No boots on the ground ...

Is anyone still believing that? Curious.

Believing that it's what they are saying? Yes.
Believing that it's the actual plan? Sort of
Believing that it's how it's going to work out? Probably not.

I think that for any proposed military engagement, you need to have an exit strategy before you even begin. A plan for what victory is so you recognize it once you get there and can get out when the time is right. Bush clearly didn't have a solid plan when he started it all, and Obama campaigned on just getting us the hell out of there, so he did what he said he would do. But the job wasn't finished. I'm not sure it could ever be finished. It's an endless war. A nation building job that would require a generation or more of serious commitment.

We shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. Sadam was an asshole, but he kept the religious nuts under control. We were better off with him in office. Just like we were better off with the Shah in office.

I'd like to see Obama articulate a clear plan with an exit strategy before we do anything other than drop bombs.

Only reason to not put folks on the ground is because you intend to send wave after wave of planes to drop tons and tons of incendiaries and explosives in a sledgehammer approach (flatten, smash and burn EVERY-THING and ONE).

If one intends to be surgical then one ushers in troops with big honkin' guns and explosives (and air support) to flatten, smash, and burn only the selected things and ones.

What I'm not gettin': we will not put boots on the ground, we will not use the sledgehammer represented by air power, so, what exactly is supposed to be accomplished?

What is the definition of 'degrade and destroy' if it doesn't include flattening, smashing, and burning?

Maybe the goal is to use $1 billion a month in ordnance... Arming everybody in this conflict seems to be working out well for some players.

Griff;910887 wrote:

Maybe the goal is to use $1 billion a month in ordnance... Arming everybody in this conflict seems to be working out well for some players.

or........

[ATTACH]49190[/ATTACH]

They'll get around that by not calling them boots anymore. They'll call them LPCs (leather personnel carriers).

At this point, reasons for not deploying should be completely obvious. Did we not learn from Mission Accomplished, the Balkans, Desert Storm, Haiti, and Vietnam?

Middle East is first and foremost a problem that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, and the Gulf States should be addressing. They - not the US - should have defined what is necessary and implement resulting plans. Otherwise we have another reduction in US living standards because extremists again want America to be the world's policemen.

Instead, Turkey and Saudi Arabia complain that America has not come to fix things. That - their attitude - should have resulted in massive condemnation by America's extremists. Instead, they attacked Obama since self serving political cheapshots are more important than America (Remember: Rush Limbaugh said we want America to fail).

Amazing how many extremists still want America to become a world's policemen - as if it does not harm American living standards. As if 'big dic' justifications rather than informed intelligence justifies a war.

And yes, even a responsible Israel should be working with those other nations to address THEIR problem. Unfortunately Israel is also dominated by brainwashed extremists who see enemies everywhere and have no interest in long term solutions.

I don't understand why this must be repeated for the upteenth time. What is required before going to war? glatt defined one critically important requirement.

1) A smoking gun must exist.
2) A strategic objective must be clearly defined.
3) An exit strategy defined by that strategic objective must be defined.

If any one does not exist, then no American troops should be deployed. Anyone who learned from history - especially Mission Accomplished - should know that automatically.

Some greatest victories exist because American troops were not deployed for combat. Balkans and Haiti are two classic examples that extremists routinely forget. Because no 'big dic' battles were necessary to have stunning victories.

This ISIS situation must get worse so that the 'powers that be' (regional nations) get off their masturbating asses, stop complaining that the US is not coming to their defense, spend massively in America for arms, send us their troops (with cash) for training, and start taking responsibility for their own regions.

We are finally doing what is necessary. Doing what "Project for a New American Century" was incapable of understanding. While providing support to nations we have obligations to support (ie airpower for Iraq). Our tremendously right headed action even got the stupid Afghanistan leadership to admit how ignorant they have been.

Hopefully Karzai et al will finally admit blunt lectures by Holbrook were spot on when it defined that leadership as naive and self destructive.

George Jr selected Maliki as his chosen Iraqi leader despite Americans in Iraq who said otherwise. So George Jr spent one or two hours every day teaching politics to Maliki. Nobody expected Iraq's Army to self destruct this fast. Nobody realized that Maliki was even more incompetent than what George Jr was told. Now that Iraq now longer has that leader, hopefully Iraq will recover and take back their nation. But again, best is to let the 'powers that be' fix this problem. Or suffer consequences because they expect diminished American living standards to save their asses.

Y'all are aware there are already over 1000 PAIRS of boots on the ground already, right?

tw - your nonsense is intentionally being ignored. You haven't offered anything new since Carter was in office and your skewed perception of reality and ignorance of facts that disagree with your personal ideology make every one of your posts pointless to read.

classicman;910920 wrote:

Y'all are aware there are already over 1000 PAIRS of boots on the ground already, right?

Which ground are you talking about? Syria?

feels like old times

glatt;910924 wrote:

Which ground are you talking about? Syria?

Iraq ... for starters.

Undertoad;910925 wrote:

feels like old times

Word.

Good times. Interesting that tw has fallen for the intervention this time. Because Democrats, I guess.

This has to be done:

Boots on the ground
Boots on the ground
Lookin' like a fool witcha boots on the ground...

Undertoad;910925 wrote:

feels like old times

like we may have to reboot Iraq

infinite monkey;910977 wrote:

This has to be done:

Boots on the ground
Boots on the ground
Lookin' like a fool witcha boots on the ground...

Word

Griff;910975 wrote:

Interesting that tw has fallen for the intervention this time.

Then you did not comprehend what was posted.

Three clear points were listed. Please explain how each or any justifies intervention? Please explain why intervention is justified when the 'powers that be' are forced to take responsiblity?

Your mistake is believing the Administration.

I don't think anyone believes you can fight terrorism from the air. (Although that drone thing has seemed to be somewhat effective) Isn't the problem that the Country is faced with fighting an ideology being employed by a group of people that don't value all human life? As long as there are militant human beings to indoctrinate with this agenda the fight will continue ad infinitum. Isn't the bigger problem a President who is reticent to do anything which might appear to be said to be Anti-Islam? However a peace loving person is a peace loving person no matter the faith. My take, ISIS is a group of marauders not Islamists or any other legitimate faith.

Griff;910986 wrote:

Your mistake is believing the Administration.

Apparently my mistake is thinking you were serious. Sorry.

crweeks64;911190 wrote:

Isn't the bigger problem a President who is reticent to do anything which might appear to be said to be Anti-Islam?

Problem is an America so militarized (with veins now hanging from teeth) and so uneducated (due to Limbaugh style rhetoric) as to even justify Pearl Harboring of other nations.

Three fundamental rules justify war. Best we do (did) is let things get nasty for two incompetent leaders (Karzai and Maliki) so that reality finally replaced their bubblized perspectives. Same applies to every nation in that region. By literally making Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and Jordan fear, most (but not Israel) have suddenly decided they must take responsibility for their region. Legislatures in Turkey and Jordan have actually decided to be responsible or address their imprudent emotions. Egypt and some Gulf states have responded by acting more responsible.

George Jr supporters would now have us fully in combat in Korea, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Thank god our government is no longer lead by Cheney style extremists with big dics and no grasp. Same people even said Gestapo style torture, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition is good.

Fools justify attacking religious extremists using rhetoric that once massacred so many Americans wastefully in Vietnam. "Either we fight them there or fight them here." Nonsense.

Time for them to take responsibility for themselves. America is not the world's policeman. But we are respected, intelligent, and admired when we use power with discretion. A philosophy that clearly did not exist between 2000 and 2008.

We have deployed limited support functions to the few we have promised. Support functions are not 'boots on the ground'. Foolish to deploy combat troops when three conditions necessary for war obviously do not exist.

crweeks64;911190 wrote:

I don't think anyone believes you can fight terrorism from the air. (Although that drone thing has seemed to be somewhat effective).

As have the Warthogs... maybe that's why the Army wants them gone so badly.

Welcome to the Cellar, crweeks64. :welcome:

lol ... I'm drinking a lil wine and smiling.

tw;911194 wrote:

Apparently my mistake is thinking you were serious. Sorry.

I am quite serious, we're going to get sucked into this thing.

Griff;911219 wrote:

I am quite serious, we're going to get sucked into this thing.

Maybe. For similar reasons, we were drawn into WWII. And that was also good. By waiting for three fundamental principles, then we were drawn into a war that everyone begged us to join, forcing all to accept new principles, with domestic attitudes that made defeat impossible, with world wide situations that made it inevitable that we would win, and with resulting phase four planning, economic realities, and civilian educations that fundamentally changed the world to benefit most all.

Vietnam was America's first military defeat because we jumped into a war in violation of all three principles. Because big dics such as Nixon, LeMay, and Westmoreland even lied to get us into that war or to make it worse. Iraq has been nothing but a disaster for similar reasons. In both cases, all three necessary principles did not exist.

Situation must become so bad that all regional 'powers that be' have first done everything possible to solve it. They must first have a necessary attitude to take on what is *their* responsibility. And that even means Israel. Only then does America have any business being involved. Involvement that then means support from almost every other world nation. Situation must first get that bad.

Why was Desert Storm such a resounding military success? Almost every world nation participated with direct support of all types. America did not even pay for that war; the rest of the world did. Even explains no serious, resulting recession. Japan paid the most. America paid almost nothing because all three principles clearly existed before deployment.

Virtually every European nation was fully involved in directly assisting and expediting American troop deployments. Even Russia and China provided assistance. Even S American countries were actively spying for the liberation of Kuwait.

Yes we may be drawn into a war. It might happen. As it did in the Balkans. That will be a disaster (economic, political, and military) if we do not wait for all others to first decide to get off their ass, suffer losses, and then decide THEY have a problem. And again, that even means Israel must replace their wacko extremist, self serving, and destructive attitude with a responsible one.

ISIS is a rather good thing. For it changes everything. Like Hitler, it forces the 'powers that be' to take responsibility. To face economic, political, and military obligations. To work cooperatively. It even forced an end to colonialism. If the 'powers that be' wake up and become responsible, then harm that ISIS does to those nations can result in changes similar to what finally happened in Europe after WWII.

Many see fear and hype due to extremist (ie Limbaugh cheapshot) rhetoric. I see a necessary and probably inevitable crisis that can finally force the region to make necessary changes. But first we must let it become so tragic that most every civilian in every adjacent nation feels severe pain. Currently, pain is only superficial. Only then will the region accept necessary changes. Only then would all be ready for American assistance. Only then can this region maybe even fix itself without American involvement.

A region cannot be fixed until pain is massive; such as death rates of 10% of their populations. Unfortunately, because so many adults only think as children (only accept reality when it affects them emotionally), then this situation must get that bad before it can get better. Europeans had to learn same from WWI and WWII. America had to massacre so many uselessly in its Civil War. Because so many adults cannot logically see a bigger picture. Many adults never learn or even deny three fundamental principles necessary to justify war. Most adults unfortunately learn from resulting emotions - like children. Things must get that bad before so many adults finally are willing to accept change.

All in that region must learn that religion and secular life are completely separate. Even tolerance is a lesson still not found even in Israel. So many have not not learned even simple lessons of Khalil Gibran. Major disasters must happen before the region finally learns what could have been learned logically as adults; thereby avoiding so much destruction.

Yes I see ISIS as a potentially good thing for reasons that Nazism was so good for Europe. And I see only good things for America IF we stay out until three fundamental principles first exist. Then we are least likely to be drawn in until after 'powers that be' decide to change for the better. Only then can good things happen maybe even without American deployment. Situation in that region has not yet become bad. Despite so much wacko fear in the press that hypes an extremist (Cheney type) agenda that loves war. It just not that bad yet. Too few have died.

Iraq has been consuming mass quantities of other nation's resources. There should be a UN resolution to rename the country Remulak.

Griff;911219 wrote:

I am quite serious, we're going to get sucked into this thing.

Of course we are, because those at the top profit the most from it. While others blindly point fingers at the opposing "team" and try to place blame elsewhere (see above), the reality is that both teams are more similar than different. They comprise the elite party and we are nothing more than cattle to them.

clicks imaginary like button

classicman;911231 wrote:

Of course we are, because those at the top profit the most from it. While others blindly point fingers at the opposing "team" and try to place blame elsewhere (see above), the reality is that both teams are more similar than different. They comprise the elite party and we are nothing more than cattle to them.

[Bold mine]

Not to mention that Iraqi leaders have taken a lesson from Israeli leaders to stay in perpetual conflict so they can rake in the dough.

Speaking of dough, did they ever find out what happened to the three pallets of $100 bills, $12 Billion total, I think, the Air Force flew to Iraq then we lost track of?

Are you sure they were $100 bills?

[ATTACH]49235[/ATTACH]

tw;911194 wrote:

Apparently my mistake is thinking you were serious. Sorry.

As ye sow...

Thanks. I am looking forward to learning a thing or two. I enjoy your posts.

I am not necessarily for boots on the ground, especially guided by this President. If everything was done so wrong between 2000 and 2008 does that mean anything has gone right since then?

crweeks64;911313 wrote:

If everything was done so wrong between 2000 and 2008 does that mean anything has gone right since then?

Yes.

tw, succinct, I respect that.

he's a man of few words

lumberjim;911392 wrote:

he's a man of few words

Hall of Fame

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=911419&postcount=619

Turkey demonstrates a problem we have created. Turk tanks sit just outside the Syrian village of Kobane (Kurdish name for that town). And will do nothing to rescue the town from ISIS. Turks refuse unless the US leads an attack completely with no fly zones.

This is the bull created by a America's previous 'world policeman' actions. We have no business involved in a war that Turk, Kuwaiti, Israeli, Jordanian, Iraqi, Saudi and Lebanese soldiers should be fighting.

Turkey is a glaring example of a problem in so many parts of the world. They must take responsibility for their own regions. The African Union is one example of nations attempting to do so. Many other nations have chosen to help under a UN flag. So many if not most nations in this world need to learn about an important word - responsibility.

Now, let's assume Turkey does move to defend Kobane. What happens if ISIS then attacks Turkey. Is the US, Canada, and much of Europe now obligated to attack ISIS under a NATO flag?

What happens if ISIS attacks Turkey without provocation as they have Iraq? Again, must NATO now declare war as required by NATO articles whereby an attack on one is an attack on all? Yes.

An intelligent ISIS would not. But intelligence is not always found in extremists.

tw, according to Panetta and Gates (Hillary too) we should not have been so quick to abandon Iraq. However, we are where we are. The whole Turkey/NATO thing is intriguing. Could Obama be brought into a conflict he has no intention of seriously being involved with in the first place? Wow!

crweeks64;911537 wrote:

tw, according to Panetta and Gates (Hillary too) we should not have been so quick to abandon Iraq.

We did not decide to leave. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, they all but demanded we leave. We defined what was required to stay. Both nations refused to provide those guarantees or cooperation. So both nations are now learning that their leader screwed up by all but forcing the US to leave. We did not make mistakes. They did.

Best way to avoid getting dragged into a war too early is to demand the 'powers that be' act responsibly. We did that in the Balkans, in Kuwait, in southern Sudan, and even learned a lesson; left Somalia to the AU and Kenya. By demonstrating restraint, cooperation from Iran even resulted. Also caused Assad to surrender all his chemical and biological weapons when Obama successfully used his 'crossing a red line' threat. Restraint gave a 'cross a red line' major significance. A solution properly executed so that we again avoided massacring American soldiers for no purpose.

Sometimes the 'powers that be' fail to take responsibility. Europe should admit same in the Balkans. Only then did the US get involved. After many massacres. We delayed; giving Europe plenty of time to solve the Balkans. Then the US response was so sudden, blunt, shocking, and therefore so successful. Milosevic even negotiated himself out of office. Because we delayed long enough, then the US led a complete and sweeping solution without any combat.

Same solution occurred in Haiti. Responsible use of military force meant no combat and a 100% final solution.

Yes we could get drawn in. But the longer we wait - ie give Turkey, the Saudis, et al time to take responsibility - then the easier and less expensive will be a final and hopefully successful solution.

We should never be drawn into any war until after the 'powers that be', without doubt, screw up. Only then do conditions to justify military deployment exist. Only then does our delayed and sudden response have maximum effect. Only then do we have expectations of success. Then we are not being drawn into a war on THEIR terms.

Yes we could get drawn in. But on OUR terms with best odds for success.

Also caused Assad to surrender all his chemical and biological weapons when Obama successfully used his 'crossing a red line' threat.

Well not "all".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29534926

The UN Security Council has been told that Syria has revealed for the first time the existence of four more chemical weapons facilities.

Three of the sites are for research and another is for production.

Correspondents say the announcement heightens concerns that the Syrian government has not been fully open about its chemical weapons programme.

We've danced to this song before.

tw, We made a reasonable request for immunity for our troops actions while being an occupying force but Iraq played hardball and balked. The fact remains we quickly and gladly walked away from negotiations instead of hanging in there and making it work another way. In fact, Maliki suggested the President insure immunity through executive order but I think Obama rightly refused. Still it was not an insurmountable sticking point. Let's be fair and clear about that.

crweeks64;911681 wrote:

Still it was not an insurmountable sticking point. Let's be fair and clear about that.

An insurmountable obstinacy by Maliki was obvious even when Holbrook tried to get him to be cooperative. The resulting venom was significant that years previous A man (Holbrook) who had a long history of solving major problems (including a war) by negotiation could not even get Maliki to listen. Maliki was obstinate to the point of insurmountable. Much of what we accomplished was done without his approval.

In Vietnam, we had a similar problem. So a coup was authorized. Unfortunately a coup did little to solve that problem. Without lessons from Nam, we might have tacitly approved of a coup in Afghanistan. Because Maliki would only do for his country what also personally benefited himself.

But then Maliki was taught his politics from two hour video lectures by George Jr. He was our creation. He would not change even when shocked to learn Americans were actually leaving..

Obama was indecisive by not authorizing a coup in Afghanistan.

tw, In my post (about not needing another Clinton or Bush) you claim that Obama is some kind of diplomatic genius. Where was that here?

crweeks64;911681 wrote:

Still it was not an insurmountable sticking point. Let's be fair and clear about that.

Obama, as you said yourself, rightly refused. Iraq said my way or the highway, so we left. I guess that makes it as insurmountable as it gets, doesn't it. :eyebrow:

xoxoxoBruce, he rightly refused to do it by executive order. I was just pointing out that if Obama was the diplomatic genius some people think he is we would have had an agreement the way he wanted it. They were all too quick to give up the fight. That is an option too but I don't know that many people are happy it came out that way including his own former Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

You're blaming him for not being "the diplomatic genius some people think he is"?

"Some people" have unrealistic expectations.

crweeks64;911710 wrote:

tw, In my post (about not needing another Clinton or Bush) you claim that Obama is some kind of diplomatic genius. Where was that here?

I never said anything about diplomatic genius. Obama knew exactly what great leaders do. George Sr (mostly Sec of State Baker) did same in Desert Storm. Which is why America paid so little for that war. George Sr in Desert Storm, Kennedy in the Cubam Missile Crisis, and Obama in Assad's Red Line did what the American diplomatic corp does well WHEN empowered by their leader who grasps the strategic objective.

Essential to leadership (what is also called officer material) is to see a bigger picture. To think strategically. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's 'all star' advisers (Stevenson, McNamara, Dillon, Rusk, Ball, Robert Kennedy, McCone, Bundy, Sorenson, Nitze, Gen Taylor, etc) advocated unilateral invasion. Only Kennedy saw the fallacy of that. Eventually the 'all stars' reached that same conclusion. As a result, we all exist today.

Kennedy had a soft underbelly that Obama has. But more important is an ability to see that bigger picture. We know Obama saw that bigger picture in an economic crisis that could have created 40% unemployment. In meetings where such vision was necessary, George Jr walked out without any direction and John McCain (challenged to make proposals) had no grasp even of the reason for it. In that meeting called by George Jr, once the President walked out, then Obama clearly demonstrated leadership that directed and empowered Bernanke, Geithner, and Paulson (George Jr's Treasury Secretary) to save our ass.

Leadership has many characteristics. Most critical is the ability to think strategically. George Jr could not. Cheney and Nixon were driven by power - not the relevant objectives. Gerald Ford never demonstrated it. History has demonstrated that both Truman and Eisenhower had a much better grasp than what was known at that time. Surprisingly, Reagan demonstrated it mostly in his first administration. That is the most important characteristic of a leader. To point a valid direction and empower the little people to implement a solution.

crweeks64;911986 wrote:

I was just pointing out that if Obama was the diplomatic genius some people think he is we would have had an agreement the way he wanted it. They were all too quick to give up the fight.

Do you realize how long this business of US troops coming under Iraqi courts was hashed over? It started before anybody knew who Obama was.

We've got to realize we can't have our own way all the time, without killing everyone there. Especially since we've become the bully rather than the savior. Unfortunately we were the last to know, but now even the nuke-'em-and-take-their-oil crowd knows the truth.

xoxoxoBruce, now THAT is a bad attitude. We can all debate whether we should have been there or not. Yes, I was aware how long they attempted to work on it. Obama is the one who had it in his lap for three and a half years and couldn't get it done. The truth whether people like it or not is that he didn't want to get it done. However, some people are entirely ok with that.

To describe us as the "bully" rather than the "savior" is an affront to everyone of our brave men and women who gave life or limb in a job not many of us could do. Besides, it is just plain wrong.

Lastly, if you "nuke em" there would be little or no possibility of taking their oil.

crweeks64;912072 wrote:

xoxoxoBruce, now THAT is a bad attitude. We can all debate whether we should have been there or not. Yes, I was aware how long they attempted to work on it. Obama is the one who had it in his lap for three and a half years and couldn't get it done. The truth whether people like it or not is that he didn't want to get it done. However, some people are entirely ok with that.

You don't know what Obama wanted, and neither does anyone else except him, so you're talking out your ass. While you've got your crystal ball out ask how to force Iraq into an agreement they don't want.

To describe us as the "bully" rather than the "savior" is an affront to everyone of our brave men and women who gave life or limb in a job not many of us could do. Besides, it is just plain wrong.

Affront to our brave men and women? Get fucking real. Our brave men and women follow orders, they have no say in the matter, the politicians and brass make policy. The grunts may not even know why they are doing, what they are doing, while they are doing it. Last I heard orders don't come with justifications or explanations.

Oh they get affronted all right, big time, by the politicians and brass that are misusing them as cannon fodder in stupid situations they should never be put in.

But probably this unkindest cut is the assholes who wave their little Chinese made US flag, yelling USA, USA, Booyah, Booyah, while allowing these brave men and women to be sacrificed for political and corporate gain.

Lastly, if you "nuke em" there would be little or no possibility of taking their oil.

Actually you can but it makes it much more difficult. But the nuke-em and take their oil crowd don't know or care about logistics... or even logic for that matter. That's the governments job/problem.

Hello everyone....

Will we eventually have boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria? Possibly. However, we will not be able to "degrade and destroy" ISIS without them. Using only airstrike and local "allies", we will only be able to contain ISIS from expanding. Our strategy will likely change to containment.

With independent US an Iranian support, the Kurds and Iraqi Shia should be able to provide a buffer to prevent ISIS from spreading east. These groups will fight their homeland until death however will not be able to go too far into Sunni Arab territory.

The Syrian side is fucked. The FSA was always a joke and any moderate Islamic group, i.e. Islamic Front, is gone. We will need to rely on Lebanon, Jordan, and Assad from to prevent further ISIS expansion west but like in Iraq, they will not be able to take ground from ISIS. Only Turkey is capable of that and they will not.

Our only hope is to somehow change the table so the Sunnis under ISIS control reject and overthrow them. The Sunni Iraqis got burnt after we left so I have serious doubts that an "inclusive" Iraqi government will be helpful. Again, the Syrian side is fucked.

That only leaves the option of breaking up the Middle East along more natural borders (Sunnistan!) which has myriad problems of its own. Summary: the Middle East is screwed for a long time...whether or not we get further involved.

Will we eventually have boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria?

We already do.

From the department of the world is always a little weirder than we think:

http://theantimedia.org/cannabis-farmers-lebanon-join-fight-isis/

Makes sense, the farmers defend the crops against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ;)

piercehawkeye45;912322 wrote:

Will we eventually have boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria? Possibly. However, we will not be able to "degrade and destroy" ISIS without them. Using only airstrike and local "allies", we will only be able to contain ISIS from expanding. Our strategy will likely change to containment.

Our strategy is to kick the asses of regional powers to take responsiblity. Turkey's tanks still sit over Kobane watching Kurds suffer and die. Due to misplaced hatred of Kurds. And a refusal to move until America invades Syria. They still don't get it.

However Jordan's King Abdullah is saying what every Middle East nation should have been saying when George Jr told them we will massacre 5000 Americans for them. From CBS News:

The leader believes to fight the extremists in ISIS, the Muslim world must come together. "This is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."

... [King Abdullah] said he is not working alone in the fight. Arab and Muslim leaders around the world are beginning to work together, but he was unwilling to give details.

Well, duhhhhh.

Meanwhile wacko extremists such as Paul Bremer, Cheney, and Tea Party extremists are publically advocating American forces be deployed for another twenty plus year war in Middle East wars. Wars empower extremists. They are preaching what their rhetoric tells them - reality be damned.

Same rhetoric proved Bremer's CPA Order #1 and CPA Order #2 would create peace ... and those 5000 dead Americans that resulted. Only wacko extremists see solutions in military deployments and the resulting destruction of the American economy. The informed know that is not our problem. That we should only provide support functions such as air strikes and supplies.

Slowly, Middle East countries are unlearning what George Jr and Cheney told them. They must take responsiblity for their region.

That includes Israel - another country that refuses due to their wacko extremist Netanyahu. He will do anything to create conflict to advance extremists at the expense of moderates. Another example of someone with contempt for resoluton and the resulting peace. His latest target - a mosque.