Obama to lay out plan to defeat Islamic State

[iancnx]

Again, it's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario for Obama. Republicans are clammoring for more military force, yet they'll be first in line to condemn Obama and the Dems if anything goes wrong - like a captured airman, etc.

The bigger question is: what about the other dune states who oppose the IS? On the top of the heap are the Saudis. They've got expensive military hardware. To the guys wearing handkerchiefs on their heads: This is what all those jets and tanks are for! Also, the Jordanians, Lebanese, Iranians, Turks, even the Egyptians are or should be spooked by IS. In typical Middle East fashion, they're sitting back behind their borders and hoping the US and Europe will fight their battles for them.

Well, maybe US and Europe should be doing the same and not poking their noses into other people's wars.

So don't be so surprised when another 911 happens.

And doing nothing will result in another 9/11.

I hate ISIS and everything they stand for, but let's not forget they were born from the assassination of bin Ladin. Bin Ladin's Al Qaida was formed directly as a result of the US overt support, both tacit and financial, of the Afghan Mujahideen. The US made this mess, they could have solved it in the aftermath of the 1998 Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam Embassy bombings, but they got caught with their pants down. I don't have the answer but declaring a war against Islam sure is a recipe for certain Armageddon. 'They' are sleeping in the US of that you can be certain.... Pray Obama and his Euro poodles has the balls to pull back, get out of the Middle East, and let them crack on with their own 3rd world war where indeed the gulf states and Egypt and Jordan will be compelled to fight it out!

[boomerangutang]

All the posts, including ones trying to find conspiracy theories embedded in this mess, confirm what I mentioned earlier in post #2: 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.'

Here's the scenario: The Middle East is a basket case, at best. Even if Europe and N.America didn't exist, the M.Easterners would be chasing each other around with guns and knives, and shouting 'Allah Akbar!' every time a baby is born or a heretic has a head lopped off (and a million times in-between).

The best the US and Europe can do is try to intervene to try and stem a very bad situation from becoming worse. Those are the choices there: 1.very bad or 2.extremely bad. Recently the Saudis begged the US to become involved. They didn't ask the Russians or the Chinese, both of whom have powerful military might. Maybe that's their plan B. No, they asked Uncle Sam because they know the US military is the strongest, swiftest acting fighting machine on the planet. Should the Saudis (and Jordanians, Turks, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Kurds, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Omanis, and others) do the dirty work themselves? Granted, some are putting boots on the ground, but it's the US who will lead the stiffest resistance to IS, and hopefully shut 'em (or at least slow 'em) down before they cause more severe misery in their wake.

[iancnx]

All the posts, including ones trying to find conspiracy theories embedded in this mess, confirm what I mentioned earlier in post #2: 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.'

Here's the scenario: The Middle East is a basket case, at best. Even if Europe and N.America didn't exist, the M.Easterners would be chasing each other around with guns and knives, and shouting 'Allah Akbar!' every time a baby is born or a heretic has a head lopped off (and a million times in-between).

The best the US and Europe can do is try to intervene to try and stem a very bad situation from becoming worse. Those are the choices there: 1.very bad or 2.extremely bad. Recently the Saudis begged the US to become involved. They didn't ask the Russians or the Chinese, both of whom have powerful military might. Maybe that's their plan B. No, they asked Uncle Sam because they know the US military is the strongest, swiftest acting fighting machine on the planet. Should the Saudis (and Jordanians, Turks, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Kurds, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Omanis, and others) do the dirty work themselves? Granted, some are putting boots on the ground, but it's the US who will lead the stiffest resistance to IS, and hopefully shut 'em (or at least slow 'em) down before they cause more severe misery in their wake.

With respect...... Shut em down? Once ISIS and their global following have finished their crusade the US will be very pleased they are self sufficient in oil me thinks. Will you be sorry for the millions more lives left in misery in the wake of your global police force failure?

The Russians won't get involved, they have very clear memories of their failures in Afghanistan. The Chinese are already strategising on how best to capitalise economically on the aftermath, once the death and destruction has finished.

[arjunadawn]

I hate ISIS and everything they stand for, but let's not forget they were born from the assassination of bin Ladin. Bin Ladin's Al Qaida was formed directly as a result of the US overt support, both tacit and financial, of the Afghan Mujahideen. The US made this mess, they could have solved it in the aftermath of the 1998 Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam Embassy bombings, but they got caught with their pants down. I don't have the answer but declaring a war against Islam sure is a recipe for certain Armageddon. 'They' are sleeping in the US of that you can be certain.... Pray Obama and his Euro poodles has the balls to pull back, get out of the Middle East, and let them crack on with their own 3rd world war where indeed the gulf states and Egypt and Jordan will be compelled to fight it out!

There are some errors with your post, though I think the message is clear- the US contributes or creates this issue by being involved in the first place, or not taking actions when they could. Most people don't know or accept this; you are correct.

Retrospect is 20/20. It is always easier to look backwards and see roads not taken. However, there is no way at all that IS is the result of bin laden's death. IS is a child of abu musab al-Zarqawi (AQ in Iraq), and the seed is about 20 years old! This refutes that IS was born of bin laden and rejects the notion that the US in Afghanistan had anything to do with IS, directly. In fact, abu musab al-Zarqawi received his initial training in Afghanistan- the one with the Soviet Union!

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/isis-a-short-history/376030/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

There is no doubt AQ is a creation of the US. I am unsure how [the west] could have responded in 1998 to prevent future developments. I do believe once the US and the West realized a very dangerous product survived the Afghan theater (the jihad genie was out of the bottle and jihadis returned to their home countries) a decision was made to nurture this as a proxy tool. Thus AQ and IS (for certain) have been both the target and the employee of the west.

Regardless of the history the fact is the proxy- IS and AQ- have morphed into something so vast and dangerous that they can not be managed; they never could have been as Islam was always going to be sending them down this road irrespective of the Afghan war or US involvement. Islam must expand, as it always has for 1400 years, or when opposed by overwhelming force. Jihad was coming to the west irrespective of the US policies. What facilitated this was not US policy but the advent of the information age. History, islamic doctrine, and islamic scripture are quite clear that jihad- the House of War (dar al harb)- must be waged until there is global islam=submission.

The idea that the west has "declare[d] a war on islam" is offensive. I am not offended; reason is offended. The entire world has war being savagely waged upon it by muslims and IS is only one footprint. The idea that having enough of this shit constitutes a declaration of war is utterly absurd. This is the thinking of those who have given sustenance and cover for jihad lawfare in the west.

Not taking action is not a choice of action, it is a capitulation.

[arjunadawn]

Last year the US Military Industrial Complex armed the Syrian rebels to fight the Syrian government because of the alleged poison gas attacks on innocent people by the government. That didn't work because of Kerry's slip of the tongue... And this year the same rebels they armed last year are now a part of ISIS or ISIL and need to be bombed?

The powers pulling the strings of the US government will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of bombing Syria and getting Assad replaced with another globalist puppet.

I can't believe that anyone here believes anything that comes out of the US propaganda machine that keeps their owners, the globalists, in business by perpetually declaring wars and executing false flag events to keep the idiots citizens stirred up while they rob everyone blind.

Think about it... The agenda is to get Assad out of power and then move on to Iran. Why? Because they are the only two remaining countries in the region that haven't accepted the globalist institutions.

Thank you, thank you. Excellent post!

[desmondspencer]

I was told by the late George Carlin that if I didn't want to get beheaded, I shouldn't put myself in such a situation..

[boomerangutang]

I just listened to an in-depth interview with the NY Times Bureau chief based in Baghdad. One thing stood out; He thinks IS was formed as a reaction to US intervention in Iraq, particularly as a result of the Sunni-isolating policies of recent Shi'ite authorities. Of course it gets a lot more entangled, the closer one looks. Perhaps that's what's expected, when you put wanna-be-strongmen with 13th century perspectives in 21st century scenarios. It rather plays to the lowest common denominator. In other words, if you had 10 warlords in a room trying to get a consensus, if just one of the men had primitive proclivities (shouting, threatening, shooting off weapons), it would compel the others to stoop to that barbarian level. Add to that: their mean-spirited vindictive religious sects (variations of Islam), and it's a recipe for big problems.

[madpat]

Hahahaha here go the yanks again, on a day of rememberence for those in the twin towers they decide they can bomb at will because 2 of their citizens got killed.

It was a disgusting act to behead these guys,,, but here goes another Iraq, and all those other countries that they have given money to rebels to arm themselves only years later to end up fighting those same rebels.

Look at Michael Moores film ,,,,,,Bowling for Colombine if you want to see facts of Yankeeee interference.

[Publicus]

Again, it's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario for Obama. Republicans are clammoring for more military force, yet they'll be first in line to condemn Obama and the Dems if anything goes wrong - like a captured airman, etc.

The bigger question is: what about the other dune states who oppose the IS? On the top of the heap are the Saudis. They've got expensive military hardware. To the guys wearing handkerchiefs on their heads: This is what all those jets and tanks are for! Also, the Jordanians, Lebanese, Iranians, Turks, even the Egyptians are or should be spooked by IS. In typical Middle East fashion, they're sitting back behind their borders and hoping the US and Europe will fight their battles for them.

Well, maybe US and Europe should be doing the same and not poking their noses into other people's wars.

So don't be so surprised when another 911 happens.

And doing nothing will result in another 9/11.

I hate ISIS and everything they stand for, but let's not forget they were born from the assassination of bin Ladin. Bin Ladin's Al Qaida was formed directly as a result of the US overt support, both tacit and financial, of the Afghan Mujahideen. The US made this mess, they could have solved it in the aftermath of the 1998 Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam Embassy bombings, but they got caught with their pants down. I don't have the answer but declaring a war against Islam sure is a recipe for certain Armageddon. 'They' are sleeping in the US of that you can be certain.... Pray Obama and his Euro poodles has the balls to pull back, get out of the Middle East, and let them crack on with their own 3rd world war where indeed the gulf states and Egypt and Jordan will be compelled to fight it out!

Wuz that a note to yourself?

It certainly makes no sense to me.

It regardless continues the dispelled myth the U.S. created bin Laden and Al Qaeda. bin Laden didn't kill Americans in Afghanistan, he killed the invading Russian Soviet soldiers, alongside a lot of other forces from in and out of the country to include CIA.

After the ad hoc coalition defeated the Russian Soviets in Afghanistan, bin Laden morphed into the bin Laden who created al Qaeda so the rest is history.

Some people confuse history and mythology.

[Publicus]

Obama has a great debt of gratitude to Putin for not bombing Assad.

Obama should adopt Putin's attitude to killing terrorists wherever they are found ( Putin's famous 'mochit v sortire' policy).

Obama should at least try to invite Russians to help destroy ISIS. The benefits would be many: -

# better understanding of and relations with the wild bear;

# less risk of leaked op plans to the brethren;

# no need to arm potentially future enemies;

# less captured terrorists for future exchange extortions;

# more realistic evaluation of Russian military capabilities.

I think this an unusual and worthy post. Yes, at one level I agree- we should foster shared goals and in this instance it would make our policy unstoppable- with Russia on same team. But here's the glitch: With IS et al removed all the significant threats against Assad are neutralized. Russia wants this; the US does not. The entire idea of such a policy is predicated upon events we read in the media being factually true. I object to this. I am a believer of Seymour Hirsch's years old investigation that the US was creating ISIS as a proxy in the region.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-begins-selling-syria-intervention-using-isis-pretext/5396974

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-made-in-usa-iraq-geopolitical-arsonists-seek-to-burn-region/5387475

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.de/2012/05/sunni-extremists-ravaging-syria-created.html

The US publicly suggests it wants IS minimized and arguably moderate jihadis elevated. Remember, the "moderate" jihadis in Syria are only moderate from the western perspective relative to al nursa/IS (we are told). All opposition in Syria is not because they want a democratic process. Far from it. The number one target in jihad is regional muslim rulers, not the US or Israel. They all want Assad gone to further sharia.

The US policy will only result in this (and you can mark my words on this point):

1) IS is a vehicle to draw US and Allies into officially weakening Assad under the color of fighting IS.

2) Sooner or later it will become evident that the entire issue with Ukraine has linkage to events in Syria.

3) IS, under whatever color it morphs into, will become stronger and if the US is successful, another state will be handed over islamic jihad.

4) The Kurds will be greatly strengthened.

5) Iraq will be increasingly sectarian.

The links you provide have articles written by one guy, Tony Cartalucci, who is published almost daily throughout virtually all of the extremist anti-American media.

Cartalucci in your links takes MSM reporting to twist it into his own anti-USA campaigns. He quotes legitimate findings by the respected journalist Seymore Hersh to then misstate Hersh.

The same is true concerning the MSM Daily Beast online journal.. Cartalucci has no respectability as a journalist or as anything because Cartalucci has the slimy MO of quoting something legitimate people say then saying they said what he said.

This occurs at the links you provide and here's a for instance from one of your three links above.....

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a creation of the United States and its Persian Gulf allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and recently added to the list, Kuwait. The Daily Beast in an article titled, “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS,” states:

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.

Yes, the Daily Beast did write that. Yes, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia can be said to be U.S. allies

No, the Daily Beast did not say the United States was participating, sponsoring, supporting Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia relative to the ISIS. In fact, the Daily Beast article headline above reads: "America's Allies Are Funding iSIS." Neither the Daily Beast headline nor the story say the U.S. is funding ISIS whether directly or indirectly. Tony Cartalucci says the U.S. is and he hasn't a shred of evidence or proof.

The same is true as Cartalucci runs amok misquoting and misstating the respected journalism works of Seymore Hersh among many others using his disrespected ongoing method of saying respected people said things they never said.

[hawker9000]

Not bad for a "JV" team, eh Barack?

I read somewhere awhile back that the Allies stopped planning or discussing any assassination attempts on Hitler at some point in the war, because they all agreed his continued blunders were helping the Allied war effort, and he was most valuable to them right where he was. I wonder if ISIS, and Putin as well, have similar sentiments about Obama.

[arjunadawn]

Obama has a great debt of gratitude to Putin for not bombing Assad.

Obama should adopt Putin's attitude to killing terrorists wherever they are found ( Putin's famous 'mochit v sortire' policy).

Obama should at least try to invite Russians to help destroy ISIS. The benefits would be many: -

# better understanding of and relations with the wild bear;

# less risk of leaked op plans to the brethren;

# no need to arm potentially future enemies;

# less captured terrorists for future exchange extortions;

# more realistic evaluation of Russian military capabilities.

I think this an unusual and worthy post. Yes, at one level I agree- we should foster shared goals and in this instance it would make our policy unstoppable- with Russia on same team. But here's the glitch: With IS et al removed all the significant threats against Assad are neutralized. Russia wants this; the US does not. The entire idea of such a policy is predicated upon events we read in the media being factually true. I object to this. I am a believer of Seymour Hirsch's years old investigation that the US was creating ISIS as a proxy in the region.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-begins-selling-syria-intervention-using-isis-pretext/5396974

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-made-in-usa-iraq-geopolitical-arsonists-seek-to-burn-region/5387475

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.de/2012/05/sunni-extremists-ravaging-syria-created.html

The US publicly suggests it wants IS minimized and arguably moderate jihadis elevated. Remember, the "moderate" jihadis in Syria are only moderate from the western perspective relative to al nursa/IS (we are told). All opposition in Syria is not because they want a democratic process. Far from it. The number one target in jihad is regional muslim rulers, not the US or Israel. They all want Assad gone to further sharia.

The US policy will only result in this (and you can mark my words on this point):

1) IS is a vehicle to draw US and Allies into officially weakening Assad under the color of fighting IS.

2) Sooner or later it will become evident that the entire issue with Ukraine has linkage to events in Syria.

3) IS, under whatever color it morphs into, will become stronger and if the US is successful, another state will be handed over islamic jihad.

4) The Kurds will be greatly strengthened.

5) Iraq will be increasingly sectarian.

The links you provide have articles written by one guy, Tony Cartalucci, who is published almost daily throughout virtually all of the extremist anti-American media.

Cartalucci in your links takes MSM reporting to twist it into his own anti-USA campaigns. He quotes legitimate findings by the respected journalist Seymore Hersh to then misstate Hersh.

The same is true concerning the MSM Daily Beast online journal.. Cartalucci has no respectability as a journalist or as anything because Cartalucci has the slimy MO of quoting something legitimate people say then saying they said what he said.

This occurs at the links you provide and here's a for instance from one of your three links above.....

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a creation of the United States and its Persian Gulf allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and recently added to the list, Kuwait. The Daily Beast in an article titled, Americas Allies Are Funding ISIS, states:

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.

Yes, the Daily Beast did write that. Yes, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia can be said to be U.S. allies

No, the Daily Beast did not say the United States was participating, sponsoring, supporting Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia relative to the ISIS. In fact, the Daily Beast article headline above reads: "America's Allies Are Funding iSIS." Neither the Daily Beast headline nor the story say the U.S. is funding ISIS whether directly or indirectly. Tony Cartalucci says the U.S. is and he hasn't a shred of evidence or proof.

The same is true as Cartalucci runs amok misquoting and misstating the respected journalism works of Seymore Hersh among many others using his disrespected ongoing method of saying respected people said things they never said.

It's late. Off running. Pulled the first three links in a row. Good thing you cite Hersch. He pretty much ID'd this fact. You don't like TC; ok. This info exists otherwise as well.

[arjunadawn]

Wuz that a note to yourself?

It certainly makes no sense to me.

It regardless continues the dispelled myth the U.S. created bin Laden and Al Qaeda. bin Laden didn't kill Americans in Afghanistan, he killed the invading Russian Soviet soldiers, alongside a lot of other forces from in and out of the country to include CIA.

After the ad hoc coalition defeated the Russian Soviets in Afghanistan, bin Laden morphed into the bin Laden who created al Qaeda so the rest is history.

Some people confuse history and mythology.

Indeed, some people do confuse history; others make it up. Doubt bin laden killed US ppl in Afghan as they were largely allied and receiving vast sums from US thru Paki intel.

You made a valid point elsewhere that 3 links I cited came from one source. I knew I should our multiple sources as I pressed enter. And yet it really doesn't matter; I don't require one single journal to make an observation. Is the idea that someone gets something published it therefore has validity. No, of course not. It must withstand observation. My observation that the US and allies create and coarsely wield AQ IS is self evident. I've been in a related business 30 years. I don't need links. I don't even need time to prove I'm correct. There's ample evidence.

[Publicus]

Russia and China abstained in the UNSC 2003 vote to use force in Iraq.

They knew the pretender George Bush was going to destroy his dubious presidency and wreak havoc upon the United States.

ISIS does welcome the present and increasing confrontation but that's because they're whack jobs. ISIS will be disrupted and dispersed by the US's new dimensions of high tech air-sea power in the way Prez Clinton and Nato had used embryonic versions of it in 1999 in the Balkans, and by the kind of coalition force against them that Clinton had assembled against Milosevic and his army.

There will be no "boots on the ground" and that has become a convenient term. In referring to the use of U.S. military forces, 'boots on the ground' replaced the old expression "in harm's way."

The U.S. has had sneakers on the ground in Iraq for some time. Yes, sneakers. They don' literally wear canvass shoes but neither are they boots on the ground, i.e., tens of thousands of mobile forces combining infantry, armor, artillery ranging out of huge bases..

They instead are operatives from the CIA Special Activities Division. They are rangers from the Defense Intelligence Agency and are units of Special Operations Forces, task forces from the Joint Special Operations Command and the like.

They and similar units of German Kommandos have been on the ground in Iraq for some time. They with Nato special forces also had been on the ground in Lybia. Assigned by Prez Obama after signing a CIA Covert Action Finding, these special operatives become detached from their military units and placed under CIA command and control. These CIA commanded forces may be in harm's way but technically they are not boots on the ground.

Now, with Nuriel Malaki out as Iraqi prime minister, the U.S. and allies of the region have a clear road to take action against ISIS and other terrorist organizations.

Malaki had been the major force in Iraq against a Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S., which Washington and the Pentagon must have in any and every instance before they will, well, put boots on the ground. In this instance leave a residual force in Iraq to train, advise, protect. Malaki had obstructed Washington's every effort to exert influence against ISIS and other terrorist fighting units.

Opinion leaders around here still need to catch on that it will be a long long time before the U.S. ever again places boots on the ground in harm's way. The Pentagon's new Air-Sea Battle Doctrine is at the front line everywhere now and indefinitely so.

[Publicus]

Wuz that a note to yourself?

It certainly makes no sense to me.

It regardless continues the dispelled myth the U.S. created bin Laden and Al Qaeda. bin Laden didn't kill Americans in Afghanistan, he killed the invading Russian Soviet soldiers, alongside a lot of other forces from in and out of the country to include CIA.

After the ad hoc coalition defeated the Russian Soviets in Afghanistan, bin Laden morphed into the bin Laden who created al Qaeda so the rest is history.

Some people confuse history and mythology.

Indeed, some people do confuse history; others make it up. Doubt bin laden killed US ppl in Afghan as they were largely allied and receiving vast sums from US thru Paki intel.

You made a valid point elsewhere that 3 links I cited came from one source. I knew I should our multiple sources as I pressed enter. And yet it really doesn't matter; I don't require one single journal to make an observation. Is the idea that someone gets something published it therefore has validity. No, of course not. It must withstand observation. My observation that the US and allies create and coarsely wield AQ IS is self evident. I've been in a related business 30 years. I don't need links. I don't even need time to prove I'm correct. There's ample evidence.

"I've been in a related business 30 years. I don't need links. I don't even need time to prove I'm correct. There's ample evidence.".

Observers have said for some time that the name Tony Cartalucci is a nom de guerre, a pen name, a pseudonym.

So I'd take it then that I am talking to the original and true guy himself......

[iancnx]

I hate ISIS and everything they stand for, but let's not forget they were born from the assassination of bin Ladin. Bin Ladin's Al Qaida was formed directly as a result of the US overt support, both tacit and financial, of the Afghan Mujahideen. The US made this mess, they could have solved it in the aftermath of the 1998 Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam Embassy bombings, but they got caught with their pants down. I don't have the answer but declaring a war against Islam sure is a recipe for certain Armageddon. 'They' are sleeping in the US of that you can be certain.... Pray Obama and his Euro poodles has the balls to pull back, get out of the Middle East, and let them crack on with their own 3rd world war where indeed the gulf states and Egypt and Jordan will be compelled to fight it out!

Wuz that a note to yourself?

It certainly makes no sense to me.

It regardless continues the dispelled myth the U.S. created bin Laden and Al Qaeda. bin Laden didn't kill Americans in Afghanistan, he killed the invading Russian Soviet soldiers, alongside a lot of other forces from in and out of the country to include CIA.

After the ad hoc coalition defeated the Russian Soviets in Afghanistan, bin Laden morphed into the bin Laden who created al Qaeda so the rest is history.

Some people confuse history and mythology.

Delusional. I bet you also believe you were victorious in Vietnam and your support for Pol Pot was a myth. There are no myths in my last post, just facts. US foreign policy blunders and interference around the world in other nations business whilst promoting their superior God fearing brand of democracy is why the world is in such total disarray. It will take a President of real courage to pull back from the brink and return to home territory and allow their Euro poodles to do the same. Ahhhhhh but I forgot the real power in the worlds greatest democracy would never allow any President to make such a decision.... Would they? And we ain't talking about the people as you well know!

[ABCer]

Wipe this excrement off the face of the planet.

Excrement it is.

Wipe it off we need.

The problem is the origin of this excrement!

Symptomatic treatment does not cure the disease.

Keep using symptomatic treatment and we are all deceased.

[Pakboong]

Statistically, the best course of action, by a very large margin, is to do absolutely nothing. We will again prove this choice to be the correct one.

[boomerangutang]

Hahahaha here go the yanks again, on a day of rememberence for those in the twin towers they decide they can bomb at will because 2 of their citizens got killed. It was a disgusting act to behead these guys,,, but here goes another Iraq, and all those other countries that they have given money to rebels to arm themselves only years later to end up fighting those same rebels. Look at Michael Moores film ,,,,,,Bowling for Colombine if you want to see facts of Yankeeee interference.

The US acts in its own interests, but also (hard as it may be to imagine for some) ....in the interests of others.

Statistically, the best course of action, by a very large margin, is to do absolutely nothing. We will again prove this choice to be the correct one.

You could be right. But I think you'll agree that, even doing nothing has its chasms of problems. The US could have done nothing in regard to it's 2nd entry into Iraq. By doing nothing, S.Hussein (rhymes with insane) would have kept grievously harming others. By going in with guns blazing, a lot of people got grievously harmed. Like I said in a couple earlier posts: the choices in the M.East are often between a very bad scenario or a terrible scenario. It's like having an election, and the only two choices are Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler. If those Muslim extremist could find a decent non-aggressive belief system, then that would be an improvement of sorts. But that's about as likely as Fat Boy Kim dissolving his army and shipping all the citizens to Greenland.