Iraq Reverts

[Gaspar]

ISIS really isn't that big....probably less than 10,000 total - and I suspect that is high.  They are an ongoing evolution of radical Islamists...like al Qaeda, etc.  More of the same - we are not looking at a 'whole new organization' - this is the ongoing of what we have been fighting for a long, long time.  Radicals from Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, especially Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the US and UK.  So, it is really pretty silly to try to 'parse' this into something that shouldn't have a response until they do something - they have been doing something.

Appropriate response - and I just bet that Obama doesn't have the co-jones to do it;

Mobilize the entire US military in the gulf/middle east.  Use every satellite, ground, drone, resource available to get the best location data possible on these forces across Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and anywhere else they are to be found.  Get everybody ready to fire whatever missile, JDAM, drone, cruise missile, artillery - anything and everything it takes.

Start at 8:45 am this coming Thursday.  Target each and every person involved in ISIS, al Qaeda, and whatever little bunch of stuff is in Pakistan in their northwest sector, be it a siege around a mountain, a city, or just a convoy of our stolen equipment running around in the desert.  Kill everything.  Spend any and all time required to destroy them.  Follow them, track them, let none get away.  We destroyed about 150,000 Iraqi soldiers in Desert Storm in 100 hours.  Surely we can kill a few thousand in a few weeks.  If not, why not??

And tell Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria if they don't get on board and show some real interest in helping any way they can, they might just be next.  It is WAY past time for all these so-called moderate Muslims who "don't believe" in what the radicals are doing to make a stand - either with the compassion and human decency as they claim, or not!

Should BOOKMARK this in case it becomes the dumbest post ever. 

I wish it was true though.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Should BOOKMARK this in case it becomes the dumbest post ever.  

I wish it was true though.

My approach makes a sweeping statement of intent, resolution, and demonstrates capabilities.  I am NOT saying I think this is what will happen - I will be beyond stunned if even a fraction of that response occurred.  What I think is that type of response is needed RIGHT NOW to make some points in this specific event that will have some political ripples along some other areas of activity in the world.  

And as always, the board awaits comments/ideas/thoughts - rebound had some well thought out reasoning (I don't agree with some of it mostly because of the disassociation of ISIS from the previous radical groups - they are all ongoing derivatives of the same movement) - but there are a lot of "sound of crickets" from the "other" side.

guido advances an idea for the first time in a long, long time - the "kill the Nazi's" approach - then quickly tries to back-peddle away from it.  Take a stand, guy, and stick with it!!  

In general, if one is going to deploy and use the US military, it should NOT be as cop.  It should be as an instrument of mass annihilation/destruction of whomever it is deployed against to the point where there are no further personnel/resources/territory available to continue in any fashion.  Otherwise, they should not be mobilized.  They should be held at the ready for when that action is required.  Another "sense and knowledge of history" moment - we have chosen to become more "gentile" in our warfare!  That is a crock of carp - war is ugly, nasty, disgusting stuff that is appalling and abhorrent - there is no glory to it (refer to George Patton's comments about dying for one's country).  One should make use of it as a last resort, but use it to maximum effect when it becomes necessary!


And Thursday - think about it - the time/date are notable.

[Gaspar]

CNN just reported that the president now has a strategy for ISIS and will give a "Major Speech" about it on Wednesday.



Should be good.

Last week he vowed to take action on immigration reform as soon as he got back from his Stonehenge mini-vacation.  Over the weekend he vowed to delay that until after the elections.  Seems like he always wants to delay things until after the elections.  6 years of delaying things until after elections.

If your policies are so good, why do you feel they will have a negative effect on the people you are supposed to serve?

[heironymouspasparagus]

CNN just reported that the president now has a strategy for ISIS and will give a "Major Speech" about it on Wednesday.

Should be good.

Last week he vowed to take action on immigration reform as soon as he got back from his Stonehenge mini-vacation.  Over the weekend he vowed to delay that until after the elections.  Seems like he always wants to delay things until after the elections.  6 years of delaying things until after elections.

If your policies are so good, why do you feel they will have a negative effect on the people you are supposed to serve?

I wouldn't bet on it.  He doesn't have stones enough to stand up to Bay-Ner, let alone ISIS!

But the timing is interesting, don't you think??  Wednesday....


As for immigration - well that bill has been passed and sitting on the the House Clown's table for well over a year - with no action whatsoever!  No counter proposals, counter bills, no nothing.  Like around here so many times - sound of crickets!  What is Boner waiting for if not the "next election"?

[Conan71]

I wouldn't bet on it.  He doesn't have stones enough to stand up to Bay-Ner,

Sure he does.  “Executive Order"

[Gaspar]

I wouldn't bet on it.  He doesn't have stones enough to stand up to Bay-Ner, let alone ISIS!

But the timing is interesting, don't you think??  Wednesday....


As for immigration - well that bill has been passed and sitting on the the House Clown's table for well over a year - with no action whatsoever!  No counter proposals, counter bills, no nothing.  Like around here so many times - sound of crickets!  What is Boner waiting for if not the "next election"?

You get your news from odd places.
The house actually has several such bills, but none will ever get passed by the Senate.
H.R. 4279
H.R. 3732
H.R. 5079
H.R. 5400
H.R. 5053
H.R. 4962
H.R. 5160
H.R. 4620
H.R. 5114
H.R. 4303
H.R. 5118
H.R. 5105
H.R. 4936
H.R. 5163
H.R. 4949

One was passed by the Senate and is awaiting a House vote now, but when and if it goes back to the Senate, it will sit until after the midterms.
S. 744

The Democrat party cannot afford any action on immigration before the election.  That is why there is such a mad rush of immigration bills in the House.  Unfortunatly there is very little room on Harry Reid's desk to put anything. After the election I assume there will be action, but it will only be in gesture. Nothing real that could harm Dems in 2016, and nothing the president will introduce.  He likes to keep this at arms-length.  Immigration reform is napalm.  No matter what he does, it will stick to him and burn.

Unless. . .something happens that forces the president's hand.  I pray that is not the case.

[Gaspar]

Sure he does.  “Executive Order"

He has a pen and a phone, but is not sure what to do with either.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You get your news from odd places.
The house actually has several such bills, but none will ever get passed by the Senate.
H.R. 4279
H.R. 3732
H.R. 5079
H.R. 5400
H.R. 5053
H.R. 4962
H.R. 5160
H.R. 4620
H.R. 5114
H.R. 4303
H.R. 5118
H.R. 5105
H.R. 4936
H.R. 5163
H.R. 4949

One was passed by the Senate and is awaiting a House vote now, but when and if it goes back to the Senate, it will sit until after the midterms.
S. 744

The Democrat party cannot afford any action on immigration before the election.  That is why there is such a mad rush of immigration bills in the House.  Unfortunatly there is very little room on Harry Reid's desk to put anything. After the election I assume there will be action, but it will only be in gesture. Nothing real that could harm Dems in 2016, and nothing the president will introduce.  He likes to keep this at arms-length.  Immigration reform is napalm.  No matter what he does, it will stick to him and burn.

Unless. . .something happens that forces the president's hand.  I pray that is not the case.

Oh, yeah...those bills are certainly addressing the topic head on and in a straightforward manner!!   (LOL!!  I crack myself up sometimes....)  But let's look at some of these, shall we??


HR4279
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 with respect to the establishment in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (formerly the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

HR3232
To amend the Pay Our Military Act to ensure that all civilian and contractor employees of the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard and all members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces are paid in the event of a Government shutdown.

Really??  Could you at least make it LOOK like it has something to do with immigration?  Oh, I guess not…that would counter the intent of dissemination and distraction, wouldn’t it?


HR 5079
Amends the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to declare that any unaccompanied alien child who has not been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons or does not have a credible fear of persecution on returning to his or her country of nationality or of last habitual residence shall be: (1) placed in removal proceedings, (2) eligible for voluntary departure at no cost to the child, and (3) provided with access to counsel. (Currently such expedited removal requirements apply only to unaccompanied children from countries that are contiguous to the United States.)

Oh…you mean undo what they did wrong in the first place back in 2008….


HR 5400
To provide for State enforcement of border security, and for other purposes.


The “Let’s all get on board and blame Obama, because the Republican’s gave amnesty to millions and refused to do anything effective about immigration” bill.


HR 5053
Expedited Family Reunification Act of 2014 - Amends the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to provide that any unaccompanied alien child (UAC) who has not been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons or does not have a credible fear of persecution on returning to his or her country of nationality or of last habitual residence shall be: (1) placed in removal proceedings, (2) eligible for voluntary departure at no cost to the child, and (3) provided with access to counsel. (Currently such expedited removal requirements apply to unaccompanied children from countries that are contiguous to the United States.)

Ok, all us fellow Republicans – let’s repeat ourselves, just like in HR 5079!


HR 4962

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4962

Read the summary yourselves….and oh, by the way, since a fence/wall has always throughout history been shown to be the most effective device at keeping people out, let’s build one!!!


HR 5160
Prohibits any federal agency or instrumentality from using federal funding or resources to: (1) consider or adjudicate any new or previously denied application of any alien requesting consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals, as authorized by Executive memorandum on August 15, 2012; or (2) authorize any alien to work in the United States who was not lawfully admitted into the United States and who is not in lawful status in the United States on the date of enactment of this Act.


Stupid.  Very, very, stupid!  Not to mention inadequate, but hey, they get to say they are “doing something”….


HR 4620

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4620

Again, read the summary at the link.  Over half way through the list and still no meaningful anything related to fixing the immigration “problem”.  So the Republicans actually realize that they really don’t want to do anything meaningful, since it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.  The cost increases for their good buddies in corporate agriculture would get them voted out very quickly!



As opposed to S 744, which addresses the topic of actual immigration reform...cursory scan shows no outright amnesty, unlike the previous two amnesties provided by Republicans.  And does indeed contain many of the things the Republicans are making mouthing noises about - check out the fencing section.  Which is still stupid.  So, much like the idea of Affordable Care Act, when Romney did it, it was a wonderful solution.  When Obama and the Democrats agreed, well - suddenly not so much!

Text for S 744 for anyone who is interested in facts versus jingoism;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:3:./temp/~c113Xttaeb::

[guido911]

Colorado democrat channeling beheaded Americans Sotloff and Foley, and naturally his supporters applaud.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrcLYL5_ZHg[/youtube]

[guido911]

CNN just reported that the president now has a strategy for ISIS and will give a "Major Speech" about it on Wednesday.



Should be good.

Last week he vowed to take action on immigration reform as soon as he got back from his Stonehenge mini-vacation.  Over the weekend he vowed to delay that until after the elections.  Seems like he always wants to delay things until after the elections.  6 years of delaying things until after elections.

If your policies are so good, why do you feel they will have a negative effect on the people you are supposed to serve?

I expect a thorough Bush blaming, followed by a late evening golf game...

[rebound]

ISIS really isn't that big....probably less than 10,000 total - and I suspect that is high.  They are an ongoing evolution of radical Islamists...like al Qaeda, etc.  More of the same - we are not looking at a 'whole new organization' - this is the ongoing of what we have been fighting for a long, long time.  Radicals from Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, especially Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the US and UK.  So, it is really pretty silly to try to 'parse' this into something that shouldn't have a response until they do something - they have been doing something.

Appropriate response - and I just bet that Obama doesn't have the co-jones to do it;

Mobilize the entire US military in the gulf/middle east.  Use every satellite, ground, drone, resource available to get the best location data possible on these forces across Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and anywhere else they are to be found.  Get everybody ready to fire whatever missile, JDAM, drone, cruise missile, artillery - anything and everything it takes.

Start at 8:45 am this coming Thursday.  Target each and every person involved in ISIS, al Qaeda, and whatever little bunch of stuff is in Pakistan in their northwest sector, be it a siege around a mountain, a city, or just a convoy of our stolen equipment running around in the desert.  Kill everything.  Spend any and all time required to destroy them.  Follow them, track them, let none get away.  We destroyed about 150,000 Iraqi soldiers in Desert Storm in 100 hours.  Surely we can kill a few thousand in a few weeks.  If not, why not??

And tell Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria if they don't get on board and show some real interest in helping any way they can, they might just be next.  It is WAY past time for all these so-called moderate Muslims who "don't believe" in what the radicals are doing to make a stand - either with the compassion and human decency as they claim, or not!

My approach makes a sweeping statement of intent, resolution, and demonstrates capabilities.  I am NOT saying I think this is what will happen - I will be beyond stunned if even a fraction of that response occurred.  What I think is that type of response is needed RIGHT NOW to make some points in this specific event that will have some political ripples along some other areas of activity in the world. 

And as always, the board awaits comments/ideas/thoughts - rebound had some well thought out reasoning (I don't agree with some of it mostly because of the disassociation of ISIS from the previous radical groups - they are all ongoing derivatives of the same movement) - but there are a lot of "sound of crickets" from the "other" side.

guido advances an idea for the first time in a long, long time - the "kill the Nazi's" approach - then quickly tries to back-peddle away from it.  Take a stand, guy, and stick with it!! 

In general, if one is going to deploy and use the US military, it should NOT be as cop.  It should be as an instrument of mass annihilation/destruction of whomever it is deployed against to the point where there are no further personnel/resources/territory available to continue in any fashion.  Otherwise, they should not be mobilized.  They should be held at the ready for when that action is required.  Another "sense and knowledge of history" moment - we have chosen to become more "gentile" in our warfare!  That is a crock of carp - war is ugly, nasty, disgusting stuff that is appalling and abhorrent - there is no glory to it (refer to George Patton's comments about dying for one's country).  One should make use of it as a last resort, but use it to maximum effect when it becomes necessary!

And Thursday - think about it - the time/date are notable.

Just re-read both of these, and actually I don't think what I advocated was all that different from what you are suggesting, except with regard to urgency and alliances.   A couple of discussion points:

"In general, if one is going to deploy and use the US military, it should NOT be as cop.  It should be as an instrument of mass annihilation/destruction of whomever it is deployed against to the point where there are no further personnel/resources/territory available to continue in any fashion.  Otherwise, they should not be mobilized."

That is almost exactly what I said.  If/when we decide to go, we go all-in.  This idea of small ops all over the world has proven in the past to by ill-advised.

"And tell Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria if they don't get on board and show some real interest in helping any way they can, they might just be next.  It is WAY past time for all these so-called moderate Muslims who "don't believe" in what the radicals are doing to make a stand - either with the compassion and human decency as they claim, or not!"

This, I think is the crux of the issue.  The implication in your position is that the US will go in, regardless of whether we are supported and aligned with these moderate Muslim nations and groups.  Here we are at polar ends.  The US, perhaps rightly perhaps not, perceives ISIL as an almost immediate threat.  The local nations are not yet to our level of alarm, but will almost certainly get there.  I expect the even Iran is privately very concerned.  Again,  I am virtually certain that the need for force is, unfortunately, coming.  But we (IMHO) should wait for now.  Wait for the locals to finally get to where we are, band together against ISIL, and ask for our help.  Then we can unleash our forces  in support of this new coalition.  I worry though that the US does not have the discipline for this sort of long-term thinking, as we have been so reactionary in the last few decades that those lessons of the past have been forgotten.

[guido911]

^^^^If by unfortunate you mean that the use of force has come this point, then I am okay with your point. If, however, you are naturally opposed to military force, then I wholly disagree.

That said, I am tired of waiting this out. We know what ISIL brutally murdered, in as public of a way as can be, two Americans. We known they are spreading like a disease in Iraq and recruiting foreign fighters right now. We know that Muslim extremists have a history of attacking the U.S. homeland (9/11, 1993 WTC) and our interests abroad (U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, embassies, and on and on. Waiting around has proven to be borderline fatalistic and wrongheaded. We need to go all in, and with this in mind:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-K8qi_AoXI[/youtube]

[guido911]

Not sure why I find this funny (it's a poll, so, you know), but I do.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/09/04/air-and-drone-strikes/

[rebound]

^^^^If by unfortunate you mean that the use of force has come this point, then I am okay with your point. If, however, you are naturally opposed to military force, then I wholly disagree.

That said, I am tired of waiting this out. We know what ISIL brutally murdered, in as public of a way as can be, two Americans. We known they are spreading like a disease in Iraq and recruiting foreign fighters right now. We know that Muslim extremists have a history of attacking the U.S. homeland (9/11, 1993 WTC) and our interests abroad (U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, embassies, and on and on. Waiting around has proven to be borderline fatalistic and wrongheaded. We need to go all in, and with this in mind:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-K8qi_AoXI[/youtube]

I'm on a plane right now (technology is cool...) and theoretically working, so didn't watch the video this time.  I'll catch it later tonight in the hotel.

To clarify my position on force.  I am a realist.  While my preference (and I like to think the preference of most people, but I could be naive in that position) is for everybody to get along, I fully appreciate the world doesn't work that way.  I am for a robust military. I simply think it is sometimes required, rather than preferred, to go to war.

And again, I certainly appreciate and understand the emotion and visceral "need" for a response.  But we (and this is simply an opinion) should be more logical than that.  It is not a show of weakness to wait, nor is it uncertainty.  Rather it is a matter of allowing the situation to manifest itself in a manner that best supports the long-term benefit of the US.   

Regarding the examples cited, again I understand the emotion.  However, I would suggest that even the  most egregious of these (the 9/11 attacks), did nothing to actually "damage" the US as a nation.  Instead (and particularly with regard to 9/11) they provided a rallying cry for decisive action, very similar to Pearl Harbor in WWII.   The death of two journalists that of their own volition went "into harms way", again while vile and very visible, does not rise to this level of impetus to action. 

By waiting, would we expect another direct attack on US interests or US soil?  Maybe,  perhaps even probably.  And while that will be terrible on a personal level of those involved, it will (almost certainly) not be unduly detrimental to US interests as a whole, and will provide a building block for escalated engagement from that point on.   Certainly this is not a "pleasant" strategy.  However, it is one that will galvanize both the US populace as well as provide the rest of the world with logical and reasoned opportunity to align with the US as we engage at a very fundamental level.  I sincerely hope it does not come to that, but if so this is the most practical go-forward direction with the most logical long-term upside for the US.

Good discussion.    And I really don't think there is a perfect solution here.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just re-read both of these, and actually I don't think what I advocated was all that different from what you are suggesting, except with regard to urgency and alliances.   A couple of discussion points:

"In general, if one is going to deploy and use the US military, it should NOT be as cop.  It should be as an instrument of mass annihilation/destruction of whomever it is deployed against to the point where there are no further personnel/resources/territory available to continue in any fashion.  Otherwise, they should not be mobilized."

That is almost exactly what I said.  If/when we decide to go, we go all-in.  This idea of small ops all over the world has proven in the past to by ill-advised.

"And tell Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria if they don't get on board and show some real interest in helping any way they can, they might just be next.  It is WAY past time for all these so-called moderate Muslims who "don't believe" in what the radicals are doing to make a stand - either with the compassion and human decency as they claim, or not!"

This, I think is the crux of the issue.  The implication in your position is that the US will go in, regardless of whether we are supported and aligned with these moderate Muslim nations and groups.  Here we are at polar ends.  The US, perhaps rightly perhaps not, perceives ISIL as an almost immediate threat.  The local nations are not yet to our level of alarm, but will almost certainly get there.  I expect the even Iran is privately very concerned.  Again,  I am virtually certain that the need for force is, unfortunately, coming.  But we (IMHO) should wait for now.  Wait for the locals to finally get to where we are, band together against ISIL, and ask for our help.  Then we can unleash our forces  in support of this new coalition.  I worry though that the US does not have the discipline for this sort of long-term thinking, as we have been so reactionary in the last few decades that those lessons of the past have been forgotten.

I guess I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be...first, I agree with most of what you said - the big difference going to the point of origin of ISIS versus previous radical groups we have encountered.  And maybe I got your comment wrong, but it seemed like you were saying this was a 'new' group, leading to the need for patience and waiting for them to make the first move.  My disagreement is that I don't believe it is a new group.

As for us going all in, I guess I wasn't clear enough about that either - I think that is what is needed, and I think the symbolism of what I am advocating for Thursday is the preferred sequence of events.  I have essentially NO expectation that it will happen any time soon if at all.  I don't think it will ever happen with this regime.  I am not even sure our previous regimes would have done it either (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush).  Every one of them has been more concerned about what wins the next election than what is the right thing to do.

We lost 2,977 on 9/11.  Just over 2,500 at Pearl Harbor.  We were electrified by both as a nation - but the Pearl Harbor had a more "participative" effect on the country - essentially everyone was involved for 4 years!   We got full "audience participation" over 9/11 for maybe a year or so (?? anyone want to make a case on that, I am open to suggestions), then we went back to yearly acknowledgements and occasional attention when a news article highlighted an event, or return of bodies (even Viet Nam kept your attention with the published lists of KIA/MIA/wounded in the Tulsa World on essentially a daily basis - I watched that closely...had friends end up on those lists).  WWII everyone had "skin in the game".  9/11 - we all went shopping at the mall as the big support of the war effort.  Just one of the unintended consequences of a volunteer military versus a draft system.