Wish you would Red. The point is that there is a highway between Iran and Syria and the Iranians are using it to send arms men and money to Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Think big Red, the Iranians are using this to destabilize the Sunni nations and no one in the west or east will like the result. That was my point of the Hitler-Stalin example....not that the Iranians are the threat that Hitler was but that letting a problem like this war go unabated will only result in greater violence and broader war. It is not in our long term interest to let this continue.
The NSA isn't selling information to telemarketers, it would compromise their sources. But Angry Birds does, and Facebook, and Twitter, and any app you use that asks for permission to use your location. Google is the biggest seller of private information which they collect from your searches. Google knows your age, your gender, your sexual orientation, your perversions, your tastes in spending, where your travel, your debts, your wealth, your politics, . . . practically everything.
I would say you are right in many ways. Certainly his race and party have earned him enmity from the right and when W did it there was only applause for the most part. If you review my arguments I have problems with him targeting American citizens even those allied with the AQ as do many on the left. Second even during Ws time the cost in civilian death loss etc has been hidden but independent reports show it is staggering and worth discussion. No my main issue is the lack of leadership he has displayed on the world stage. No doubt there are ridiculously hard decisions and navigating the waters today is difficult....but he not only holds the office but he asked for the job. It seems to me he has let events control him and let the standing and influence of the US fall even from the low of W's end.
Ok, then what are you suggesting we do short of going to war . . . something that has been proven to be costly and ineffective in changing anyone's minds in the middle east? Something you say that you do not advocate. We applied diplomatic and economic pressure to Iran and are getting them to get out of the nuclear weapons business. We applied military pressure on Syria and are getting them to give up their chemical weapons. These are points scored for our side. We have over 30 bases and two fleets assigned to the middle east, so we are on top of the situation militarily. We have the UN behind us on Iranian and Syrian disarmament, They have only Russia and China who can only obstruct even more political and economic pressure. Israel is not endangered by the Syrian War, they have already undertaken air strikes to prevent Hezbollah from getting advanced missiles from Syria and Syria could do nothing about it. Israel is not endangered by Iran, despite the fiery rhetoric from Ahmanutjob. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons and Iran has none and no delivery system either. Both Syria and Iran are politically isolated. And the Sunnis have the upper hand in both numbers and in money in the middle east. We have all of our vital interests covered. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for a millennia and will not be stopping anytime soon. That conflict simply is NOT...OUR...FIGHT. Why do you think it is? Neither is going to turn into a Jeffersonian democracy any more than Iraq did. There is not a democracy anywhere in the Arab world, including our closest allies. We learned in Iraq that you cannot impose democracy on a country. Someone there must want it badly enough to fight for it themselves, just as we did in 1776. Syria was ripe for civil war and revolution and maybe that is just what needed to happen. Iran is teetering on the edge of another revolution itself with much internal dissent. What we must do is inflame those fires and let our enemies become divided. To attack them just makes them nationalistic and they pull together to fight the outsiders. As it is, neither Iran nor Syria has been able to supply and support Hezbollah and Hamas like they once did because of this conflict. Al Qaeda affiliates are attacking Syria instead of one of our allies. I think that is just fine. Getting involved in another guerrilla knife fight is fighting the enemy's kind of war, not our kind of war. Bombing campaigns with no particular and achievable goal makes little sense either. Especially since we don't have a dog in this fight. Nobody over there likes us much, including our allies. We have a tendency to start killing people and breaking things and they fear and despise us for it. WHAT exactly is it that you advocate that we are not already doing?
Bear in mind that the Constitution says that one's citizenship is revoked when he takes up arms with a foreign power against the United States. These former Americans that go overseas, join Al Qaeda, and then conspire against the United States are no longer US citizens, but enemies of the US and valid targets.
If you're in a foreign country plotting acts of terror against US citizens I can't see how due process should apply. If a US citizen is driving a jeep that contains plans to blow up the Golden Gate bridge and the only way we can stop him is with a drone strike - so be it.
Red first of all it isn't what we are doing at the moment because what the president did in the beginning has boxed us in with little option and less influence on the winner of the war which ever side it is. Right now it looks like Assad has the upper hand and is regaining territory and wiping out his opposition. If that happens Iran and Russia are much stronger and I can see Iraq being dominated by Iranian Shia allied to Iran. As I noted when this started the president has not been a leader and been inconsistent in both word and action. When the violence started he made several statements that Assad had to go but took no action to support them. If the president felt it wasn't our place to interfere, why did he say that Assad had to go? He threatened to arm the rebels but pulled back even after Assad used chemical weapons. He stands mute when Assad shells civilian areas and slaughters women and children. He is silent when Assad bulldozes entire neighborhoods where the opposition lived and denies humanitarian aid. You ask what would I have done back then after he said Assad had to go? Well I would have worked with Turkey (a NATO ally) and NATO to provide arms and training to the rebels who were generally secular at that time. This would include anti armor and heavier weapons and allow the rebels to face Assad's forces on a more even basis. Second I would put pressure on Malaki in Iraq to stop Iranian over flights that supplied weapons to Assad. If necessary I would work with NATO to create a no fly zone. These steps required US leadership but could have been done under NATO as was done in Libya and indications are if we had proposed them NATO would have agreed. Note not once did I say we should go it alone or put US troops on the ground anywhere. Not once did I say we should go it alone or occupy any place. Not once did I say we should give the Syrian rebels anti air missiles. There seemed to be a chance that we could have led a coalition similar to the one GHW Bush formed against Iraq in 91. Would it have worked and led to Assad's removal and fewer casualties and a more stable ME? I don't know but I think the chances would have been better. Regardless of the action taken then or now we should be providing more aide to the refugees. That is money well spent as it would help Arab allies in the region Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan all of which are staggering under the weight of nearly 2 million Syrians fleeing the conflict. Again you seem to believe the only alternative is that we send in ground troops to fight and occupy. You correctly say that isn't a winning move yet ignore an alternative that has worked before in Yugoslavia and Libya. Today it may be too late for most of the steps available 2 years ago. That is why I condemn the lack of leadership from the president. We are in a hole that possibly could have been avoided. Unabated violence even between our enemies does nothing to make things better Red.
I find this difficult to understand. We are not boxed in by anything that I can see. I don't see Assad surviving this, do you? It's a civil war and whoever "wins" it, we will be dealing with essentially the same people, who have never been and are not now pro-American. The worst that could occur if Assad survives is a return to the status quo. But I don't see a military "win" happening, efforts to negotiate are already happening. I suspect that Assad will have to resign at some point so the loyalists and the rebels can form a new government. It's the only way to lock out the jihadists, since most of them are foreigners with no vote or representation. Don't forget that Syria is an economic drain on both Iran and Russia, both of whom have economic troubles. This is probably not going to make either of them stronger or weaker. There is nothing wrong with offering moral supper to a revolt. It doesn't commit us to go to war for them? How is it inconsistent? You keep saying that Obama is no leader, but he is in charge of all of the prudent Middle East measure we have taken that I listed earlier. That is leadership. He made a public threat to Assad to stop using chemical weapons and Assad stopped. France didn't do that, Putin didn't do it. Obama did. Obama made the decision to force the Europeans to take charge of Libyan military action since they were so adamant that action be taken. Collectively the EU has a much money as we do and a huge military, but they let us do all of the heavy lifting. Obama made a leadership call because he was the leader. We are arming the rebels, my friend. It was and is important to vet the rebels to keep the arms out of the hands of the jihadists. The CIA has been arming them since last summer and the Congress recently quietly approved even more support for the moderate rebels. The UN is on top of humanitarian aid and we are part of the UN. Obama has not been mute on Syria. Do I need to Google up a long list of examples. Not sure what those indications might be. I don't recall any European power expressing a desire to send forces to Syria. And be very sure about one thing. A no-fly zone is an act of war. It requires taking out active anti-aircraft systems and will involve air combat, casualties, possibly prisoners of war, and serious expense. But OK, I can see what you are proposing now. Lets examine it. First, it was reported last July that The US has been secretly training Syrian rebels in both Turkey and Jordan. Some wise leader saw to it that this has been happening for some time now. Secondly, pressuring Malaki is smart and we have put a great deal of diplomatic pressure on Malaki. He has a budding civil war going on himself. I'm not sure how much else we can do except to go in and do it ourselves . . . and that ain't gonna happen. Thirdly, It has been reported that we were mostly supplying Russian equipment because the Syrians were familiar with it and large stocks exist around the world. RPG's are definite part of this, being ubiquitous in any Russian-equipped force. I have little doubt that heavier AT weapons are part of the training that is going on. Anti-aircraft guns are also part of it. We can only supply so much because there are not enough rebels to take over the country unless more loyalists go over, which isn't happening much. Shoulder-fire missiles run the danger of falling into the hands of Jihadists or black marketeers so we focus more on AA artillery pieces and vehicle-mounted missiles that are more easily accounted for. But it takes time and training for civilians to use them effectively. Well, that coalition ended up going into the biggest land war since Korea. I just never saw the international outrage at this civil war that there was to Saddam's invasion of Kuwaits oil reserves. I really doubt if such a coalition could have been formed. I think most countries expected this to be another "Arab Spring" uprising as in Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen. Those are best left to the locals to decide. The Syrian rebels are just not numerous enough. I don't think we could arm them enough to make them winners. And if they did win, I don't think they are going to be pro-America or pro-West. Can't argue with that. I might offer that the United States has been the largest single donor to humanitarian efforts for Syrians over the nearly three-year civil war — about $1.4 billion to date. But conservatives were bitter critics of Obama for his involvement in the Libyan Revolution and of Clinton for Yugoslavia. The involvements they supported were those in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. All of which were major invasion/occupations. Yet I see no lack of it at all. I see a string of pragmatic decisions. What hole. We are not in a hole, brother. Assad's country ass is in the hole. Seriously? I am delighted to see our enemies fight internally rather than fight our friends or ourselves.
https://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=Awr...on/bergen-al-qaeda-terrority-gains/index.html Al Quaida holds more ground than 5 years ago. Thought lasalle might find this interesting.
Al Qaeda is losing its grip on the "AQ affiliates". Earlier they had admonished their affiliates in Iraq and Somalia to stop using brutal tactics including beheadings and the imposition of strict Islamist rules on secular muslims because it was costing them public support. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has now publicly disavowed its former affiliate jihadist group fighting in Syria. It has been fighting another AQ "affiliate" group in Syria for supremacy, weakening both. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/04/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-brutality-syria/
