ISIL very bad, no one else as bad as them - the media

[frigidweirdo]

Perhaps you need to read the article of the OP again...........As the article is basically saying that we aren't doing anything on the War on Drug Cartels which is false. The Drug War has been going on for many decades..........It's hard to keep it headline news for 40 years straight as we have been fighting this for at least that long...............I was on Anti drug operations in the Navy in the 80's...........

News focuses on ratings, and CURRENT EVENTS.........ISIL ISIS is the new boogy man on the street.......the old boogy man is still there but doesn't ramp up ratings as Americans have become Numb on the Drug War. It's not that Americans aren't aware, but have become disinterested on a problem they have known about since they were kids.

And which bit says the US isn't doing anything?

"But unfortunately, the US cannot formulate an effective response to these much more severe threats because the US public is far too busy disparaging Islam, "

This bit? It says the US isn't effective. It doesn't say it isn't doing anything.

"Not only are there other organised groups whose depravity and threat to the United States far surpasses that of ISIL, they fail to engender the same kind of collective indignation and hysteria."

This bit? No, this says that the cartels don't make the news and don't scare people as much as ISIS.

I can't find anywhere which say the US isn't doing anything.

But yes, news is what is new and exciting, though this war against Muslims has been going on since 2001. That's 11 years already, much of it pretty much the same.
Other civil wars get no attention.

About the same time McCain was worried about US citizens in Libya, he wasn't giving a damn about US citizens in the Ivory Coast. Why not? What's the difference between the two?
Both are far away, both don't have anything to do with the US.

 

[eagle1462010]

Perhaps you need to read the article of the OP again...........As the article is basically saying that we aren't doing anything on the War on Drug Cartels which is false. The Drug War has been going on for many decades..........It's hard to keep it headline news for 40 years straight as we have been fighting this for at least that long...............I was on Anti drug operations in the Navy in the 80's...........

News focuses on ratings, and CURRENT EVENTS.........ISIL ISIS is the new boogy man on the street.......the old boogy man is still there but doesn't ramp up ratings as Americans have become Numb on the Drug War. It's not that Americans aren't aware, but have become disinterested on a problem they have known about since they were kids.

And which bit says the US isn't doing anything?

"But unfortunately, the US cannot formulate an effective response to these much more severe threats because the US public is far too busy disparaging Islam, "

This bit? It says the US isn't effective. It doesn't say it isn't doing anything.

"Not only are there other organised groups whose depravity and threat to the United States far surpasses that of ISIL, they fail to engender the same kind of collective indignation and hysteria."

This bit? No, this says that the cartels don't make the news and don't scare people as much as ISIS.

I can't find anywhere which say the US isn't doing anything.

But yes, news is what is new and exciting, though this war against Muslims has been going on since 2001. That's 11 years already, much of it pretty much the same.
Other civil wars get no attention.

About the same time McCain was worried about US citizens in Libya, he wasn't giving a damn about US citizens in the Ivory Coast. Why not? What's the difference between the two?
Both are far away, both don't have anything to do with the US.

Islam disparages itself. Not the other way around. The reason it started in 2001 is because Radical Islam killed over 3000 Americans and America went to War.

Syria is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR...........Iraq is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR...........Libya is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR..............

All of them are MUSLIM VERSUS MUSLIM..................Perhaps the OP should place the blame were it belongs with the Muslims themselves.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And why? Because OPEC has been weakened, there is not the strength there was in 2001 when Chavez said they should reduce production. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to be seen to be going against the US (who would when invasion or sanctions for something else suddenly appears?).

However OPEC are not increasing production because of US shale production. Demand has increased from China massively. Demand for energy sources is higher today than it was in 2001. This is reflected in higher oil prices.

They can cut supply and still feed the world oil................I posted increases in production in the world, and also stated that we get most of our oil from Canada anyway...............OPEC is seeing competition.........Capitalism......Not only from our increased production, which is minimal on overall supply, but from GAS PROM competing for sales in China.............They just signed a deal to sell massive amounts of oil to China................and OPEC is increasing supply to actually lower prices to tell China WE ARE CHEAPER..............

It's about who gets to supply the oil and get the money for increased consumption in places like China. So they are simply competing by lowering the prices.[/QUOTE]

List of countries by proven oil reserves - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I'm taking for wikipedia because it's accessible info I can find quickly.

with nearly 300,000 million barrels of proven reserves, top is OPEC Venezuela.
2nd with 269,000 is OPEC Saudi Arabia
3rd is Canada
4th is OPEC Iran
5th is OPEC Iraq
6th is OPEC Kuwait
7th is OPEC UAE
8th is Russia
9th is OPEC Libya
10th is OPEC Nigeria
11th is Kazakhstan
12th the US
13th China
14th OPEC Qatar.

In the world there are maybe 1,900,000 million proven reserves of oil. I make OPEC have about 1,200,000 million barrels worth of oil. I make the rest of the world have about 500,000 million.

You think OPEC doesn't have any power? Imagine if OPEC were back to being strong, semi-united with a few leaders like Chavez willing to take on the rest of the world.

Why do you think OPEC is signing deals to lower prices? They've seen major problems in the last 13 years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well...

since I'm all about Q&A this morning...

Can we really affect middle eastern stability, or the drug cartel problems?

And can anyone answer that question without spewing unfair anti Bush/Obama talking points?

If you invade a country and leave a power vacuum, through which al-Qaeda based groups decide they're going to start a civil war in order to be able to fill this void, the answer is HELL YES the US can affect stability in that region.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Islam disparages itself. Not the other way around. The reason it started in 2001 is because Radical Islam killed over 3000 Americans and America went to War.

Syria is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR...........Iraq is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR...........Libya is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR..............

All of them are MUSLIM VERSUS MUSLIM..................Perhaps the OP should place the blame were it belongs with the Muslims themselves.

But this almost totally ignores the reality of the situation.

Syria, Iraq and Libya would NOT have happened had the US not gone in during 2003.

The US made the instability there. The power vacuum after the war had been "won" was one of the biggest balls ups in history, or, if you believe that Bush wanted al-Qaeda to grow in Iraq in order for the right to be able to be tough on terror and get more support at home, one of the biggest success for Bush and co.

It didn't start in 2001. 2001 was a watershed moment because it was shocking, but also because of the reaction Bush had. To invade Iraq, which had absolutely ef-all to do with 9/11, then to invade itself and mess up the post war period well and truly.

This is the biggest problem.

 

[eagle1462010]

Thanks to Fracking U.S. Will Pass Saudi Arabia In Oil Production

New tech, and competition for the sale of oil...........We are quickly increasing our abilities to produce oil locally and it is an economic boom across our country. This article states that by 2020 on current trends that we will overtake Saudi Arabia on Oil production Barrels Per Day by 2020.

BTW we are the Natural Gas Saudi Arabia of the World............and these increases are costing the new LNG production to lose money...............OPEC doesn't want a competition with LNG on this issue either.

Face it.........With oil shale production our oil production will continue in an upward trend as oil shale production is booming all over this country. That doesn't mean OPEC will not have customers...........It means it lowers the effect of their Supply factor over time...........Canada has been increasing it's oil shale production as well in Global competition.

 

[sameech]

Well...

since I'm all about Q&A this morning...

Can we really affect middle eastern stability, or the drug cartel problems?

And can anyone answer that question without spewing unfair anti Bush/Obama talking points?

Yes, but ISIS is really not our problem to be solving. It wouldn't be such a big problem for them to solve either had the US not decided "Hey let's use this Arab Spring thing to topple some governments" without full appreciating what that would mean in the region. As for the drug cartel thing, that is our problem, but we are not willing to order airstrikes in Mexico/Central America.

 

[eagle1462010]

Islam disparages itself. Not the other way around. The reason it started in 2001 is because Radical Islam killed over 3000 Americans and America went to War.

Syria is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR...........Iraq is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR...........Libya is a ISLAMIC CIVIL WAR..............

All of them are MUSLIM VERSUS MUSLIM..................Perhaps the OP should place the blame were it belongs with the Muslims themselves.

But this almost totally ignores the reality of the situation.

Syria, Iraq and Libya would NOT have happened had the US not gone in during 2003.

The US made the instability there. The power vacuum after the war had been "won" was one of the biggest balls ups in history, or, if you believe that Bush wanted al-Qaeda to grow in Iraq in order for the right to be able to be tough on terror and get more support at home, one of the biggest success for Bush and co.

It didn't start in 2001. 2001 was a watershed moment because it was shocking, but also because of the reaction Bush had. To invade Iraq, which had absolutely ef-all to do with 9/11, then to invade itself and mess up the post war period well and truly.

This is the biggest problem.

The Arab Spring occurred due to food prices and not our War in Iraq and Afghanistan..........So Libya is more of a result of Food Riots than the other.

In Syria, the Civil War was a struggle for power before we even showed up.

ISIS is a byproduct of the War in Iraq, and the power struggle between the shiites and Sunni's in the region. Syria is a Sunni against Sunni Civil War.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well...

since I'm all about Q&A this morning...

Can we really affect middle eastern stability, or the drug cartel problems?

And can anyone answer that question without spewing unfair anti Bush/Obama talking points?

Yes, but ISIS is really not our problem to be solving. It wouldn't be such a big problem for them to solve either had the US not decided "Hey let's use this Arab Spring thing to topple some governments" without full appreciating what that would mean in the region. As for the drug cartel thing, that is our problem, but we are not willing to order airstrikes in Mexico/Central America.

The Middle East has been primarily controlled by Tyrants and Dictators for a very long time, and Religion is the Gov't in most cases..............

When Tyrants fall, the country has a vacuum as the sects vie for power to become the next Tyrant to be in charge for a while..............

In Syria the FSA, ISIS, and the Kurds want Assad gone. But they hate each other as well...........So they fight each other and the Gov't at the same time which means it is nothing but a CAGE FIGHT TO THE DEATH..............

In the end, one side or the other will have to win to end this..................Which means more bloody Civil War............and years upon years worth of fighting.

 

[sameech]

Well...

since I'm all about Q&A this morning...

Can we really affect middle eastern stability, or the drug cartel problems?

And can anyone answer that question without spewing unfair anti Bush/Obama talking points?

Yes, but ISIS is really not our problem to be solving. It wouldn't be such a big problem for them to solve either had the US not decided "Hey let's use this Arab Spring thing to topple some governments" without full appreciating what that would mean in the region. As for the drug cartel thing, that is our problem, but we are not willing to order airstrikes in Mexico/Central America.

The Middle East has been primarily controlled by Tyrants and Dictators for a very long time, and Religion is the Gov't in most cases..............

When Tyrants fall, the country has a vacuum as the sects vie for power to become the next Tyrant to be in charge for a while..............

In Syria the FSA, ISIS, and the Kurds want Assad gone. But they hate each other as well...........So they fight each other and the Gov't at the same time which means it is nothing but a CAGE FIGHT TO THE DEATH..............

In the end, one side or the other will have to win to end this..................Which means more bloody Civil War............and years upon years worth of fighting.

I concur with one exception. Religion brings the foot soldiers, but is not the underlying dynamic. It is about power. It is always about power. Religion is just a conduit to that age-old struggle to be the denominator and not the dominated.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Arab Spring occurred due to food prices and not our War in Iraq and Afghanistan..........So Libya is more of a result of Food Riots than the other.

In Syria, the Civil War was a struggle for power before we even showed up.

ISIS is a byproduct of the War in Iraq, and the power struggle between the shiites and Sunni's in the region. Syria is a Sunni against Sunni Civil War.

There are lots of reasons why this sort of thing happens. But the instability in the region probably helped quite a lot. Tunisia's revolution sparked it all off. But would other countries have followed had there not been so much instability? That's the question. No one is every going to be able to say for sure, because often it doesn't take many different events at the same time for this stuff to happen.

But Syria was almost certainly connected to the instability in Iraq. The two countries were close, and one changes, the other changes too.

Yes, ISIS is a by-product of the War in Iraq, and especially the messing up of the post war period. Without them, would there have been a civil war in Syria?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Middle East has been primarily controlled by Tyrants and Dictators for a very long time, and Religion is the Gov't in most cases..............

When Tyrants fall, the country has a vacuum as the sects vie for power to become the next Tyrant to be in charge for a while..............

In Syria the FSA, ISIS, and the Kurds want Assad gone. But they hate each other as well...........So they fight each other and the Gov't at the same time which means it is nothing but a CAGE FIGHT TO THE DEATH..............

In the end, one side or the other will have to win to end this..................Which means more bloody Civil War............and years upon years worth of fighting.

Often dictators can bring stability to a country? Saddam, well he didn't, Kuwait 1991, Iran-Iraq war etc, but more stability than the US has ever brought to the country.

But Assad had stability, and most countries in the world have gone through strong dictatorship type leadership and developed through this stability. England is one fine example, the Magna Carta was 1200s, then the English Bill of Rights 1600, which then led to revolution in the US which led to the US Bill of Rights.

Both countries are rather stable.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Arab Spring occurred due to food prices and not our War in Iraq and Afghanistan..........So Libya is more of a result of Food Riots than the other.

In Syria, the Civil War was a struggle for power before we even showed up.

ISIS is a byproduct of the War in Iraq, and the power struggle between the shiites and Sunni's in the region. Syria is a Sunni against Sunni Civil War.

There are lots of reasons why this sort of thing happens. But the instability in the region probably helped quite a lot. Tunisia's revolution sparked it all off. But would other countries have followed had there not been so much instability? That's the question. No one is every going to be able to say for sure, because often it doesn't take many different events at the same time for this stuff to happen.

But Syria was almost certainly connected to the instability in Iraq. The two countries were close, and one changes, the other changes too.

Yes, ISIS is a by-product of the War in Iraq, and especially the messing up of the post war period. Without them, would there have been a civil war in Syria?

That would assume that the people of Syria didn't already want Assad gone..............The ongoing revolution and Civil War just needed a spark to get it started anyway...........It was eventually going to happen irregardless of Iraq................

These groups were already splintering before we were there................

 

[frigidweirdo]

That would assume that the people of Syria didn't already want Assad gone..............The ongoing revolution and Civil War just needed a spark to get it started anyway...........It was eventually going to happen irregardless of Iraq................

These groups were already splintering before we were there................

Even if people didn't like Assad, that doesn't mean it was going to happen anyway. It needed a spark, was it at the right time though? Clearly not. If they didn't want a dictator, they were going to get one, either in ISIS or Assad. There was no room for a democratic form of govt there, at this time.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Middle East has been primarily controlled by Tyrants and Dictators for a very long time, and Religion is the Gov't in most cases..............

When Tyrants fall, the country has a vacuum as the sects vie for power to become the next Tyrant to be in charge for a while..............

In Syria the FSA, ISIS, and the Kurds want Assad gone. But they hate each other as well...........So they fight each other and the Gov't at the same time which means it is nothing but a CAGE FIGHT TO THE DEATH..............

In the end, one side or the other will have to win to end this..................Which means more bloody Civil War............and years upon years worth of fighting.

Often dictators can bring stability to a country? Saddam, well he didn't, Kuwait 1991, Iran-Iraq war etc, but more stability than the US has ever brought to the country.

But Assad had stability, and most countries in the world have gone through strong dictatorship type leadership and developed through this stability. England is one fine example, the Magna Carta was 1200s, then the English Bill of Rights 1600, which then led to revolution in the US which led to the US Bill of Rights.

Both countries are rather stable.

The Shah was a brutal dictator...........And during his fall it gave birth to the current movement of Radical Islam in the region.........It was fairly stable before his fall...........Dictators can bring Stability and revolt...........eventually the people will revolt............and the winner takes it all.............In the case of the Shah the revolution won................

Saddam............the shiites revolted time and time again...........only to be destroyed.............Saddam was power hungry........killed the Kurds and started a War with Iran where over a million Muslims died.............Gassed the Kurds...............and then eventually invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia....................He was a Tyrannical Dictator with a lust for power........put on a leash by the 1st Gulf War...........then a Civil War temporarily occurred and the Shiites were slaughtered and force us to baby sit him with NO FLY ZONES and economic Sanctions.............

He was a problem.........was a problem before and a problem when we took him down............He was not a Dictator that Stabilized anything at all........He helped Destabilize the whole dang region.............

Had he remained in power and we simply left, he would have moved to do the same again at a later date when he thought he could get away with it..........

Iraq hasn't been stable for a very very very long time now...........Unless you want to ignore the slaughter that was going on while he maintained power.........They uncovered massive grave sites in that country that showed how he maintained STABILITY.............He maintained it in the same manner as North Korea, by slaughtering and killing anything that questioned his power.....................

That is NOT STABILITY............That is the world looking the other way as a Tyrant commits Genocide over time to his own people. and in this case it is the minority Sunni's maintaining control via violence over the majority of Iraq who are Shiites....................

In Syria...........the same would have happened whether we fought there or not..........It might have started sooner because we were there, but it was gonna happen irregardless..............People rise up against Dictators over time eventually usually replaced by another dictator or group of thugs..............

It's been happening throughout the history of the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Middle East has been primarily controlled by Tyrants and Dictators for a very long time, and Religion is the Gov't in most cases..............

When Tyrants fall, the country has a vacuum as the sects vie for power to become the next Tyrant to be in charge for a while..............

In Syria the FSA, ISIS, and the Kurds want Assad gone. But they hate each other as well...........So they fight each other and the Gov't at the same time which means it is nothing but a CAGE FIGHT TO THE DEATH..............

In the end, one side or the other will have to win to end this..................Which means more bloody Civil War............and years upon years worth of fighting.

Often dictators can bring stability to a country? Saddam, well he didn't, Kuwait 1991, Iran-Iraq war etc, but more stability than the US has ever brought to the country.

But Assad had stability, and most countries in the world have gone through strong dictatorship type leadership and developed through this stability. England is one fine example, the Magna Carta was 1200s, then the English Bill of Rights 1600, which then led to revolution in the US which led to the US Bill of Rights.

Both countries are rather stable.

The Shah was a brutal dictator...........And during his fall it gave birth to the current movement of Radical Islam in the region.........It was fairly stable before his fall...........Dictators can bring Stability and revolt...........eventually the people will revolt............and the winner takes it all.............In the case of the Shah the revolution won................

Saddam............the shiites revolted time and time again...........only to be destroyed.............Saddam was power hungry........killed the Kurds and started a War with Iran where over a million Muslims died.............Gassed the Kurds...............and then eventually invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia....................He was a Tyrannical Dictator with a lust for power........put on a leash by the 1st Gulf War...........then a Civil War temporarily occurred and the Shiites were slaughtered and force us to baby sit him with NO FLY ZONES and economic Sanctions.............

He was a problem.........was a problem before and a problem when we took him down............He was not a Dictator that Stabilized anything at all........He helped Destabilize the whole dang region.............

Had he remained in power and we simply left, he would have moved to do the same again at a later date when he thought he could get away with it..........

Iraq hasn't been stable for a very very very long time now...........Unless you want to ignore the slaughter that was going on while he maintained power.........They uncovered massive grave sites in that country that showed how he maintained STABILITY.............He maintained it in the same manner as North Korea, by slaughtering and killing anything that questioned his power.....................

That is NOT STABILITY............That is the world looking the other way as a Tyrant commits Genocide over time to his own people. and in this case it is the minority Sunni's maintaining control via violence over the majority of Iraq who are Shiites....................

In Syria...........the same would have happened whether we fought there or not..........It might have started sooner because we were there, but it was gonna happen irregardless..............People rise up against Dictators over time eventually usually replaced by another dictator or group of thugs..............

It's been happening throughout the history of the world.

The US was a problem in Iran, which led to the current regime.
Do you really think Saddam's regime was less stable than what's happening at the moment? Bush's dad didn't think so, hence why he didn't take Saddam down.

Iraq has never been stable. Why? Because the British made Iraq and put a Saudi in as king. Then the Ba'ath Party took over, which led to Saddam, which led to sanctions from the West, and then an invasion and a balls up of the post war period.

It's always been about the West in Iraq, how they go in, do what they like. The most stable time was the Ba'ath Party's regime, it wasn't nice, but it didn't need the west coming in again and again to "solve" the problems by not solving the problems.

And the US didn't go in because Saddam was a brutal dictator either. Had he been a brutal dictator like Pol Pot, he might have been supported more by the US, as it was he got help only in the Iran Iraq war. ANOTHER example of the US not knowing what they're supporting (again and again).

You couldn't make up this comedy of errors of US foreign policy.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Middle East has been primarily controlled by Tyrants and Dictators for a very long time, and Religion is the Gov't in most cases..............

When Tyrants fall, the country has a vacuum as the sects vie for power to become the next Tyrant to be in charge for a while..............

In Syria the FSA, ISIS, and the Kurds want Assad gone. But they hate each other as well...........So they fight each other and the Gov't at the same time which means it is nothing but a CAGE FIGHT TO THE DEATH..............

In the end, one side or the other will have to win to end this..................Which means more bloody Civil War............and years upon years worth of fighting.

Often dictators can bring stability to a country? Saddam, well he didn't, Kuwait 1991, Iran-Iraq war etc, but more stability than the US has ever brought to the country.

But Assad had stability, and most countries in the world have gone through strong dictatorship type leadership and developed through this stability. England is one fine example, the Magna Carta was 1200s, then the English Bill of Rights 1600, which then led to revolution in the US which led to the US Bill of Rights.

Both countries are rather stable.

The Shah was a brutal dictator...........And during his fall it gave birth to the current movement of Radical Islam in the region.........It was fairly stable before his fall...........Dictators can bring Stability and revolt...........eventually the people will revolt............and the winner takes it all.............In the case of the Shah the revolution won................

Saddam............the shiites revolted time and time again...........only to be destroyed.............Saddam was power hungry........killed the Kurds and started a War with Iran where over a million Muslims died.............Gassed the Kurds...............and then eventually invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia....................He was a Tyrannical Dictator with a lust for power........put on a leash by the 1st Gulf War...........then a Civil War temporarily occurred and the Shiites were slaughtered and force us to baby sit him with NO FLY ZONES and economic Sanctions.............

He was a problem.........was a problem before and a problem when we took him down............He was not a Dictator that Stabilized anything at all........He helped Destabilize the whole dang region.............

Had he remained in power and we simply left, he would have moved to do the same again at a later date when he thought he could get away with it..........

Iraq hasn't been stable for a very very very long time now...........Unless you want to ignore the slaughter that was going on while he maintained power.........They uncovered massive grave sites in that country that showed how he maintained STABILITY.............He maintained it in the same manner as North Korea, by slaughtering and killing anything that questioned his power.....................

That is NOT STABILITY............That is the world looking the other way as a Tyrant commits Genocide over time to his own people. and in this case it is the minority Sunni's maintaining control via violence over the majority of Iraq who are Shiites....................

In Syria...........the same would have happened whether we fought there or not..........It might have started sooner because we were there, but it was gonna happen irregardless..............People rise up against Dictators over time eventually usually replaced by another dictator or group of thugs..............

It's been happening throughout the history of the world.

The US was a problem in Iran, which led to the current regime.
Do you really think Saddam's regime was less stable than what's happening at the moment? Bush's dad didn't think so, hence why he didn't take Saddam down.

Iraq has never been stable. Why? Because the British made Iraq and put a Saudi in as king. Then the Ba'ath Party took over, which led to Saddam, which led to sanctions from the West, and then an invasion and a balls up of the post war period.

It's always been about the West in Iraq, how they go in, do what they like. The most stable time was the Ba'ath Party's regime, it wasn't nice, but it didn't need the west coming in again and again to "solve" the problems by not solving the problems.

And the US didn't go in because Saddam was a brutal dictator either. Had he been a brutal dictator like Pol Pot, he might have been supported more by the US, as it was he got help only in the Iran Iraq war. ANOTHER example of the US not knowing what they're supporting (again and again).

You couldn't make up this comedy of errors of US foreign policy.

Bush SR,. finished the mission which was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.........He didn't want to go against the International community in finishing off Saddam. In retrospect he stated he made a mistake by not finishing him off......I saw that in an interview many many years ago........He openly stated that he misjudged Saddam and thought the Iraqi people would remove him from power..............In doing so the shiites revolted and were slaughtered forcing no fly zones to prevent them from using their air power.

Shah was a U..S. puppet............that would be correct.............and he was a brutal one to boot, so the people revolted.........and that is history................I honestly don't really know of any Dictators who are nice guys............do you................

They are almost ENTIRELY TYRANTS and rule by Fear.............That has not changed for a very very long time.............Had someone other than the Shah been there it would have been the same.....

The same would go for SAddam............The same for the Ottoman Empire who ruled ruthlessly throughout the whole region and conducted Genocide on the Armenians.................

You are simply picking sides on Dictators when they are all basically the same anyway. The outcome of these rules historically don't end well no matter who is involved.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush SR,. finished the mission which was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.........He didn't want to go against the International community in finishing off Saddam. In retrospect he stated he made a mistake by not finishing him off......I saw that in an interview many many years ago........He openly stated that he misjudged Saddam and thought the Iraqi people would remove him from power..............In doing so the shiites revolted and were slaughtered forcing no fly zones to prevent them from using their air power.

Shah was a U..S. puppet............that would be correct.............and he was a brutal one to boot, so the people revolted.........and that is history................I honestly don't really know of any Dictators who are nice guys............do you................

They are almost ENTIRELY TYRANTS and rule by Fear.............That has not changed for a very very long time.............Had someone other than the Shah been there it would have been the same.....

The same would go for SAddam............The same for the Ottoman Empire who ruled ruthlessly throughout the whole region and conducted Genocide on the Armenians.................

You are simply picking sides on Dictators when they are all basically the same anyway. The outcome of these rules historically don't end well no matter who is involved.

There was a reason why the international community didn't want Saddam gone.

A mistake if they had kicked him out? They'd have ended up in an eternal fight like the one that happened after 2003. They weren't ready in 1991 to reconstruct the country, and they weren't ready in 2003 either.

Dick Cheney on Iraq 1991 City Pages

"I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force.... t would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq...."

Cheney said it in 1991. But seemed to have forgotten by 2003.

 

[Treeshepherd]

There are groups more depraved than ISIL - Yahoo News UK

This article asks why ISIL is considered so bad and other groups, they list cartels in places like Mexico, they could probably just have easily used the DRC or other places in the world.

"It is clear that the campaign against ISIL is not driven by the group's relative threat to the US or the scale or inhumane nature of their atrocities. If these were the primary considerations, the public would be far more terrified of, and outraged by, the narcos. "

So why?

Simple, everyone knows the answer here.

ISIL is a threat to oil supplies, oil, oil, oil, oil, OIL, that's what this is about.

Isn't it what anything is about when you read it in the press day after day?

I tend to agree. Ostensibly, wars are fought for 'liberty' or 'freedom' or over religious differences. Essentially, though, it's always about resources, territory and temporal power.

There's never been a war that the New York Times didn't love.

The latest marketing pitch for war is the 'humanitarian' argument. Mine the Big Data, analyze macro-trends, create a profile of communities, and the nation as a whole, and engineer a marketing campaign for endless war. It's a humanitarian war against scary human rights abusers who behead westerners and mistreat women. Whoa, how can I not support that? How could I not support the ousting of Gaddafi in Libya? So, we help to oust Gaddafi, his 9 tons of gold gets divided up amongst the conquerors, and we capitalize on the ensuing chaos to access the oil. Yay!

For the Pentagon, it's usually about the oil. For the various factions in the Middle East, fighting amongst themselves, it's always also about water.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bush SR,. finished the mission which was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.........He didn't want to go against the International community in finishing off Saddam. In retrospect he stated he made a mistake by not finishing him off......I saw that in an interview many many years ago........He openly stated that he misjudged Saddam and thought the Iraqi people would remove him from power..............In doing so the shiites revolted and were slaughtered forcing no fly zones to prevent them from using their air power.

Shah was a U..S. puppet............that would be correct.............and he was a brutal one to boot, so the people revolted.........and that is history................I honestly don't really know of any Dictators who are nice guys............do you................

They are almost ENTIRELY TYRANTS and rule by Fear.............That has not changed for a very very long time.............Had someone other than the Shah been there it would have been the same.....

The same would go for SAddam............The same for the Ottoman Empire who ruled ruthlessly throughout the whole region and conducted Genocide on the Armenians.................

You are simply picking sides on Dictators when they are all basically the same anyway. The outcome of these rules historically don't end well no matter who is involved.

There was a reason why the international community didn't want Saddam gone.

A mistake if they had kicked him out? They'd have ended up in an eternal fight like the one that happened after 2003. They weren't ready in 1991 to reconstruct the country, and they weren't ready in 2003 either.

Dick Cheney on Iraq 1991 City Pages

"I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force.... t would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq...."

Cheney said it in 1991. But seemed to have forgotten by 2003.

In 1991 the military, which I was a part of wanted to end it right then and there and finish off Saddam. We had a very large presence there which tripled what was used in 2003. It could have been taken in a matter of a month or so..............and we had more than enough troops to crack down martial law in every city and town in the whole dang country.

I have already stated that Bush SR. said the same about it later on after Saddam stayed in power.........and after the Shiites rose up as SR. suggested only to be slaughtered because they thought we were coming. We actually urged them to attack Saddam and take back their country when he still had a very large army still intact............that we could have decimated in a matter of weeks and then the outcome would have been different........The majority of his forces were still in the open and an easy kill for U.S. forces by ending the conflict early...........At a minimum we should have finished them off before the cease fire began and then the SHiites may have taken the country without any further need of us back then.

In 2003 we had decreased the size of our military, and we didn't have the forces available as in the 1st Gulf War so we didn't have the necessary numbers to contain the areas we took..........which is a different equation................and why we couldn't stabilize the whole country.........because we needed triple the number of troops to maintain total control of Iraq..........which is one of the reasons we would have to fight the same provinces over and over again..............because the new Iraqi army couldn't hold the ground we took.