Althouse: "We are being slaughtered! We are being exterminated!"

August 7, 2014

"We are being slaughtered! We are being exterminated!"

"An entire religion is being exterminated from the face of the Earth. In the name of humanity, save us!"

75 comments:

Michael K said...: Iraq will be destroyed and Obama could have saved it. He won't even send military aid to the Kurds, our allies since 1991. Maybe Israel will help the Kurds.; 8/7/14, 8:08 AM
John henry said...: President Obama: "Your particular faith tradition is not our concern or problem. Have a nice afterlife and don't trip on the red line."

John Henry; 8/7/14, 8:12 AM
Curious George said...: I can't believe these racist bastards won't die quietly and insist on making our Great Leader look bad.; 8/7/14, 8:20 AM
Big Mike said...: I hope they can hold out until after January 2017 when, hopefully, we will have someone with a conscience in the White House.; 8/7/14, 8:22 AM
Chef Mojo said...: Nature abhors a vacuum, and Obama created one. Heckuva job, Barry.; 8/7/14, 8:24 AM
Peter said...: The world's outrage has been exhausted on Israeli "atrocities" against Gaza. There's none left over for these all-too-real atrocities.; 8/7/14, 8:32 AM
Unknown said...: Crack? Where are you?; 8/7/14, 8:40 AM
Sebastian said...: Soon protesters will take to the streets all over Europe.

Soon war crimes indictments against ISIS will follow.

Soon, just as soon as he finishes his round of golf, Barry will intervene. R2P and all that.; 8/7/14, 8:41 AM
Boltforge said...: All we have to do is resupply the Kurds and provide tactical air support (drones would be enough). But President Academic Lecturer is busy raising money and partying on the taxpayer's dime.

Learn more around the Yezidi people ...
https://www.michaelyon-online.com/lost-in-translation.htm; 8/7/14, 8:41 AM
m stone said...: Not hardly a mention in the news of the Christian minority in Iraq also being decimated.

Iraq used to be the home of hundreds of thousands of Jews reduced to about 100 (not thousand) a few years ago. Talk about living in peril.; 8/7/14, 8:48 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Iraq will be destroyed and Obama could have saved it."

No, he couldn't have. Bush could have saved it by never invading Iraq, thereby destroying it.; 8/7/14, 9:01 AM
traditionalguy said...: Pax Americana is officially over. Muslim purists come to kill steal and destroy from the next target in line.

Obama is near total success, and in only six years. His last fifth columnist insider attack to destroy the USA is scheduled for a UN Governance Treaty Conference in Paris next year.; 8/7/14, 9:02 AM
FullMoon said...: Don't worry,"It can't happen here"; 8/7/14, 9:12 AM
Paul said...: "Nature abhors a vacuum, and Obama created one."

He created many. Libya was no danger to anyone yet he and the British disstabilized it by attacking and assassination of Qaddafi. Then they FAILED to invade and thus a power vacuum was crated and filled by the terrorist.

He is doing that with the ISIS, Taliban, and well any place we are keeping the Muslims at bay.

If he could... he would walk off from Israel. He might yet.; 8/7/14, 9:12 AM
B said...: "Is the perpetrator Israel? No? Not interested." -World; 8/7/14, 9:24 AM
David said...: "The Whole World Is Watching!"

Well, maybe not.; 8/7/14, 9:31 AM
Big Mike said...: You would have left the Iraqis in the tender arms of Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay? You kind of like monsters, I take it?; 8/7/14, 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook: No, he couldn't have. Bush could have saved it by never invading Iraq, thereby destroying it.

I concur.

Whatever the stupidities of this administration, it inherited a foreign policy and a foreign policy establishment more than equal to any new crazy the Obama-nauts could have contributed on their own.; 8/7/14, 9:44 AM
rhhardin said...: That's what happens when you miss friday prayers.

It's like our own universities.; 8/7/14, 9:49 AM
holdfast said...: So where is Samantha Power, and her "Responsibility to Protect"?; 8/7/14, 10:21 AM
libertariansafetyguy said...: The speed and brutality at which ISIS is advancing is disturbing. We're currently worried about Israel's response in Gaza. I think we should be more concerned about ISIS. Iraq is no longer Iraq. ISIS can unleash a 60-foot tidalwave on Baghdad because it controls a major dam. When ISIS gains enough power, will it march to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon? Or will it head toward the Arabian peninsula in search of oil?

This is we're Israelis have an advantage. Israelis believe on their country and their leaders and will fight. Do Iraqis? Do Saudis? Syrians? Iraqis have already run away.

Which then prompts the question - what should we do in response? Would our intervention do anything to help the situation? Or do we allow the final destruction of the British/French post-colonial Middle East? Tough questions...; 8/7/14, 10:36 AM
policraticus said...: ::shrugs::

We voted for this. Twice. Three times if you count the second Bush mid-terms. This is what we, as Americans, want to happen.

God help and save us from the inevitable reckoning.; 8/7/14, 10:45 AM
YoungHegelian said...: I'm sure the administration a team of top men --- top men I tell you -- who are at this very moment developing a series of hashtags that'll bring ISIS to their knees.; 8/7/14, 10:46 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: The invasion of Iraq was a very reasonable action to take, considering Saddam's history, his unwillingness to cooperate, his interactions with terrorist groups, and 9/11. When Obama was sworn in, Iraq was in a position where they could go forward or back. He didn't take appropriate action (certainly not helped by the actions of the Iraqi government, but had he been interested he could have worked around that) and this is the result; 8/7/14, 10:51 AM
Revenant said...: Find a way to blame Israel. Then people will care.

Nobody cares when Muslims kill people.; 8/7/14, 10:59 AM
YoungHegelian said...: @RC,

No, he couldn't have. Bush could have saved it by never invading Iraq, thereby destroying it.

I find the Left's faith in the sturdiness of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship if left unmolested by W. quite touching, considering how bad Saddam's regime was at most everything it tried to do.

Remember, ISIS came out of a civil war in Syria, a Baathist regime every bit as brutal as Saddam's (Assad pere murdered 40,000 of the Muslim Brotherhood in the siege of Hama just by itself). If Syria can so easily fall apart, why not Iraq?

Family-run dictatorships are by & large brittle. They seem impenetrable until cracks open up, and once the cracks open up, they fall. To assume that Saddam's regime, hated by its populace & struggling against sanctions, would have been able to withstand the dual waves of the "Arab Spring" & Salafist movements sweeping through the Middle East seems to me to be historically dubious at best. Just because the assumption makes for a handy stick with which to beat W. doesn't mean it has any other value.; 8/7/14, 11:00 AM
Kelly said...: Poor Obama. Why couldn't he have inherited a perfect world like every single past President? Why did he have to deal with all this messiness? It must be racism.; 8/7/14, 11:01 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "I hope they can hold out until after January 2017 when, hopefully, we will have someone with a conscience in the White House."

-- Given the circumstances, they'll be lucky to last until next Tuesday.; 8/7/14, 11:02 AM
Unknown said...: Not really worried about this, knowing that moderate Muslims will step in, as they always do and end the genocide. Question: what is deadlier than a nuclear bomb? Well, there is Religion.; 8/7/14, 11:38 AM
Anthony said...: I'm sure they have top men working on it.

Top. Men.; 8/7/14, 12:02 PM
Howard said...: Yeah, right. It's all Obama's fault because the West's Middle East policies over the last hundred years has been stellar up to this point.

Also, Barry Hussein didn't withdraw on his own accord. The American people demanded it and he obeyed the voters. Just like we demanded the original Iraq invasion.

Does it make you neutered teabaggers feel big and strong when you blame "the other" for the woes of the world?

Grow the F-ing F Up.; 8/7/14, 12:08 PM
SJ said...: @RobertCook,

When Bush left office, there was a workable diplomatic relationship with Nouri al-Maliki, the political leader of Iraq.

There was a large American presence in Iraq, and attacks on Americans/Iraqis by terrorists had declined considerably.

While the wisdom of the original invasion may be doubted, George Bush had managed to learn from some mistakes and put in place a structure/relationship that would have helped America and Iraq go forward in peace.

Obama changed that, without doing much consulting with Maliki, and withdrew.

Obama also missed opportunities to derail the rise of ISIS in Iraq.

Now, the ISIS is trying to turn Iraq into Afghanistan.

While Bush helped create the problem, he didn't leave it an unsolveable mess.

Obama's action and inaction helped make it much worse.

@BigMike,
it's not that Obama doesn't have a conscience.

I just don't see evidence that Obama has the ability to learn from his own mistakes.; 8/7/14, 12:17 PM
Ironclad said...: to Robert Cook -

WHICH Bush - 41 during the 1st Gulf War? or 43 during the 2nd? Clinton just staved them and killed as many as Bush 43, but hey, no problem.

The Root problem was Saddam - if the UN had allowed it, or Bush 41 had more moxie, he could have been removed after the 1st Gulf War and a better behaved dictator installed there. No pretense of democracy too - only a thug could keep Iraq in one piece, given the crazies that live there.

I love how you absolve the locals from any responsibility in their actions. No mater how heinous their behavior - it's always OUR fault.; 8/7/14, 12:39 PM
n.n said...: Premature evacuation has consequences.; 8/7/14, 12:51 PM
gerry said...: No, he couldn't have. Bush could have saved it by never invading Iraq, thereby destroying it.

What astonishing ignorance.; 8/7/14, 12:55 PM
m stone said...: The Bush administration should never have invaded Iraq and stopped the genocide. What were they thinking?

Now we abandon the Kurds who actually allow minorities and know how to fight.; 8/7/14, 1:07 PM
damikesc said...: Getting strong Clinton/Rwanda flashbacks. Dems seem to turn blind eyes to genocide.; 8/7/14, 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Very sad. Not only does this administration refuse to help, but they conveniently have the excuse that Robert Cook provides, as if we could ever know a "What if" situation.

But at least he can sleep well at night knowing his moral superiority to the Bush administration is intact.; 8/7/14, 1:35 PM
Brando said...: For those wondering why we're not sending troops back in there, look--we can be outright neo-colonialists, intervening and investing what's necessary to re-make various parts of the world so this sort of crap doesn't happen, or we can take a non-interventionist approach and stay out of other countries' messes. Instead we seem to be content doing half measures, invading countries and leaving when it gets ugly or mismanagement happens (as it always will with a major government venture), or minor air strikes or drone strikes to reduce our own exposure. Our public didn't have the stomach to keep several divisions in Iraq and continue for another decade and trillions of dollars.

Could we bomb and strafe or shoot up these ISIS bastards? Likely we could. Then we could leave and wait for the next atrocity, come in and do the same thing again. But we don't have the stomach to go full colonial, so we either inure ourselves to these headlines or change course.; 8/7/14, 2:02 PM
Big Mike said...: @SJ, no to your first assertion, yes to your second.; 8/7/14, 2:28 PM
Robert Cook said...: "The invasion of Iraq was a very reasonable action to take, considering Saddam's history, his unwillingness to cooperate, his interactions with terrorist groups, and 9/11."

What about Saddam's history? It didn't much bother us for the years he was an ally of ours.

Saddam was quite willing to cooperate, and, in fact, was cooperating. At the time we invaded, UN weapons inspectors were in country, four months into their inspections. They were told by the US to abort their inspections and leave the country as the planned invasion was about to commence. So much for the good faith effort to determine IF there were WMD, in order to conclude whether the "last resort" (sic) of invading would be called for.

What about 9/11? Saddam had zilch to do with that or with Al Qaeda.

(To forestall my having to reply, if you say he did have something to do with either 9/11 or Al Qaeda, you're wrong. He did not. You have been misinformed by the propagandists who helped fabricate a mendacious case for war against Iraq.)

You may think our committing a war crime was "very reasonable," but, no, it was not.; 8/7/14, 2:51 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Michael K said...
Iraq will be destroyed and Obama could have saved it. He won't even send military aid to the Kurds, our allies since 1991. Maybe Israel will help the Kurds.

Apparently the Kurds best new friends the Turks (a surprise) are talking about coordinating Turkish air strikes. The Turks may not like the kurds, but they want a stable border more...

Could we bomb and strafe or shoot up these ISIS bastards? Likely we could. Then we could leave and wait for the next atrocity, come in and do the same thing again. But we don't have the stomach to go full colonial, so we either inure ourselves to these headlines or change course.

In Afghanistan circa 1850, it was called "Butcher and Bolt" How to suppress raiding tribes in the Hindu Kush (killer of Hindus); 8/7/14, 3:03 PM
Robert Cook said...: "WHICH Bush - 41 during the 1st Gulf War? or 43 during the 2nd? Clinton just staved them and killed as many as Bush 43, but hey, no problem."

Well, now that you ask: ALL of them!

"I love how you absolve the locals from any responsibility in their actions. No mater how heinous their behavior - it's always OUR fault."

It's our fault because we invaded a country without a legitimate or legal basis to do so and we destroyed the existing government...and the stable society that was maintained under that government. (This is not to deny that Saddam's government was a tyranny, but so are many governments around the world, including many we are friends with and supporters of.) If a native movement had ousted Saddam in a coup and if chaos and violence had been the result, that would have been the result entirely of actions taken within Iraq by Iraqis. But we destroyed their government and their civic order, and so Iraq's fate is our fault.

"The Bush administration should never have invaded Iraq and stopped the genocide. What were they thinking?"

What genocide was occurring at the time we invaded? In the gaping vacuum we created, civil war and/or the arrival of ISIS will probably bring with it genocide.; 8/7/14, 3:03 PM
Robert Cook said...: "'No, he couldn't have. Bush could have saved it by never invading Iraq, thereby destroying it.'

"What astonishing ignorance."

On the contrary; it's exactly right.; 8/7/14, 3:05 PM
The Drill SGT said...: m stone said...
The Bush administration should never have invaded Iraq and stopped the genocide. What were they thinking?

Now we abandon the Kurds who actually allow minorities and know how to fight.

and who love us for the little we have done for them since 1991...; 8/7/14, 3:06 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...he could have been removed after the 1st Gulf War and a better behaved dictator installed there."

Heh. A "better behaved dictator." Yep!; 8/7/14, 3:11 PM
etbass said...: Robert Cook: No, he couldn't have. Bush could have saved it by never invading Iraq, thereby destroying it.

I too concur.; 8/7/14, 3:16 PM
DanTheMan said...: Howard,
>>Does it make you neutered teabaggers feel big and strong when you blame "the other" for the woes of the world?
>> Grow the F-ing F Up.

Of course, YOU would never blame "the other". No sir.

And as for growing up, nothing says "maturity" like gay-bating name-calling and 'f f-ing' profanity.

Well done. Your comments are very illuminating.
About you, not your intended targets.; 8/7/14, 3:17 PM
DanTheMan said...: Ironclad,
Clinton didn't starve a single Iraqi.
Saddam used the oil-for-food money to build palaces, and thus starved many, however.; 8/7/14, 3:20 PM
Writ Small said...: If Obama had left a contingent of troops in Iraq and guided that country to stability, it would have cost the US lives and money. But the bigger problem is that it could have cost the Left the argument over whether the war was a mistake. There are some things Obama will not stand for.; 8/7/14, 3:32 PM
MDIJim said...: If you want to blame this on Bush, don't you also have to include Hilary and jfk, the current Secretary of State, who supported Bush's invasion?

That said, where is the media outrage? Where is the UN? Where are the "moderate" Arabs?

No wonder the American people are isolationist.; 8/7/14, 3:37 PM
damikesc said...: What about Saddam's history? It didn't much bother us for the years he was an ally of ours.

We allied with Stalin who was measures worse than Saddam. Stalin allied with Hitler who, while not as bad as Stalin, was awfully bad.

Alliances aren't always borne out of humanitarianism.

Was Saddam bad? Yup. Worse than the Iranian mullahs? That's a more arguable point.

Your beloved Communists sure funded some royal shit bricks, after all.

Saddam was quite willing to cooperate, and, in fact, was cooperating. At the time we invaded, UN weapons inspectors were in country, four months into their inspections.

After he had, of course, tossed all of them out.

That's a curious definition of cooperation.

Yeah, right. It's all Obama's fault because the West's Middle East policies over the last hundred years has been stellar up to this point.

If somebody is going to criticize a President's policies, HIS had best be BETTER. There isn't an area in the world where things are better for us now than they were before the useless moron we have in office now took power.; 8/7/14, 3:54 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: If it's Bush's fault we don't have to do anything.; 8/7/14, 4:00 PM
Annie said...: As Obama continues to fund/arm terrorists in Syria - where ISIS comes from - and Gaza, while bullying Israel for defending itself from said terrorists.

Doesn't take a genius to see which team he's playing on.; 8/7/14, 4:02 PM
Annie said...: "Nature abhors a vacuum, and Obama created one."

He created many. Libya was no danger to anyone yet he and the British disstabilized it by attacking and assassination of Qaddafi. Then they FAILED to invade and thus a power vacuum was crated and filled by the terrorist.

He tried to do the same in Egypt but the people there weren't having any of it and kicked out his puppet and his muslim brotherhood. That pissed him off and the democrats have put a hold on their aid.
They see him for what he is - a supporter of terrorism.

While Israel is being railed against for smashing hamas tunnels, Egypt is doing the same on their end. They blame Hamas for attacking their security forces every day and they want Israel to annihilate hamas.

They view Obama and Kerry as an enemy.; 8/7/14, 4:09 PM
Annie said...: The Clintons were vocal in their desire for Saddam needing to be gone. While Bill did nothing but talk, Hillary gave Bush permission and continued voting to fund the mission.

Hillary could have said no. Had both parties said no, there is a good chance Bush would not have gone it alone (like obama has in Libya and Syria - giving them the rope to mass slaughter).

Hillary and the rest of congress have as much responsibility for going into Iraq as Bush does.; 8/7/14, 4:15 PM
Robert Cook said...: "If you want to blame this on Bush, don't you also have to include Hilary and jfk, the current Secretary of State, who supported Bush's invasion?"

Sure...they're all complicit, all who advocated for war and who fabricated the case for war, and all who voted to give Bush carte blanche to do as he saw fit to "fight terrorism."

I would absolve those in Washington who advocated for war and those who voted for the AUMF if I believed there were any who truly believed the rotten baloney that was the case for war...but I don't believe there any who did really believe it. Their votes were votes of expediency and cowardice.; 8/7/14, 4:16 PM
Revenant said...: On the contrary; it's exactly right.

Both the "Obama could have saved Iraq" and "Bush destroyed Iraq" tribes are guilty of magical thinking. They share a mentality that America is the only player who matters.

Iraq is a collection of mutually antagonistic groups, surrounded by *additional* mutually antagonistic groups, with all of the above funded and backed by various self-interested foreign parties. Saddam Hussein (barely) kept a lid on the whole mess through the time-honored technique of "murdering anyone who didn't agree to do things his way".

Now, if Saddam Hussein was immortal, or had established a powerful oligarchy underneath him (the way the USSR and China did under Stalin and Mao), that situation could have continued indefinitely. Hussein dies, the oligarchs choose a replacement strongman, wash rinse repeat.

But that wasn't the case. Hussein opted for the Nazi Germany, cult of personality approach, where all power resides in one man and anyone who might possibly challenge that one man is ruthlessly annihilated. So when he died, you'd have... well, exactly what you have now.

Bush gave the Iraqis a chance. They didn't take advantage of it. In retrospect, it was unrealistic to think that they would.; 8/7/14, 4:31 PM
Alex said...: So basically a holocaust is ongoing against the Kurds and Christian Arabs in Iraq and Lighworker has nothing to even say about it.

So much for "Never Again".; 8/7/14, 4:32 PM
hombre said...: Is there a chance that by the end of Obama's current term the Bush bashers and Obamadupes will acknowledge that we are living in the present, Obama knew what he was getting into, asked for it and isn't up to it.

That isn't Bush's fault and it isn't the Tea Party's fault.

Wake up dupes! He isn't up to it.; 8/7/14, 4:33 PM
hombre said...: Ah, yes, the Big O's campaign slogan, I remember it well:

"Bush made a mess and I'm not capable of cleaning it up even if you start me off with a Democrat Congress."

What? I got that wrong? Oh, it was actually, "Yes we can't."

LOL.; 8/7/14, 4:48 PM
Dan Hossley said...: If these people are relying on Obama for help, they're screwed.

I've always wondered about the phrase "Nero fiddled while Rome burned". I now know what that means.; 8/7/14, 5:06 PM
Lydia said...: Wonder if Obama stands by what he said in 2007:

What I don’t want to see happen is for Iraq to become an excuse for us to ignore misery or human-rights violations or genocide.; 8/7/14, 5:40 PM
Ironclad said...: to R Cook -

So Bush 41 and the 1st Gulf War was wrong? I mean Saddam was repeating what he did with Iran - trying to seize the oil fields (this time in Kuwait) to pay for his folly. It was ok then to let a crazy have even more of the world's oil supply? He would not have stopped in Saudi. And I was in Saudi at the time - I watched the Gulf war from there as it happened.

I can tell you that Clinton starved a lot of Iraqis too - the sanctions were murder. Bush 43 at least ended that with the war. The only good thing from it.

We have no business in that part of the world other than keeping the oil flowing to keep the world economy working. So yes - any "benevolent" dictator there is just fine.

But you are so consumed with Bush 43 history you think it all started with the 2nd war. So much for critical thinking; 8/7/14, 7:11 PM
Robert Cook said...: "So Bush 41 and the 1st Gulf War was wrong? I mean Saddam was repeating what he did with Iran - trying to seize the oil fields (this time in Kuwait) to pay for his folly."

Saddam invaded Kuwait with our tacit approval, or so he believed. He discussed his disputes with Kuwait with Ambassador April Glaspie, and when he stated the possibility of using military force to resolve the disputes, she replied that America had no view on Arab/Arab disputes. She did not in any way suggest we would be displeased or would react militarily against him.

As for Saddam's war with Iran...we provided him supplies and money to assist him in his war against his neighbor. (Saddam wanted America as an ally...he did not seek to be an enemy of the United States. We played him for our own purposes, aiding him when he served as a proxy against Iran, turning against him when he no longer served a useful purpose to us.)

After the invasion, Saddam was surprised at America's reaction. When it became clear to him that Bush meant what he said about using military force to repel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam made it known he was open to diplomatic resolution of the dispute. Bush refused to consider a diplomatic resolution and pressed forward with his war.

None of this is to justify Saddam's actions, as he was a murderous thug, but it is to show that he believed America would not object--after all, we were and are friends with many murderous thugs--and also that he expressed willingness to a diplomatic solution, which we ignored. Just as Bush II lied when he said invading Iraq would be an absolute "last choice," Bush I pressed for an invasion that wasn't necessary. (He also told lies to inflame American passions to attack Iraq, as his son later did. Those stories of Iraqi soldiers invading Kuwaiti hospitals and tossing babies out of their uncubators onto the floor to die? Lies. Not true. At all.); 8/7/14, 8:09 PM
cubanbob said...: Robert Cook said...
"Iraq will be destroyed and Obama could have saved it."

No, he couldn't have. Bush could have saved it by never invading Iraq, thereby destroying it.

8/7/14, 9:01 AM

Wrong again as per usual for you. No, Obama in typical Democrat fashion has snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory and doing the same in Afghanistan.; 8/7/14, 8:21 PM
khesanh0802 said...: An interesting discussion of the history that got us to today's mess. It seems to me that Robert Cook has the better of the argument if history were just a series of snapshots that we could judge as good or bad. However history is fluid and we have to deal with the situation NOW.
We would certainly have had more political influence in Iraq if we had maintained a military presence there and we would have had more diplomatic flexibility if we had troops and facilities on the ground. It would have required a little leadership to convince the American people it was the right thing, but there was certainly a good case in favor. Obama, first in Iraq and then Afghanistan, signaled to the world that he did not have the fortitude to maintain a commitment that someone like Putin would have thought made simple strategic sense. Once he demonstrated lack of fortitude by being unwilling to commit 10,000 troops to Iraq and unseemly haste in ending the Afghan commitment the wolves began to close in. Obama has demonstrated repeatedly that he is a weak man and it is clear that there is no one in his administration who is any stronger.

That said, the barbarism of the various Muslim groups in the mid-east astonishes me. Rationally, I am firmly against involving more American troops in the mid-east, but my visceral reaction to the carnage is to wish that we could, somehow, "send in the Marines" .; 8/7/14, 9:51 PM
Unknown said...: but but but... Presnit Biden told us Iraq was Obama's greatest success. All that after the democrats stabbed what they voted for in the back for partisan political maneuvers while our good men and women were out there in the field.

harry Reid cannot die soon enough.; 8/7/14, 10:26 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Why didn't we act to stop ISIS when it mattered? Like when they were rolling into Mosul and a small amount of force would have made a difference?; 8/7/14, 11:31 PM
YoungHegelian said...: As of about 10:PM EDT, the die was cast: Obama has okayed air strikes in support of the Iraqi regime.

Apparently, either the Americans or the Turks (like it matters...) have already bombed ISIS targets.; 8/7/14, 11:55 PM
Gary Rosen said...: #cantblameitonjews*yawn*; 8/8/14, 1:02 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Obama, first in Iraq and then Afghanistan, signaled to the world that he did not have the fortitude to maintain a commitment that someone like Putin would have thought made simple strategic sense."

You forget: Russia spent a decade in Afghanistan before we did, and they gave up and left, realizing they could not prevail. Rather than viewing us has lacking fortitude, Putin probably sees us as foolish for not having learned from their costly example.

(We armed and supported the forces in Afghanistan fighting the Russians, and those forces became Al Qaeda. Just as we aided and supported Saddam when he was our proxy against Iran, we aided and supported Muslim fundamentalists and nationalists when they were our proxy against Russia. We seem to have a compulsion to befriend those who later turn around and bite us, and whom we demonize for doing to us what we praised them for for doing for us.)

It is our military presence in the middle east that has caused the metastasis of Islamic terrorist factions from a small concern into the more significant force in the region they have become. We have served as a fuel pump rather than as a water hose and what was a tiny spark is becoming a conflagration due to the gasoline we have poured on it for the past 12 years.; 8/8/14, 8:49 AM
Rusty said...: The natural right to life , liberty, and the pusuit of your own best interests is only for North Americans. The rest of you can go fuck youyrselves.; 8/8/14, 9:42 AM
damikesc said...: None of this is to justify Saddam's actions, as he was a murderous thug, but it is to show that he believed America would not object--after all, we were and are friends with many murderous thugs

See Stalin, Uncle Joe; 8/8/14, 9:43 AM
khesanh0802 said...: Robert;

One could argue, from the same set of facts, that our military presence in the mid-east delayed the upsurge of barbarism that we are seeing now. Tactically I am opposed to "nation building" missions. If our incursion into Afghanistan had remained a punitive expedition we would have reached our goals much faster.

I would also argue that those who turn around and bite us do so because we so often do not maintain our commitment to them or our original goals.; 8/8/14, 10:20 AM