Here
and
Now

opinions

Against IS, airstrikes may not suffice

34 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

What a MESS the U.S.A. has created.

Just think, if they hadn't recruited and trained Al Qaeda to try and get the Russkies out of Afghanistan, things might have continued in some kind of equilibrium. As it is, the U.S.A. is making enemies in the Middle East. They've even lost the trust of Saudi Arabia.

Not surprising considering their tactics are slaughtering thousands of noncombatants.

Mission unaccomplished!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Air power not working? Again?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Not surprising considering their tactics are slaughtering thousands of noncombatants.

What about all the brutal beheadings, kidnapped girls as young as 12 and mass killings of iraqi border guards? Or how about the Jordanian Pilot burned to death in a cage. That sits well with you though huh-

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

There are success stories — most recently in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit

Tikrit wasn't a success story. The Iraqi forces outnumbered IS troops but more than 2:1, had air superiority AND it still took a full month to capture the city. A MONTH!

Oh and Tikrit is now mostly a ruin.

More than 700 civilians were killed, and 28,000 civilians lost their homes. About a thousand IS troops were killed and about half as many U.S. allied troops.

Crunching the numbers quickly that means that the U.S. killed almost as many civilians as they did IS troops. If the U.S. narrative is true then they killed people who's only crime was having their city conquered by the IS. If the IS narrative is true then a sizeable portion of those 28,000 displaced people will join the IS.

So that's a success is it? I wonder what they'd consider a failure. No matter how you look at Tikrit, whether as a military or humanitarian action it was a complete and utter disaster.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

They've even lost the trust of Saudi Arabia.

Huh? You're gonna have to explain that one, if you please.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Wc626

Not surprising considering their tactics are slaughtering thousands of noncombatants. What about all the brutal beheadings, kidnapped girls as young as 12 and mass killings of iraqi border guards? Or how about the Jordanian Pilot burned to death in a cage. That sits well with you though huh-

You would no doubt avenge thousands by getting hundreds of thousands killed. Seems to be a common theme in your posts that 1 killed by "them" is on the same level to 100 killed by "us" cause, cause, I don't know? Cause we are the "good" guys?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They may not be enough, but that is only because the US has graciously not turned Iraq and Syria into blackened glass. You ISIS lovers here won't be able to celebrate the US wars in the ME forever and still look sane.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wc626May. 28, 2015 - 09:32AM JST What about all the brutal beheadings, kidnapped girls as young as 12 and mass killings of iraqi border guards? Or how about the Jordanian Pilot burned to death in a cage. That sits well with you though huh-

Oh, so your opinion is that it is diabolical when you burn someone to death in a cage, but when a bomb burns a child to death in a house it is just peachy?

The level of hypocrisy is simply staggering.

1 ( +2 / -2 )

The air strikes are not intended to kill children. Are you kidding? They're meant to target IS combatants, you know "smoke em' outta their holes" & blast their convoys.

Of course when civilians, especially children, are killed by US air strikes it is terrible. Not peachy at all. Imo it is "diabolical" when you deliberately burn someone to death in a cage. I'm clearly expressing regret about the unfortunate loss of life (child- as you've mentioned) by US air strikes. I don't see any hypocrisy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Frungy,

Crunching the numbers quickly that means that the U.S. killed almost as many civilians as they did IS troops. If the U.S. narrative is true then they killed people who's only crime was having their city conquered by the IS.

Yes. Exactly.

A death is a death, whether it occurs by beheading or by the house collapsing when the building next door is blown up by a US drone because it may house a suspected "terrorist."

Let's not forget that the Iraq "war" was started on a lie.

The mess in the Middle East could have so easily been avoided.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yeah that's it! Smoke 'em out!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A death is a death. True.

The main difference is that the US doesn't intentionally air strike or drone "innocents" in the ME.

Whereas IS intentionally, with malice aforethought (murder), kills innocents and exploits their brutatality for propaganda purposes. Instilling fear to achieve their fanatical religion and terrorism agenda. Ever saw heads come clean off by an IS beheading?

Has the US ever intentionally targeted "innocents" on a mass scale? -yeah, but that was a different time and place.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What a MESS the U.S.A. has created.

Well, actually NOT entirely, but don't worry about facts, Bertie.

Just think, if they hadn't recruited and trained Al Qaeda to try and get the Russkies out of Afghanistan, things might have continued in some kind of equilibrium. As it is, the U.S.A. is making enemies in the Middle East.

Give me a break, you can go back to the 1998 Kenyan embassy bombings or even further to the first 1993 World Trade Center bombing, this has more to do with ideology than with US overall presence. Fact 2) Obama was the one that soured the relationship and caused a drift between Israel and the Sunni nations, now for the record, they have dirt on their hands as well and most notably arming and supplying ISIS and Al Qaida indirectly but to their credit the Saudis are trying to fight back because they know, they royal family would be butchered in a heartbeat. Obama was so bent on trying to make a deal with the largest sponsor of terrorism, he willingly and carelessly threw the Sunnis and the Israelis under the bus. They don't like this president and don't trust him for a minute.

They've even lost the trust of Saudi Arabia.

That's why at the last Sunni summit, they boycotted Obama and didn't want to even listen to ONE he had to say regarding the Iran Nuke deal and why would they? They know he's full of it!

Not surprising considering their tactics are slaughtering thousands of noncombatants.

This is what happens during a massive sectarian conflict, I agree.

Mission unaccomplished!

As long as he's in office, it will never happen.

Yes. Exactly.

A death is a death, whether it occurs by beheading or by the house collapsing when the building next door is blown up by a US drone because it may house a suspected "terrorist."

Or if an ISIS or Al Qaida member locates you and slaughters you like a pig.

Let's not forget that the Iraq "war" was started on a lie.

And festered and morphed into a bigger conflict from a president that cares only about himself and his personal polls, but in about 530 days, we can all breath a sigh of relief.

The mess in the Middle East could have so easily been avoided.

Do you know something a 4 star Pentagon general doesn't?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

WC626

The main difference is that the US doesn't intentionally air strike or drone "innocents" in the ME.

So the bombs and drones are aimed precisely at the guys with the ISIS T-shirts? If anyone gets in their way, it's their fault?

Whereas IS intentionally, with malice aforethought (murder), kills innocents and exploits their brutatality for propaganda purposes. Instilling fear to achieve their fanatical religion and terrorism agenda. Ever saw heads come clean off by an IS beheading?

On one side of the scale is a handful of people gruesomely beheaded and on the other is thousands of non combatants who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Doesn't balance.

Sure the ISIS are a bunch of psychos. I'd say the same about those who started the Iraq "war" based on lies.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sure the ISIS are a bunch of psychos

Exactly! Rest my case-

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So the bombs and drones are aimed precisely at the guys with the ISIS T-shirts? If anyone gets in their way, it's their fault?

I love how you always think that if you leave the radical jihadists alone, they'll just walk off into the windy sunset and say, all is forgiven and all is forgotten. Maybe in a Steven Seagal movie perhaps.

On one side of the scale is a handful of people gruesomely beheaded and on the other is thousands of non combatants who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Doesn't balance.

All wars are ugly and you will always have innocent people die. Always had it, always wil.

Sure the ISIS are a bunch of psychos. I'd say the same about those who started the Iraq "war" based on lies.

Yeah, but the difference is, the allied forces weren't going around slaughtering people on a massive scale for the sheer delight or religious purpose for some Caliphate. Once again, you are using the Apples and strawberries analogy again.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Wc626May. 28, 2015 - 09:23PM JST The air strikes are not intended to kill children. Are you kidding? They're meant to target IS combatants, you know "smoke em' outta their holes" & blast their convoys.

Of course when civilians, especially children, are killed by US air strikes it is terrible. Not peachy at all. Imo it is "diabolical" when you deliberately burn someone to death in a cage. I'm clearly expressing regret about the unfortunate loss of life (child- as you've mentioned) by US air strikes. I don't see any hypocrisy.

... so they fly half way around the world to pick a fight with people who have done precisely nothing to the U.S. (these aren't Al-Qaeda or anything, they're a completely different set of people).

Then they target a city FULL of civilians ... and somehow it isn't their fault? They didn't do it on purpose?

And you can't see the hypocrisy?

-2 Good Bad

Wc626May. 28, 2015 - 10:01PM JST The main difference is that the US doesn't intentionally air strike or drone "innocents" in the ME.

Actually there's a ton of evidence showing that the U.S. does PRECISELY this, striking at wedding parties with dozens of innocent civilians (women and children included) on the suspicion that maybe, possibly, there's one terrorist down there somewhere.

So much for that argument.

Has the US ever intentionally targeted "innocents" on a mass scale? -yeah, but that was a different time and place.

What, you mean last week? Yesterday? 3 hours ago? I don't think you can't see the hypocrisy, I think you're choosing not to see it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It is more than obvious that it is not working.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

bass4funkMAY. 28, 2015 - 10:41PM JST What a MESS the U.S.A. has created. Well, actually NOT entirely, but don't worry about facts, Bertie.

Yes. The mess that Iraq has become is entirely the fault of the U.S. Had we not invaded, for no moral or strategic reason whatsoever, Iraq would not have splintered and ISIS, which may not even have coalesced in a meaningful way, might be contained in Syria.

Just think, if they hadn't recruited and trained Al Qaeda to try and get the Russkies out of Afghanistan, things might have continued in some kind of equilibrium.

Al Qaida did not exist during the Soviet Afghan occupation. It was formed later and bin Laden was but a minor player in the mujahideen.

As it is, the U.S.A. is making enemies in the Middle East.

Save for the various authoritarian regimes the U.S. has supported since the before Cold War, we have no real friends in the Islamic world, the ME in particular, and that includes Israel.

Let's not forget that the Iraq "war" was started on a lie. And festered and morphed into a bigger conflict from a president that cares only about himself and his personal polls,

You cannot blame the Obama administration for having no stomach for what the Bush administration created. Not only did Obama inherit a wrecked economy, the worst since the Depression, but which he helped put to right in less than three years, he also had to clean-up the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history. He's in an untenable situation. Re-committing U.S. ground forces to Iraq and, probably, Syria (while our useless "allies" the Turks do nothing) buts us right back to about 2006. Walking away completely sours what little goodwill we may have with the Kurds as they clearly can't do it alone.

but in about 530 days, we can all breath a sigh of relief.

Why? Is all the strife going to magically end when Clinton is sworn in as president? It's been going on for decades now. The best bet in the long run is for the U.S. is to walk away from the region, and that includes Israel as they will never make peace with the Palestinians until we stop supporting them tacitly and with aid.

We cannot "help" these peoples. We have no intellectual or cultural commonality with Islamic states. They are repressive and repressed, sexist, bigoted religiously dominated societies. This is not how most of the West exists.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What's that definition of insanity again?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Yes. The mess that Iraq has become is entirely the fault of the U.S. Had we not invaded, for no moral or strategic reason whatsoever, Iraq would not have splintered and ISIS, which may not even have coalesced in a meaningful way, might be contained in Syria.

Ok, you do that and I'll go back further and put blame on the Brits and the French for creating the Sykes-Picot agreement that made a mess out of this entire region to begin with, so I'll lay blame where it really should be.

Al Qaida did not exist during the Soviet Afghan occupation. It was formed later and bin Laden was but a minor player in the mujahideen.

Who graduated and tested his sick ability with the Kenyan embassy bombing in 1998 and exploded (pardon the pun) on the terrorist stage as a serious formidable adversary.

Save for the various authoritarian regimes the U.S. has supported since the before Cold War, we have no real friends in the Islamic world, the ME in particular, and that includes Israel.

Partially true when you are talking about the Sunni states, it's been rocky at times, but there are many there are real true friends that would go and take a bullet for the US. Israel as well and the relationship was always good historically until Obama mucked it up. No country is perfect, our allies are not perfect, but we do the best to help each other and once Obama is gone, it will take a real president to mend those fragmented relationships.

You cannot blame the Obama administration for having no stomach for what the Bush administration created.

Absolutely BS! The Obama admin. or the president himself just doesn't care! The only thing he DOES care about is is campaign promise and that's it, whether our allies need assistance or NOT. He won't even supply the Kurds, the Jordanians, the Ukrainians, snubs Israel, Yemen, but wants to make a deal with Iran, knowing full well that the deal is putting the Sunnis and Israel in serious jeopardy! The guy is an absolute embarrassment! But why should he care? He's out of here in 529 days anyway, so whatever happens after the deal, let the next president deal with it. There is a lot that Obama could do, but at this point anything that can impede his legacy, he will not budge on it!

Not only did Obama inherit a wrecked economy, the worst since the Depression, but which he helped put to right in less than three years, he also had to clean-up the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history.

And you forgot to mention that he also added a $18Trillion debt, has over 47 million people on food stamps for the last 37 months, 85% of college students are moving back home, over 40% need financial help from their parents. Blacks have over a 10.4% unemployment rate the highest under the first Black president or any other president. So these problems the president didn't seem to care about solving, so what about the president that will inherit this mess? And it is a monumental mess and the sad thing about all this is, we still have 529 more days left that means it's probably going to get worse.

He's in an untenable situation. Re-committing U.S. ground forces to Iraq and, probably, Syria (while our useless "allies" the Turks do nothing) buts us right back to about 2006. Walking away completely sours what little goodwill we may have with the Kurds as they clearly can't do it alone.

I'll give you that, the Turks could step up, but they have their own ambitions, we can't do it alone and they don't have the weaponry to do it all themselves either, but we as the sole superpower, there is a lot we could do and we could send some strategic groups of special forces out there to help, kill and advise our allies, either way, sooner or later, we will be back there, like Bush warned the Obama admin. and they chose not to heed his warning and here we are.

Why? Is all the strife going to magically end when Clinton is sworn in as president?

You mean IF and that is a gargantuan IF and don't go there, I remember on this site when you libs were boasting that GOP would NEVER retake congress. Well, we all know how that over-bloating confidence comment turned out. A lot can happen in the next two years, but I will say this, 60% of Independents don't trust Hilary, that is a very serious problem for here-period! Dems will stick with her, they have no choice over 86% and you can forget conservatives, but the independent swing voters is where the problem is, without them, there is NO WAY she will be elected to anything, not even a parking meter lady.

It's been going on for decades now. The best bet in the long run is for the U.S. is to walk away from the region, and that includes Israel as they will never make peace with the Palestinians until we stop supporting them tacitly and with aid.

That will never happen.

We cannot "help" these peoples. We have no intellectual or cultural commonality with Islamic states. They are repressive and repressed, sexist, bigoted religiously dominated societies. This is not how most of the West exists.

We could do a lot, for one thing we could support our allies and help them with what they need to fight this insurgency at the very least, but Obama won't even do that. There is a lot we can do, but standing by the sidelines is cowardly and counterproductive. If the president doesn't want to help our allies and doesn't want to get involved anymore in the ME, fine! But don't go on TV and spout to the public that Iraq is under control and that Al Qaida and ISIS are on the run and that everything is going smoothly in that region.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Bass, and you've only had 70 years to sort it out.

Still doesn't take away from the truth.

N/A

Obama rightly sees that containment costs less and that it is the time for regional players to step up --Saudi has been letting your boys die for decades in its proxy wars-- and sort their mess out, why, because he's right not to bankrupt the US on another ME rodeo that's going to cost trillions of dollars and line cronies pockets. Dick Cheney made a fortune off you, and you give Obama a hard time, for saving the US economy. Wake up!

The US economy is back on track after being wreaked.

N/A

The GOP is split, polarised, messed up, a car wreak. A Democratic candidate will win the nomination. Clinton could be undone by the e-mailgate. Doubt it though.

Certainly a tactical withdrawal is and has been put into motion and is de-facto policy.

'Cowardly'? Dear me, no. Pragmatic, realistic and sick of wasting US dollars, lives and resources on idiots who refuse to walk even part of the way to resolve injustices.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

bass4funkMay. 28, 2015 - 10:56PM JST I love how you always think that if you leave the radical jihadists alone, they'll just walk off into the windy sunset and say, all is forgiven and all is forgotten. Maybe in a Steven Seagal movie perhaps.

Actually, yes. Radical Islam and other fundamentalist religions (including certain sects of Christianity) thrive when they're being persecuted and have martyrs. You just need to look at the early saints of the Catholic church - most of whom died in gruesome ways - to realise that persecution drives and feeds fundamentalist religions.

So if you just leave ISIS alone they won't disappear overnight, but they'll probably quite quickly forget about the U.S. and refocus their followers on other targets closer to home. And once their empire gets big enough that they can't maintain the illusion of persecution any longer and they're clearly just being bullies they'll get more and more bogged down in the day-to-day business of running their country...

... and soon enough they'll be approaching the U.S., cap-in-hand saying, "Please Sir, we have some oil we'd really like to sell, because it makes a pretty poor substitute for orange juice", and things will normalize.

The bottom line is that Islamic Radicalism suits the U.S. political and economic agenda, and the U.S. is deliberately feeding and provoking it, because the U.S. economy will collapse without it.

Neither options are good. A U.S. economic collapse would destabilize economies around the world, as we saw with Lehmann Shock, but likewise continued warfare and the continued rise of radical Islam is also unsustainable. The U.S. has to get its economy off a war-time model and deal with the internal issues that make war such a politically attractive issue (racism in the U.S. being a major issue)... and the starting point there is the U.S. public getting their collective heads out of their collective posteriors and admitting that war is not fine and noble, but is in fact an abomination.

Sadly I fear that the U.S. will probably have to learn this lesson the same way that Japan did, and that it is going to take a major tragedy that makes 9/11 look like a Sunday picnic before the U.S. public sits up and takes notice. ... and it is just a matter of time before this happens.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Obama rightly sees that containment costs less and that it is the time for regional players to step up

What on Earth are you talking about?! ISIS is Nowhere from being contained, any of the Jihadists for that matter. Remember Garland, Texas last month. From Europe to Africa, the ME and the States, Obama is completely taking a backseat approach and what do you think will happen once they put their differences aside, come for the west next. Yes, the regional players need to step up, but so does Obama and he needs to help them by giving them whatever they need, that's the least he can do if he wants to stay out of the conflict instead of BSing the American people that ISIS is on the run and Al Qaida is contained.

--Saudi has been letting your boys die for decades in its proxy wars-- and sort their mess out, why, because he's right not to bankrupt the US on another ME rodeo that's going to cost trillions of dollars and line cronies pockets. Dick Cheney made a fortune off you, and you give Obama a hard time, for saving the US economy. Wake up! The US economy is back on track after being wreaked.

Apparently you glossed over my last post. So here it is once more: And you forgot to mention that he also added a $18Trillion debt, has over 47 million people on food stamps for the last 37 months, 85% of college students are moving back home, over 40% need financial help from their parents. Blacks have over a 10.4% unemployment rate the highest under the first Black president or any other president.

I am awake and as for Cheney, as the former head of a company that resupplies our troops, better that then buying supplies from the French or Chinese, why do that when we can give our soldiers products that are made in the US. So I don't fault him for that at all, so you think in socialist terms, he's just not supposed to collect a salary at all? What is it with you libs and vilifying people making money. If you want to go that route, then Hilary should be on your absolute S*** list! The amount of money she made/continues to make off our enemies and leaders of countries with a horrible human rights record, she gets $615, 000 for 2 speeches?? No one makes that kind of money, that is just insane, not that I care about the amount, but it's strange, why so much at one time, who is she shaking hands with? Where is your outrage on that?

The GOP is split, polarised, messed up, a car wreak.

As well as the Democratic party. Why? All the Dems HAVE to put their eggs in one basket and that's Hilary. You think Bernie Saunders has a chance or Warren? The Dems are not all in sync with with this candidate. And again, Hilary doesn't have the Independents and that without their support, will never win any presidency because they will make or break the election. 60% of Independents don't trust her, that's a disaster.

A Democratic candidate will win the nomination. Clinton could be undone by the e-mailgate. Doubt it though.

Again, you guys keep repeating that and look at the Congress. If Hilary can convince the Independents and swoon them, she might have a chance, other than that, she's got major, major problems

Certainly a tactical withdrawal is and has been put into motion and is de-facto policy.

So that's what we are calling cowardice now?

'Cowardly'? Dear me, no. Pragmatic, realistic and sick of wasting US dollars, lives and resources on idiots who refuse to walk even part of the way to resolve injustices.

If that's so then why the debt, and why is Obama wasting so much money on other pet projects, people can't afford their healthcare, but I thought it was supposed to be affordable, global warming, the so called war on women? People are tired of Washington, tired of the politicians and tired of this president.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

bass4funkMAY. 29, 2015 - 06:57AM JST Ok, you do that and I'll go back further and put blame on the Brits and the French for creating the Sykes-Picot agreement that made a mess out of this entire region to begin with, so I'll lay blame where it really should be.

True. But that has nothing to do with what the U.S. wrought with the 2003 invasion looking for WMD that everyone knew byt 2002 did not exist. You're trying to hang the Iraqi mess on the current administration though it bears no responsibility for creating the situation that gave rise to it while you fail to acknowledge that it was the Iraqis that wanted us out sooner rather than later and that the Bush administration signed off on the wind down of U.S. combat operations.

And what is this fascination with Sunni Muslims? ISIL and al Qaeda's roots/allegiances are both in/to Sunni Islam and the more extreme Wahhabism, which has been bankrolled by the Saudi government for decades. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Sunni Muslims. You think ISIL's beheadings are barbaric? Well, that an other extreme forms of punishment have been standard practice in the Sunni majority Gulf States for decades.

http://adhrb.org/2015/04/sacrifice-to-the-state-capital-punishment/

We could do a lot, for one thing we could support our allies and help them with what they need to fight this insurgency at the very least, but Obama won't even do that.

Again, we have no allies in the region but we are supplying arms and air support to various groups in the region and have special forces operating there. We can't really "help them with what they need," which is civic, cultural and religious commonality. The minority Sunnis in Iraq rode roughshod over the Kurds and the Shia majority for decades. They are f*&%ed in this situation being between their co-religionists represented by ISIL and the majority Shia backed by Iran and who is doing most of the fighting though wanting to do more. More power to them, but it's still an intramural fight and we do not have a strategic dog in it. None of these countries or groups are poised to invade the U.S. any time soon so why are we so concerned with what they do to themselves and their region of the world?

Look, real politik is dead. We are wasting billions of dollars helping to prop corrupt authoritarian regimes that do nothing to advance our interests or are of any strategic value.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

True. But that has nothing to do with what the U.S. wrought with the 2003 invasion looking for WMD that everyone knew byt 2002 did not exist.

Why not? It has everything to do with it. Come on, you need to be fair, if you want to go back to the woes of Iraq and the ME, then let's go to the very beginning. But I know many people such as yourself want to cherry pick. So how about we stick with the NOW?

You're trying to hang the Iraqi mess on the current administration though it bears no responsibility for creating the situation that gave rise to it while you fail to acknowledge that it was the Iraqis that wanted us out sooner rather than later and that the Bush administration signed off on the wind down of U.S. combat operations.

Of course it does? Or do you think Obama knows more then the Pentagon or his senior Generals? Obama was handed a fairly stable Iraq in 2007, was warned 4 years ago about taking action against ISIS and yet, he did nothing, who has been president since 2008?

And what is this fascination with Sunni Muslims? ISIL and al Qaeda's roots/allegiances are both in/to Sunni Islam and the more extreme Wahhabism, which has been bankrolled by the Saudi government for decades.

True, but for the last 70 years, the Saud family has been our ally, the relation has not always been smooth, complexed, but nonetheless they and Israel have been key allies and a huge contributor towards the fight against radical Islamic terrorists.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Sunni Muslims. You think ISIL's beheadings are barbaric? Well, that an other extreme forms of punishment have been standard practice in the Sunni majority Gulf States for decades.

We are talking about EXTREME Islamic radical terrorists.

Again, we have no allies in the region but we are supplying arms and air support to various groups in the region and have special forces operating there.

Of course we have allies in the region. Israel the biggest, the Saudis and the Kurds and others, if not, there is NO way we could have gotten even remotely close to some of the high value targets we had to take out.

We can't really "help them with what they need," which is civic, cultural and religious commonality. The minority Sunnis in Iraq rode roughshod over the Kurds and the Shia majority for decades. They are f*&%ed in this situation being between their co-religionists represented by ISIL and the majority Shia backed by Iran and who is doing most of the fighting though wanting to do more. More power to them, but it's still an intramural fight and we do not have a strategic dog in it. None of these countries or groups are poised to invade the U.S. any time soon so why are we so concerned with what they do to themselves and their region of the world?

We have a serious dog in this fight, for one thing, the influence and the social impact these jihadists leave in cyberspace trying to call anyone that believes in their radical cause to come to the caliphate and or inciting attacks on western home and European soil. And if you think they need an army to invade and cause havoc on our Homefront, you are so sadly mistaken. Lone wolf attacks are becoming more of the common norm and as you saw in France, 2 to 4 people can do an incredible amount of damage and to dismiss that possibility is foolish. These people can attack at ANY time.

Look, real politik is dead. We are wasting billions of dollars helping to prop corrupt authoritarian regimes that do nothing to advance our interests or are of any strategic value.

At the same time, if you don't want to go into any war, then maybe it's perhaps better to support a strong arm man to put the boot on the peoples neck to ensure peace, even if their human rights are violated. That's the other side of the coin.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Bass, IS are contained within the remains of two failed states. QED. They are going nowhere.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Because you think so? Also, you don't need an army of ISIS to come and attack the US. As I said about the Lone Wolf scenario, you can also have a dozen or so people to launch attacks as we've seen in France and India, Germany, Australia, they can attack soft or hard targets, so yes, it's as bad as it can get potentially.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Your hysteria has them walking the burbs, manning the clock towers and hiding behind the grassy knolls. You can say this of any idea, sure, the idea is out there, with some, but IS are not taking over the front lawns of The US. Your own citizens kill over 30,000 of each other with hand guns, IS have a lot of work cut out to become a threat in the continental US or anywhere. They are not an organised force threatening the fabric of our societies. Anti-abortinsists, the IRA, US Militia, even Biker Gangs, killed more. And your food tamp rant, its been dropping for some time, is 45 million as of Feb 2015, and food stamps are an essential part of any nation's Welfare System. Unemployment is 5.4%, lowest in a looming time. The US economy is moving up and out of the Great Recession caused by Bill Clinton's bank reforms and Bush's inability to see how bad an idea it was to let Lehman's fail.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Your hysteria has them walking the burbs, manning the clock towers and hiding behind the grassy knolls. You can say this of any idea, sure, the idea is out there, with some, but IS are not taking over the front lawns of The US.

I never said they were, but as in typical fashion as with the pacifist mentality of the left. You guys love to just sit everything out until the s*** hits the fan and then it's always, "well, I thought..." I error on the side of caution.

Your own citizens kill over 30,000 of each other with hand guns, IS have a lot of work cut out to become a threat in the continental US or anywhere.

How is Iraq related to what's going on domestically in the US? How about staying on topic.

They are not an organised force threatening the fabric of our societies.

As I look on the world map 50% of Syria is gone as half of Iraq and Libya is also on the brinks of collapse, but Naaaw, they're aren't a threat at all. ROFL Keep telling yourself that.

And your food tamp rant, its been dropping for some time, is 45 million as of Feb 2015, and food stamps are an essential part of any nation's Welfare System.

So in other words, forget about creating jobs and less increase the food stamp program. Now I understand why Europeans don't have any money. But you got 6 weeks vacation and socialized healthcare. Good.

Unemployment is 5.4%, lowest in a looming time.

But you have over 60%-80% of graduates that can't find jobs and are moving back home. Progress, NOPE.

The US economy is moving up and out of the Great Recession caused by Bill Clinton's bank reforms and Bush's inability to see how bad an idea it was to let Lehman's fail.

But it's debt is increasing, over $18 Trillion and people are taking out more loans, banks are making it harder for people to buy homes, corporate tax rate is over 40% and oh, by the way, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are once again writing loans that got us into this mess in the first place.

Not a good sign at all. but in 529 more days, it'll come to an end thankfully and if Hilary can't turn things around with the independents, she has NO chance either.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Don't mistake my calm demos for weakness or an inability to act, you'd be mistaken to do assume as such. You're mentioning how IS are crawling everywhere, it's relevant to put 'the there' into perspective for you, so you can see. Jobs are being created, record numbers in March, April, historic lows of 5.4% unemployment. Debt is not to be feared if the future is there to pay it off and if there is one thing the US always seems to have an abundance of, it is future. Of course you have debts, the Great Recession just burned the planet's GDP by 10 years of growth. Why didn't the laws get through congress? The ones brought in to tame the greed? Congress always goes over to the gOP, it'S a massive failing of the political set up in the US are the midterms, but the GOP got both houses didn't get the Presidency last time EITHER.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Don't mistake my calm demos for weakness or an inability to act, you'd be mistaken to do assume as such.

You're joking, right?

You're mentioning how IS are crawling everywhere, it's relevant to put 'the there' into perspective for you, so you can see. Jobs are being created, record numbers in March, April, historic lows of 5.4% unemployment.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/07/news/economy/jobs-february-where-they-are/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/28/how-the-recession-turned-middle-class-jobs-into-low-wage-jobs/

You are definitely and sadly mistaken. If you look at the general numbers, that's what the jobs market reflects, but once you peel the onion, it's very different and go to virtually any blue state, Baltimore, California, Chicago, NYC, Washington State, high paying jobs are the underlining problem in those states.

Debt is not to be feared if the future is there to pay it off and if there is one thing the US always seems to have an abundance of, it is future.

ahhh, I forgot, Obama will soon be out of office, so let the next president deal with it. By the way, with the future we have at the moment, the debt will grow bigger. Also, if you are over 80 you don't have to worry about the debt, you'll be in the ground soon enough.

Of course you have debts, the Great Recession just burned the planet's GDP by 10 years of growth.

We are not in the 1920's tax hikes, inflation, this is 2015 so yeah, our debt is way out of control, but for libs $18 Trillion is nothing to you guys.

Why didn't the laws get through congress? The ones brought in to tame the greed? Congress always goes over to the gOP, it'S a massive failing of the political set up in the US are the midterms, but the GOP got both houses didn't get the Presidency last time EITHER

That was last time, but we never had a president that was so out of control and spent like a drunken sailor and created such a hug debt, we'll never get out of, at least in this generation cycle. Also congress tried to make a deal with the president to curtail spending, at the time, the democratic controlled Senate wouldn't sign any legislation to stop the spending, so the GOP controlled House made a deal with Obama to raise the Debt ceiling if they can promise to cut spending, but the GOP didn't want to cause any uproars ( spineless ) and allowed Obama to spend more.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wow. Err... bye.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites