Rabid right-wing warmongering ultraconservative baby blood-drinker argues that confronting ISIS should be a high priority: Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said that the Obama administration should make defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) its top priority. "ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric. Warren agreed that "time is of the essence." "We need to be working now, full-speed ahead, with other countries, to destroy ISIS. That should be our No. 1 priority," she said in a wide-ranging interview promoting her latest book, A Fighting Chance. Full story at link: http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority Damned bloodthirsty neocons.
Americans love complaining about big, overarching, dumb government, but there's something about watching their taxpayer dollars bomb their taxpayer dollar funded military goods that totally flips this logic, I suppose. ISIS: military welfare beneficiary-in-chief! Fear (illustrated above) is probably what causes this. I'm sure there's going to be very great decision-making coming out of this discussion: "We should do a bunch of things!" "What things?" "KILL THEM ALL." "Maybe we should just kill some of them. You know, for every terrorist we target, three civilians die. Also, our extensive surveillance state and torture network have essentially helped build the conditions for ISIS---" "What are you, CONDONING MASS MURDER?" ^the irony?
This makes me disappointed in Warren. Feeding the industrial military complex is win-win for politicians (re: Democrat voting on Iraq resolution). You get money from them, which is zero-sum against potential candidates. Since people are more motivated by fear over reason, feeling protected is always popular. Look, I don't like ISIS, but this is clearly a statement to win points. A true progressive would be saying something like **** them, but we can't root it out without tearing Syria up, and that means another ugly war. Thinking more, the statement is more jingoism over a call of duty. That call is sacrifice and acknowledging that while we weren't told to sacrifice by Bush for Iraq 2: Electric Bugaloo, the price we paid was massive budget deficits that lead to the bubble and crash of 08. No ****ing dose of reality and consequences for pursing a legit threat. Damnit Warren...
Perhaps you should strive to actually understand what I have written before you embarrass yourself further.
Nobody cares about what you have written. Your posting history speaks for itself. You are one of the village idiots here.
ISIS now threatens Russia over its ties to Syria's Assad and promises to 'liberate Chechnya and all the Caucasus' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Assad-promise-liberate-Chechnya-Caucasus.html
Is ISIS really a threat to the US or is the US backing Iraq? Iraq seems to be siding with the Syrian government. I don't see how Saudi Arabia would approve of this.
Understanding the real world limitations is not being cool with it. You can't bomb insurgencies out of cities, you can't effectively change the cultures of indigenous peoples from the outside, you can't maintain a contested occupation indefinitely, you have to manage your balance of guns and butter to ensure your own domestic security first.
I assume everybody knows that previous American blunders led to the rise of ISIL. 1) Dubya and gang breaking up Iraq. 2) The US under Obama deciding to try to break up Syria. ISIL is bad news but you can't just get all nuts and do stupid things in response.
My issue with your post is the "led to" - once again trying to make it seem like violent Islamic fanatism is "just a reaction" to something the evil USA did (which seems to be the leftists' storyline). Did bad strategic decisions contribute to their rise? Yes, agreed. But they are the bad guys, not the USA or the West.
Tallnver and Treeman, you guys are always wrong wrt to war and terrorism. Ever stop and think? Poor Treeman almost lost his life following Dubya and Cheney to find wmd. ********** Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, now a military scholar and author, summed up his questions in three words: “Purpose? Method? Endstate?” He argues that ISIS isn’t the threat some make it out to be, and that it’s only one part of a proxy war against Iran that will continue as long as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar continue to fund it: ISIS is a contemporary version of Mohammed’s 7th Century force with pickup trucks instead of horses, but with the same brutality. Its successful conquest of largely Sunni Arab areas in irrelevant desert is evidence for the weakness in those areas and their surroundings rather than strength on the part of ISIS. Frankly, I think lots of Westerners with either no personal experience on the ground fighting and killing Arabs or with agendas (ideological or self-enrichment) are making a mountain range out of very small hills at best. Also, keep in mind if ISIS in Syria presented any real threat would the Israelis stand by and do nothing about it? Of course not. Finally, we created the conditions for ISIS through our intervention and installation of Iranian power in Baghdad, but Riyadh, Ankara and Doha are now the recruiting and financial centers for ISIS. As long as they and their surrogates want to wage this proxy war against Iran and its satellites/allies the conflict will continue. After the 1991 failure to remove S[addam] H[ussein] from power, we wasted two decades, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on Iraq and the region. It’s time to stop.
First... Anyone that thinks that the problem is a direct result of the Quran is wrong. As fchowd pointed out, the Old Testament is as violent, if not more so. Obviously there are Muslims that are very peaceful and assimilate with a secular culture. Branding the actual root faith as "bat *** crazy" does not really get us anywhere. Further, the narrative that Bush (a terrible President) made ISIL and extremists is false. They were already brewing, and had committed terrorist attacks years prior to 9/11 and the leveling of Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality is, we have to accept the reality as it is right now and decide how to handle it. Those that say that ISIL and extremists are not a threat to the USA and Europe have their collective heads in the sand. There are thousands of Westerners that feel strong enough about it that they are willing to get on a plane, leave their entire life behind, sneak into the Middle East, live in terrible conditions and risk their lives for the formation of a religious Muslim ruled state. That is insane, and if you don't think there will be consequences when these a$$holes return home, think again. I cannot believe that it is considered "radical" that in the UK they want a law that says if you go fight for ISIL, you cannot come home. They are traitors, they should be locked up for the rest of their lives or be executed. Also, Islamophobia is not the solution. We are not going to kill or convert a billion people. Lets not forget that these monsters are mostly killing other Muslims.
Dropping bombs is not going to resolve this problem. Do they need to be abolished? Definitely, no doubt, they are a threat to everyone. But, not through bombs. Frankly nobody would ever want to live under their rule. Get people to revolt, especially the Sunni's that are marginalized within Iraq. Get them to separate from these idiots and you've won. Quite simple. But, no, bombing is easier.
