Jesus Christ Obama has already promised no ground troops you guys are acting like this is Iraq 2.0!
This is very clearly a intended to save religious and ethnic minorities from physical destruction and protect the one stable society in all of Iraq which is Kurdistan! But it's for oil you say! Well yes, the worlds most precious commodity should not be in under the control of medievalists.
Elliot, ISIS has reignited a religious/sectarian war in Iraq and Syria. I'm not quite sure how from this reality you can deduce that it is America who is doing the escalating if they intervene to defend well functioning society like Kurdistan from religious barbarians.
If Obama had half a spine, he and his team would be doing all they could to discourage Israel from these horrific attacks. Of course they have a right to defend themselves, but they do not have a right to do ANYTHING. They supposedly have the most advance weapon systems in the world (financed by us) but they can't seem to avoid hitting UN hospitals and schoolchildren.
Mr. Cole, I hope you will stop ironizing the phrase 'Islamic State', and also drop the prefix 'so-called'. There is simply no need. You are lending to your readers the impression that you very much doubt, or are nonetheless very skeptical that ISIS desires a new caliphate. I'm not sure how you can qualify this skepticism when they have clearly already 'declared' it based on their recent territorial gains.
One is happy that the US has dropped food aid for the Yezidis trapped on a mountain after they escaped the so-called “Islamic State” of self-styled “caliph” Ibrahim.
HuffPost published a link to this article along with the quote "an attempt to recover what was taken by the Bush Administration.
Now this is important because these two quotes seem to pull apart from one another. In the first he is obviously downplaying the force of ISIS, then in the next he is confirming that they are making a push in Iraq, but only to recover what was "stolen by Bush." This congnitive dissonance (I put it nicely) must be the only way to dismiss or ignore the horrific consequences of an ISIS victory. Maybe he will enlighten us on his view of the current conflict?
Jesus Christ Obama has already promised no ground troops you guys are acting like this is Iraq 2.0!
This is very clearly a intended to save religious and ethnic minorities from physical destruction and protect the one stable society in all of Iraq which is Kurdistan! But it's for oil you say! Well yes, the worlds most precious commodity should not be in under the control of medievalists.
Elliot, ISIS has reignited a religious/sectarian war in Iraq and Syria. I'm not quite sure how from this reality you can deduce that it is America who is doing the escalating if they intervene to defend well functioning society like Kurdistan from religious barbarians.
If Obama had half a spine, he and his team would be doing all they could to discourage Israel from these horrific attacks. Of course they have a right to defend themselves, but they do not have a right to do ANYTHING. They supposedly have the most advance weapon systems in the world (financed by us) but they can't seem to avoid hitting UN hospitals and schoolchildren.
Mr. Cole, I hope you will stop ironizing the phrase 'Islamic State', and also drop the prefix 'so-called'. There is simply no need. You are lending to your readers the impression that you very much doubt, or are nonetheless very skeptical that ISIS desires a new caliphate. I'm not sure how you can qualify this skepticism when they have clearly already 'declared' it based on their recent territorial gains.
Indeed. And yet America intervened to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Even though many anti-war types were probably against that war too 😛
One is happy that the US has dropped food aid for the Yezidis trapped on a mountain after they escaped the so-called “Islamic State” of self-styled “caliph” Ibrahim.
HuffPost published a link to this article along with the quote "an attempt to recover what was taken by the Bush Administration.
Now this is important because these two quotes seem to pull apart from one another. In the first he is obviously downplaying the force of ISIS, then in the next he is confirming that they are making a push in Iraq, but only to recover what was "stolen by Bush." This congnitive dissonance (I put it nicely) must be the only way to dismiss or ignore the horrific consequences of an ISIS victory. Maybe he will enlighten us on his view of the current conflict?