:rolleyes:
The Islamic State is in retreat and it bound to get worse for them, there is no sadder spectacle than to see Republicans claiming that we are at risk to see the IS flag over Washington.
That many in the US claims that we should not help the ones who are most in need of health care is a travesty for a country that call itself “developed”, and that is safer from this IS threat than many other countries that do offer health care for all.
So, it is safe to ignore your wishy washy point.
Great speech. It reminds us again that Obama could have been one of the great Presidents if his opposition had put the interests of the country first.
I do read Chomsky and Klein and am more cynical than most. But, OMG: some attitudes baffle me. If your “thinking” is widespread, it’s no wonder that many Americans have “I want to buy as many guns as I can” as the only political issue they care about.
You misformatted your post and changed “stable” to “astable.” 
Was this a Freudian slip? … Twisting nonsense into truth?
It’s really not a simple, binary win or lose thing, just like it wasn’t/isn’t against Al Qaeda. Trying to frame such a complex situation that way is foolish, unless of course you know that and are just hoping to portray it as a loss in ~2 years.
And speaking of rightwing zeitgeist, here we have the amazing right-wing fantasy that health care is something that “we can already do for ourselves” except for the fact that nobody, in fact, actually can unless they are independently wealthy. Not the 45 million uninsured, not the miserably underinsured, not the insured who are paying through the nose and still get claims challenged, and certainly not the insured who have had claims denied despite paying through the nose and constitute the largest source of personal bankruptcies in America.
See, the problem with this right-wing delusion is that health care, as the previous poster correctly implies, is one of those areas where government involvement is essential because (a) it’s a universal need of all citizens that is also a basic human right, (b) it is thus most efficiently administered on a common shared-risk basis across the entire population – indeed, it’s the only really workable way of administering it, and (c) only a statutory authority can systematically control costs. What you end up with when you think that “we can already do it for ourselves” is treating health care as a product line like cars and washing machines instead of an essential public service. It isn’t, and that’s why the product-line business model is constantly struggling to be viable.
The government doesn’t have just one job. It has a lot of different jobs. Some of them are indeed in the social domain.
Many of the major events of WW II weren’t anticipated. (As long as we’re Googling things, Google “Pearl Harbor”.) Hitler was for all intents and purposes an unknown quantity in the prewar years, actually much admired for a time by many on both sides of the ocean, including the US. Your point is quite irrelevant.
I don’t get it. You were out of Iraq - after much talking in circles, after promise A and B, after all the discussion and arguments it happened. Bring our kids home, the american people wailed - stop our sons and daughters getting dead, stop the huge wasted expense, stop the national brand being dragged through the mud. And that happened - much overdue, but happened nonetheless. The kids came home from an unpopular war.
How are some people, like adaher, so eager to eat shit soup again, though? Sure, ISIL are a huge bunch of twats and they deserve more than a few smart bombs. But thats just the thing- a few bombs ain’t going to do it. A lot of bombs might do it, but then you have too much collateral damage which creates more shit heads which creates a need for boots on the ground. In the end, you can’t put down a thing like ISIS without an actual war.
If Obama had a set of testicles he would say ISIS is just plain not worth it, and I would consider it a shame upon my country if it followed America down the rabbit hole again.
If it’s generally agreed upon that we had to go into afghanistan, then we have to go into Iraq and Syria. We’ll have to do it anyway when they hit the US. Better a time of our choosing than theirs.
The whole idea is to help Iraq fight ISIL with Iraqi (and Kurdistani) boots on the ground. The President mentioned a “coalition” but I heard no details other than Obama plans to “chair a meeting of the Security Council” and that al-Assad’s Syria is definitely out!
A key question, of course, is: Are U.S. interests at stake? I don’t want to try to envision a world where ISIL is allowed to prevail, but it is far more powerful than al-Qaeda ever was. The idea that U.S. should dismiss it as “somebody else’s problem” seems absurd to me.
ENOUGH!
Anyone who would like to engage in a debate contrasting the importance or irrelevance of government sponsored or managed health care and wars engaged outside our borders is free to do so.
This thread is not the place to do it.
Drop that topic in this thread.
[ / Moderating ]
What a charming sentiment.
[QUOTE=septimus]
The whole idea is to help Iraq fight ISIL with Iraqi (and Kurdistani) boots on the ground
[/quote]
Yes, I am aware that is the current rhetoric. But you watch - it will change. Such optimism will not last when it becomes clear Iraq and the Kurds cannot destroy ISIS they can only fuel it. A few guided bombs might help. A big might.
Well IIRC the main reason to not get involved, the one given on the Dope anyway, was that we would only make matters worse.
Looking at things as they are in Syria, it’s difficult to imagine that. Perhaps we would have stirred Cthulhu?
Unintended consequences would be my main concern. Killing Assad’s enemy aids Assad. Does the US want to aid a brutal and totalitarian regime? Probably not. But, is he the lesser of the two (or three, or who the hell knows how many) evils in this civil war? I don’t know the answer.
Seriously, that’s how you interpret this?
Yes, they will wear boots and yes, they will walk on the ground. But your attempted equivalence with Bush sails, as Bob Uecker would say, JUST a bit outside.
I thought he threaded the needle reasonably well last night. It conveyed a sense of purpose but no sense of panic or rashness. He put the onus on Congress to work with him on this. Above all, he assured that US troops will not be fighting on foreign soil.
The only fault I have is that he inserted the obligatory closing “May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.”
Yeah, I would prefer it if he went with a simple, “Gesundheit!”.
Alternatively, “You are soooo good looking.”
Or “Michelle, I’ll be coming home right after the meeting. So on behalf of myself and all the guys at the Possum Lodge, keep your stick on the ice!”
I can think of half a dozen ways in which Syria (and Iraq) could become worse. Firstly of course ISIS could gain ground. A move the arming of the so-called FSA seems expressly designed to accomplish.
Since ISIS is fighting the FSA, wouldn’t arming the FSA make it harder for ISIS to gain ground?