Disgrace in Chief Obama has been warned for a year over rise of ISIS - did ZERO

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/02/source-obama-given-detailed-intelligence-about-rise-isis-for-year



 

[Soul Crusher]

Interesting. It must be true if the unnamed source says it is. Time for another invasion of Iraq. Might as well invade Syria too while we're at it.

You can lead the fleet, Admiral.

False choice.  The choice is not either all out war or do nothing.  that is typical ofagget straw man argument for him doing nothing at all and allowing this termite infestation to grow, as he desires. 

[240 is Back]

False choice.  The choice is not either all out war or do nothing.  that is typical ofagget straw man argument for him doing nothing at all and allowing this termite infestation to grow, as he desires. 

it's bad guys IN Syria, right?

I mean, the moment we send forces into syria, well, we're looking at almost a WWIII as everyone's allies get involved.

WHy should obama have done?    list the items.  List what he can do, aside from starting another war?   

[headhuntersix]

You had two choices. You saw (you being the Obama admin) what happened in Iraq and Afghan. You saw what was happening in Egypt...you could try and make demands of the current Baathist government without destabilizing them. Or you  could find a secular general...there were some and support them. Now its a mess and there are no good choices so your going to have to tell the Syrians that you are going to have carte blanche air superiority in Syria to attack Isis. There is already a war and its spreading...make the best bad choice and go all in.

[240 is Back]

You had two choices. You saw (you being the Obama admin) what happened in Iraq and Afghan. You saw what was happening in Egypt...you could try and make demands of the current Baathist government without destabilizing them. Or you  could find a secular general...there were some and support them. Now its a mess and there are no good choices so your going to have to tell the Syrians that you are going to have carte blanche air superiority in Syria to attack Isis. There is already a war and its spreading...make the best bad choice and go all in.

I'm pretty sure a lot of republicans were upset about sticking his nose into egypt.  The thought of us sticking our nose into other countries business, when we're on the verge of war with that country?  Over what?  because they kill americans that move there and sniff around?  Um, if a bunch of Syrian "journalists" moved to washington DC and started "sniffing around" for "news stories", I"m pretty sure we'd call them spies lol.  And if they were killed by criminals in the USA, so syria ordered airstrikes on it?

IMO, this entire premise - we need to go to war because journalists go into a zone with known terrorist rebels, sniffing around, and they get killed - makes ZERO sense.  Seriously, some "repub" getbiggers said the first killing was "AN ACT OF WAR". 

[headhuntersix]

We're not going to war over him dude...we're already in a war with these people. 240 if I'm punching you in the face over and over again...and despite that you don't want to fight..at some point I'm either going to kill you or you're gonna pass out. You are in a fight bro because I don't like you and I'm punching you...they think they're at war with us. Syria spread to Iraq....its to late.

[RRKore]

Seems a like a complicated issue to me.

Ready, Aim, Fire. Not Fire, Ready, Aim.

September 2, 2014

President Obama has been excoriated for declaring that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for effectively confronting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In criticizing Obama for taking too much time, Representative Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” that “this ‘don’t-do-stupid-stuff’ policy isn’t working.” That sounded odd to my ear — like we should just bomb somebody, even if it is stupid. If Obama did that, what would he be ignoring?

First, experience. After 9/11 that sort of “fire, ready, aim” approach led George W. Bush to order a ground war in Iraq without sufficient troops to control the country, without a true grasp of Iraq’s Shiite-Sunni sectarian dynamics, and without any realization that, in destroying the Sunni Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Sunni Baathist regime in Iraq, we were destroying both of Iran’s mortal enemies and thereby opening the way for a vast expansion of Iran’s regional influence. We were in a hurry, myself included, to change things after 9/11, and when you’re in a hurry you ignore complexities that come back to haunt you later.

There are no words to describe the vileness of the video beheadings of two American journalists by ISIS, but I have no doubt that they’re meant to get us to overreact, à la 9/11, and rush off again without a strategy. ISIS is awful, but it is not a threat to America’s homeland.

Second, the context. To defeat ISIS you have to address the context out of which it emerged. And that is the three civil wars raging in the Arab world today: the civil war within Sunni Islam between radical jihadists and moderate mainstream Sunni Muslims and regimes; the civil war across the region between Sunnis funded by Saudi Arabia and Shiites funded by Iran; and the civil war between Sunni jihadists and all other minorities in the region — Yazidis, Turkmen, Kurds, Christians, Jews and Alawites.

When you have a region beset by that many civil wars at once, it means there is no center, only sides. And when you intervene in the middle of a region with no center, you very quickly become a side.

ISIS emerged as an extreme expression of resentment by one side: Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis who felt cut out of power and resources by the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Baghdad and the pro-Iranian Alawite/Shiite regime in Damascus. That is why Obama keeps insisting that America’s military intervention must be accompanied, for starters, by Iraqis producing a national unity government — of mainstream Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — so our use of force supports pluralism and power-sharing, not just Shiite power.

But power-sharing doesn’t come easy in a region where kinship and sectarian loyalties overwhelm any sense of shared citizenship. Without it, though, the dominant philosophy is either: “I am strong, why should I compromise?” or “I am weak, how can I compromise?” So any onslaught we make on ISIS, absent national unity governments, will have Shiites saying the former and Sunnis saying the latter. That’s why this is complicated.

And this is a sectarian power struggle. Consider a Times article last week about how ISIS is actually being led by a combination of jihadists and disgruntled Sunni Iraqi Baathist Army officers, who were shoved aside either by us or Iraq’s Shiite-dominated governments.

The Times article noted: “After ISIS stormed into Mosul, one [Shiite] Iraqi official recalled a startling phone call from a [Sunni] former major general in one of [Saddam] Hussein’s elite forces. The former general had appealed months earlier to rejoin the Iraqi Army, but the official had refused. Now the [Sunni] general was fighting for ISIS and threatened revenge. ‘We will reach you soon, and I will chop you into pieces,’ he said, according to the official, Bikhtiyar al-Qadi, of the commission that bars some former members of Mr. Hussein’s Baath Party from government posts.”

Repeat after me: “We will reach you soon, and I will chop you into pieces.” That is what we are dealing with here — multiple, venomous civil wars that are the breeding ground of the ISIS cancer.

Third, our allies are not fully allies: While the Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti governments are pro-American, wealthy Sunni individuals, mosques and charities in these countries are huge sources of funds, and fighters, for ISIS.

As for Iran, if we defeat ISIS, it would be the third time since 2001 that we’ve defeated a key Sunni counterbalance to Iran — first the Taliban, then Saddam, now ISIS. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is reason to do it in a way that does not distract us from the fact that Iran’s nuclear program also needs to be defused, otherwise it could undermine the whole global nonproliferation regime. Tricky.

I’m all-in on destroying ISIS. It is a sick, destabilizing movement. I support using U.S. air power and special forces to root it out, but only as part of a coalition, where everybody who has a stake in stability there pays their share and where mainstream Sunnis and Shiites take the lead by demonstrating that they hate ISIS more than they hate each other. Otherwise, we’ll end up in the middle of a God-awful mess of duplicitous allies and sectarian passions, and nothing good we do will last.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/opinion/thomas-friedman-what-are-we-really-dealing-with-in-isis.html?referrer=&_r=0