being obtuse and flippant isn't really a good reply.
why people won't look back and realise that the problems you have today are caused by the mistakes you made in the past is beyond me.
you do yourself a disservice Clarise. I expected better

 

That's probably because you do not spend much time here.

 

Who is "you"?

 

I am being flip, because you are being ridiculous.

Armchair asswipes like you and me, the powerless hoi palloi, the pawns and cannon fodder in the circle of life, can hang out in porn forums and debate the wheres-and-whyfores until Yayweh obliterates us all.

But Barack Obama does not have the luxury to jerk off and contemplate the teleological vicissitudes of history.

He is the PRESIDENT. The CHIEF EXECUTIVE. He CHOSE to run for that job. TWICE. And we CHOSE him to do it. TWICE.

Barack Obama does not have the luxury of blaming George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Ron Reagan, or Dick Nixon, or Jack Kennedy, or Harry Truman, or Franky Roosevelt, or Teddy Roosevelt, or anyone else.

The best he can do-- ALL he can do-- is assess the state of play that he faces TODAY, and act TODAY in the best interests of the nation.

We as a nation came to commit ourselves to a nation-building mission in Iraq. Losers such as ourselves can debate endlessly on the comedy of errors that led us to that juncture, but Obama's job as CHIEF EXECUTIVE was to see that mission through, to the best of his ability, in the best interests of the nation.

He abrogated that responsibility for cynical cheap political points. He won a day of fame as the Great Man and Bringer of Peace.

Well, now here we ahve the result: a clusterfuck a thousand times worse and the threat of being dragged right back in.

More than 4,000 lives and a trillion bucks were invested in our Iraq Adventure, and Obama threw it all away for the sake of a first term opinion poll.

Good for him.

GOOD FOR HIM.

 

obama useless as tits on a boer hog

 

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-lands-baghdad-press-maliki-insurgency-spreads-081007211.html


[h=1]Kerry promises 'intense and sustained' support for Iraq[/h]
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday promised "intense and sustained" U.S. support for Iraq, but said the divided country would only survive if its leaders took urgent steps to bring it together.


Hours before Kerry arrived in Baghdad, Sunni tribes who have joined a militant takeover of northern Iraq seized the only legal crossing point with Jordan, security sources said, leaving troops with no presence along the entire western frontier which includes some of the Middle East's most important trade routes.


U.S. President Barack Obama has offered up to 300 American advisers to Iraq but held off granting Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite Muslim-led government's request for air strikes to counter the two-week advance by Sunni militants.


Officials have meanwhile called for Iraqis to form an inclusive government. The insurgency has been fuelled largely by a sense of marginalisation and persecution among Iraq's Sunnis.


"The support will be intense and sustained and if Iraq's leaders take the necessary steps to bring the country together, it will be effective," Kerry told reporters in Baghdad.


He said Maliki had "on multiple occasions affirmed his commitment to July 1" as the date to start the formation of a new government bringing in more Sunnis and Kurds to share power, a move Washington is keen to see.


Iraqi and Jordanian security sources said tribal leaders were negotiating to hand the Turabil desert border post to Sunni Islamists from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) who took two main crossings with Syria in recent days and have pushed the Shi'ite-led government's forces back toward Baghdad.


Iraq state television said late on Monday that the army had recaptured both the crossing with Jordan and the al-Waleed crossing with Syria. Reuters could not independently confirm reports due to security restrictions.

View gallery

Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), meets with U.S. Secretary of Sta …

Ethnic Kurdish forces control a third border post with Syria in the north, leaving no government troops with no presence along Iraq's 800-km (500-mile) western border.


For the insurgents, capturing the frontier is a dramatic step towards the goal of erasing the modern border altogether and building a caliphate across swathes of Syria and Iraq.


Kerry said: "Iraq faces an existential threat and Iraq's leaders have to beat that threat with the incredible urgency that it demands. The very future of Iraq depends on choices that will be made in the next days and weeks."


Washington, which withdrew its troops from Iraq in 2011 after an occupation that followed the 2003 invasion which toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, has been struggling to help Maliki's administration contain a Sunni insurgency led by ISIL, an al Qaeda offshoot which seized northern cities this month.



PRESSURE ON MALIKI


Washington is worried Maliki and fellow Shi'ites who have won U.S.-backed elections have worsened the insurgency by alienating moderate Sunnis who once fought al Qaeda but have now joined the ISIL revolt. While Washington has been careful not to say publicly it wants Maliki to step aside, Iraqi officials say such a message was delivered behind the scenes.


There was little small talk when Kerry met Maliki, the two men seated in chairs in a room with other officials.


The meeting lasted one hour and 40 minutes, after which Kerry was escorted to his car by Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari. As Kerry got in, he said: "That was good".




Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Washington on Sunday of trying to regain control of the country it once occupied - a charge Kerry denied.


Iraqis are due to form a new government after an election in April. Maliki's list won the most seats in parliament but would still require allies to secure a majority.


Senior Iraqi politicians, including at least one member of Maliki's own ruling list, have told Reuters that the message that Washington would be open to Maliki leaving power has been delivered in diplomatic language to Iraqi leaders.


Recent meetings between Maliki and American officials have been described as tense. According to a Western diplomat briefed on the conversations by someone attending the meetings, U.S. diplomats have informed Maliki he should accept leaving if he cannot gather a majority in parliament for a third term. U.S. officials have contested that such a message was delivered.


A close ally of Maliki has described him as having grown bitter toward the Americans in recent days over their failure to provide strong military support.


The president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, which has seized on the chaos to expand its northern territory to include the oil rich city of Kirkuk, blamed Maliki's "wrong policies" for the turn of events and joined calls for him to quit.


Massoud Barzani said Iraq was falling apart and reiterated a threat to hold a referendum on independence from the rest of the country.


"The time is now for the Kurdish people to determine their future," Barzani said in an interview with CNN. "We are living in an Iraq that is completely different from the Iraq of two weeks ago."



IRAN ACCUSATION


Jordanian army sources said Jordan's troops had been put in a state of alert in recent days along the 181-km (112-mile) border with Iraq, redeploying in some areas as part of steps to ward off "any potential or perceived security threats".


The Jordan border post was in the hands of Sunni tribesmen after government troops fled. An Iraqi tribal figure said there was a chance it would soon be passed to control of the militants, who seized the nearby crossing to Syria on the Damascus-Baghdad highway on Sunday.


He said he was mediating with ISIL in a "bid to spare blood and make things safer for the employees of the crossing. We are receiving positive messages from the militants."


The need to battle the Sunni insurgency has put the United States on the same side as its enemy of 35 years, Iran, which has close ties to the Shi'ite parties that came to power in Baghdad after U.S. forces toppled Saddam.


However, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei made clear on Sunday that a rapprochement would not be easy.


"We are strongly opposed to U.S. and other intervention in Iraq," IRNA news agency quoted Khamenei as saying. "We don’t approve of it as we believe the Iraqi government, nation and religious authorities are capable of ending the sedition."


Some Iraqi observers in Baghdad interpreted Khamenei's comments as a warning to the United States to stay out of the process of selecting any successor to Maliki.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kerry-on-iraq-no-decision-on-american-force-in-a-vacuum/

[h=1]John Kerry on Iraq: No decision on "American force in a vacuum"[/h]
ERBIL, Iraq -- Secretary of State John Kerry told CBS News on Tuesday that President Obama is fully prepared to use American military might to help the Iraqi government push back Sunni Islamic militants sweeping across the country's west, but not "in a vacuum" of Iraqi political power.


President Obama's "focus and mine is on the issue of government formation," Kerry told CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan in Erbil, the capital of the Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdish region, where he was pressing regional leaders to keep backing the central government in Baghdad.


"It would be a complete and total act of irresponsibility" for the president to order airstrikes, said Kerry, when "there's no government, there's no backup, there's no military, there's nothing there that provides the capacity for success."


"What we are doing is a deliberate, careful, thoughtful approach, listening to the people here, listening to the allies, listening to the partner countries in the region, and putting together something that can work," he added.


"We're not making a decision about American force in a vacuum," he told Brennan, explaining that any U.S. military commitment was "tied to success in the long run," which he said could only come from "leadership that can unify Iraq."

Play Video

[h=3]Kerry pushes for inclusive Iraqi government[/h]

Kerry has spent two days urging Iraqi leaders -- including Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has been accused by the country's minority Sunni and Kurdish populations of consolidating power among members of his own sect and unfairly distributing the nation's vast oil wealth -- to form a new, inclusive government capable of rebuilding the country's military and effectively countering the threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants.


He stressed to Brennan on Tuesday that, regardless of whether President Obama decides to order airstrikes in Iraq -- as al-Maliki's government has requested -- there is "no pure military victory here. We've got to have a political solution."


With pressure mounting for President Obama to take some action to help stop the ISIS advance, both from Iraq and some U.S. politicians, Brennan asked whether the White House could afford to keep delaying a tangible response.


There's "no excuse for inaction," said Kerry, adding that President Obama was trying "to move this process forward" as quickly as possible.


He said on the political front -- the one on which U.S. military involvement is currently pinned -- progress in was "happening very rapidly," noting that Iraqi leaders were expected to begin forming a new government around the first of July.


Kerry did not say whether the Obama administration would wait to see how that government takes shape before making a decision on possible U.S. airstrikes, but he suggested on Monday that the White House could move before political reforms took shape in Baghdad.


Mr. Obama "always reserves the right to use force if its going to be to the advantage of a particular strategy," said Kerry. That strategy, according to the Secretary of State, on Tuesday remained a work in progress.

 

In the words of Sec of State Kerry "there is no excuse for inaction."

Yet that is exactly what we are seeing in Iraq from the Obama-administration.

They have sent 'advisers' to aid their military forces.
They have promised 'intense and sustained support' from the United States.
They have stated that 'Pres Obama is "moving the process forward" as quickly as possible.

In short the administration is flip-flopping worse than a fish pulled out of its element and tossed onto the dry sand.

They need to commit one way or another: commit to supporting the Iraqi government or do not, not this constant in-between which only emboldens our enemies and causes our allies to doubt our credibility.

The current mess in Iraq stems from Pres Obama arming terrorists (read: ISIS/ISIL) in Syria and Libya. Welcome to a presidency which makes Nixon look honest and Carter competent.

 

Now I am telling you that from my experience at least this situation in Iraq gets wilder and weirder by the day if not by the hour. And this latest report just stuns me.

[h=1]Syrian War Planes Strike ISIS Targets in Iraq, US Says[/h]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/syrian-war-planes-strike-isis-targets-in-iraq-us-says/

 

I started this thread as a lampoon, but I don't have the stomach for continuing in that vein.

It makes a strange sort of sense that Syria would hit ISIS. Iran is fighting against ISIS, too. Syria and Iran are allies, of course, but I think (and fear) that there is more at work than just the fact they are strange bedfellows.

The Iraqi Army has abandoned large caches of advanced U.S.-made weaponry. ISIS is picking it up. These other nations cannot let that stand.

We should not be letting it stand, either.

I think (and fear) that we are making a strategic mistake by attempting not to take sides.

Now we are sending "logisticians" in. Hundreds of them. To do what? Persuade the three sides to come together? To what end? To peacefully partition the country?

Even if we believe that is possible (personally I don't), how is partitioning the country in our best interest? One Iraq would be stronger than three. Who gets our weapons? How do three little Iraqs prevent Syria and Iran from coming in and getting those weapons? How do three little Iraqs prevent campaigns of conquest from belligerent neighbors, when one big Iraq can barely fend off an active insurgency?

The leader of ISIS promised to "see us in New York," when we released him in 2009. He is a clear and present danger. We should not wait for him to fulfill that promise. We should not be attempting to negotiate with him.

We should hit him hard. Now.

We should assassinate the leader of ISIS, decimate his forces from the air, and destroy all of the weapons we have left there. So that ISIS can't come here or threaten our friends in Jordan and Israel.

We can accomplish all of those objectives from the air.

I think it is a mistake to be sending troops of whatever kind into Iraq.

I think (and fear) that bad mistakes are being made, starting with our assumption that peace there is negotiable.

 

One thing is constant in the region, while the players seem to change at a whim, the targets remains the same. Israel and/or the US are the rallying cry behind almost every faction that has risen or fallen in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, even our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, all whip their followers into frenzies using the US/Israel "evil" connection to the max. Whether the protagonist be state leader, religious leadersor terrorist leader, all use the US and Israel as foils.

Maybe it's time to pull back and defend only those who have historically proven to be allies.

Perhaps the best solution is to

 

+1

Maybe you are right.

I opposed GW Bush's campaign in Iraq-- not because of the whole WMD canard, but because I thought nation-building there was doomed to fail. I might be a warhawk as Stumbler says, and I might not, but I don't want a single American attempting to preserve that place. I want to protect us, by destroying all the toys that we left there.

There is a Fox News/O'Reilly Factor correspondent who has interesting and alarming things to say about Saudi Arabia. I don't watch TV, but the guy is often a guest on my drive-home talk radio show. He's an Army vet named Col. Dave Hunt.

He says Saudi Arabia is a fair weather friend, of course (that is obvious), and he says the Saudi royal family has a precarious grip on power (also obvious). He also says Saudi Arabia bankrolls many Sunni insurgencies (also obvious).

But here's where it gets interesting: Col. Hunt also says that the storm brewing in Iraq is good for Saudi Arabia, because it pits a radical proxy (ISIS) against Saudi Arabia's enemies in Iran and Syria.

The reason this is interesting (and contestable) is that ISIS also claims to be gunning for Saudi Arabia!

Col. Hunt shrugs it off.

He says Saudi Arabia will just buy off ISIS, the same way it has bought off al Qaeda.

I don't know if I agree with him. It sounds like too fragile a standoff. I think it is more likely that Saudi Arabia is betting we will allow ourselves to be dragged in again and do their dirty work for them.

 

Saudi Arabia is the beautiful mistress that tell her "lovers" what they want to hear, in return for lavish gifts. The US is like the prostitute who sells her services to whoever has the money to pay.

Israel is the only long term ally that the West has in the region, Saudi Arabia has sold us out with regularity, Jordan drifts with the wind, siding mostly with us but impotent as a ally. Turkey is much like Saudi Arabia, supporting us with words and access for military operations, but placating the insurgents with immunity.

So do we defend Israel by pulling back and letting them deal with their enemies in the most efficient and effective manner, or do we simply continue to pump our arms, money and young lives into the region while continually failing to accomplish the goal?

 

There are many who say that we should just let Israel defend itself.

Sure, we could walk away and let them do that. But the decision would have repercussions.

Israel would love to be larger.

Much larger.


I wonder what all these closet anti-semites would say to an Israel that absorbs Gaza, the West Bank, Western Iraq, Southern Lebanon, and the northern Sinai Peninsula. To start.

 

The only reason that this situation exists is Israel, not the oil, not the internal bickering between Moslem & Muslim, just hatred for Israel all all who defend her.

The determination and shear will of the Israeli people is incredible, they have fended off attack after attack, causing great defeats to hordes of Moslem warriors. Yet each time, we (the West) has forced the Israeli's to cede back the spoils of war, they did not do it for nothing, they did it because we gave them additional modern weapons and taught them to use them.

If we ended that support, Israel would have no choice but to mop up those who threaten her, once and for all. We would we actually dare to do it?

 

If a majority of low-information fools yell loudly enough that the Jews should just fend for themselves, we just might go ahead and let Israel mop up.

Just like every other dumb decision we make by popularity poll.

And the same fools who bitch incessantly about Israeli influence and jeer "screw the jews" will be the first ones to cry foul when Israel takes Lebanon and keeps it.

 

On that you are so right.

Israel exists via a UN Mandate, which divided the British Protectorate into two nations: Israel proper and a would-be Palestinian state.

What many forget or chose to overlook are a few simple facts:

It is the hard truth that five Arabian nations decided to invade within the day of Israel officially becoming a state.
Is is the hard truth that the nation of Jordan (then Trans-Jordan) annexed the Palestinian territories for their own.

The Palestinians refugees became little more than political pawns for the anti-Israel crusades and politics.
It has been determined, even by the UN, that one day of 1949 priced oil production by the Arab States could have provided for the refugees.

Contrary to popular belief: Israel did not impose an apartheid style system of governance on them. The conquered Arab people held reasonable self-determination so long as the laws of Israel or her national security were not violated (something the PLO and other terrorists did routinely until even Jordan turned on them).

What the current Democrat president and the Democrat extremists in Congress forget is this as well:

IT was a DEMOCRAT president who recognized Israel as a state, as done in accord with the UN mandate.

The sole reason for Pres Obama's hatred for Israel is centered upon his hatred for all things British and American.

 

Yup, and the left needs to understand that in the past Israel occupied (twice) the Siani; came to the doorstep of Damascus; and more.

 

IMHO, what most of these folks overlook is the will and determination of the Israeli people, they will not go down whimpering and begging for mercy.

They have the capacity to eradicate the capitols of every Mid-East adversary, in less than an hour. If they feel that they are totally abandoned and the wolves at their borders are closing in, they will strike very quickly. So what if the world condemns them, chastises them or retaliates by wiping them out. It's been tried before, Hitler slowly shackled them, as the Egyptians did centuries ago.

Again, IMMHO, this time they will sacrifice all to avoid the shackles again.