Obama decides to bomb his terrorists

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
They have gone rogue and are fighting in completely the wrong place. You'd expect more loyalty after all the US training and Saudi money but it's almost like you just can't trust them, so you have to bomb them a bit. It will be interesting to see how much they appreciate this tough love. It will be interesting to see if they go back to being good terrorists and go back to just fighting in Syria. It's also interesting to see Obama and Putin fighting on the same side since Putin already offered help to the government of Iraq. I'm not sure whether he really wanted to do more than make an arms sale or perhaps he was goading the US into increasing their presence in Iraq as a distraction from Europe. Either way it looks like the US are pouring out their munitions in Iraq and Gaza. I dare say they still have plenty left but it all costs money, and quite a lot of it.
 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
Sovereign, stable and self reliant. That was Iraq in the 1970s - which is precisely why it had to die.
 

metalman

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
10,232
Reaction score
3,006
Sovereign, stable and self reliant. That was Iraq in the 1970s - which is precisely why it had to die.

220px-Duri%2C_Hussein%2C_Aysami_and_Ramadhan_during_Aflaq_funeral.jpg
 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
Mission Accomplished. This is the Democracy that Bush brought.
Of course, it is beyond Bush and Obama - the policy that brought this about is entrenched in the US aristocracy. Finger pointing at the parties is a distraction and is openly encouraged because it prevents any meaningful discussion of root causes. The fact is that foreign policy differs only imperceptibly between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats do their own share of regime changing.
 

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
Once again we have Fluffy and Metalman doing their best to remind us all that there is no cure for stupid.

ISIS is not a CIA invention although US policies from the Bush era did create the environment for it's creation. I would love nothing more than to see ISIS bombed to bits, but is that possible and will that undo the environment that created ISIS in the first place? I don't think so. Obama is right to pressure the Iraqi government to take a more inclusive position in regards to the Sunni minority. Obama could obliterate ISIS today, but if the Iraqi government isn't respected by the minorities they will rise up again and again. Obama is going for the long term goals here. Yes there's a chance he'll fail, but it's better than any other plan I've seen which is guaranteed to fail. In other words, what needs to happen is to change the environment so that the Sunnis themselves get rid of ISIS. Anything else is failure.
 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
ISIS is not a CIA invention
That man is made of straw. First of all, it's not all CIA - there are 17 intelligence agencies in the US and those agencies work with intelligence agencies of allied states as well. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are friends that have been notorious conduits for funds to extremist groups and these extremist groups have often shown up to make trouble for regimes the US doesn't like. There are many examples from Osama's buddies in the Afghanistan against the Russian backed government (and the Russians that went in to prop it up) to the MEK in northern Iraq (which were protected from Saddam's forces because they lived in the No-Fly zone) and which were actually delisted as a terrorist group by the US State Department even though other analysts aren't so convinced that they've gone "peaceful". However, they do hate Iran and that was good enough for Hillary.

although US policies from the Bush era did create the environment for it's creation. I would love nothing more than to see ISIS bombed to bits, but is that possible and will that undo the environment that created ISIS in the first place?
That's a genocidal solution. Bombing them will just martyr them and other people will inevitably get bombed too which will just increase local sympathy (especially when all the local opposition is dead). It took a long time to get here but it happened because of impatience or a conviction that people would submit to overwhelming power. The US has the biggest military in the world and assumes that it is the solution to all its problems. Effectively it could eradicate all human life from these trouble spots but it might be frowned on and if you sterilize the oil fields you'll have to find new workers.
But you can't lay the blame all on Bush. Clinton is complicit too as is the first Bush and Ronald Reagan. In fact, all of the Presidents back to Eisenhower at least have been meddling in the Middle East and before that the British were doing it.

Right now if you wanted to save the people on the mountain you'd send in choppers and bring supplies, take the infirm away and bring in a crap load of AK-47s and show them how to use them. People would rather be able to defend themselves than be "defended" by someone else but if everyone could effectively defend themselves then not only would ISIS not be able to rule them, nor would we. The alternative of supplying enough manpower to effectively patrol the country and provide security and the willingness to invest in infrastructure and human development for three or so decades is something that the US has demonstrated it isn't up to so the people on the ground will have to deal with the mess - as with all the other messes we make.
 

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
Sorry Fluffs, but the straw is in your head. Much of what you said is correct, and maybe your little brain thought explaining to me what I already know would be enough to distract me from the fact that you have no way to prove to me that ISIS is an American affiliate, which is what you've claimed. Ah, but you made no such claim, but yes you did when you claim that the US bombed their own terrorists - or should I say, "Obama decides to bomb his terrorists". Sure terrorists are backed by all sorts of groups some of which may even be allied with the US, but those groups also back other groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The Middle East is a complicated place and just because you deal with someone or some group that supports others that do bad things doesn't mean you encourage or accept those bad things. But I wouldn't expect a simpleton to understand something like that.
 

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
Right now if you wanted to save the people on the mountain you'd send in choppers and bring supplies, take the infirm away and bring in a crap load of AK-47s and show them how to use them.
Really, well that's interesting. And yet you opposed doing the same with the Syrian seperatists. You'll need more than a bunch of AK-47s to defend against ISIS. The Peshmerga are better equiped and well trained and experienced, having fought against Iraqi and Turkish armies, but they too have been pushed back. Now you make the argument that we should just dump a few weapons and a few snacks to people on a mountain and call it a day? Sure, having them defend themselves is a great idea, I don't disagree with that, but it takes preparations and there's no time for that. Right now they need to be saved by someone and by the looks of it it's gonna be by the Peshmerga with some assistance from the US airforce.

And btw, technically speaking, those are Iraqi citizens and it's the Iraqi military who should be defending them but so far Maliki is saving his best forces to defend himself in Baghdad. Iraq has openly asked for US intervention for weeks but the US has only now intervened and in a very limited way. As I see it, this allows for Iraqis to solve their own problems while at the same time diverting a humanitarian catastrophe. This is good US policy and for many reasons.

The fact is you hate the US so much it really pains you to admit that they are doing something good. You really are a sad and pathetic person. I used to think you're a humanitarian but really you're just a political extremist. It's you who should be trapped on top of a mountain surrounded by religious wackos. what would be worse, having your head cut off or eat US military MREs? I'd love to watch either one.
 

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
And here come the choppers...

Teams hurled out bags and boxes of food from as high as 50 feet before approaching the ground.

"We landed on several short occasions, and that's where -- amid this explosion of dust and chaos -- these desperate civilians came racing towards the helicopter, throwing their children on board the aircraft. The crew was just trying to pull up as many people as possible," Watson said.

Soon, some of the trapped families -- including babies and the elderly -- were packed into the flight.
 
Last edited:

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
The fact is you hate the US so much it really pains you to admit that they are doing something good. You really are a sad and pathetic person. I used to think you're a humanitarian but really you're just a political extremist. It's you who should be trapped on top of a mountain surrounded by religious wackos. what would be worse, having your head cut off or eat US military MREs? I'd love to watch either one.
Couldn't quite tell who you were channelling there. Was that Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly?

Really, well that's interesting. And yet you opposed doing the same with the Syrian seperatists. You'll need more than a bunch of AK-47s to defend against ISIS.
The US pretends to care about these people but if they really did then they would put their arse on the line for them, drop a few thousand soldiers into the fray and ferret out the "bad guys" taking whatever losses they needed to and get the job done. They don't care.
These people need to get off the mountain and go back to their homes and since the US can't or won't then the least they could do is arm them if they are going to have to fend for themselves but, like I said, once it's all over you might find yourself facing those guns when you try to assert your authority over the country later.

That is what I said above but hopefully it is clearer now. Being a mere simpleton it is of course difficult for me to write in the highfalutin language you intellectual types are used to.
 
Top