ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels that Obama wanted to support.
Options
Comments
-
FuriousOne wrote: »@kingblaze84 Those articles you posted are coulda woulda. Speak to me when you have evidence support an actuality. We are minding our business. It is our business to ? up any terrorist that threatens these Unite States.
Huh? The last article I brought up already said some Al-Qaeda branches are coordinating with ISIS, because America is getting involved. It also says how attacking Al-Nusra, an ally of the moderate terrorists I mean rebels is backfiring against America already. Remember when ISIS was so crazy even Al-Qaeda wouldn't ? with them? The article stated clearly Al-Qaeda wants to coordinate with ISIS again. And by the way, more evidence will be seen how big a mistake this all is very soon.
Terrorism is a problem of course, but America is very responsible for the rise of it and pouring gasoline on the fire. Ask yourself why it seems America is always caught up in this ? , and other big, powerful nations don't deal with this problem the way we do. American foreign policy isn't helping matters at all, America's evil and belligerent foreign policy is the water from which terrorists in that region and worldwide unite and drink from.
"Last week, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, two Al Qaeda affiliates losing manpower and momentum to the hot new kid on the block — ISIL — called for unity among jihadi groups in the fight against America" -
i think this is the result of people declining to call them on this ?FuriousOne wrote: »This ? is hilarious. Russia must be playing checkers rather then chess.
i think the way i saw it phrased recently was basically, and i am paraphrasing, "if local nations can't supply the necessary group troops, eventually the US will have to." and that's probably correct (whether one is in favor of it or not)kingblaze84 wrote: »Experts agree American busy bodies will eventually send in American troops to take on ISIS, as air strikes against ISIS are basically a waste of time if one wants to "destroy" ISIS....experts also agree a political, NOT a military solution, will solve this conflict
so the thing to keep in mind about this SPECIFICALLY is that al-Qaeda also called for unity in a way that made it clear ISIL is to blame for that lack of unity. so it's much less a "ISIL and Nusra start working together" thing and much more a "this is why you should have listened to al-Qaeda all along" thing.kingblaze84 wrote: »Last week, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, two Al Qaeda affiliates losing manpower and momentum to the hot new kid on the block — ISIL — called for unity among jihadi groups in the fight against America. If Nusra and ISIL, rather than eroding each other’s support and competing for resources, join forces to combine ISIL’s resources and skill at insurgency in Iraq and Syria with Al Qaeda’s international terrorism knowhow, the danger to the United States and its interest around the world could multiply rapidly.
but that's also this missive specifically.
actually, the article you posted did not say that at all. it said al-Qaeda called for jihadist unity in the face of America.kingblaze84 wrote: »Huh? The last article I brought up already said some Al-Qaeda branches are coordinating with ISIS, because America is getting involved.
-
i think this is the result of people declining to call them on this ?FuriousOne wrote: »This ? is hilarious. Russia must be playing checkers rather then chess.
i think the way i saw it phrased recently was basically, and i am paraphrasing, "if local nations can't supply the necessary group troops, eventually the US will have to." and that's probably correct (whether one is in favor of it or not)kingblaze84 wrote: »Experts agree American busy bodies will eventually send in American troops to take on ISIS, as air strikes against ISIS are basically a waste of time if one wants to "destroy" ISIS....experts also agree a political, NOT a military solution, will solve this conflict
so the thing to keep in mind about this SPECIFICALLY is that al-Qaeda also called for unity in a way that made it clear ISIL is to blame for that lack of unity. so it's much less a "ISIL and Nusra start working together" thing and much more a "this is why you should have listened to al-Qaeda all along" thing.kingblaze84 wrote: »Last week, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, two Al Qaeda affiliates losing manpower and momentum to the hot new kid on the block — ISIL — called for unity among jihadi groups in the fight against America. If Nusra and ISIL, rather than eroding each other’s support and competing for resources, join forces to combine ISIL’s resources and skill at insurgency in Iraq and Syria with Al Qaeda’s international terrorism knowhow, the danger to the United States and its interest around the world could multiply rapidly.
but that's also this missive specifically.
actually, the article you posted did not say that at all. it said al-Qaeda called for jihadist unity in the face of America.kingblaze84 wrote: »Huh? The last article I brought up already said some Al-Qaeda branches are coordinating with ISIS, because America is getting involved.
The article itself stated that Al-Qaeda is calling for unity btw ISIS and all jihad groups true, I meant to say sources in general state that ISIS is already coordinating with Al-Qaeda -
The Syrian rebels are UPSET America is bombing their Al-Qaeda linked buddy Al-Nusra Front LOL.....this coalition is looking more and more like a joke from The Simpsons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/nusra-front-revenge_n_5897302.html
Syrian rebels, activists and analysts have warned that targeting the Nusra Front will inject more chaos into the Syrian conflict and indirectly help Assad by striking one of his main adversaries.
Some of the initial strikes targeted the Nusra Front, hitting several of its facilities and killing dozens of its fighters. Washington said it was trying to take out an al-Qaida cell known as the Khorasan Group that was actively plotting attacks against Americans and Western interests.
Syrian rebels have expressed anger at the coalition airstrikes, both because they have targeted the Nusra Front -- which they see as an ally -- and because they are not hitting pro-government forces, which are the best placed to benefit from any rolling back of the Islamic State group. The Nusra Front's ultimate goal is to impose Islamic law in Syria. But unlike the Islamic State group, it has fought alongside other rebel groups, seeing the overthrow of Assad as its first priority.
Al-Golani warned the airstrikes would weaken the rebels.
"Those of our men who were targeted in the shelling... the effect of their loss will be witnessed by the entire conflict, not just on the (Nusra) Front alone."
The Nusra Front leader also warned other rebel groups not to coordinate with the U.S.-led alliance.
--The "MODERATE" rebels are UPSET America is bombing AL-QAEDA linked rebel group Al-Nusra LOL.....this comedy of errors will only become more tragic and disastrous. America whines about groups who use beheading as a tactic, and meanwhile, Saudi Arabia beheads people all the time for even minor offenses like adultery. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The Syrian rebels are UPSET America is bombing their Al-Qaeda linked buddy Al-Nusra Front LOL.....this coalition is looking more and more like a joke from The Simpsons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/nusra-front-revenge_n_5897302.html
Syrian rebels, activists and analysts have warned that targeting the Nusra Front will inject more chaos into the Syrian conflict and indirectly help Assad by striking one of his main adversaries.
Some of the initial strikes targeted the Nusra Front, hitting several of its facilities and killing dozens of its fighters. Washington said it was trying to take out an al-Qaida cell known as the Khorasan Group that was actively plotting attacks against Americans and Western interests.
Syrian rebels have expressed anger at the coalition airstrikes, both because they have targeted the Nusra Front -- which they see as an ally -- and because they are not hitting pro-government forces, which are the best placed to benefit from any rolling back of the Islamic State group. The Nusra Front's ultimate goal is to impose Islamic law in Syria. But unlike the Islamic State group, it has fought alongside other rebel groups, seeing the overthrow of Assad as its first priority.
Al-Golani warned the airstrikes would weaken the rebels.
"Those of our men who were targeted in the shelling... the effect of their loss will be witnessed by the entire conflict, not just on the (Nusra) Front alone."
The Nusra Front leader also warned other rebel groups not to coordinate with the U.S.-led alliance.
--The "MODERATE" rebels are UPSET America is bombing AL-QAEDA linked rebel group Al-Nusra LOL.....this comedy of errors will only become more tragic and disastrous. America whines about groups who use beheading as a tactic, and meanwhile, Saudi Arabia beheads people all the time for even minor offenses like adultery.
So we supposed to feel some kind of way because some Moderates are upset that we are attacking Al Qaeda? LMAO. ? their feelings. If they wanna align with those fools, then they can lay down with those fools. They just giving credence to the Syrian government at this point, because them getting gassed is a far off concern compared to stop Al Qaeda from showing up ISIS by attacking the United States or other lands directly. They can't have it both ways. It was already known that many of those groups weren't down with the team, but many still are. At the end of the day, all of those religious freaks can commit that. I know they thought ? was sweet and the plot would be the greatest of all time till those bombs started falling. Everybody swore Russia had us shook. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The Syrian rebels are UPSET America is bombing their Al-Qaeda linked buddy Al-Nusra Front LOL.....this coalition is looking more and more like a joke from The Simpsons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/nusra-front-revenge_n_5897302.html
Syrian rebels, activists and analysts have warned that targeting the Nusra Front will inject more chaos into the Syrian conflict and indirectly help Assad by striking one of his main adversaries.
Some of the initial strikes targeted the Nusra Front, hitting several of its facilities and killing dozens of its fighters. Washington said it was trying to take out an al-Qaida cell known as the Khorasan Group that was actively plotting attacks against Americans and Western interests.
Syrian rebels have expressed anger at the coalition airstrikes, both because they have targeted the Nusra Front -- which they see as an ally -- and because they are not hitting pro-government forces, which are the best placed to benefit from any rolling back of the Islamic State group. The Nusra Front's ultimate goal is to impose Islamic law in Syria. But unlike the Islamic State group, it has fought alongside other rebel groups, seeing the overthrow of Assad as its first priority.
Al-Golani warned the airstrikes would weaken the rebels.
"Those of our men who were targeted in the shelling... the effect of their loss will be witnessed by the entire conflict, not just on the (Nusra) Front alone."
The Nusra Front leader also warned other rebel groups not to coordinate with the U.S.-led alliance.
--The "MODERATE" rebels are UPSET America is bombing AL-QAEDA linked rebel group Al-Nusra LOL.....this comedy of errors will only become more tragic and disastrous. America whines about groups who use beheading as a tactic, and meanwhile, Saudi Arabia beheads people all the time for even minor offenses like adultery.
So we supposed to feel some kind of way because some Moderates are upset that we are attacking Al Qaeda? LMAO. ? their feelings. If they wanna align with those fools, then they can lay down with those fools. They just giving credence to the Syrian government at this point, because them getting gassed is a far off concern compared to stop Al Qaeda from showing up ISIS by attacking the United States or other lands directly. They can't have it both ways. It was already known that many of those groups weren't down with the team, but many still are. At the end of the day, all of those religious freaks can commit that. I know they thought ? was sweet and the plot would be the greatest of all time till those bombs started falling. Everybody swore Russia had us shook.
WELL the article didn't say some Syrian rebels were upset, it said SYRIAN REBELS ARE UPSET LOL. I think it's more then just "many" moderates who are ? America is bombing Al-Qaeda members, it seems like most of the so called moderates are openly doing business with Al-Qaeda and don't want them harmed. These are supposed to be the people we just gave 500 million dollars worth of weapons, money, and ammo to?
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Al-Qaeda will now create ANOTHER terror group for us, with American taxpayer dollars. AGAIN! There are no moderate rebels, if a "moderate" is willing to do business with Al-Qaeda to take down the secular Assad (who protects the rights of Christians and other minorities in the parts he controls), then THIS COALITION IS ? . I wonder what the name of the new American funded terror group will be. These terror groups tend to come up with catchy names, maybe an American is helping to choose them. After all, these terror groups are CONSTANTLY getting American funds somehow. Al-Qaeda and ISIS LOVE what we're doing there, I suppose you're happy with all this as well. This ? is so funny to me because I see everything that's gonna happen before it does. After 13 years of non stop war, it is easy to see how this will all end up. -
like i said there are no moderates all these ? need to get washed up they pretend to be moderates to get what they want. the world needs to stop bragging it's foot on the middle east problem and accept the fact that war a real one is the solution.
-
like i said there are no moderates all these ? need to get washed up they pretend to be moderates to get what they want. the world needs to stop bragging it's foot on the middle east problem and accept the fact that war a real one is the solution.
I give you credit for understanding the moderate rebels aren't America's friends, I wish the idiots in Congress and the White House understood that.
That real war is gonna come, Republicans are now openly saying American troops need to be on the ground. ISIS and Al-Qaeda welcome American troops on the ground, and the Pentagon will pressure Obama soon to send them in. All the conditions are ripe for a big, fantastic war that Americans will love and enjoy. -
OBAMA: 'They Don't Call Moscow' When There's Trouble In The World
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-dont-call-moscow-theres-234603911.htmlUS President Barack Obama wants everyone to know "how we roll": The US always takes the lead in international crises.
In a "60 Minutes" interview Sunday evening, Obama was asked why the US was contributing such a significant portion of the military coalition against the jihadist group known as the Islamic State, or ISIS. Obama responded by arguing that other countries were not stepping up.
"When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don't call Beijing, they don't call Moscow. They call us. That's the deal," he quipped.
When CBS' Steve Kroft pressed Obama on the relatively small contributions from some of the US' coalition partners, Obama insisted such arrangements were expected.
"That's always the case. That's always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation," he said. "We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world."
Obama pointed to past US humanitarian efforts after other countries were hit by environmental disasters.
"When there's a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who's helping the Philippines deal with that situation," he said. "When there's an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who's leading the charge helping Haiti rebuild. That's how we roll. That's what makes us Americans." -
again, this seems to be the definition of unlikely, since the missive from al-Qaeda is breaking ISIS's ? even there.kingblaze84 wrote: »The article itself stated that Al-Qaeda is calling for unity btw ISIS and all jihad groups true, I meant to say sources in general state that ISIS is already coordinating with Al-Qaeda
do they share a common enemy in the US? sure. but there's still a debate between them as to who's the top dog and it's not immediately solved by the US blowing ? up.
not to make an excuse for SA beheading people... but surely you can see the difference between what ISIS does and what SA does.kingblaze84 wrote: »America whines about groups who use beheading as a tactic, and meanwhile, Saudi Arabia beheads people all the time for even minor offenses like adultery.
okay, now a quote for kingblaze since i am giving him a lot of ? right now:
Obama's "Mission Accomplished" moment:
Thiessen's being a ? and kingblaze would not approve of his "let's have a war" mentality, but i find the Obama quote-mining HILARIOUS, if only because of how smug people are/were about Bush's (admittedly lame in retrospect) "mission accomplished" moment.Remember the “Mission Accomplished” speech?
You know, the one where the president declared the war in Iraq over, only to have to eat his words as he sent the U.S. military to fight terrorists in Iraq who were taking over vast swaths of the country?
No, I’m not talking about President George W. Bush’s May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. I’m talking about President Obama’s speech at the White House on Oct. 21, 2011, in which he boasted about his decision to withdraw all U.S. troops and bring “the long war in Iraq” to an end. It’s still on the White House Web site under the (now ironic) headline “Remarks by the President on Ending the War in Iraq.”
“As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama solemnly declared, “[And] today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”
“The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops,” the president continued, adding “That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end.”
He said this Iraq withdrawal was only the beginning. “The end of war in Iraq reflects a larger transition,” Obama intoned. “The tide of war is receding. Now, even as we remove our last troops from Iraq, we’re beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. The transition in Afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home.”
So much for receding tides. As a direct result of the withdrawal he announced that day — a decision he made over the objections of his military commanders on the ground — the terrorists the United States had defeated during the 2007 surge were able to recover, regroup and impose their brutal rule of over a swath of territory in Iraq and Syria the size of Britain.
Now we are back at war in Iraq. Not a new Iraq war, mind you — the same war Obama claimed to have ended in that 2011 speech. A senior administration official admitted that the White House is relying on the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq as statutory authority for the current campaign against the Islamic State. So as a matter of law, the war Obama is now prosecuting in Iraq is a continuation of the war that began there in 2003.
There is one big difference between the Bush and Obama “mission accomplished” speeches, however: Bush quickly realized his was a mistake, while Obama kept giving his over and over again. Obama’s declaration that the “tide of war is receding” (often coupled with a promise to “focus on nation building here at home”) became a staple of his speeches. As recently as a few months ago, on May 27, 2014, Obama gave an address in the Rose Garden in which he announced his plan to fulfill the promise of his “mission accomplished” speech and withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 2016.
“It’s time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama declared, adding “Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them. Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century.”
As he spoke those words, the forces of the Islamic State were attacking Fallujah and within days had captured Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city — unleashing a wave of massacres, crucifixions and beheadings.
On “60 Minutes” Sunday, Obama said the intelligence community “underestimated” the threat posed by the Islamic State. The truth is it was Obama who underestimated the threat — not because of bad intelligence, but because he was blinded by his own ideological insistence on withdrawal. He did not want to hear that a mortal danger was gathering in Iraq, because it conflicted with his plan to cement his legacy as the president who brought every U.S. soldier home from Iraq and Afghanistan before he left office.
Now, instead of withdrawing, Obama is deploying our military to carry out strikes against the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. And his rhetoric of retreat has been replaced with the language of resolve. “There can be no reasoning — no negotiation — with this brand of evil,” Obama told the U.N. General Assembly last week. “The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.”
Amen, Mr. President.
The mission goes on.
-
again, this seems to be the definition of unlikely, since the missive from al-Qaeda is breaking ISIS's ? even there.kingblaze84 wrote: »The article itself stated that Al-Qaeda is calling for unity btw ISIS and all jihad groups true, I meant to say sources in general state that ISIS is already coordinating with Al-Qaeda
do they share a common enemy in the US? sure. but there's still a debate between them as to who's the top dog and it's not immediately solved by the US blowing ? up.
not to make an excuse for SA beheading people... but surely you can see the difference between what ISIS does and what SA does.kingblaze84 wrote: »America whines about groups who use beheading as a tactic, and meanwhile, Saudi Arabia beheads people all the time for even minor offenses like adultery.
okay, now a quote for kingblaze since i am giving him a lot of ? right now:
Obama's "Mission Accomplished" moment:
Thiessen's being a ? and kingblaze would not approve of his "let's have a war" mentality, but i find the Obama quote-mining HILARIOUS, if only because of how smug people are/were about Bush's (admittedly lame in retrospect) "mission accomplished" moment.Remember the “Mission Accomplished” speech?
You know, the one where the president declared the war in Iraq over, only to have to eat his words as he sent the U.S. military to fight terrorists in Iraq who were taking over vast swaths of the country?
No, I’m not talking about President George W. Bush’s May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. I’m talking about President Obama’s speech at the White House on Oct. 21, 2011, in which he boasted about his decision to withdraw all U.S. troops and bring “the long war in Iraq” to an end. It’s still on the White House Web site under the (now ironic) headline “Remarks by the President on Ending the War in Iraq.”
“As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama solemnly declared, “[And] today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”
“The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops,” the president continued, adding “That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end.”
He said this Iraq withdrawal was only the beginning. “The end of war in Iraq reflects a larger transition,” Obama intoned. “The tide of war is receding. Now, even as we remove our last troops from Iraq, we’re beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. The transition in Afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home.”
So much for receding tides. As a direct result of the withdrawal he announced that day — a decision he made over the objections of his military commanders on the ground — the terrorists the United States had defeated during the 2007 surge were able to recover, regroup and impose their brutal rule of over a swath of territory in Iraq and Syria the size of Britain.
Now we are back at war in Iraq. Not a new Iraq war, mind you — the same war Obama claimed to have ended in that 2011 speech. A senior administration official admitted that the White House is relying on the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq as statutory authority for the current campaign against the Islamic State. So as a matter of law, the war Obama is now prosecuting in Iraq is a continuation of the war that began there in 2003.
There is one big difference between the Bush and Obama “mission accomplished” speeches, however: Bush quickly realized his was a mistake, while Obama kept giving his over and over again. Obama’s declaration that the “tide of war is receding” (often coupled with a promise to “focus on nation building here at home”) became a staple of his speeches. As recently as a few months ago, on May 27, 2014, Obama gave an address in the Rose Garden in which he announced his plan to fulfill the promise of his “mission accomplished” speech and withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 2016.
“It’s time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama declared, adding “Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them. Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century.”
As he spoke those words, the forces of the Islamic State were attacking Fallujah and within days had captured Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city — unleashing a wave of massacres, crucifixions and beheadings.
On “60 Minutes” Sunday, Obama said the intelligence community “underestimated” the threat posed by the Islamic State. The truth is it was Obama who underestimated the threat — not because of bad intelligence, but because he was blinded by his own ideological insistence on withdrawal. He did not want to hear that a mortal danger was gathering in Iraq, because it conflicted with his plan to cement his legacy as the president who brought every U.S. soldier home from Iraq and Afghanistan before he left office.
Now, instead of withdrawing, Obama is deploying our military to carry out strikes against the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. And his rhetoric of retreat has been replaced with the language of resolve. “There can be no reasoning — no negotiation — with this brand of evil,” Obama told the U.N. General Assembly last week. “The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.”
Amen, Mr. President.
The mission goes on.
I would assume ISIS is the top dog terror group right now, with Al-Qaeda being a powerful second. I bet even AL-Qaeda leaders can admit this. ISIS, thankfully, hasn't been able or willing to do the big attacks in America and the west that Al-Qaeda loves to do. Two of the world's biggest anti-American groups are COMPETING to make a big attack on America for revenge against the air strikes, this isn't a good situation to be in. I'm sure China and Russia are smiling deep down, knowing America is too bogged down in the Middle East to do much about what Russia and China are doing in their own areas.
Saudi Arabia isn't spreading out into Kurdish areas and areas with American interests and people, that's true but many of their rich citizens gave huge loans and grants to ISIS and its allies. Jordan is also seeing MASSIVE ISIS support lately in its cities, so my point is we can't just bomb our way out of this situation. That article you mentioned though is very ironic considering Obama is using Bush rules to continue the war in Iraq. So by that reasoning, it means the war in Iraq or Iraq War 2 NEVER ENDED. So Obama literally is following Bush's policies through and through. Obama has become Bush!
-
-
Am I the only one that thinks you yanks should have never taken out Saddam?and we also should not have meddled in Syria and Lybia affairs? These dictators are ? yeah but they somehow maintained stability even with an iron fist.They also managed to keep these jihadist groups in check. Look at the state of things now, this is a pandora's box opened that seemingly will never be shut unless by all out nuclear war. I just wonder whether all this bloodshed was worth it just for ? Oil smh
-
leaving the ranking of them aside (because i think it's fair to say these groups have different strategies), there's NO WAY al-Qaeda admits this.kingblaze84 wrote: »I would assume ISIS is the top dog terror group right now, with Al-Qaeda being a powerful second. I bet even AL-Qaeda leaders can admit this.
honestly, one thing you can say about this whole series of current events involving ISIS is that the airstrikes and whatnot are probably soaking up their attention.kingblaze84 wrote: »Two of the world's biggest anti-American groups are COMPETING to make a big attack on America for revenge against the air strikes, this isn't a good situation to be in.
two countries that freak out about Islamic terrorism? seems unlikely THIS is what makes them smile.kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm sure China and Russia are smiling deep down, knowing America is too bogged down in the Middle East to do much about what Russia and China are doing in their own areas.
that is his thesiskingblaze84 wrote: »That article you mentioned though is very ironic considering Obama is using Bush rules to continue the war in Iraq. So by that reasoning, it means the war in Iraq or Iraq War 2 NEVER ENDED. So Obama literally is following Bush's policies through and through. Obama has become Bush!
-
The airstrikes aren't working at all by the way......Americans are mostly killing Iraqi and Syrian civilians and hitting empty ISIS buildings according to CNN and Yahoo. The best part is that this is gonna cost us about $320 million a month, at current levels.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/30/news/economy/isis-cost/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
