http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/steven-sotloff-sold-to-isis_n_5788312.html
We need to get out, period. Sanction the hell out of any government having any interaction with them. Bomb any oil pump that moves. Destroy all infrastructure
and let them eat sand. We’re idiots if we arm these rebels.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/steven-sotloff-sold-to-isis_n_5788312.html
We need to get out, period. Sanction the hell out of any government having any interaction with them. Bomb any oil pump that moves. Destroy all infrastructure
and let them eat sand.** We’re idiots if we arm these rebel**s.
Not Sure but I think this goes back before the Obama admin, but yes get out and fuck em.
We ought to pull back, sit on our porches, and watch this play out. Without funding ISIS can’t do a thing. The fact that they are well funded should tell you that we don’t know whose side we should be supporting.
I’m curious why you say the ones Obama wants to arm? You know who is screaming to arm them, McCain, McConnel, Grahm, and the rest of the republican hawks. Obama has been very relucant to send anything other than aid to anyone in Syria. But pressure from the idiots is mounting, and ISIS is quickly becoming the new and improved Al qaeda. You title should be McCain and the rest of the idiot hawks want to arm the rebels that sell journalists to head hunters, that reflects what really happened…
I actually laughed when I heard the news report say Obamas plan was to arm the Syrian rebels. That was his last plan a d it gave us the current situation. Maybe they are going to put Fast and Furious Holder in charge of weapons distribution to be sure nothing falls in into the wrong hands. Of course we have to find out who the wrong hands are first according to this administration.
There’s a saying that I heard from one of my clients who is from Syria…
“An Arab’s loyalty cannot be bought…but it can be rented.”
I’m curious why you say the ones Obama wants to arm? You know who is screaming to arm them, McCain, McConnel, Grahm, and the rest of the republican hawks
Rarely do we agree but on this one we do. You can’t have a president that “Does nothing” and at the same time “Wants to arm some people”. So far Obama has done nothing except drop a few bombs. Also for the most part I think the US has failed MISERABLY historically on back the right horse. So I think it makes sense to NOT arm anyone and just do it ourselves if something needs to be done.
~Matt
Yeah, because Obama is going to listen to the opposition. This president does what he wants, when he wants and doesn’t give a damn
about the fallout. From the Obama state run media agency…He also approved of arming the rebels in 2013 after Assad crossed
the ‘red line’.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Obama is open to airstrikes on ISIS in Syria, wants to arm rebels
Rarely do we agree but on this one we do. You can’t have a president that “Does nothing” and at the same time “Wants to arm some people”/////
Thread over boys, Matt and i agree, nothing left to argue about… (-;
Rarely do we agree but on this one we do. You can’t have a president that “Does nothing” and at the same time “Wants to arm some people”/////
Thread over boys, Matt and i agree, nothing left to argue about… (-;
Are you sure you understand Matt’s post?
Just Republican hawk’s, eh? According to Harry Reid, Obama has specifically requested authorization for arming and training ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria. And, he’s actively trying to get the US people to buy in on the matter. They’re even going back to the bullshit ‘international coalition’ playbook of GWB. Loosen your filter, they’re all idiots.
From the cnn article someone linked earlier:
“It is clear to me that we need to train and equip Syrian rebels and other groups in the Middle East that need some help,” Reid said Wednesday. “It is called Title 10 authority. The President has tried to get that from us and we should give it to him. That is one way of helping to build an international coalition. Congress should do that.”
Obama is under significant political pressure to “do something”; hence, the request. No one liked his too honest assessment that there was no plan. Frankly, I’m not surprised there was no plan; this is a very complex situation and we can’t just go bombing willy nilly without risking an avalanche of Gaza-type civilian death stories (of course, it is also immoral to indiscriminantly kill non-combatants). Plus, I’m not sure we know exactly where to bomb; special forces were sent in to rescue the hostages and always missed them by hours or days. And, arming groups we think are okay has backfired on us too many times to count. In reality, to deal with the ISIS situation is going to require pressuring Russia to pressure Assad to act. Of course, we’re not on great terms with Russia due to the Ukraine situation, but we shouldn’t let that get in the way (sarcasm).
The other “solution” to ridding the world of ISIS is significant military commitment, including lots of boots on the ground and spending $$$$. Are we ready to go there? Are we sure our interests are under a threat that would merit such involvement?
It irritates me when the media airs interviews of the “common man” arguing that we should just “bomb the shit out of them.” That oversimplifies the situation and is just plain stupid.
No one said it was a simple problem or even a recent problem. But, being elected POTUS should come with at least implied confidence in his ability to act in what he believes is in the best interest of the US. A leader doesn’t go against his core principles at the whims of political pressure to kill some (more) brown people. Then again, we do tend to elect career politicians quite frequently.
Nevertheless, my point was that blaming a request to better arm Syrians solely on ‘republican hawks’ makes one look foolish – particularly when the democrat leader of the Senate publicly states it’s a good idea.
It’s an election year, so I’m not sure any politician has any core principles. If the electorate demands it, it shall be.
Nevertheless, my point was that blaming a request to better arm Syrians solely on ‘republican hawks’ makes one look foolish – particularly when the democrat leader of the Senate publicly states it’s a good idea.
And I think the reason people mentioned Congressional Republicans is because it makes one look foolish to specifically and solely blame Pres Obama, as the thread title does.
No one liked his too honest assessment that there was no plan. Frankly, I’m not surprised there was no plan; this is a very complex situation and we can’t just go bombing willy nilly without risking an avalanche of Gaza-type civilian death stories (of course, it is also immoral to indiscriminantly kill non-combatants).
I’m not surprised there is no plan, but I would say it is unacceptable to not have a plan. Even if that plan is to gather information and make a better informed future decision THAT is a plan. Furthermore NONE of this is some “Out of the blue” surprise as there was a huge contingent of both civilians and military people that predicted exactly this. To not have a plan for something that has been predicted by many informed individuals is simply dropping the ball.
This is not a new situation. The players change but the dynamics are often the same. It’s not like some new form of natural disaster just appeared. We know sooner or later a tornado is going to strike, to not have some sort of plan to protect and recover from it is simply dropping the ball.
The other “solution” to ridding the world of ISIS is significant military commitment, including lots of boots on the ground and spending $$$$. Are we ready to go there? Are we sure our interests are under a threat that would merit such involvement?
You’ll never really rid the world of ISIS, more specifically radicals of various ilks. We had rid Iraq and Afghanistan of these types and we just walked away because “We need to end this war”. We literally occupied, meaning they had no say or little say, over how their country was run, Japan for seven years post WWII. After that time we had a strong military presence there and provided all their military defense for decades. We also forced various changes that we thought would lead to democracy which we did not due with either of these countries.
Do I think we should or shouldn’t, both have pro’s and con’s, but we CAN’T half ass either choice. Either we go in and transform the country or we stay the hell out of it complete reacting without hesitation and or remorse and with full force if we are attacked.
~Matt
And I think the reason people mentioned Congressional Republicans is because it makes one look foolish to specifically and solely blame Pres Obama, as the thread title does.
x2. It’s not like arming or funding rebel groups of questionable repute is a novel tactic that Obama created. Cuba. Nicaragua. Philippines. Vietnam. Afghanistan in the 80’s (Taliban precursors).
Sometimes it ends poorly (Cuba). Sometimes it’s success (Afghanistan, 80’s). Sometimes it appears to be a success then backfires decades later (Afghanistan, circa 2000).
Nevertheless, my point was that blaming a request to better arm Syrians solely on ‘republican hawks’ makes one look foolish – particularly when the democrat leader of the Senate publicly states it’s a good idea.
And I think the reason people mentioned Congressional Republicans is because it makes one look foolish to specifically and solely blame Pres Obama, as the thread title does.
Mentioning republican tough talk is one thing – and it’s appropriate IMO. Monty’s outright asking why one would blame Obama and subsequently laying all blame at the feet of ‘idiot republican hawks’ is another. All the thread title does is state the fact that Obama wants to arm rebels who may be of questionable character, as evidenced by his request to do so as documented by Harry Reid (and apparently it has bipartisan support).
I didn’t make comment on the effectiveness or historical precedent for supporting foreign fighters. But, why is there a need to blame another political party for the actions of the POTUS, why not just own the decision outright?
edited to add: This was obviously a rhetorical question.
it makes one look foolish to specifically and solely blame Pres Obama
How many liberals Blamed Bush and continue to blame Bush for Iraq?
Democrats that voted to authorize force: Biden, Kerry, Reid, Clinton, Fienstein, Schumer…