The civilised world is faced with outright barbarism in the person of ISIS and yet we are hearing debates about whether we should be involved and to what extent we might be involved. Have we learned nothing from world wars and their aftermath? The world stood idly by when Cambodia impolded and millions died, when Uganda imploded and millions died, but then that was different, that was a murderous regime, and you can't interfere in the internal affairs of a soveriegn nation can you? Well the world stood idly by when Syria imploded and look what was spawned by the indolence, ISIS and we are back to seventh century barbarism.

The cost of going into Iraq to root out this evil may be high, but it is entirely justified which is more than can be said for the first incursion into Iraq. I am pleased my nation is not standing idly by even if their contributions are small. What has to be done is to see that Iraq stands up for itsself in this conflict and does all the heavy lifting, but we need to stand beside them. They must not be allowed to suffer defeats which both arm and embolden the enemy and the ultimate victory must be carried into Syria to eliminate the threat of this organisation, let us make sure we don't make the same mistake we made in Afghanistan by turning our focus elsewhere

Has Obama tried appologizing to them yet? I think he has appologized to everyone else on the planet. Except Americans. Didn't work for squat there either.

Got to protect that peace prize, it wouldn't do to be seen to be committing troops on the ground, that would be a red line to cross

Now here's a strategy, in order to protect your embassies in Baghdad and Erbil you should surround them with troops at say 100 miles, that should satisfy the no troops on the ground criteria and send ISIS a message, a this far and no further message. ISIS could be expected to go raving mad and throw themselves into eliminating these infidels and it will all be over, that is unless they are the cowards they have proven themselves to be

Let's see if we can make their heads roll

America can really not fight a ground war any longer, rules of war, the rights of the enemy as became so complicated, that we no longer know, how to fight.

And what if we would win? Shall we keep the land as a trophy or a US possession? Turn it back over to the people, who have no issue with accepting a Islamic regime into power.

This is but one of many conflicts across the globe that needs resolving and unless it's a global effort, what's the point?

They are all in Wales today discussing Russia. This should be interesting news tomorrow.

Doesn't he have another golf game scheduled tomorrow?

Heard his speech a this far and no further speech, not the speech of a man without an army, but only his friends were listening

What ? you want preemption ? You want to take on the "JV " (the words of emperor clueless ) .Here are some more words from the duffer at a recent fund raiser here in NY ....."Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it's been challenging for quite a while,".... "I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War".... He went on to say that the post-9/11 security apparatus "makes us in the here and now pretty safe" and that the threat from ISIS "doesn't immediately threaten the homeland."
The emperor blamed our concern about world threats to social media . Maybe we should all carry cardboard hash tags saying #"What me worry "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro
Obviously he is not itching for a fight . Maybe that's why he doesn't have a strategery to deal with them. That stands in contrast to Brit PM David Cameron who outlined his version of a clockwork jihad reeducation program for home grown jihadists . Guess fighting them over there is out of the question.
What you failed to grasp until now was that fighting jihadistan in the center of the Levant was an excellent idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What you failed to grasp until now was that fighting jihadistan in the center of the Levant was an excellent idea.

---

I don't think I failed to grasp that idea Tom, but we have devolved into the idea that we think we can talk them to death. Where are our sanctions that will bring them to their knees, Oh! We can't do that, they aren't a nation or an economy. Well what we can do is overfly them and shoot rockets at them, it worked so well in Afghanistan. No we were prepared for jihadistan to destroy an enemy and it just didn't work out, go figure that the jihadists would think a soft target was better than one that fought back. You are led by a bunch of sicophants and if Owbama doesn't have a plan, they sure don't
.
I think it is time for the UN to mature and the idea of veto to be thrown out the window. Substantial majority should be what it takes to enforce its resolutions. Why does an organisation like NATO exist? As a counter to a UN veto. This threat is a threat not only to the US but to its allies and NATO should put boots on the ground to combat this threat. If it is good enough for Afghanistan it is good enough for the levant. The US, Britain and France have all had a historical role in creating this mess they should undo it and take their allies with them. If Syria and Iraq are ungovernable then create something that is, on ethnic grounds if necessary. Sunnistan, Shiastan and Kurdistan. It makes more sense that what is there now, something that is a legacy of WWI

You want the lunatic majority nations in the UN making the call ? You do realize that it is majority disfunctional autocratic states . As for the emperor ..... he 1st told us that he was briefed just a couple weeks ago and was "shocked that there was gambling going on " . Turns out ,if he attended his daily briefings or even read the daily briefing reports ,then he was informed of the ISIS threat well over a year ago .

Quote:

---

Obama, unlike his predecessors who traditionally had the document briefed to them, is known to personally read the daily brief. The former Pentagon official, who has knowledge of the process, said Obama generally was not known to come back to the intelligence community with further requests for information based on the daily report.
The claims come as the Obama administration continues to launch airstrikes against Islamic State targets in northern Iraq and weighs whether to expand that campaign, particularly into Syria.
The president's team has publicly suggested that the group only recently gained in strength, accounting for why Obama earlier this year dismissed such extremists as akin to a "JV" team.
But after suggestions that the administration may have been blindsided by the rise of ISIS, and that poor intelligence was to blame, the former Pentagon official said some of the intelligence was so good in the region, that when the president drew a red line on chemical weapons use in Syria in 2012, the information was "exquisite."
The source said "[we] were ready to fire, on a moment's notice, on a couple hundred targets," but no order was given. In some cases, targets were tracked for a "long period of time" but then slipped away.

---

Source: Obama given detailed intelligence for a year about rise of ISIS | Fox News

My own personal theory is that the emperor was fully aware of the threat ,but let it go because confronting them earlier did not fit in with his grand vision of a ME remade by the emperor.
As you are aware ,I still believe that the emperor wants a rapproachment with the 12ers in Tehran. He wants Iran as the regional hegemon in alliance with the US. He still has visions of his own Nixonian detente visit where all the details of this reshaped region can be finalized. What better way to restart that process than to have a common enemy to unite us ....something like a growing strong expansionist Sunni jihadistan ?
The big lie is that he has no strategy . If that wasn't his plan then he would've enforced his red line in Syria.The overthrow of Assad is not in Iran's interest ;so therefore not in the emperor's .
He gutted the sanctions against Iran .He has soured relations with Rihad . He tried to get the Muslim Brotherhood installed in Cairo . He had Lurch intervening on behalf of Hamas. Our relations with Qatar is souring . All these things serve Tehran's interests . What other conclusion can be drawn ?
So how does this fit in with ISIS ? Well from Tehran's point of view ,ISIS is not a threat to Syria. In fact ,they helped neutralize the FSA ,and the Kurdish resistance to Assad . The reason they now must be dealt with is because the planners never anticipated that ISIS would turn on the Shia backed government in Baghdad.

Tom the reason ISIS must be dealt with is they are a threat, a serious threat to stability, they cannot be trusted with sophisticated weapons and they might acquire them in Syria. All right it suited Owbama to have Syria destabilised, a great excuse to park a battle group in the eastern end of the mediterranian at a time when Israel and Turkey are no longer friendly and Egypt is in turmoil. ISIS have even dared to attack Iran, they overreach and must be removed. A sunni/shiite war is a no win situation. This is what happens when you go warmongering, you wind up with the war you don't want. Being indecisive in the middle east has meant Russia seizes on the weakness

we went war mongering ? nonsense. Like Thatcher used to say there is alot of 'blame America first ' going on here.

Obama is a HUGE supporter of ISIS that has provided BILLIONS in cash and weapons to build them into what they are now.

Quote:

---

The cost of going into Iraq to root out this evil may be high

---

Nope. One Spirit, 3 tomahawks. Total cost about 30 mil. Total yield about 45 kilotons. The Kaliphate wants a stone age society, give it to them.

Quote:

---

In vowing in Estonia on Wednesday to defend vulnerable NATO nations from Russia, President Obama has now committed the United States to three major projections of its power: a “pivot” to Asia, a muscular presence in Europe and a new battle against Islamic extremists that seems likely to accelerate.
American officials acknowledge that these commitments are bound to upend Mr. Obama's plans for shrinking the Pentagon's budget before he leaves office in 2017. They also challenge a crucial doctrine of his first term: that the use of high technology and only a “light footprint” of military forces can deter ambitious powers and counter terrorists.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/wo...rine.html?_r=0
I'll also add that if the NATO nations want to have the influence they think they have on their continent then they should drastically increase their defense budgets and stop relying on defending Europe to the last American.

Meanwhile the emperor made his strategery about ISIS as clear as mud in a speech in Estonia.

Quote:

---

“Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so that it's no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States,” said Obama said earlier Wednesday.
However, he later added, “if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.”
Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said later, “It's actually both. And I know that sounds a little bit strange to hear.”
Kirby said the U.S. can militarily degrade, disrupt and destroy ISIS “targets” in Iraq but cannot militarily destroy ISIS itself.

---

Pentagon sees no contradiction in Obama comments on ISIS | TheHill
I'm sure that the Eastern Europeans who were looking to the emperor for some clarity came away satisfied .
Here is his European policy in a nut shell....

Quote:

---

We are committed to the defense of NATO signatories.
Ukraine is not part of NATO, which means we will not defend them militarily.
However, we will continue to seek a peaceful settlement; we will continue to provide military aid to Ukraine; and we will continue to ratchet up sanctions on Russia if they continue their aggression in eastern Ukraine.

---

No, Obama's Ukraine Policy Isn't "Muddled" | Mother Jones
and that from Adam Drum of Mother Jones who is a cheerleader for the emperor .

Ah it must be confomting to have a treaty with america right now, wait a minute we have a treaty with america so I can take comfort from Obama's speech, but the Ukrainians must be thinking they bet on the wrong horse. NATO wants to expand and Obama doesn't

That's between NATO and Ukraine and is none of Putin's business and he should take his lying arse (and his tanks, guns, and troops) and go home, and stop bragging to his oligarchs how he could conquer Kiev in a week.

that wasn't to Russians . He made an off the cuff comment to Jose Manuel Barroso; the Portuguese President of the European Commission ;who broke diplomatic protocol by making his comment public.
Putin's point is valid. When he took Georgia territory he did not hold back . He had paratroopers drop in behind Georgian front lines and rolled them up. This "incursion " as the emperor calls it ,does not resemble a Russian invasion.

However ,there is no doubt that the Ukraine army's reversal does have the imprint of Russian weaponry and advisors on the ground. Someone organized a rag tag rebel force into a force with organized command and control.

Yes I wonder who did that