Aussies launch air strikes against ISIS!

[QuickSilver]

YES!!! SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.... If we ignore it... then it didn't happen... lol!!!! Perhaps you are forgetting that Hussein was not exactly a sweetheart.. and commited his own attrocites in order to keep control... Gassing the Kurds would be one..

 

[WhatInThe]

Sure, why not Davey? As long as they're deployed over there and against people who don't have similar BIG weapons...

(actually I'm not serious about deploying nuclear weapons if that is what you are referring to because that could well be the beginning of the end for all of us!)

In a way this is what ISIS or Jihadi John is doing to non military combatants restraining them, then killing and beheading them. How does a retrained person with their hands tied behind their back with others nearby pointing weapons at them get a fair chance. If nothing else this should be a gloves off manhunt for serial killers.

 

[Debby]

..... We should have never left Iraq, a brand new nation, alone to make mistakes without advice from the UN nations and their military leaders. The near instant withdrawals ordered by our new President has only given the world another big disaster. I use the WWII efforts of outside efforts to try to keep the recovering nations from just falling back into dictator types of unrepresentative governments being formed again. The attempt to build representative governments was not a mistake. Running prior to them becoming adjusted to and trusting representative governments was the biggest mistake for the US to make.

Are you forgetting that the 'Iraqi government' wouldn't let you stay? They are after all a sovereign country which means that they have a right to say what happens or doesn't happen in their sovereign country and they decided that it was time for you to go home. And frankly the goal wasn't really to develop a representative government so much as an effort to stop Hussein from trading his oil for euros and bypassing the American dollar.

"....The Iraq war provides a good example. Until November 2000, no OPEC country had dared to violate the US dollar-pricing rule, and while the US dollar remained the strongest currency in the world there was also little reason to challenge the system. But in late 2000, France and a few other EU members convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the petrodollar process and sell Iraq's oil for food in euros, not dollars. In the time between then and the March 2003 American invasion of Iraq, several other nations hinted at their interest in non-US dollar oil trading, including Russia, Iran, Indonesia, and even Venezuela...."

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar

 

[QuickSilver]

In a way this is what ISIS or Jihadi John is doing to non military combatants restraining them, then killing and beheading them. How does a retrained person with their hands tied behind their back with others nearby pointing weapons at them get a fair chance. If nothing else this should be a gloves off manhunt for serial killers.

Not to mention the atrocities they are committing against women and young girls... rape.. Selling them... giving them as gifts... etc

 

[Debby]

In a way this is what ISIS or Jihadi John is doing to non military combatants restraining them, then killing and beheading them. How does a retrained person with their hands tied behind their back with others nearby pointing weapons at them get a fair chance. If nothing else this should be a gloves off manhunt for serial killers.

I don't think that starting a nuclear holocaust will solve the worlds problems will it? Well maybe for the few survivors in some far off land far from the toxic effects. They could maybe make a go of it.

Hypothetical situation: America 'accidentally' drops a nuke on Syria, Russia has no choice but to stand up for Assad and they begin deploying their nukes, which causes India who is currently negotiating with Russia on gold and oil, to get involved and they deploy their nukes and then Pakistan who has nukes and a lousy relationship with India gets involved with their BIG weapons.......movie of the week coming up!

 

[BobF]

There were efforts for the Iraq government to allow the US to stay on. We have a uncompromising government in several areas and negotiating with Iraq was one of those areas. Our government chose to run, rather than to continue with negotiations. Our current government had chosen to reduce the size of our military and not go to war again. They say that out loud these days, as they continue to reduce our military while they increase our government costs in other ways.

And as I pointed out in my previous post, it was more than just an American invasion of Iraq. It was an agreement among many nations of the world to try to get Iraq cleared and made much more safe for the citizens. The big innovator of the Iraq innovation was an English General that showed how the countries of the world got back into Iraq without the UN's second agreement.

 

[Debby]

There were efforts for the Iraq government to allow the US to stay on. We have a uncompromising government in several areas and negotiating with Iraq was one of those areas. Our government chose to run, rather than to continue with negotiations. Our current government had chosen to reduce the size of our military and not go to war again. They say that out loud these days, as they continue to reduce our military while they increase our government costs in other ways.

And as I pointed out in my previous post, it was more than just an American invasion of Iraq. It was an agreement among many nations of the world to try to get Iraq cleared and made much more safe for the citizens. The big innovator of the Iraq innovation was and English General that showed how the countries of the world go back into Iraq without the UN's second agreement.

I was under the impression that while Iraq was willing to allow US troops to stay, they wouldn't grant them immunity if they should commit violent acts. That belief is supported in this link: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/ which is an article written by Glen Greenwald.

From the link: "...The Obama administration — as it’s telling you itself — was willing to keep troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline (indeed, they weren’t just willing, but eager). The only reason they aren’t is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause ...."

And I find it interesting that you seem to disregard the issue of Saddam Husseins 'euro's for oil' plan. America's status insofar as having the Reserve Currency has allowed the endless printing of money rather than being restricted to funds supported by a healthy gold balance. And as France and a couple other EU countries were supportive of that notion, and in combination with the loss of Libya's use of the dollar (Gaddafi wanted to trade oil for gold), it might have been considered a good thing to get rid of the guy who was possibly going to start something.

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar

From the link: "...The US has reaped many rewards. As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the US dollar rose with it, lifting the US economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the US dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for US dollars, which in turn gained in value. A strong US dollar allowed Americans to buy imported goods at a massive discount – the petrodollar system essentially creating a subsidy for US consumers at the expense of the rest of the world.....There is another downside, a potential threat now lurking in the shadows. The value of the US dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in US dollars. If that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their US money. The resulting sell-off of US dollars would weaken the currency dramatically...."

 

[BobF]

Debby, Obama did not want to continue to negotiate as he just wanted to pull our troops. A rather bad decision. I think that those US troops still in Iraq are free of Iraq discipline in case of challenges, or they might also be gone.

I have no idea about all that oil negotiating and so will just not comment. Which is what I have done in previous post. The US is soon to be free of needing imported oil on our own oil sources. Not sure if that means we will not buy from other producers. That would be bad for Canada I suppose, but doubt that would happen. It is mostly a claim that the US can be self sufficient if need be. Once Obama is gone we may be able to complete the pipeline Canada wants to get the oil to the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Debby]

Debby, Obama did not want to continue to negotiate as he just wanted to pull our troops. A rather bad decision. I think that those US troops still in Iraq are free of Iraq discipline in case of challenges, or they might also be gone.

I have no idea about all that oil negotiating and so will just not comment. Which is what I have done in previous post. The US is soon to be free of needing imported oil on our own oil sources. Not sure if that means we will not buy from other producers. That would be bad for Canada I suppose, but doubt that would happen. It is mostly a claim that the US can be self sufficient if need be. Once Obama is gone we may be able to complete the pipeline Canada wants to get the oil to the Gulf of Mexico.

It wasn't a case of protecting access to oil (which is moot at this point apparently) or spreading democracy but a case of protecting the Reserve currency status that the US has enjoyed for decades. America has gotten rich because of that status and Saddam Husseins plans, and Gaddafi's plan, not to mention the BRIC plans to use Russian currency or the Chinese currency or ....threatens that status. The link I posted gives a very good outline of that status and the effects of losing that status.

As for Obama's decision to pull the troops, again it comes because the US wouldn't agree that American soldiers would be held responsible for any future bad acts which was a requirement of the newly minted Iraq government. Can't blame them really.

 

[BobF]

Nor did Obama want to continue to negotiate. His plan has been to diminish the US military, space program, world wide activities, and lots of other elements so he can build one of the worlds largest and most expensive welfare systems for the population of the US, and all those that just come across our unprotected borders. Two more years till we can replace this poor performing President with some one else from either party would be fine. Obama won with about 54%, rose to near 60%, but has been going down for most of his career. Second election his margin was bout 52% and going down ever since. Depending on what you read his past score had been at less than 40% and sometimes rises to about 48% then goes down again. So Obama is a hurting turkey these days. Today's+ candidates for this next election, on Nov 4 2014, are trying to avoid Obama's name if possible.

 

[QuickSilver]

That's just a pile of Right Wing nonsense Bob....

Also, more people have been deported under Obama than Bush... and where did you get your inside information about Obamas plans to put everyone on welfare? Did he take you into his confidence? lol!!

 

[BobF]

When Obama took all of us into his government run medical plan he has effectively put us all at the mercy of how the government will take care of us. For me the cost has gone up and not sure how well the service will be. Is that welfare in your words? If so, that was all Obama as not one Republican voted for his plan that he put together in closed sessions with full support of Pelosi. Who then was replaced by a Republican by popular vote. November is another election and it will be interesting to see how the counts go again.

 

[QuickSilver]

Funny... 10 million people are now insured that weren't before.. and they love it.. It's going to might hard to convince folks that they can no longer keep their kids on their policies until age 26... that they can now be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.. and that they will be thrown off their plans if they get sick due to lifetime limits.. .... Mighty hard.... bobby... Funny how the GOP is no longer harping on obamacare... Ebola and ISIS are now the battle cries.... oh well... better than BENGHAZI.... that was getting old...

 

[BobF]

No way that the government can give us full coverage with no restrictions as you claim and do it cheaper. No reason to argue the Obama care nonsense while he is still in office and has a Democrat slave in his hands with our current leader of the Senate. If the Republicans take over the Senate and keep the House, some things will get corrected and fixed but no battle on Obama care is possible for as long as Obama is in the big chair. His program was railroaded through with a strange hold for time, count delayed, to re talk to those that had indicated NO for the program. Long delayed final count until they had changed enough NO's to YES. When Obama is gone there will be time to try to improve the operations and try to make them in a payed for, not debt, setup.

Remember that Obama took our national debt from about 10 trillion to near 20 trillion and still rising in his first few years. Reed and Pelosi had taken the debt from mid 7 trillion to the 10 trillion that Obama had inherited. This has been an expensive period since Obama took over and no end in sight.

Interesting that your post of graphs sort of supports what I had posted earlier.

 

[QuickSilver]

No way that the government can give us full coverage with no restrictions as you claim and do it cheaper. No reason to argue the Obama care nonsense while he is still in office and has a Democrat slave in his hands with our current leader of the Senate. If the Republicans take over the Senate and keep the House, some things will get corrected and fixed but no battle on Obama care is possible for as long as Obama is in the big chair. His program was railroaded through with a strange hold for time, count delayed, to re talk to those that had indicated NO for the program. Long delayed final count until they had changed enough NO's to YES. When Obama is gone there will be time to try to improve the operations and try to make them in a payed for, not debt, setup.

Remember that Obama took our national debt from about 10 trillion to near 20 trillion and still rising in his first few years. Reed and Pelosi had taken the debt from mid 7 trillion to the 10 trillion that Obama had inherited. This has been an expensive period since Obama took over and no end in sight.

Interesting that your post of graphs sort of supports what I had posted earlier.

If the GOP takes the Senate and Keeps the House.... NOTHING will get done.. Because there is no way they will win the Senate by a veto proof margin.. they need 67 seats for that... Think that will happen?? lol!!... PLUS to over turn a veto they need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate... Obama will just veto every single piece of nonsense they try to pass... THEN with more gridlock... the DEMS will sweep in 2016.. So really... It does not concern me at all if the GOP wins the Senate.. It's meaningless.. and might be kind of amusing having the public get a real good look at the kind of garbage they want to pass.. You have to remember that in 2016 there will be more Republican seats in play.. seats that can be won... ESPECIALLY in a presdential election year..

As for the grafts.. the point is that GW Bush had lower approval ratings than Obama.. AND he fell farther.... Clinton stayed pretty high.. despite the GOP theater of Impeachment.... what's that tell ya?

 

[SeaBreeze]

Funny... 10 million people are now insured that weren't before.. and they love it.. It's going to might hard to convince folks that they can no longer keep their kids on their policies until age 26... that they can now be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.. and that they will be thrown off their plans if they get sick due to lifetime limits..

I always had health insurance coverage, for my entire adult life. When I was working I was able to get coverage from Kaiser (whom I've been with over 30 years), either for free or for very little cost through my employer. I have worked full time and plenty of overtime over the years, and paid all of my taxes which were deducted out of my payroll checks. I have never been on welfare, food-stamps, etc.

When I retired, I had to begin to pay my "Cobra" coverage out of pocket, and it was ridiculously expensive. But, although I rarely go to doctors, I would not be without health insurance, in case of a serious medical condition, car accident, etc. Unfortunately, the cost of the health care premiums were outrageously increased each and every year. I really resented having to line the pockets of some fat cats in the medical system with my hard earned dollars that I saved for retirement. BTW, I consider myself middle-class, and am by no means rich, so every dollar counts.

I'm happy with the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). It has greatly reduced my monthly premium payments, and as you say, has other benefits also. I don't have any pre-existing conditons, but I'm happy that other people aren't being penalized for them, if they suffer poor health. Even those in a red state like Kentucky are happy with Obamacare, as long as it remained under another name KyNect, they just wouldn't accept anything related to President Obama.

Another point is that health care plans can't drop you anymore without notice for no reason at all, they were able to do that before the ACA, and they did do it to many. I'm all for Obamacare, and the only thing better would be the Single Payer Plan (Universal health insurance). The countries who have that system find it very agreeable, and any odd complaints about the system are exaggerated for political purposes, IMO. BTW, I'm not a Democrat.

 

[BobF]

If the GOP takes the Senate and Keeps the House.... NOTHING will get done.. Because there is no way they will win the Senate by a veto proof margin.. they need 67 seats for that... Think that will happen?? lol!!... PLUS to over turn a veto they need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate... Obama will just veto every single piece of nonsense they try to pass... THEN with more gridlock... the DEMS will sweep in 2016.. So really... It does not concern me at all if the GOP wins the Senate.. It's meaningless.. and might be kind of amusing having the public get a real good look at the kind of garbage they want to pass.. You have to remember that in 2016 there will be more Republican seats in play.. seats that can be won... ESPECIALLY in a presdential election year..


As for the grafts.. the point is that GW Bush had lower approval ratings than Obama.. AND he fell farther.... Clinton stayed pretty high.. despite the GOP theater of Impeachment.... what's that tell ya?

Pretty sad picture you paint for the Democrat resistance to others ideas. There is no reason for such ridiculous activity in our government. There are people on both sides of the political picture that have needs and they should be recognized no matter which side is in power. That is why we have a Congress that is supposed to get to debate and vote on issues. Something the Obama gang and his desciples just do not seem to understand or allow. That is why I keep saying that after Obama is gone that things will get better no matter which side gets elected. Some fairness and compassion is likely to enter into our government once again.

For your charts, they are all pretty close if you look to the correct numbers. 1. Clinton's good performance was because he had a Republican Congress that made sure the things he wanted or needed got done. They also saw that he did not waste mega bucks with poor legislation. While the Republicans were there Clinton's scores went up. 2. Bush had the opposite situation when the Democrats took over the Congress in his last two years and proceeded to spend big bucks and wasted a lot of money for things not needed. His average for the years was 49%. 3. Obama has an average of 50% for his so far unfinished term. We have to wait for two more years to see his ending average. He started strong but has constantly been going down. Recently as low as 38%. Hard to predict where he might be on average for all 8 years.

 

[QuickSilver]

Pretty sad picture you paint for the Democrat resistance to others ideas. There is no reason for such ridiculous activity in our government. There are people on both sides of the political picture that have needs and they should be recognized no matter which side is in power. That is why we have a Congress that is supposed to get to debate and vote on issues. Something the Obama gang and his desciples just do not seem to understand or allow. That is why I keep saying that after Obama is gone that things will get better no matter which side gets elected. Some fairness and compassion is likely to enter into our government once again.



For your charts, they are all pretty close if you look to the correct numbers. 1. Clinton's good performance was because he had a Republican Congress that made sure the things he wanted or needed got done. They also saw that he did not waste mega bucks with poor legislation. While the Republicans were there Clinton's scores went up. 2. Bush had the opposite situation when the Democrats took over the Congress in his last two years and proceeded to spend big bucks and wasted a lot of money for things not needed. His average for the years was 49%. 3. Obama has an average of 50% for his so far unfinished term. We have to wait for two more years to see his ending average. He started strong but has constantly been going down. Recently as low as 38%. Hard to predict where he might be on average for all 8 years.

DEBATE? You mean like how Boehner kept the House is session to debate the air strikes in syria? The GOP is not interested in debate and they are not interested in compromise.... They LEFT Washington for a 54 day vacation... Now Boehner has said they won't debate the ISIS crisis until after the new congress takes over... THAT means in January... So tell me.. How is that doing their job? Something as important at what is happening in the MIddle East and Boehner won't allow a debate? At least the British debated the issue and VOTED... What about Congress? What was Obama supposed to do? LOCK them in? Lay down in front of the doors as they ran over him on their way to the Airport? Don't blame this on the Dems Or Obama.. Boehner and the teaparty are running the House.

Yes... the point of the Graft was to SHOW you that all Presidents tend to go down in the polls at year SIX... Obama is not an anomaly.. You tend to conveniently forget Bushes rating..

 

[BobF]

DEBATE? You mean like how Boehner kept the House is session to debate the air strikes in syria? The GOP is not interested in debate and they are not interested in compromise.... They LEFT Washington for a 54 day vacation... Now Boehner has said they won't debate the ISIS crisis until after the new congress takes over... THAT means in January... So tell me.. How is that doing their job? Something as important at what is happening in the MIddle East and Boehner won't allow a debate? At least the British debated the issue and VOTED... What about Congress? What was Obama supposed to do? LOCK them in? Lay down in front of the doors as they ran over him on their way to the Airport? Don't blame this on the Dems Or Obama.. Boehner and the teaparty are running the House.

Yes... the point of the Graft was to SHOW you that all Presidents tend to go down in the polls at year SIX... Obama is not an anomaly.. You tend to conveniently forget Bushes rating..

I did not forget Bushes numbers. His is 49% average. Which is the same for all three to be honest. His worst two years was under the Democrat leadership of the Congress. How far down will Obama go in the next two years?

Boehner has no reason to rush into decisions as Obama has already said he is not supporting anything in the middle east. I hope that changes soon as those people over there need support to defend themselves. Like the promised weapons that Obama made but so far has failed to present them. It is still the Dems and their flaky ways of operating. No one in the world shows much trust for the Americans any more. All that has been happening in the last 6 years should be going through Congress for debates and approvals. All these committee run items that Obama has set up have no true authority and will likely disappear after Obama is gone. Hopefully we will go back to a proper run government, maybe half the size of this Obama mess will come true. Hillary still has not announced but I am sure she will make a lot more sense than the way Obama is running the government.

 

[Just plain me]

I haven't read all this thread, but will as time permits. For now on the topic of ISIS I say I love my country. And will defend it. However we feel about other Goverments does it really matter on this subject? We all agree that ISIS is cruel and barbaric and needs to be stopped. I don't care which country leads, which follows. Let's just join together and stop them now. You can fight them where they are now or you can fight them on your own homeland, where ever that is. Simple as that to me. Those who don't join in will find no help when they need it against the next group of terriorist whether ISIS or whatever.
As far as what happens in elections I agree with hubby when he answered a call the other day wanting to know who he was voting for. His simple answer was: "I think that is my business!" Only took two questions for the guy to hang up. I have friends on both sides of the line, but they don't know how I vote. That is why the vote is private. I listen to both sides politely, and both have valid points but when it is all said and done,I am totally responsible for my vote. I will read your pros and cons and learn some things I am sure for you seem to have done your research. Love to all, and to all a goodnight!

 

[Warrigal]

As far as what happens in elections I agree with hubby when he answered a call the other day wanting to know who he was voting for. His simple answer was: "I think that is my business!" Only took two questions for the guy to hang up. I have friends on both sides of the line, but they don't know how I vote. That is why the vote is private. I listen to both sides politely, and both have valid points but when it is all said and done,I am totally responsible for my vote. I will read your pros and cons and learn some things I am sure for you seem to have done your research. Love to all, and to all a goodnight!

I fully endorse this sentiment. Voting is a personal and private matter but I am prepared to talk about issues that are important to me; issues that influence the way I vote. I think it is healthy to talk about issues at any time, not just at election time.

I belong to no party and owe none of them my allegiance. They owe it to me to deliver good government, whether I vote for them or not. If they don't I certainly won't reward them at the next election.

 

[BobF]

I haven't read all this thread, but will as time permits. For now on the topic of ISIS I say I love my country. And will defend it. However we feel about other Goverments does it really matter on this subject? We all agree that ISIS is cruel and barbaric and needs to be stopped. I don't care which country leads, which follows. Let's just join together and stop them now. You can fight them where they are now or you can fight them on your own homeland, where ever that is. Simple as that to me. Those who don't join in will find no help when they need it against the next group of terriorist whether ISIS or whatever.
As far as what happens in elections I agree with hubby when he answered a call the other day wanting to know who he was voting for. His simple answer was: "I think that is my business!" Only took two questions for the guy to hang up. I have friends on both sides of the line, but they don't know how I vote. That is why the vote is private. I listen to both sides politely, and both have valid points but when it is all said and done,I am totally responsible for my vote. I will read your pros and cons and learn some things I am sure for you seem to have done your research. Love to all, and to all a goodnight!

I agree with what you have posted. All the free folks around this world should be joining together to shut down this very nasty, and not true Islamic group, They are totally focused on their only brand of religion and will kill all others that do not bend and believe as they do.

Unfortunately I have been caught up in a few posts about US politics and not much got done and won't get done till after our next election on Nov 4. I do appreciate you restarting the thread topic about the ISIS folks and their nasty ways to all.

Have a good night.

 

[oakapple]

I don't know a great deal about US politics, but this is all very interesting, a bit like The West Wing!

 

[Ralphy1]

Yes, the West Wing! A great show that I think came as close to the reality of Washington politics as possible...

 

[QuickSilver]

Yes, the West Wing! A great show that I think came as close to the reality of Washington politics as possible...

Not really... The West Wing was filmed long before the TeaParty took over the House and infected the Senate.. US politics is infinately more interesting now.. if you consider interesting to mean.. nothing gets done, and folks trying to outdo each other with the crazy talk.