Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If Obama were assassinated today, over half the voters would cheer.

No.

There might be people who saw it as God's Will as retribution for... who knows what? Gay marriage?

The criticism of Barack Obama would cease, even on FoX News Channel. In the absence of the incessant criticism of him people would start to assess what he did as President more than what he was. Maybe even people on the Right would start doing something uncharacteristic of themselves -- some soul-searching.

To be sure, the American electorate of this month on the whole looked foolish at best and scummy at worst.

I remain convinced that Barack Obama is an above-average President. So he stepped on some delicate toes, and the people whose toes he stepped on have gone after him -- tough luck! Any leader does that if he has any capacity. What is one to do -- endorse every extremist, shyster, scammer, and schemer?

The big question is now whether America degenerates into a plutocratic oligarchy like Russia today, a political order that well rewards the well-connected and at best neglects and at worst punishes those not so well connected. Some powerful people have their conception of freedom that implies a restoration of an agrarian order resembling the plantations of the old South and the absolute power of Gilded-style fat-cats in other business. They want to take away the consumer economy and put America back to work as it was 120 years ago -- abysmal pay for long hours of toil under brutal management that begins in childhood and ends when a worker is worn out (and consigned to an early death) in his thirties. Oh, yes -- the environment is something to be ravaged at will so long as such creates or enhances profit.

It gets worse. Plutocratic oligarchies are infamous for militarism. After all, other countries might have resources to be grabbed instead of bought fairly, labor to be consigned to more severe poverty, and the potential for captive markets. War is excellent for exacting taxes on the common man and selling lucrative debt to bankers so that producers of war materiel -- and giving governments the pretext for stifling dissent.

Quite frankly I'm sick of hearing about ISIS. If they could have done something, they would have done it already. Their threats are completely empty and giving them any attention at all is only indulging their pathetic behavior.

They are still committing war crimes, and they threaten more. Intoxicated with a sociopathic ideology, they let their perverse ideology do the talking. They are on a collision course with us even if we do nothing more provocative than refuse to become complicit in their crimes.

A threat to murder the President of the United States is a huge breach of diplomatic practice, but ISIS' idea of diplomacy is to kill first and take what they wanted anyway.

Originally Posted by Felix5

Quite frankly I'm sick of hearing about ISIS. If they could have done something, they would have done it already. Their threats are completely empty and giving them any attention at all is only indulging their pathetic behavior.

Actually, it appears that they HAVE done considerable. They're working with young people to bring them along into the movement in the long-term. They have made a lot of real estate unstable. They are clearly fanatic, but still add plenty of chaos to the Iraq/Turkey/Syria intersection.

I think they've made a mistake with all this semi-public beheading stuff. It appears to be posturing - trying to appear very powerful and influential. Trouble is, for them, is that this behavior is very hard for anyone civilized to defend. That could end up marginalizing them.

Originally Posted by TnT

Actually, it appears that they HAVE done considerable. They're working with young people to bring them along into the movement in the long-term. They have made a lot of real estate unstable. They are clearly fanatic, but still add plenty of chaos to the Iraq/Turkey/Syria intersection.

I think they've made a mistake with all this semi-public beheading stuff. It appears to be posturing - trying to appear very powerful and influential. Trouble is, for them, is that this behavior is very hard for anyone civilized to defend. That could end up marginalizing them.

They will be marginalized by normal people. Unfortunately ISIS seems to have an appeal to some unbalanced people. I am in favor of actions short of US ground troops to stamp them out.

It is always vital to remember that the IS situation exists only because Assad was not overthrown in the Arab Spring. The USA failed to aid the rebels, which left them with less powerful proxy allies than Assad had. The IS stepped into the breach and filled the vacuum in a destroyed country. From their new base in Syria they were able to expand into their former haunts in Iraq.

The USA needs to train and help the Free Syrian Army right away, and help them in their fight against Assad as well as against the IS. They will not be our allies unless we are also their allies.

People on this site seem to have a compulsion to not understand these facts.

Bush should never be forgiven for not ordering the conventional and even nuclear carpet bombing of the middle east after 9/11. The cowardice our government has shown ever since is by itself grounds for the complete replacement of the governing classes. The nuclear and conventional carpet bombing of the middle east followed by the systematic combing of the region of any Islamists by "deislamization units" would quickly reestablish deterrence and fear of America
The muslims would never dare to threaten us ever again.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Bush should never be forgiven for not ordering the conventional and even nuclear carpet bombing of the middle east after 9/11. The cowardice our government has shown ever since is by itself grounds for the complete replacement of the governing classes. The nuclear and conventional carpet bombing of the middle east followed by the systematic combing of the region of any Islamists by "deislamization units" would quickly reestablish deterrence and fear of America
The muslims would never dare to threaten us ever again.

You are insane. Get mental help.

Originally Posted by Odin

You are insane. Get mental help.

While I think his approach is extreme he does hint at certain points. After 9/11 we talked certain talk but did not walk the talk. We said we would attack the terrorists and those who sponsor them. We did the first task half-assedly and realizing what the second task really meant, namely, sudden destruction of the post-WW2 order and the neo-quasi-globalist order it had morphed into during the 3T, we wimped out. Russia is our friend, don't dare impugn the Chinese, pretend Iran does not exist, turn a blind eye to the Assad family monsters, don't dare call out the Saudis allowing all sorts of horrible funding channels, etc, etc. A complete failure in both statesman-ship and geopolitical craft.

The Problem is that our enemies have developed primarily a contempt for US mercy. The see the fact that when their forces are forced put their hands up, that we do not immediately shoot them down is regarded by not only the terrorist but by FSB, Iranian and Chinese ideologues as a sign of American decadence and weakness. Restorationism would disabuse them of such notions. Looking to the future, the restorationist educational reforms, civil-military structure and elite creation policies would create an new kind of Human: although it would have similarities with earlier periods of history such as imperial Rome, imperial china, Holy roman empire Germany, Imperial Spain, the Mongol empire and its offshoots, Hellenistic Greece etc. A meritocratic structure within the US would be created and future generations would learned technical and survival skills as well as everyday skills needed to function independently from an early age. In terms of Higher values it would admittedly be a return to the basics although the most important advances such as women's rights and minority rights would be championed. However populations derived from anti-western origins such as Muslims would be forcibly reformed or expelled back to their countries of origin. The successive systematic training of whole generations would very soon over time in my opinion, create a new mindset among Americans, the awakening of our natural warrior instincts and the realization of just how pleasurable it would be to have entire nations under our domination and thrall. This and not merely the obvious security benefits of a new proactive defense policy would foster an new type of American and be the prototype of an entirely new kind of human.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

... After 9/11 we talked certain talk but did not walk the talk. We said we would attack the terrorists and those who sponsor them. ...

Talking that talk was foolish in that most of the 9/11 folks were Saudis. WTF was the U.S. supposed to do to Saudi Arabia? The Dick Cheney et.al. view of the world has led to a stratigic cess-pool for our international policy.

It would be easy to mis-read the American people. If our enemies perceive us to be "weak," and mount another devastating attack on U.S. soil, it concerns me that we will turn bat-shit crazy. I'm not sure that they realize how thin the veneer of rationality is on us.

President Obama has asked congress for an expansion of the air campaign and a limited expansion of ground forces fighting against ISIS. Yet at the same time He ruled out a large-scale expansion of ground forces; he cited that such an expansion would endanger US national security. At the same time the administration ruled out any joint operation against ISIS with Iran. It's as if the administration is conducting policy based on very different facts that what is generally known to the public?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is always vital to remember that the IS situation exists only because Assad was not overthrown in the Arab Spring. The USA failed to aid the rebels, which left them with less powerful proxy allies than Assad had. The IS stepped into the breach and filled the vacuum in a destroyed country. From their new base in Syria they were able to expand into their former haunts in Iraq.

The USA needs to train and help the Free Syrian Army right away, and help them in their fight against Assad as well as against the IS. They will not be our allies unless we are also their allies.

People on this site seem to have a compulsion to not understand these facts.

There was another vacuum created in the aftermath of the Iraq war. There is no way of really knowing what would have happened if Assad had been overthrown. This would have been another vacuum.
The US has contributed to the mess, but some seem to expect the USA to bail everyone out. It is OK to help, but the Middle East countries should take the lead.

Originally Posted by radind

There was another vacuum created in the aftermath of the Iraq war. There is no way of really knowing what would have happened if Assad had been overthrown. This would have been another vacuum.
The US has contributed to the mess, but some seem to expect the USA to bail everyone out. It is OK to help, but the Middle East countries should take the lead.

That also applies to the Europeans and Europe, and to the Pacific Rim countries and East Asia. See me not holding my breath.

One of the main mistakes the dominant consensus the political class makes is that they assume the various enemies of the US hate the US for nationalistic or national-self interest reasons. Nothing can be further from the truth, Most anti-American states oppose the US not because of any American threat to their security or for national or geopolitical reasons or even because the US is a military force capable of thwarting their goals. They oppose the US, in reality, largely for ideological reasons.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

President Obama has asked congress for an expansion of the air campaign and a limited expansion of ground forces fighting against ISIS. Yet at the same time He ruled out a large-scale expansion of ground forces; he cited that such an expansion would endanger US national security. At the same time the administration ruled out any joint operation against ISIS with Iran. It's as if the administration is conducting policy based on very different facts that what is generally known to the public?

Facts seem to be largely irrelevant. It apears to be a different worldview. I do agree that it is not time to deploy US ground troops.

Originally Posted by radind

Facts seem to be largely irrelevant. It appears to be a different worldview. I do agree that it is not time to deploy US ground troops.

The Islamic State is a contagion and ideology that must be contained and if possible defeated. Their ambitions are not limited to Iraq and Syria (on which the acronym ISIS is based). They want to rule as much territory as possible in the Middle East and beyond; their goal is the defeat and elimination of all infidels.

It is the people in the Middle East that are now most threatened by the IS. They need to supply more ground troops as well as air strikes and other support. The United States cannot and should not deploy ground troops at this time, and we need to be careful that war powers legislation does not authorize this now.

However, we need to support the campaign in every other way. It is a worldview problem; the IS is this 4T's version of the Nazis. I don't see much difference. It is not Islam that is the problem, and contrary to Cynic Hero Islam does not need to be wiped out. The West does not need to adopt the same worldview in reverse as the new caliphate. Islam needs to unite against this dangerous IS perversion. Education as well as military means are needed. The Arab Spring is the new movement which young people in the Middle East need to join, not jihadism.

It is largely George Bush II's war against Iraq that destabilized Iraq and thereby opened a field and territory for the IS. IS dates back to 2005 when it became the new name for Al Qaeda in Iraq. So, another unilateral war by the United States on Iraq will not cure the problem.

Iran is not a reliable ally now. The new diplomacy may open doors to more cooperation later, especially if they stop supporting Assad. Assad's murderous genocide, and our failure to support the moderate opposition to it, is what has opened the field for the IS in Syria. Assad and Iran are thus not potential allies against the IS. Assad needs to be thrown out; Iran needs to be tamed diplomatically.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Islamic State is a contagion and ideology that must be contained and if possible defeated. Their ambitions are not limited to Iraq and Syria (on which the acronym ISIS is based). They want to rule as much territory as possible in the Middle East and beyond; their goal is the defeat and elimination of all infidels.

It is the people in the Middle East that are now most threatened by the IS. They need to supply more ground troops as well as air strikes and other support. The United States cannot and should not deploy ground troops at this time, and we need to be careful that war powers legislation does not authorize this now.

However, we need to support the campaign in every other way. It is a worldview problem; the IS is this 4T's version of the Nazis. I don't see much difference. It is not Islam that is the problem, and contrary to Cynic Hero Islam does not need to be wiped out. The West does not need to adopt the same worldview in reverse as the new caliphate. Islam needs to unite against this dangerous IS perversion. Education as well as military means are needed. The Arab Spring is the new movement which young people in the Middle East need to join, not jihadism.

It is largely George Bush II's war against Iraq that destabilized Iraq and thereby opened a field and territory for the IS. IS dates back to 2005 when it became the new name for Al Qaeda in Iraq. So, another unilateral war by the United States on Iraq will not cure the problem.

Iran is not a reliable ally now. The new diplomacy may open doors to more cooperation later, especially if they stop supporting Assad. Assad's murderous genocide, and our failure to support the moderate opposition to it, is what has opened the field for the IS in Syria. Assad and Iran are thus not potential allies against the IS. Assad needs to be thrown out; Iran needs to be tamed diplomatically.

I am in full agreement that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake. The question now is what should the US do. If Islam united against radical Islam , the answer would be clear. So far , I have not seen much concerted action by the majority of Muslims.
I favor supporting anyone opposing ISIS, but do not think that the US should trying to overthrow anyone. Iran looks more like an enemy than an ally to me.
ISIS should be defeated, but the current actions don't seem directed to this end. Perhaps Jordan will lead the way.

Originally Posted by radind

I am in full agreement that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake. The question now is what should the US do. If Islam united against radical Islam , the answer would be clear. So far , I have not seen much concerted action by the majority of Muslims.
I favor supporting anyone opposing ISIS, but do not think that the US should (be) trying to overthrow anyone. Iran looks more like an enemy than an ally to me.
ISIS should be defeated, but the current actions don't seem directed to this end. Perhaps Jordan will lead the way.

I agree.

The USA should not overthrow anyone. However, it should support the Syrian people who are trying to oust Assad, as we are doing (sending arms); and this support should be increased. But no direct action by the USA. The people there need to act.

Originally Posted by radind

I am in full agreement that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake. The question now is what should the US do. If Islam united against radical Islam , the answer would be clear. So far , I have not seen much concerted action by the majority of Muslims.
I favor supporting anyone opposing ISIS, but do not think that the US should trying to overthrow anyone. Iran looks more like an enemy than an ally to me.
ISIS should be defeated, but the current actions don't seem directed to this end. Perhaps Jordan will lead the way.

We have no true friends in the region, only allies of convenience. I include the Israelis on that list too; they do what they wish, and expect us to back them. Other supposed allies operate in much the same manner. So what, if anything, is in our national interest? We know we have no viable way to intervene in the Muslim schism, and I can't identify any nation that could impose peace by fiat. In short, we can't do it alone, and it's not likely we can do by proxy either.

This may be a case where we should decide that 'discretion as the better part of valor'.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We have no true friends in the region, only allies of convenience. I include the Israelis on that list too; they do what they wish, and expect us to back them. Other supposed allies operate in much the same manner. So what, if anything, is in our national interest? We know we have no viable way to intervene in the Muslim schism, and I can't identify any nation that could impose peace by fiat. In short, we can't do it alone, and it's not likely we can do by proxy either.

This may be a case where we should decide that 'discretion as the better part of valor'.

I agree. If none in the region take the lead, it would be better to hold off until there is a clear danger to us and a clear target to attack.