Check out some similar questions!

paraclete · Feb 17, 2015, 08:09 AM

Tom all I will respond is clandestine activities and support through weapon sales. Who bought the oil to help Saddam fund his war, someone did. It is a great shame your non-intervention could be turned off and on, but then a few marsh arabs are exactly that.

Anyway Tom the point is this group needs to be opposed on the ground and apparently the US will provide a regiment, no doubt supported by forces from other nations. It appears these forces have been sitting around in Kuwait so they don't have so far to go unless they are rotated out first

tomder55 · Feb 28, 2015, 09:33 AM

Graeme Wood of 'Atlantic ' magazine has a must read essay on the Islamic State . He tells why those who think that the group is not about Islam are making a fatal mistake . He tells why they must be opposed and unmercifully crushed ;the sooner the better .

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

talaniman · Feb 28, 2015, 09:56 AM

Does it really matter the religion a sick twisted human being professes? Or what they wrap their propaganda around Tom?

The solution for a mad rogue human(s), is the same for a mad rogue animal(s), capture, contain, or shoot the sucker. Forget the political jibber jabber. Hire a pro, or do it yourself. Obviously the locals need to HIRE A PRO! They are trying to do it themselves (with prodding from the west), and maybe they will make some progress.

The politics and the religious motives mean nothing when we judge the actions. Rogue dangerous humans sums it up for me. Don't care what they want.

tomder55 · Feb 28, 2015, 11:44 AM

Their motives mean everything to them and that is what you don't understand . Spend some time and read the article . It is informative if nothing else.

paraclete · Feb 28, 2015, 02:47 PM

I agree with tal one answer to isis

speechlesstx · Mar 16, 2015, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

I agree with tal one answer to isis

Yup, kill 'em all. Meanwhile, they make for some ugly women.

++

paraclete · Mar 16, 2015, 02:32 PM

So they have demonstrated they are craven cowards but these were probably deviates anyway. I couldn't have a lower opinion of ISIS this just proves it

paraclete · Mar 21, 2015, 02:55 PM

US troops leave Yemen

BBC News - US troops 'withdraw from Yemen'

In the face of islamic extremism from IS, Al Qaeda and shiite Houthi's has the US decided that Yemen is a bridge too far. There has been a serious effort against Al Qaeda in Yemen but all it has yielded is withdrawl giving IS a propaganda victory

tomder55 · Mar 21, 2015, 05:31 PM

we are about to take a back seat ,or even assist Qod forces who are bringing in heavy weaponry in to level the Sunni sections of Tikrit . By the end of next week we will have "negotiated " a "framework " for a deal with them that will lead to the Iranian nuke. Yeah the emperor has us retreating all over the world.

talaniman · Mar 22, 2015, 04:42 AM

Come off it Tom, lead from behind is a right wing talking point invented to blast this president, and demean his policy of coalition building between cooperative partners.

Cooperation is not a part of the right wing republican dictionary.

paraclete · Mar 22, 2015, 05:00 AM

I think he is right Tal the US is retreating back into isolationism. They are not taking the lead in Iraq, in fact the Iranians are taking the lead, and iran, well I doubt they are really interested in nuclear weapons but you have to consider that their enemy Israel has nuclear weapons and a willingness to use them. Now a change in attitude towards the palestinians may convince them they don't need them. The US has even failed to convince its allies not to join the China development bank. The wind is blowing

talaniman · Mar 22, 2015, 05:18 AM

If you mean not sending in armies to cool regional hotspots, or deal with world disputes, is isolationism that's a crazy leap of logic.

tomder55 · Mar 22, 2015, 06:31 AM

I doubt they are really interested in nuclear weapons

and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you .

The US has even failed to convince its allies not to join the China development bank

. A dagger that few realized how destructive it will be.

tomder55 · Mar 22, 2015, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Come off it Tom, lead from behind is a right wing talking point invented to blast this president, and demean his policy of coalition building between cooperative partners.

Cooperation is not a part of the right wing republican dictionary.

and the emperor's weapons transfer to our enemies continues .

Pentagon loses track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen - The Washington Post

Emperor Zero is an arsonist who is really enjoying his handiwork .

paraclete · Mar 22, 2015, 02:28 PM

Don't need a bridge in Brooklyn Tom I have one in Sydney, the fact is Tom for a long time I believed the line of bull the US was spinning and then I found how hollow and misdirected it was. Now I don't believe what they present as facts. There were no WMD in Iraq, there won't be any WMD in Iran and I think the Ukrainians should sort it out for themselves because any solution you impose is no solution at all, just an empasse. The world is tired of fighting your proxy wars. But when you have a real cause in front of you, you hesitate just like you did with Hitler. What does it take for you to act, some perception of a real and present danger that results in carnage in the US.

What has happened in Yemen? Have you lost track of some million dollar hammers? What a beatup your article is, data dating back to 2007, a lot can happen in eight years and you have a long reputation for abandoning equipment and supplying the black market. Perhaps that equipment found its way to another conflict

tomder55 · Mar 22, 2015, 04:01 PM

There were no WMD in Iraq

wrong

there won't be any WMD in Iran

I am pretty sure that they already purchased weapons from the market that developed when the Soviet Union collapsed. Regardless ;if they had no ambitions to develop an Iranian nuke then they have no reason for their enrichment program and should have no issues with abandoning it .

and I think the Ukrainians should sort it out for themselves because any solution you impose is no solution at all,

it is arguable if we are trying to "impose " any solution on them . What is not arguable is that Putin is indeed trying . Had he left them to their own devices ,the gvt in Kiev would've crushed the Eastern opposition . Look ,I'm not happy with our level of participation there now . But it is Russia that has created this crisis. Putin could not accept the ouster of Yanukovych and gave material support including heavy weapons (and Russian troops ) to the rebel's cause.

What we lost in Yemen is a key strategic geographic point . If either AQ or the Iranian clients take control (which seems inevitable ) then that will have major implications for the free flow of goods around the world.

paraclete · Mar 22, 2015, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

wrong
I am pretty sure that they already purchased weapons from the market that developed when the Soviet Union collapsed. Regardless ;if they had no ambitions to develop an Iranian nuke then they have no reason for their enrichment program and should have no issues with abandoning it

If they had the weapons they would have no need of the nuclear program, no they want nuclear energy and perhaps they want more efficient reactors. Nuclear scientists have their ways. Why should you dictate how they go about it. Just bring them in from the cold and stop being so beligerant. They kicked your arse years ago and you are still carrying on the conflict and it is Israel and Saud who are goading you on. Who is the client state here?

it is arguable if we are trying to "impose " any solution on them . What is not arguable is that Putin is indeed trying . Had he left them to their own devices ,the gvt in Kiev would've crushed the Eastern opposition . Look ,I'm not happy with our level of participation there now . But it is Russia that has created this crisis. Putin could not accept the ouster of Yanukovych and gave material support including heavy weapons (and Russian troops ) to the rebel's cause.

It is not arguable. Clearly you are for a european trade solution because it will give you a door fro one of your famous free tade deals. Both Russia and Europe has deal on the table and I can understand that Russia saw a coup which put them out in the cold. I also think Yanukovych was like all eastern tyrants he needed to go. However this all must be seen through the prism of Russian paranoia. The Ukraine is heartland to the Russians and any encroachment is not favoured. They long remember the French and the Germans and much Russian blood was shed in the Ukraine.

What we lost in Yemen is a key strategic geographic point . If either AQ or the Iranian clients take control (which seems inevitable ) then that will have major implications for the free flow of goods around the world.

That particular geographic point was lost to the western world long ago, so you didn't loose anything. What you lost was your influence in that country but perhaps your client state, the House of Saud, will take it back for you, but wait I can never work out who is a client state of who. But don't worry the new canal through central america will solve any problem for you, it is just Europe and Saud who will have to worry

tomder55 · Mar 23, 2015, 04:40 AM

It is not arguable. Clearly you are for a european trade solution because it will give you a door fro one of your famous free tade deals. Both Russia and Europe has deal on the table and I can understand that Russia saw a coup which put them out in the cold. I also think Yanukovych was like all eastern tyrants he needed to go. However this all must be seen through the prism of Russian paranoia. The Ukraine is heartland to the Russians and any encroachment is not favoured. They long remember the French and the Germans and much Russian blood was shed in the Ukraine.

Whether we support or oppose integration into the EU zone is irrelevent . Kiev wants it and they are the government in power . As you know , I am familiar with the Russian interests in Ukraine ,historically , financially , and strategically . I also know that Putin is close to going the way of Khrushchev 1964 because he has botched his whole intervention. That is not necessarily a good thing because there are hardliners in the Kremlin who would favor a full fledged invasion to at least take Eastern Ukraine as far as the Dnieper River.

no they want nuclear energy and perhaps they want more efficient reactors.

if that were the case then they can purchase the enriched uranium needed . The main state sponsor of terrorism has no "right" to have it's own enrichment program ;regardless of their intent . But you know and I know that their program is for weapon development .
Let's see .... it takes about a ton of 20% enriched uranium to make a bomb. Will the 12ers in Tehran agree to limit their stockpile of enriched uranium to less that 500 lbs ? Or will they exchange it for a form that is difficult to reconvert for weapons use ? Of course not ! They want it for weapon production.

talaniman · Mar 23, 2015, 05:11 AM

Without the Europeans, Chinese, and the Russians signing on to any new sanctions the congress proposes, the Iranians can do as they please. This isn't just the US trying to get a deal, it's the P5. The US alone cannot dictate, or enforce anything, no matter what the congress or Nettie are hollering about.

It's foolish to even think anyone can stop the Iranians without a deal.

paraclete · Mar 23, 2015, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

if that were the case then they can purchase the enriched uranium needed . The main state sponsor of terrorism has no "right" to have it's own enrichment program ;regardless of their intent . But you know and I know that their program is for weapon development .
Let's see .... it takes about a ton of 20% enriched uranium to make a bomb. Will the 12ers in Tehran agree to limit their stockpile of enriched uranium to less that 500 lbs ? Or will they exchange it for a form that is difficult to reconvert for weapons use ? Of course not ! They want it for weapon production.

That's your answer to everything, you can't have your own industries, you can have the industries we tell you you can have. That's yankee capitalism. The washingtom mafia in action. Don't talk about states sponsoring terrorism. The US has sponsored many terrorist groups when it suited them. You choose to think of them as freedom fighters until they turn around an bite you on the bum, as I said I don't swallow that line of b/s anymore. Look if the US were selling the reactors to Iran instead of the Russians you would have no problem with their nuclear program, it all about client states