You call it "enlightened despot" I call it "maniacal dictator". :D

Oh, we all would take that offer, right?

I'm quite aware that my own family traditions, as Americanized as they are, might be considered quite offensive to other thoroughly assimilated Americans.

If you ask me what I am, I will say "American", because, silly flag-waving aside, I love this country for what it is. When push came to shove and my great grand-parents were on the wrong side of the prevailing ethnicity in their homeland, America opened its doors for them. All four sets of my great-grandparents emigrated here in the 1890s. They didn't speak English. They took relatively menial jobs at first, then found their niches. One of my great grandparents became a tailor, and had the first "hit this sign and win a new suit" billboard at Ebbets Field. Or at least that's family lore (lord google says it's someone named Abe Stark at a much later date). I can't verify our claim. Nor can I sew worth a darn.

But I don't share religious tradition with other Americans, and that's frustrating for some of them. Maybe even rises past "annoyance" in some cases.

We can't ignore what our country has done in just a few hundred years. As far as developing new technology, we're like the Roman Empire these days. How have we done this? I'd say through immigration and true acceptance of diversity we've created an environment where we welcome innovation. Can't do that where the status quo is enforced and new knowledge is forbidden.

Like you, I'm worried that some of these values are being lost today. Higher education is in serious need of true reform, and the cost of not reforming may well already be our leadership in emerging technologies.

Sometimes my head hurts from going from one thread where Jon is espousing his Christian views, to another one where he advocates gunning down children. I'm all for upholding immigration laws, but I guess I'm not Christian enough to go all the way to defend our great nation.

Potatoe.

Pototoe.

Honestly, I don't think everybody would. Not if they really actually had to do it anyway. Hard decisions are a lost art, and turning easy decisions into hard ones is a growing trend.

Dan Quayle

I think more of the same. Nothing that surprises me.

Poll: Obama's approval rating hits all-time low | MSNBC

So basically

(1) the "do-nothing" tactic has damaged Obama's approval rating
(2) the democrats have successfully made the case to the public that the "do nothing" approach is a Republican ploy

I'd be willing to bet that the favorables for Obama/congressional Republicans/congressional Democrats correlate strongly along party lines.

Nothing new here. It doesn't really "mean" anything in the grand scheme of things IMO.

I hate Congress, not Obama

I hate politicians and the people who keep voting for the same ones over and over again and then are pissed because the politicians keep doing such a shitty job.

I was wondering why we are getting involved in this but its for the Kurds so I kinda agree

Obama Authorizes 'Targeted' Airstrikes in Iraq - NBC News

Okay, so Arbit/Ebril is the capital of Kurdistan and that's a primary reason why we are helping. The story of "we have an unique opportunity to prevent a massacre" didn't smell right to me.

I would have preferred if we could have built a coalition (even if just in name only) but hopefully we will have friends for life in Kurdistan.

Iraq Arms Kurds Against ISIS

Don't bother posting that in this thread you will eliminate 99% of the stuff they argue about.

Some pretty crazy shit happening in Iraq now.

Leader: ISIS is ‘Systematically Beheading Children' in 'Christian Genocide' | CNS News

Iraqi Official: Hundreds Of Yazidi Women Held Captive By Islamic State

U.S. airstrikes in Iraq begin - WMBFNews.com, Myrtle Beach/Florence SC, Weather

ISIS: Obama knows he can't fix Iraq (Opinion) - CNN.com

Islamic militants advance despite 2 rounds of US airstrikes | Fox News

I think we are committed to long term (Kurdistan at least). ISIS isn't going away soon and think our involvement will inevitably escalate.

Sustained airstrikes, cruise missiles and special ops are my preference. Hard to believe an airstrike here and there will do it. Don't know what anti-air capabilities they have but if they capture a US pilot(s), its not going to be pretty.

Obama should start building coalitions now.

I'd rather we have stayed the course and helped them out as a long-term friend, but I'm okay with quitting Iraq completely because they have done nothing but be a complete pain in the ass for decades...I'm against limited and worthless airstrikes to remind these terrorists that their real targets are American civilians. The whole reason we ever got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan was to ensure that 911 didn't happen again. Leaving the area to it's own devices and then pin-prick bombing them is just ridiculously stupid. Unless we have a policy in place to remove ISIS from power that is...which we don't.

Anyway, to be sure, it's escalating without our involvement right now.


Civilians Killed by month in Iraq due to hostilities

All the strikes will do is piss them off. If we do anything, it must be sustained. Not the lob a couple of bombs and missiles and the leave, which has been our MO too often.

This is exactly what I was afraid of when we pulled out. Not that we had the right plan for nation building either, but we left a power vacuum I the area which others are trying to fill.

In this instance I see an extremely limited mission intended to slow the advance & provide a little breathing room to those escaping. Almost Dunkirk-esque.

In & of itself I'm not necessarily critical of that.

The mistake, simply put, is in the fallacy that there's any realistic chance for most of the region to have autonomy without becoming problematic sooner rather than later. Either resign ourselves to prolonged & indefinite occupation or utterly & completely destroy it, leaving no stone stacked atop another. Anything else & we're just going to lather/rinse/repeat infinitely.

Agreed. That was why I was on board with the original plan to invade. It was a different approach which could have worked had we had an actual plan for what happened once we won.

We should have just given them a constitution like we did to Japan after WWII and imposed martial law until order was established. We have not learned the lesson that when one class ruled over another class for 20 years, you have 20 years of resentment built up, and the new guys in charge try to get their revenge.

This.

The Frontline episode a few weeks ago 'Losing Iraq' was excellent.

Yes, yes, and yes.

If we did martial law, it would have been unsustainable. There would have been uprisings that we would have to squash, more friendly and civilian deaths etc. The coalition of the willing would have fragmented. It would have been a rallying cry for extremists etc.

Some countries are not ready for US styled democracies. With that said, I think us "pre-determining" presidential elections (e.g. puppet dictator) may have worked.

That is basically what we did. I don't think there's any question that al-Maliki is there because we got him there.

Martial law is tolerable, if there is a plan. That is the key. You get people on board with this prior to enforcing it. You lay out the reasons why it is necessary. You don't need the entire coalition's buy in, just that of key players. You explain why you're not going to let one faction get their revenge. You explain why it is important to include all factions I government, etc. etc,

Something that is very concerning to me is the idea that every decision must be popular. Or that you must have 100% buy in to act upon something. Often times, the correct course of action is unpopular. We need more politicians that are not worried about how people will view the, short term and make decisions for the good of the country in the long term. This is part of the same issue that corporate America has currently with the board of directors and stock holders only worried about what the stock price is going to be tomorrow.

Don't think al-Maliki was our first choice. And if he was, he certainly wasn't our puppet.

Martial law is a step in the right direction, to be successful in building an Iraq government there would have to be a lot of unpopular actions that would only look right after years and knowing the disaster of what played out with our weak ass no plan corruption filled war we should never have been in.

Really what we did is we wasted a trillion plus dollars, numerous lives, and we have a situation that is probably more dangerous than if we did nothing at all. It would have been better to take a fraction of the military strength used and place it all in Afghanistan at the very start to make sure the terrorists were thoroughly destroyed. Then go home and spend a ton of money on intelligence and transportation safety (on that front we should have less frisking granny at the airport and more high powered databases and passenger screening from foreign countries to catch all of those people that were still flying despite being on no fly lists).

Islamic State Killed 500 Yazidis, Buried Some Victims Alive



Thousands Of Iraqi Yazidis Flee To Syria After Kurds Open Safe Passage

Women Stoned To Death In Syria For Adultery

Muslims are crazy sometimes. I mean, bat-shit crazy.

Ok, I get the first two as they are on a pretty massive scale.

But, the last? There are outliers in every society. I mean, we have a front page talking about how one sports figure might have ran over and killed another, we've certainly had religious zealots in this country kill people, and, heck, there's always Florida Man if you're looking for stupid things individuals do on a daily basis.

I think that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

SI

Some good news, hope it keeps up.

I don't have a good handle on how much ISIS is Iraqi Sunni or how much Iraqi Sunni support ISIS but, I doubt there can be reconciliation after this is over.

Kurdish Forces Seize Back Two Towns From Insurgents: Kurdish Official

Completely agree with this.


Completely disagree with this. Neither Germany nor Japan had 3 sectarian groups internally that had been at war for centuries who would fight each other during the reconstruction. Parallels to post-WWII are simply not helpful.

Your suggestion is wishful thinking at its very best, and that's even with you recognizing that the Bush Admin had absolutely no realistic plan for post-invasion Iraq.

Germany was split. Japan was not as you point out. Sure Germany had not been at war internally for centuries, but neither has Iraq. The Ottomans had the area under control for centuries.

I think you are terribly underestimating their ideals and desires if you think it was a random act of stupidity.

Not very presidential.

Exclusive: Obama Told Lawmakers Criticism of His Syria Policy is ‘Horsesh*t’ - The Daily Beast

Finally ... don't know what took so long.

Iraqi President nominates new Prime Minister - CNN.com

LMAO - really?

Give me a break.

a) "It's not confirmed" = it's just a mud-slinging rumor.
b) So what?

Your shtick is so tired.

Looks like someone's parents haven't given him the talk yet about how sometimes grown-ups use naughty words, but that doesn't mean you should repeat them in school.

You are seriously equating Iraq to Germany and Japan?

Germany was split? In what way? And note I'm talking about West Germany, as that's the one that was actually reconstructed. Was it split in the way Iraq was , with 3 different sectarian groups who had been fighting each other for centuries? Was Japan split by 3 different sectarian groups who had been fighting each other for centuries?

I'd be very interested in your evidence, as it would constitute a relatively significant re-thinking of 20th century history.


Same here. Unless by "under control" you mean "managed an area that continued to have significant local upheaval and also divided the area administratively along sectarian/demograhics lines".

We are starting to build a coalition which is good. Think the wait was due to uncertainty with Maliki which is now (hopefully) resolved with Iran backing off support for him.

BBC News - Iraq crisis: France to deliver arms to Iraqi Kurds

The good news is that Iran's helping out, instead of letting it be completely the US's problem. Given, however, that functionally Iraq is now a client Shiite state of Iran, it's hard to imagine how they're going to make peace with the Sunnis, especially since that whole "democracy" thing didn't keep them at the table. Obviously the terrorists of ISIS are at fault here, but the regular Sunnis have a somewhat unpalatable choice between Sunni terrorists and a legitimate Shiite government that can't project power and can't keep the peace.

Best case is an independent Kurdistan (hopefully Turkey keeps moving in a direction to allow this) and Iran becomes more and more involved, honestly.

ISIS has killed an American journalist-on video for the world to see:

ISIS beheading U.S. journalist James Foley, posts video - CNN.com

Wondering why ISIS seem to have this beheading fetish. Lots of discussions on the true interpretation on the below link but I think it basically goes back to historical examples and precedence.

Beheading in the Name of Islam :: Middle East Quarterly

Another data point and to help add context, I found out its not just ISIS

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...317907443.html

I'll go out on a limb now and guess that "random event by an extremist outlier" isn't the answer.

Yeah it's not just ISIS, it's still considered a "traditional" method of execution in many Middle Eastern countries, although I think Saudi Arabia is the only government that still carries it out AFAIK. I think that reason, as well as the graphic nature of it, is why the various terrorist groups have chosen it as the preferred method of spreading terror.

Far pre-dates the time Muhammad was supposed to have walked the Earth, and there were probably few quicker or 'better' (for want a better word) ways to dispatch beaten enemies pre-gunpowder.

So, the threats to shutdown the government have begun.

McConnell’s plan to shut down Obama - POLITICO.com Print View

Please, Republicans do so, it worked so well for you last time, and in no way, shape, or form, will harm your chances to actually take the Senate. :P

Yeah, ok then, Mitch "Our Primary Legislative Objective is to make Obama a One Term President" McConnell.

I feel like if you made a group like ISIS as the villian for a movie you would be told it was too unrealistic. These "people" are utter scum and I hope are wiped off the face of the planet.

A Hamas leader admits to kidnapping and killing the three Israeli's that kicked off this latest fight. Article says they really wanted them to exchange for prisoners but somehow they ended up dead.

Hamas needs a better PR person. Why say something that will leave you unsympathetic ... better to not say anything at all.

Hamas admits kidnapping Israeli teens | Arab News — Saudi Arabia News, Middle East News, Opinion, Economy and more.

I think Hamas has done well with PR outside of that. They somehow convinced a lot of people in this country to support them over Israel despite the fact they have a long storied history of terrorism.

This thing is getting out of control quick. With Iraq on the verge of failing completely as a democratic state, I'm not sure what the solution now will be for the Middle East, I get the feeling "their" people feel like they have nowhere to turn for help except by supporting ISIS...and it's quickly becoming at the expense of everybody else unfortunate to be anywhere near them.

U.N. warning over ISIS siege of town of Amerli in Iraq - CNN.com

Great they identified the killer. I predict a short life for him.

US, UK eye rapper as British-born militant who beheaded journalist James Foley | Fox News

Good Lord this is fucked up. It's not like Gillibrand was first elected in the fifties.

From Talkingpointsmemo:

I'm sure we won't get directly involved and we'll help where we can. Glad its not in our backyard and think it'll renew/strengthen the NATO bonds that went away with the old Cold War.

U.S. official says 1,000 Russian troops enter Ukraine - CNN.com

I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to Godwin this discussion but it seemed like a good mental jumping off point.

Looking at the news yesterday, one thing that came to mind was "What must the world have been thinking when the Germans went into Austria or the Sudetenland?" I was not alive then but I wonder if it was met with a very similar mix of disbelief, relief that it wasn't in our backyard, and feeling of global impotence that not much could be done about it

SI

I actually think this is one of the few times where the question is actually relevant and not actually a Godwin.

Yeah - add in a dose of "maybe if we let Putin have this one he'll quit being a problem" (aka appeasement) and I think you've probably hit it on the head.

I think there's a misguided belief that Hitler could have been stopped without war or with a much smaller war, but I don't see how that could have happened. I think the most likely outcome of a decision to block Hitler from the Sudetenland would have been an earlier start to a world war. What could the allies have done short of war that would have caused Hitler to back down? Now Chamberlin's statements look naive, but his action was probably the best he could do given his nation was even less prepared for war than they would be in 1939 and that his allies were far from united on the best way to deal with Germany.

In short, starting world war two over the Sudetenland would have been seen as insane by most of Europe. Further, if the war was seen as being started by the Allies, it would have made it that much more difficult for the U.S. to enter the conflict.

I would seriously question the revisionism of thinking that Austria or the Sudetanland were the optimal pro-active allied response. The re-armament of the Rheinland earlier on was a clear violation of the Versailles Treaty and would have required minimal response at a point when England and France had the upperhand militarily.

The problem with the Sudetanland as a jump point for WW2 was that the primary "ally" was the Soviets who were negotiating with Germany to carve up Eastern Europe between the two of them. So that would've have just been another starting point for the "phony war" (England and France declared war on Germany and there was little to no combat for 6 or 8 months).

Mostly the same with Austria, although by that point England and France could have possibly planned for the invasion of Germany while it was re-arming...it would have been a bloody war, but it's much more likely that it's regionalized to Europe. The weapons of those days favored the aggressors, so it may have been a better outcome as far as number of lives lost. The Germans didn't fair much better than the French when on the defensive after all.

Agree on this - the earlier rearmament (of the Rheinland and also of prohibited parts of the military, thinking esp. of the Luftwaffe although I don't recall which came first) were better trip-wire points where the Allies should/could have done something.

Obama better right the ship or else his second term and the foreign policy challenges and failures are going to really hurt his legacy. Lots of angst in the world.

I think Hillary is one lucky woman, she got out just in time. Kerry must be cursing her right now.

Why Obama’s ‘we don’t have a strategy’ gaffe stings - The Washington Post

I'll go ahead and give molson an aneurysm here and agree that the "we don't have a strategy" line is bad. If there's actually no strategy, or at least options on the table, then someone's not doing their job. If it's just a slip, then Obama's getting too casual, which isn't good either.

Don't kid yourself, Edward, though: Obama's legacy is already cemented. On the topic of foreign policy history will look back on a president who struggled with the legacy left by Bush and had to find solutions from a set of options limited by the misadventures of the 00s. On the topic of domestic policy it'll only be two things: passing Obamacare (and whatever that ends up creating for the future, good or bad) and recovering from the Great Recession. Everything else is noise that won't make the history books.

Pretty much agree with domestic policy (assuming immigration reform is dead).

On foreign policy, I think history books will be more critical than "struggled with legacy left by Bush". You can arguably put Iraq and Afghanistan in that camp but the argument is much weaker for Ukraine, ME, Syria and the new cold war with USSR.

Good news out of Iraq today, a key strategic victory is being claimed by the Iraqi military over ISIS.

ISIS siege of Amerli, Iraq, over after U.S. airstrikes - CNN.com

I met her (and not just a few second meet-and-greet). Politics aside, she's as "politician" as you can get, and seemed like she has a chip on her shoulder. Not a fan at all.

It was just the past month wasn't it.

Good news on Ameril. Assuming this trend continues where ISIS is beat back here and there, they'll eventually crumble back to Syria. If not already, we need to find out if any nation states are really supporting ISIS and publicize it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

I really dislike the media beating up on Presidents because they take breaks. I'm not opposed to him playing golf (they all do it) and it's because the President delegates to his vast array of teams to keep track of things that I'm okay with it. I'd rather him be sane and relaxed than a sleepless wreck trying to make decisions.

EDIT: oh, and on the "We don't have a strategy yet"....don't believe the hype. There is a strategy, maybe not a public one, but it exists, the military's job is to provide plans for everything (well, except an invasion of Canada apparently).

History will look upon the latest Israel-Palestinian thing as just a continuation, IMO. It might note that, if anything, Obama hasn't done what almost every single one of his predecessors did and that's to spend considerable time and political capitol trying to solve the peace process in his late second term.

I think you'll see history tie Syria and what else is happening in the ME, and the U.S.'s relative uninvolvement back to Iraq & Afghanistan, in the sense that Obama led a world power whose desire, and perhaps even ability, to project power in the region had been lessened considerably and some of this stuff has certainly gained momentum based on that vacuum.

What's happening in Ukraine is likely to reflect more on Europe than the U.S., especially since it mirrors Europe's similar inability to react in a timely manner to, say, the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

The Cold War with Russia? To date, if you look closely, Obama's successfully let Putin have enough rope to hang himself. In all likelihood Putin's hubris has bought himself a painful war of attrition that looks like it's actually going to result in economic sanctions from Europe. And the conflict and Putin's handling of it have already hit Russian markets and GDP badly.


So, are you implying that she's making this stuff up?


I don't often agree with Dutch, but when I do.... :D

The cognitive dissonance from Americans on this remains interesting. Many Americans, especially white collar ones, routinely work effectively at places besides their offices. Executives definitely do. And the President has access to more people and technology for the purpose of working anywhere than they do.


Oh, I bet that have that one too, but it probably amounts to crossing the border and asking nicely. Probably don't even have to do that if it's after the hockey team winning a major tournament.

Qatar seems to be disproportionately influential for its size and seem to work against our interest and we don't import alot of oil from them. Seems as if we could find a way to keep them in check.

BBC News - Islamic State: Where does jihadist group get its support?

Can't the same be said of the U.S.?

Oh great, lets add Pakistan to the list. Obama can't seem to catch a break on international issues.

Pakistan’s Sharif clings to power as protesters step up assault - The Washington Post

And on top of that Edward, a second American journalist has been beheaded by ISIS:

ISIS video shows beheading of Steven Sotloff - CNN.com

Should that include those countries that pay ransoms? It's impossible to know for sure how much of ISIS funding is based on ransoms, but it could be a lot. French media reported that France paid $28 million for four hostages. That was to a "an al Qaeda affiliate", but who knows how many other ransoms France and others have paid. (The NY Times reported that France has paid $58 million altogether).

It seems that these 3 voluntarily went into North Korea and got "detained". NK is holding them hostage to force the US to send an envoy and start talking about whatever.

Unless there is more to the story, I don't think the US should be held hostage to folks that go into NK and get detained. What were they thinking? Now they want the US to bail them out.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/..._campaign=news

Sure lets publicize those also but I don't think they equate to national governments supposedly sponsoring terrorists.

I get the article seem to say that Turkey, Qatar and SA were eager to get rid of Assad and therefore supporting his enemies and it led to indirect support of ISIS.

Wasn't Obama criticized for not wanting to actively support groups in Syria because we didn't know who were the good vs bad anti-Assad troops? Also, it seems that ISIS seemed to pick up steam in Iraq after Assad turned the tide ... so the various groups went to an easier fight.

Obama to send approximately 350 additional military personnel to Iraq | Fox News

And lets not forget Libya.

Missing Libyan Jetliners Raise Fears of Suicide Airliner Attacks on 9/11 | Washington Free Beacon

Don't know if this is the all-things-red-state-blue-state thread, but worth noting that 538's Senate predictions came out today with the GOP given ~ 2/3 chance of taking control of the chamber.

It will be fun to see left wing pundits calling Silver a hack and right wing pundits calling him a sage. And then each going back to the 2012 election discussion of Silver to show how the other side is being hypocritical.

:(

Long odds to fight against.

I don't think it really matters if the GOP takes the Senate. Obama still has the veto pen, he's not running for re-election (unless you believe the tin foil hat crowd), nothing too bad can happen.

2016 looks better for Dems and the Senate, starting with getting that doofus Ron Johnson out of office.

(and I'm feeling a glimmer of optimism that Scott Walker will be going down this fall for WI governor)

So I don't get ISIS. I don't believe for a second the people approving these beheadings thinks it's going to do anything other than have us destroy them. So I have to expect they want us to attack, right? Beyond wanting more local American targets to shoot at what's the benefit? Are there other nations pulling the strings trying to get us in another draining war?

I feel like Obama has the answers to all of these questions, but he is just naturally a horrible leader and also seems to suffer from analysis paralysis. I used to be a supporter of his, so disappointing.

It's a big-time recruitment tool in the Muslim world. They paint themselves as the underdog getting a strike against the people in power. They need all the people they can get and this is a relatively easy way to strike big blows and get more people to believe in their cause.

Yes, I actually had read that as well. Ultimately a Hail Mary I suppose, so to speak. Their long term prospects of success aren't high, though we will likely pay a price of our own ensuring that.

It's certainly a convenient distraction.

I agree its more of a recruitment tool by showing potential recruits that they can stand up against the US.

However, I don't think its obvious that long term prospects of success aren't high. I do think sooner or later ISIS will give back a lot of the ground they gained but there's a fair chance they can hold some territory if (1) Iraq is still dysfunctional, army is inept (2) US don't put boots on the ground (3) Syrian civil war continues to distract.

Even if they lose all territory, ISIS will continue to exist to be a thorn until the top leaders are killed and they fragment into smaller groups.

So, it looks like the Circuit decision that federal ACA Subsidies are illegal has been vacated (Halbig) and will be re-heard by the full District Court, which is expected to lean towards saying they're legal.

This removes the fast-track to Supreme Court hopes that split Circuit Opinions would have provided.

And he's guilty.

A couple of years ago I thought he was a lock for the 2016 nomination.

Oh, well.

Pretty good news.

BBC News - US confirms al-Shabab leader Ahmed Godane killed

I don't remember any liberals trashing Silver in 2010 and I don't see any doing that now.

And anyway, Silver's gay, so the chance right wing pundits say anything nice about him is probably about, say, oh, 0%.

It will be interesting to see 538 post-Kansas.

Well..Kansas is going to weird considering the Secretary of State has ruled that the democrat must stay on the ballot which means that Republican candidate has a better shot at winning

But that's going to court and even with the ballot issues, Roberts can't get out of the thirties in polling. Should be really interesting.

I'm not usually big on the "gotcha" videos that I see but this one is pretty funny. Skip to the end if it seems repetitive after a few clips because it is the same over and over but the end is classic politician. (And I am a big supporter of the '08 Obama Middle East policies

Yup, flubbed that one plus "no strategy"

*citation required*

I like the creation of the coalition. Seems that France is pretty serious, UK will stick with us in the end and Turkey will have to, at the very least, shore up their flank.

Its telling there are no Arab states.

I sometimes wish we had established Kuwait as a long term protectorate (or whatever wording we needed to come up with). Right after the first gulf war, I doubt many would have argued to that.

U.S. Forming 'Core Coalition' To Battle Islamic State Militants In Iraq

Nobody, except every Kuwaiti.

I guess I'm a non-interventionist conservative. From Daniel Larison: