The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[Gator]

When Boethius first blamed Bush for withdrawal of all American  troops from Iraq, I thought I had explained the situation.  Let me try again.

When  Bush signed the  troop withdrawal agreement in the last days of his Presidency, he knew Iraq was still instable and certainly not ready to defend itself.  Yet, Obama was soon taking office in just days  and Obama had  campaigned against the Iraq war.  Also, Iraq's PM Malarkey was pressuring Bush to withdraw troops and allow Iraq to defend itself without American military.

Rather than wait for Obama to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, Bush negotiated with Malarkey and signed a framework intended to be revisited and revised dependent upon Iraq's progress.   For example, there were some important interim goals such as completing the  training of Iraq's military and supplying weapons to Iraq.  Obama's own Defense Secretary Gates believed a large American military force should remain, as reported by the NY Times in December 2008:   

        "When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview last week how big the American 'residual' force would  be in Iraq after 2011, Mr. Gates replied that although the mission would change, 'my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops.' ”

When Obama took office in January 2009,  there were 146,000 American troops in Iraq.   All troops had been removed by December 2011. 

When campaigning, Obama promised more about Iraq than just to remove troops.  Some of these campaign promises would have helped; however, Obama broke some promises as discussed here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/iraq/

Incidentally, in keeping with the topic, who else was pushing Iraq through diplomatic channels  to have all the American troops removed?  That would be Syria and Iran.  They knew that an American military presence could hamper their goals.  Yes, we got outsmarted.

Now that America has withdrawn from a position won with the blood and lives of thousands and over a trillion dollars from the US Treasury, I see no way that we can reenter. 

As I stated before, Bush made a mistake when invading Iraq.  Yet, Obama has topped that mistake by withdrawing from such an important geopolitical area.   Obama lovers just can't see it that way even though the facts are in front of their nose. 

[Brasscasing]

I really wound't know what the Senators/Representatives knew beforehand.... I'm not surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not....  I imagine that is part of the reason they were being so heavily sanctioned, especially by the US. 

If you're not "surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not." Why then do you believe that Iran would comply with the Obama Nuc Deal if they've already failed to adhere to previous UN resolutions forbidding the very ordnance they revealed to the world in those images?

If their record is such that "they don't care if we approve or not" what could possibly be the motivation for them to sign the deal in the first place? 

I didn't read all your links (Yet) and have been out of the news loop for a few days...  Haven't we been threatening them with the 'military option' again?  Looks like they are letting us know it won't be easy-peasy. 

No, we haven't been threatening them. According to now publicized intelligence reports the release of this information was directed at Israel.

So if they indeed have all this stuff, which they probably do...why haven't they used it?  That is what the hardliners say they are going to do.    If it is in place and ready to go and Iran  hasn't done anything with it, doesn't that indicate that they are likely to be used as a defensive measure if attacked first?

The answer to these questions is - No nukes yet.

They've only just secured the means to achieve breakout (Obama nuc deal) and eventually outfit these (and newer generation) missiles now that the sanctions are lifted.

My guess would be that revealing their secret manufacturing sites and bases buried deep in the mountains means they want Israel and the US to know that not only have they now secured the means to achieve nuclear breakout...but guess what? We've also got the means and assets to deliver them (which you infidel didn't know about).

If Iran has (evidently) broken the already existing UN resolutions and have just threatened the West - who've pinned their hopes on Iran's compliance to the nuc deal with options against Iran, including a military one, if they don't comply - by retaliating with "options under the table." What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?

You didn't answer this question.

Brass

[Brasscasing]

The Cubans are stating they have no soldiers in Syria...

Cuba denies sending troops to Syria

..."The Cuban government on Saturday denied what it called an "irresponsible and unfounded" report that it had sent troops to Syria in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Foreign ministry official Gerardo Penalver "categorically denies and refutes the irresponsible and unfounded information regarding the supposed presence of Cuban troops in the Syrian Arab Republic," a government statement said."...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/cuba/11938729/Cuba-denies-sending-troops-to-Syria.html?

Brass

[Boethius]

When Boethius first blamed Bush for withdrawal of all American  troops from Iraq, I thought I had explained the situation.  Let me try again.

When  Bush signed the  troop withdrawal agreement in the last days of his Presidency, he knew Iraq was still instable and certainly not ready to defend itself.  Yet, Obama was soon taking office in just days  and Obama had  campaigned against the Iraq war.  Also, Iraq's PM Malarkey was pressuring Bush to withdraw troops and allow Iraq to defend itself without American military.

Rather than wait for Obama to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, Bush negotiated with Malarkey and signed a framework intended to be revisited and revised dependent upon Iraq's progress.   For example, there were some important interim goals such as completing the  training of Iraq's military and supplying weapons to Iraq.  Obama's own Defense Secretary Gates believed a large American military force should remain, as reported by the NY Times in December 2008:   

        "When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview last week how big the American 'residual' force would  be in Iraq after 2011, Mr. Gates replied that although the mission would change, 'my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops.' ”

When Obama took office in January 2009,  there were 146,000 American troops in Iraq.   All troops had been removed by December 2011. 

When campaigning, Obama promised more about Iraq than just to remove troops.  Some of these campaign promises would have helped; however, Obama broke some promises as discussed here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/iraq/

Incidentally, in keeping with the topic, who else was pushing Iraq through diplomatic channels  to have all the American troops removed?  That would be Syria and Iran.  They knew that an American military presence could hamper their goals.  Yes, we got outsmarted.

Now that America has withdrawn from a position won with the blood and lives of thousands and over a trillion dollars from the US Treasury, I see no way that we can reenter. 

As I stated before, Bush made a mistake when invading Iraq.  Yet, Obama has topped that mistake by withdrawing from such an important geopolitical area.   Obama lovers just can't see it that way even though the facts are in front of their nose.

I am not an Obama lover, so your conclusion on that point is incorrect.  I am indifferent to American leadership in fact, GOP presidents tend to be better for Canada.  I look at this as a foreigner looking in, so I don't have the visceral reactions Americans do to a particular leader. 


As for your assertion on Obama's failure, read this for the background by a diplomat who was involved in the negotiations -


http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-franklin-jeffrey-behind-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-iraq-1414972705


Mr. Jeffrey is a career diplomat/civil servant, rather than a political appointee.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franklin_Jeffrey

[Gator]

I am not an Obama lover, so your conclusion on that point is incorrect.  I am indifferent to American leadership in fact, GOP presidents tend to be better for Canada.  I look at this as a foreigner looking in, so I don't have the visceral reactions Americans do to a particular leader. 

Okay, so maybe as a foreigner you did not follow the troop withdrawal issue, just as I certainly can not comment on Canadian issues. 

To help you, this one-minute  video summarizes what Americans saw incessantly on our news channels in 2012 about the troop withdrawal.  To understand this issue (and Obama in general), one needs to watch the full minute.



Those final 15 seconds define Obama as the weak man he truly is.

[Gator]

As for your assertion on Obama's failure, read this for the background by a diplomat who was involved in the negotiations -

http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-franklin-jeffrey-behind-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-iraq-1414972705

Did you read the Jeffrey article closely?   It says nothing to suggest Obama attempted in his negotiations with Iraq to keep some troops in Iraq.  In fact Jeffrey suggests Obama  rolled, writing:  "during the 2012 presidential debates, Mr. Obama inexplicably denied that he had even attempted to keep troops in Iraq."

I recognize a vast majority of Iraqi citizens wanted us out of Iraq.  And most Americans did too.  And Obama certainly wanted out.  However, his Defense Secretaries knew Iraq was not stable and against public sentiment advised Obama to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq after 2011. 

As the President,  Obama is the  most powerful person in the world.  Thus,  Obama could have accomplished almost anything in a country as weak as Iraq.  For example, his could tell Iraq, "If we must withdraw, we will arm the Kurds" (and then work out some arrangement with Turkey).  Instead, Obama wanted out of Iraq and he got out.  Putin is moving in and Iraqis are welcoming him (another story). 

[Boethius]

No, I always followed Iraq because I never believed it was an invasion to "save" the world, nor even America, and I foresaw what would happen, inevitably.  Democracy cannot be imposed.  My husband went even further, he predicted almost exactly what has occurred, though he didn't include Syria in that equation.

[Gator]

No, I always followed Iraq because I never believed it was an invasion to "save" the world, nor even America, and I foresaw what would happen, inevitably.  Democracy cannot be imposed.  My husband went even further, he predicted almost exactly what has occurred, though he didn't include Syria in that equation.

If you followed Iraq closely, why did you say  " ...it was Bush who negotiated the troop withdrawal, and timetable.  Not Obama."  ?????? 

Whether you supported or opposed the withdrawal of troops, facts are still facts about Obama.     Obama withdrew with conscious volition, and ISIS moved into Iraq followed by Putin moving into Syria.   

Who knows who makes the next move and what it will be.....other than the US will not be driving the agenda?   I doubt any group will want to depend upon the US for help.  And the refugee crises will become worse if Assad gains the upper hand against his opposition. 

This does not end with Obama.    I assert the next President is hamstrung by Obama's decision.   Hopefully the EU will grow a pair or whatever expression Muzh used.

[ML]

Just to throw in a random comment . . .

Tonight's episode of 'Madam Secretary' was surprisingly up to date on the Russian invasion of Ukraine situation and laid out some real world scenarios.

Putin has died and our Secretary of State has worked out a tentative agreement between Poroshenko and the Russian Foreign minister for a political settlement and Lavrov is working on bringing top Russian generals along.

But Putin's widow pulls a fast one with a planted photo op that shows part of SS's team with a Ukrainian Nazi (actually a Russian).  She gives a rip-roaring speech at Putin's funeral pointing out the planned betrayal of Russia by America and Lavrov (who will probably be killed in the next episode).

Turns out, seemingly she is going to become the next Russian president and 'out Putin' Putin in terms of aggression.

So our President feels the SS has failed in seeking a political solution and now is influenced more by his new National Security Adviser and is going to proceed to help Ukraine militarily big time.

Remember how our fantasy outer space movies predated actual space development ????

Who knows ??

[Gator]

ML,

I saw Madam Secretary too.  Some parts seem unreal, yet the dialogue about Ukraine, Putin's successor, etc. was plausible.   

Needless to say, your comment, "Remember how our fantasy outer space movies predated actual space development ????   Who knows ??" is still fantasy given our leader.   And I imagine in the next episode, Madam Secretary will have the President backing away from the American hawks.

[BillyB]

Those final 15 seconds define Obama as the weak man he truly is.

When the troop pullout was done and things relatively quiet in Iraq, Obama took full credit. As the video showed, Obama shifts the blame now that Iraq is a mess overrun by terrorists.

I assert the next President is hamstrung by Obama's decision.   

Iraq is looking for help since being overrun by terrorists. The next president may provide that help if Russia doesn't gain enough influence and foothold by then.

Hopefully the EU will grow a pair or whatever expression Muzh used.

EU has shown they have no balls when it came to Ukraine. EU growing a pair is wishful thinking at this point. The leader of the free world needs to try and be a leader before leaving office. That is what should happen if anything is to get done.

[fathertime]

Whether you supported or opposed the withdrawal of troops, facts are still facts about Obama.     Obama withdrew with conscious volition, and ISIS moved into Iraq followed by Putin moving into Syria.   

I was casually browsing about the internet and found this little article:


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS

[/size]
Since 1980, the United States has intervened in the affairs of fourteen Muslim countries, at worst invading or bombing them. They are (in chronological order) Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Yemen, Pakistan, and now Syria. Latterly these efforts have been in the name of the War on Terror and the attempt to curb Islamic extremism.


Yet for centuries Western countries have sought to harness the power of radical Islam to serve the interests of their own foreign policy.....


http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/america_enabled_radical_islam_how_the_cia_george_w_bush_and_many_others_helped_create_isis/






The article states that we have intervened in 14 Islamic countries over 35 years.  No wonder the countries in the area are growing to hate our guts.  If some much more powerful nation meddled in our affairs for their own benefit, as often as we have, I'd probably start growing a pretty big dislike!


Fathertime!     [size=78%]

[fathertime]

If you're not "surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not." Why then do you believe that Iran would comply with the Obama Nuc Deal if they've already failed to adhere to previous UN resolutions forbidding the very ordnance they revealed to the world in those images?

If their record is such that "they don't care if we approve or not" what could possibly be the motivation for them to sign the deal in the first place? 

No, we haven't been threatening them. According to now publicized intelligence reports the release of this information was directed at Israel.

The answer to these questions is - No nukes yet.

They've only just secured the means to achieve breakout (Obama nuc deal) and eventually outfit these (and newer generation) missiles now that the sanctions are lifted.

My guess would be that revealing their secret manufacturing sites and bases buried deep in the mountains means they want Israel and the US to know that not only have they now secured the means to achieve nuclear breakout...but guess what? We've also got the means and assets to deliver them (which you infidel didn't know about).

You didn't answer this question.

Brass

This thread really isn't about the Iran deal, but I did notice that the agreement is moving forward as of today.  All the major powers seem to be fine with what Iran is doing, which appears to be posturing.  Who is to blame them?  With our interventionist history, they got to show they are strong to survive, and discourage us from doing something stupid.  Thankfully Obama is a reasonable man, making good calls.
 Your final question has the assumption that Iran is breaking the deal, since all the major powers are moving forward, I would need to see indisputable evidence the deal is being broken.   Who knows how, or what they could/would retaliate with, but I am pretty sure they have something. Perhaps that is in part why the deal was struck, because we knew they had some serious capability, to which the military option just wasn't going to turn out to be very easy, like it has been in other somewhat defenseless nations. 


Fathertime! 

[Gator]

Iraq is looking for help since being overrun by terrorists. The next president may provide that help if Russia doesn't gain enough influence and foothold by then.

Why?  Iraq should defend itself rather than expect others to fight their fight.  Iraq promised months ago they would drive against ISIS in Ramadi.  How is that going? 

My stepson has an Iraqi friend at school.  His friend is so pleased that Putin is fighting ISIS.  He would welcome  Putin to come to Iraq and fight ISIS on the ground. 

[BillyB]

Yet for centuries Western countries have sought to harness the power of radical Islam to serve the interests of their own foreign policy.....


http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/america_enabled_radical_islam_how_the_cia_george_w_bush_and_many_others_helped_create_isis/

I doubt Western nation's policies are to harness radical terrorists that will push millions of refugees into the West's arms.

Iraq should defend itself rather than expect others to fight their fight. 

Faced with death, some Iraqis will fight but will struggle to win. In Syria, half the population has been displaced. Most Arab citizens will not fight and as we know, the Iraqi military was not ready when US troops left Iraq.


When I was in the Army, I was aware that I may be fighting for people that are too weak to fight including those in our own nation. If America let many nations fight their own fight, we would have little friends left in this world and wouldn't be a superpower. There are many reasons for helping our friends in their fights besides doing it out of the kindness of our hearts. Providing security for other nations has financial benefits. America did so in WWI and WWII and became a superpower because we entered the wars. Being reliable and backing our friends helps our reputation.


Obama said Russia is making a mistake getting involved with Syria. Russia sees opportunity in Syria and in Iraq since Obama had first crack at doing something there and didn't make much of it. While Obama lets America's friends struggle, Putin is going to make sure Russia's friends thrive.

My stepson has an Iraqi friend at school.  His friend is so pleased that Putin is fighting ISIS.  He would welcome  Putin to come to Iraq and fight ISIS on the ground. 

I don't blame the Iraqi for thinking the way he does. I have a Kurdish friend who wishes Obama gave more help. The Kurds are fighting ISIS and are the most friendly to America out of the major groups in Iraq. Unfortunately for your stepson's Iraqi friend, Putin's main goal in the Middle East isn't to fight ISIS and to save his fellow citizens but to maintain, promote,or install Middle Eastern governments friendly to Russia.

[mendeleyev]

Hmm...can anyone tell me more about this "Madam Secretary?" It sounds like a TV series...?

[ML]

Hmm...can anyone tell me more about this "Madam Secretary?" It sounds like a TV series...?

Yes it is.  On CBS Sunday nights after football and 60 Minutes.

Check out Tea Leoni as a gal nearing 50 with a great shape, especially her legs . . . if you are attracted to such.

It is probably Ochka's favorite TV show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_Secretary_%28TV_series%29

Madam Secretary is an American political drama television series created by Barbara Hall and executive produced by Lori McCreary and Morgan Freeman. It stars Téa Leoni as Elizabeth Adams McCord, a former CIA analyst and college professor who is promoted to United States Secretary of State. The series premiered on CBS on September 21, 2014.[1][2][3] On October 27, 2014, CBS placed a full season order consisting of 22 episodes for the first season.[4]

On January 12, 2015, Madam Secretary was renewed for a second season.[5]

[mendeleyev]

Thank you, ML!

[Brasscasing]

This thread really isn't about the Iran deal, but I did notice that the agreement is moving forward as of today.  All the major powers seem to be fine with what Iran is doing, which appears to be posturing.  Who is to blame them?  With our interventionist history, they got to show they are strong to survive, and discourage us from doing something stupid.  Thankfully Obama is a reasonable man, making good calls.

I'd disagree, Iran's actions are pivotal to the Syrian/middle East situation right now.

Not all the major powers are "fine" with what Iran is doing. France isn't overly impressed...

France says Iran missile test 'worrying' violation of U.N. resolution

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/15/us-iran-france-missiles-idUSKCN0S91A620151015

Posturing? They are 'posturing' with assets they shouldn't have by UN resolution. How do you equate illegal actions with strength?

Your final question has the assumption that Iran is breaking the deal, since all the major powers are moving forward, I would need to see indisputable evidence the deal is being broken.   Who knows how, or what they could/would retaliate with, but I am pretty sure they have something. Perhaps that is in part why the deal was struck, because we knew they had some serious capability, to which the military option just wasn't going to turn out to be very easy, like it has been in other somewhat defenseless nations. 

My question states quite clearly if the Iranians have not complied with several already existing UN resolutions what makes you think they'll comply with this latest agreement as well as what do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to when he alludes to "options under the table"...

If Iran has (evidently) broken the already existing UN resolutions and have just threatened the West - who've pinned their hopes on Iran's compliance to the nuc deal with options against Iran, including a military one, if they don't comply - by retaliating with "options under the table." What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?

So, undisputable proof...

..."United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 – passed on 9 June 2010. Banned Iran from participating in any activities related to ballistic missiles..."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

In light of the images and link(s) I've posted up thread, whaddya think. Has Iran complied with this UN resolution?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1984 – passed on 9 June 2011 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2049 – passed on 7 June 2012 extended the Resolutions and sanctions so it's not like they missed 'not allowed to procure, develop or otherwise participate in any activities related to ballistic missiles', in the fine print, right?

Perhaps that is in part why the deal was struck, because we knew they had some serious capability, to which the military option just wasn't going to turn out to be very easy, like it has been in other somewhat defenseless nations.

So why then would Obama and Kerry tell the American public and Congress that if the Iranians don't comply the military option is still on the table?

You are suggesting Obama's assurances were untruthful. Designed to give a false sense of security to those that opposed his agreement to get it ratified even though he knew the ability to deal with any non compliance by Iran wasn't going to be as easy as he assured it would be.

Brass

[Anotherkiwi]

Yes it is.  On CBS Sunday nights after football and 60 Minutes.

Check out Tea Leoni as a gal nearing 50 with a great shape, especially her legs . . . if you are attracted to such.

Yes, and yes!

It is probably Ochka's favorite TV show.

Definitely one of mine as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_Secretary_%28TV_series%29

On January 12, 2015, Madam Secretary was renewed for a second season.[5]

Hasn't got to us yet, but I'm eagerly awaiting it.

[Muzh]

An interesting book review from the WSJ.



Our Brothers’ Keepers
The histories of Judaism and Christianity suggest that words alone won’t pacify Islam. Its transformation will be long and bloody.

The problem isn’t Islam: Mr. Sacks points out that Jewish and Christian scriptures have also been invoked to justify violence. It’s human nature. We’re tribal creatures. We bond with our kinsmen against outsiders. Tyrants and demagogues exploit this tribal propensity by feeding us religious doctrines that blame our suffering on enemies: infidels, Crusaders, Jews. This “pathological dualism,” as Mr. Sacks describes it, corrupts societies by deflecting internal scrutiny and impeding reform. And it dehumanizes the putative enemy, facilitating mass murder.

and

Our first mistake is to read scripture literally. This, Mr. Sacks explains, is fundamentalism: “text without context, and application without interpretation.” Any zealot can choose a bloody passage and broadcast it to incite mayhem. The antidote to this naive fanaticism, according to Mr. Sacks, isn’t secularism. It’s tradition. “Religions develop rules of interpretation and structures of authority,” he explains. They debate the text’s meaning. Over centuries, they accumulate wisdom.

(Emphasis mine)


http://www.wsj.com/articles/our-brothers-keepers-1445296466


Actually, it transcends religion, if you look how political campaigns are run.

[mendeleyev]

Looks like a good article, Muzh.

A prominent slogan seen in hotspots around the Middle East is (translated from Arabic): "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people." Despite what the Koran says about respecting "people of the Book," much of today's Islamic teaching labels the Saturday people (Jews) and the Sunday people (Christians) as targets for extermination.

[fathertime]

'Amazing' how the Russians and their 'antiquated' military are doing so much more damage to ISIS, than the US and partners could do...  Quite obviously the US was never actually trying to have too much success eradicating ISIS.  The goal was probably to keep the region in chaos, which they have successfully done now for over 4 years.  Of course most of the people here, don't care enough to think about what is really going on, and will just believe the lies between handfuls of Frito's. 


Fathertime!

[Gator]

'Amazing' how the Russians and their 'antiquated' military are doing so much more damage to ISIS, than the US and partners could do... 

First, is this something to extol?.........75% of US coalition air missions return to base without dropping bombs because of concerns about  civilian casualties.   

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/06/05/many-anti-islamic-state-sorties-dont-include-airstrikes/28545307/

http://www.news.com.au/national/raaf-mission-against-isis-pilots-did-not-drop-bombs-because-of-collateral-damage-risk/story-fncynjr2-1227083688464

Second, do you believe  Russian operates with similar concern about civilian casualties?    This was discussed earlier in the thread, and the implications are tragic.

Third, are you aware of the evidence indicating  Russia is using  internationally banned  cluster bombs? 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/evidence-mounts-russian-cluster-bomb-syria-151012081654030.html

Fourth, what are your sources to back your claim about Russia causing more damage to ISIS?   If this is your source, I suggest you read closely:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260464/russia-bombs-more-targets-1-day-obama-did-1-month-daniel-greenfield

Everything in the Western press says most of the Russian strikes hit heavily populated areas such as Aleppo where only US backed opposition groups are located.     These strikes not only kill innocent civilians, they  increase the number of  refugees, who eventually arrive in "cradle-to-the-grave giveaway programs" of the socialistic EU.  The debt stricken EU will have to print more money, accelerating  a debt crises into a disaster.  Warning - don't invest in the EU. 

http://www.voanews.com/content/syrian-offensives-trigger-more-turkey-bound-refugees/3016471.html


Returning to your words, what I see is not that Russian military is better than US military.  Instead, the US has consciously withdrawn, and was never committed in the first place.  This is what you want the US to do, so you should be cheering Obama's withdrawal.

File this away:  the world has always needed a policeman.  If not the US, who should it be?

   Quite obviously the US was never actually trying to have too much success eradicating ISIS.   

You are correct.  Eradication can only be done with ground forces, and we will not and should not send American troops to engage ISIS on the ground.  Such is the job for the Iraqi, who so far have shown no willingness to confront ISIS.  Who will step in if not the Iraqi?  The Iranians.  Implications....please!!!!

The goal was probably to keep the region in chaos, which they have successfully done now for over 4 years.  Of course most of the people here, don't care enough to think about what is really going on, and will just believe the lies between handfuls of Frito's. 

Unlike the Frito eaters who  who participate here,  you are either a troll or just simple-minded.    May the pox that has ravaged your brain venture to your hands and wither them, preventing them from striking a keyboard.

[fathertime]

First, is this something to extol?.........75% of US coalition air missions return to base without dropping bombs because of concerns about  civilian casualties.   

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/06/05/many-anti-islamic-state-sorties-dont-include-airstrikes/28545307/

http://www.news.com.au/national/raaf-mission-against-isis-pilots-did-not-drop-bombs-because-of-collateral-damage-risk/story-fncynjr2-1227083688464

Second, do you believe  Russian operates with similar concern about civilian casualties?    This was discussed earlier in the thread, and the implications are tragic.

250,000 dead prior to Russian involvement...boy we sure are doing a heck of a job (Brownie) with keeping those casualties down!   

 

Fourth, what are your sources to back your claim about Russia causing more damage to ISIS?   If this is your source, I suggest you read closely:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260464/russia-bombs-more-targets-1-day-obama-did-1-month-daniel-greenfield

Everything in the Western press says most of the Russian strikes hit heavily populated areas such as Aleppo where only US backed opposition groups are located.     

Western backed groups= ISIS.   At this point, there is no need for Russia to make a distinction.  Russia backs Assad, who has been leading the country for the past 15 years.  We *The US* are arming 'rebels' and fomenting agony, for our own ends.   Keeping the region in chaos is apparently better than the alternative, from our viewpoint....WE certainly aren't the good guys. 

File this away:  the world has always needed a policeman.  If not the US, who should it be?

I reject this statement, the world has NOT always needed A policeman.

Unlike the Frito eaters who  who participate here,  you are either a troll or just simple-minded.    May the pox that has ravaged your brain venture to your hands and wither them, preventing them from striking a keyboard.

Yup, you have really 'profoundly changed'.  hahaha 


I think it is your brain that isn't functioning on all cylinders, and has become immalleable, which I'm sure you mistakenly think is a good thing. 


Fathertime!