Why don't we just stay the hell out of it!!

[J_J_]

After reading this thread, I think we can all agree....


Report: ISIS, Syrian Rebels Reach Ceasefire
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014895466

STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!


The whole thing is pretty much made up farce by the US media

Call me shocked. Counterterrorism Experts claim ISIS threat "distorted" and "a farce"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025520587

We don't even know what the fuck we are doing and who we are supporting.



They said we had to make 'tough choices' last war, so we had to cut off $$ poor people, diabled, elderly, veterans to pay for two tax cuts during two wars....

so this time we're making the tough choices.

Sorry, we'll stay out of it this time.

The middle east can take care of itself.



Arab Nations Offer to Conduct Airstrikes Against ISIS, U.S. Officials Say
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014895892

[TwilightGardener]

1. Can't. We have interests in Iraq.

[JEB]

2. I have lost interest, but then

I'm not a multi-national oil corporation.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Well, oil is an interest, and we have tons of workers there apparently.

Nobody likes that reality, and I don't either, but there it is. But pull back and consider the big picture: is the US really prepared to watch a terror organization basically build its own country in Northern/Western Iraq, and chase us out? Not going to happen. Of course we're going to intervene.

[JEB]

6. Let the oil comanies foot the bill then.

We heard that same pitch in Vietnam (domino theory) but we now trade and have reasonable relations. It is hard to win people over at the point of a gun or with bombs.

[TwilightGardener]

8. We're not trying to win anyone over. We're going in at the request of the Iraqi

government and the Kurds to help them get rid of ISIS. Unless there's some sort of severe mission creep, we shouldn't be building new schools and dams and hospitals, or "winning hearts and minds", or kicking in doors from street to street on behalf of Shia vs. Sunni or whatever.

[JEB]

12. Oh, so now we are answering requests, What about

those so called interests? Good thing we aren't trying to win anyone over. Collateral damage has a way of losing hearts and minds. Just as dead from a misplaced bomb as by beheading.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Well, we did sort of upend their country and all their institutions a little while back, so

probably we should respond when they're in danger--it's kind of our fault to begin with. I think the air campaign is going to be long and drawn out because there just aren't going to be many good targets and we ARE mindful of collateral damage. That would be a political kick in the crotch Iraq doesn't need, and why supposedly the Iraqi government is now limiting air strikes to avoid civilians.

[JEB]

16. Just enough killing to keep things interesting for the oil business. Sweet deal dude.

[TwilightGardener]

17. If that's the way you want to characterize it, that's up to you.

[JEB]

18. Not exactly what I want, but yeah

that is how it appears to me.

[rhett o rick]

10. No, no, a thousand times no to those neocon arguments. Fool me once ok, but you don't

get away with fooling me again. And by the way, you didn't fool me the first time that same argument was used.

Let's look at your arguments:

You say that no one likes the reality that we have "tons of workers there". Do you think that is any kind of rational argument to continue a war that is killing our country? Tell the tons of workers to get the hell out as f'n fast as they can. Tell the oil companies that the American taxpayer is no longer going to provide the security force to keep their interests safe.

" is the US really prepared to watch a terror organization basically build its own country in Northern/Western Iraq, and chase us out?" If our withdrawal is called being chased out, then sign us up. Get out of Iraq. We are there at the request of the Iraqi government. A government that will do whatever we ask. We broke Iraq when we set up Hussein. We broke it again when we hanged him (for not asking us in). WE CAN NOT PREVENT TERROR ORGANIZATIONS FROM CONTROLLING COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AREA.

Our interventions has done more damage than good for everyone except the MIC and oil companies.

Just say no to the damn war mongers.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Well, like I said, nobody likes the reality of it, but no American President

is going to watch this tumor grow and pose a threat to our personnel, oil interests, and embassy--and possibly our allies in the ME and the continental US. The political consequences of a terror attack from ISIS would doom the Democrats for many years if the Democratic President is perceived to have done nothing to fight them. This isn't the '90s anymore when Bill Clinton could get away with multiple AQ attacks without bearing too much blame. The Iraqis were counted on to keep the ISIS problem from spilling into their country, but they were in too much political disarray to do so, and their military failed. So it falls to us. No one else is stepping up, no one else is going to. These are the cold hard facts.

[rhett o rick]

19. You are wrong. The MIC, oil companies and war mongers love this version of "reality".

But it is only a version. Reality is very subjective.

Why do you say it "falls to us"? We don't have to be the police for the world. When we try we usually favor corporations over humans anywayz. I say get the hell out and stay out. Those that choose this continual MIC war, are sacrificing our seniors, our troops, our children, infrastructure, and our democracy.

"These are the cold hard facts." How audacious to think that you know all the facts.

[TwilightGardener]

22. I don't think this is an "MIC" war, despite how excited they might get about it.

I don't think Obama feels he has a choice. He is not going to watch the collapse of Iraq and do nothing, especially since that could affect the broader middle east and our economy in the long run. And he's not going to watch a terror entity that sprang up from AQ grow empowered and threaten the US, and do nothing. There is no question we are going to insert ourselves in this.

[rhett o rick]

30. I am not arguing whether he will or not, because I know he will continue this continual war because

he has no choice. The PTB want the continual war. It has nothing to do with the old rationals that are being push by the neocons and war mongers.

Just because the President has no choice, isn't justification for acceptance. We are incapable of establishing a democratic stable government in the middle east.

[PSPS]

3. Because the "outrage industry" won't have it.

Whenever the defense industry sees its quarterly profits slipping, we have to gin up the outrage. And what better way to accomplish that these days than another beheading on the always-reliable youtube! Check your local listings for the next one! Thus we have formidable political cover for "leaders" to "express outrage" and "do what the outraged public demands!!11!!" Cameron/Obama is sounding a lot like Blair/Bush these days.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. It's now a treasured American Tradition to get into, and lose, wars we can't win.

Followed by an announcement that we didn't really lose and the situation is now stable. Followed by an announcement, that though the situation is stable, we have to go back in until the troops we trained to make it stable stop shooting at us.

[rhett o rick]

11. It's become part of the business model of the MIC / Oil. nm

[JEB]

13. Is this our long awaited jobs program?

[rhett o rick]

20. Yup, we pay $1000 to the contractors for every $1 they pay to workers. It's a

transfer of our money to the 1%.

[JEB]

21. Flush up, drip down economics.

[Atman]

7. Oil.

That is all.

[L0oniX]

25. MIC share holders will has a sad.

[newfie11]

9. I agree

Let's stay out of it for a change.

[kentuck]

23. I would agree that it is not very wise to impose oneself in the middle of a civil war....

...which appears to be what we are doing?

[L0oniX]

24. The MIC will has a sad if the PTB don't force participation and it will hurt our war based economy..

if there is no war ...somewhere ...anywhere ...even against Moonians and Martians.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

26. And the MIC/PTB do not care if we win or lose, only that they get more power/money. nt

[Progressive dog]

27. We need to stop these psychopaths-eom

[rhett o rick]

31. What bravado. But why just "these psychopaths"?

What is so special about these? Do you think we need to stop all psychopaths? If not, why these?

And what does "stop them" really mean? Kill them all? Is that even practical or possible?

And why should we stop them? With "we" I assume you mean the good ole USofA. Why us?

And at what expense?

[Progressive dog]

32. If you want the USA to hide

in a corner, to stop protecting its interests and it's citizens, you are asking for something that has never happened in our history. Not one president ever did not respond to threats against the US. We acted alone against Tripoli under Thomas Jefferson. France, Britain, and all of Europe paid tribute, but the USA refused to. All we would have had to do to avoid having our ships held was pay ransom or stay out of that part of the Mediterranean.

Obviously stop them means stop them. It means to get them to stop by military means.
Why us? We are the leader of the free world. FDR set us up for that, that great Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[morningfog]

33. There is no threat to the US, Obama has repeatedly said that.

[Progressive dog]

34. He said there is no threat NOW

but until we started airstrikes ISIS was moving pretty quickly.

[morningfog]

35. There was never a threat to the US. There is not a threat to the US.

The airstrikes did not lessen the non-existent threat.

[99th_Monkey]

28. But, but .. we need all that USA-oil that somehow got buried in the ME ~nt

Oil and feeding the munitions industry .. a "win/win" for the fat cats.

[U4ikLefty]

29. answer = $$$ n/t

[Cleita]

36. Because there is profit to be made. What if Congress passed a law stating

that all govt. defense contracts be reimbursed for cost only? The contractors should be able to show their patriotism by not making profits on all that military equipment and construction required for war. Betcha we wouldn't be at perpetual war anymore.

[GeorgeGist]

37. Fools rush in. Eom

[Cha]

38. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Disagree with staying out of it..

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

Senators Warren and Sanders are on board with the President..

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

Elizabeth Warren: It's Time to Destroy ISIS

"ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric.

Warren agreed that "time is of the essence."

"We need to be working now, full-speed ahead, with other countries, to destroy ISIS. That should be our No. 1 priority," she said in a wide-ranging interview promoting her latest book, A Fighting Chance.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/09/04/elizabeth-warren-its-time-to-destroy-isis-n1887259