Fully, dammit. Fully!
This question will probably make me seem stupid but asking it anyway…
So, after ISIS collected the 2300 US humvees. I’m imagining that they would have had to drive across the desert and store them somewhere, totally out in the open, if the US didn’t want them to have the Humvees, why did they not just bomb them?
Also, why didn’t the US just bomb their oil supply?
Also side note, bare with me. I just read a news item quoting Trump, the jest of it was… "The stupid (Obama, Hillary, White House, etc… ) have always negotiated bad deals with the Saudi Arabians, making them rich and the US poor, We will pull out of the Mid East, let ISIS build back up again, and Saudi Arabia will be begging us to help them, make them pay us to protect them, …See I’m smart I always win… blah, blah, said Trump …
…And when I read that I think that is what the US was already doing, and the plan all along was arm ISIS so they will terrorize surrounding countries so they will pay US to defend them and support the Military Industrial Complex boost US GDP. So, The US intentionally allowed ISIS to rise to power.
In regards to the Middle East, the US has two options: Do something, or do nothing. Both have overwhelmingly negative consequences.
That’s been happening. Cite. Scroll down a half page to read the statistics.
But you also seem to imply that ISIL is just out in the desert with no one else around. In fact, ISIL is controlling cities and towns, and just can’t just drop a bomb on a humvee driving down the street because there could be civilians killed by blowing up something no more valuable than a truck.
There were concerns that if the coalition blew up oil wells, areas that ISIL might retreat from would be left with no source of wealth. That policy appears to have changed recently.
Total nonsense. You might as well claim that Obama is a member of ISIL, since he is a seekrit Mooselim and all.
Actually, it all started when the US staged the 9/11 attacks. Or faked the moon landing. One of those two things.
Ordinary citizens held protests. Ordinary citizens did not “revolt”, that is simply not true, no matter how much hawks in the Obama administration pretend it to be so.
I have trouble believing the NPR/John Mccain line that there are moderate groups. Moderate groups do not fight against the government. That is definitional.
There has been no proof of any moderate groups, no coverage of their leaders, etc. because the U.S. Govt cannot find anyone to give to the media. Even a brief interview would expose the so called “moderates” as religious fanatics.
For some strange reason the U.S. Govt does not want the Syrian Abraham Lincoln to continue in power. The reason there are conspiracy theories is because the govt is not forthright about its reasoning to make “Assad must go” the top priority. When Obama first stated this as the priority there was less reason to insist on regime change in Syria than there was to insist on regime change in Iraq before the Bush War. The movement to remove Assad saw its peak when the chemical weapons were used. There has been no proof brought forth to implicate the Syrian govt. There have been reports that implicate the Turks.
There is no doubt that US involvement has first created the conditions for ISIS to gain power in Northern Iraq, then fueled a conflict that has spiraled out of control by abetting other militarily aggressive govts like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
So if you’re a Muslim, you’re either a fascist (like Assad’s supporters) or a bloodthirsty terrorist (like ISIL’s maniacs)?
Will, you know that Hersh’s recent ramblings have more or less unanimously been written off as senility at work, right?
is that something respectable pundits on Diane Rehm told you?
? That is a bizarre question asked with malicious intent.
Moderate Muslims are probably busy trying to work but insane governments are too busy bombing and shooting them.
Name a few and link to their interviews.
Well, you did post that it is impossible for a non-radical to take up arms against an oppressive government. So it stands to reason that you’re saying that if a Syrian takes up arms against Assad, they are a radical terrorist; and if they don’t take up arms, they are content with a fascist dictator.
Even Putin claims that Russia has the cooperation of moderate rebels: link.
I don’t think it’s worth putting any more time into citing the existence of moderate rebels to someone who calls Assad the “Syrian Abraham Lincoln.” For any other poster, I’d gladly provide more evidence, but I have better things to do with three minutes than look for cites for someone who has no intention of being swayed by facts.
I just read an interview with Trump where he said the US should just pull out and let ISIS rise up so that the Saudi’s would have to beg the US and pay the US for protection. Which is really the same Idea as the conspiracy theory that the US created ISIS. Created may be the wrong word, the US aided and abetted ISIS.
Yeah, pretty much in the same way that an apple is really the same as an orange.
Leaving something alone is not the same as creating that something. And Trump’s proposal is just that-- a proposal. It’s not a CT of how something came about.
It’s not even a proposal, it’s a fantasyland ranting of someone who literally knows nothing. The Saudis aren’t going to beg for the US to save them. They would clearly just handle things in their own way, as they are doing in Yemen.
Trump continues to be a total incompetent for the job he is seeking.
It sounds about as considered as any other State Department policy in the past 5 years.
So Trump wants a situation where America is keeping troops stationed in the Mid-East permanently?
If the man had never said anything else stupid, this idea alone would make him a terrible president.
The usual policy has been that the United States might need to send troops in temporarily. We’ve always gone in with the goal of establishing a peaceful situation and then handing things back to the local powers so we can leave.
How is that like saying all Muslims are fascists or religious fanatics? I’ll wait…
[quote=“Ravenman, post:52, topic:740064”]
Even Putin claims that Russia has the cooperation of moderate rebels: link.
Bwahaha
I understand your concern with me bismirching the name of Bashar al Assad, but there are similarities I can’t help but to highlight. I’m aware that Lincoln was an unrelenting white supremacist, but that was a different time.
Even the Pentagon was concerned about the lack of moderate rebels:
So you’re the guy who still believes what Sy Hersh writes?