arm but we are going to arm someone

---

This is the problem. We're supposed to be able to pick out groups of moderate jihadi nutjobs from the more extreme jihadi nutjobs and then train them so that they can overthrow the Assad regime. Then our strategy is to hope these moderate nutjobs then set up an inclusive liberal democracy that respects the rights of all the various religious sects in Syria. I can't see that happening somehow.

I mean that strategy worked so well in Libya, which is now a peaceful, united and prosperous country after we picked a bunch of moderate groups to arm. Oh wait, every major city is controlled by a different armed faction apart from the capital city which is being fought over by two competing governments. It's funny how the Libya coverage in western media has dropped off recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

#1 If President Obama is going to pat himself on the back for as he put it "ending the war in Iraq" then I'm sorry if it upsets you Kirkland he accepted ownership of withdrawing the troops.

#2 There was a Status of Forces Agreement that was put in place by George W. Bush and the time of the lapse of that agreement was 12/31/2011 (Obama started his first term 1/20/09 ) but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he believed a force of "perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops" would remain even after that as a residual force. (fyi Sec. Gates also served under Obama until July 1, 2011)

#3 "Obama doesn't miss intelligence briefings"...oh really? You have such an intimate knowledge of his schedule. "Like probably every other prez" ...again such great knowledge....no FACTS OR DATA to back up your accusations.

#4 If you're going to blame the "intelligence community" for mistakes then I'm guessing it's probably best to actually show up to a meeting more than half the time and see if he can't iron out the kinks in the intelligence community of which he knows so much he doesn't have to attend their briefings.

#5 President Obama had accurate intelligence on ISIS provided to him before the 2012 election and yet here we are. And it's probably likely that Obama doesn't attend those briefings so he can pass the blame when he fouls up and misses something important like ooooh I don't know being able to locate and save James Foley.

Oh and Kirkland you want some FACTS & DATA?
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov...n_02-11-14.pdf

Page 9 at the bottom reads and I quote: "Al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL): AQI/ISIL probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014, as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah, and the group's ability to concurrently maintain multiple safe havens in Syria."

.....but I mean President Obama DOES read those things right? I mean you of all people know that, you're 100% certain about it aren't you?

---

George Bush negotiated an agreement with the Iraqis that meant all US troops had to be out of the country by 2011. The Iraqis refused to renegotiate the agreement as they didn't want US troops to remain in Iraq. Obama had no choice in the matter because the Iraqi government refused to renegotiate the agreement they made with Bush.

And even if troops had remained, what difference would it have made? They're not going to stop ISIS coming into Iraq and they're not going to be used to fight ISIS when they do come into Iraq.


And for this latest intelligence briefing nonsense:


Every day, the president receives a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), a highly secret intelligence document. The right-wing criticisms are citing a four-page report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI), which alleges that Obama has only attended a daily briefing on the PDB on 41.26 percent of the days from the start of his second term (January 20, 2013) through September 29, 2014. Conservatives are claiming that this shows that Obama has "missed" nearly 60 percent of his briefings and that is why he was not sufficiently aware of the spread of the Islamic State.
This is not the first time GAI's reports on this topic have been used to mislead. In 2012, Karl Rove's American Crossroads group cited GAI to make the same allegation about President Obama and his briefings in his first term. The right-wing media also picked up the attack.
But as the Washington Post reported then, Obama structured his White House operation so that he reads his PDB every day "but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day," so "it is specious to say he has 'skipped' a meeting that was not actually scheduled." The Post also revealed that Obama sometimes meets with intelligence briefers but that those meetings are not listed in his official schedule as a PDB, compromising the data set upon which GAI relies.
Thomas S. Blanton, director of George Washington University's National Security Archive, told the Post that there have been "lots of variation" in the patterns of how presidents have received their briefings, varying from an oral report for George W. Bush to a written memo for Richard Nixon and a one-on-one meeting between Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser.
Notably, a CIA history of the PDB notes that Ronald Reagan almost never received oral briefings on the PDB with CIA personnel and that "unlike Carter, Reagan almost never wrote comments or question on the PDB." The Post concluded that under the standards of the GAI report, "Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time."

---

so you're saying President Obama A) KNEW about the threat ISIS posed and B ) Did NOTHING about it....ummmm thanks for helping hammer my point home I guess

What do you expect him to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

What do you expect him to do?

---

What I expect him to do and what I WISH he would do are completely different things. He's done as I expected...he's been a HORRIBLE divisive President who has consistently lead from behind. He's reactive not proactive and in a time where we are facing threats of terrorism that's not one of the attributes you want a leader to have. He's NOT realistic, he has delivered on exactly 0 of what he's promised and what he ran on. America is NOT more well respected, America has NOT made more friends, America has not even recovered from the housing crisis.

We have no jobs, the economy sucks, the war on terror has taken two HUGE steps backward, and you're STILL defending this dope.....still. Not only that you want Hillary next! Ridiculous.

So other than a laudry list of issues that would have been the same no matter who was president all you can offer is that Obama should have been proactive. George W Bush was proactive in invading Iraq to protect America from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that proactiveness has led to the current situation. Perhaps being proactive isn't such a good idea.

Nevertheless, outline specific instances where Obama has failed to be proactive and state what he should have proactively done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

So other than a laudry list of issues that would have been the same no matter who was president all you can offer is that Obama should have been proactive. George W Bush was proactive in invading Iraq to protect America from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that proactiveness has led to the current situation. Perhaps being proactive isn't such a good idea.

Nevertheless, outline specific instances where Obama has failed to be proactive and state what he should have proactively done.

---

You keep spouting off about the WMD's (good little liberal you are) without realizing that that was one of a number of factors which lead to the invasion of Iraq. Certainly the invasion could have been avoided but for Saddam's refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access to his country. Now Kirkland, why would a leader refuse access to UN weapon inspectors? Sure Saddam could have thought it invasive, but with America having let's call it "an itchy trigger finger" after 9/11 and it being only a decade removed from demolishing Iraq's armed forces in the Persian Gulf War....why on Earth would a leader tempt fate that way? Would it make Saddam look better to his people? Would it help Saddam ease sanctions on his nation? After 9/11 even Muammar Gaddafi said "Irrespective of the conflict with America, it is a human duty to show sympathy with the American people and be with them at these horrifying and awesome events which are bound to awaken human conscience" ....so basically what did Saddam gain from refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access?

George W Bush was right to be proactive on Iraq, HOWEVER the strategy for holding that nation was all fucked up. The invasion was a piece of cake, the holding of the nation was irresponsibly done and we've paid the price for it.


Obama has not been proactive on sealing the borders of the United States.
Obama was not proactive on ISIS
Obama was not proactive on the 9/11 Benghazi attacks in fact we still have no idea where he was at the time of those attacks and he refuses to answer
Obama was not proactive on Fast & Furious which handed weapons to drug traffickers & coyotes
Obama was not proactive on the IRS scandal and again has been stubborn in his refusal to address that situation
Obama was not proactive regarding Russia's invasion of Crimea

Those are just a few situations off the top of my head and well of course you'll ask "Well what would you want him to do?" to which I will reply...

Close off the borders of the United States and militarize the border with Mexico.
If you know of a large well funded terrorist organization then take it out before it hatches a plan to attack our troops on the ground or our citizens at home.
Far too late now, but send in available military forces to save Amb. Stevens and those in danger in Benghazi.
DO NOT give narcotraficantes and coyotes more guns, how hard is that?
Hold the IRS accountable for wrongdoings if there were any which Congress could and should find out with the full help of the White House and Executive Branch...unless of course the Executive Branch and/or President ordered such things to happen in which case you resign in humiliation and beg for forgiveness from the American people.
Russia doesn't want war with the United States any more than we want war with them, that said, we could have allowed "cooler heads to prevail" had we moved a warship near Crimea in order to support the sovereign nation of Ukraine which until recently owned Crimea.

But hey, that's just my take on why Obama sucks as a President but hell your buddy Jimmy Carter even said Obama blew it with his nonaction on ISIS and that's Mr. Peanut saying that shit!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

Theres two things that run through the coutries that have been bombed. Oil and are without a Rothschild bank. ;D

---

...and...

headhunters...;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Nuke?


No, I mean LARGE ground troop forces sweeping slowly and steadily across the area and massacring Islamic State fighters. Setting up refugee camps and protecting civilians while hammering the hell out of our enemies.


Our enemies understand 1 thing FORCE and we have it, we just need a leader who will allow our troops and military leaders to do their jobs unencumbered by these bullshit rules of engagement...The United States has the greatest military in the entire world, let's not hamstring ourselves, if we were to stomp out the Islamic State in a precise and serious manner then it sends the message to any and all who would be our enemies that we're through fucking around with this shit.

This war has been kept going by the failures of POLITICIANS and that is the real tragedy here

---

I wasn't implying we should nuke the area. I was merely saying that would be the only way to win this war purely from the air pointing out ground troops will at some point be necessary. @Master , these guys said they will do anything they can to destroy the US. That is why this stuff, which we as a country are weary off, is happening. We would all prefer all to live and let live but when war is declared on you, I guess this is what happens

---

Don't be ashamed buddy;), I'll say nuke 'em headhunters whereever the are!


*******
So why do I keep ranting about 'em headhunters? Cuz that's about the only real fact here, the rest is all political propaganda which only muddles things and which are not necessarily true.. I hate politics cuz it makes people its puppet or slave, can't you folks see that.;D Well I can.;)

Turkey have not bombed IS and they are very near their border. Turkey have taken millions of refugees but do not worry about IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Turkey have not bombed IS and they are very near their border. Turkey have taken millions of refugees but do not worry about IS.

---

They aren't worried? It seems to me they are making a political decision to attempt to draw NATO into the fight. There are Kurds from Turkey fighting ISIS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Turkey have not bombed IS and they are very near their border. Turkey have taken millions of refugees but do not worry about IS.

---

They aren't worried? It seems to me they are making a political decision to attempt to draw NATO into the fight. There are Kurds from Turkey fighting ISIS

---

Turkey hate the Kurds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Turkey hate the Kurds.

---

Alright Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

So other than a laudry list of issues that would have been the same no matter who was president all you can offer is that Obama should have been proactive. George W Bush was proactive in invading Iraq to protect America from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that proactiveness has led to the current situation. Perhaps being proactive isn't such a good idea.

Nevertheless, outline specific instances where Obama has failed to be proactive and state what he should have proactively done.

---

You keep spouting off about the WMD's (good little liberal you are) without realizing that that was one of a number of factors which lead to the invasion of Iraq. Certainly the invasion could have been avoided but for Saddam's refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access to his country. Now Kirkland, why would a leader refuse access to UN weapon inspectors? Sure Saddam could have thought it invasive, but with America having let's call it "an itchy trigger finger" after 9/11 and it being only a decade removed from demolishing Iraq's armed forces in the Persian Gulf War....why on Earth would a leader tempt fate that way? Would it make Saddam look better to his people? Would it help Saddam ease sanctions on his nation? After 9/11 even Muammar Gaddafi said "Irrespective of the conflict with America, it is a human duty to show sympathy with the American people and be with them at these horrifying and awesome events which are bound to awaken human conscience" ....so basically what did Saddam gain from refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access?

George W Bush was right to be proactive on Iraq, HOWEVER the strategy for holding that nation was all fucked up. The invasion was a piece of cake, the holding of the nation was irresponsibly done and we've paid the price for it.


Obama has not been proactive on sealing the borders of the United States.
Obama was not proactive on ISIS
Obama was not proactive on the 9/11 Benghazi attacks in fact we still have no idea where he was at the time of those attacks and he refuses to answer
Obama was not proactive on Fast & Furious which handed weapons to drug traffickers & coyotes
Obama was not proactive on the IRS scandal and again has been stubborn in his refusal to address that situation
Obama was not proactive regarding Russia's invasion of Crimea

Those are just a few situations off the top of my head and well of course you'll ask "Well what would you want him to do?" to which I will reply...

Close off the borders of the United States and militarize the border with Mexico.
If you know of a large well funded terrorist organization then take it out before it hatches a plan to attack our troops on the ground or our citizens at home.
Far too late now, but send in available military forces to save Amb. Stevens and those in danger in Benghazi.
DO NOT give narcotraficantes and coyotes more guns, how hard is that?
Hold the IRS accountable for wrongdoings if there were any which Congress could and should find out with the full help of the White House and Executive Branch...unless of course the Executive Branch and/or President ordered such things to happen in which case you resign in humiliation and beg for forgiveness from the American people.
Russia doesn't want war with the United States any more than we want war with them, that said, we could have allowed "cooler heads to prevail" had we moved a warship near Crimea in order to support the sovereign nation of Ukraine which until recently owned Crimea.

But hey, that's just my take on why Obama sucks as a President but hell your buddy Jimmy Carter even said Obama blew it with his nonaction on ISIS and that's Mr. Peanut saying that shit!!!

---

This posts starts silly and gets sillier. Whenever you say "you do realise" I know I'm then going to read a whole load of wrong and you don't disappoint.

Long story short.

Saddam let the inspectors in. They had a bunch of secret sites info from the CIA to check out. They checked them out and found nothing. BUsh said, ah, that's because the WMD are now in double secret sites and we can't tell the inspectors where they are. Seriously.

Saddam invited the CIA into Iraq to expose the double secret sites to the world.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA | Fox News

Bush declined his offer.

The inspectors said never mind, give us a few more weeks and we can confirm no new WMD.

Bush said no, the threat from Daddam and his WMD is so great that I have to act now.

War looms as Bush issues final warning By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post
WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.



Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately.









"It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power," he said. "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."






Bush presented grim images of the danger of terrorist strikes on U.S. soil that could kill hundreds of thousands.
"We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities," he said. He spoke darkly of acting "before the day of horror can come."





Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."





"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations," he said. "And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html




You seem to be saying that you would have invaded Syria when Isis started growing in size. How would you do that?

Listen to YOUR Democrats espouse the ousting of Saddam Hussein...listen close sweetheart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8


You say George W Bush is/was stupid....stupid yet smart enough to fool 100% of your Democrat buddies? Doesn't speak well to your choice of leader does it?


http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...ade/sect2.html

Hmmm, I see November 5, 1998: Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


Who was President in 1998 again?


That's what I thought, so shut your commie fucking face and go back in your hole you despicable waste of oxygen.

Why is it that all these countrys, that are attacked have two things in common. Mineral wealth and no Rothschild bank. Could someone explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

Why is it that all these countrys, that are attacked have two things in common. Mineral wealth and no Rothschild bank. Could someone explain.

---

Because Alex Jones?