Boots On The Ground, Iraq Again!

In fact, he did not "declare war" n anyone.  He hasn't got the political or popular backing to make that decision any more.

What he did, as usual, was to make another idle, pompous gesture that will ignored by everyone else.

Putin is currently the biggest threat ISIS faces.  When Russians threaten, they mean it, and Putin is looking for just such an excise to expand Russian influence into the region as it was during the Soviet Union days.

By what costs Cyrus?!?Who is the enemy?You need a partisan army for that not a frontal war!!

I'm tentatively in favor of the way Obama is handling things in Iraq and Syria. I think limited airstrikes against ISIL, especially for humanitarian purposes, to help the Shiite, Yazidi, and Christian refugees, are justified. The peshmerga military of Kurdistan is also a proven fighting force, and is worth supporting with military supplies. Hopefully, with the passage of time, and with Kurdish support, the Iraqi government will be able to re-take Ninawa province, including Mosul. I don't think that any American ground forces should be involved.

I do think that the Iraqi government should grant autonomy to the central, Sunni provinces of Iraq, especially Anbar. That might help to restore Sunni loyalty to the Iraqi state. As far as I know, they became frustrated with the al-Maliki government, and now are supporting ISIL. But I doubt that the traditional Sunni tribal leaders are enthusiastic about ISIL, and if given autonomy, they might switch sides back to the Iraqi government.

I think Obama was right not to send any military aid to the Syrian rebel forces. Had that been done, I suspect that such equipment would now be in the hands of ISIL. The Free Syrian Army, and the other rebel forces, I think are just not powerful enough to take on ISIL, and notwithstanding American military aid, would likely have been defeated. The Syrian Assad regime, although totalitarian, and intolerant of any political dissent, has been quite tolerant of religious and ethnic minorities (Assad is Alawite, itself a religious minority). Its totalitarianism is preferable to ISIL's genocide and ethnic-cleansing.


Edited by Windemere - 07-Sep-2014 at 19:35

Your advocating a 20th cent response, not acceptable now.

The Feds are once again stating emphatically that there will be no commitment of ground troops...which means there will be, but not until after the November elections.  BoBo Fumbles is afraid of voter backlash against his Demtards.

Blah blah blah.  Follow the money.  The folks who are supporting these morons will react much like roaches when you turn the lights on, scatter and run. 

Edited by red clay - 09-Sep-2014 at 10:43

Originally posted by red clay Blah blah blah.  Follow the money.  The folks who are supporting these morons will react much like roaches when you turn the lights on, scatter and run.    Turn off the gravy train and most of these "fighters" will vaporize.  Turn the lights on the financiers, and they too will vaporize.   Knowing who will tell you why.  And it's not as clear cut as some think.   Once you know the source, it's relatively easy to disrupt the flow of food and supplies.  When you've done that, forcing them into an area where they are isolated and cut off from support of any kind will change the situation considerably.  Hunger can be a very powerful ally.

pooh pooh away my thoughts, old Red as you like. But the financial gambit remains insufficient by itself.

Military planners and intelligence advisors to the command authority do not offer a sole option or sole element of a counter policy as conclusive. And or all encompassing as a solution to a problem. You may not like that...but trust me on that one. Or better yet ask that lad you know in uniform if you don't believe me or my past experience in operational planning.

Single options are not indicative of successful planning analysis by those with credibility in the field. Period.


Nor does any of that change the fact that every poll in the nation and the world shows a lack of confidence in this administrations leadership; domestic and foreign. And their abilities to deal aggressively with significant threats. The examples are innumerable.

Every thing I've written above remains applicable.

Love him fanatically if ya want..inspired by the historicity of his race if that is what tickles your ego.

Because that is what was and is behind..the socialist core beliefs of his dire hard base, afaic.

His policies and his competence remain failures. And evident. His claims to maintain transparency remain a joke. The efforts by his cronies to quell opposition have been revealed.

He does not inspire leadership but on the contrary exemplifies it's total opposite. Weak and consistent ineffectiveness and rhetorical posturing. With red lines crossed and nothing done until politics force it. Because his core liberal-leftist socialist beliefs will not allow him to change his philosophies. Or policy, if even that, when proven wrong. And then it appears vice marginalization and minimization.


A character fault now revealed to the discerning.

All that has been accomplished is that that portion of the lazy ass American populace, not satisfied with a welfare state of existence, courtesy of the Fed.... is finally beginning to see and reject: Alinsky socialism and Black liberation theology. Vice wealth redistribution and Black race card throwing and baiting.

And certainly when they have begun to see the lies and distortions that were used to fool them. Because the truth remains that America rejects a socialist state ideology less the welfare slaves.

This administration has not decreased tension or eased social welfare or economic concerns with their policies..they have merely exacerbated them.

The Alinskites have, contrary to the opinions of the aforementioned, NOT strengthened American security.

In the end, it's a shame..because he will indeed go down into history as a failed President.

Whether he was black or white remained immaterial in one sense. Especially for those who were not concerned with it. Yet in another, it also is quite relevant.

He and his core assumed and depended on his skin color. And or the fear of rejection of his political background and competency and ideology, based on policy and or ideological differences to hold the position.

Could ntl be a deliberate tool he and his advisors used...to counter opposition.

That's about the only transparent fact the man has offered.

As such he and they remain liars and frauds.

So the dreams of his disaffected supporters, based on the illusion that his skin color was alone enough of a 'force de jure'to bring forth change...merely remain examples and a testament to their own ignorance and their own inherent bias and prejudices. They would so vociferously oppose in others.

They remain the ignorant and lazy dupes they were before he even entered the scene.

As to Iraq. He will fail to deter ISIS and like minded terrorists simply because it's not in his nature to do so. The only reason he is even trying at this point, is his legacy, and the consequences his party will suffer if he doesn't. MM is correct in that.

Now I leave you the field as I'm tired. And I'm moving on.