Somewhere I saw CNN Turkey had a flight path for the Russian jet that was clearly partially in Turkish airspace. This almost certainly gets worked out, but a NATO member shooting down a Russian plane does make me nervous.

Putin's been testing his limits, much like a toddler. Now he knows where they are.

Insanely reckless behavior ... from the same nation that boos the moment of silence for the Paris victims.

Yeah, no idea what the Turks are thinking on this one. Mindblowingly stupid from a nation that probably shouldn't be in NATO anyway. Any progress that has been made on bringing Russia into the fold against ISIS lost and a dangerous escalation. If Russia starts bombing the Turkmens now which I have no doubt Putin will do this could get really messy

So Turkey should give up it's airspace to Russia? There are International Laws that simply must be followed.

Russia follows those rules when they are on the other side...they destroyed a civilian Korean airliner in 1983 for going into Russian territory on accident killing all on board.

Also, apparently Turkey repeatedly asked Russia to stop violating it's airspace and the Russians basically told them to fuck off.

Yeah. I'm not sure the Turks are really to blame here. Sure they could have allowed it, but this has been happening repeatedly and they've made requests to stop and threats to shoot down.

Really? I figured of all people you'd be the one that was all gung ho that they were standing up and defending their airspace and sovereign rights. It's right up your mental process of shoot first ask questions later. Why all the hate when someone finally does it?

Why feel sorry for the Russians in this instance? They've made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. I mean, here's a country that is constantly antagonizing their neighbors. Invaded another with the Crimea annexation, violates waters and airspace constantly and now you feel sorry for them? Whatever. This is the same country that shot down a 747 with passengers on it because it violated their airspace. At least this was a fighter jet.

You can't just pick and choose what rules to follow and then get pissed when someone holds you to it. You of all people should understand that logic.

If true, more escalation.

Obama can't catch a break internationally.

Russian rescue helicopter 'shot down by Syrian rebels' while searching for pilots of plane downed by Turkey - Mirror Online

It's okay, not like his record on foreign policy can get any worse than it already is.

Because the Russians are actually doing something the needs doing.

Fuck the Turks and their 96-98 percent Muslim population. Aside from the (literal) fallout, I don't give a damn if Putin nukes the whole country into fucking dust.

Damn, I might actually have to call you a Communist sympathizer now.

Propping up Syria's Muslim government?

Well, I'm going to have to distance myself from Jon after his follow up, but a couple of things that are food for thought. Turkey under the current president are not a cuddly pro-western country by any means, and if they didn't sit in such a critical location for the EU and NATO in the current landscape I wonder if we wouldn't have a bit more to say about how they've treated the Kurds, or that nasty bit about the Armenian genocide or the fact that they aren't exactly a bastion of women's rights either. And secondly, even if you buy Turkeys flight path they put out that jet was in Turkish airspace for seconds.

All things considered, yeah I'd rather be bringing Russia back into the fold than backing Turkey on this one.

Right on cue, Obama backs his Muslim friends in Turkey.

Who would have ever though it possible that a U.S. President would be the sack of shit and a damned Russian would be the guy with a clue?

C'mon, yeah, the US is just going to back the crazy, ex - KGB agent/dictator who has been working to rebuild the Steel Curtain and prop up his allies, attack his neighbors, and make sure that his best friends are now the richest men in the country while the rest of the country doesn't really get a say one way or the other as long as they have some food in the grocery.

So yeah, he's going to be the US's new best friend, and that whole NATO ally since 1952 is out. So what if they aren't the same now and by and large, are great big pains in the ass, but they still have to honor the treaty. Unless you like your leaders to be disloyal, self centered, self aggrandizing, backstabbing, motherfuckers. Oh wait...

The Turks aren't "real" Muslims (aka Raving fucking mad lunatics)...according to Arab Muslims anyway....so we can be cool with them.

+1 to Dutch & JPhillips here. As I said previously, Putin had been pushing the limits to see where the were for the past few months (years?) and it was about time a NATO member showed him where they were.

Does this mean I get to call Jon a Neville Chamberlain now?


Putin's aggressive actions in Syria have now a) committed him to a potential quagmire and b) got him a shot down plane. Somehow you call this a problem for Obama?

Because they are Muslim and Jon is a bigot. It's pretty simple.

Yup. Putin and Obama's problems are not mutually exclusive.

This is an absolute clusterwhatever. Under Erdogan, the Turks have made significant moves toward establishing an Islamic state. Serious human rights abuses. This has stalled progress toward getting into the EU, but they're still in NATO somehow, rather than just being an affiliate of NATO, which would be more appropriate.

The conflict with the Russians is serious. The Turks don't like Alawite Shi'ite Muslims one bit. Under this silly duck-in, duck-out thing the Russians are doing lately, shooting down that jet was monumentally stupid.

It might be a good thing for us, because it distracts the Russians and might force what has been a difficult relationship with the Turks lately closer to us, but it is bad for the stability of the region and makes it a little bit harder to focus on ISIS.

Obama for now has sided with the Turks on this. I think it's a reasonable stance under the circumstances. Anything else, and it looks like, once again, Putin is pwning Obama. We "won" the cold war because the USSR extended itself absurdly. Putin senses weakness and thinks he can restore the USSR. Standing up to him will make that a lot more difficult.

So the clusterwhatever has its negatives and positives. I'm just glad it wasn't the UK or Finland that shot down the jet.

Great that UK is supporting France. I do think it will make the UK a "bigger" target but the UK is a target already.

David Cameron says Syria action would be in the UK's national interest - BBC News

The last paragraph is pretty telling about not wanting to get into another quagmire and I do think the European allies should be leading with the US fully supporting.

Log In - The New York Times

FWIW, here's the Obama doctrine on foreign policy.

Obama Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those last two sentences from the wikipedia article you quote are highly, highly subjective.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya...

How many wars do we need to be a part of until we're sufficiently interventionist?

What the fuck is wrong with people?

I assume that this is the same incident as this?

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2...f-irving.html/

Yes.

How is this any different than the terror tactics used by the Klan?

I'm fine with gun ownership, but this kind of implied threat should be illegal.

Interesting dilemma with what Obama is juggling with.

On one hand, it seems the country supports additional ground troops. I think if it become drawn out and body counts are filling our screen nightly, the support will crumble. However, it may be relatively quick if there is enough troops.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/isis-obama-poll/

On the other hand, he is concerned about it further inflaming the region and renewing supports/enlistment of fanatics.

Log In - The New York Times

Probably explains why the seemingly half hearted attempts and indecisiveness.

All that shows me is how soon this populace forgets the morass & quagmire for which we are too often "prepared" to sign up.

"Enough troops"? What does that mean? Are we really prepared to send several hundred thousand troops (what it might need based on our Iraq experience)?

I think in this case is most Americans see ISIL as a direct, clear and present danger.

IMO, it is better to bomb, support, reinforce allies (e.g. Kurds), share intelligence and "contain" them until they fall apart from within. One way or another, its going to be messy and too slow for some.

Obama is not in a good spot.

Regardless of what one may think we *should* do, I don't think there's any question that Obama's policies are out of step with the current mood/will of the people. Polls indicated that nearly 2/3 of Americans disapprove of his handling of ISIS before San Bernardino, and that number seems pretty much certain to increase with this week's speech basically saying "we're going to keep doing what we've been doing" after San Bernardino. Politically, he's in a terrible spot. He doesn't have to get re-elected, but his party's members of Congress certainly do. You think D candidates ran away from Obama in 2014 and Rs from Dubya in 2008? If something doesn't change significantly in the next 8-9 months, this is shaping up to be more along the lines of Peter/Jesus. ;)

It's so simple to say that the path is the wrong path. Aside from Cruz, there is not one person out there saying what the right path is. They don't want to, it's a political minefield if they do. Because the second they commit to something the public has to stomach the idea of what that truly means. Then there will be the questions of long term planning and what might actually get worse. There isn't a soul out there who is going to say what the public is feeling.

For example, if I said we need 300,000 troops to dismantle all of ISIS, and take down Assad, and set up a puppet government based on US law and maintain a new standard in the Middle East to protect the homeland it would be laughed out of the park. Even though it's what I'm hearing from some people. I'm pretty sure that they think that there is no cost associated with that at all. Or that any operation is worth the price and cost on the rest of the country. The cost of Afghanistan and Iraq 4-6 TRILLION. That makes fixing problems at home child's play. That is an untenable about of money over the long term for the people of this country.

The people want what they want, and then don't care what happens after. If Obama hadn't been elected. If we'd stayed hard in Iraq. If we'd kept a massive presence in Afghanistan, we'd be facing a completely different kind of world anger. Emotions were already building in opposition to the US from other places and we'd be bankrupting the country on top of that.

The people want to win, and win right fucking now. They don't care what the cost is, they don't care what the consequences are. They are only concerned with fixing this one thing that is bothering them. I'm sure that even if they did get their way, they'd find something else wrong and blame the person in charge of that too. It's a no win situation, no matter who is in charge, or what political party they belong too.

You think any of the Republicans really want to tackle this one? I don't.

The best solution has to come from the people who live there. They need to foot the bill, they need to use their people. It's really going to come down to a massive geopolitical struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Sunni and the Shia. Neither side is really going to commit to us, because right now, we're trying to play both sides. The entire region needs to get it's shit together and have a plan on this. I am disappointed that the attacks in France haven't resulted in a more NATO based effort. It really should have, but clearly there are still massive cracks in that alliance, which is making anything else nearly impossible to accomplish.

But ISIL isn't the only thing people care about. If you look at the job approval it isn't any worse than it was two years ago. It isn't good, but it also isn't anywhere near as bad as you're implying.

The thing that kills me is that we are winning.

"We", defined as "Western Culture". I don't see how anyone can see ISIL's terrorist actions as anything other than desperation. You don't send people to blow themselves up unless you're desperate. You don't pick fights with world powers unless you're desperate. Fanaticism is another form of desperation.

ISIL sees a world trending to the cultural progressiveness of Western Europe and North America. It scares the hell out of them. While we might be worried about a relatively small number of young people who are radicalized by ISIL, ISIL are terrified by the millions of people in ME states who are embracing (or trying to embrace) progressive values.

ISIL are going to lose in the long-term. History shows us this, unless one believes in a coming apocalypse to rival Europe's dark ages. For the time being what we need to do is contain the damage their fanaticism causes.

We also need to avoid giving legitimacy to the cause. I watchedFareed Zakaria GPS on CNN this week dealing with ISIS. One of the main points that it drove home was that the fighters there want US troops in a ground war. That is one of the primary goals. Where the West struggles is putting into perspective where we are succeeding and changing the narrative so that the focus goes from reaction to ISIS to proactive successes and degrading the message that is coming from them.

Frankly, it's one area where freedom of the press isn't helping us.

People keep saying that putting US troops on the ground would only help legitimize ISIL/Daesh, and it would certainly boost numbers in the short term, but much of their authority comes from owning territory, and telling people they'll win the eventual battle "over Rome" at Dabiq in Northern Syria. So if we just sent 50,000 troops to Dabiq and destroyed anyone who attacked us (and they absolutely would attack us, because a shockingly high number of their supporters really do believe they will win) it would de-legitimize their cause.

Now, I'm sure they'd have some people saying "not that battle, it's a later one" or spinning off into different groups, and even if we built a base we'd be leaving it eventually, but it's an option. Because trying to defeat an insurgency or a terrorist organization that is willing to blend in to the populace isn't something our military is equipped for, but ISIL/Daesh relies on holding territory and they (or more accurately, a large part of their appeal to disaffected Muslims across the world) can absolutely be defeated.

There was a series of articles somewhere that stated the number of volunteers ISIS is getting has decreased from thousands a day in early 2014 to 50-60 per day a few months ago. I agree long-term as we do a better job of shutting off their recruitment pipeline and continue degrading the forces and resources they currently have that it's a matter of time before they're defeated.

Scalia.

wow that doesn't sound racist all all Justice Scalia.

Don't know specifically about the statistic he refers to but its certainly helped a bunch of minorities by providing them opportunities that would otherwise not exist, deferred/delayed etc.

I do think its arguable whether we need as more, less, same and/or different affirmative action now ... but at one point, it was needed.

Or it could become a drawn out affair and get messy but your point is taken.

I'm not convinced this increase in popular sentiment for ground troops is for real or just a short term reaction. My vote is to really support/beef up the Kurds and have them act as our proxy (but no idea how to placate Turkey on this).

I thought about editing my post to add a postscript that I don't support that plan. We can debate over whether going in and killing a lot of radicals right now, plus eliminating a factor that actually does give the radicals legitimacy in the eyes of many other Muslims would outweigh however many new radicals committing to another ground war in the Middle East would create on its own, and I don't think there's a known answer to it. So since I 100% doubt we would have the stomach to actually stay until a resolution why bother,just keep arming the Kurds until/unless one of the other anti-Assad militias actually becomes viable enough to be worth backing as well. But I also hate the idea that "we can't go in because that's what ISIS wants" and think it's way too simplistic. Daesh does want us to go in and fight them, but they also think they'd beat us (amongst a ton of other crazy beliefs.) They're not the smartest guys in the room.

The real problem with the "arm the Kurds" solution is that it's really, really unpopular in Turkey. Now are you willing to press relations with a NATO power that you really need the support of to support a group that has a very radical, terrorist organization wing like the Kurds do? The same could be said for Iraq and Iran. Neither of whom would be thrilled with the increase in strength of what they see as tribal opposition.

It's simply not as easy as it's painted. You could make the argument that since they are at least willing to try that they should get the bulk of support, and I would support that. Tell Turkey that they need to make a choice and get their act together, but that still won't sit well with the populace of Turkey. Turkey has a lot of political leverage based on geography and they are playing it up for all it's worth. The question is, "can we get them to give up some of that leverage, or force them to, in the name of war?"

I have a feeling that because of their increasingly religious government that they'd tell you to pound sand and deal with it, knowing that the rest of NATO is going to put pressure on you to fix the issues. Which puts us back in the position of having to essentially "buy off" Turkey for support, which I think is what they want anyway.

How awesome would it be if Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran all pledged 100,000 soldiers to a coaltion...and then Israel rolled along and said, "We'll provide air support" and the Arabs agreed to it.

Obviously absolutely none of that would ever happen, but I can dream.

It would be a tough sell. But, Muslims need to be the majority of any troops put on the ground.

The need to be, but won't...not ever. Some of the 'elitist' nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait have been willing to do some bombing and that was the boldest move I've seen Arabs or Muslims make internally since Iraq invaded Iran.

I know I've asked this before, but what the fuck is wrong with people?

That won't end badly....

+1.

In addition, Obama has to deal with less than dedicated/focused Gulf state "allies" due to Yemen.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/middle...ing/index.html

I wonder what the Palestinians think about all of this. Their cause has been on the world forefront for so long and now its been overshadowed (and likely for the forseeable future) by other Middle-East events.

I tend to agree a lot with Daniel Larison, this included.

We know.

Know... that JPhillips agrees with a conservative blogger? Yes, Larison is a conservative, just the older more isolationist sort.

Well, you know how radical left the American Conservative can be!

Actually, I know a bunch of GOP folks who like to call them RINOs, even though they represent an older conservative though (Paleoconservativism). They don't even know their ideological history!

It's funny that in order to finally end the Soviet threat, we had to rattle our saber quite a bit and not go the route of detente.

So is this interesting because Larison agrees with JPhillips or because JPhillips agrees with himself (hence, the "We know" comment)? :)

We outlasted the Soviet system more than anything, and when the opportunity to negotiate a real change presented itself Reagan took it even though the far-right objected.

This is what's frustrating about the linear left-right viewpoint. My foreign policy views are generally closest to traditional conservatives, but somehow that's now far left.

Indeed. Quite a bit of right-wing conservatives started calling Reagan a Neville Chamberlain for negotiating with the enemy (Gorbachev) in the mid 80s.

You think you are frustrated? Think about how Pat Buchanan feels :D

Post some of your views that are traditional conservative foreign policy and I'll probably agree. Post far left opinions like above, and I won't. This isn't that hard, JPhillips.

You mean like... a more isolationist foreign policy? This is the bedrock of conservatives in the early part of the 20th Century. Heck, Eisenhower campaigned (in his re-election bid) on "He Got Us Out of Korea".

You mean, President/General Eisenhower of WWII fame? Good thing he didn't have that stance 10 years prior or we'd all be starring in this show on Amazon Prime...the reality TV version of it...

There's a time and a place....this isn't one of those times to sit back and let it come to us.

Yes that Eisenhower, who could adequately assess a threat and realized that war was the last option. Someone who would look at people who compared ISIS's threat to the Nazis and scoffed at them for their complete lack of perspective.

With all the Trump coverage, I guessed Ive missed the Eisenhower sound bites where he agrees we should back-pedal from ISIS. What did Lincoln say?

He said he was looking forward to the play. JFC

I learned about Anachronisms playing MP FOF....guess not everybody does...

Your backpedels are adorable. You were the one who seemingly indicated that a more isolationist philosophy was not traditional conservative foreign policy. If you can't handle that, then maybe you shouldn't make such insinuations in the future?

Did we have to? It's not like the Soviets were more powerful and we bluffed them into giving in. I'd compare it to dropping the atomic bombs in WWII - clearly the right play and something that saved lives and money long-term because it sped up the conclusion, but both were already foregone conclusions and a matter of when, not if.
I don't think ISIL/Daesh is much more of a threat than the borderline terrorists who control Somaliland or parts of Mali, or even the tribal regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan. They're annoying for sure, but they're not a real threat to us. Even if they ever do launch a chemical/biological/nuclear attack it'll be because they acquired the materials from a corrupt or failing state elsewhere (or knew where Saddam hid some), not because they're actually producing or researching anything there.

If you're just talking about Islamic Radicalism in general, that's not something that can be solved by our military, and using them super-aggressively (or pushing an insane anti-Muslim stance) will just as likely create more terrorists here in the US than would ever be able to sneak into our country from over there.

Didn't even realize the deadline was here. Com'on Ryan, I'm rooting for you and your leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politi...use/index.html

I don't know if looking back for ideology means anything these days. Seems the sides just care about opposing what the other one does. If Obama was for ground troops and a massive war to wipe out ISIS, the right would be against it and vice versa.

From my understanding, times change, and was clowin' you for bring up 1949 or whatever. But in any event, I was just having fun with ya for your standard over-reaction. Relax. :thumbsup:

If the Obama administration can't put an end to this my career is going down the drain. Nothing like the government awarding government flying to a middle eastern carrier.

United cites Gulf rivals in axing Dubai flights

I'd rather it be an American carrier doing it. But the administration would just get busted in the chops if they didn't go with whomever was offering the best deal.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't know why they are losing money, the ATL-DUB flights are always full. The airlines are also making lots of money now that oil/gas prices are down, hard to feel too badly about this and maybe they should have partnered with some of these airlines before JetBlue.

Also, it's one route and I'm not sure what that does to the bottom line.

Except that's not true at all. You're making the assumption that all things are equal, when the government of the UAE has been subsidizing Emirates to allow them to operate at the revenue rate they operate at. It's not a matter of them providing a superior product at a lower price. If I've got the treasury behind my P&L I've got no fear of failure.

So it's one route. Emirates is one of the big 3 middle east carriers that are owned by the government of that country. US airlines are the most regulated, deregulated, industry in the US. The full intention of the foreign carriers is to water the market down with so many seats in the international market that no other carrier can keep up. Flight being full makes no difference when your losing money on the route. International routes are very valuable. I don't know the numbers exactly but the bread and butter of major airlines is in the international market.

The government run airlines are allowed to operate at a loss to grab market share, which is a violation of the current Open Skies agreement that states that they aren't allowed to do that.

I'm actually okay with more competition from foreign carriers in domestic travel.

I sometimes get upgraded but I generally travel economy, even internationally. I see a world of difference in service, attitude etc. between domestic and foreign air travel.

I know there are a lot of reasons for this (some valid, some not, some airlines are better than others etc.) and don't know if Emirates can continue their level of service in the US but let's see what happens.

I'm tired of being treated like cattle.

TBH, I guess this is a big deal and a win for Obama if it passes but I don't really understand what this means for us ... how/what needs to happen to operationalize this.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/world/...ote/index.html

If the NYPD story is correct, it really sounds like the LA school closure was a substantial overreaction.

I'm willing to give LA a bye. They were unprepared on how to "qualify" how real this was. I'm sure they'll do better next time.

Given what just happened in California, I'd rather they overreact than not take it seriously enough.

But we can't close down things for every threat. Overreaction gives all the power to those who want to disrupt things.

And I would agree with you normally. Maybe I don't feel like it was as much on an overreaction given what just happened in San Bernadino. They didn't want to have to say again they missed something, or we didn't react when we should have. NYC didn't just have a terrorist attack take place or they might have reacted the same way LA did.

Reducing our oil dependence on the ME and helping our domestic shale industry for now is pretty important to me. Assume Obama resisted removing the oil export ban because of environmental reasons.

Telsa and Solar City popped today because of the renewal of tax breaks. Good to see a good old compromise.

White House Announces Support for Plan Allowing Oil Exports - Bloomberg Politics

A little fallout for Ryan "the Muslim" on the bill.

Fury of the right falls on Ryan | TheHill

A lot to be pissed off about really. How can you call yourself fiscally conservative if you raise government spending and raise the deficit.

Well, President Reagan raised government spending and raised the deficit. Was he not fiscally conservative enough for you? :)

Not in the slightest

So we should have a budget at the same level as 1980? 1950? 1900?

We should have a budget that we actually can pay for in full.

Like all good corporations everywhere?

So conservatives say spending is bad and dangerous, except if its the military, and the liberals say spending is good and helps the the economy, except if it's the military. It's interesting to me the military is so polarizing in that way. So when I see something like that, I have to think the truth is in the middle. Military spending does stimulate and support the economy, but there's also definitely a ton of waste

But non-military spending doesn't stimulate and support the economy, is that what you are inferring?

Nah, it certainly does, it's just interesting to me how military spending doesn't follow the same "rules" as other kinds of spending, for either side.

Edit: I think a big strong military is essential for the U.S., and it also happens to provide great economic stimulus and life opportunities/employment for so many young people. So I'm not a fan of the general vilification of defense spending you see sometimes from the far-left. But like anything else in government, there's also plenty of waste and plenty of backroom dirty politics that benefits the defense contractors (who surely do not pay enough taxes). So I'm all for a moderate, middle-ground approach to improve things.

In a general sense I agree. There are, though, other ways to balance the budget than cutting spending.

Agreed, but raising spending w/o raising revenue isn't one of them.

In this budget I think the much bigger problem is the 650 billion in new tax cuts.

We can, through a combination of revenue and financing.