It is not remotely in error. You are just placing more importance in where they are headquartered now than he is. That’s fair enough but saying he is in error is bullshit.
No. You cited Wikipedia and it states that Syria is headquartered in
Syria. I am not ‘placing’ emphasis more than Mace.
I wrote ISIS is based in Syria and have invaded Iraq." That is a valid argument, but one you chose refer to as a mistake.
Here:
I see that “from/” was added to what I wrote which could make it seem that I was suggesting the predecessors to ISIS were from Syria. I make no such claim or argument. I argued a fact based upon what Wikipedia confirms.
Now you wish to tell me that I am just placing more importance in where ISIS is headquartered now than Mace is. So Mace is not in error. Then if ‘emphasis’
Is all that matters to you now since I have produced a Wikipedia verification of what I wrote, then why did you tell me in the first place that I made a mistake.
Mace said you had a point that I made a mistake. By your own admission you were error about that. You are both in error about that.
You both are wrong if you insist that ISIS did not invade Iraq from its current base in Syria in a massive and swift attack starting on June 10. There were some preparatory shaking down in Mosul prior to the attacks but the major invasion from Syria began on June 10.
Why do you insist on calling it ISIS? Does that somehow comfort you? Their Arabic name translates more accurately to ISIL, which frankly is nightmarish. I cannot imagine why the US government thinks it would be a good idea to send aid to the Syrian rebellion when it will end up benefitting ISIL. Putin is obnoxious, but he is no particular threat to America, I say let him have this one, in the interest of not having the entire region from Turkey to Saudi Arabia become the world conflagration zone.
I’ve seen ISIS to be the most common reference in the news media. You know who Im talking about so what’s the bother. If I called them the Honey Bears they would be just as nightmarish.
In all for Putin and Rouhani getting involved by the way to resolve the conventional weapons fighting in Syria and Iraq in similar fashion to Putin’s involvement with Obama and OPCW to rid the war zone of CW. in other words does not have to be one or the other to destroy ISIS. Obama and Putin should work together just as they did on CW.
I tend to favor the UN authorizing a 20 mile wide NFZ on the Syria Iraq border. I’m not sure why that has not been discussed unless I have missed it somehow.
If a stolen US built Humvee tries crossing that zone - light it up no matter who’s in it.
The U.N. doesn’t generally plop no fire zones into the middle of an active war zone.
It is now. ISIS has drawn the Syrian and Iraqi situations together.
There is not a single error in post 97.
I have no idea what that even means.
The error in Post 97 is that you said Carnalk has a point that I was mistaken that ISIS is based out of Syria. How could carnalk have a point that I was mistaken when you yourself admit ISIS is Headquartered in Syria.
And your ‘now they are all over the place in Syria and Iraq’ supports my point that ISIS invaded Iraq from its base in Syria.
I’ll ask it this way: Have you lost intetest in the events in Iraq now that ISIS has lost the ability to advance on Baghdad?
Do you think the discussion is over if an ISF counter-offensive gets under way and ISIS retreats back to the civil war in Syria hopefully to be slaughtered there.
I didnt say the generally did but they did a much broader version in Baghdad to stop Benghazi from being shelled.
This strip of NFZ would be much more limited than the NFZ over Libya.
Would you support such an idea or not.
-
I don’t know that ISIL ever had the ability to advance on Baghdad. Or, they may be able to some time in the future. However, my personal interest level in this matter is irrelevant to the debate and also none of your business.
-
This thread is about Syria. The discussion won’t be over if by some miracle ISIL is driven back into Syria. I can’t imagine why you would think it would be. That makes about as much sense as this does:
I believe that part of your personal interest at the outset of the ISIS march into Iraq that began in all seriousness on June 10, was to suggest that Obama either lied or was clueless in December 2011 when he supposedly did not see this ISIS driven attack on Iraqi government forces coming.
Are you holding that position if Iraqi government forces prevail and drive ISIS back to Syria over the next few months.
I asked if you would think the discussion would be over, which is nowhere suggesting on my part that I think it would be over.
I’m glad to hear then if I understood you correctly that you think the discussion will not be over.
But thanks for saying “if by some miracle ISIL is driven back into Syria”. I hope carnalk sees that and realizes to be driven back to Syris means they invaded Iraq from Syria in the first place, which was my point.
Correction: its Libya not Baghdad;
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by CarnalK
The U.N. doesn’t generally plop no fire zones into the middle of an active war zone.[\QUOTE]
I didnt say they generally did but they did a much broader version in Libya to stop Benghazi from being shelled.
This strip of NFZ would be much more limited than the NFZ over Libya.
Would you support such an idea or not.
Assad, like his father, is a stayer. And, unlike Saddam, he has the Russians behind him. People have been predicting his imminent downfall for the last few years. He’s still there and he’s not going anywhere soon.
The onslaught by ISIS into the lives and affairs of Iraq plus the elimination of CW in Syria, plus the White House advocating $500 million for vetted rebels in Syria, changes the dynamics behind that prospect of whether Assad stays or goes. Don’t you think?
I never said Obama should have seen this attack coming.
Are you still beating your wife?
However, if Iraqi forces prevail and drive ISIL back into Syria, they will have done it with US help. That does not speak well to the idea that Iraq is “self-reliant”.
OK, I’m at a loss as to why you would ask if the discussion about Syria and ISIL will be over if the Iraqis drive ISIL back into Syria. This thread is about the Syrian civil war, of which ISIL is an important part.
Yes, it does.
But I still don’t see any way this can end well, i.e., with no post-war ethnic/religious cleansing or anything. It is probably for the best all around that Assad should fall, but all the problems noted in the OP remain, and apparently are even worse now, with ISIS in the picture.
If Assad falls, the resulting ethno-religious war will make what we saw in Iraq look like a playground spat. I can’t understand why anyone who thought invading Iraq to get rid of SH was a terrible idea would think that aiding in the process of getting rid of Assad is a good idea as long as US ground troops aren’t involved. At least in the first instance we had a fairly large force to help keep the peace afterwards. In the latter case, there will be no occupying force to do anything. The best you could say is: so what if the carnage will be worse in Syria than it was in Iraq; at least no Americans will be killed.
No, the best you could say is, “At least it won’t cost the U.S. a whole lot of money.” Our butcher’s bill in Iraq was really very cheap when you consider the size and scale of the operation, but the actual monetary bill was a whopper.