quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm shocked that French bombs can find their way to the ground.
Anoher moron who does not believe in gravity[8|][/color]
Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

A quality post Thompson. [;)]

Cite please

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
the best way to bring people to enlightened democracy isn't by killing them.

I'd be interested to know of how many countries around the world have had democracy forced upon them and it has worked and stood the test of time.
I can't think of many.
It worked in Germany but that country was the odd one out of the bunch because it was highly civilised for obvious reasons that don't need to be explained,
But, where else?
I think that people/countries have to go through the civil strife in order to arrive at the obvious conclusion.
And, what I meant to say but didn't is that democracy is organic. It is a thought process that only you can solve; no one can do it for you.
The whole point of democracy is that you think for yourself, and if someone else is doing the thinking for you then that's a monumental paradox that simply can't be reconciled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

Who do we back? Why should we back anyone yet? If the Iraqi's aren't willing to fight and die for it, they aren't the ones to back.

We might need to wait and see who is willing to fight and die for their freedom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
My question was a general one. It's hard for soldiers to fight and try to protect a failed state -- something that IRAQ highly resembles....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

Who do we back? Why should we back anyone yet? If the Iraqi's aren't willing to fight and die for it, they aren't the ones to back.
We might need to wait and see who is willing to fight and die for their freedom.

That is why my first choice would be the Kurds. They are fighting for their freedom without outside help and have had more success than much better equipped forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

First day of bombing in Syria, a little early to declare failure isn't it.
Turn it around, we have had sanctions all day and they haven't worked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

First day of bombing in Syria, a little early to declare failure isn't it.
Turn it around, we have had sanctions all day and they haven't worked.

And, that is where the problem resides.

ISIS will act to preserve itself, at the expense of innocent civilians. Sanctions won't hit ISIS. It will hit the civilians. Air strikes might hit ISIS and do a great deal of damage to the group, but it's also going to hit civilians, creating an atmosphere that will make it easier for ISIS (or another group) to grow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
My question was a general one. It's hard for soldiers to fight and try to protect a failed state -- something that IRAQ highly resembles....

Iraq was stable when we pulled out, wasn't it?

If Iraq is a failed state, then there isn't any state to defend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

Who do we back? Why should we back anyone yet? If the Iraqi's aren't willing to fight and die for it, they aren't the ones to back.
We might need to wait and see who is willing to fight and die for their freedom.

That is why my first choice would be the Kurds. They are fighting for their freedom without outside help and have had more success than much better equipped forces.

The only problem with that, though, is that the Kurds want their freedom from Iraq, too. So, we won't actually be defending Iraq. We'll be helping the Kurds protect themselves from ISIS AND helping them separate from Iraq.

All the while, this isn't our fight, and there isn't any authority we can rest on to act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

W has brought those freedoms to the area, right?

quote:


“I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government. I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.”

Then Joe rode off on a unicorn down a road made of rainbows.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/12/watch-joe-biden-call-iraq-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
According to the NYT -- air strikes are not working to reduce ISIS territorial foothold. Part of the foreign policy decision-making is who do you back to do the actual fighting on the ground? The IRAQI army looks too petrified to do anything at all.

First day of bombing in Syria, a little early to declare failure isn't it.
Turn it around, we have had sanctions all day and they haven't worked.

And, that is where the problem resides.
ISIS will act to preserve itself, at the expense of innocent civilians. Sanctions won't hit ISIS. It will hit the civilians. Air strikes might hit ISIS and do a great deal of damage to the group, but it's also going to hit civilians, creating an atmosphere that will make it easier for ISIS (or another group) to grow.

The civilians who ISIS is massacring are very likely to see our airstrikes against ISIS as a good thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
All the while, this isn't our fight, and there isn't any authority we can rest on to act.

It is our fight. Protecting innocent civilians and preventing the spread of the cancer that is ISIS is good in its own right, and is its own reward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
All the while, this isn't our fight, and there isn't any authority we can rest on to act.

It is our fight. Protecting innocent civilians and preventing the spread of the cancer that is ISIS is good in its own right, and is its own reward.

That's not true at all. The United States of America was not set up to protect innocent civilians of other countries, in other countries. Nor was it set up to prevent the spread of "cancers" in foreign countries.