Obama to announce new war on Wednesday

[morningfog]

Here we go with another open-ended, ill-defined military action in the Middle East.

"This is not going to be an announcement about U.S. ground troops. This is not the equivalent of the Iraq War," he said. It will be interesting to parse the language of this announcement.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. Not the second Iraq War anyways.

It's about time for another Air Force and Navy war, isn't it?

[morningfog]

4. Rather, the first Syrian War.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. Yes, but spilling over the border into Iraq. The point is, it's time for another AF & Navy war,

though it remains to be seen how the Navy will figure in to the Syrian/Iraqi program.

[grahamhgreen]

44. Syria has a coast

[ChisolmTrailDem]

64. I know, but there hasn't been much talk about the Navy's part in this coming war. My

point was that it is time for another Air Force- and Navy-centric war, where the emphasis and focus will be the Air Force and the Navy, rather than the Marines and the Army, though I'm sure there will be special forces ops from those two branches of the miltary.

[amandabeech]

89. Naval aviation.

There are one or two carriers in the Persian Gulf and another one or two in the Arabian Sea off the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

We might also go in from the Eastern Mediterranean if we had overflight rights from Turkey, which is a NATO ally.

I doubt that we will overfly Syria, Lebanon or Jordan.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

91. Yup. And, here we go again. Sigh. nt

[amandabeech]

104. I'm afraid so. Sigh.

I'm just so darned sick of this.

[DustyJoe]

95. 2nd war with what ??????

thousand Army majors and captains given pink slips
fifteen hundred Navy officers given pink slips
air force fighter pilot shortage
only tank buster we have mothballed and out of production
helicopter gunships taken off line
army combat brigades disbanded
capital ships mothballed
over 30 generals/admirals forced to resign

So where in the hell is any government that has decimated its military going to find the material, the men, the CAPABLE EXPERIENCED officers to lead ? Much less replace the lost morale the past few years has wreaked.

We will just be sending the inexperienced, understaffed, ill equipped cannonfodder off for ISIS to put on youtube with their mass nazi style executions in ditches or beheadings.

Does no one think that ISIS, Iran, North Korea, Russia etc. have been keeping track and know exactly what our capabilities are and the fact our capabilities fall far far short of any tall order or chest thumping boasts.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

97. Wow, are our forces [i]that[/i] decimated?

I had no idea!

[TwilightGardener]

113. They aren't.

[GP6971]

103. For the Army alone

it was a little over 1,000 captains and about 700 majors. Imagine being in Afghanistan and being told "thanks, but your service is no longer required".

Plus some senior colonels were told to retire.....can't remember the number though.

[TwilightGardener]

114. Alarmist bullshit.

The government hasn't "decimated" its military. Where's your proof that our capability is reduced? We aren't conducting two major ground wars at the same time anymore, and the army staffing levels will reflect that. And the "30 generals" forced to resign sounds like the right wing myth of OMG OBAMA IZ PURGING TEH OFFICERZ WHO DON'T AGREE WITH HIM OMG!!!

[randys1]

2. Tough call when almost half the country hates you no matter what you do

[Hemmingway]

3. I stand with Obama. ISIS is the greatest threat of the 21st century.

Kill em all.

GOBAMA

[ChisolmTrailDem]

5. No, climate change and running out of oil and fresh, clean water is the greatest

threat of the 21st Century.

But, thanks for playing anyway.

[Hemmingway]

7. I think there's plenty of oil to go around for those who are willing to take it.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

11. And that's what it's really all about, taking resources so you can wipe your ass with toilet paper

instead of tree bark?

[Hemmingway]

12. I would rather a war over resources than religion.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. Still, you'd rather a war, as long as it benefits you. nt

[Hemmingway]

17. In some circumstances, yes.

When critical resources, those needed for basic survival, such as fresh clean water, begin to run out, I expect my government to go to war to secure those resources.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

19. That is a loathesome expectation. nt

[Hemmingway]

21. Why?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

26. If I have to explain that to you, then you are most likely in the wrong place

on the Internet and nothing I say will change your mind.

You better believe it!

[morningfog]

37. Run if the mill garden troll.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

42. Actually, a mouse...

and I am the cat.

(Edited: Now that I think about it, that wasn't a good illustration of my analogy, LOL! )

[uppityperson]

51. Really? Again?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

54. Oh yes, it's my new favorite saying. BBI! nt

[uppityperson]

57. You would think people might move on.

Find other hobbies

[ChisolmTrailDem]

81. I'll do what I want to do. I asked for an explanation and none was offered. I'm not

putting up with it and I haven't broken any rules nor has a single post I've made today been hidden.

I'm sick of the disrespect shown me and others here and I will not continue to tolerate it.

[uppityperson]

82. Yup, and I didn't mean you.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

83. I see, well I can't be faulted for thinking it was. I stand by the gist of my post. It was implied

that I am a sock for a former DUer twice in that thread and I've had it with that shit. If MIRT can find that I am a sock, then so be it. Be my fucking guest.

[uppityperson]

85. I do not know what thread you mean and I meant the one you were replying to here

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

86. A fucking useless shitstorm that I won't link to. EDITED:

It seems we've been talking past each other. It's about context. I can explain in a PM if you want me to.

[uppityperson]

88. Got it, thanks, and blech to the whole drama thing.

no worries between us.

[GP6971]

105. And I'm sure you'll be first in line to join

the military if you haven't already served.

[newfie11]

36. +1 Nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. guess WHO controls some of that oil now? And is using it to commit genocide?

[Ichingcarpenter]

80. Perpetual War is the only thing

that allow their system to exist..



Follow the money and the allies we support and the allies who pay for the chaos

they create to continue their oppressive regime and perpetual war.....


No one can democratize when they create enough fear and terror to protect you against your own interest...Orwell saw this as did many others.




Maslow's hierarchy of needs are pushed to the lowest statem or second lowest which allows for the most susceptible manipulation to prevent self actualization which is highest leve of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Can't have conscious human beings that decide for themselves for their limited existence, our families have enough money to prevent that.


That being said

To me, as you said
the planet is endangered
by unnecessary stupidity, ignorance and greed and an economic system ruling this world that is not conscious and is against their own organic structure they agree up for survival as a entity and consciousness on this planet

Pay attention to the details

And keep track of the pieces.


even doing your dishes
as grandma said

















Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are a major players in our banking system

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Overdose on your Testornios this morning?

[Dirty Socialist]

8. I Think It Is A Question of How Much

Continue the present actions, adding more airstrikes, adding advisors, going for a ground war, or doing nothing.

[grahamhgreen]

50. And who pays????

[Dirty Socialist]

56. I Would Tax The Rich

But that's just me. I don't think we should go in all the way. ISIS wants us to do exactly that, so we would go bankrupt. However, we should have more airstrikes, add advisors, and build a coalition to defeat ISIS.
Keep in mind Dubya is partially responsible for ISIS's success.

[grahamhgreen]

70. If it's actually important, a special tax on the wealthiest should fly through congress. I'd like to

see a proposal from the pres on wed for this.

[Dirty Socialist]

84. I 'm Not Holding My Breath

But one can still dream.

[whathehell]

102. Agreed...No more wars without the One Percent's involvement via their taxes.

Anything else is unacceptable.

[Agschmid]

13. Ugh... It's a big century just FYI.

[Hemmingway]

15. Gotta start somewhere.

[GummyBearz]

14. The only thing is...

We can bomb them but that just seems to get them more riled up. We need to get down to their level and do some really inhumane stuff to them.. Thats what they seem to understand

[Dirty Socialist]

18. See You in The Hague

What we need to do is build a coalition.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

20. Torture is now legal. nt

[Dirty Socialist]

24. It's "Enhanced interrogation techniques"

Get with the program!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

28. A shit turd by any other name... You better believe it!

[GummyBearz]

23. I may be wrong...

But I dont think anyone ever got tried in Hague for killing Nazis

[Dirty Socialist]

30. If they shot German prisoners

Then they should have (but I don't think that happened)

[GummyBearz]

49. You misread

The part where I said no one was tried for "killing Nazis" .... obviously lots of people were tried for being Nazis. Its not such a subtle difference

[ChisolmTrailDem]

52. You're right, my bad. I'll delete. Thanks for correcting my reading of your post. =) nt

[uppityperson]

41. Who did what you are asking for? "We need to get down to their level and do some really inhumane stu

"We need to get down to their level and do some really inhumane stuff to them.. Thats what they seem to understand"

Were there concentration/extermination camps for the nazis?

[GummyBearz]

61. Not that I know of

But then again 99% of Nazis surrendered unconditionally when Germany had lost. The leaders faced execution, and the common soldier was treated as any other enemy under the "rules of war". ISIS doesn't exactly obey the "rules of war"

[uppityperson]

69. So the USA should torture and do nasty stuff because no one did that to the nazis?

GB "We need to get down to their level and do some really inhumane stuff to them.. Thats what they seem to understand"
Reply: See You in The Hague
GB "I may be wrong...But I dont think anyone ever got tried in Hague for killing Nazis"
Reply : Who did what you are asking for? "
GD "Not that I know of"

what?

[GummyBearz]

75. My reply

... was to your last question about concentration camps for Nazi's. Sorry for not being clear on that. I was just stating that 99% of the Nazi's understood the "rules of war" and surrendered unconditionally, and therefore they didn't need to be completely wiped out via concentration camps, etc

[uppityperson]

77. And your previous point that no one went to the Hague for torturing nazis, so it's ok to do

nasty stuff to the ISIS?

[GummyBearz]

79. On a humane level, no..

But I doubt you will go to the Hague for it... no one has in about 70 years

[sub.theory]

96. Totally disagree

I fully support attacking (killing) them. But, playing dirty like they do will bite us in the ass. Besides being deeply immoral, the torture of captives in US custody (Abu Ghraib, water boarding) has been a PR and recruiting bonanza for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups. It also endangers American soldiers and citizens. By torturing the opposition, they feel more inclined to do the same to us. It's also important that we can get mainstream Sunni Muslims in our corner to defeat ISIS, and non-Muslims torturing or brutalizing Muslims will kill hopes of that.

[morningfog]

22. What about the civilians nearby that are being

subjected to IS?

[Hemmingway]

27. They'll meet us with open arms and praise is as rescuing heroes.

ISIS is the real deal.

[morningfog]

33. What about the civilians we kill?

[Hemmingway]

43. What about the ones we save?

[morningfog]

48. No, what about the ones we kill?

[Hemmingway]

53. We will save more than we kill.

Obama will do it right.

[morningfog]

59. How many can we kill and still be in the right?

1,000? 10,000? More?

[Hemmingway]

67. How many do we have to save before it becomes worth the money to you?

[morningfog]

71. Stupid question. Even one civilian killed is too many.

I care much more about the innocent lives we take than the money we spend, which is abhorrent in its own right.

You dodge the uncomfortable truth that we kill innocent people. Whether they die by our bombs or by IS, thy are dead innocents just the same. Now, quit running from your bravado. How many innocents is it worth us killing to you?

[Hemmingway]

74. Should we cower behind or borders?

Too afraid of our own shadow to do the right thing?

If we could save a thousand lives for every civilian killed, would it be worth it? Or would it be better to let them die because we didn't want to bloody our hands?

[morningfog]

109. We can't kill people into not killing.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Flowers! these people hate us, we are the problem not the solution.

[grahamhgreen]

40. How bout the 8 newborns bombed to death in airstrikes? Any blowback from that you think?

[arcane1]

46. Give me a fucking break.

Nobody is buying.

[Marr]

47. Conservatives are easily frightened.

Say anything is a threat, and they'll piss their pants and agree.

[tkmorris]

115. LOL you having fun?

[LanternWaste]

125. Creative, though unsupported allegation.

" ISIS is the greatest threat of the 21st century..."

Creative, though unsupported allegation. We often like to pretend our opinions are facts and state then as such to feel more clever than we really are... it's a human condition.

[morningfog]

9. I wonder how many times he'll invoke 9/11?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. If we're running a pool, can I have "0", please? N.T.

[morningfog]

32. You'd lose for sure.

It's the day before the anniversary, conveniently, for one thing.

[grahamhgreen]

38. Wow! How apropos

[Marr]

58. Wow, I didn't even noticed that, but

it makes me suspect he won't ever reference 9-11 directly. It's just too "done" in this context.

I expect a lot of oblique word play, defining the shape of 9-11 without ever actually saying it.

[morningfog]

66. I imagine more directly. "On the eve of this anniversary..."

We will not permit a terror org to strengthen to that point again.

Then, "these folks are even worse than those who attacked us before."

Etc....

[Marr]

72. Yep-- that's more or less what I'm thinking. I doubt he'll actually use the

phrase "9-11", or even "Twin Towers". It recalls the Bush Administration and their fraudulent, disastrous invasion.

Our government is very good at marketing its products.

[Art_from_Ark]

112. The bu$h misadministration

[grahamhgreen]

34. ''From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'' ANDREW H. CARD Jr.,

''From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.''

ANDREW H. CARD Jr., White House chief of staff, on why the Bush administration waited until September to press for public support of its Iraq policy.

[sawdust]

39. IMO President Obama has considered all angles at this point

I think he has some important facts and possibly plans to reveal, remember bin laden? The President is very cunning in a good way!
We shall see.

[Dirty Socialist]

45. He Also Has Kenyan Blood

He is in it for the long haul, not for some instant results.

[arcane1]

55. Does "Kenyan Blood" have some sort of special magic powers or something?

Where do you people get this crap?

[Dirty Socialist]

60. What do you mean by "you people"?

[arcane1]

68. People who say shit like "Kenyan Blood"

[Dirty Socialist]

73. I meant that as a compliment

What do you want in the White House, a failed Texas businessman?

[sawdust]

62. kenya didn't exist when he was born

Goofball

[treestar]

90. Curious only, is it that Kenyans are known for

waiting out the long haul?

He also has Irish blood, and that might mean he's fighting' mad!

[Dirty Socialist]

99. I Think The Fighting Irish Thing

Is not fair. Most nationalities fight from time to time.
I think the Kenyans think like they compete in sports: good over the long haul. Also, they are even tempered. I only know a couple of Kenyans, but that's the impression I get.

[LeftyMom]

63. And now the fan club is going to tell you how wars are awesome and they were always for them. nt

[treestar]

92. Why should one be for or against wars entirely?

Wouldn't it depend on the situation?

If you're always against wars, would that include our involvement in WWI and WWII? Or should we always stay out?

[LeftyMom]

108. See, called it. nt

[treestar]

118. you did not answer the question

[Marr]

120. Yep. It's like watching a rerun.

[Marr]

119. Yeah-- like, maybe you're *against* wars when *those* politicians are in office, but *for* wars

Last edited Mon Sep 8, 2014, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

when these politicians are in office. Totally consistent!

Please tell me you didn't seriously compare this situation to WW2. That was one of the Bush Administration's shameless sales pitches.

[m-lekktor]

124. DEM president bombs only kill the bad guys!1

[JoePhilly]

127. Wasn't DU absolutely sure that Obama was going to ...

... invade Syria last year? That's what I remember.

Totally, completely sure. He was definitely going to invade.

And then it didn't happen.

Now, the same folks are making the same predictions a year later.

[Kalidurga]

65. So what would you do?

Or what would you rather be done? IMO it is not a good thing to just let terrorists run amok. It's not a popular one around here and I myself am very uncomfortable with killing people even if they are murderous and running amok, but there ya go it's happening and now it's up to you to figure out what to do about it.

[morningfog]

110. As horrid as it is, this is not a problem to be solved with the US military.

This is a brutal sectarian war crossing multiple countries. A great deal of this can be traced to past western military interventions.

For our purposes, we need to closely follow who is going to fight for IS from the US and other western nations, and track any possible attempt to return.

As for war crimes by IS, we need to be a part of the international community in addressing it. No other nations are bombing Iraq right now. How is it that none others see it as the moral imperative? None. Because it isn't. IS is a serious problem for the neighbor in nations to contain and the host nations to end. This is not our fight.

[Kalidurga]

117. I can't think of any fights not in our country that are our fights.

This one however I think should be contained. I don't like any of the options.

[SummerSnow]

76. he might use those drones

[morningfog]

111. No doubt drones will be a part of it.

Those are Obama's weapon of choice, because they are politically safe. War without the political consequences.

[Travis_0004]

78. I'm surprised he didn't wait until after the election.

[blkmusclmachine]

98. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the White House is ~trying~ to throw the Senate to the Republicans

[99Forever]

87. I oppose ANY USA involvement in this.

We need to stay out of other peoples shit. ALL of it. Let them fix themselves because we sure as fuck can't do it for them.

I don't care who the President is or which party they are, this is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

[treestar]

93. I can dig that

Would you have said that in 1944? Or 1918?

[Marr]

121. Were you using that same argument when Rumsfeld was using it?

Or did it just now become reasonable?

[treestar]

126. By the standard that we should not get involved in others' problems

Both those wars were the problems of European countries. It has nothing to do with Scumsfeld. Poster upthread said we should not get involved. So what's the difference? When should we get involved?

The subthread started when someone made a statement indicating they would never agree with our involvement in any war.

[blkmusclmachine]

94. But there are handsome PROFITS to be made, and really, that's the only thing that matters in DC.

Death = Profit

[99Forever]

101. So very true.

I wish we had a higher moral standard than that, but we don't.

Our voices will once again be ignored and ridiculed.

We will NEVER learn.

[LittleBlue]

100. Any ground forces and I register as indy the next day

I cannot support any party that starts a ground war in the Middle East. It's why I first became a Democrat and vowed to never cast a vote for a Republican in my life.

This issue is more important to me than all other issues. If he does this, he's going to lose more Millennials. Many will turn to libertarianism, the belief that government causes more problems than it fixes. That argument is bolstered when we go to war against a force that grew in the power vacuum we created with a previous war.

When does it end? How long until the next ISIS? When do we realize that our bombs don't resolve 1200 year old religious conflicts? Are we going to police Sunni and Shia conflicts forever, or just until the money runs out?

Fucking ridiculous.

[underpants]

106. Fox News will complain that it wasn't started onTuesday

CNN will tote the Fox News water (as usual) and ask "Why not Monday night?"

[Monk06]

107. It should be obvious after 6 years that Obama isn't running the show. He's not even

conducting the orchestra. Regardless of party the US president is just a corporate/military stooge.

[Marr]

122. I don't think that's the case at all.

The President isn't a stooge, he's just very well screened. People who are pronounced "the only viable candidates" or "inevitable" by corporate media before a single primary vote has been cast are invariably going to be thoroughly establishment candidates.

[SonofMarx]

116. Keep your powdered dried

[Corruption Inc]

123. Will we be setting up new torture camps and does it come with color-coded terror threats?

If it does, rest assured no one will ever be held responsible.