ISIS Beheads Another Brit

[Hossfly]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

That's classified information and you don't have the clearance to know. Sorry.

 

[georgephillip]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

That's classified information and you don't have the clearance to know. Sorry.

"(S)hall we put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war?"
"After learning of the bombing of Hiroshima and seeing an impending nuclear arms race,Joseph Rotblat, the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project on moral grounds, remarked that he 'became worried about the whole future of mankind'.

"Over the years that followed Russell and Rotblat worked on efforts to curb nuclear proliferation, collaborating with Albert Einstein and other scientists to compose what became known as the Russell–Einstein Manifesto."
Russell Einstein Manifesto - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

Uh hu?

 

[ChrisL]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

Here is an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.​

 

[georgephillip]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

Here is an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.​

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

 

[TooTall]

If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site. If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so. Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and don't make up stuff claiming I said things I didn't say.

Learn to read. I didn't say you SAID it, only that is the impression you leave with you socialist drivel.

 

[ChrisL]

They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them. They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent. Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people. It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people. I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

Here is an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.​

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

Did you read the last paragraph too? I don't see how this negates my claims. I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue. They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.

 

[Exsas]

ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning
ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning

From HuffPost:
A video released by the Islamic State group on Friday appears to show the beheading of British aid worker Alan Henning, the Associated Press reports. In the clip, the militants threaten to kill another hostage they identify as American Peter Kassig.

Alan Henning, a 47-year-old taxi driver from Eccles, was kidnapped in December after crossing into Syria with an aid convoy. Henning's wife, Barbara, had pleaded with the militants not to kill her husband. "He went to Syria to help his Muslim friends deliver much needed aid," she said in a statement released on Sept. 23.

Catrin Nye, a BBC reporter who had filmed with Henning, described the Brit as "kind and funny."

Cowards why is America standing by while this is going on, or are u waiting for us the Brits to start it then join when it's nearly over

 

[Exsas]

I'm glad O has our back.

You're sleeping OK at night, right? Anybody stopping you a check points? Dodging any bombed areas in your town lately?

Fukin nuke the bastards before this gets out of hand

 

[Exsas]

ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning
ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning

From HuffPost:
A video released by the Islamic State group on Friday appears to show the beheading of British aid worker Alan Henning, the Associated Press reports. In the clip, the militants threaten to kill another hostage they identify as American Peter Kassig.

Alan Henning, a 47-year-old taxi driver from Eccles, was kidnapped in December after crossing into Syria with an aid convoy. Henning's wife, Barbara, had pleaded with the militants not to kill her husband. "He went to Syria to help his Muslim friends deliver much needed aid," she said in a statement released on Sept. 23.

Catrin Nye, a BBC reporter who had filmed with Henning, described the Brit as "kind and funny."

Send in proper soldiers like the sas

 

[frigidweirdo]

If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site. If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so. Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and don't make up stuff claiming I said things I didn't say.

Learn to read. I didn't say you SAID it, only that is the impression you leave with you socialist drivel.

Only I'm not a socialist. So what is your point?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm glad O has our back.

You're sleeping OK at night, right? Anybody stopping you a check points? Dodging any bombed areas in your town lately?

Fukin nuke the bastards before this gets out of hand

Why does the US care what happens half way around the world? I don't hear you talking about nuking those in the DRC.

 

[TooTall]

If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site. If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so. Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and don't make up stuff claiming I said things I didn't say.

Learn to read. I didn't say you SAID it, only that is the impression you leave with you socialist drivel.

Only I'm not a socialist. So what is your point?

I didn't say you were a socialist, merely that your posts reflect what I can read on the World Socialist website.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site. If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so. Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and don't make up stuff claiming I said things I didn't say.

Learn to read. I didn't say you SAID it, only that is the impression you leave with you socialist drivel.

Only I'm not a socialist. So what is your point?

I didn't say you were a socialist, merely that your posts reflect what I can read on the World Socialist website.

You mean, you don't agree? Well, if you'd prefer to say why you don't agree and make it a debate instead of a half hearted attempted at an insult, it might go better.

 

[georgephillip]

Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

Here is an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.​

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

Did you read the last paragraph too? I don't see how this negates my claims. I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue. They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.

It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.

 

[ChrisL]

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

Here is an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.​

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

Did you read the last paragraph too? I don't see how this negates my claims. I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue. They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.

It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.

Well some were to stop the spread of communism, and now it's to stop the spread of Islam.

 

[Hossfly]

Seems like you didn't learn anything.

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

Here is an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.​

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

Did you read the last paragraph too? I don't see how this negates my claims. I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue. They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.

It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.

We'll blame people like you, George. For being narrowminded. The US has allies. the US belongs to organizations such an the UN, NATO, SEATO and other affiliations. When our Allies become attacked or threatened, the US goes to their aid. What would you have us do, Commie Pinko?

 

[georgephillip]

What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

Here is an excerpt from “The Art of War”:

“Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).

“To divulge means to leak out. The military has no constant form, just as water has no constant shape — adapt as you face the enemy, without letting them know beforehand what you are going to do. Therefore, assessment of the enemy is in the mind, observation of the situation is in the eyes,” (Cao Cao).

“When your strategy is deep and far-reaching, then what you gain by your calculations is much, so you can win before you even fight. When your strategic thinking is shallow and nearsighted, then what you gain by your calculations is little, so you lose before you do battle. Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy cannot but be defeated,” (Zhang Yu).

What is more likely: That the U.S. military has plenty of strategies for defeating Islamic State, which Mr. Obama simply hasn’t decided on because he’s struck with political paralysis, or that the U.S. military doe not have a strategy? My bet is that Mr. Obama’s advisers have given him countless plans, which have all been rejected because actual leadership requires making decisions that are politically unpopular. It’s much easier to “lead from behind” and depend on others to come up with a strategy than it is to take charge and make decisions that you know will cost good men and women their lives.

Perhaps the “conservative” Mr. Scarborough should read The Washington Post. The paper wrote on Aug. 29:

His senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”

The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

That is not the hallmark behavior of a man who has read Sun Tzu. It is the tell-tale sign of a man who stepped into the batter’s box before he ever took a fastball. As strikeout after strikeout piles up, he continues to blame everyone except himself for his inability lead the team to victory.​

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

Did you read the last paragraph too? I don't see how this negates my claims. I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue. They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.

It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.

We'll blame people like you, George. For being narrowminded. The US has allies. the US belongs to organizations such an the UN, NATO, SEATO and other affiliations. When our Allies become attacked or threatened, the US goes to their aid. What would you have us do, Commie Pinko?

Kill fewer women and children, Silver Star

 

[Hossfly]

I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war. I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country. There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war. THAT is what the United States does though.

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

Did you read the last paragraph too? I don't see how this negates my claims. I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue. They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.

It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.

We'll blame people like you, George. For being narrowminded. The US has allies. the US belongs to organizations such an the UN, NATO, SEATO and other affiliations. When our Allies become attacked or threatened, the US goes to their aid. What would you have us do, Commie Pinko?

Kill fewer women and children, Silver Star

 

[georgephillip]

From your link:
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter.

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.

Did you read the last paragraph too? I don't see how this negates my claims. I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue. They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.

It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.

We'll blame people like you, George. For being narrowminded. The US has allies. the US belongs to organizations such an the UN, NATO, SEATO and other affiliations. When our Allies become attacked or threatened, the US goes to their aid. What would you have us do, Commie Pinko?

Kill fewer women and children, Silver Star

Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.