I’m disgusted with our “Change you can believe in” Nobel Peace Prize-winning President.
But we’re not at war.
But on a serious note: what will it take for an administration, ANY administration, to try something different? Bombs and guns seem to be the only trading cards in use. When you know, and I know, there are LOTS of other options. I’m not even saying negotiate with ISIS/L. I mean the whole range of stuff that can happen with the people who live near there who would like to see ISISL go away. And also just ban any Americans from going there, period. There should be none of our people there right now, not even journalists and aid workers. We can do that work by proxy with people from other nations.
I suspect he thinks this is his last chance for a legacy (they’re always obsessed with that in the last couple years), so gotta go all out.
Back up. Some General has said he might “recommend” the President abandon his promises. Does it therefore follow that the President has already abandoned them? Hell, John McCain has been cheerleading for more war for years now - why not blame Obama for that, too?
Isn’t it pretty much standard terminology that “no ground troops” means “no ground troops except reconnaissance, target designation, extraction teams, advisers, instructors, intelligence and just about all special forces that won’t be seen on TV”?
Can you give some concrete examples of these other solutions?
Sure, but first: what’s the objective?
been waiting to post this
War! Pimp! Renaissance!
Is anyone really surprised? I remember vividly after the Sept 11 attacks when the Bush administration bewildered the planet by insisting on invading Iraq, that there was a huge body of informed commentary saying that if we get rid of Hussein, bad as he is, it will create a gigantic power vacuum that will be filled by proper extremists and create a massive humanitarian disaster.
So here we are. How’s that Project for the New American Century working out, Dick?
Good question. I guess prevent an organization like ISIL from terrorizing and dominating Iraq should be the primary goal.
The real question is: why do the unseen power brokers want war? What do they gain?
Pretty good. His cronies made a lot on weapons and mercenaries, and we’ve still got a good enemy there that we can use to rally the American people to go kick the asses of some people in order to distract them from their real enemy.
Exacrterely. ALWAYS follow the money.
I think it’s fair to at least submit the argument that ISIL could represent a threat to American assets including those on American soil, in the way that Al Queda did/does, and this alone is enough justification to “degrade and destroy” them as an organization with such capabilities.
I definitely did not agree with the Iraq war and was literally “out on the streets” to protest our going to war there, but you know what? I’m not at all dead set against attacking ISIL. Limited ground troops, special forces, intelligence, etc. working with local population? Yeah, I’m kind of for that, or at least think it’s worthy of serious consideration.
Oh, and FYI, it’s already happening with 98% likelihood anyway, so this is really kind of a discussion about what’s already occurring and how it is being framed by the President and others, and less about what’s actually occurring.
I’m really ready for isolationism at this point. Clearly, we’re not wanted in most of the places we are around the world, and I dare say the same infrastructure etc that we help to rebuild after blowing it up in other places could use some fixing here too.
Bring everyone home, and put the skills to use to rebuild America’s water & power infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc. The terrorists don’t “win” if we do this…and frankly, who cares if they do?
Bag of hammers…
Ultimately, it’s a battle for our minds.