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