White House reportedly planning years-long campaign to destroy ISIS

[orenbus]

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/876/493/090714_ANHQ_Shawn_640.jpg

The Obama administration is reportedly preparing a campaign to destroy the Islamic State militant group that could outlast the president's remaining time in office, according to a published report.

The New York Times, citing U.S. officials, reported late Sunday that the White House plan involves three phases that some Pentagon officials believe will require at least three years of sustained effort.

The first phase, airstrikes against Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is already under way in Iraq, where U.S. aircraft have launched 143 attacks since August 8. The second phase involves an intensified effort to train, advise, and equip the Iraqi Army, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and any Sunni tribesmen willing to fight their ISIS co-religionists. The Times reports that this second phase will begin sometime after Iraq forms a new government, which could happen this week.

The third, and most politically fraught phase of the campaign, according to The Times, would require airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria. Last month, the government of Bashar Assad in Damascus warned the Obama administration not to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria without its permission.

Obama was scheduled to outline his plan in a meeting Tuesday with House and Senate leaders before addressing the nation in a speech Wednesday, the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. A senior Obama administration official told Fox News imminent, new military action in either Iraq or Syria was not expected to be announced in Wednesday's speech. A senior White House official told Fox News that Obama's primary aim will be to update the American public on what the strategy is to deal with the militant group, saying the administration wants "people to understand how he's approaching this."

In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," Obama vowed that the United States would go "on the offensive" against the militants, who have seized broad swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq over the summer.

The interview was conducted over the weekend after the president returned from a two-day NATO summit in Wales, where the U.S. and nine of its European allies agreed to take on the militants due to the terror threat they pose. Secretary of State John Kerry is due to travel to the Middle East this month in an effort to secure the backing of Arab states for an anti-ISIS campaign, while Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was due to arrive in Turkey on Monday to press that country's leadership for support. Among the issues discussed will be the possibility of closing the country's border with Syria, which has been a popular route for Western-born fighters looking to join ISIS.

On Sunday, the head of the 22-member Arab League urged the group's members to make a "clear and firm decision for a comprehensive confrontation" with "cancerous and terrorist" groups. Nabil Elaraby called ISIS a threat to the existence of Iraq and its neighbors and "one of the examples of the challenges that are violently shaking the Arab world, and one the Arab League, regrettably, has not been able to confront."

It wasn't immediately clear what steps the Arab League would take in supporting the West's campaign against ISIS, and reaching a consensus on how to move could be complicated by Arab world rivalries and member countries' different spheres of influence. A draft resolution obtained by The Associated Press offered only routine condemnation of terrorist groups operating in the region. It also called on its member states, which include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to improve information-sharing and legal expertise in combating terrorism, and to prevent the paying of ransom to militants.

The Times reported that White House officials acknowledge that even if European and Arab countries offer their support for operations in Iraq, getting them to agree to possible operations in Syria would be much more difficult. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that the Obama administration is weighing all options for pursuing ISIS in that country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/08/white-house-reportedly-planning-years-long-campaign-to-destroy-isis/

[69360]

Of all the stupid shit.

We already trained and equipped the Iraqi army. They ran away like little girls and IS has all their weapons now.

Obama would need permission from Assad as well as Putin and Iran to bomb inside Syria without starting WW3.

[enhanced_deficit]

White House SWC puppet mastered by Zionist lobbies will be in no rush take out ISIS Jihadis as long as they are attacking enemies of Israel.

ISIS and Israel to attack Hezbullah in Lebanon (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459389-ISIS-and-Israel-to-attack-Hezbullah-in-Lebanon&)

First release of ISIS execution video came from an ex Israeli soldier Rita Katz (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459290-First-release-of-ISIS-execution-video-came-from-an-ex-Israeli-soldier-Rita-Katz&)

Israel's plan was to bomb Western targets, make it seem as though Egypt was behind the attacks
Nov. 11, 2009
The agents were told "to undermine the West's trust in the [Egyptian] government by causing public insecurity" while concealing Israel's role in the sabotage.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...s-later-1.4385 (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mi-figures-out-what-went-wrong-in-lavon-affair-55-years-later-1.4385)

Poll: A question for those who think Obama team helped create ISIS Jihadi group (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?457520-A-question-for-those-who-think-Obama-team-helped-create-ISIS-Jihadi-group&)

[kcchiefs6465]

Of all the stupid shit.

We already trained and equipped the Iraqi army. They ran away like little girls and IS has all their weapons now.

Obama would need permission from Assad as well as Putin and Iran to bomb inside Syria without starting WW3.
I thought you wanted the airstrikes?

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/08/white-house-reportedly-planning-years-long-campaign-to-destroy-isis/

Here, I corrected(In RED) the article to reflect true accuracy... ;)

The New York Times, citing U.S. officials, reported late Sunday that the White House plan involves three phases that some Pentagon officials Military-Security Industrial Complex Executives believe will require at least three years of sustained US Taxpayer FUNDING effort.

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAvh9og0Yw

[orenbus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0w0LeAggY

[Kotin]

if the pentagon says three years, that probably means about 4x that at least...

[kcchiefs6465]

if the pentagon says three years, that probably means about 4x that at least...
That embassy will remain until the dollar collapses.

[twomp]

I thought you wanted the airstrikes?

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

LOL!! The part time interventionists are going to have a hard time defending this.

[Rond]

What a great government program! Train and fund an army, and then fight them for years. Rinse and repeat.

[Danke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0w0LeAggY

That's a man.

[TaftFan]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

[twomp]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

It took us 7+ years, 100k troops, thousands dead to get Iraq to its current situation. But our resident foreign policy expert here can do it in 3 weeks! After we bomb for peace, the Sunni's and the Shia's will magically get along and peace will return. ALL IN 3 WEEKS!

[orenbus]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

Riigghhttttt....

[kcchiefs6465]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.
Shock and Awe?

[Dr.3D]

Seems like all that would happen would be they go back into hiding until the U.S. leaves and then they come back out again.

[TaftFan]

It took us 7+ years, 100k troops, thousands dead to get Iraq to its current situation. But our resident foreign policy expert here can do it in 3 weeks! After we bomb for peace, the Sunni's and the Shia's will magically get along and peace will return. ALL IN 3 WEEKS!

I didn't say the Sunnis and Shias could get along in three weeks. I said ISIS could be destroyed in 3 weeks. Toppling the Ba'ath regime was accomplished in less than a month, and their infrastructure was far stronger than that of ISIS.

[alucard13mm]

This is what I think...

10 year war with rules of engagement to protect citizens = 10,000 deaths a year. (100,000 years total)

1 year war going all out and not caring about citizens = 100,000 deaths.

If you were a citizen in the country getting attacked... would you prefer the 1 year conflict or 10 year conflict? I think a one year, quick and all out battle would be better. Imagine living for 10 years, not knowing when you will get droned because you are at the wrong time or wrong place.

[thoughtomator]

They make plans for the purpose of enriching defense contractors, apparently. ISIS came from nowhere in months, it could go away in months too with the right plan. If the only way to deal with it is a years-long campaign, let the locals handle it.

[dannno]

Taft must be thinking of the glass parking lot strategy.

[69360]

I thought you wanted the airstrikes?

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

I'm undecided, but lean yes. Only because Obama got us involved in this shitstorm and made an enemy of IS. I was opposed to the original airstrikes. But I think it might be necessary to finish the job now to avoid consequences to the US.

I don't want to give a cent to the Iraqi army or government, nor train them. They have shown they don't deserve it.

I don't want airstrikes in Syria without the approval of Assad, Iran and most importantly Putin. This is not worth starting WW3 over.


It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

It could.


It took us 7+ years, 100k troops, thousands dead to get Iraq to its current situation. But our resident foreign policy expert here can do it in 3 weeks! After we bomb for peace, the Sunni's and the Shia's will magically get along and peace will return. ALL IN 3 WEEKS!

Nope sunni and shia will continue to kill each other for all eternity. But you could knock down IS in 3 weeks and pull out.


This is what I think...

10 year war with rules of engagement to protect citizens = 10,000 deaths a year. (100,000 years total)

1 year war going all out and not caring about citizens = 100,000 deaths.

If you were a citizen in the country getting attacked... would you prefer the 1 year conflict or 10 year conflict? I think a one year, quick and all out battle would be better. Imagine living for 10 years, not knowing when you will get droned because you are at the wrong time or wrong place.

That's hard for a lot here to swallow, but it's the truth.

[TaftFan]

Taft must be thinking of the glass parking lot strategy.

No. ISIS is already fighting battles internally.

If they had to deal with coalition forces surrounding them, they would be broken down.

[kcchiefs6465]

Nope sunni and shia will continue to kill each other for all eternity. But you could knock down IS in 3 weeks and pull out.

Like they knocked down Al Qaeda in three weeks? Or AQAP? Or Al Shabbab? Or the Taliban?

I mean, it's not like it took them years to even put a dent in the infrastructure of these groups with new leaders springing up instantaneously.... or anything.

It's not like Al Shabbab went from a relatively unknown group to what it is today... or AQAP is thriving in Yemen..... or anything.

It's not like bombing urban areas makes people resent us and join the opposition.

Hell, it's not even like it is going to cost billions of dollars that we don't have.

Were you in favor of bombing Syria originally or did your position change after 12 months of propaganda?

[kcchiefs6465]

No. ISIS is already fighting battles internally.

If they had to deal with coalition forces surrounding them, they would be broken down.
When do you ship out?

[devil21]

It's at least 3 years because that's how long it'll take (probably more if history means anything) to overthrow Assad and cripple Hezbollah in Lebanon, all in the name of defeating 'ISIS'.

[orenbus]

No. ISIS is already fighting battles internally.

If they had to deal with coalition forces surrounding them, they would be broken down.

I wouldn't rely too much on the Iraq Army, from my understanding most of them only signed up for a paycheck they don't actually believe in a cause worth dieing over, as was apparent when they had time enough to switch to civilian clothes and run away as ISIS was taking over large portions of the country. It may or may not surprise you but ISIS was actually outnumbered by a better armed Iraq Army by a HUGE margin and it still didn't make a difference. The Iraq Army had everything going for it, it had weapons, manpower, fortified positions, etc. and still they abandoned ship soon as they heard ISIS was on their way.

Also wouldn't expect too much from the Kurds or expect seeing them move beyond their intended areas of country they want to control, because they have specific goals in mind when it comes to parts of Iraq they define as theirs and rather would see as a part of their own splintered off country as opposed to a country called Iraq. The Kurds are one of the largest ethnic groups in the world that does not have their own country, so they are going to be more driven to hold the land they have now vs. helping the U.S. or the current Iraq Government expel ISIS from areas they could care less about. ISIS might have more pressure in Syria, but that place has so many different forces at work with many of them as radical as the next there is no guarantees coordination with groups such as the Free Syrian Army or others would work their either, especially since ISIS has essentially taken over large cities in the north with support from the people.

[69360]

Like they knocked down Al Qaeda in three weeks? Or AQAP? Or Al Shabbab? Or the Taliban?

I mean, it's not like it took them years to even put a dent in the infrastructure of these groups with new leaders springing up instantaneously.... or anything.

It's not like Al Shabbab went from a relatively unknown group to what it is today... or AQAP is thriving in Yemen..... or anything.

It's not like bombing urban areas makes people resent us and join the opposition.

Hell, it's not even like it is going to cost billions of dollars that we don't have.

Were you in favor of bombing Syria originally or did your position change after 12 months of propaganda?

Except that they did knock down the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan in a month. The Taliban fled Kabul in the first month of the war. AQ was cornered in Tora Bora.

The US could have killed Bin Laden and pulled out after a month, but blew it. Then came the decade of insurgency and nation building that made no sense.

No I have never been in favor of airstrikes in Syria. Not worth WW3. Assad is an ally of Iran and Russia.

[kcchiefs6465]

Except that they did knock down the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan in a month. The Taliban fled Kabul in the first month of the war. AQ was cornered in Tora Bora.

The US could have killed Bin Laden and pulled out after a month, but blew it. Then came the decade of insurgency and nation building that made no sense.

No I have never been in favor of airstrikes in Syria. Not worth WW3. Assad is an ally of Iran and Russia.
And what of the Taliban now? What will happen when we withdraw from Afghanistan? What is occurring with alarming regularity over there?

It's almost as if they had nation building and regime change on their minds when they sold the public the tale of Shock and Awe. So they sold people on this quick strike, we will be seen as liberators tale, and the people ate it up. Eleven years later we have the same people saying the same thing.... and the people are eating it up.

"Three weeks to destroy ISIS....." It's been three weeks! 150 airstrikes later and what are the results? Has ISIS fled yet?

How do you propose ISIS be "knocked down" without bombing Syria, by the way? Wait in perpetuity until they cross the border?

You know that's what this is about, right? They don't give a damn about the Kurds.

[twomp]

I didn't say the Sunnis and Shias could get along in three weeks. I said ISIS could be destroyed in 3 weeks. Toppling the Ba'ath regime was accomplished in less than a month, and their infrastructure was far stronger than that of ISIS.

WoW you sounded like such a foreign policy expert when you threw out that 3 week strategy that I thought you knew more. I guess I was incorrect. ISIS was BORN out of SUNNI resentment of the SHIA government in Baghdad. Get that? Once our stooges in Baghdad saw this, they turned it into terrorists vs. good guys. But the battle in Iraq was always SUNNI vs. SHIA. You want to remove ISIS in 3 weeks? No problem you say? What happens when the next group of SUNNI rises from the ashes because this whole SUNNI vs. SHIA thing will still not be resolved.

The media will turn the next group of SUNNIS who were formerly Al'Qaeda who are now currently ISIS who will be the future AMERICA's BIGGEST THREAT into a reason to yet again come back to Iraq. Notice how ISIS can only take over the SUNNI north? They are not met with much resistance there because guess what, THEY ARE SUNNIS! Shocking I know. How bad do you think the Shia government were treating them for them to accept ISIS over the Iraqi government? Maybe your plan in 3 weeks means just nuking the entire northern Sunni population?

[69360]

And what of the Taliban now? What will happen when we withdraw from Afghanistan? What is occurring with alarming regularity over there?

It's almost as if they had nation building and regime change on their minds when they sold the public the tale of Shock and Awe. So they sold people on this quick strike, we will be seen as liberators tale, and the people ate it up. Eleven years later we have the same people saying the same thing.... and the people are eating it up.

"Three weeks to destroy ISIS....." It's been three weeks! 150 airstrikes later and what are the results? Has ISIS fled yet?

How do you propose ISIS be "knocked down" without bombing Syria, by the way? Wait in perpetuity until they cross the border?

You know that's what this is about, right? They don't give a damn about the Kurds.

In the end the Afghanistan is headed for another civil war right now with the disputed election. The Taliban will probably take control of the south.

But, who cares? I don't as long as they don't harbor terrorists that attack the US.


They have been fighting there for generations and will continue to with or without the US.


As far as Syria goes, you get permission to make the strikes.


I was never for this whole thing to begin with but the dumbass in chief started it. It's probably going to have to be finished because we now have the largest most well funded terror group in modern history threatening the US. There won't be a clear cut victory, just mitigating the threat and an end. I don't see what else can be done but crossing fingers at this point.

150 missile strikes in 3 weeks is nothing. To really do damage you do thousands a day, then you send in troops to kill the survivors.

[kcchiefs6465]

In the end the Afghanistan is headed for another civil war right now with the disputed election. The Taliban will probably take control of the south.

But, who cares? I don't as long as they don't harbor terrorists that attack the US.
This is so ignorant of history I am disappointed inside. Kabul was once a bustling metropolitan until a certain superpower invaded. The mujahideen
were trained and provided radical texts as well as weapons and training. People from all over that region were invited to join in the Jihad and trained by another certain superpower in the art of bomb making, counter surveillance, and guerrilla tactics. When the Soviets left many of these "Afghans" did not stay. They returned to their home countries radicalized and knowledgeable in various arts of war. Many countries protested their return and in the next couple of decades practically every radical Islamist committing various attacks here and there could have their roots traced back to training camps in Afghanistan (not run by the Taliban, mind you). There are many articles documenting this but I'd recommend reading Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill for an in-depth analysis of this predictable phenomena.



They have been fighting there for generations and will continue to with or without the US.
It was a relatively stable country until the Soviets and the United States had their little proxy war. The fighting will largely subsist when the United States leaves. The Afghani police will be beheaded for siding with America, many will flee, and the Taliban will regain control over that region. And the people will welcome it after living under the occupation of the United States where justice could never be had and errant raids, bullets, and missiles murdered innocents by the scores. They figure that at least with the Taliban there was some semblance of order.



As far as Syria goes, you get permission to make the strikes.
Now why on earth would I do that? I am not the one that eats up various lines of propagandist Rendon-esque bullshit every other year. That's what this is for. To topple Assad.



I was never for this whole thing to begin with but the dumbass in chief started it.
He did not. The policy in the region for the last 70 years cultivated it. He simply continued (and in some ways normalized) the policy.



It's probably going to have to be finished because we now have the largest most well funded terror group in modern history threatening the US.
Would you send your child there?


There won't be a clear cut victory, just mitigating the threat and an end. I don't see what else can be done but crossing fingers at this point.
Send them Bush. Call it a token of good faith. If that doesn't work, add in Cheney to sweeten the deal.



150 missile strikes in 3 weeks is nothing. To really do damage you do thousands a day, then you send in troops to kill the survivors.
So at least 42,000 strikes dropping hundreds of thousand of pounds of depleted uranium fragmenting upon in impact, killing civilians and disfiguring babies for eternity is the way to end the war or even end the threat? Seems to me that that would be gasoline on a bonfire.

I just don't understand how it is that the last people to be sent there are the strongest advocates for going there. Oh wait, yes I do.

[69360]

This is so ignorant of history I am disappointed inside. Kabul was once a bustling metropolitan until a certain superpower invaded. The mujahideen
were trained and provided radical texts as well as weapons and training. People from all over that region were invited to join in the Jihad and trained by another certain superpower in the art of bomb making, counter surveillance, and guerrilla tactics. When the Soviets left many of these "Afghans" did not stay. They returned to their home countries radicalized and knowledgeable in various arts of war. Many countries protested their return and in the next couple of decades practically every radical Islamist committing various attacks here and there could have their roots traced back to training camps in Afghanistan (not run by the Taliban, mind you). There are many articles documenting this but I'd recommend reading Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill for an in-depth analysis of this predictable phenomena.


It was a relatively stable country until the Soviets and the United States had their little proxy war. The fighting will largely subsist when the United States leaves. The Afghani police will be beheaded for siding with America, many will flee, and the Taliban will regain control over that region. And the people will welcome it after living under the occupation of the United States where justice could never be had and errant raids, bullets, and missiles murdered innocents by the scores. They figure that at least with the Taliban there was some semblance of order.


Now why on earth would I do that? I am not the one that eats up various lines of propagandist Rendon-esque bullshit every other year. That's what this is for. To topple Assad.


He did not. The policy in the region for the last 70 years cultivated it. He simply continued (and in some ways normalized) the policy.


Would you send your child there?


Send them Bush. Call it a token of good faith. If that doesn't work, add in Cheney to sweeten the deal.


So at least 42,000 strikes dropping hundreds of thousand of pounds of depleted uranium fragmenting upon in impact, killing civilians and disfiguring babies for eternity is the way to end the war or even end the threat? Seems to me that that would be gasoline on a bonfire.

I just don't understand how it is that the last people to be sent there are the strongest advocates for going there. Oh wait, yes I do.


40 years is generations. It's also the average lifespan in Afghanistan IIRC. Kabul was a step above a 3rd world country 40 years ago but the rest of the place was backwoods at best.

Obama shouldn't have got the US involved in a war with Islamic extremists yet again, but he just did. Some of you just can't face that reality, we agree philosophically, but you just have no pragmatism at all.

You're going to believe what you want, I had enough for tonight.

[kcchiefs6465]

40 years is generations. It's also the average lifespan in Afghanistan IIRC. Kabul was a step above a 3rd world country 40 years ago but the rest of the place was backwoods at best.

Obama shouldn't have got the US involved in a war with Islamic extremists yet again, but he just did. Some of you just can't face that reality, we agree philosophically, but you just have no pragmatism at all.

You're going to believe what you want, I had enough for tonight.
The war never ended. It isn't going to end.

"Yet again"?

You can't face reality because you are unaware of what the reality is.

We don't agree philosophically. You feel it's okay to rob everyone to fund what you feel needs funded. I find that immoral and offensive. It isn't some nuance with regards to worldview. You agree philosophically with the rest of America, mostly. Just varying degrees of authoritarianism. Go over there if you think it is warranted. Why send kids?

I've had enough for a lifetime. You are better than the majority but regardless, that this is the future of this country is quite depressing. I could type you a few thousand words on why this is wrong. You'd read them and simplistically respond some nonsense of "Yeah, but I just don't know....." recycling the same tired cliches. This isn't our first conversation, you know.

[69360]

It wasn't warranted this time. Ground troops were out, it wasn't our problem if the place went to hell again. It wasn't warranted the last time either. A case could be made for the first gulf war maybe, but I'm not making it.

I feel like a lot of you are great with political philosophy. I can agree most of the time. But some of you can be so absolutist that you just can't respond pragmatically when stupid shit like Obama bombing IS happens.

I don't want to spend your money anywhere, I don't want to take your money either. But at the same time, we are stuck in a crap situation with yet another extremist group. It's not our liking or doing, but something has to be done about it.

I'm not fully decided what should be done yet.

But I am decided I had enough for now.

[devil21]

40 years is generations. It's also the average lifespan in Afghanistan IIRC. Kabul was a step above a 3rd world country 40 years ago but the rest of the place was backwoods at best.

Obama shouldn't have got the US involved in a war with Islamic extremists yet again, but he just did. Some of you just can't face that reality, we agree philosophically, but you just have no pragmatism at all.

You're going to believe what you want, I had enough for tonight.

I'll give you shills credit for one thing. You sure have clear consciences about incessantly repeating lies and propaganda that end in the murdering of innocent people. How you sleep at night is beyond me. The karmic debt you are building is absolutely epic.

[Brett85]

When Rand becomes President hopefully he'll just annihilate these people immediately and get it over with.

[devil21]

And they want an at least $5 BILLION slush fund to do it.

American slaves need to work extra hard to fund the pay offs to corrupt foreign politicians, pay mercenaries $300k a year to kill innocent people, pay off online shills like 69360 and TC for their tireless spreading of lies and propaganda, and of course, funnel a bunch more money to the poor little underfunded military industrial complex.

Now get back to work debt slave! There's innocents to kill and the costs ain't gonna pay itself!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/216980-obama-to-push-leaders-for-5b-counterterrorism-fund


President Obama is pushing congressional leaders to authorize a $5 billion counterterrorism fund that could be used to support
operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Approving the fund could allow the White House and congressional leaders to escape a tougher vote on authorizing or funding military action before the midterm elections but still achieve the “buy in” the president has said he wants from Congress.

more

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. These people are out of control.

[Brett85]

$5 billion is about 1% of the total cost of the Iraq invasion. I'm glad that we've gone from a policy of occupying countries with 100,000 troops and spending trillions on nation building to a policy of simply killing people who want to kill us.

[devil21]

$5 billion is about 1% of the total cost of the Iraq invasion. I'm glad that we've gone from a policy of occupying countries with 100,000 troops and spending trillions on nation building to a policy of simply killing people who want to kill us.

Make that figure $5 BILLION and 10 cents. TC's bullshit spreading services ain't free.

[Brett85]

Make that figure $5 BILLION and 10 cents. TC's bullshit spreading services ain't free.

And yet you support Rand Paul even though Rand supports military action against ISIS. You're a huge hypocrite.

[devil21]

And yet you support Rand Paul even though Rand supports military action against ISIS. You're a huge hypocrite.

.20 cents.

(Never pay attention to what politicians say....it's what they do that matters. He won't vote for this unless he wants to lose his entire non-interventionist supporter base. I can't imagine he's that dumb.)

[Brett85]

I do hope that Rand at least votes against funding for the military action if President Obama doesn't get authorization from Congress. All unconstitutional wars should be defunded.

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N1_QhaPHWo

[Brett85]

.20 cents.

(Never pay attention to what politicians say....it's what they do that matters. He won't vote for this unless he wants to lose his entire non-interventionist supporter base. I can't imagine he's that dumb.)

He's going to vote for it if it comes up for a vote and the authorization is narrow. That's what he said. He would look like a major flip flopper if he actually voted against the authorization. There's no evidence that he will.

[kcchiefs6465]

When Rand becomes President hopefully he'll just annihilate these people immediately and get it over with.
Rand Paul doesn't seem like the type to pick up a rifle and "annihilate" anyone. Neither do you.

Do you realize how incredibly stupid your post was?

First, how do you determine who is ISIS?

Second, how do you "annihilate them" short of multiple nuclear attacks?

Third, how after said further poisoning of the region, and the countless deaths of innocents do you prevent those affected from picking up arms and declaring war against the United States?

Fourth, how do you reconcile the Shi'a and the Sunnis?

Fifth, how do you propose to pay for this?

Sixth, why send kids? Haven't you lived a longer, more fulfilling life? Why don't you go over there?

You people think you are playing Risk, rolling dice. You cannot foresee the consequences of the policy you advocate even though all of American history is riddled with examples of similar unforeseen consequences. The only thing predictable is that many innocents would die, it would cost quite a bit of money, it would not eradicate ISIS but rather strengthen them in the region and that it is always the chickenhawks who are the loudest proponents for war.

You probably haven't even watched the [overwhelmingly fake looking] beheadings your stomach is so weak yet here you call for kids to do your bidding. Are you going to be the one to counsel them when see a child's face blown off, for instance, or are you simply going to offer the tired cliche that war is hell? Tell you what, you go visit your local VA hospital for a day. When you get back please offer me a good reason why it should be them and not you waiting on nothing else but death.

[69360]

I'll give you shills credit for one thing. You sure have clear consciences about incessantly repeating lies and propaganda that end in the murdering of innocent people. How you sleep at night is beyond me. The karmic debt you are building is absolutely epic.

Oh hey it's the guy who thinks everyone who's opinion differs from his is a secret government agent. How you doing, it's been a while?

I think the last time you were making these sorts of allegations was after Ron clearly had lost but not conceded. Everyone who knew it was over was a secret agent then too.

[orenbus]

Wow it's worse than I thought, anyone catch Bob Baer's interview this morning on CNN? I sent a message to Mox News to see if he can dig it up and post it so you guys could see, short and long of it is the "moderate" forces in Syria that we were trying to (or did) arm last year are the same ones that sold out the Journalist to ISIS! These groups in Syria care more about getting paid at times then they do about their cause and they don't care who they have to sell out to make money, he said the Free Syrian Army isn't much better if we gave them arms to fight ISIS and Assad they would just turn around and sell the arms to ISIS for cash lol. He made a number of good points including that, perhaps instead of using military force that won't end up resolving anything perhaps we should be looking at breaking up Iraq into a number of different countries to address the wants of the people there, as opposed to trying to keep it together through force.

He is a CNN Military Analyst and he was saying all this which is totally against the war drums the media has been playing lately which was a surprising new direction essentially saying we're fucked regardless of what military direction we take, Carol Costello looked like she was shitting a brick, she followed up saying well what about if we were to put boots on the ground, he was like we don't have the 500k troops it would take to get the job done and even if we did commit to that the American people wouldn't stand for it. Anyway if I find the video will post it up.


Edit: Props to MoxNews he posted the video here it is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03JGjGpUqk4

[devil21]

The single best write-up, with video evidence, of the creation of 'ISIS' as a western intelligence operation used to overthrow governments.

This link needs to be spread far and wide!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39603.htm


------


Oh hey it's the guy who thinks everyone who's opinion differs from his is a secret government agent. How you doing, it's been a while?

I think the last time you were making these sorts of allegations was after Ron clearly had lost but not conceded. Everyone who knew it was over was a secret agent then too.

If that post isn't proof of predev gov't shill accounts, I don't know what is.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

When Rand becomes President hopefully he'll just annihilate these people immediately and get it over with.

Who are you?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

$5 billion is about 1% of the total cost of the Iraq invasion. I'm glad that we've gone from a policy of occupying countries with 100,000 troops and spending trillions on nation building to a policy of simply killing people who want to kill us.

More like killing a bunch of innocent people & destroying their infrastructure in the process so then they turn around and want to kill us. But apparently you now live in the world of September 12, 2001 where blowback doesn't exist and Muslim terrorists will magically come to the U.S. in swarms and hide under your bed, waiting for the perfect opportunity to kill you and institute Sharia law.

I forgot, what was the result of Clinton's bombing campaigns during the 90s?

[Brian4Liberty]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

And they will welcome us as liberators, and it won't cost us anything, because they will pay us back double with oil. Now that sounds vaguely familiar...

[Brett85]

I shouldn't have used the "annihilate" language, because I'm in favor of targeted air strikes to prevent ISIS from taking over Iraq, not indiscriminately bombing over there and killing a bunch of innocent people. I was just saying that under a President Rand Paul, I think he would figure out a way to get it over with more quickly. He's said he would use military force, but I don't think he would want to just use military force against ISIS indefinitely.

[Brett85]

I apologize for my original comment. It was out of line. I do support limited military strikes against ISIS, although I'm opposed to troops on the ground. But I made it sound like I'm excited about the prospect of military action, and I'm not. I just view it as a necessarily evil in this situation. I was opposed to the air strikes at first, and then reluctantly became convinced that ISIS is a major threat to the U.S. I'm generally opposed to almost all U.S interventions, but I support an exception here because I believe this is a defensive action we're taking. I view it as being an act of self defense on our part. Others here seem to disagree, and hopefully we can have a constructive debate over the issue without using inflammatory rhetoric, which I wrongly used. Once again, my apologies.

[pcosmar]

I didn't say the Sunnis and Shias could get along in three weeks. I said ISIS could be destroyed in 3 weeks. Toppling the Ba'ath regime was accomplished in less than a month, and their infrastructure was far stronger than that of ISIS.

And what of all the family members that survive? The families of collateral damage?
And what of every other country in the region?
Not all of the people of those countries are as happy with the US as there bought off "leadership" might seem.

What about all that anger and unrest blows up even bigger? (again)

[vita3]

Arming "moderate" Islamists.. Got to laugh @ that absurdity ha ha. What a joke!