Oh, I think I understand bammy's hesitation alright. He's lost. He and his cohorts in crime literally have no clue as to what they should do. I'll give them one small kudo for recognizing they are in over their heads and not rushing off and doing something stupid.
The post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan peace dividend disintegrates.
So we should let this go on, get bigger and more dangerous until it completely destabilizes the region? It will be easier to fight and defeat now than 2 or 3 years from now.
You can wring your hands all you want but in the end we may not have a whole lot of options here. If the other guy makes war on you, you're in a war, like it or not. bammy's policies coming home to roost.
"ISIS is an urgent threat and a minimalist approach, that depends solely on FY15 funding or pinprick strikes that leave fragile forces in Iraq and Syria to do the hard fighting, is insufficient to protect our interests and guarantee our safety in time," Mr. McKeon said last week.
He's probably right. I'm sure he has access to better intel than me or Paul.
What does this mean in practice? If the neocons have their way, the Federal Reserve will "print" more money to finance another massive US intervention in the Middle East. In reality this means further devaluation of the US dollar, which is a tax on all Americans that will hit the poorest hardest.
Where is that coming from? Did Paul's cat walk across the keyboard again while he was getting coffee?
A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!
I don't agree with Paul's conclusions. I am certain that letting ISIS gain strength and territory is a very bad idea. There will be a cost to us to deal with them. Some now, no-doubt more later. Thanks bammy for setting the stage for them to come into power.
McKeon and the other hawks act as if they had only recently become aware of the ISIS. Or if they noticed it, they pretend US policy had nothing to do with its rise.
Oh, I'm sure bammy's policies had quite a bit to do with ISIS' rise to power.
...are the same ones who not long ago demanded that we support groups like ISIS to overthrow the Assad government in Syria...
Yes, "like" ISIS in that they opposed Assad. Not "like" ISIS in that they're murderous psychopaths. That was our position, not surprising bammy and crew got it wrong (intentionally or through ignorance).
Why does the US government insist on aligning with theocracies in the Middle East? If there is anything that contradicts the US Constitution and American values it is a theocratic government. I do not believe that a majority in the Middle East wants to live under such a system, so why do we keep pushing it on them? Is that what they call promoting democracy?
You tell me Paul, why does bammy always seem to side with Muslims? Hmm? Why do you think that is Paul?
I need to make a correction to this assumption. I don't think he is lost at all. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's inflicting minimal damage via airstrikes to appease any generals who are still not loyal to him.. At the same time he pretends to dither which gives ISIS more time to grow. And the minimal airstrikes allow ISIS more recruitment propaganda. They are saying "See what America is doing...they are bombing us..we must fight brothers". But they're not really being affected at all.