If you're watching 60 Minutes and not shedding a tear

[B. Kidd]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

 

[idb]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're inhuman.

Thank you, Barry.

 

[Ame®icano]

The humanitarian disaster of this generation is taking place right under our eyes. Why under our eyes? Because we're so obsessed with playing partisan games and placing blame that we don't even notice it.

Rather under Saudis eyes. There are 100,000 empty tents waiting to be occupied. It would cost them less than they gave to Hillary.

 

[theHawk]

You're inhuman.

I don't watch fake news....

What are they lying about this evening?

Why are you responding then jackass?

Curiosity.....

Video of children & babies being pulled from the rubble in Syria. The Syria we drew a red line in and then turned our backs on when that line was crossed. And the stories are not fake so shove your absurd meme up you ass

Does 60 Minutes show footage of children being pulled from the bottom of a truck used by ISIS to plow through crowds? Of course not. They don't ever show the victims of Islamic terror, can't shed a bad light on that. But they have no problem parading dead refugee children in order to guilt Europeans and Americans into feeling sorry for Muslims, and to get them to welcome refugee.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

 

[B. Kidd]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

 

[idb]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

You're right.
It needed Obama to go against his election promises though.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

 

[B. Kidd]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Ahhhh, so you missed that interview (look it up!), so therefore it didn't happen. Get objective, boy.

 

[idb]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Would he have been able to carry the public with him?
After ten years of constant war could he have sold them on entering another conflict for what were humanitarian purposes?
Especially after getting out of conflict was such a major part of his platform.

I suppose he could have tried lying that Assad had WMDs that were aimed at New York...or something.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I caught the 60 Mins. piece on the Whitehats this a.m.. I thank the OP for the referral, and it is very, very sad. I was not aware that our Gov't contributed multi-millions to this organization.

On the flip-side, our MSM did report today the refugee buses being burned. But they also left out that an Al-Nusra offshoot group, also supported by our Gov't, was responsible.

The above just illustrates how confused our Gov't really is when it comes to backing sides in the Syrian shitstorm.

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Ahhhh, so you missed that interview (look it up!), so therefore it didn't happen. Get objective, boy.

I am plenty objective. Obama fucked up. Now we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands because of or desire to appease the anti war agenda. The question now is what do we do? The so called moderates have all but been wiped out so ousting their leader would likely lead to a failed state. What options are left?
A no fly zone should have been created before Russia got involved. Now that tactic could lead to even worse results.

 

[B. Kidd]

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Ahhhh, so you missed that interview (look it up!), so therefore it didn't happen. Get objective, boy.

I am plenty objective. Obama fucked up. Now we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands because of or desire to appease the anti war agenda. The question now is what do we do? The so called moderates have all but been wiped out so ousting their leader would likely lead to a failed state. What options are left?
A no fly zone should have been created before Russia got involved. Now that tactic could lead to even worse results.

Hillary was sticking to her 'no fly zone' strategy right up to the end of the election. She wasn't fit to be Prez, and America agreed and got that right.

 

[idb]

How do you pick a side?
It's just not possible.

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Ahhhh, so you missed that interview (look it up!), so therefore it didn't happen. Get objective, boy.

I am plenty objective. Obama fucked up. Now we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands because of or desire to appease the anti war agenda. The question now is what do we do? The so called moderates have all but been wiped out so ousting their leader would likely lead to a failed state. What options are left?
A no fly zone should have been created before Russia got involved. Now that tactic could lead to even worse results.

Another issue was the reluctance of allies to get involved in another US-led war in the Middle East.
Sadly, the Iraq debacle used up a lot of the US' credibility.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It WAS possible when the war started. I created threads demanding we do something and got blasted by both sides for it.

The simple truth is that had Obama gone after ISIS with a vengeance when they started stealing American assets and driving them hundreds of miles across the deserted in huge convoys we could have made a huge dent in the Syrian war. Our weapons & artillery are now killing thousands as a result of us looking the other way.
Just like hindsight allows us to see that Iraq was a more stable place under a brutal dictator we should have seen the same in Libya. Syria is a bit more complicated but if you removed ISIS from the playing field in their infancy we'd be looking at a different set of circumstances.

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Ahhhh, so you missed that interview (look it up!), so therefore it didn't happen. Get objective, boy.

I am plenty objective. Obama fucked up. Now we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands because of or desire to appease the anti war agenda. The question now is what do we do? The so called moderates have all but been wiped out so ousting their leader would likely lead to a failed state. What options are left?
A no fly zone should have been created before Russia got involved. Now that tactic could lead to even worse results.

Another issue was the reluctance of allies to get involved in another US-led war in the Middle East.
Sadly, the Iraq debacle used up a lot of the US' credibility.

If NATO did what it was created to do we wouldn't be having this discussion. A point Trump gets right.

 

[idb]

But the CIA got the intel wrong on ISIS early on, resulting in Obie referring to ISIS as a jay-vee team. At least that is what Obama told Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week.

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Ahhhh, so you missed that interview (look it up!), so therefore it didn't happen. Get objective, boy.

I am plenty objective. Obama fucked up. Now we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands because of or desire to appease the anti war agenda. The question now is what do we do? The so called moderates have all but been wiped out so ousting their leader would likely lead to a failed state. What options are left?
A no fly zone should have been created before Russia got involved. Now that tactic could lead to even worse results.

Another issue was the reluctance of allies to get involved in another US-led war in the Middle East.
Sadly, the Iraq debacle used up a lot of the US' credibility.

If NATO did what it was created to do we wouldn't be having this discussion. A point Trump gets right.

I thought NATO was created for the common defence of the member nations.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't believe that. How is it me, an excon in the middle of the Midwest, had the insight to see this problem years ago and create threads about it? I believe Obama had a narrative he wanted to follow that he may have thought would lead to a better outcome. There is no other reason for him to draw a red line in the sand and then refuse to make good on the threat when he had a willing congress.

Ahhhh, so you missed that interview (look it up!), so therefore it didn't happen. Get objective, boy.

I am plenty objective. Obama fucked up. Now we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands because of or desire to appease the anti war agenda. The question now is what do we do? The so called moderates have all but been wiped out so ousting their leader would likely lead to a failed state. What options are left?
A no fly zone should have been created before Russia got involved. Now that tactic could lead to even worse results.

Another issue was the reluctance of allies to get involved in another US-led war in the Middle East.
Sadly, the Iraq debacle used up a lot of the US' credibility.

If NATO did what it was created to do we wouldn't be having this discussion. A point Trump gets right.

I thought NATO was created for the common defence of the member nations.

Correct but they are impotent. Mass slaughter should be a TOP PRIORITY, member or not imo