[andyt]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fighting-i ... -1.2953245

$1:

Obama is proposing an authorization for military force against ISIS that would:
Target ISIS and associated persons or forces, defined as those fighting with ISIS "in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
Provide no geographic limits on the battle.
Limit ground troops by banning "enduring offensive ground combat operations."
Expire after three years unless renewed by Congress.
Repeal a 2002 authorization for force in Iraq but maintain a 2001 authorization against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Obama says his goal is to refine and ultimately repeal that authorization as well.

First we send in the "advisors". Then limited US troops. And so on.

Well come on all you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam

[Xort]

When does Obama need to do things constitutionally?

[DrCaleb]

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

[Thanos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

Because the bosses in Riyadh and Tel Aviv are the real masters and commanders of American foreign policy.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

YOu break it you own it.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

Hate to say but you're inviting the response of, "Like Canada?"

[Jabberwalker]

So when did a little trifle like that ever stop a modern President? He needs Congress to pay for the military adventures, not to approve of them.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

Hate to say but you're inviting the response of, "Like Canada?"

Hate to say it, but Canada is the only country* who's troops are on the ground and have taken fire from ISIS positions.

*other than the host country, Iraq. If you consider the Peshmurga to be 'local troops'.

But that's not the point, the point is why the the US have to protect Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, if they are unwilling to do it themselves? Why does Canada, for that matter?

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

Hate to say but you're inviting the response of, "Like Canada?"

And he may not agree with Canada's involvement either.

I was good with the bombing. That was about helping the Kurds help themselves. I'm a lot leerier about sending Canadian troops to do ground fighting. Seems like a real swamp to get into.


An author on the radio said that ISIS is the same enemy that the US has been fighting for 11 years. He says they are controlled by former Bathist military, hence their sophistication. When the US dispbanded the Iraqi army, got rid of all its leaders, this is what they wrought. The Bathists are not religious nutbars. They would have co-operated with the US no problem, as long as they were left a slice of the pie. But they got pushed against the wall.

Author also says there's no excuse for the US still not understanding the enemy after all this time.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

Hate to say but you're inviting the response of, "Like Canada?"

Hate to say it, but Canada is the only country* who's troops are on the ground and have taken fire from ISIS positions.

*other than the host country, Iraq. If you consider the Peshmurga to be 'local troops'.

But that's not the point, the point is why the the US have to protect Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, if they are unwilling to do it themselves? Why does Canada, for that matter?

Presumably because them falling to ISIS is a worse outcome?

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

Hate to say but you're inviting the response of, "Like Canada?"

As neighbours it's both strategically and tactically logical for the US to put Canada (and Mexico too) under the umbrella. Not so much though when you frantically scramble to get your guys on the front lines in some desert on the other side of the planet when some Arabian princelings or Likudniks do no more than snap their fingers like they're demanding service in some restaurant.

[Thanos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But that's not the point, the point is why the the US have to protect Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, if they are unwilling to do it themselves? Why does Canada, for that matter?

Because most of our leaders have been bought out by foreign interests and most of our populations are too stupid to reject the non-stop apocalyptic propaganda that the news media bombards us with every day.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hate to say but you're inviting the response of, "Like Canada?"

Hate to say it, but Canada is the only country* who's troops are on the ground and have taken fire from ISIS positions.

*other than the host country, Iraq. If you consider the Peshmurga to be 'local troops'.

But that's not the point, the point is why the the US have to protect Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, if they are unwilling to do it themselves? Why does Canada, for that matter?

Presumably because them falling to ISIS is a worse outcome?

It definitely is, and it's good that we are training them to fight for themselves. But we just perpetuate the myth that the West is there to take over Arabia. We spend money to fix what they broke, and once we leave it looks like they prefer it to stay broke. So we go back and fix it.

Seems that one day we are going to have to take the chance that letting them fall may be worse, and see if it is worse. Perhaps it won't be worse. Perhaps it'll be an argument that can only end with a critical mass. Who knows?

[Thanos]

Kind of odd that myth still exists when the real truth is that Saudi Arabia long ago took over Washington DC.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does the US need to protect countries that won't protect themselves?

Hate to say but you're inviting the response of, "Like Canada?"

And he may not agree with Canada's involvement either.

I was good with the bombing. That was about helping the Kurds help themselves. I'm a lot leerier about sending Canadian troops to do ground fighting. Seems like a real swamp to get into.


An author on the radio said that ISIS is the same enemy that the US has been fighting for 11 years. He says they are controlled by former Bathist military, hence their sophistication. When the US dispbanded the Iraqi army, got rid of all its leaders, this is what they wrought. The Bathists are not religious nutbars. They would have co-operated with the US no problem, as long as they were left a slice of the pie. But they got pushed against the wall.

Author also says there's no excuse for the US still not understanding the enemy after all this time.

I think you missed his point. Canada tends towards a heavy reliance upon the U.S. to protect us as we go on about our daily lives. It means we can have a very underfunded military and a weak voice (beneath our bluster) amongst our allies. In other words, we don't really help ourselves much either.