Obama Doesn’t Need Permission from Congress to do Nothing in Iraq

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


MW-CI348_obama__MG_20140618121029

The current Obama policy on Al Qaeda in Iraq is to…

A. Do nothing

B. Do it without Congressional approval

That’s the takeaway from Obama’s pointless meeting with Congress whose only real purpose is to try and shift some of the blame.

Before the meeting a senior administration official had made it clear that Obama was not going the air strikes route. This is about as surprising as snow in January.

Obama has ruled out an immediate campaign of air strikes against a militant Islamist terror group that is running roughshod over Iraq, senior administration officials told reporters on Wednesday.

When he meets at 3:00 p.m. with congressional leaders from both parties, he will reportedly explain his preference for continued diplomacy and intelligence gathering for Iraq’s army over bombing and guided-missile campaigns.

Meanwhile Iraq is asking for air strikes. This isn’t the first time the Iraqi government has asked, but they’re making it a formal request which embarrasses them and might embarrass Obama if he had any concept of shame.

Iraq has formally asked the US to launch air strikes against the Sunni insurgents who have taken control of large parts of the country.

Since Mosul fell nine days ago, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been targeting towns on the main highway to Baghdad, edging ever closer to the capital.

Iraq’s foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said US airpower was needed to “break the morale” of the ISIS fighters, and said the request for air strikes was made under the security agreement between the two countries.

He said neighbouring Iran, a Shiite ally of Iraq’s government, had not intervened to help so far, but added that “everything is possible”.

So Iraq is sending the rather clear signal that either the US helps or they’re throwing the doors wide open to Iran. Again, not a problem for Obama who likes Iran better than he likes Iraq, not to mention Egypt, Jordan and Israel.

So what will Obama be doing instead?

Obama decided against immediate air strikes on marauding Sunni extremists in Iraq, opting instead to pursue strategies such as providing intelligence to the Iraqi military, addressing the country’s political divisions and seeking support from regional allies.

Air strikes? Nah. Let’s liase with “regional allies” and encourage Baghdad to engage in political reconciliation. And then the same intel chiefs who didn’t know this was coming can help out Iraq with intel.

But should Obama decide to switch from doing nothing to something, our emperor won’t ask Congress.

Obama believes he does not need authorization from Congress for any steps he might take to quell the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency sweeping through Iraq, the Senate’s top Republican said after the president briefed senior lawmakers Wednesday.

Of course not.

Obama never needs authorization from Congress when doing minor things like going to war, implementing illegal alien amnesty or outlawing power plants.

  • Texas Patriot

    What do you think Obama should do, Daniel? Iraq is in the middle between Iran on the one side and ISIS and Saudi Arabia on the other. It’s a Sunni-Shia volcano getting ready to explode. Do you really think the United States needs to be in the middle?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      We don’t want overt jihadis overrunning national sovereigns. Generally speaking.

      If I thought there was an intelligent grand plan to contain the aftermath I would not be that concerned. I am concerned.

      • Texas Patriot

        Take a look at the bigger picture. All the so-called “sovereigns” in the middle east were originally set up, directly or indirectly, by Western governments as an overlay of pre-existing tribal cultures that had more or less been in a state of war with each other for more than a thousand years. Now the Western sovereigns are crumbling and tribal conflict is reemerging. So what? If the people of the region prefer tribal warfare to democratic government, there is very little anyone can do about it.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The world is a lot smaller today thanks to modern technology. Anarchy anywhere in the world is a potential problem for anyone else. Anarchy among a bunch of (jihadi) factions known to possess modern weapons is the biggest problem of all when coupled with the pretension that there is no problem.

          • Texas Patriot

            We can’t possibly solve all the “potential” problems in the world. We will be doing very well to solve all the problems that actually threaten our national security and the national security of our allies, and the only “actual” threat to Western Civilization, including Israel, taking place in the Middle East today is the possible, if not certain, efforts of the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran to produce nuclear weapons. Everything else is background noise.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…the only “actual” threat to Western Civilization, including Israel, taking place in the Middle East today is the possible, if not certain, efforts of the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran to produce nuclear weapons.”

            There’s only one degree of separation.

          • Texas Patriot

            We know where the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities are, and if we destroy those, the problem of serious actual threats goes away, at least for the time being. If we fail to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, the entirety of Western Civilization, including Israel, will be facing the immediate and imminent threat of nuclear destruction from that point going forward into the future for as long as such weapons exist, regardless of the temporal outcome of the various regional tribal conflicts that may arise in the interim. Taking our eye off the ball and allowing ourselves to be drawn into (and be distracted by) regional tribal conflicts that do not present a clear and present national security risk could be fatal, not only to Israel, but to the entirety of Western Civilization.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Too many ifs and not enough confidence in those charged with taking care. It’s not too early to voice concern about a smarter approach. Not Orwellian “smart.”

          • J.B.

            He claims that because the problem of human violence cant be solved, that we should allow the worst people in the world to go wild while we cower behind our borders. That is an idiotic idea based on fantasy. I don’t think somebody can be a Libertarian and islamopithecine at the same time, but he has issues.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He can resolve it in his head but I think he’s not following all of the details of our conversations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m not the one that can’t keep my facts and priorities straight.

          • J.B.

            So Iran is the only existential threat America faces. Brilliant thesis, trolltard.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            What about the Paks? They already have an enormous nuclear weapons stockpile ready to be distributed to the Sunni Islamic totalitarian world just as soon as Shi’a Iran becomes nuclear armed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s a huge problem too. I wish it was the highest priority problem but it’s not. My long term objectives would absolutely include helping them see how they are better off not having nuclear weapons under their sovereign control.

            Don’t think for a moment that I ever forget about that.

            Right now if you want to understand why they are a lower threat, think of MAD as being somewhat applicable in the Islamic world, but not as you would with other non-Islamic regimes.

            They (some of them) would annihilate themselves to get to their virgins but they hesitate because they’re not sure if attacking India is going to get them there rather than attacking some “greater satan” further away. It’s not that they worry about the “ethics” of destroying the world but they’re uncertain who “Allah” would like them to target and they’re afraid they won’t get to use the nukes more than once. Which is very likely true.

            It’s a bad situation, but there are much worse scenarios. Tolerating nuclear proliferation is a very bad idea. Very bad. Every time.

          • Drakken

            The Indians have that problem to deal with.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Right. If they attack the US, they’ll never get to attack the Indians. If they attack the Indians, they’ll never get to attack us or possibly Iran. Allah might get pissed and throw them out of heaven. And all of that tension gives room to maneuver from the stealth atheists among them.

            They’re not as stupid as we often see them. They’re dogmatic and myopic, which leads to apparent stupidity from the perspective of outsiders. They can handle complex scenarios as we would but since they’re lacking in so much information that we have…they end up looking dumb. They’re not.

            And they are predictable as any other people once you account for all of the significant factors.

          • J.B.

            This is only one problem, it is real and it doesn’t have to be solved. It has to be faced and mitigated.

            Trolltard.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I’m far more worried about the enormous nuclear weapons arsenal the Sunni Pakistanis have accumulated than I am of the nuclear hungry Shiite Iranians. That gigantic nuclear weapons arsenal wasn’t created to thwart the Hindu infidels in India, as the Hindu infidels in India threaten no one, least of all Pakistan. Not to mention that like the Palestinians over in Israel, it is the Pakistanis who are the aggressors in that jihad.

            Indeed, that enormous nuclear weapons arsenal was created in anticipation of the Shiites in Iran finally being successful in their quest to develop a nuclear weapon, and if and when that nuclear weapon eventually comes to fruition, Pakistan will soon become the nuclear weapons supermarket for the Sunni Islamic totalitarian world.

            Indeed, watch how fast the Sunni Islamic totalitarian world becomes armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons in response to the Shi’as in Iran acquiring nukes. Then the Islamic totalitarian world that has as its sole fundamental purpose the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) in order to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world will all of a sudden be armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and almost as fast as you can blink an eye.

            Hence, if our leaders weren’t so misguided and ill informed, they would be focused on forcing Pakistan to give up that massive nuclear weapons arsenal ASAP before it is too late and the genie gets let out of the bottle.

        • J.B.

          The Ottoman Empire owned those animals as livestock for more than a thousand years. Attaturk’s Turkey owned them too. Arab speaking Koranimals are anything but an invincible force or unconquerable rabble.

          Try again, trolltard. Better yet, just admit you want jihadis to gain control of the region.

        • tickletik

          Everything you said is true. But you are still missing an important point. This is a situation that we have to deal with. Like it or not we have obligations now to the Iraqi government that we are failing to meet. These are not light obligations and the consequences for failing to back those people up are going to be very bad. How bad? Well, look at it from the perspective of anyone we might want to ally with.

          How seriously do you think anyone is ever going to take us again? When we make a commitment to back someone up, do you think they are going to be willing to go to the mat for a country that would not even be willing to make air strikes on behalf of a democratic ally that they helped set up?

          • Texas Patriot

            We left Iraq for two reasons: (a) there were no WMD in Iraq; and (b) the Maliki government asked us to leave. Maliki failed to create a fair government among the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni, and now the whole thing is disintegrating. Our mission in Iraq was to determine if Saddam Hussein had retained WMD (including nuclear weapons) in violation of the cease-fire agreement that left him in place after Gulf War I. Our military accomplished their mission of neutralizing the Iraqi army brilliantly within a matter of weeks with a minimum number of casualties on both sides. It was subsequently determined that there were no WMD in Iraq. At that point our mission was complete, and everything else we tried to do in Iraq was a mistake. To go back in at this point to try to prop up the corrupt Shia-dominated government would only compound our prior mistakes. If and when there is any evidence that WMD (including nuclear weapons) are being produced in Iraq, we will have a legitimate reason to go back and destroy them. Until then, we won’t.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Thereafter, Prime Minister Maliki failed to create a fair and effective government among the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni, and now the whole thing is disintegrating.

            Your sentence should read: “Thereafter, Prime Minister Maliki [inevitably] failed to create a fair and effective government among the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni, and now the whole thing is disintegrating.”

            It doesn’t really matter, it was a Sharia state, i.e., an Islamic totalitarian hellhole, courtesy of American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muslim stealth jihadist appointed not by Obama, but by GWB. Not to mention that lifting up Muslims also amounts to lifting up what are in actuality our eternal mortal enemies.

            In other words, it was an impossible fantasy based mission from the get go destined to fail even before it was ever implemented, and therefore is one of two of the greatest strategic blunders ever in American history. The other one, of course, is the fantasy based nation-building mission in Afghanistan.

            I wish I could say I blame Obama for these two fiascos, but I can’t, as it was GWB, a Republican, who made the dumb decision to occupy first Afghanistan and then Iraq to democratize the Islamic totalitarian world in order to lift up Muslims. Because he naively believed that Islam was a “religion of peace” being hijacked by radical Islam. What a mentally unhinged loon!

        • Drakken

          The problem lies with those very same goddamn savages coming into the west. If oil spikes and crashes this fragile economy, it isn’t going to bloody matter what the hajis do, people will be to worried about eating.

          • Texas Patriot

            Don’t worry Drak. With U.S. shale oil, Canadian oil, and oil from Mexico, the U.S. is uniquely situated to survive a total shut down of the Middle East if that came to pass. If push comes to shove, the American people can go on war footing and figure out a way to survive. It’s countries like China that could have a hard time. There was a time not too long ago when China looked like the major winner of the Iraq war because of their heavy investment in Iraqi oil production. None of that looks quite the same at this point in time.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/06/15/if-anyone-bombs-iraq-shouldnt-it-be-china/

            In the event of a catastrophe in Iraq, energy prices in the United States would spike upwards with the rest of the world, and that would not be good for American business or consumers. Yet as a comparative matter, the U.S. economy would gain ground against all or almost all other major economies.

            Why? America is now the planet’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas. The U.S. overtook Russia as the world’s biggest natural gas producer in 2012 and is, after Saudi Arabia and Russia, the third biggest pumper of oil. In the short term—and maybe the long term as well—production of hydrocarbons in the U.S. will undoubtedly rise. Not surprisingly, U.S. energy imports have fallen in the last five years, natural gas by 32% and oil by 15%. So a crisis would put America in an even stronger position in the oil and gas markets.

            The Chinese, on the other hand, would have a much harder time if Iraq’s 3.7% of global production suddenly went offline. China, which is increasingly dependent on energy imports, is now that country’s largest foreign customer, taking an average 1.5 million barrels a day, almost half of Iraq’s production. China National Petroleum Corp., a state enterprise, swooped up Iraqi oil after last decade’s war—Beijing, by the way, sold arms that ended up in the hands of insurgents fighting Americans—by accepting Baghdad’s razor-thin margins and onerous conditions.

            Then, many said it was China that won the Iraq War because it signed the major oil deals afterwards. As a result, Beijing now has a lot riding on the outcome in Iraq as ISIS takes on the Shiite-dominated ruling group in Baghdad. No wonder the Chinese Foreign Ministry in recent days has been coming out with announcements supporting the Maliki government. Said Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Friday, “For a long time, China has been giving Iraq a large amount of all types of aid and is willing to give whatever help it is able to.”

            Perhaps the U.S. should take her up on the offer and let her country put its navy in harm’s way. After all, China has far more at stake in Iraq than America.

          • Drakken

            Ya kinda sorta forgot to mention the contracts the Chins had in the north is now being taken over by the Kurds and have declared those contracts null and void. They will be shipping that oil west.

          • Texas Patriot

            I hadn’t heard about that. China is going to need some oil, no doubt about it. The good news is that the global oil market is a lot more diversified today than it was when OPEC imposed its embargo in 1973.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s why the pincer movement from the left to destroy our economy through insane energy and environmental policies while petroleum markets are so volatile.

      • hiernonymous

        “We don’t want overt jihadis overrunning national sovereigns. Generally speaking.”

        Why? There’s no better place for them. National sovereigns have something to lose.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Why? There’s no better place for them. National sovereigns have something to lose.”

          What I did not say: “We don’t want overt jihadis taking up disputes or attacking national sovereigns. Generally speaking.”

          What I could have said even more clearly: “We don’t want overt jihadis successfully overrunning national sovereigns. Generally speaking.”

          We want the sovereigns to win and contain them. If the jihadis win and overrun them, they have little left to lose and little they can do about it without begging for “international cooperation” or something along those lines.

          • hiernonymous

            No, my comment was even more radical, from your perspective. I was suggesting that having the jihadis overrun and become the national sovereigns would make them easier to deal with. I’m not suggesting that we want the current governments to contain the jihadis. To a great extent, the current governments are the authors of our problems. They are despotic, corrupt, inefficient, and they have to go. While it would be nice if they were replaced by relatively clean secular democracies, I think that there is another phase to go through before that becomes practical.

            For those of you fond of thinking in terms of Islam as the driving force behind the current problems, I offer the idea that only a period of modern governance by such forces is likely to produce the oriental equivalent of the Enlightenment. I think that something of the sort was beginning with the Turks, but the colonial intervention of the UK and France did not allow for continued comparison of the failure of religious government with successful Western styles of government.

            Pit another way, the Ottoman Empire was an old and established state whose successes and failures could only be attributed to itself. As it fell behind in so many ways, a growing number of young Turks (hence the expression) expressed dissatisfaction with the old regime and were doing an admirable job of diagnosing the problem. Had the Ottoman Empire been succeeded by genuinely independent Arab states, they would have found themselves in the same position of having to evaluate their successes and failures by straightforward comparison.

            But the West chose to treat the Middle East as spoils of war, and in addition to doing genuine damage to the ability if the region to govern itself, and in addition to inextricably linking secular democracy with rapacious imperialism to the minds of Arabs, they also broke the links of responsibility. The Arabs were victims, and all of their failures could be ascribed to that victimhood.

            That’s why I think it’s time to stop trying to dictate forms of government, and stop being so afraid of the prospect of religious government. It might take time, but the soul searching that began in Turkey can’t continue until the Arabs (yes, I understand that Arabs aren’t Turks) are truly left to govern themselves.

            Hold them responsible for their foreign relations, provide economic help when asked, within reason, and let the region progress along its own path. I think that it will arrive at secular democracy more quickly that way than any other.

          • Drakken

            If you think that letting these savages have a more religious govt is a good idea, you haven’t a clue as to what the unintended consequences will be, and it won’t be favorable to us. Imperialism kept the Islamic monster at bay, letting the islamic monster out of its cage only will lead to a massive religious war of biblical proportions. Always better to have a semi-secular tyrant than a religious nut job in charge in the muslim world, until and unless islam is stamped out, democracy in the muslim world is a pipe dream. And let us not mention the millions of refugees a more religious govt will entail, that will flood and already extended western world.

          • hiernonymous

            The Islamic monster was coughing its lungs out in 1918. You’re thinking short-term, and short-term thinking keeps us in the fire.

          • Drakken

            In case it has escaped your notice, but your Turkish friends are going the Islamic route more so by the day. Long term, the Islamic monster let out of its cage leads to a very massive blood letting, kept in its cage, we can manage it to a dull roar.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, my comment was even more radical, from your perspective. I was suggesting that having the jihadis overrun and become the national sovereigns would make them easier to deal with.”

            In theory what you suggest is possible, but you’re depending too much on luck. It’s better for us if they fail and are contained by someone we have influence with.

            Rebooting a sovereign means we have to start all over from a “benefit of the doubt” perspective in the eyes of the public. Usually that’s a waste of time.

          • hiernonymous

            ” It’s better for us if they fail and are contained by someone we have influence with.”

            But that’s the approach that has been failing us for the past several decades. There’s no reason to think it will trend any differently in the future.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But that’s the approach that has been failing us for the past several decades. There’s no reason to think it will trend any differently in the future.”

            Because we have not used our influence wisely. It didn’t fail because the tactic itself is “bad.”

            No the trend won’t just change auto-magically. We must change it. Our leadership must change dramatically or eventually our nation and civilization will be subservient to others.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “For those of you fond of thinking in terms of Islam as the driving force behind the current problems, I offer the idea that only a period of modern governance by such forces is likely to produce the oriental equivalent of the Enlightenment. I think that something of the sort was beginning with the Turks, but the colonial intervention of the UK and France did not allow for continued comparison of the failure of religious government with successful Western styles of government.”

            The theory is good as far as it goes. The problem is that you’re not accurately modeling the likely costs of such a strategy. You’re assuming that our constitution can’t ever fail. We have to keep enough power and influence in the world to contain them while that happens. And even then I’m not sure you fully realize the costs of what you suggest. It would not be modeled after what happened in Europe. Ideas matter.

          • hiernonymous

            “It would not be modeled after what happened in Europe. Ideas matter.”

            Sure. The Age of Enlightenment involved a great deal of optimism about the power of reason, a sense that we could soon think our way into paradise. A century later, we were high on the practical value of technology, sure that we were about to find technical solutions for our problems. You aren’t going to recreate those zeitgeists today. One of the very reasons for the mystical resurgence in the later 20th century, here as well as in the Middle East, was the backlash against the world wars and the dark side of science and technology.

            But if you are as convinced as you seem to be that Islam is a dark force, you’re not going to shake its foundations by trying to repress it, and you don’t seem willing to accept a materialistic approach that prescribes material prosperity as the cure for extremism, so that leaves us seeking that oriental version of the Enlightenment, whatever direction it takes. You can ask for a paradigm change, but you probably can’t ask to know in advance what it will look like.

            I don’t think that anything about my approach suggests abandoning U.S. power.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If we must put it simply, what I’m saying is that we didn’t just get luck. Ideas matter and those ideas map differently on different existing societies. We already know how Muslim societies react to “enlightenment” ideas. They were not sitting on some “control” planet isolated from the events, although there would be some latency…I think we know already that it takes more.

            If you want to call Islam a dark force, I guess I don’t have a problem with that as long as we’re clear that we’re not talking about a “magic” force but a civilizational force that has created a framework for how to organize society. IT’s different and largely incompatible with ours. And when we are apparently more successful than they are, they’re not automatically going to learn accurately why that happens. In fact there is a significant current of “Allah is punishing us” set of explanations and that is part of what intensified the drives for jihad.

            OTOH, if not for the tensions between the Marxist derived ideas in the West it’s possible Muslims would have more trust in our actions when we want to build trade deals. They already are suspicious and then people come around and characterize ever trade agreement as neo-colonial. That can’t be good.

            There are too many variables for me to even try to predict with confidence the possible scenarios. And I”m the first to admit that in some respects the causes do come from the West.

            Right about now is when I would break out one of my Kool Aid speeches but I’m not really up for it and I think you know where I’m going. I think we need to get wiser about our foreign policy and what we teach students here at home. Starting with the fundamentals that include the US constitution and why some people consider the USA exceptional. At least expose them to both sides and stop calling people like me racists. Which is the most laughably ironic thing I can think of right now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s why I think it’s time to stop trying to dictate forms of government, and stop being so afraid of the prospect of religious government. It might take time, but the soul searching that began in Turkey can’t continue until the Arabs (yes, I understand that Arabs aren’t Turks) are truly left to govern themselves.”

            We should have learned more from how we treated Germany and especially Japan. We just thought that as “modern” people they would organically gravitate towards secular governments. Because that’s what happened organically in the West and everywhere else. >>> Wrong <<<

            And I see no reason to believe that without our "interventions" during and after the war that Turkey would have gone on a secular course. Spoils of war or not, what we did was generally good for them. Generally. Failure does not necessarily mean that we should turn around 180 degrees.

            "Hold them responsible for their foreign relations, provide economic help when asked, within reason, and let the region progress along its own path. I think that it will arrive at secular democracy more quickly that way than any other."

            That too. But it's not within our democratic principals to let mob rule dictate what happens to people and it's not in our interests either. Because mob rule might seem democratic but it's not really. It just creates cesspools. And these civilizational cesspools only get more dangerous as technology marches forward.

          • J.B.

            Terrorist regimes are “easier to deal with”? You mean like the Iranian mullahs, the Taliban, Hizb’ allah and Hamas, you trolltard?

            Remember: You islsamopithecines don’t have advanced enough brains to debate humans. Stick to throwing rocks at your females after you rape them.

          • hiernonymous

            “Terrorist regimes are “easier to deal with”? You mean like the Iranian mullahs, the Taliban, Hizb’ allah and Hamas, you trolltard?”

            Yep, that’s exactly what I mean, in the case of Iran, and the Taliban when it was actually running Afghanistan. Hizballah isn’t formally a government, but it’s pretty close. And Hamas since winning the elections. Contrast dealing with those and dealing with al Qa’ida, and maybe you’ll figure out what I mean.

            “Remember: You islsamopithecines don’t have advanced enough brains to debate humans. Stick to throwing rocks at your females after you rape them.”

            Yep, those sentence alone are enough to show me what sort of advanced mind I’m dealing with. Well done.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        We don’t want overt jihadis overrunning national sovereigns. Generally speaking.

        Generally speaking you are correct. But we are not generally speaking here as Iraq is an Islamic totalitarian hellhole, created by GWB courtesy of the US military, but an Islamic totalitarian hellhole nonetheless. Thus, it isn’t worth getting our best and brightest killed and maimed over there to defend.

        Hence, given the current set of circumstances, I say we should not get in the way or interfere in any way, shape, or form in what will be, hopefully, a knock down drag out jihad between the Sunnis and the Shiites over there. I’m going to sit back on the sidelines of this old fashion knock down drag out jihad, sip a few cold ones, and hope that it last forever and that millions of Muslim jihadis kill each other in the course of it. As a matter of fact, I hope it is as bloody, violent, and inhumane as the Iran/Iraq War was back in the 80s. That would be wonderful.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Hence, given the current set of circumstances, I say we should not get in the way or interfere in any way, shape, or form in what will be, hopefully, a knock down drag out jihad between the Sunnis and the Shiites over there. I’m going to sit back on the sidelines of this old fashion knock down drag out jihad, sip a few cold ones, and hope that it last forever and that millions of Muslim jihadis kill each other in the course of it. As a matter of fact, I hope it is as bloody, violent, and inhumane as the Iran/Iraq War was back in the 80s. That would be wonderful.”

          We need to watch carefully. This also effects Iran and our insane POTUS is in the middle of dealing with them in ways that will lead to even more appeasement.

          We have a lot of opportunities to shape outcomes. We won’t likely do anything that is good for us. Given the realities, it probably is best we do nothing. But at the same time I’d also like to suggest what is best for us assuming we didn’t have traitors to our own civilization destroying our efforts. We have to demonstrate that there are better ways than just sitting back, assuming we could trust our leadership to follow through.

          I’d give a one day ultimatum to Iran with an absolute hard line set of demands. No negotiating. And then I’d impose a new constitution on Iraq in exchange for a compelling military aid package.

          However, that’s assuming that I am very confident I am not mitigated by the kind of maniacs that destroyed our war effort ten years ago. I’d demand full support and speak very clearly to the public about what I believe the risks are and what we have to gain. I wouldn’t pretend that war is no big deal because we’re a superpower that can win anything.

          We need to be all in and the public needs to be better exposed and educated to what’s at risk.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      We’re at war with Al Qaeda.

      This is a no-brainer really.

      We don’t want them getting control of oil, heavy weapons, etc

      • Texas Patriot

        Al Qaeda is an amorphous entity that disappears and reforms in an entirely new iteration almost instantly. ISIS first came into existence in April of 2013. It may or may not last. Do you seriously imagine that Al Qaeda 3.0 would not materialize almost immediately even if we destroyed ISIS completely? We’ve spent more than a decade and a trillion dollars fighting desert mirages. Do you think we should spend another ten years and another trillion dollars only to be facing Al Qaeda 5.0 with nuclear weapons? The only logical strategy for defending against the global threat of Islamic jihad is to make sure that jihadists never gain access to nuclear weapons that could be secretly assembled as “suitcase nukes” and smuggled into every city in the world where they could be detonated remotely at a time of the terrorists’ choosing. Everything else is tilting at windmills and wasting precious American “blood and treasure” of which there is not an endless supply.

        • J.B.

          A terrorist army in possession of all Iraq’s weapons and oil would be “an amorphous entity that may not last,” but if America were to destroy it, Al Qaeda would morph into an invincible nuclear force overnight? That’s your brainless thesis?

          “Hail Hydra,” trolltard. Iraq is not a Captain America movie. If it were, Obama would be the Red Skull.

        • tickletik

          Yes, they will reform. But it’s better for us if they are struggling and running than if they have a country, victory is success and people follow success. Warfare is as much about endurance and emotion as it is about mechanics and tactics. Make it as hard for them as we can.

          We has a chance 20 years ago to finally crush the PLO. They were broken and nothing. Then Rabin and the rest of the filthy evil leftists decided they could make a deal with those animals. Now we have regular rocket attacks in Ashkelon.

          • hiernonymous

            “But it’s better for us if they are struggling and running than if they have a country…”

            Are you sure? We’ve had countries that are every bit as hostile to us before, every bit as bent on our destruction. Countries are pretty easy to contain. They can’t run. They can’t hide. As I’ve noted about Iran, Iraq can’t launch or support an attack and then tuck Baghdad away in a tunnel somewhere. Look at North Korea. Do you really think that anyone in AQ can beat the Kims for crazy? Have you ever read Mao’s speeches about the Chinese nuclear weapons program?

            Put a group like that in charge of a country, and very soon, they’ll find themselves having to tear themselves away from revolutionary ideology to repair the power grid, fill in the potholes, get the gas lines working again, let contracts on new buses. etc. If they don’t, they lose whatever support and legitimacy they gained by winning. If they do, they moderate themselves more or less by definition. It gives form to the amorphous.

          • Pete

            There is some truth to it

            But as a country they can support terrorists by training them, giving them intel, having useless POS saying that there is no evidence that said country gave any assistance (cuz we know Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), giving terrorists rest and refit facilities, influence operations, …

          • ObamaYoMoma

            But as a country they can support terrorists

            Terrorists are extremists and radicals. Muslim jihadists aren’t extremists and radicals, because they are mainstream orthodox Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, as that is the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam.

          • hiernonymous

            Sure. States have done that for years. But states can also be called to account for such activity, though sometimes it takes some doing to get the message across.

            Bombing Tripoli in 1986 did not notably rein in Qadhafi. On the other hand, he became quite eager to demonstrate his disapproval of WMD and terrorism after we’d invaded Afghanistan. The lesson that sovereignty would not be an absolute shield for those harboring terrorists was a lesson not lost on many states.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There were good lessons to be learned there and we’re behind the curve in learning them.

          • J.B.

            Call rogue states to account? Obama is encouraging the worst one ever to form!

            You islamopithecines just don’t have enough brains to debate men.

          • hiernonymous

            “You islamopithecines just don’t have enough brains to debate men.”

            I’d like to take a stab at it anyway. If you meet a man, let him know I’d be interested.

          • Pete

            If you look at the replies I received to the one’s you received, I receive much less sturm und drang with mine. I pointed out that WMDs were already ‘accounted’ for so they did not get pwned in a debate. They probably read the story emotionally and read over the part, where the UN knew the WMDS were there and that with these weapons the Saddam regime had complied with sanctions. I didn’t want them to make a mistake, mistakes of the type I have made (& probably will continue to make) from time to time. there is more than enough to debate or discus without false accusations or mistakes.

            Here is the point. I pointed out the WMDs were accounted for. I have seen DG point out similar mistakes readers have made. There is no acrimony. When you do it, a post thread begins, which is a mile long (I have to wonder if you are purposefully pugnacious or unconsciously so.). Of course from DG’s point of view, this is a good thing. He did point out that SCIAM or another science magazine had a blogger on their site, who had no readership and no posters and thus was let go. Are you keeping DG in business?

            ***

            Truebearing >
            This can’t be true. The Left has gone on record one billion times declaring that Saddam had no WMDs. Bush must have planted these Sarin-filled rockets to make Obama look like a fool…as if he needs any help.
            11 △

            Pete > truebearing • 16 hours ago

            The Left will simply say these were accounted for (they were) and not a problem (not exactly true).

            ***

            NAHALKIDES • 15 hours ago

            Ah yes, the chemical munitions the Left insisted weren’t there, and which G. W. Bush supposedly lied about to get us into a war for Iraq’s oil (which we didn’t take). I well remember various Democrats acting as though CW was something that nice-guy Saddam would never have had anything to do with.

            At this point, we can only hope some al-qaeda terrorists kill themselves with these munitions, and that the story gets a lot of play, until every America understands that Saddam possessed and used CW. Then maybe we should tell them about all the uranium we found in Iraq…
            4 △

            Pete > NAHALKIDES • 14 hours ago

            the UN knew it was there. It was accounted for. Since they considered it unusable they considered it destroyed and Saddam in compliance in regard to this lot.

            This is what The Left will hang their

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Almost 1400 years and Islam is still as rambunctious and overly aggressive as it ever was, that’s because like Marxism, it is a very self-destructive form of totalitarianism.

          • hiernonymous

            Almost 10,000 years since the founding of Catal Huyuk, and humans are still as rambunctious and overly aggressive as ever.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No relevant connection.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But I am glad you noticed that humans haven’t “evolved” in the sense that most people seem to think.

          • hiernonymous

            I think that we’ve learned a great deal, which, as you rightly note, isn’t the same thing.

            If anyone doubts that we still have the same aggressive instincts and behaviors that were useful in keeping small tribes of humans alive in the wild, just look at how we behave on these boards.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If anyone doubts that we still have the same aggressive instincts and behaviors that were useful in keeping small tribes of humans alive in the wild, just look at how we behave on these boards.”

            Our instincts are similar if not the same. Our thinking is more advanced in most but not all respects and sadly that doesn’t apply to others who have not adapted socially in the same ways.

            I guess you can clearly see the differences that culture make but you might not see what I’m getting at with ideas and ideologies as drivers and shapers of culture and civilization. Not independent of material considerations but alongside.

          • J.B.

            And Obama is giving the most primitive and violent “humans” on the planet permission to rampage.

            Trolltard.

          • J.B.

            Human beings and islamopithecines are two different species. Jericho is still around and was founded before Catal Huyuk, which has been gone for nearly 10,000 years. And oh, yeah. Humanity’s sgression ptedates Catal Huyuk’s founding by at least 140,000 years.

            Islam has slways been evil and hyper violent. Humanity has not. Islam is the only social system in the world that is based on murder.

          • hiernonymous

            “Human beings and islamopithecines are two different species. ”

            I wouldn’t know – I’ve never met, or even heard of, this “islamopithecine.”

            “Jericho is still around and was founded before Catal Huyuk, which has been gone for nearly 10,000 years”

            Well, yes and no. There was something at Jericho before Catal Huyuk, but it might have been just a few people. We do know about the crude wall and tower, which might have made Jericho a better example to illustrate the antiquity of organized aggression. Jericho wasn’t continuously inhabited, though. The settlement that predated Catal Huyuk died out, and it’s many, many years before we can confirm a new settlement there.

            “Humanity’s sgression ptedates Catal Huyuk’s founding by at least 140,000 years.”

            Sure. Which nicely illustrates my point.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Yes, they will reform.

            Glad to see you are up on matters. However, I have to inform you that it is impossible for Islam to ever be reformed. Besides that already happened when Muhammad reformed and morphed Islam into what it is today after the Hijra soon after 622 AD, when Muhammad was forced to migrate from Mecca to Medina after impolitely being driven out of Mecca by the Meccans. Indeed, at time Muhammad transformed Islam into what was initially a religion modeled off of several religions of the times into what it is today, which is a very totalitarian cult that aims to take over the world. Nevertheless, for other obvious reasons too much trouble to take the time to explain, Islam can never be reformed. You will just have to take my word for it. Ha, ha, ha…

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Not quite. We are at war with the Islamic totalitarian world because it is at war with all infidels. AQ members are just mainstream orthodox Muslims that are waging jihad in the cause of Allah against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, and as such they are no more radical than the millions of Muslims that have migrated to the USA for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest.

        Indeed, AQ members are not extremist Muslims and therefore they are not terrorists. Instead, like all Muslim jihadists they are mainstream orthodox Muslims. Indeed, there is nothing extreme or radical about them. Thus, they can’t be terrorists.

        Moreover, the notion that the jihad in Iraq is for the creation of a Caliphate is ridiculous. Muslims wage jihad for one reason and one reason only, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. You neo-cons can come up with the wackiest stuff!

        • J.B.

          Muhammed preached to his ilamopithecines to terrorize humans. Jihadis use terrorism as a tactic and symbol. Terrorism exists, and by human standards islam is extremely radical. There is only one islam and it’s a terroristic cult. All islamopithecines are ipso facto terrorists if they support islam in ANY way. They don’t have to commit terrorism, fund it, cheerlead for it or do anything other than support islam’s existence.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Man…such wisdom and foresight. If you are not God, they ought to make you God.

      • Pete

        I want ISIS to get control of oil and heavy weapons. Then I want them to go head to head withe the Iranians and bleed each other.

        It will drain the swamp for 5 or 10 years.

        We are going to get the terrorism inside the borders of the U.S. anyway with the sleeper cells, the virulent anti-Americanism taught by academics, La Raza and other Leftist/Democrat groups, and the absence of a southern border.

        Maybe with a large scale regional war the Muslims might turn over a new leaf. doubtful but possible.

        It is better now than later.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          the absence of a southern border.

          Jihadis never come in through the southern border because that would be too inconvenient. Did the 9/11 hijackers come in through the southern border? No….they came in like all jihadis through the front door.

          By the way, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and demographic conquest, and yes they come in through the front door.

          Maybe with a large scale regional war the Muslims might turn over a new leaf. doubtful but possible.

          Not really, as the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

          • Pete

            Some come in through the front door and some sneak in.

            Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that terrorists intending to harm the American people enter the U.S. from Mexico “from time to time.”

            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/napolitano-terrorists-enter-us-mexico-time-time

            The Columbus dispatch does not say how Abdi illegally entered the U.S. they were not curious. Did he overstay a visa or something else. I thought i remembered him crossing the border.

            http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Southern-Border-Terrorists-Mexican/2013/04/29/id/501796/

            Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Shopping_Mall_Bombing_Plot

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Some come in through the front door and some sneak in.

            Well the ones that sneak in are idiots, as the vast overwhelming majority of them come in through normal immigration channels preferential to several Islamic countries.

            Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that terrorists intending to harm the American people enter the U.S. from Mexico “from time to time.”

            Really? Well, I’ll be. She sounds about as clueless as you are regarding the problem. I hate to rain on your clueless parade, but all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent as in AQ, or non-violent as in the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest.

            There is only one way to protect our homeland from jihad, and that isn’t through the creation of another federal bureaucracy like the gargantuan Department of Homeland Security that was created by a buffoon and is now run by buffoons. Instead, it is by banning and reversing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP, especially since it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad to ultimately make Islam supreme.

            Nevertheless, thanks for trying to educate me. Too bad you miserably failed.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        We’re at war with Al Qaeda

        Obviously you believe that we are at war with AQ, as opposed to the Islamic totalitarian world. Which is why you cluelessly mislabel AQ as being terrorists, because you believe AQ to be comprised of radicals and extremists.

        Nonetheless, we are not at war with AQ. We are at war with the entire Islamic totalitarian world because the entire Islamic totalitarian world, which includes AQ, is at war with the infidel world. Again the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. No wonder you also cluelessly claim that AQ’s goal is to create a Caliphate.

        Well AQ members are no more radical or extreme than the millions of Muslims that have migrated to the USA for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. As waging jihad in one form or another, either violently or non-violently, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and because Islam is a so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another.

        Therefore, just because AQ members elect to wage jihad violently as opposed to non-violently, does not make them any more radical or extreme than those Muslims that elect to wage jihad non-violently and via stealth and deception, as all mainstream Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Hence, since AQ members consist of only mainstream orthodox Muslims, they can’t be terrorists because they are not radicals and extremists.

        Indeed, because the word terrorism has become a euphemism for extremists and radicals, most people believe that AQ members are extremists and radicals, but they are not. They are as mainstream as the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest.

        Furthermore, the infidel world faces a far greater threat today from the menace of demographic conquest than it does from AQ, which for the most part remains very primitive when it comes to waging war.

        You are not only missing the ball, you are misleading your readers at the same time. Thus, most of your readers unfortunately are unaware of the fact that all Muslims living in the USA at this time are also jihadists in one form or another, because they are only focused on radicals and extremists, i.e., AQ terrorists, which is your obsession.

    • J.B.

      Aren’t you tired of your idiotic volcano metaphor yet? Both sides existed long before ISIS invaded the Iraq that Obama crippled. ISIS forces need to be taken out with airstrikes and so do any Iranian forces that get involved.

      And then you and Omama can cry on each other’s narrow shoulders.

  • Contemptuous Maximus

    The only thing that the government should be doing at this point in Iraq is supplying AK 47′s to whatever side is losing. When one side wins, strafe them back into the stone age where they belong and where they belong anyway.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      That’s more or less true. We could help others if we extract concessions that favor us. But we don’t have anyone in place to do anything pro-Western right now.

  • Contemptuous Maximus

    Sorry bad proof reading, last line should read where they want to be any way

  • David

    I don’t know, I think maybe we should stay out of this one. If al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Iran want to kill each other, why should we get in their way?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The problem is that Al Qaeda is winning

      • ObamaYoMoma

        We can’t let that happen because according to you and other fellow neo-cons members of AQ are extremists. Thus, since they are extremists that means that they are terrorists. Oh okay…I see how it goes.

        What lunacy! Pure sheer lunacy!

        • J.B.

          Is Iraq currently launching jihad attacks against America? Is it using oil to harm us?

          Now tell me whst ISIS will do if it takes control.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            What can it do? Send its blue water navy over here to invade America? Oh that’s right, nevermind, we have millions of Muslims stealth jihadists already living in America thanks to you neo-cons who cluelessly believe they are moderates. Some of you guys just can’t see past the indoctrination you received at the hands of the the so-called MSM day in and day out.

          • J.B.

            What can it do? Develop terrorist training camps in their newly formed safe haven and recruit stealth jihadis living in America to help their guys carry out attacks. What is wrong with you?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            What can it do? Develop terrorist training camps in their newly formed safe haven and recruit stealth jihadis living in America to help their guys carry out attacks. What is wrong with you?

            Uhm…Muslims aren’t terrorists as the word terrorists is a euphemism for the words radicals and extremists. Muslims are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), waging jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, and waging jihad in one form or another, either violently or non-violently, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. Thus, since Islam is a so-called religion that executes apostates and blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are executed per the dictates of Islam.

            In any event, ISIS isn’t fighting a jihad in Iraq to create a so-called terrorist haven, that’s utterly absurd. Not to mention that they are also not terrorists. They are fighting the Shiites to take what they believe is lawfully theirs back from the Shiites. Indeed, this Sunni/Shi’a jihad was inevitable the minute GWB ousted Saddam Hussein. It was delayed a few years thanks to the insanity of GWB’s fantasy based nation building mission to democratize the Islamic totalitarian world and to lift up Muslims in order to prevent radical Islam from hijacking moderate Islam, which, by the way, miserably failed in case you didn’t notice. One of many problems they ran into was there was no radical Islam and no moderate Islam, only mainstream orthodox Islam I’m afraid.

            The only reason the USA remains vulnerable to jihad in America today is because of mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, which is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Thus, the solution is common sense, don’t throw good money after bad again and don’t get our best and brightest killed and maimed in Iraq again for nothing. Instead, let’s ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP, while praying that the Sunni/Shi’a jihad in Iraq last for decades to come. As Muslims killing Muslims is good for the infidel world and bad for the Islamic totalitarian world.

            So what’s wrong with you? 13 years after 9/11 and you are still as dumb as a box of rocks. Apparently, when it came to brains, you got the short end of the stick.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            By the way, since all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, as opposed to terrorists, why do they need terrorist safe havens? I’m curious…could you please explain that to me?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Is it using oil to harm us?

            Yeah that’s harmful because it adds to the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and causes the green house effect, which leads to global warming. Dude…you are hilarious.

          • J.B.

            WTF? Are you the only American who doesn’t use cars? Do you realize what those animals could do to the prices of oil and gas? Obama will continue to block every attempt for America to become self sufficient in oil and gas production. ISIS will jack up prices and all the oil companies will use it as an excuse for profiteering.

            Wise up.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            WTF? Are you the only American who doesn’t use cars? Do you realize what those animals could do to the prices of oil and gas? Obama will continue to block every attempt for America to become self sufficient in oil and gas production. ISIS will jack up prices and all the oil companies will use it as an excuse for profiteering.

            So are you making the absurd argument that ISIS is dumb enough to deprive itself of a valuable source of revenue? Yep folks, you read it here first.

            By the way dude, oil prices are dictated by the laws of supply and demand and not by ISIS. Hence, why don’t you humor me and please explain how ISIS will manage to jack up the prices for crude? I could use a good laugh. Are you sure you are not a leftists?

            Wise up.

            No you wise up!

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Now tell me what ISIS will do if it takes control.

            Well judging from the videos I watched they will either lop off your head or otherwise shoot you in the back of the head. Either prospect isn’t good I’m afraid.

          • Drakken

            Turn to Jordan next, then Israel will get involved, it only snowballs from there, the Kurds will go independent, the Iranians will go full on into Iraq, and if you thought oil prices are bad now? You ain’t seen nothing yet, then our economy falls out of the bottom, and God help us what happens next.

        • tickletik

          Yes, most of what you have written is obviously sheer and utter lunacy.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            According to you, which isn’t saying much!

          • Pete

            OYM is a shut-in. This is their outlet.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Educate me…what is a shut in? Indeed, because most of the time I don’t have time to waste on these boards. Only when I get a break in the action can I have fun making fun of all you libtards that think you are conservatives. Nevertheless, I will unfortunately have to work late into the evening tonight, if it is any consolation.

        • gerry

          Lunacy like the Boston bombing,nine eleven,the trade center bombing,the bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya etc etc…

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Okay if you neo-con loons want to believe that only Muslims that choose to wage jihad violently are extremists and therefore terrorists, while the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims that elect to wage jihad non-violently and by stealth and deception instead and in which represents a far greater threat to the infidel world are moderates, then don’t let me get in the way of your stupidity.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            And to think that we have millions of them living over here in America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          We have to either kill all of them or contain them. That’s the first decision. Killing them all is very unlikely to happen. Therefore we need to figure out the best way to contain them.

          It’s not necessarily intervening directly or at all, but you have to look at all of the near and far term risks before you answer.

          And few if any think that the Iraqi national government is not filled with jihadis. They might just be easier to contain than AQ.

          But again we need to be very circumspect and not say go here or there. We need to deny weapons and resources to AQ yet do it without giving greater power to the Iraqis unless we get something in return.

          It’s actually an excellent opportunity and I’m just disappointed that there is no way we won’t blow it.

          I’m not suggesting anything. Maybe helping the regional sovereigns hold AQ at bay and deny them resources. If they kill each other trying, no problem for me. They seem to want their virgins and we don’t need to stop those guys from finding out the truth about the rewards for jihadis. What we really want is stalemate but AQ has all of the momentum. And the last thing we should do is empower Iran directly or through the Iraqi national government.

          There are tough calls to be made and I’m sure we’ll end up choosing the worst path of all at some point soon.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            And few if any think that the Iraqi national government is not filled with jihadis. They might just be easier to contain than AQ.

            Hey dude, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, including the millions living over here in the USA. As waging jihad in the cause of Allah in one form or another, either violently as in AQ, or non-violently as in the millions of stealth and deceptive jihadists living inside America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another, and since Islam is a so-called religion that puts to death all apostates and all blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are executed per the tenets of Islam.

            Thus, members of AQ are not any more radical or extremist than the millions of stealth and deceptive jihadists living over here in America, as they consist of mainstream orthodox Muslims exactly like the stealth and deceptive jihadists that have migrated to America. Although Greenfield and other neo-con writers like him believe they are radical extremists, which is also why they mislabel them as being terrorists instead of what they actually are, jihadists, and since the euphemism terrorists is synonymous with the words extremist and radical, millions of their readers are duped at the same time into believing in radical Islam and radical and extremist Muslims, in contrast to moderate Islam and moderate Muslims.

            However, there is only one Islam, mainstream orthodox Islam, because there can only be one Islam, as the texts of the Koran are believed by Muslims to contain the direct verbatim words of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Thus, since the texts of the Koran contains the direct verbatim text of Allah, i.e., the divine text of Allah, it is absolutely flawless and perfectly just, and any mere mortal man perceived as changing or altering just one single word of that holy divine text will be instantly executed for blasphemy.

            Thus, there is no moderate Islam and no radical Islam, only mainstream orthodox Islam. As a matter fact, the great Sunni and Shiite divide doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with the texts of Islam, it is over who is the rightful inheritor of the Caliphate.

            Hence, the reality is AQ doesn’t consist of extremist and radical Muslims that are perpetrating terrorism in the name of various political causes, as terrorists have done since time immemorial, because they are mainstream orthodox Muslims that are dedicated to waging jihad violently in the single cause of Allah against infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, and in that regard they are no different from the millions of stealth and deceptive jihadists that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and demographic conquest. Of course, for the millions of people that have been duped by neo-con writers like Greenfield and his ilk, those Muslims living here in America are perceived by them as being moderate Muslims since they are non-violent, and that’s tragic and also suicidal.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK, but now what? What would you do as POTUS that you think you could pull of by working within our laws right now.

            You can explain a long term strategy too, but right now the dispute is over what specifically we would like our leaders to do based on the assumption that everything in your analysis is correct.

            What next in sequence, before the TEA party tilts things more in our favor? The only chance you have of coming anywhere near getting what you want is with Newt Gingrich as POTUS, Ted Cruz as Senate Majority Leader and Michelle Bachmann as Speaker of the House. You won’t have any of that any time soon.

            It’s OK to talk about ideals and harsh realities about what we face and all of that but it doesn’t mean we don’t also have to come up with some kind of plan to promote in the interim.

          • Drakken

            That little war in Iraq and Syria is going to spill over into Jordan soon, and jihadist will bring the war to a European city near you, then you will drive the populations more to the right and then extreme measures will be seen in spades. The Turks are nervous about Kurdish intentions and are backing the ISIS. The Iranians now think they have carte blanc to do anything they want including shooting at my guys in Iraq and Obummer wants to talk about it and is completely clueless by design or incompetence. Anyway you look at this tar baby, it is nothing but bad options other than bring out the B-52′s and lay waste to the place.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We could shape circumstances to our benefit but we won’t. Our leaders in office are complete idiots. Bush was dumb. All the others are much worse.

          • Drakken

            The Kurds in the north pretty much have a de facto state, and have declared such, and the Turks don’t want to hurt the ISIS and are pushing to quell the Kurds. The Iranians are running amok all over the place and the US is absolutely clueless.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yep. This is yet another one of those moments when we need to get real about our relationship with Turkey, We’re not nudging them in the right direction and we’re worried about their feelings too much.

            “The Iranians are running amok all over the place and the US is absolutely clueless.”

            That’s the number one problem. And having AQ attack in that direction could in theory work in our favor at the moment. But we won’t work it that way. The US collectively is clueless.

          • Drakken

            This is going to rapidly spiral out of control, and if it makes the oil market a little more jittery, our economy, already on shaky legs, will collapse, then things will get really interesting.

      • Pete

        Why not.

        They have Saudi, Qatari & UAE oil money (donations) and they have a virtually unlimited manpower pool (Uzbekistan, Chechnya et al) that the Shia Iraqis, Iranians and Syrian Alawites cannot match.

        Then we have the putrescent press in America saying that the jihad movement is not a problem.

        To wit
        - Alawki was just some guy
        - Fort Hood was workplace violence
        - Boston Marathon bombing was a one off by some loners who were picked on.
        - and Obama is “The One” (per Oprah & others) & he says Islam is not a problem.

    • J.B.

      Because they wont kill each other off. They’ll bicker and fight while they launch terrorist attacks against America and Israel – and radically harm the oil market. Don’t expect Obama to do anything but help both catastrophes to occur.

    • alericKong

      We could get the same thing with a win.

      We won’t get decades of fallout like we did with the USSR winning over Hitler.

  • J.B.

    Wow. Obama really, REALLY loves islamic theocracies that are based on jihad, and really, REALLY hates the more secular islamic countries. He has already helped: Al Qaeda and company overthrow Kaddafi in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood stooge Morsi to overthrow Mubarek in Egypt, Hizb’ allah to rule Lebanon, Hamas to rule Gaza and terrorize Israel, Al Qaeda to plunge Assad’s Syria into religious war, the mullahs in Iran to develop nukes and crush a popular uprising, and now he’s helping the Taliban to reconquer Afghanistan, and for sunni ISIS and shiite mullahs to carve Iraq into separate fiefdoms so they can team up against the Kurds.

    This is a looooooong damn list but Obama still isn’t finished. Obama isn’t promoting shia islam over sunni or vice versa. He’s obviously promoting non denominational islamic jihad. Who can deny it at this stage besides the usual suspects?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I know you neo-cons advocate that we jump right back into the jihad to fight AQ because you moonbats not only believe they are extremists, but that they are also terrorists. However, AQ is no more extreme or radical than the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Muslims aren’t extremists perpetrating terrorism for various political purposes. Instead, they are mainstream orthodox Muslims waging jihad in one form or another in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. Only extremists perpetrate terrorism and Muslim jihadists aren’t extremists, as waging jihad in the cause of Allah is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    • alericKong

      So when they indoctrinate US teenagers over the internet to shoot people and blow themselves up, what do we do then?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        They don’t have to indoctrinate or radicalize Muslims to wage jihad, as waging jihad in the cause of Allah in one form or another, either violently or non-violently, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. However, the Muslims living in the USA aren’t here to blow crap up, they are here for mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. However, that doesn’t mean some of them won’t choose to turn violent.

  • colsooonscoorner

    As obumma goes forward he seems more interested in helping the terrorists than protecting allies or our national security!

  • pete-unlinked

    there’s just nothing better than to allow the stupidest dregs of society to vote for the demo party, is there?

  • Capt. Parker

    The Usurper Obama MUST be executed for his High Crimes against this nation.
    Any member of Congress who does not attempt to remove the Usurper must be considered complicit in Obama’s High Crimes and, they too, must hang for their crimes against this nation and her people.

    • J.B.

      Moby Trolltard alert.

  • Drakken

    America and the West are in denial and at the Mall, when oil spikes and crashes the economy, people will then pay attention because that have to eat. It will get worse, before it gets better.