The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

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

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

[Dutch]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[Edward64]

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

A Russian rescue helicopter has been shot down by Syrian rebels while searching for pilots missing after Turkey downed a Russian jet.

The helicopter was forced to make an emergency landing in a government-held area in Syria's Latakia province.

A Syrian insurgent group, which uses U.S. Tow missiles, said its fighters hit the helicopter with an anti-tank missile.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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?

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.

[PilotMan]

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because the Russians are actually doing something the needs doing.

Propping up Syria's Muslim government?

[bhlloy]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

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?

[PilotMan]

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...

[Dutch]

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

+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?

Originally Posted by Edward64

If true, more escalation.

Obama can't catch a break internationally.

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?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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?

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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?

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

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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.

[Edward64]

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

David Cameron says air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syria would be in the UK's "national interest".

The prime minister denied claims it would make the UK a bigger target for terror attacks, as he made the case for military action, in the Commons.
He told MPs the UK was already a target for IS - and the only way to deal with that was to "take action" now.

The UK could not "outsource our security to allies" and it had to stand by France, he added.

A Commons vote on authorising air strikes is expected within weeks.

[Edward64]

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

WASHINGTON — President Obama offered his visiting French counterpart emotional words of solidarity on Tuesday but made it clear that it was up to Europe to escalate its efforts to combat the terrorist group that killed 130 people in Paris this month.
:
Publicly, though, Mr. Obama outlined no concrete new actions that the United States would take, and he suggested that the attacks might finally prompt Europe to approach the threat more seriously. “We also think, as François said, that there may be new openness on the part of other coalition members to help resource and provide additional assistance, both to the coalition as a whole and to the local forces on the ground,” Mr. Obama said.
:
In putting the onus on the French and other Europeans, the White House emphasized the longstanding sense among American officials that their allies on the other side of the ocean did not share their view of the need for action. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Tuesday that the Paris attacks would serve as “an extremely important wake-up call,” much like the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I thought what Hollande said was telling,” Mr. Biden told a handful of reporters after Mr. Obama’s meeting with the French president. “He said, ‘I’m going to be’ — essentially — ‘going back to Europe and getting the Europeans to step up and do more.’ It’s not that we haven’t been doing a lot. We’ve been doing it all, basically.”

The comments reflected the resentment in the White House at pressure to escalate the battle with the Islamic State, given that the United States has conducted two-thirds of the airstrikes against the group in Iraq and 95 percent of the strikes in Syria. Until the Paris attacks, France had participated in strikes in Iraq but only a handful of times in Syria, where the Islamic State has its de facto capital.

Mr. Obama has been criticized by Republicans and some Democrats for not further ramping up the war on the Islamic State, and new polls show that the public has little confidence in his handling of the threat. The president has resisted a more extensive involvement in Iraq and Syria, arguing that it would only entangle the United States in another quagmire like those he inherited.

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

Obama Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Obama Doctrine is a catch-all term frequently used to describe one or several principles of the foreign policy of U.S. President Barack Obama. It is still not agreed whether there is an actual Obama Doctrine, or if it is too early to define it.

Unlike the Monroe Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is not a specific foreign policy introduced by the executive, but rather a phrase used to describe Obama's general style of foreign policy.

This has led journalists and political commentators to analyze what the exact tenets of an Obama Doctrine might look like. Generally speaking, it is widely accepted that a central part of such a doctrine would emphasize negotiation and collaboration rather than confrontation and unilateralism in international affairs.

This policy has been praised by some as a welcome change from the equally interventionist Bush Doctrine. Supporters of Obama's unilateral policies (such as targeted killings of suspected enemies of the US) including former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, have described it as overly idealistic and naïve, promoting appeasement of adversaries. Others have drawn attention to its radical departure in tone from not only the policies of the Bush administration but many former presidents as well

[flere-imsaho]

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

[JPhillips]

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

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

[JPhillips]

What the fuck is wrong with people?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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/

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I assume that this is the same incident as this?

Armed protesters gather outside Islamic Center of Irving | | Dallas Morning News

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.

[Edward64]

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/

While President Barack Obama addressed the nation on ISIS and terrorism Sunday night, a new CNN/ORC Poll finds Americans increasingly displeased with the President's handling of terrorism and more willing to send U.S. ground troops into the fight against ISIS.

For the first time in CNN/ORC polling, a majority of Americans (53%) say the U.S. should send ground troops to Iraq or Syria to fight ISIS. At the same time, 6-in-10 disapprove of the President's handling of terrorism and 68% say America's military response to the terrorist group thus far has not been aggressive enough.

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

As the debate on how best to contain the Islamic State continues to rage in Western capitals, the militants themselves have made one point patently clear: They want the United States and its allies to be dragged into a ground war.

In fact, when the United States first invaded Iraq, one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the move was the man who founded the terrorist cell that would one day become the Islamic State, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He excitedly called the Americans’ 2003 intervention “the Blessed Invasion.”

His reaction — ignored by some, and dismissed as rhetoric by others — points to one of the core beliefs motivating the terrorist group now holding large stretches of Iraq and Syria: The group bases its ideology on prophetic texts stating that Islam will be victorious after an apocalyptic battle to be set off once Western armies come to the region.

Should that invasion happen, the Islamic State not only would be able to declare its prophecy fulfilled, but could also turn the occurrence into a new recruiting drive at the very moment the terrorist group appears to be losing volunteers.
:
:
“I have said it repeatedly: Because of these prophecies, going in on the ground would be the worst trap to fall into. They want troops on the ground. Because they have already envisioned it,” said Jean-Pierre Filiu, a professor of Middle East Studies at Sciences Po in Paris, and the author of “Apocalypse in Islam,” one of the main scholarly texts exploring the scripture that the militants base their ideology on.

“It’s a very powerful and emotional narrative. It gives the potential recruit and the actual fighters the feeling that not only are they part of the elite, they are also part of the final battle.

Probably explains why the seemingly half hearted attempts and indecisiveness.

[flere-imsaho]

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)?

[Edward64]

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

[PilotMan]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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.

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.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

Scalia.

In the oral arguments Wednesday for a Supreme Court affirmative action case, Justice Antonin Scalia—a well known critic of affirmative action—suggested that the policy was hurting minority students by sending them to schools too academically challenging for them.

Referencing an unidentified amicus brief, Scalia said that there were people who would contend that "it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well."

He argued that "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

"They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too -- too fast for them," Scalia said.

[Thomkal]

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

[Edward64]

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

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).

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

[PilotMan]

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.

[Dutch]

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.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

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.

[JPhillips]

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

Open-carry activists plan to stage a mock mass shooting Saturday at the University of Texas at Austin to protest gun-free zones on campus.

The Open Carry Walk and Crisis Performance Event will have actors "shot" by fake shooters with cardboard weapons and the sounds of gunshots via a bullhorn, according to the Austin American-Statesman. A walk down a street that borders the campus, in which participants are encouraged to bring their "rifles and legal pistols," will precede the performance.

“It’s a fake mass shooting and we’ll use fake blood,” Matthew Short, spokesman for gun rights groups Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com, told the newspaper.

[flere-imsaho]

That won't end badly....

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That won't end badly....

+1.

[Edward64]

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

(CNN)U.S. President Barack Obama is sending Special Forces. British jets have joined French warplanes over the skies of Syria. Even Germany, whose post-World War II constitution puts restrictions on fighting battles on foreign soil, is becoming increasingly involved.

But as the West steps up its war against ISIS, it appears that the involvement of the U.S.-led coalition's Arab members -- all of them much closer geographically to the terror group than their Western partners -- is drawing down.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are down to about one mission against ISIS targets each month, a U.S. official told CNN on Monday. Bahrain stopped in the autumn, the official says, and Jordan stopped in August. CNN contacted all of these countries for comment and is yet to receive a response.

Why aren't Arab countries more involved in the fight against ISIS?
:
Analysts say Yemen is at the center of a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the region's biggest powers.

Religion and ethnicity are at the heart of the longstanding hostility between the two countries. Iran is majority Shia Muslim and non-Arab. Most of the other countries in the region -- including, and led by, Saudi Arabia -- are majority Sunni Arab, and are suspicious of Iran's motives.
:
The governments under the most immediate threat from ISIS -- those of Syria and Iraq -- are both key Iranian allies, so why can't the Iranians handle it?

That's been the prevailing logic amongst the Sunni Arab states, according to regional experts. They say Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are also less inclined to carry out strikes against ISIS targets if doing so helps Iran's allies in Damascus and Baghdad.

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.