General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEd Schultz thinks we should consider Ground Troops in ‘Religious War’ with ISIS
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-showIt's the first video titled "Barbaric acts of terror in Denmark and Libya"
Retired Colonel Jack Jacobs said that we would need 200,000-300,000 troops in order to take ground and KEEP IT. He didn't sound like he was for it, but just pointing it out. Ed didn't sound like he wanted that either but said What were doing isnt strong enough, isnt working, he said. Now whether that means we need to put ground troops and get them involved, I dont know. Im not a military expert.
Fuck that shit.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Bush and Cheney effed up Iraq bigtime.
I don't see that Obama is doing anything any better.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Cha
(297,513 posts)Follow
wow. Obama's #Gallup approv rating today: 49% vs. W. Bush's approv rating on this day 8 yrs ago: 33%. (what success/failure looks like)
8:21 AM - 16 Feb 2015 115 Retweets 68 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/02/16/happy-presidents-day-2/
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)Cha
(297,513 posts)what bush-cheney did to FUBAR the Middle East.. and have it come back and bite us like we knew it would in 2003.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)and that's a good thing.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I love the man for his passion, but his general knowledge is woeful.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Gee, I wonder what Morning Joe is going to say about this.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Warpy
(111,327 posts)You been talking to Grandpa McCain lately?
Honestly, every war we get into sets up the next one, the exception being WWII and that was due to the Marshall Plan, something that would never get past Republicans now.
We need to stop meddling in the Middle East, let them sort their own shit out. No, we won't like what they end up with, especially in the short term. It's just not our fight.
Do we put pressure on ISIL in other ways? Oh, you bet we do, through cheap oil and bombing the facilities they're using to steal oil in the region to sell it to finance their war against everybody who isn't them. We should also be providing humanitarian aid to people who have had to run for their lives.
Sending in the military? No way, Ed. We already know how that goes and so do they.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)and the blowback would fuel more war. It's win-win for the warmongers.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Our meddling hasn't improved anything. I do love your humanitarian aid suggestion, we don't do much of that. There is a reason why our perception ratings are the lowest in the region though the US was viewed as very favorably before the US-Saudi Arabia alliance. Not just in the middle east but all a country has to do to become a major enemy of the US is to nationalize their oil production. The Iranian coup, the 70s, billions in weapon deals over-and-over to Saudi Arabia, not to mention the US bizarre alliance with Israel. Our meddling is being directed by multinational corporations.
Bombing oil facilities, problem is they are someone's oil facilities
Yet appearances deceive: This is not an independent state. Youre in Iraq more precisely, the part of northern Iraq known officially as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Youll be reminded of this fact when you open your wallet to pay for something: the local currency is still the Iraqi dinar (though the U.S. dollar circulates widely). Nor do any of the foreign governments that maintain consulates in Erbil recognize Kurdish statehood; nor, for that matter, does the government of the KRG itself. For the time being, Iraqi Kurdistan is still under Baghdads writ.
Emphasis on for the time being. In July of last year, KRG President Massoud Barzani asked his parliament to start preparing for a referendum on independence. It was a suitably dramatic response to the stunning disintegration of the Iraqi state under then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Earlier, in January 2014, Malikis government had cut off financial transfers to the Kurds as part of a fight over control of oil resources, enraging Erbil even as his repressive policies toward Iraqs Sunni Arabs were fueling the dramatic rise of the Islamic State (IS). Last summer, after IS forces shocked the world by seizing control of Mosul, Iraqs second-largest city, the jihadists pushed from there deep into Kurdish territory, at one point getting within 25 miles of Erbil.
Buoyed by U.S.-led airstrikes on IS positions, the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga, soon rallied, forcing the Islamic State to retreat. But the Kurds didnt stop there. The collapse of the demoralized Iraqi Army in large swathes of northern Iraq had created a vacuum that Kurdish troops were only too happy to fill. Almost by accident, KRG leaders abruptly found themselves ruling 40 percent more territory than at the start of the conflict.
<snip>
If the dream finally becomes a reality, there is one nation in particular that the Kurds will have to thank for it: the United States. Even though U.S. policy toward the Kurds has often been subordinated to the same spirit of realpolitik that defines so many of Washingtons policies in the region, todays Iraqi Kurdistan traces its origins to two key events: the establishment of a no-fly zone over the region after the Allied victory over Saddam in 1991, and the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator in the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. As a result, Kurds tend to be overwhelmingly pro-American to an extent that comes as quite a jolt to anyone whos spent time in other parts of the Middle East.
And yet President Obama and his predecessors in the White House have all been notably reluctant to give their blessing to Kurdish statehood out of the not entirely unreasonable fear that creating a new player in such a volatile neighborhood could invite serious instability. To name but one possible risk: a declaration of secession by Iraqi Kurdistan could prompt the final collapse of rump Iraq into separate Sunni and Shiite statelets, intensifying sectarian conflict throughout the region.
(I lost the link but from the foreign policy oil website)
Outside of the ISIS information war is the unresolved political conflicts that are the driving forces behind this. Obama has made slight improvements from all prior predecessors since FDR. He has had improved relations with Iran, more distancing from Saudi Arabia, and has shown signs of relations with the Houthis in Yemen though its way too early to indicate were this is going and they are only just slight & cautious changes.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Probably a lot more than is publicly admitted.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)and subsequent occupation only across more countries.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)ISIS is a problem but it's not just our problem, and throwing troops at it could easily make things much worse.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)He's really bad and he represents the left on the corporate mainstream media.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)but this, not so much.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The start was comments during the domestic spying controversy.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)
VIDEO REMOVED.
Obama isn't doing what they want him to do. So is MSNBC, who was right in there cheering the Iraq Invasion, just reminding Ed who's paying his rent?
If someone wants to go fight, Christian Dominionists are the cheapest soldiers, they want to bring the Apocalypse, even if they die doing so, the same as ISIS, but from the other side. They don't plan to come back.
Some Americans are already there to fight for religion now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141015596
jwirr
(39,215 posts)He brought up the issue by voicing the R view. Then his guests explained why putting boots on the ground was a very bad idea. If any of you know how hard Ed fights for an issue he really believes in then you also saw how easily he backed off.
And all the programs last night had this same talking point. Don't remember Al Sharpton's program. Chris Matthews was the war hawk ready to fight a religious war and he sounded like he really believed it. I also forget what Rachel said. Chris Hayes did a great job of denouncing the idea and suggesting alternatives and Lawrence O did also.
I personally got the idea that they all had their marching orders and were allowed to invite guests but in no way were they allowed to deviate from their assigned portion of the issue.
geomon666
(7,512 posts)He must be out of his mind.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)interventionist. I stopped listening to him many years ago and want to say it was due to his support for the Iraq War. Can't remember now.