Posted on 10/01/2015 3:17:08 AM PDT by Biggirl
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump declared “I love the fact that ISIS is being hit by Russia” in an interview broadcast on Wednesday’s “CNN Tonight.” Trump stated that Russia doesn’t respect the US or President Obama, but “At the same time, if they want to hit ISIS, that’s okay with me.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
What if Trump was just saying what he heard on the news?
As long as Russia doesn't bomb US troops, I can't see any downside to this.
The BBC article mentions of a few of the targets. They need killing.
They’re not bombing ISIS, they’re bombing the other groups opposed to Assad.
Just because the administration and their media tell us this doesn’t make it so.
And what happens if one of these unknown groups overthrows Assad? Who takes control of Syria? ISIS?
Some of the groups trying to overthrow Assad were extremists. They’re not worth supporting. It wasn’t Assad that killed or displaced hundreds of thousands of Christians.
The American diplomatic and military debacles in the Middle East since 1945 are attributable to our failure to heed the advice of our founders to stay out of foreign entanglements. If we had not intervened in the affairs of the nations of the Middle East by choosing sides and forcing regime change we would have saved trillions in spending and the lives and limbs of thousands of American citizens. Today we have nothing to show for our financial “investment” or our blood but more pain and suffering to come. In fact it appears the ultimate outcome of our interference in the affairs of other nations may be a nuclear attack on our homeland by Iran.
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influences (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
-——George Washington 1796
l wonder if Kerry will try to use James Taylor to reconcile everyone.
isolationist drivel, balderdascious claptrap
First, let me repeat the oft-stated comment about the "fog of war." Of course I don't really know what is happening there. But, what I do know, is that it appears that we have been providing sham support. Is the US Air Force and its ROE so inept that it has little impact? Or is the ineffectiveness of the US air campaign deliberate?
If the US is only pretending to act, it is in effect supporting the bad guys.
If you give a crap about the Christian holocaust in Syria, then you have to support Assad. From what I can see, the democratic part of the original movement has been essentially wiped out by the more aggressive Islamists. Else, why is the US now admitting it can only find FIVE (out of 60) good guys it trained at huge expense?
If I wanted to keep up the Obama line, and also support the most radical elements in Syria, I'd say exactly what you've quoted. That's not to say the Russians don't have other goals, such as their base and port on the Mediterranean Sea, or control over any pipelines routed to Europe. They are not nice guys. But, in the Mideast, we haven't been nice either--and in fact, under Obama, we've been completely duplicitous in many instances.
2) not a single thing we can do right now thanks to Obama
3) Thank God someone is killing these monsters
you have been duped
the Christians are not at issue in Syria. the issue is between the various Arab factions and Assad
I said it before, and I’ll say it again. There appears to be 3 sides to the Syrian war:
1) Basher Assad
2) ISIS
3) 50 college kids promising a thriving democracy
The first two sides are roughly equal, although ISIS has been getting the upper had lately, so Russia is helping out Basher.
The last group doesn’t have much of a chance and every time they get their hands on US weapons they hand them over to ISIS, in order to keep their heads on their shoulders. ISIS could wipe them out in 5 minutes, but they serve a function for ISIS, so they’re kept around - and we, LIKE TOTAL IDIOTS, keep thinking they can prevail. Needless to say, we support this third group.
The question for all you non-Trump people is why aren’t any Republicans, other than Trump, pointing out that we are simply ON THE WRONG SIDE here and that our side never had a chance.
I agree that the war is between these factions.
I don’t agree that I’ve been duped... the Arab factions that appear to be the strongest seem to also be the ones that are doing the ethnic cleansing.
Which monster to support? I’d go for stability, and while I’m at it, keep the Christians alive. Assad was awful, but it looks like the viable (by which I mean strongest) alternatives are worse.
“isolationist drivel, balderdascious claptrap”
Isolationism served us well for most of our history. The wars, squandered resources, and loss of blood in the 20th Century occurred due to our failure to heed the advice of our founders. What do we have to show for it?
Who cares even more reason for us to get our own oil and energy supply like we should have done years ago.
I’m afraid I would have to agree.
You are correct.
There may be a group of “freedom fighters” as Kerry etal like to call them, that are just trying to live happy lives and over throw Assad. Problem is we help them, then move on to somewhere else.... and ISIS or muslim brotherhood (assuming there’s a difference there) move in and take over because the government we leave behind is to weak to stand. Obammy knows this and it is part of his plan. The middle east needs strong, even barbaric leaders, to keep some form of order. And, we as a country have to find ways to get along with them.
Obammy knows the 50 college kids can’t hang on to their power, even if we put them in leadership. He knows that the end game is ISIS owning everything where there is a shortage of a strong leader.
I was trying to look it up to verify, but my Google game is weak this morning...lol!
Assad is infinitely better than ISIS. Assad is more secular and tolerated the Christians. They have money too. ISIS is far worse than Assad ever was.
At one time, that was universally understood and was our working principle. Back when adults and realists had control of the levers of power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.