But just as an aside, I find it a little strange that Obama came into office touting a surge in Afghanistan, tens of thousands more combat boots on the ground, in a country where there virtually were a few hundred Taliban causing some trouble and Al Quida hiding in the hills, to protect a virtual wasteland. And yet, in highly populated areas, like Syria and Iraq, where just in a couple of days 130,000 people were driven from their homes over the border into Turkey, thousands being killed, beheaded, etc., it all can be handled by air strikes. That just seems upside down to me. If anywhere airstrikes would be appropriate, it seems to me it's Afghanistan - you could probably tell Karsai and/or whomever follows you've done enough, you're on your own, and we'll send some drones over the landscape periodically to keep the Taliban and terrorists from setting up shop again.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
But since we agree that each threat should be evaluated on its own, what exactly makes this one so scary to you?
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Though I believed in 2003 we were being sold a bill of goods (starting with the whole concept of "weapons of mass destruction", something designed to sound ominous just to scare people) until I heard this great NPR piece in February 2003 about the Cons belief that Iraq was ripe for democracy and once Iraq "fell" to democracy, we would have a tsunami of democracy in the middle east. The Bush legacy would be to solve the middle east once and for all. Then it all made sense, as being threatened by some two bit dictator sure did not. Of course, this tsunami of democracy would not sell; but "weapons of mass destruction" surely would scare the pants off an America just off 9/11. So, it was a bill of goods.
Then came is whole "coalition of the willing", which upon further review, given money and promises made, was really the coalition of the billing... and a roster of world powerhouses like Honduras behind it. Unlike Bush I, that actually had a coalition, this looked failed from the get-go. I figured if Iraq's arab neighbors did not see Saddam as a threat, he wasn't a threat... and, anything we did would just come off as US imperialism (over OIL --- in fact, wasn't an operation name Operation Iraqi Liberation, until they figured out the acromyn would not sell?)
That said, just as in 2003, if we do not have Arab nations (and now, specifically Sunni nations) committing a significant ground effort, everything will be for naught. Therefore, I am for military action only if we have legitimate Sunni partners, otherwise, we probably should do nothing as there is no point in doubling down on stupid.
Last edited by upsideguy; 09-23-14 at 07:32 PM.
I thought Afghanistan was the righteous war, until mission creep changed the war from AlQaeda to the Taliban and nation building. I thought the war in Iraq was a mistake but once the mistake was made supported the mission of our troops. I knew pulling out of Iraq completely was going to result in a power vacuum but I had no idea that it would result in the mess that it does today. I'm not certain that we should be involved at all in what's happening now.
Having said that, everything that Obama has done in the middle east has been wrong. He backed the wrong horse in Egypt, he is responsible for the mess which is Libya. He policy in Syria has been incoherent at best and down right stupid at worst. He has no idea what the purpose of a strong military is nor does he understand the purpose of military power is in keeping international peace. He believes that his personality can turn enemies into friends and is shocked when enemies take advantage of his perceived weakness. God help the world while they we try to survive his last two years in power.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
Meanwhile, you have no reason to suspect that ISIS is some kind of threat to us. We agree that not every potential foe merits drastic action, and there seems to be no reason why this one does. I think we're done here.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
CNN.com - Bush administration rejects*Clarke charges - Mar 23, 2004
Oh my! A terrorist group that is attempting to form a state the size of California...that beheads anyone who does not convert to Islam is not threat to us? I bet you thought Al Qeuda was no threat before 9/11/01.Meanwhile, you have no reason to suspect that ISIS is some kind of threat to us. We agree that not every potential foe merits drastic action, and there seems to be no reason why this one does. I think we're done here.
I was very much a pro-Iraq GW invasion at the time. Now, I am much more for containment and basically letting the middle east get swept up into a civil war where shiite and sunni can kill themselves as much as they want; keeping their attention on each other instead of Western nations to bomb and create terrorism. Let them kill each other for the next 10 to 20 years - all the Western nations need to do is contain any of the terrorists groups from attacking the West. To me - this is a ME issue - they need to fight it out. I'd be find if ISIS invaded Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or whatever. Let Muslim fight Muslim - America and Europe can simply play defense and support these nations with medicine, food, etc...
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.