August 22, 2014

"Are airstrikes against ISIS putting US on same side as Assad?"

"The Obama administration can't partner with Assad overtly at this time, but the logic and trajectory of White House policy in Syria leads in that direction...."

206 comments:

1 – 200 of 206   Newer›   Newest»
AReasonableMan said...

Because of the strategic failures of the previous administration there is some moral imperative to minimize the damage that we have done in Iraq. That doesn't put us any side. Mistakes were made.

rhhardin said...

Belmont Club has a systemic account of it.

Obama thinks nothing is related to anything else, and makes policy accordingly.

This doesn't work out.

Anonymous said...

Being that Europeans are paying ransoms to ISIS does that make them on the other side? For every ransom paid should we bomb France? Or should we bomb France just because we can?

$9,000,000,000 Write Off said...

And we're on the same side as Iran. So what? we allied with Russians against Japan and Germany before switching sides within 10 years.

Matthew Sablan said...

So long as we're not doing stupid stuff.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
So long as we're not doing stupid stuff.


We have already filled out quota in this area.


MayBee said...

Because of the strategic failures of the previous administration there is some moral imperative to minimize the damage that we have done in Iraq.

I remember when the outrage was we were killing hundreds of thousands of babies with our horrible Iraq sanctions and irritating AlQaeda with our Saudi base being used to maintain no-fly zones.

Ah, the strategic failures of previous administrations. Surely there was something perfect we could have done to keep British people from wanting to go to Syria and chop off people's heads.

St. George said...

Some think the central focus of Obama's mideast policy involves trying to mollify Iran to placate it into dropping its nuclear weapons program.

Thus, this would explain doing nothing to dethrone Assad, Iran's ally.

The problem is that considering the Israelis were unaware of the extent of Hamas' tunneling who knows what has been going on inside Iran's mountains? For all we know, it has had the bomb for months.

Michael K said...

Well, Assad is an ally of Iran and Obama...

Well, you finish it.

Terry said...

If I was Assad, I'd form a new division of poison-gas grenadiers.
I would call it the "Redline Division."

Matthew Sablan said...

Obama has a Mideast policy?

Drago said...

AReasonableMan: "Because of the strategic failures of the previous administration there is some moral imperative to minimize the damage that we have done in Iraq."

LOL

History began in January of 2001.

Muslim Brotherhood? What's that?

Sayyid Qutb? Never heard of him.

tim maguire said...

AReasonableMan said...Because of the strategic failures of the previous administration...

Some chestnuts never have an expiration date, do they? Why shouldn't you keep beating a dead horse?

Drago said...

ARM: "We have already filled out quota in this area."

On this blog you certainly have.

Anonymous said...

Wake me up when we get around to the nukes. Otherwise: unserious.

Eustace Chilke said...

Before W's war, wiser men than W pointed out that there would be no problem taking Iraq but that the real problem would become what to do with it once taken.

I remarked at the time that, as soon as the Americans leave, the country will elevate another torturing strong man to rule them - or else it will bust into several such hellholes. I'm no prophet. Anyone could see this coming.

Now that the fourth American fuckup president (going back to GHWB) has taken his turn to fuck up, there's not one single thing left to do, or not do, there that would not be fucking up. I imagine Kuwait swallowed and nearly forgotten by this time and all I can think is so what? Compare that favorably to today if you can.

The whole American future seems to depend on a finding a way to restrain these assholes on every front. The misery they have caused in remote corners of the world they have not yet been able to match at home but not for lack of effort.

Tibore said...

Why is this framed as being on a "side"? That implies advocacy. How about holding one's nose and gagging while choosing the lesser of evils? That's a far better way of putting things.

Assad's government is a vain, murderous, oppressive regime that knows few restraints. ISIS is all that times 10, with the additional distinction of somehow being even more capable of more vicious atrocities than Assad's, already a standard bearer in the region. Assad and his government may benefit, but the reality of the situation is not "strike both". It's "eliminate one". And it's insane to not choose the worse of the two evils.

broomhandle said...

So what? The only good Muzzie fanatic...

Sebastian said...

"Because of the strategic failures of the previous administration . . ."

The need for a US presence in the middle of the Middle East and for transformation of ME governments is even more obvious now.

Barry managed to lose the victory, and kept on losing, even to the "jayvees."

Short-term deals with lesser devils may be in order.

Terry said...

Eustace Chilke, the entire post WW2 international order is built on the principle that One Nation Shall Not Take the Land of Another Nation. You upset that applecart and you are back to 1936.

The Drill SGT said...

we allied with Russians against Japan and Germany before switching sides within 10 years.

FWIW,

Both Japan and Germany declared war on us first.

And the Soviets refused to declare war on Japan till after we dropped the nukes and they could scarf up Manchuria and Korea.

I guess the only people those peace loving Russkies attacked until 45 were the Poles, Finns, Romanians and Hungarians...

Terry said...

"I guess the only people those peace loving Russkies attacked until 45 were the Poles, Finns, Romanians and Hungarians..."
Nonsense, Mr. The Drill SGT! The legitimate, independent governments of those nations asked their loyal ally the USSR to send them soldiers to help them deal with rampant hooliganism.

MayBee said...

Now that the fourth American fuckup president (going back to GHWB) has taken his turn to fuck up, there's not one single thing left to do, or not do, there that would not be fucking up. I imagine Kuwait swallowed and nearly forgotten by this time and all I can think is so what? Compare that favorably to today if you can

I'm reading you to be implying that history would have continued on some favorable path had we just let Iraq go forth in 1990-1.

There's no reason to assume that's how things would have proceeded. Libya was developing a nuclear program that had been undetected by the IAEA inspectors. Iran was working on a nuclear program. Saddam had been working on a nuclear program. AlQaeda was finding footing in Afghanistan. The palestinian authority was terrorizing Israel. Pakistan developed a secret nuke program.

The people fomenting trouble in the ME have been unhappy for a long time They are doing what they want, not simply reacting to our actions.

garage mahal said...

I wonder if John McCain is upset that we're bombing his friends.

Drago said...

Eustace Chilke: " I imagine Kuwait swallowed and nearly forgotten by this time and all I can think is so what?"

The concern at the time that Saddam would absorb Kuwait as Iraq's 19th province and then Saddam would roll his "Middle East-formidable army" columns right up to the now expanded border and be poised like a dagger waiting to be unsheathed towards the primary Saudi oil fields in the eastern province.

Not to mention being that much closer to Bahrain and Qatar.

So, the "So what" answer at the time was that we do not want to allow Hussein to consolidate his military position in that way and potentially be encouraged to continue his exploits further west and south.

You can just imagine the hue and cry from the Saudis and the smaller kingdoms retarding this threat, so much so that the Saudi's "invited" US forces in for Gulf War 1 prep.

This is interesting in that the Saudi's along with the Eqyptian gov'ts are right now quietly working with the Israeli's.

Not that the left will give Israel any credit for that, of course.

Drago said...

Garage, have you purchased your "F*** Israel" and "Hamas is a Service Organization" bumper stickers yet?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385887/bernie-sanders-fends-town-hall-attendees-saying-f-israel-claiming-hamas-service

chillblaine said...

President Obama retreats to the golf course so often, it seems to have become a compulsion.

I've become nostalgic for Democratic Presidents to be merely sexually compulsive.

SteveR said...

For all the brilliant criticisms of folks like ARM, I've not heard a serious proposal of what should have been done that would have made the present better. Lots of options from nuke em all to do nothing and in between. Going back to the embassy in Tehran where the Cold War met radical Islam, its been a fertile ground for second guessers.

Bob Boyd said...

Obama's smart power chess game has devolved into air power whack-a-mole.

jr565 said...

There are other groups we can align with to deal with Assad, and also with ISIS.

Terry said...

Everything was great in Iran until we overthrew Mossadegh! Ditto Chile and Allende! Also Vietnam was becoming a democracy until we stormed in! Korea was like that! Kuwait in '91? Same thing!
That's what we Americans do, look around the world until we find a place where people are happy and prosperous, and then stomp them! For no reason! It's what we do!
Just ask Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore.

tim in vermont said...

Turns out that Obama pretending that he had a "mulligan" on Iraq is causing all kinds of hell. His supporters elected him on the premise that he could start over September 10 and pretend that none of those decisions had been made, or at least make his decisions as if he were not affected by recent history.

It is like the liberals who want to spend the money again that Bush already spent as if the fact that Bush spent it makes the debts not real.

Hagar said...

@Terry,

The post-WWII world was based on the principle of Do Not Provoke The Americans To The Point That They Might Do Something About It.!

Drago said...

SteveR: "Going back to the embassy in Tehran where the Cold War met radical Islam, its been a fertile ground for second guessers."

Whoa there!

All that stuff happened prior to January of 2001.

Thus, it cannot be relevant.

It MUST not be relevant.

garage mahal said...

Garage, have you purchased your "F*** Israel" and "Hamas is a Service Organization" bumper stickers yet?

Good one! You read NRO and can't hyperlink. You are an indispensable contributor here. So many burns. So many owns. Only thing missing is an Obama/golfing joke and you will totally crush this thread.

Anonymous said...

"Eustace Chilke, the entire post WW2 international order is built on the principle that One Nation Shall Not Take the Land of Another Nation. You upset that applecart and you are back to 1936."

Stalin being the exception.

khesanh0802 said...

@ SteveR

ARM apparently has only one note regarding Iraq. He refuses to make a suggestion about what to do now- a fairly typical liberal approach. He can only tell us (over and over again) what a bad boy GWB was.

Anonymous said...

There is the rather odd circumstance of ISIS shuttling across the border from Syria to Iraq. As late as 6 months ago Assad was seen as a dead-man-walking. Now the pressure is off Syria and on in Iraq.

Maybe being utterly ruthless has its benefits. Assad in..Maliki out.

Anonymous said...

All I can say is, Thank God for President Bush. If it weren't for him, things would be a helleva lot worse in the region today.

But what to do now?

As the old saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So who cares if killing ISIS puts Asad on our side?

When we finish with ISIS, we should then go after Asad. But Obama doesn't have the balls Bush has, so don't expect anything of the sort.

Terry said...

It's always fun to remind liberals that both Obama's of Secretaries of State voted for the Iraq War. Most Dems in the senate did.
So did both of their 2004 presidential candidates.
And Obama had no frikkin idea, when he made his antiwar speech in 2002, that Saddam had no WMD.
So

Hagar said...

I think it will come to that we invade Iraq a third time, and I hope we will then have learned enough to stay for 40-50 years, or however long it is going to take for "the Muslim World" to settle down.

Drago said...

garage: "Good one! You read NRO and can't hyperlink. You are an indispensable contributor here. So many burns. So many owns. Only thing missing is an Obama/golfing joke and you will totally crush this thread"

Always nice to get the high school crowds opinion.

Thanks for playing.

Shouldn't you be clocking back into work now?

The Godfather said...

The US tried the "let's get involved in the Middle East" approach, and found that the Middle East was still a mess. So then we tried the "Let's not get involved in the Middle East" approach, and found that the Middle East is still a mess. It looks like there's no satisfactory answer.

Drago said...

LarsPorsena: "There is the rather odd circumstance of ISIS shuttling across the border from Syria to Iraq."

Borders are a funny thing in this part of the world.

damikesc said...

We cannot always have angels as allies (we fought ALONGSIDE Stalin). Assad is bad, ISIS is worse.

The blame game is pointless. We can blame Carter for letting the Shah fall, but how is that helpful?

Bush is not responsible for ISIS.

Drago said...

Hagar: "I think it will come to that we invade Iraq a third time, and I hope we will then have learned enough to stay for 40-50 years, or however long it is going to take for "the Muslim World" to settle down."

Is it possible for the muslim world to settle down?

Ever?

What if it's not?

Rusty said...

Our interests temporarily coincide. That is the extent of it.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Drago said...
LarsPorsena: "There is the rather odd circumstance of ISIS shuttling across the border from Syria to Iraq."

Borders are a funny thing in this part of the world.

8/22/14, 10:38 AM
I wish we had some borders in the US.

Hagar said...

They were reasonably "settled" until Obama announced he was 'ending' the war, and we were leaving.

MayBee said...

And Obama had no frikkin idea, when he made his antiwar speech in 2002, that Saddam had no WMD.

Obama also didn't produce any viable options about what to do about the situation we were already in in Iraq.
He was never meant to give an explanation of what he would have done.

And again when he wanted all of the troops to pull out in 2006. He never explained what he thought might happen if we did. He was never held accountable for his own vague ideas.

David said...

Assad is back in vogue.

Drago said...

Hagar: "They were reasonably "settled" until Obama announced he was 'ending' the war, and we were leaving."

Indeed.

Still waiting for one of the resident lefties to explain how ISIS went from JV status to the now "imminent threat" all under Dear Leaders watch.

In any event, one side declaring a war over is really rather moronic when the other side has the means to carry on the war and decides it is still at war with you.

Dave D said...

Wow! A "crack-free" thread. How refreshing!

David said...

betamax3000 said...
Being that Europeans are paying ransoms to ISIS does that make them on the other side? For every ransom paid should we bomb France? Or should we bomb France just because we can?


Hit the infrastructure first. Wineries, patisseries, those damn tourist barges, hair salons and outdoor cafes. That will take care of them.

Michael said...

ARM

Interested in hearing your ideas on what to do with ISIS. You have a very pithy critique of the reasons we got where we are but your genius fades to black when the topic of what should be done arises. There are those who have an incredible gift for telling us the obvious and making it seem as though that observation is of value. You are such a commenter. Never a solution at hand, however. Never.

Michael said...

How can we talk about this without discussing reparations and the urgency of racism which has colored our foreign policy for over four hundred years.

Drago said...

David: "Hit the infrastructure first. Wineries, patisseries, those damn tourist barges, hair salons and outdoor cafes. That will take care of them."

Well, a simpler solution might be to hit the 1 water main used to supply their showers.

But then again, that pipe is rusting over from inactivity.

Hagar said...

Obama my not be interested in war, but war may be interested in him.

(Leon Trotsky - not!)

Drago said...

Hagar said...
Obama my not be interested in war, but war may be interested in him.

In Russia, Party always find you...

n.n said...

It was inevitable once the proof of Assad's war crimes proved to be ambiguous, and the imperial (i.e. left-wing) character of our "allies" reared its ugly head.

lgv said...

AReasonableMan: "Because of the strategic failures of the previous administration there is some moral imperative to minimize the damage that we have done in Iraq."

LOL

History began in January of 2001.


I think AReasonableMan is talking about Clinton's failure to kill Bin Laden or take appropriate action after the Cole incident.

Oh wait, nevermind.

Same side as Assad? Not really. Whatever targeting of ISIL will be limited to Iraq. If they retreat back into Syria, we will not attack. We are only doing this now to protect our embassy personnel somewhere.

Drago said...

Michael: "How can we talk about this without discussing reparations and the urgency of racism which has colored our foreign policy for over four hundred years."

"..colored.."

Was that wise?

Robert Cook said...

"Assad's government is a vain, murderous, oppressive regime that knows few restraints."

America has never had any qualms allying itself with such regimes if it served our interests--and why would we, as this describes our regime, as well--so all the phony hand-wringing and soul-searching now that we might be considered to be on Assad's "side" is risible.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...

Duh..

Vanity Fair wrote a flattering article about Asad (presumably at the direction of Hillary's State Dept and Obama WH) before he became their enemy number 1. I don't know how that transition happened but it appeared to happen very quickly. Then they started talking about arming 'moderate' Syrian rebels to not exactly get rid of Asad but keep him in check. Well, do they realize now that they could have helped Asad quell the rebels and in the process obviated a reason for the rise of ISIS? They need Asad now to defeat the scourge that is ISIS. You need a ruthless dictator on your side to kill these barbaric animals. What a clusterfuck..

David said...

Sorry to be flip about it, but this is such a mess that my first instinct was stupid jokes. The grotesque beheading has had its intended effect. We are in the process of going from complacency at the highest levels to pandemonium.

Would ISIS or something like it have developed if X had not done Y? There are a lot of X's and Y's here to argue about, and most of the argument is going to be useless. Obama and Bush both have their responsibility, Together they have been President for 14 years and their actions or inactions have consequences.

The question is where we go now. We face that question with a politically impaired lame duck President, a poisonous blame oriented political culture, a divided and distracted populace, a blinded news media and a dysfunctional legislature.

It's time for some responsible leadership. The prospects are not high, but someone might surprise us. You never know.

Drago said...

Cookie: "America has never had any qualms allying itself with such regimes if it served our interests--and why would we, as this describes our regime,.."

It much, much, much more aptly describes just about every single regime lefties like Robert Cook have swooned over (and continue to swoon over) for the past 100 years.

Really.

Isn't there anything more tedious that stalinists lecturing others on morality and ethics?

Eugene said...

Winston Churchill: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

n.n said...

Michael:

Simple. Several thousand years of majorities in the Middle East, Africa and Asia murdering, enslaving, and exploiting minorities with a paler shade of skin. However, our religion (i.e. moral philosophy) does not include degenerate doctrines of inherited or collective sin, and does not advance dreams of retributive change, or even redistributive change. The objective is notably reconciliation and assimilation.

Revenant said...

"Are airstrikes against ISIS putting the US on the same side as Assad?"

Yes. Which is why I have to laugh when people blame the existence of ISIS on our failure to attack Assad.

JPS said...

ARM:

"Because of the strategic failures of the previous administration there is some moral imperative to minimize the damage that we have done in Iraq."

Yeah! If only we'd left the place alone.

Let's see - is there any country in the Arab Middle East where we haven't meddled much, and could compare outcomes?

Got it - Syria! If only we'd left Iraq alone as we have Syria, everything would be fine.

pm317 said...

I said Vanity Fair in my last comment but the article calling Asad a reformer appeared in Vogue, I think. It has disappeared from Google for a while.

JPS said...

Robert,

If our "regime" can be described with the same adjectives as Assad's, and if that comparison isn't misleading to the point of dishonesty, then as a dissident who has taken no trouble to hide your identity or your views you are damned lucky to be alive. Be careful, man!

traditionalguy said...

Obama has done the dissing of our traditional allies in the Levant giving them no choice except to change a strong horse in the mid-stream.

Valerie Jarrett has quietly arranged for an Iranian nuclear bomb to succeed using the embargo lifting agreement. This is forcing the Saudis and Egypt into a secret alliance with Israel.

Until Obama leaves office we will have absolutely no influence in the Levant because no one will trust the USA under sneaky snake Obama. Bibi knows his secret enemy is Obama. It is time Americans who really support Israel publicly express that now.

The true Ismaic State called ISIL and their Hamas friends intend to take over the vacuum that Obama/Jarrett created to help Iran. Stay tuned.

Michael K said...

"I remarked at the time that, as soon as the Americans leave, the country will elevate another torturing strong man to rule them - or else it will bust into several such hellholes. I'm no prophet. Anyone could see this coming."

A lot of us thought that a new civilized (or at least rational) strong man was the most likely option. There was little chance of democracy becoming established in that hellhole. The mistake was not to set up a sonofabitch as ruler but to leave him alone and leave.

Very few lefties remember Syngman Rhee or General Park as rulers of South Korea. We got along with a rational set of tyrants in the USSR. Hitler and Tojo were not rational. We had to kill them. Stalin was semi-rational until after WWII. By 1950, he was probably psychotic and trouble followed. Once rational tyrants had taken over, we had the Cold War but it never got hot.

Lefties avoid history like they avoid math.

Scott M said...

The ChiComs hated the Russians too. What difference, at this point, does it make?

Hagar said...

Ask the Ukrainians how "sane" they think Stalin was.

Drago said...

pm317: "pm317 said...
I said Vanity Fair in my last comment but the article calling Asad a reformer appeared in Vogue, I think. It has disappeared from Google for a while."

Wasn't that the article placed with Hillary/State Dept support in order to prop up Assad at a time when our "Smart"-"Reset" Diplomacy was thought to be "working"?

SteveR said...

I would love to snark my way through these discussions, but unlike ARM, my priorities are beyond political when it comes to this topic.

kcom said...

"I imagine Kuwait swallowed and nearly forgotten by this time and all I can think is so what? Compare that favorably to today if you can."

That's about the easiest thing ever. Were you alive then? Having a madman twice as crazy (at least) as Assad rolling through the Middle East with no restraint and no regard for national borders is a pretty big nightmare to have.

Oh, so you thought he was going to stop at Kuwait, eh? Because it was Iraq's purported 19th province. Just like all Hitler (apologies) wanted was the Sudetenland because Germans were there. How many Germans were in Poland when he annihilated that country six months later?

Yes, it's simple to imagine a scenario much worse than today's.

Scott M said...

Still waiting for one of the resident lefties to explain how ISIS went from JV status to the now "imminent threat" all under Dear Leaders watch.

In a matter of weeks...

Michael said...

Drago:

See? You got it right away!! Our dimwit lecturer has made progress.

kcom said...

Who said this before* the Gulf War in 1991?:

"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be [preparing for war] because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing."

It's akin to "I imagine Kuwait swallowed and nearly forgotten by this time and all I can think is so what?"

[* Yes, it's a bit of a trick question. :)]

richard mcenroe said...

I'm sure the morally unchallengeable Obama administration can find all-unspotted world leaders to deal with, unlike the evil Booooooosh.

Oh, wait, Obama's picking and choosing between a scum-soaked bag of psychotic killers and arrogant dictators? Well, I'm sure he has a comprehensive and sophisticated set of guidelines established as to which tyrants should best be humored in our own national interest...

Oh, wait, he doesn't....?

richard mcenroe said...

"Mistakes were made." — and right after Paul Reiser said that in "Aliens" his face was bitten off...

Robert Cook said...

"...it much, much, much more aptly describes just about every single regime lefties like Robert Cook have swooned over (and continue to swoon over) for the past 100 years."

Drago...I see you continue presuming much while knowing little.

garage mahal said...

Drago...I see you continue presuming much while knowing little.

And he seems to take great pride in it.

hombre said...

Does this mean Putin had it right?

Robert Cook said...

"A lot of us thought that a new civilized (or at least rational) strong man was the most likely option. There was little chance of democracy becoming established in that hellhole. The mistake was not to set up a sonofabitch as ruler but to leave him alone and leave."

If that's what we wanted, why did we fire the other guy?

Birkel said...

It is impossible to say anything about Robert Cook's views because he never writes anything substantive.

Remember, Robert Cook has written that he believes in a war that both sides -- the aggressors and the victim -- will be morally equivalent.

So if the US attacks ISIS the US and the head-loppers will be morally equivalent. And FDR was as bad as Stalin and Hitler.

Michael said...

Cook and Garage:

Would be interested in which modern regimes the left has admired. Put names to it.

Michael K said...

"If that's what we wanted, why did we fire the other guy?"

Which guy ? Saddam ? Not rational. Maliki ? Not rational and incompetent to boot.

The guys we should have set up were the exiles. It would have been fun to watch lefties go for the fainting couch if Chalabi was running things. There were actually some reasonable Iraqi generals according to stuff I read soon after the war. One of them could have played the role General Sisi is playing.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ann,

"The Obama administration can't partner with Assad overtly at this time,..."

Whoever wrote that is the biggest idiot in the world - Obama hasn't, and won't, "partner with Assad." Overtly or covertly.

It's like conservatives saying blacks are in the Democrat's pocket:

They have to say that because, being racists, they can't conceive of blacks thinking and acting for themselves.

If we're not the conservative's puppets, we have to be somebody's, right?

It's the same thing here - I didn't even click the link to read the article:

Betcha it's a white guy,...

Robert Cook said...

"'Still waiting for one of the resident lefties to explain how ISIS went from JV status to the now "imminent threat" all under Dear Leaders watch.'

"In a matter of weeks..."



It's been more than a matter of weeks, and the reasons are the same old, same old...Isis, though "distasteful," seemed to be more of a plus than minus...until they became a minus.

Robert Cook said...

"'If that's what we wanted, why did we fire the other guy?'

"Which guy ? Saddam ? Not rational."


Saddam. He was entirely rational, though not civilized. But then, hoping for a "civilized strong man" is like wishing for water that isn't wet.

Barry Dauphin said...

“There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”
--Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on “Face the Nation,” March 27, 2011

PB Reader said...

No alliance or set of interests are permanently aligned.

Ambrose said...

There aren't always two clearly defined sides. We should do what's right for the US and not worry about which side we're on.

Robert Cook said...

"We should do what's right for the US and not worry about which side we're on."

That's basically been our foreign policy for...200 years or more.

Look where it's got us.

Birkel said...

"Look where it's got us." --Robert Cook

Which country is in a better place, overall, than the United States and why?

traditionalguy said...

The Hamas guys lined up and murdered 17 suspects for collaborating yesterday for identifying Hamas leadership's lair that Israel bombed.

That is the mark of ISIL. They kill innocent Muslims as freely as they kill innocent infidels. Which is what lost Iraq to Al Qaeda in the surge's Sunni awakening of 2008. So they stopped doing that for a while. But now Saudi Arabian and Egyptian Muslims are their real enemies.

So far Israel's Defense Force has killed 1800 that includes the Hamas guys firing rockets at them, and the American left condemns Israel as Nazis and calls for divestment in companies selling anything to Israel, and Obama sens American aid to Hamas.

The ISIL guys in Syria are at 200,000 killed and 500,000+ refugees created and counting. But the American left is totally silent.

Drago said...

Nice to see garage is on another break.

Lunch break?

What do they give you? An hour? 45 minutes?

I'm sure it's well deserved in any case.

Drago said...

traditionalguy said...
The Hamas guys lined up and murdered 17 suspects for collaborating yesterday for identifying Hamas leadership's lair that Israel bombed

That would be the Hamas group that garage (and the left in general) are bending over backwards to defend.

Drago said...

Cook: "That's basically been our foreign policy for...200 years or more. Look where it's got us"

Nobody mention Charlemagne or the Siege of Vienna to cookie or ARM.

They won't be able to blame anything on Bush or the US so what fun would that be?

Drago said...

traditionalguy: "But the American left is totally silent."

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge, vietnamese reeducation camps, "you pick 'em" islamist terrorist groups, etc.

You have to give it the lefties, they are very consistent on when to be silent.

Drago said...

Cook: "It's been more than a matter of weeks..."

Not according to Dear Leader and the smartest bunch of "don't do stupid stuff" and "reset" folks assembled in the cabinet.

I was wondering when the left would begin rewriting the history of this one.

It appears they are wasting no time at all.

Next up will airbrushing Hillary out of any nettlesome pics (Politburo style) to maintain deniability.

David said...

Cook: "Saddam. He was entirely rational . . . ."

This must explain why he precipitated two wars with the United States. The first of which he thought we would not fight, and the second of which he thought he could win.

JPS said...

Crack Emcee, 12:20:

You are talented. Predictable, but talented.

When I first read this post, I thought about the pros and cons of the US taking military action against ISIS.

As an afterthought I wondered, How long until Crack shows up and turns this into a thread on racism in America?

But then I thought, That'd be tough - I'm not sure how you make that link.

garage mahal said...

What do they give you? An hour? 45 minutes?

I work whenever the fuck I want. Shouldn't you get back to pushing shopping carts back to the grocery store?

Drago said...

garage: "I work whenever the fuck I want."

Whoa nellie!!

Easy big fella.

Musta struck a nerve. Of course you work whenever you want to.

Of course you do.

Garage: "Shouldn't you get back to pushing shopping carts back to the grocery store?"

I always return my cart to the front of the store after I use it.

It's polite to do so.

It's the little things that set us apart from your islamist heroes in Hamas.

Drago said...

Cook: "Saddam. He was entirely rational . . . ."

David: "This must explain why he precipitated two wars with the United States. The first of which he thought we would not fight, and the second of which he thought he could win."

Hey, let's not be too hard on Saddam (whom Kerry would have happily left in power).

All those rape rooms, mass executions, nerve gassing of your minority populations and feeding political and personal enemies into wood chippers can cause one to lose perspective.

Drago said...

JPS: "As an afterthought I wondered, How long until Crack shows up and turns this into a thread on racism in America?"

I was going to comment on Cracks posting until I felt Cedarfords eyes boring into the back of my head with the heat from a thousand suns!

So, I didn't.

Revenant said...

Our policy, during most of the Cold War, was basically this:

1. If a country is ruled by a hostile regime, topple them, avoid invading if at all possible.
2. Once a non-hostile regime -- tyrant, democracy, semi-democracy, whatever -- is in charge, give them aid.

After the end of the Cold War, during the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, we changed strategies. Rather than simply getting rid of enemies, we adopted a policy of nation-building. Nation-building, absent a few historical anomalies like post-WW2 Japan and Germany, does not work. Most people prefer their own, bad, rulers to a foreign occupation, however benign. It isn't rational, but the people aren't either.

We should have packed up and left Iraq immediately after handing Hussein over to the mob. Virtually all of the American expenses, in lives and money, were paid in trying to build democracy there. We could have forcibly deposed a dozen tyrants for the cost of that one attempt at nation-building.

Todd said...

Revenant said...
We could have forcibly deposed a dozen tyrants for the cost of that one attempt at nation-building.
8/22/14, 1:51 PM


You have a point but there is that "you broke it, you fix it" bit as well as a bit of "we can make it better than that". You have a point and that may be a better way to go but if we had gone that route, whatever happened after we left would have been messy and the administration would have taken the heat for it. So, if you are going to get blamed anyway, why not at least try to make it better?

sinz52 said...

Actually, nation-building worked OK--in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and other European nations formerly under the Soviet boot.

The catastrophic mistake that Bush 43 made was to assume that the desire for freedom, liberty, and democracy that was mostly unique to the Western world was a true universal, and that the people of Iraq were just as ready for democracy as the people of Czechoslovakia.

Czechoslovakia had already been a democracy before the Nazis and then the Communists took the place. There, we were just restoring the freedoms they had lost.

Iraq had never been a democracy, the Arab world had never been part of the European enlightenment, there were no Arab equivalents to John Locke or Rousseau or Thomas Jefferson.

I voted for Bush 43.

And I'm deeply disappointed in how he conducted foreign and military policy.

He let us down.

And I do not feel compelled to defend him, shill for him, lie for him.

Bush 43 betrayed his supporters who believed in him.

Drago said...

Revenant: "Nation-building, absent a few historical anomalies like post-WW2 Japan and Germany, does not work."

I would argue that for a significant period of time, the British were actually adequate in the "nation building" sphere and that this was due to the amount of effort they put into creating the intellectual/policy groups/departments and trained personnel necessary to execute their tasks in close, very close, coordination with military commanders on the ground.

This also goes back to the Romans as well.

Yes yes, you could argue the Persian empire wasn't a total slouch in this area though they were much more hands off after a "state" or "nation" was formally established. In their case it was just "give us the money on time".


Robert Cook said...

"Cook: 'Saddam. He was entirely rational . . . .'

"This must explain why he precipitated two wars with the United States. The first of which he thought we would not fight, and the second of which he thought he could win."


He did not wittingly (to use James Clapper's term) precipitate the first war, and he did nothing at all to precipitate the second war.

He discussed his differences with Kuwait with American ambassador April Glaspie, during which talk she expressed "concern" about his military build up...but she also told him we had "no opinion on Arab/Arab conflicts." He told her he would attempt further talks with Kuwait, but he declared Iraq would "not accept death."

There's no knowing for sure what Glaspie meant by her comments--and anything she may say today cannot necessarily be trusted, given the events that ensued--but Hussein thought he had been given a pass to pursue a military resolution to his problems with Kuwait. Glaspie has said she was not aware war was imminent.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and Bush started ginning up war fever for us to attack Iraq. After months of rising tension, Hussein finally offered to withdraw, given certain conditions, but the White House rejected his offer. Soon after, we attacked.

As for the second war, Hussein did nothing at all--even unwittingly--to provoke our attack, and he even cooperated to the extent of allowing UN Inspectors to enter Iraq to search for the WMD we alleged he possessed, but which he always denied having. After four months in country, the inspectors had found nothing. They anticipated the completion of their inspections to require another few months, but Bush had a timetable to keep, a planned invasion date, so the inspectors were told to leave Iraq immediately for their own safety, as war was about to begin. Rather than pursue war against Iraq as a "last choice," as Bush had (lyingly) promised, he commenced the war that had been long in the planning, and for which there was no basis. Thus, our invasion was illegal and a war crime.

Robert Cook said...

"I was wondering when the left would begin rewriting the history of this one."

Did you even bother to read the column at the link? It does nothing to absolve Obama, and in fact, makes him look worse and more responsible for this crisis than if ISIS truly were a sudden, out-of-nowhere force.

Drago said...

Cook: "and he did nothing at all to precipitate the second war."

It takes a very special leftist indeed to argue this.

Drago said...

Cook: "Did you even bother to read the column at the link? It does nothing to absolve Obama, and in fact, makes him look worse and more responsible for this crisis than if ISIS truly were a sudden, out-of-nowhere force."

Yes I did read it.

And yes, it does not absolve obama.

But my point was not whether or not the obama admin public position was correct or not (which it wasn't) but more on point as to why the obama admin took the position it did.

Drago said...

Cook: "He discussed his differences with Kuwait with American ambassador April Glaspie, during which talk she expressed "concern" about his military build up...but she also told him we had "no opinion on Arab/Arab conflicts."

LOL

So, cookie, our very own 9-11 and October Surprise Truther is also peddling the shopworn "April Glaspie" greenlit the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait BS.

There is not a single event in the world, anywhere, at anytime that cookie and the left won't lay at the feet of the US.

damikesc said...

Nation-building, absent a few historical anomalies like post-WW2 Japan and Germany, does not work.

Germany took 45 years to be brought back together with many troops stationed there the entire time.

I bet most places would be satisfactory with similar stay durations and manpower.

Japan is the only actual success --- and that is largely because we didn't have to play nice with others to achieve it.

Robert Cook said...

"Hey, let's not be too hard on Saddam (whom Kerry would have happily left in power).

"All those rape rooms, mass executions, nerve gassing of your minority populations and feeding political and personal enemies into wood chippers can cause one to lose perspective."


I said he was rational, not civilized. Most atrocities are committed by purely rational people. Or do you think the Americans who tortured detainees or the German military officers who headed up the concentration camps or the soldiers who worked in them were irrational?

But then, I wasn't the one recommending that we should have placed a "strong man," a "sonofabitch," as the head of Iraq's government to keep the peace. I just pointed out that that the guy we fired met had the requirements.

Robert Cook said...

It takes a very special leftist indeed to argue (Saddam did nothing to precipitate the second war)."

Not at all; it merely requires a look at the facts.

Drago said...

Cook: "Or do you think the Americans who tortured detainees or the German military officers who headed up the concentration camps or the soldiers who worked in them were irrational?"

And there you have it in one sentence from cookie.

He comfortably, unblinkingly, without hesitation, casually lumps in the Nazi concentration camp officials with Americans who "tortured" "detainees".

Cookie.

The prototypical leftist useful idiot.

Drago said...

Cook: "Not at all; it merely requires a look at the facts."

Yes, the "facts".

Like all those "October Surprise" "facts".

"facts".

You keep using that word. More like violating that word.

Birkel said...

Remember, Robert Cook believes FDR and Truman were every bit as bad as Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

Discussing anything with anybody who well and truly believes that is silly.

JPS said...

Robert Cook:

"He did not wittingly (to use James Clapper's term) precipitate the first war, and he did nothing at all to precipitate the second war."

Nice James Clapper reference! Are you by chance bald, if you don't mind my asking? I would like to think you rubbed and scratched your forehead with four fingers while typing this.

"He discussed his differences with Kuwait with American ambassador April Glaspie, during which talk she expressed 'concern' about his military build up...but she also told him we had 'no opinion on Arab/Arab conflicts.'"

I've always found that "green light" unconvincing. Granted, this wasn't a shining moment in the history of our diplomacy. Still, if Saddam Hussein mentally finished her sentence with, "So go ahead and annex Kuwait, we won't object," he was even dumber and more dangerous than I thought.

In context, which was all about resolving his grievances through diplomatic channels, she was urging him not to use military force. "We have no position on your border dispute," was a rebuttal to the suggestion that Kuwait was our puppet, if they were drilling in disputed territory it was because we told them to, and therefore they'd stop if we told them to stop.

For political reasons, this was turned into a narrative in which the invasion was our fault (aren't such things always?) and therefore we had no standing to reverse it.

Robert Cook said...

"There is not a single event in the world, anywhere, at anytime that cookie and the left won't lay at the feet of the US."

Not true, as you know, but we sure have our hands in a lot of shit, and no matter how often we see that "karma is a bitch," we continue to interfere in world affairs, heedless of the blowback to come.

Drago said...

The first thing you should do cookie is review the Cease Fire agreement signed by Saddam's government then, if you're not too busy blaming the US for continental drift, you might want to take a gander at the list of violations of that cease fire agreement and the actions afforded the US and it's allies in the case of repeated violations.

Take a guess as to how many UN resolutions Saddam ignored and over what period of time and then research UN Resolution 1441.

Not that you will.

It would put the onus on Saddam.

Can't have that in cookie-world.

Hagar said...

The American military staying in Iraq was not so much about Iraq as about everyone else - from Pakistan to Morrocco, and perhaps farther afield - mind their actions and not get too rambunctious.

Most of our casualties came from a proxy-war with Iran, and not letting it go to open war was a choice by our government, which you may wish to argue about, but it was our government's choice.

Now that this administration has 'ended the war' and pulled our troops out we will see what happens, but my bet is that not only is lot of "towelheads" going to die as a result, but so will a lot more Americans.

Drago said...

Cook: "...we continue to interfere in world affairs,..."

This line has been trotted out by the left for the last 50 years all in a failed attempt to create political pressure to hinder the US engaging with the world in the hopes (of the left) that expansionist Soviet and their vassal states would be able to continue pursuing their interests undeterred.

Simply substitute "soviet and vassal states" with radical islam and it's all same old same old.

Robert Cook said...

"...if Saddam Hussein mentally finished her sentence with, 'So go ahead and annex Kuwait, we won't object,' he was even dumber and more dangerous than I thought."

Dumb? Maybe. Or just more cynical and aware of how America plays in the world than we are. How many mafioso are aware they're about to be hit by guys they think are their friends?

Dangerous? Sure. He was a thug, a torturer, a murderer, a tyrant. Even so, he was our friend for a time, when it served our purposes. He had the fault, as do many powerful people, of hubris, which undid him.

Kirk Parker said...

Eustace,

Cool, so you think Sadaam wouldn't have immediately started threatening The Kingdom? Piecemeal at first probably...


Michael K.,

" The mistake was not to set up a sonofabitch as ruler but to leave him alone, warn him sternly, "Keep a lid on thing s and don't threaten your neighbors, or you're next", and leave."

FIFY. ;-)

Anonymous said...

"explain how ISIS went from JV status to the now "imminent threat""

Because Wall Street wants another war. Ike warned us about this exact situation.

Way to do your part to help make it all happen.

JPS said...

madisonfella:

"Because Wall Street wants another war."

OK, I'll follow you into your world. Why does Wall Street want another war?

People who argue like this really do have the most amazingly arrogant view of the world: All strife happens because the wrong Americans want it. If we would just leave well enough alone, everything would be fine.

(As in Syria, I guess - but I repeat myself.)

"Ike warned us about this exact situation."

Yeah, and all the liberals thought he was a dolt, though not for that sentiment.

Robert Cook said...

"Take a guess as to how many UN resolutions Saddam ignored and over what period of time and then research UN Resolution 1441."

"Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that '...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations.'"

(Excerpted from Wikipedia.)

Of course, Saddam did NOT have WMD or continue to develop WMD programs, so he was not guilty of the alleged "breach" bolded above. He was not given the opportunity to prove this, as we pulled the UN inspectors prematurely so we could commence our attack.

More to the point, Resolution 1441 did not provide UN approval or authorization for military action against Iraq. Resolution 1441 was passed with the understanding and intention, by the other member nations, if not necessarily by the US, that, if Hussein were found in breach, the UN Security Council would take up another vote to decide whether or not to authorize military action.

No such vote was taken; we begrudgingly asked for such a vote to be called--at Colin Powell's urging--but we withdrew the move for a vote when it became apparent there would not be a majority vote in favor of war.

By attacking Iraq without UN Security Council authorization, and without there being a pressing "self-defense" requirement, we committed a war crime and unleashed a Pandora's Storage Locker of chaos and violence that continues today.

Drago said...

Cook: "More to the point, Resolution 1441 did not provide UN approval or authorization for military action against Iraq."

LOL

This is another version of the Hillary patented "don't read the actual resolution, just take my word for it for what I thought it really meant!!" tactic.

Hilarious.

You can't fix this degree of stupidity.

Purposeful stupidity at that.

Which is worse.

Just stick with your conspiracy theories cook.

Drago said...

madisonfella: "Because Wall Street wants another war."

LOL

So now it's Wall Streets fault obama lied about the increasing threat of ISIS!

What's next?

ATM's?

Headwinds?

Robots?

Wall Street.

Yep, Wall Street made obama "miss" the ISIS buildup.

Fantastic.

JPS said...

Robert Cook -

"Of course, Saddam did NOT have WMD or continue to develop WMD programs,"

Have you read the Duelfer report?

It is certainly damaging, retrospectively, to the assumption that Saddam had major WMD stockpiles or then-active programs.

If accurate, it certainly suggests that Saddam had placed his programs in a state of dormancy, and was hiding key seeds of it to reconstitute them as soon as the sanctions regime crumbled, which it was well on the way to doing.

Maybe I'm wrong. I just don't see a simpler explanation. I for one wouldn't keep vials of tularemia in my personal freezer at home; it's very poor storage practice. Apparently the head of Saddam's purely defensive biological "research" institutes disagreed.

Drago said...

cook: "..we committed a war crime.."

LOL

Just keep telling yourself that.

And that GHWBush jumped on an SR-71 and flew to Paris to ensure Americans were held hostage longer.

Of course, how Bush got hold of an SR-71 during the Presidency of Jimmah! will be left unaddressed!

DanTheMan said...

Cook,
There was a president in between Bush I and Bush II. For 8 years, if I recall.

Funny, you seem to have left him out of your narrative....

Drago said...

JPS: " I for one wouldn't keep vials of tularemia in my personal freezer at home; it's very poor storage practice. Apparently the head of Saddam's purely defensive biological "research" institutes disagreed."

I'll bet Cookie and madisonfella/Inga think Wall Street made Saddam's head of biological research do it.

After all, when the US is in the fray, no one else in the world has free will.

Drago said...

DanTheMan: 'For 8 years, if I recall."

When a dem is in office, history takes a holiday!!

Huzzah!

garage mahal said...

Saddam.

Huh?

What?

France.

LOL

Jimmy Carter!

Robot Leftists.

I miss Betty Grable.

But you love Hamas. So there is that.

Drago said...

garage is on another break!

Fantastic.

I hope he has enough time to look at a map and see that Gaza shares a border with Egypt.

He was unfortunately unaware of this basic fact last week.

Drago said...

You can always tell when a discussion gets "too deep" for garage.

He doesn't even know what to google or how to relate it so he reverts back to the level he topped out at: 10th grade.

Still, at least it's not the 9th grade. So there's that.

Drago said...

garage, have you figured out yet that Israel does not drop 4,000lb bombs in gaza?

You were "a little off" on that one a couple weeks back as well.

garage mahal said...

Yes.

I'm back.

How could I miss.

Your red-hot takes on the Middle East.

And Colonialism!

Fascinating.

Stuff!

I need more aloe!

Drago said...

garage: "Your red-hot takes on the Middle East."

It's adorable that garage pretends he can read a map.

garage mahal said...

Attention.

Must.

Be.

Paid.

Hyphenated American said...

Bush's decision to pivot to Iraq, instead of concentrating on Afghanistan was very smart. We all could see that after the 2007 surge, Iraq was won, there was peace. USA needed simply to keep some troops to make sure reconstruction continues. Obama claimed that he needed to win I'm Afghanistan. Obama also stupidly withdrew all troops from Iraq, not leaving any residual force. In the end his surge in Afghanistan was an abysmal failure, thousands of American soldiers killed with no benefit to the country. Iraq is now lost too.

The conclusion is obvious. Obama had to keep his eyes on Iraq and make sure it slowly but steadily rises, while at best keeping residual troops in Afghanistan. Iraq could be reformed, Afghanistan not. Obama made two strategic blunders....

Last but not least, the civil war in Syria was a nice thing, Sunni terrorists fighting Shia terrorists, Iran, Hezbollah battling al Qaeda. America could benefit from this, if it were not for obama's abandonment of Iraq.

Hyphenated American said...

""explain how ISIS went from JV status to the now "imminent threat""

Because Wall Street wants another war. Ike warned us about this exact situation."

ISIS magically turned into an effective fighting force solely because Wall Street wants a war in the Middle East. Cause, you know, wars in the Middle East and high oil prices are so good for the banks and the economy of this country. If Wall Street decides it does not want the war, then all ISIS fighters put down their guns and become Buddhists.

Drago said...

garage: "garage mahal said...
Attention.
Must.
Be.
Paid."

LOL

You copied that off another poster some time back and you're recycling it again?

Yep.

You are tapped out on this (and most) subjects.

Thanks for trying though.

It is adorable.

Like a 3 year old trying to reprogram the remote.

Drago said...

Hyphenated: "The conclusion is obvious. Obama had to keep his eyes on Iraq and make sure it slowly but steadily rises, while at best keeping residual troops in Afghanistan. Iraq could be reformed, Afghanistan not. Obama made two strategic blunders...."

But remember, obama had promised his base we were getting out and that was that. I can't believe the entire administration was oblivious to the dangers, I think they actually believed that the inevitable would happen but at a pace that allowed them to stay at arms length and still look like "winners" on the pull out.

Hyphenated American said...

Drago. I don't think the folks who believed that insurance premiums would go down by 3000% could predict anything about Iraq and Afghanistan! this is why Obama and Biden are on record boasting their success in Iraq.

Drago said...

Hyphenated: " this is why Obama and Biden are on record boasting their success in Iraq."

No longer of course.

Iraq has become the proverbial political "orphan".

When a Clinton isn't trying to claim credit for something, you know it's gone south!

The Crack Emcee said...

JPS,

"But then I thought, That'd be tough - I'm not sure how you make that link."

I think just the opposite:

How can whites endlessly talk about anything without referencing all that's happened here?

American slavery and Jim Crow take up most of our history and encompass the entire scope of human endeavour - it touches everything - but rather than learn from it, pull from it, turn it on it's head for our purposes, white's brilliant answer is denial it existed, some racial resentments, and a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

I didn't say anything radical. All I said is there's an obvious, and fundamental, flaw in white's view of blacks - and Obama especially - and that shows in this highlighted view of his foreign policy.

Anyone should be able to understand that a people fighting for freedom might have a thing against being in anyone's pocket. To say we side with the Democrats over the Republicans is nonsense - we're for blacks getting justice.

The press calls Obama "isolated" and whatnot because - surprize! - he doesn't want to talk to them. Why would he? So the nuts can scream BENGHAZI!!!! again?

Saying he's on the same side as Assad is simply FOX News baiting him, again, and so what?

Did you see when FOX decided to go to the streets of Ferguson? Somehow, the "fourth wall" of bullshit keeps getting knocked down during these things, and the agenda gets subverted by a public that's been waiting for a chance to get a word in. Live. On The Air. Whoopsie!

The President is "on the same side" as Assad.

It grows more insane with each repeat,...

Revenant said...

You have a point but there is that "you broke it, you fix it" bit as well as a bit of "we can make it better than that".

The point I was making is that we used to realize that (a) it isn't our job to "fix" things and (b) we used to understand that we usually *can't* make it better.

We certainly can't operate under the rule "we aren't allowed to eliminate an enemy unless we're willing to stick around to turn their nation into a liberal democracy". No nation on Earth operates under THAT rule.

Revenant said...

Actually, nation-building worked OK--in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and other European nations formerly under the Soviet boot.

"Nation-building" doesn't mean that the country transitioned from communism to democracy. It refers to an outside force establishing a stable government in a country that doesn't have one. That definitely does NOT describe any of the former Soviet states.

Revenant said...

Dumb? Maybe. Or just more cynical and aware of how America plays in the world than we are. How many mafioso are aware they're about to be hit by guys they think are their friends?

Iraq did not consider us a friend in 1989, or ever. They were a Soviet client state that became a neutral client state. We briefly helped them against a mutual enemy, then went back to being antagonistic.

Also, the answer to the question "how many mafiosi expect to get whacked by their friends" is "all the successful ones". If Hussein truly though we'd have no problem with him seizing oil fields -- therefore raising the cost of oil for us and the rest of the world -- then he was stupid, crazy, or both.

The empirical evidence is "both". He did a lot of things, both before and after he tangled with us, that an intelligent and rational person wouldn't have done.

ThreeHeaded Throop said...

Kirk Parker said...
Eustace,

Cool, so you think Sadaam wouldn't have immediately started threatening The Kingdom

What I think is that I don't give a ripe rat's ass who rules Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or any other place in that barbaric region. The oil will be on the world market regardless of who profits. If a strong man needs killing he will be killed as soon as enough of his own people decide to kill him.

The workings of the interventionist mind are mysterious.

Drago said...

Revenant: "Iraq did not consider us a friend in 1989, or ever. They were a Soviet client state that became a neutral client state. We briefly helped them against a mutual enemy, then went back to being antagonistic."

This is one of the stranger (although I understand it in leftist political terms) memes on the left.

It's amazing how many on the left actually believe the US supplied saddam with all his weapons and weapons systems when everything in the arsenal was from the Soviet bloc.

I shouldn't be amazed at that really.

Case in point: garage.

garage mahal said...

Memories:

"If you don't, then you accept the Rasmussen and Gallup polls as being more accurate since they, in the opinion of many, are clearly more representative of how many of us perceive the electorate this time around."


"Having said that it appears clear that the range of outcomes include Romney big (well over 300 EV's) all the way down to obama eke's out (by 1 state) a win.

That's the range.

Based on the #'s alone I'd give Romney a 90% chance for victory, giving where all the polls are (even the lefty polls which show Romney leading obama on all the primary issues)."

Drago said...

LOL

Poor garage.

He wants to participate.

He simply doesn't know how.

Pulling up poll stuff from 2012.

It's sad really.

garage do you have anything to add to this thread topic?

No. You do not.

The saddest part?

You never will.

Drago said...

Of course garage, if you wanted to, you could have simply provided links to the comments you cut and pasted.

For context.

I see that you didn't do that.

It's obvious why.

Here's something more topical:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/four-year-old-killed-in-mortar-attack-named-as-daniel-turgerman/

Yes, a 4 yr old Israeli child was killed today from a Hamas (your heroes) rocket fired from a...wait for it.....UNRWA school.

So, to recap, Hamas (your "innocents") fired more rockets into Israel from a location you want to make off limits to Israeli counter-fire.

What have you to say to that high school boy?

Drago said...

BTW garage, does your boss know you're posting on company time?

Not cool.

garage mahal said...

Context, with link

garage mahal said...
When is everyone going on record for Electoral Votes?

I'm officially on record:

Obama 318
Romney 220

Drago said...

Should we also be discussing how the obama admin has ruled the beheading of Foley to be an act of terror against the US, ISIS has declared war on the US, but we have members of the obama admin saying directly that ISIS has NOT declared war on the US?

More of that 3-dimensional chess playing in the obama admin no doubt.

Drago said...

garage doubles down on 2012 election polls in a terrorism thread.

Well played high school boy.

Well played.

Drago said...

You can just picture garage hunkered down over the keyboard furiously googling and cutting and pasting while cackling maniacally "this will show him, this will show him I like, know stuff, and stuff!!"

garage mahal said...

Well played high school boy.

This old country boy can at least count.

Thing is Drago, you're always so sure of yourself, you fling all sorts of bullshit around, and yet, you were spectacularly wrong on several threads. You wouldn't fucking shut up about it. And you'll never admit it. That's why I torment you.

Drago said...

garage: "This old country boy can at least count."

LOL

Wrong again high school boy.

You didn't know the difference between positive and negative numbers in terms of 2014 1st QTR GDP.

So, if you're counting backwards do you have to stop at "0", or have you familiarized yourself sufficiently with negative numbers to continue?

garage: "That's why I torment you."

LOL

You actually think you're capable of tormenting someone?

Adorable.

Drago said...

So garage, back to the thread at hand, why do you think obama didn't see ISIS coming?

Or do you think he did see it, but for some reason downplayed it?

And, if so, for what purpose?

Don't worry. No one expects a response.

Jupiter said...

It is not clear to me that the US has any good reason to choose sides in the Middle East. They're all Muslims. The military activities of ISIL do present an opportunity to kill a lot of people Europe will be better off without, before they go back to Europe. But they seem perfectly capable of killing each other. Anyway, if they don't kill each other, they will be Europe's problem, not ours.

But can we at least agree that the European policy of welcoming Muslim immigrants was not merely misguided, but may well prove suicidal? Why must we continue to pretend that Islam and Western Civ are compatible? They hate us, and we need to return the favor. First we need to stop importing Muslims. Killing them is nice, but keeping them out of our country is critical.

damikesc said...

I want it to be said I don't support these bombings.

ISIS is evil, but not our problem.

I'm going against before the "cool kids" join the bandwagon.

Anonymous said...

Nothing makes me laugh quite as much as watching "Drago" have a conversation with himself via his sockpuppets. It is really cute how he thinks everyone is being fooled by his constant shifting of names.

Drago said...

madisonfella, I don't blame you for avoiding the topic.

obama comes off incredibly stupid on this.

You'd better triple your distraction efforts.

Hagar said...

ISIS or ISIL is the current crisis. It may well be these Dervishes won't maintain the equipment they have commandered and will stall out for lack of parts and re-supply, but then the next disturbance breaks out - perhaps in Chad, perhaps in Malaysia, and they bomb Casablanca or Mumbai. Or perhaps the Philippines and Manila.
Or they make a "dirty bomb" and set it off in New York.

Drago said...

madisonfella: "Nothing makes me laugh quite as much as watching "Drago" have a conversation with himself.."

That is truly sad.

You might try living your life more fully.

Achilles said...

Another thread where leftists show they think their political enemies in the US are more dangerous than Islamists. You are disgusting people.

I really wish you could meet these people face to face like I got to. I know you are all too cowardly to leave this country where you are protected though. And thanks for repeating the lie about no WMD's despite the fact that they were there:

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html

And where the fuck do you think Assad got the gas he used on his people? I saw the pictures of the convoys hauling them out. Anything to blame the US. Cooke and Garage and Madisonman and Crack will do anything to turn this around on the US.

I just wish you people would have a shred of integrity and get the F out of this country. Go somewhere where you aren't protected by the people you shit on daily.

Revenant said...

Or they make a "dirty bomb" and set it off in New York.

The people who bring up that particular danger can never seem to explain how whatever war they're currently endorsing will stop it from happening.

If you want to stop nutty Muslims from getting nukes, don't attack ISIS. Attack Pakistan -- the nuke-owning creators of the Taliban and former guardians of Osama bin Laden. THAT, at least, would make sense.

kcom said...

You're on fire today, Drago. Keep it up.

That whole "April Glaspie said we wouldn't care if Saddam annexed Kuwait" thing is hilarious. That's a laughable argument. And Saddam may have been cunning and calculating, but he certainly wasn't rational. He was a narcissist and that doesn't leave room for rationality because it doesn't leave room for real facts. He was as rational as Baghdad "There are no American tanks here" Bob.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Has anyone heard anything out of Andrew "meep meep" Sullivan these days? I haven't been to his blog in a while but I'd like to know how all of this is according to Pres. Obama's grand plan.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Real question--after setting the "red line" had Obama ordered military strikes designed to kill Assad and been successful, would ISIS be better off than they are today?

Revenant said...

Real question--after setting the "red line" had Obama ordered military strikes designed to kill Assad and been successful, would ISIS be better off than they are today?

Yes, obviously. Assad is the only reason ISIS isn't currently running Syria.

Drago said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Real question--after setting the "red line" had Obama ordered military strikes designed to kill Assad and been successful, would ISIS be better off than they are today?

Nope.

ISIS would have pissed off so many Syrians they (the non-ISIS supporting Syrians) would be screaming for support from the US so they could kill them (ISIS).

And the Russians would be worse off as their "guy" would be kaput.

Of course, we all know how deferential obama and his admin are to his boyfriend in the Kremlin. That explains all of the "flexibility" obama brings to bear that keeps leaving Putin in a stronger position.

Gee, almost like obama can't help Putin enough.

FullMoon said...

NONE of this would be happening if Jimmy Carter had not stabbed the Shah of Iran in the back.
That is the "previous administration"

mtrobertsattorney said...

From a JV team to "the greatest threat" the United States has ever faced--and all in less than six months.

Does anybody (other than the garage man) really think Obama, Valarie Jarrett and Alonzo Mourning have the slightest clue about what to do about ISIS?

Douglas said...

Spengler makes a brilliant argument that ISIS is a sideshow and the real enemy, ignored by Bush and courted by Obama, is Iran. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-120814.html. As they say, read the whole thing.

Hagar said...

The "jay-vee" team is in the White House. ISIS is a gang of ruffians from the bleachers interfering with the game.

Hagar said...

They do not wish to "do anything" about ISIS.

james conrad said...

It is now clear that Obama has become trapped by his own bullshit, running for office on an anti war platform and chief cheer leader of war weariness.

He now faces the reality of going to congress with hat in hand to fund a war with ISIS, there is no other way to seriously address that issue. Oh dear, whatever will dems in congress do now?

AReasonableMan said...

james conrad said...
It is now clear that Obama has become trapped by his own bullshit,


No, he is trapped by Cheney's bullshit, as are the American people.


Birkel said...

Why, AReasonableMan, must you assume away the agency of the first black president? Can you not see how offensively racist it is to say that even a black man's mistakes are not his own? After 400 years of stealing all blacks' productivity, is it not enough? Must you now also steal blacks' mistakes?

/Crack

Michael said...

ARM
"No, he is trapped by Cheney's bullshit, as are the American people."

Again, you are correct, on target, exactly right.

What do you recommend our president do?

damikesc said...

Yes, obviously. Assad is the only reason ISIS isn't currently running Syria.

I refused to join the "Kill Assad" camp because I'd seen the joys of allowing the populace of the ME to put into power "populist" regimes.

Assad is an SOB, but he's a rational SOB.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael said...

Again, you are correct, on target, exactly right.

What do you recommend our president do?


Why do liberals have any responsibility for cleaning up this mess?

Now, if Obamacare was a debacle like the Iraq war was then we would be on the spot, but Obamacare is going along swimmingly at the moment. Two different presidents, two major policy decisions and two very different outcomes.

Michael said...

ARM
"Why do liberals have any responsibility for cleaning up this mess? "

Quite right, ARM. A patriot full of helpful ideas.

Thanks for making it clear.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael said..
Quite right, ARM. A patriot full of helpful ideas.


I am very patriotic. I went out and marched against the war. I did everything in my power to stop our country from embarking on this debacle. People not only didn't want to listen but called us unpatriotic. Apparently, patriotism is in the eye of the beholder.

Rand Paul and I share views on whose interests Dick Cheney was serving.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 206   Newer› Newest»