Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (862666)	6/5/2015 12:18:21 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586777

>> Because ISIS wasn't a problem until things went to pieces in Syria. Okay, I get it. No you don't get it. Bush created the problem in 2003-2008, but it wasn't a problem from 2009-2012, then it was a problem. No, it was a problem right along.......the car bombings and other terrorist attacks continued on during 2009-12 but we had become inured to those attacks. Its when Syria fell into chaos and ISIS migrated to Syria that it caught our attention again. And it is all Bush's fault. Not entirely but he played a big role. Try to follow and understand: The Brits carved up the ME in a way that didn't make a lot of sense. They put the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, a very unhappy marriage...........the Sunni minority ascended to power and were led by Hussein. The Sunnis had white privilege........were the elite and held most of the power and wealth of Iraq outside of the Kurdish region. The Sunnis and Shia have a long unhappy history with the Shia being the blacks of the ME. Hussein was an asswipe but friendly with the Reagan administration. He kept things together in Iraq for decades. HW Bush chose to leave him alone instead of deposing for that very reason. Then deranged Cheney and milquetoast Bush came along and decided without any good reason to remove Hussein from power. Like I have said to you in the past that was the equivalent of opening Pandora's Box. Because they are clueless douchebags, they had no real plan on how to replace Hussein. The majority Shiite with the backing of Iran quickly ascended to power under the guise of democratic reform.............they were corrupt and nearly as abusive as the Sunnis. The Kurds had a lot of the oil and started pulling away. The Sunnis became pissed and disfranchised. They started working with ISIS, creating a disastrous mess that only got worse when Assad screwed up in Syria. So yeah, Bush/Cheney, are major culprits behind the formation of ISIS. I regret now that Obama didn't bring charges against Bush/Cheney.........but of course the Great Recession that was enabled by Bush/Cheney was wracking the nation and he had enough trouble on his hands. If you had one ounce of objectivity you would recognize how illogical is that claim. It is just absurd. Its you who doesn't have any objectivity. You really don't understand the ME and its history, and you are way too American to ever get it. I don't think Obama is going to be able to lay this mess off on Bush. He can argue that Bush started the war and he wouldn't have done that. But the truth is that it doesn't get him off the hook at all: We cannot know, and have no reason to suspect at all, that ISIS would not have existed in Syria either way. History, unblemished by partisanship and ideology, will lay the blame at Bush's feet. You can argue that Saddam wouldn't have permitted the incursion into Iraq in serious numbers but you really can't confidently claim that Saddam would even be dictator in Iraq today even had Bush not removed him. It is likely one of the sons would have taken over -- and that it would have been even more brutal than under Saddam. So what? You are just babbling now.

To: i-node who wrote (862666)	6/5/2015 12:41:56 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1586777

You're not the only R to be confused about the ISIS issue and who to deal with them effectively: Boehner’s posture on ISIS descends into incoherence 06/05/15 10:00 AM By Steve Benen House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) held his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday, and expressed his dissatisfaction with U.S. policy towards ISIS targets in the Middle East. “We’ve been operating without an overarching strategy to deal with this terrorist threat,” the Republican leader complained. Of course, that leads to some fairly awkward questions for the House Speaker. If Boehner doesn’t like the war strategy, why doesn’t Congress try to help shape that policy with a resolution authorizing the mission? If GOP leaders disapprove of how our national security policy is progressing, why are they taking no action whatsoever other than whining at press conferences? When a reporter broached the subject, Boehner dismissed the very idea of Congress doing its job. “You can’t have an AUMF that calls for less authority than the president has today under existing law. Now, as you heard me say last week, it’s time for the president to withdraw this request and send up a robust request that we can pass. And the president can help work to get it passed. “But it’s time for the president to get serious about taking on this threat. Because he is not, today.” Just so we’re clear, President Obama is the only elected leader in Washington who’s done actual work as it relates to ISIS. Nearly 10 months ago, the president launched a military offensive against ISIS targets. Nearly seven months ago, Obama urged lawmakers to authorize the mission. Boehner, meanwhile, has done literally nothing in terms of substantive work. He’s written no resolutions; he’s brought no debates to the floor; and he’s articulated no strategy. When the Speaker says he wants to the president “to get serious,” he doesn’t appear to understand how ridiculous this line really is. To reiterate our discussion from a few weeks ago, it’s important to understand the nuances of Boehner’s whining on this issue. For quite a while, the Speaker said the legislative branch wouldn’t even try to authorize the war unless the executive branch did lawmakers’ work for them – Congress simply would not write its own bill, Boehner said, so it was up to the president to do the legislative work for the legislators. Obama eventually agreed to write a bill for those whose job it is to write bills, only to discover that Congress doesn’t like his bill. The sensible, mature next move seems fairly obvious: if lawmakers don’t like the resolution the White House wrote, Congress can try doing its own homework, writing its own version, and then vote on it. But Boehner doesn’t want to. He wants the president to imagine what might make Republicans happy, then write another draft, at which point GOP leaders will let the West Wing know whether or not Congress is satisfied. If Boehner disapproves, presumably it’d be up to Obama to come up with a third. And then a fourth. I can appreciate the fact that this is not simply a matter of laziness. There are, as we’ve discussed before, significant policy disagreements – between Democrats and Republicans, between the House and the Senate – that are tough to resolve. Some lawmakers believe the draft resolution sent to Congress by President Obama goes too far, while some believe it doesn’t go far enough. Working out a resolution would be hard. But here’s the fact that Boehner and his cohorts don’t seem to understand: it’s supposed to be hard. When lawmakers authorize the nation to launch a military offensive abroad, it’s difficult by design. The Speaker, however, hopes to pass the buck, suggesting somehow it’s the White House’s job to write bills for Congress, and if Congress doesn’t like the president’s version, then Capitol Hill will just ignore the issue altogether. In effect, Boehner’s argument is that an ongoing war can just continue – indefinitely – no matter the cost or scope of the mission, and federal lawmakers are prepared to do literally no work whatsoever. And it’s up to Obama “to get serious.” For more on this, I hope everyone saw Rachel’s segment last night, including the interview with Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mas..), who’s trying to force the House to do its job. [iframe class="457654851899" id="n_maddow_dmcgovern_150604_627808" src="http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOnsite?guid=n_maddow_dmcgovern_150604_627808&autoplay=false" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="" onload="videoKruxItem.frameLoad(this);"][/iframe] The Rachel Maddow Show, 6/4/15, 9:39 PM ET Rep. McGovern rips 'cowardly Congress' on ducking ISIS war vote Explore: The MaddowBlog, Foreign Policy, House Of Representatives, House Republicans, ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, John Boehner, Middle East, National Security and Republicans facebook twitter 1 save share group 12 Scalia's perfect capital-punishment case... McConnell's silent governing failure From Around the WebRecommended msnbc Stories What NOT to do if a Burglar is Inside Your Home (SimpliSafe) How Millennials Are Skipping The Grocery Store. (Real Simple \| Plated) Why Wine is About to Start Tasting Better (The Huffington Post \| Lot 18) 10 Worst Body Language Mistakes (Forbes) Never Buy Fruits and Vegetables From Trader Joe’s (Reviewed.com) The real reason John McCain chose Sarah Palin Boehner baffled over WSJ accusations Rand Paul comes up short, pretends otherwise Chris Matthews: 'We’re seeing a rebellion’ Bill Clinton's unsurprising candor on Netanyahu by Taboola Promoted Links The Rachel Maddow ShowDon't miss out. Subscribe to the Newsletter Privacy More Like This National Security Millions at risk after cyber attack save share 0 Election 2016 Lindsey Graham goes big, hopes for attention 1 save share 7 Republicans McConnell's silent governing failure 1 save share 58 Military Kaine: Congress ignoring AUMF is ‘outrageous’ save share 0 Best of msnbc Economy GE considering leaving Connecticut save share 17 Jobs US jobs numbers beat expectations 1 save share 133 Jobs Jobs growth soars, 280k jobs created in May 1 save share 13 Election 2016, Voting Rights Clinton goes bold on voting rights 1 save share 82 [iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/2620/msnbc/explore/National-Security_1" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/2620/msnbc/explore/National-Security_1" src="javascript:" <html=""]"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom;">[/iframe] Speak Out 12 comments in 2 groups join the discussion Add your comment What do you think? create new group Latest comments Lebowsky Dude2 hours ago The republicans want to make foreign policy the big issue of 2016, but they lack the courage to jot down and sign off on the war. Military Generals and officers are getting a first hand look at how partisan politicians want to reserve the right to trash their efforts in order to gain... reply MiMom78an hour ago Boehner: put out the cigarette, cork the bourbon bottle and do your fking JOB!!!! You and McConnell are just taking up space (at the taxpayers expense mind you). And you aren't worth a plugged nickle reply Phenneran hour ago The teapub solution for everything is to do nothing and blame everyone else for their failure. Their bright idea for military conflict, as shown by the past, is to arm, train and support terrorists that will later, try to kill us. reply [iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/2620/msnbc/explore/National-Security_2" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/2620/msnbc/explore/National-Security_2" src="javascript:" <html=""]"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom;">[/iframe] Top msnbc Commenters RichMJones@rcn.com 6 followers Playtow 0 followers J. M. Zocco 23 followers Most Active Groups Women for Hillary 2016 178 members Mind Over Chatter 335 members Human Rights Watch 318 members create new group [iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/2620/msnbc/explore/National-Security_3" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/2620/msnbc/explore/National-Security_3" src="javascript:" <html=""]"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom;">[/iframe]

To: i-node who wrote (862666)	6/5/2015 5:40:58 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586777

You are ignoring important points. First and foremost, al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until we invaded. It sprang up soon afterwards, though. This is important because it later became ISIL then ISIS. It wasn't a problem until it invaded Iraq from Syria. The opposing Iraqi army fled, leaving a bunch of vehicles, arms and supplies behind. This was crucial because any other militia that had gotten their hands on that stuff a) wouldn't know how to operate it and b) wouldn't know how to use it effectively. Because ISIS had people with all levels of military training they could do both. This is crucial because that and their sudden explosion in their ability to recruit and attract money that made them dangerous. That is what made them important. The military we had spent so much money to train and equip, fled before first contact with the enemy, leaving behind all of those expensive supplies we had given them placing them in the hands of people who knew how to use them because we had kicked them out of the army and gave them nowhere else to go. Now granted, we don't know if they would have stayed with the army in an occupied Iraq. Maybe they would have left anyway. Maybe they would have tried to moderate the Shiites, successfully or not. What we do know is that we kicked them out and did nothing to make sure they didn't take their knowledge somewhere they could do damage. I suppose Bush just figured they would vanish, but they didn't. You are ignoring that ISIS didn't exist until we invaded. And existed only because we had invaded, like all of those militias that popped up after went in. If Saddam had still been in power, he might have formed something ISIS-like to cause trouble in Syria and, by extension Iran. But they wouldn't have tried to invade Iraq, their benefactor and even if they did, it is not likely that the Iraqi army would have fled leaving all of those arms in their hands. So your speculation is totally without any basis at all. It will be amusing to see how you try to spin this.