You really think that right after the first gulf war?

Yeah. What country wants to give up it's independence?

Wouldn't they have just traded one foreign rule (Iraq) for another (USA)?

SI

I suppose some history is worth repeating: e.g., Marshal Plan.

It's not like they agreed to be ruled by Saddam. We certainly had the power to take over, but there's no doubt that it would have been a hostile occupation.

At that time, we kicked out Saddam but and Iraq would still have been a threat if the US left the region. There was a time when the Kuwaiti's would have wanted US to stay to protect them.

I think an "agreement" to stay for x years to protect them would have been welcome.

That's basically what happened, but that's a much different agreement than being a protectorate. The Kuwaitis weren't interested in letting the U.S. have control of internal or diplomatic affairs as is implied by being a protectorate.

Is that what they would have said before the US came in to kick out Saddam? Don't think so, they would have agreed to anything. There was an opportunity to strengthen our hold in Arabian peninsula when they were running scared.

So the plan would be to subjugate at the end of a gun?

You don't think that might have had unintended consequences?

There's always unintended consequences. The path we took didn't turn out so well either.

I think my point is the Kuwaiti's would not have considered it subjugation at the end of gun at that period, they would have viewed us as reclaiming their land and protecting them for x years.

I can't imagine they would have looked at it any differently than the Iraqis did a decade later.

Dude - it's the White Man's burden...we've got to civilize the world - at the barrel of our guns if that's what it takes.

:banghead:

If you don't see the difference between how the Kuwaiti's in the first gulf war vs Iraq in the second gulf war would see it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Putting it here because it's politically related. Big WTF to Romney over his comments in the Fox News interview yesterday.

Dear Mitt, this governor is a swindler and a crook. "Family tragedy"? "Sympathies"? You've seriously lost your mind.

I guess what he's saying is that we can't know if that's what knocked McD off his shortlist or what, but the fact that he can't just means that he opens himself up to attacks if/when he chooses to run for something again that (a) he was okay with it, or (b) his vetting process sucked so much that he didn't uncover it.

I have more of a problem with the fact that he simply didn't call a spade a spade. Makes me think he's considering running for something if he's going to sugar coat it that much.

I think that's basically my point too?

But at the same time I don't think it's a very wise stance to take if he is going to run.

IIRC, the "vetting process" starts after the shortlist is assembled. The short list is assembled on political/demographic/geographic/fundraising criteria. The the "vetting process" begins, which gets (quite extensively) into all the other stuff, including especially any skeletons in the closet. Given everything that happened, it's quite likely that this knocked McD off the short list.


Your outrage is justified, but it's not particularly common for politicians of the same party to denounce each other in public. Especially politicians like Romney who try and present a genial / patrician kind of image.

Oh I agree that's probably the case - but my point is that by not coming out and saying at least "Well we uncovered some troubling things and that's why he didn't advance further in our process" he opens himself up to attack my (D)'s and fellow (R)'s during any future campaigns. Then again - I suppose if he comes out and says he uncovered it he opens himself up to criminal charges - at least more political attacks.

I think it was probably this

Right, it's no-win. That, plus the general precedent that what happens in vetting sessions (which have been very thorough in the past decade and a half, if not a bit longer) stays confidential, means the right decision is to say as little as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romney fan. But I don't think he did a lot wrong here.

Did other people know ISIS was pronounced isul?

There is ISIS and ISIL.

Obama is intentionally avoiding the word ISIS.

I think ISIL is a more accurate translation, but Americans don't know what the hell is meant by the Levant, so many places substitute Syria.

As for the content of the speech, it's so fucking depressing. No real strategy, endless war, no Congressional vote(not that they have the stones to do anything other than bitch afterwards), and a shaky coalition at best.

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

++ @ JPhillips

:lol:

Why??

Jeezus.

WOOO MORE WAR

//sarcasm

///tired of fucking war

////brother is doing ROTC @ college

Yes it's fucking disgusting. Don't tell me that the speech just happened to fall in the eve of 9-11 either. Sadly we are far outnumbered by the "kill all Muslums" voting block in both parties.

Oh of course not - we all know it was 100% planned that way. Cheap political jingoistic heartstring-tugging bullshit.

Anyone know where I can get one of those "no blood for oil" bumper stickers these days?

But we probably don't want to consider that ISIS/ISIL grew in prominence at this point in an election cycle either.

Or that a senior Homeland Security official confirmed to a Senate panel yesterday that the group was actively encouraging infiltration of the U.S. via our southern border. Successful prevention of a terrorist operation at the border would provide the opportunity to gain political capital at a useful point in the election cycle.

I'm probably in the top 5% of President Obama supporters. I think that he's been the best president in my lifetime (born 1976).

But I am amazingly disappointed in his approach to ISIS/ISIL. If they are not that big of a deal, then do not commit us to some sort of vague open-ended engagement in the Middle East to accomplish "something something mumble mumble TERRORISM." We've been doing that for far too long already.

If they are that big of a deal and that big of a threat then go to Congress and make your case. I am not interested in the semantics of whether military actions here would technically fall under the post-9/11 AUMF. This is the exact sort of thing that, semantics aside, should be for Congress to authorize.

Tell them what you want to do. Tell them why you need to do it. Tell them where you need to do it. And provide (to the extent possible) what will constitute the end of the hostilities. And then let them say yes or no.

I am not privy to the classified intel. It may very well be that it is in America's best interest to attack there before they attack here. But if it is, then MAKE THAT CASE. And not with vague PR briefings.

Agree 100%, albionmoonlight.

Totally agree.

Although I think at this point my ME foreign policy would either be
1. Quarantine the region and let Sunni/Shiite fight to the death and then deal with whoever's left once they're beaten up. And "deal with" could mean peaceful engagement to annihilation. Whatever they want.
2. Bomb the whole damn region back to the Stone Age starting tomorrow. Indiscriminately basically. Whole nother set of Crusades. Get the Russians behind it and just fucking deal with the whole thing once and for all.

I'm not really a violent person, but I'm beyond tired of the open-ended nature of our involvement in the region. I'd compromise my normally non-violent ethos in exchange for a permanant solution to that whole issue.

I don't see any of the "slow play" policies we've pursued in the region having had positive effects. Strongman governments okay, but the populace is just ripe for radicalization for a number of different reasons.

And yes, this post is an extreme, venting-style post, not really a serious policy suggestion.

And I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to Obama, I think he's been the second worst (and 2nd most dangerous) occupant of the Oval Office in history ... but I really don't have an issue with an executive rather than Congressional approach here.

Assuming compelling evidence exists for a moment, it's reasonable to believe that large chunks of it are classified. I don't really trust Congress, nor even a select committee to not leak details that could be dangerous or damaging for political gain. And that's a finger I'm definitely pointing at members of both parties.

And I say that even as someone who feels like there is a pretty good chance that ISIS/ISIL is a Wag The Dog operation & that we're manipulating events as much or more than they are.

I have not really been following the ISIS stuff, so I'm confused on what's happening.

What is their goal? It seems to me by doing the public beheadings they want US and other countries to attack them. But it seems far from an even fight. I imagine the US bombings will cause a massive amount of damage and lost lives, is this what they wanted?

It seems different than Afghanistan in that they are not necessarily fighting on or for historically controlled land.

It makes me wonder if there are other goals in place. Such as being a money making opportunity for a few people. Or, a wag the dog enemy created by Assad, Egypt, etc. Or knowing there is going to be a massive realignment of Iraq and they want to get their share (Berlin-like).

I think it's just the classic Russians in Afghanistan/Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan strategy. Superpower economies can be damaged by getting involved in these kinds of wars. From an ISIS perspective, I'm sure one of the hopes is that the U.S. is only one more of these wars away from maybe not being a superpower anymore. And even though they'd take many losses in the meantime, the next wave of their brand of fundamentalism would be even stronger, with less American resistance. Which would open the door to more control over the middle east. I know there's lots of shorter-term regional goals too, but targeting America I think is mostly about that.

They are fighting to form a caliphate, which, depending on which time in history you are looking, covered most of the area they are currently in, as well as what is now Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I'm sure they know it is an uneven fight, but martyrdom isn't a deterrent to them.

Boehner hits Obama for ruling out boots on the ground - CNN.com

Oh goody, the "boots on the ground" hawks have started banging the drums already.

//sigh

Eh, realistically that's going to be what it takes to take them out completely.
Whether it's our or somebody else's.

Our air + regional troops (the ever popular "coalition" scenario) might manage it.

Otherwise, eh, you're just annoying them for ever how long you'll use the airstrikes, you won't eliminate them with it.

I understand the reality of the situation - just don't like it.

Would much rather do one of the two options I posted above then see another US soldier on the ground as part of this never-ending, undefined, "war on terror."

We've spent, what, decades, trying to take them out completely. There's enormous value in keeping this fight off of American soil, but let's not imagine for a second that we can do anything to eliminate religious extremism.

There are 60-70 countries in this world (out of close to 200) experiencing some form of civil war. All but a handful are at war with one of dozens of Islamic extremist groups.

Obama is right, this isn't Islam we're fighting. It's a form of extremism that crops up everywhere that has very little to do with the tenets of one particular religion.

Obama took sides in the Egypt mess, and the result was Morsi. Egypt is only starting to recover from that disaster. Better to evaluate every individual instance on its own and not have an overriding "plan" that will be obsolete by the time it's formulated.

The worst thing to do, though, is pick a side and add weapons. Those arms invariably change hands and make the next conflict that much worse. Obama's biggest mistake wasn't in leaving Iraq, it was in how he left Iraq.

Indeed. The most frustrating thing is this constant game of wack-a-mole, and its almost impossible to know who is going to pop up where, even in places we think are fine (seriously - 5 years ago who thought all this crap was going to happen in Syria?).

Hey, I've been a proponent of the "black glass" approach for many years. My only hesitancy is fallout, making the region one of the best arguments ever for enhanced neutron bomb capability.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that what we have done has "kept the fight off of American soil". In fact, the fact that we have been active in the region for decades and still had 9/11 and 7/7 points to the contrary.


All of this, though, I agree with 150%.


If you think we have problems with extremists now, wait until you do this.

It's interesting how far apart WWJD and WWJMGD are.

While I'm with John on being on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to Obama (and I'm younger than you, ablion), I appreciate your thoughts on the process.

I'd be curious who your worst president in history is.

EDIT: My guess would be Carter but I'm not certain it'd be right

SI

In history? My guess would be he'd say Lincoln...

I don't know JohnInMiddleGA well, but if he says Obama is second worst/most dangerous president in history, using that terminology, I would guess Woodrow Wilson would be a guy in the running for No. 1.

FDR might also be up there...

ALRIGHT JON - SETTLE THIS!!!!

WHO'S YOUR MOUNT RUSHMORE OF WORST PRESIDENTS

What the hell is Mouth Rushmore?

well played. Fixed.

Spot on.

Although it's probably fair to say that I'm judging him on the context of his entire body of work, including the post-Presidency phase.

And for the double dolla ... the whole Lincoln vs FDR for 3rd & 4th place. Yikes.
That's the sort of question that might keep me awake at nights trying to decide.

My instinct is to lean toward Lincoln 3rd since, without him, FDR's damage might not have even been possible.

If I were to put an aggressively active and "successful" Lincoln and FDR among the worst, I would find it hard to put, by comparison, a passive and ineffective Obama and Carter above them.

I tend to think any president can, and should, be on a worst list. Just for the fact that we know pretty much everything they did and thought everyday of their presidency, there's bound to be some awful stuff they did and believed.

Looking at my rank order I really wondered whether I was being unduly influenced by recency. I tentatively settled on "probably, but with at least some reasoning behind it".

The longer a nation endures, the larger it's net worth (for lack of a better phrase on a tired & sleepy Friday afternoon). There's more at risk to be damaged in other words.

Yeah, this unexpected sidebar has me totally wondering if I should revise my rankings (even my logic behind Lincoln "ahead" of FDR would seem to support a revision).

Harumph. Assholes, the lot of you ;)

I'm too tired & in too bad of a mood today to contemplate this as much as it deserves.

I googled "mouth rushmore". Found many people making a spelling error, and absolutely zero president-themed porn. Bummer.

Wow. Epic fail by the internet.

I'm kind of stunned, to be honest. So much for rule 36.

I guess its about to become Gulf War 3 sometime soon.

It would be nice if we get a lot of credit and goodwill in squashing ISIS and the Iraqi Sunni's (it is predominantly the Sunni's I think) but that never seems to work out in the Muslim world.

If Obama can pull this off, form a coalitions where we support the Iraqi's and Kurd's to fight the ground war and successfully degrades ISIS, I think it'll be a good precedence.

BBC News - Islamic State crisis: Australia to send 600 troops to UAE

Everything is awesome
Everything is cool when you're part of a team
Everything is awesome, when we're living our dream

Blue skies, bouncy springs
We just named you awesome things
A nobel prize, a piece of string
You know what's awesome, EVERYTHING

Who's in for the mine detecting dolphins? There's no coalition without mine detecting dolphins.

I'm okay with this. This is pretty clear cut to me that the US is only one of a few countries that can make a real difference. I hope its really a plan and execution vs just money. Definitely a humanitarian crisis but national security seems to overplay it (unless it goes airborne I guess).

Obama to dispatch millions of dollars to fight Ebola | MSNBC

I think the "national security" part is overdoing it. The thing that draws me up short most here though is putting 3,000 military personnel at increased risk for minimal U.S. interests.

The thing that cracks me up is how there has been a discussion about fast tracking the experimental medication for Ebola and bypassing some of the FDC hurdles to get it approved. Sounds just like Phalanx in WW-Z.

Let's see...uninsured rate drops to the lowest level since they started doing this version of the survey back in 1997:

Uninsured Rate Drops To Lowest Level Since The '90s

Interesting blog posting by Phil Birnbaum on income equality and its rate of change: Sabermetric Research

As good a thread for this as any I guess:

re: Biden's "shylocks" gaffe

I don't know that I ever consciously thought of that word -- in modern usage (which seems kinda rare to begin with) -- as being particularly/specifically about a race. More about a behavior, at least that's how I react to it.

Am I way off here?

Without clicking on the link, I have no idea what a shylock is nor do I ever recall hearing the word.

Just in case anybody wants the refrence

I think Jews typically don't appreciate references to that character.

Shylock is portrayed in a very anti-Semitic manner as was the typical attitude in Elizabethan England. It's hard to even produce Merchant because of how offensive the character is. It's now generally done as either a statement on the dangers of antisemitism or as a history piece of long abandoned attitudes.

In short, it's very offensive, basically the same as calling a black man Buckwheat.

edit: I'm also willing to believe Biden didn't mean to offend and didn't understand the context of the word. He should have, but lots of people don't.

I'm not sure that excuse went over too well for Julianne Hough and blackface...

I think where I am is "knowing the origins ... but no longer making the ethnic association with it"

I might be in the minority about that, that's pretty much why I posed the question.

That was quite some insight to have the day after the fact, when everybody was still scrambling to nail down the most basic facts about the attack.

That's where I am too. I don't think Biden is anti-semitic. But when you're VPOTUS you really need to take better care of the language you use.

That goes for everybody actually.

I think there's a degree of obviousness that you're missing. Shylock is a fairly uncommon word and therefore it's reasonably plausible that he didn't know or think about the connotations about using the word. Hell, I had a number of southern colleagues say they didn't realize that "Jew you down" was a negative connotation (more likely they just didn't think hard about their own ignorance or bigotry).

However, it's very difficult to think that in this day and age that someone dressing in blackface wouldn't know it's offensive. That's like calling someone a "chink" or "kike" and then claiming that they didn't know those terms were offensive. It's possible...but quite unlikely. That's one that she could/should have known.

By the way, this doesn't entirely excuse Biden, but intent does matter here.

A little surprised at how willing they are as France's border is more vulnerable. I wonder what type of quid pro quo was arranged.

France Strikes Islamic State Group In Iraq

Eh? France's border is more vulnerable to what?

I'm not so sure. I mean...how many times do you recall seeing blackface in the past 10 years? 20? 30? It's been out of practice for long enough that if not specifically educated on it, you might not know it's a thing.*

As for Shylock...well, Joe knew enough to know that it was a cultural reference as someone who is cheap, which is more than probably 95% of the population. But no, I don't necessarily expect him to know the exact derivation of the term - but everyone these days seems to expect that of other insensitive references.


* There are things that fall out of the cultural lexicon. A couple of weeks ago, someone on FB ranted against the educational system because his kid didn't know who Robin Hood was. Which was silly, because RH is not historical, and he's not really literary either. It's a legend that lived on verbally and then through movies. If you weren't aware of those movies, you wouldn't have known about the character. I think the same can be argued for blackface. If it's not taught as part of a history class - and there are many, many things that are not and I don't doubt that this would be one - you picked it up from where, a weekend airing of The Jazz Singer? Oh, Ted Danson and the Whoopi thing? How many 20-somethings know they went out? Heck, how many even know who Ted Danson is?

I admit I knew the cultural reference of shylock, but not the ethic reference within it.

Color me surprised.

Vice President Joseph Biden 'Shylock' Gaffe: Shakespeare to Slur


If it "fell out of casual use in conversation and print" in the 70s, yes - I can see how our generation and beyond may not understand the connotation (now, Biden is considerably older than we are...).

The character of Shylock is interesting in the Merchant of Venice, because while he is this loathsome Jewish moneylender who demands a pound of flesh from his debtor (which is where that idiom comes from), he also has the quite touching "If you prick us, do we not bleed" soliloquy.

However, in the end, the crafty Jew is outsmarted and part of his penalty is to convert to Christianity.... You can see how that may be offensive...

The Nazi's apparently used Shylock in their propaganda.

Isn't that often the case was older people make race- or sexual orientation based gaffes? That those people are ignorant and out of touch? it doesn't often shield them for criticism.

I agree that intent should matter when we're judging people, but it does seem to matter a lot less depending on who the speaker is and what they're being ignorant about. If this was some old dope saying something racially ignorant, the voices of criticism would be a lot louder and more widespread.

To extremists slipping in?

How is that different than the other EU members that are part of the coalition? Why is France special in that regard?

They attacked first so I think it probable that ISIS would respond to that first.

You know, Biden just needs to take a break:

Joe Biden Praises Bob Packwood At Women's Event - Business Insider

Lots of talking heads criticizing Obama's plan. I think Afghanistan and Bosnia have shown that special forces, unrelenting air strikes and indigenous forces on the ground (e.g. Kurds) can turn the tide so I'm good with it.

But never thought the "no boots on the ground" excluded special forces on the ground but the article seems to indicate other wise. If that's the case, I can see where air strikes could be less effective.

All in all, I don't think its uncommon for military generals to disagree (esp retired ones) with a president (regardless of administration).

Rift widens between Obama, U.S. military over strategy to fight Islamic State - The Washington Post

I wonder what % really believes this. If its truly the majority, we might as well pack it up and just watch from the Kurdish sidelines.

Log In - The New York Times

Well, it would follow the CIA's typical modus operandi, unless one feels they've changed their tactics in the 21st century.

I've heard far crazier notions, it's what I've suspected -- at least to some extent -- from the first big media push about ISIS, just tbh.

:rolleyes:

Sigh.

Did you even read flere's post that illustrates some possible logic for such a notion.

Or did you just jump straight to trolling me ?

Of course I read it. I didn't read the NYT article so I'm not sure what sort of "evidence" they put forth, but to say "it's what I've suspected" is pretty conspiracy-theory nutty I think.

The article doesn't give us anything new. Hard not to understand the perspective in Iraq. When an outsider takes sides, even if it's not a side you prefer, the balance of power shifts.

While the US didn't directly create ISIS, the Bush invasion created a power vacuum, and the Obama withdrawal created an opportunity. It's likely that because we've taken sides in past conflicts - usually against the more secular dictator-type - that we've armed and aided pieces of what ISIS is today.

I don't think it's conspiracy nut time to say that ISIS wouldn't exist if not for US interference. It would be to say that this was our goal from the beginning.

Stupidity led to this situation. Our practice of anointing leaders based on 30-second sound bytes and a win-at-all-costs two-party system rather than intelligence, understanding and experience.

That's all fair enough. I completely agree with that - it's common sense.

I don't agree with some "wag the dog" style conspiracy type thing, which I presumed is what the article (and Jon) were getting at.