FEAR of Tony Abbott is corrupting the Turnbull Government’s judgment in fighting the Islamic State.

One potential result: new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull backs the failed policy of US President Barack Obama.

The clearest evidence of anti-Abbott sentiment influencing the Government came when Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop this week misrepresented Abbott to discredit his argument that ground troops were needed to defeat IS. Abbott as PM repeatedly encouraged Obama and his officials to step up the US-led war on IS and in a speech in London last month called publicly for ground troops. Abbott repeated those calls after terrorists linked to IS murdered 129 people in Paris.

That unsettled Turnbull, according to insiders and journalists travelling with him. Turnbull cannot afford to look weaker on national security. Yet 15 months of the desultory US-led operation against IS suggest Abbott is right. Bombing has achieved little. IS has pulled back in some areas, but still controls eight million people and it is strong enough to have claimed credit not just for the Paris attacks, but for the downing of a Russian airliner and suicide bombings in Beirut.

Now even the White House press corps, usually so supportive, has turned on Obama after the Paris horror, which occurred just hours after Obama boasted on television he’d “contained” IS.

In an unusually hostile press conference this week, all but one question suggested Obama had failed. Yet Turnbull in his meeting with Obama this week instantly endorsed the President’s latest limp strategy — no ground troops, more co-operation with Russia’s bombing raids and a “political solution” — a “power sharing between various groups” in Syria that somehow accommodates supporters of the genocidal IS.

No wonder Abbott’s clarity makes Turnbull nervous. Then Bishop, a close Turnbull ally, this week smeared Abbott when he argued in The Australian for troops to be sent “preferably with Sunni states such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, as well as with the US, Britain and France”.

But Bishop falsely implied Abbott was an idiot who actually wanted Australia to invade alone, unilaterally: “As Tony Abbott well knows, Australia does not act unilaterally,” she sniped.

It suggested the Government does not dare discuss frankly the options in Syria — or why it’s doubling down on the strategy of a catastrophically weak President.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/tony-abbotts-clarity-is-creating-anxiety-for-malcolm-turnbull/story-fnj45fva-1227614393221#load-story-comments

Not having troops in Syria is logical and nothing to do with the harping hard right.

As much as the daily terror wants to create a storm in a tea cup so to undermine Turnbull, the majority of Australian will oppose the conservatives warmongering.

____ wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Not having troops in Syria is logical and nothing to do with the harping hard right. As much as the daily terror wants to create a storm in a tea cup so to undermine Turnbull, the majority of Australian will oppose the conservatives warmongering.

Because the bombing campaign by warplanes has been so effective, hasn't it?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

FEAR of Tony Abbott is corrupting the Turnbull Government’s judgment in fighting the Islamic State. One potential result: new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull backs the failed policy of US President Barack Obama. The clearest evidence of anti-Abbott sentiment influencing the Government came when Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop this week misrepresented Abbott to discredit his argument that ground troops were needed to defeat IS. Abbott as PM repeatedly encouraged Obama and his officials to step up the US-led war on IS and in a speech in London last month called publicly for ground troops. Abbott repeated those calls after terrorists linked to IS murdered 129 people in Paris. That unsettled Turnbull, according to insiders and journalists travelling with him. Turnbull cannot afford to look weaker on national security. Yet 15 months of the desultory US-led operation against IS suggest Abbott is right. Bombing has achieved little. IS has pulled back in some areas, but still controls eight million people and it is strong enough to have claimed credit not just for the Paris attacks, but for the downing of a Russian airliner and suicide bombings in Beirut. Now even the White House press corps, usually so supportive, has turned on Obama after the Paris horror, which occurred just hours after Obama boasted on television he’d “contained” IS. In an unusually hostile press conference this week, all but one question suggested Obama had failed. Yet Turnbull in his meeting with Obama this week instantly endorsed the President’s latest limp strategy — no ground troops, more co-operation with Russia’s bombing raids and a “political solution” — a “power sharing between various groups” in Syria that somehow accommodates supporters of the genocidal IS. No wonder Abbott’s clarity makes Turnbull nervous. Then Bishop, a close Turnbull ally, this week smeared Abbott when he argued in The Australian for troops to be sent “preferably with Sunni states such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, as well as with the US, Britain and France”.

This is the solution the global community is working on behind closed doors. Turkey and Egypt aren't in yet.

But an Abbott-friendly journalist writes a piece deliberately attempting to create division on foreign policy. And that's not white-anting the new PM?

Loving the disunity in the Libs, makes a Labor win at the next election even more certain.

Come on Libs, you can do it, knife Turncoat and reinstate the thug. Bwahahahahahahaha!

Abbott’s clarity ?




Like almost all pollies in Western nations today, Tony Abbott is/was a populist [a poll follower], imo.

Malcolm Turnbull 10 x more so, imo.



Every 'democracy' of the Western nations today, imo, has morphed into a 'machine' which attracts and promotes and fabricates, low, base, morally corrupt persons.

'democracy' of the Western nations today, imo, is a 'machine' which by default, promotes low, base, morally corrupt persons, who enter politics because they seek power, and the praise of their peers [other low, base, morally corrupt people!].




And until men learn to love what is true, it will ever be so, imo.





.






All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
- Edmund Burke


Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.
- Edmund Burke


I can understand a child being afraid of the dark, but I cannot understand an adult being afraid of the light.
- Plato


"Remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.
There was never a democracy yet that didn't commit suicide."
- John Admas - USA President, 1797-1801


No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other forms which have been tried from time to time.
- Sir Winston Churchill


Proverbs 12:17
He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness...




.



Human freedom is inextricably bound up with the personal and moral responsibility of the individual, imo.

No ?????



Unfortunately, it seems true, that some/many people will only ever choose to abuse the freedoms [and rights] which they have access to.

Especially so, imo, if those freedoms and rights have simply been 'gifted' to persons/individuals [and not 'purchased' with some cost].

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:46am: Not having troops in Syria is logical and nothing to do with the harping hard right. As much as the daily terror wants to create a storm in a tea cup so to undermine Turnbull, the majority of Australian will oppose the conservatives warmongering. Because the bombing campaign by warplanes has been so effective, hasn't it?

you were the one supporting a bombing campaign  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:51am: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:46am: Not having troops in Syria is logical and nothing to do with the harping hard right. As much as the daily terror wants to create a storm in a tea cup so to undermine Turnbull, the majority of Australian will oppose the conservatives warmongering. Because the bombing campaign by warplanes has been so effective, hasn't it? you were the one supporting a bombing campaign  :D :D :D

Yep, and now it's been proven to be ineffective. Time to move on to ground troops because too many times Coalition jets are returning to base with full loads of weapons because the couldn't drop them due to targets surrounding themselves with civilians.

South Viet Nam, Afghanistan all over again.

America has a history of pulling out too soon. They celebrated too soon for victory in Iraq then pulled out before Iraqi security forces were ready to take over. The same is happening in Afghanistan. By comparison, when Howard lead Australia against Indonesia over the independence of East Timor, we saw the birth of a prosperous, free, democratic brand new country right on our doorstep. Relations with Indonesia were strained due to the presence of Australian troops, but nothing worse. I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Time to move on to ground troops because too many times Coalition jets are returning to base with full loads of weapons because the couldn't drop them due to targets surrounding themselves with civilians.

I look forward to seeing you in uniform boarding a Troop plane.

No, thought not, as long as it's someone else doing the killing & dying.


Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result.

OMFG

http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg

All I can say is I'm glad Abbott is gone, he would only try harder to whip up fear with nonsense rhetoric.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:56am: Time to move on to ground troops because too many times Coalition jets are returning to base with full loads of weapons because the couldn't drop them due to targets surrounding themselves with civilians. I look forward to seeing you in uniform boarding a Troop plane. No, thought not, as long as it's someone else doing the killing & dying. Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result. OMFG http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg

Yep, you've got nothing. Just stupid.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:30am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:51am: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:46am: Not having troops in Syria is logical and nothing to do with the harping hard right. As much as the daily terror wants to create a storm in a tea cup so to undermine Turnbull, the majority of Australian will oppose the conservatives warmongering. Because the bombing campaign by warplanes has been so effective, hasn't it? you were the one supporting a bombing campaign  :D :D :D Yep, and now it's been proven to be ineffective. Time to move on to ground troops because too many times Coalition jets are returning to base with full loads of weapons because the couldn't drop them due to targets surrounding themselves with civilians.

When troops on the ground don't work ... like before in Australia's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

America has a history of pulling out too soon. They celebrated too soon for victory in Iraq then pulled out before Iraqi security forces were ready to take over. The same is happening in Afghanistan. By comparison, when Howard lead Australia against Indonesia over the independence of East Timor, we saw the birth of a prosperous, free, democratic brand new country right on our doorstep. Relations with Indonesia were strained due to the presence of Australian troops, but nothing worse. I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result.

The US was in Iraq for twice the length of WWI, Armchair. The problems in Iraq are not to do with any lack of US involvement, but the decisions they made during the occupation. The biggest mistake they made was ousting the Ba'athists (or ex-Ba'athists) from positions of power. Many of those Ba'athists went elsewhere, including ISIL. They took their weapons and their connections. And they took their grievances.

Howard wasn't involved in the post-war planning. But he was an active member of the so-called Coalition of the Willing. His decision to commit to the invasion of Iraq was the biggest folly the world has seen this century. Not only did it destroy any semblance of security in the Middle East, it saw the US lose its grip on power. It saw a trillion added to the US deficit, and for nothing. The result of the Iraq invasion was the creation of ISIS.

And this is why Obama is so "weak" today. The US has lost its grip on both hard and soft power in the Middle East. This has created a vacuum Iran and now Russia has jumped in to fill.

USA cant lead with a soft c ck in the wight house. Get someone who isnt a muslim or a lefty. Then and only then, will isis be defeated

Karnal wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: America has a history of pulling out too soon. They celebrated too soon for victory in Iraq then pulled out before Iraqi security forces were ready to take over. The same is happening in Afghanistan. By comparison, when Howard lead Australia against Indonesia over the independence of East Timor, we saw the birth of a prosperous, free, democratic brand new country right on our doorstep. Relations with Indonesia were strained due to the presence of Australian troops, but nothing worse. I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result. The US was in Iraq for twice the length of WWI, Armchair. The problems in Iraq are not to do with any lack of US involvement, but the decisions they made during the occupation. The biggest mistake they made was ousting the Ba'athists (or ex-Ba'athists) from positions of power. Many of those Ba'athists went elsewhere, including ISIL. They took their weapons and their connections. And they took their grievances. Howard wasn't involved in the post-war planning. But he was an active member of the so-called Coalition of the Willing. His decision to commit to the invasion of Iraq was the biggest folly the world has seen this century. Not only did it destroy any semblance of security in the Middle East, it saw the US lose its grip on power. It saw a trillion added to the US deficit, and for nothing. The result of the Iraq invasion was the creation of ISIS. And this is why Obama is so "weak" today. The US has lost its grip on both hard and soft power in the Middle East. This has created a vacuum Iran and now Russia has jumped in to fill.

the trouble is karmal....you are saying that in hindsight...

when we all know Hussein is dead.. so we have no idea what IRAQ would be like or what he would have done.. when it comes to ISIS....had IRAQ not been invaded??..

do you think HE would have attacked ISIS or welcomed them???????..

we will never know will we.......the world could be even more unsafe.....its just a thought. :(

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

USA cant lead with a soft c ck in the wight house. Get someone who isnt a muslim or a lefty. Then and only then, will isis be defeated

TRUMP it is then... :D

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:36am: USA cant lead with a soft c ck in the wight house. Get someone who isnt a muslim or a lefty. Then and only then, will isis be defeated TRUMP it is then... :D

Ben Carson would be better.

Ben Carson Is Struggling to Grasp Foreign Policy, Advisers Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

do you think HE would have attacked ISIS or welcomed them???????.. we will never know will we..

No but we can make a very educated guess based on his actions whilst alive.

Iraq was secular, women drove & went to University, hell they even wore jeans.

Any religious nutjob that got to big for his boots was mercilessly crushed.

Seeing ISIL was born in the aftermath of his demise & is a religious based organisation, my monies on
1) them NEVER existing with a Saddam leading Iraq

2)Any muffti who dared even think of taking any of his power or stirring dissent would have been welcomed into the republican guard compound.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:46am: Not having troops in Syria is logical and nothing to do with the harping hard right. As much as the daily terror wants to create a storm in a tea cup so to undermine Turnbull, the majority of Australian will oppose the conservatives warmongering. Because the bombing campaign by warplanes has been so effective, hasn't it?

It's ineffective because the US has decreased it from 1000 sorties per day to 15 per day

There are reports some of the 15 bombers come back with their bomb load still intact

Why? Because US changed it's Rules of Engagement. This is why I started a thread on this

I am not defending Greens - all I am saying is compare apples with apples

Re Armchair & others

More boots on the ground will just simply mean more casualities for our soldiers.

It will change absolutely nothing. 

To secure the entire area in the regions that you speak of - Syria / Iraq would take an army unheard of.  The US had some 200 to 300 thousand troops for Gulf War 2.  Poured billions after billions each year, and all they can secure is a Green Zone in Iraq.    You are talking about an undertaking, so grand in scale, and so expensive, that it will bankrupt the Western Civilization.

And this is just one region of the world.  What about Libya, what about Sudan / south Sudan, what about other parts of middle east, Africa?   

And lets just be very positive, and it will stop ISIS there.  What stops ISIS from moving to another region and do the exact same thing?  Remember, groups like ISIS is tiny comparing to US/European war machinery, and exceptionally mobile. 

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:51am: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 8:46am: Not having troops in Syria is logical and nothing to do with the harping hard right. As much as the daily terror wants to create a storm in a tea cup so to undermine Turnbull, the majority of Australian will oppose the conservatives warmongering. Because the bombing campaign by warplanes has been so effective, hasn't it? It's ineffective because the US has decreased it from 1000 sorties per day to 15 per day There are reports some of the 15 bombers come back with their bomb load still intact Why? Because US changed it's Rules of Engagement. This is why I started a thread on this I am not defending Greens - all I am saying is compare apples with apples

It's been reduced to 15 sorties a day because ISIS leaders are using civilians as human shields. Cowards, the lot of them.

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

Re Armchair & others More boots on the ground will just simply mean more casualities for our soldiers. It will change absolutely nothing.  To secure the entire area in the regions that you speak of - Syria / Iraq would take an army unheard of.  The US had some 200 to 300 thousand troops for Gulf War 2.  Poured billions after billions each year, and all they can secure is a Green Zone in Iraq.    You are talking about an undertaking, so grand in scale, and so expensive, that it will bankrupt the Western Civilization. And this is just one region of the world.  What about Libya, what about Sudan / south Sudan, what about other parts of middle east, Africa?    And lets just be very positive, and it will stop ISIS there.  What stops ISIS from moving to another region and do the exact same thing?  Remember, groups like ISIS is tiny comparing to US/European war machinery, and exceptionally mobile.

They don't have to secure all of Syria or all of Iraq. Just the areas in which ISIS are entrenched.

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:28am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: America has a history of pulling out too soon. They celebrated too soon for victory in Iraq then pulled out before Iraqi security forces were ready to take over. The same is happening in Afghanistan. By comparison, when Howard lead Australia against Indonesia over the independence of East Timor, we saw the birth of a prosperous, free, democratic brand new country right on our doorstep. Relations with Indonesia were strained due to the presence of Australian troops, but nothing worse. I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result. The US was in Iraq for twice the length of WWI, Armchair. The problems in Iraq are not to do with any lack of US involvement, but the decisions they made during the occupation. The biggest mistake they made was ousting the Ba'athists (or ex-Ba'athists) from positions of power. Many of those Ba'athists went elsewhere, including ISIL. They took their weapons and their connections. And they took their grievances. Howard wasn't involved in the post-war planning. But he was an active member of the so-called Coalition of the Willing. His decision to commit to the invasion of Iraq was the biggest folly the world has seen this century. Not only did it destroy any semblance of security in the Middle East, it saw the US lose its grip on power. It saw a trillion added to the US deficit, and for nothing. The result of the Iraq invasion was the creation of ISIS. And this is why Obama is so "weak" today. The US has lost its grip on both hard and soft power in the Middle East. This has created a vacuum Iran and now Russia has jumped in to fill. the trouble is karmal....you are saying that in hindsight... when we all know Hussein is dead.. so we have no idea what IRAQ would be like or what he would have done.. when it comes to ISIS....had IRAQ not been invaded??.. do you think HE would have attacked ISIS or welcomed them???????.. we will never know will we.......the world could be even more unsafe.....its just a thought. :(

No, Cods, we know. The invasion of Iraq was the second invasion. George Bush Snr deliberately left Saddam in power to avoid exactly the problems the world is facing now.

Bush Jnr's Iraqi candidates for the Iraqi leadership proved unpopular and unable to govern. The US held elections off for 3 years for this very reason. Basically, they had no post-occupation strategy. Cobbling together political and ethnic alliances proved almost impossible. A number of candidates were assassinated. The US were forced to rely, as they always do, on a corrupt regime. Worse, they were forced to rely on a Shia-backed leadership that alienated the rest of the country.

Hence, ISIS.

Not only was this predicted by talking heads all over the world in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, it was predicted by George Bush Snr, who left Saddam in charge for this very reason.

Karnal wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

cods wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:39am: Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:28am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: America has a history of pulling out too soon. They celebrated too soon for victory in Iraq then pulled out before Iraqi security forces were ready to take over. The same is happening in Afghanistan. By comparison, when Howard lead Australia against Indonesia over the independence of East Timor, we saw the birth of a prosperous, free, democratic brand new country right on our doorstep. Relations with Indonesia were strained due to the presence of Australian troops, but nothing worse. I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result. The US was in Iraq for twice the length of WWI, Armchair. The problems in Iraq are not to do with any lack of US involvement, but the decisions they made during the occupation. The biggest mistake they made was ousting the Ba'athists (or ex-Ba'athists) from positions of power. Many of those Ba'athists went elsewhere, including ISIL. They took their weapons and their connections. And they took their grievances. Howard wasn't involved in the post-war planning. But he was an active member of the so-called Coalition of the Willing. His decision to commit to the invasion of Iraq was the biggest folly the world has seen this century. Not only did it destroy any semblance of security in the Middle East, it saw the US lose its grip on power. It saw a trillion added to the US deficit, and for nothing. The result of the Iraq invasion was the creation of ISIS. And this is why Obama is so "weak" today. The US has lost its grip on both hard and soft power in the Middle East. This has created a vacuum Iran and now Russia has jumped in to fill. the trouble is karmal....you are saying that in hindsight... when we all know Hussein is dead.. so we have no idea what IRAQ would be like or what he would have done.. when it comes to ISIS....had IRAQ not been invaded??.. do you think HE would have attacked ISIS or welcomed them???????.. we will never know will we.......the world could be even more unsafe.....its just a thought. :( No, Cods, we know. The invasion of Iraq was the second invasion. George Bush Snr deliberately left Saddam in power to avoid exactly the problems the world is facing now. Bush Jnr's Iraqi candidates for the Iraqi leadership proved unpopular and unable to govern. The US held elections off for 3 years for this very reason. Basically, they had no post-occupation strategy. Cobbling together political and ethnic alliances proved almost impossible. A number of candidates were assassinated. The US were forced to rely, as they always do, on a corrupt regime. Worse, they were forced to rely on a Shia-backed leadership that alienated the rest of the country. Hence, ISIS. Not only was this predicted by talking heads all over the world in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, it was predicted by George Bush Snr, who left Saddam in charge for this very reason.

Therein lies the problem with Islam. It is so bitterly divided between Shia and Sunni. It's like the Catholic Church going to war against the Anglican Church.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 11:59am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:55am: cods wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:39am: Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:28am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: America has a history of pulling out too soon. They celebrated too soon for victory in Iraq then pulled out before Iraqi security forces were ready to take over. The same is happening in Afghanistan. By comparison, when Howard lead Australia against Indonesia over the independence of East Timor, we saw the birth of a prosperous, free, democratic brand new country right on our doorstep. Relations with Indonesia were strained due to the presence of Australian troops, but nothing worse. I reckon if Australia had lead the planning of operations in Syria with Howard as PM, we'd be seeing a far different result - a far more desirable result. The US was in Iraq for twice the length of WWI, Armchair. The problems in Iraq are not to do with any lack of US involvement, but the decisions they made during the occupation. The biggest mistake they made was ousting the Ba'athists (or ex-Ba'athists) from positions of power. Many of those Ba'athists went elsewhere, including ISIL. They took their weapons and their connections. And they took their grievances. Howard wasn't involved in the post-war planning. But he was an active member of the so-called Coalition of the Willing. His decision to commit to the invasion of Iraq was the biggest folly the world has seen this century. Not only did it destroy any semblance of security in the Middle East, it saw the US lose its grip on power. It saw a trillion added to the US deficit, and for nothing. The result of the Iraq invasion was the creation of ISIS. And this is why Obama is so "weak" today. The US has lost its grip on both hard and soft power in the Middle East. This has created a vacuum Iran and now Russia has jumped in to fill. the trouble is karmal....you are saying that in hindsight... when we all know Hussein is dead.. so we have no idea what IRAQ would be like or what he would have done.. when it comes to ISIS....had IRAQ not been invaded??.. do you think HE would have attacked ISIS or welcomed them???????.. we will never know will we.......the world could be even more unsafe.....its just a thought. :( No, Cods, we know. The invasion of Iraq was the second invasion. George Bush Snr deliberately left Saddam in power to avoid exactly the problems the world is facing now. Bush Jnr's Iraqi candidates for the Iraqi leadership proved unpopular and unable to govern. The US held elections off for 3 years for this very reason. Basically, they had no post-occupation strategy. Cobbling together political and ethnic alliances proved almost impossible. A number of candidates were assassinated. The US were forced to rely, as they always do, on a corrupt regime. Worse, they were forced to rely on a Shia-backed leadership that alienated the rest of the country. Hence, ISIS. Not only was this predicted by talking heads all over the world in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, it was predicted by George Bush Snr, who left Saddam in charge for this very reason. Therein lies the problem with Islam. It is so bitterly divided between Shia and Sunni. It's like the Catholic Church going to war against the Anglican Church.

If this is what you believe, why would you invade a country and remove a secular regime to facilitate such a division?

A boost to the arms industry? A boost in the polls? A bit of fun?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 11:54am:

It's been reduced to 15 sorties a day because ISIS leaders are using civilians as human shields. Cowards, the lot of them.

And this is why I came up with the Rules of Engagement thread

How do we know the human shield are not ISIS?

Like my Vietnam War thread - how do you tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians?

First step is Assad then ISIS - but that could be interchangeable

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:38am: Re Armchair & others More boots on the ground will just simply mean more casualities for our soldiers. It will change absolutely nothing.  To secure the entire area in the regions that you speak of - Syria / Iraq would take an army unheard of.  The US had some 200 to 300 thousand troops for Gulf War 2.  Poured billions after billions each year, and all they can secure is a Green Zone in Iraq.    You are talking about an undertaking, so grand in scale, and so expensive, that it will bankrupt the Western Civilization. And this is just one region of the world.  What about Libya, what about Sudan / south Sudan, what about other parts of middle east, Africa?    And lets just be very positive, and it will stop ISIS there.  What stops ISIS from moving to another region and do the exact same thing?  Remember, groups like ISIS is tiny comparing to US/European war machinery, and exceptionally mobile.  They don't have to secure all of Syria or all of Iraq. Just the areas in which ISIS are entrenched.

Like I said ISIS would just go underground, and spawn out elsewhere.  They are highly mobile, they can be borderless like Al Aqaeda.   Modern warfares are often asymetrical.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:54am: It's been reduced to 15 sorties a day because ISIS leaders are using civilians as human shields. Cowards, the lot of them. And this is why I came up with the Rules of Engagement thread How do we know the human shield are not ISIS? Like my Vietnam War thread - how do you tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians? First step is Assad then ISIS - but that could be interchangeable

In towns like Raqqa, for example, they just about all are ISIS family members, supporters or sympathisers. Everyone else has fled in fear of their lives. I, for one, wouldn't have any problem with them bombing ISIS compounds - even those with women and children. All that means is that fewer kids are going to grow up to be assholes like their fathers.

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:12pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:55am: tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:38am: Re Armchair & others More boots on the ground will just simply mean more casualities for our soldiers. It will change absolutely nothing.  To secure the entire area in the regions that you speak of - Syria / Iraq would take an army unheard of.  The US had some 200 to 300 thousand troops for Gulf War 2.  Poured billions after billions each year, and all they can secure is a Green Zone in Iraq.    You are talking about an undertaking, so grand in scale, and so expensive, that it will bankrupt the Western Civilization. And this is just one region of the world.  What about Libya, what about Sudan / south Sudan, what about other parts of middle east, Africa?    And lets just be very positive, and it will stop ISIS there.  What stops ISIS from moving to another region and do the exact same thing?  Remember, groups like ISIS is tiny comparing to US/European war machinery, and exceptionally mobile.  They don't have to secure all of Syria or all of Iraq. Just the areas in which ISIS are entrenched. Like I said ISIS would just go underground, and spawn out elsewhere.  They are highly mobile, they can be borderless like Al Aqaeda.   Modern warfares are often asymetrical.

Sure, but we're dealing with a genocidal regime. Surely the global community has a responsibility to those ISIL is placing in danger.

As Maqqa points out, killing those civilians off through bombing or a ground war is not a solution to this problem.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:54am: It's been reduced to 15 sorties a day because ISIS leaders are using civilians as human shields. Cowards, the lot of them. And this is why I came up with the Rules of Engagement thread How do we know the human shield are not ISIS? Like my Vietnam War thread - how do you tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians? First step is Assad then ISIS - but that could be interchangeable In towns like Raqqa, for example, they just about all are ISIS family members, supporters or sympathisers. Everyone else has fled in fear of their lives..

The burnt out cars left on roads near the border are a warning. ISIL are killing those who attempt to flee. Those who don't are subject to the litany of horrors ISIL have in store for those who rebel. Young men who refuse to join the jihad have been detained and tortured. Recently, one 19 year old who refused to join up had his right hand and foot cut off in the local market. 

This is how ISIL deals with those it governs. Those in ISIL-held territory are not all happy converts to medieval justice. Many in its ranks are themselves captives.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:54am: It's been reduced to 15 sorties a day because ISIS leaders are using civilians as human shields. Cowards, the lot of them. And this is why I came up with the Rules of Engagement thread How do we know the human shield are not ISIS? Like my Vietnam War thread - how do you tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians? First step is Assad then ISIS - but that could be interchangeable In towns like Raqqa, for example, they just about all are ISIS family members, supporters or sympathisers. Everyone else has fled in fear of their lives. I, for one, wouldn't have any problem with them bombing ISIS compounds - even those with women and children. All that means is that fewer kids are going to grow up to be assholes like their fathers.

Yes but the Obama administration has a view that women and children must be assumed to be innocent

So even if the terrorist men are close by - you don't bomb

We must change the rules of engagement i.e. if we see a target - bomb the sheeeet out of it

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Yes but the Obama administration has a view that women and children must be assumed to be innocent So even if the terrorist men are close by - you don't bomb We must change the rules of engagement i.e. if we see a target - bomb the sheeeet out of it

so we go there in the first place because they are murdering and torturing civilians and trying to force them to join their crusade, and you feel the west needs to defend these people ..... and your solution is to bomb the sheeet out of all of them? including those same civilians you went there to defend?

gumpylogic :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Well jack sheeet

I anticipated these questions of yours which is why I posted several thread about Rules of Engagement and Can we learn from Vietnam War

In Vietnam - how do you tell the difference between a Viet Cong and a South Vietnamese. The Americans can't but the South Vietnamese could!!

Same as Syria - you can't tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians. But the Syrians civilians is more than likely know who ISIS are!

Therefore we have to help the the Syrian civilians - who control the Syrian civilians? ASSAD. But Assad is supporting ISIS.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:54am: It's been reduced to 15 sorties a day because ISIS leaders are using civilians as human shields. Cowards, the lot of them. And this is why I came up with the Rules of Engagement thread How do we know the human shield are not ISIS? Like my Vietnam War thread - how do you tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians? First step is Assad then ISIS - but that could be interchangeable In towns like Raqqa, for example, they just about all are ISIS family members, supporters or sympathisers. Everyone else has fled in fear of their lives. I, for one, wouldn't have any problem with them bombing ISIS compounds - even those with women and children. All that means is that fewer kids are going to grow up to be assholes like their fathers. Yes but the Obama administration has a view that women and children must be assumed to be innocent So even if the terrorist men are close by - you don't bomb We must change the rules of engagement i.e. if we see a target - bomb the sheeeet out of it

Maqqa, you don't even know what a "target" is. The US is not at war with Syria or Iraq, so the "rules of engagement" don't apply. Killing civilians on mass is not an option for the US. If it has learned anything from the invasion of Iraq, it is to stay well away from civilians.

I'm not too sure of the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria, so I wouldn't dream of lecturing the US on "the rules of engagement". But I do know that in war, there are rules, among them the Geneva Convention.

I also know that if your objective is to protect a civilian population, you don't "bomb the sheet out of it".

To me, that just seems like common sense.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 11:54am: It's been reduced to 15 sorties a day because ISIS leaders are using civilians as human shields. Cowards, the lot of them. And this is why I came up with the Rules of Engagement thread How do we know the human shield are not ISIS? Like my Vietnam War thread - how do you tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians? First step is Assad then ISIS - but that could be interchangeable In towns like Raqqa, for example, they just about all are ISIS family members, supporters or sympathisers. Everyone else has fled in fear of their lives. I, for one, wouldn't have any problem with them bombing ISIS compounds - even those with women and children. All that means is that fewer kids are going to grow up to be assholes like their fathers. Yes but the Obama administration has a view that women and children must be assumed to be innocent So even if the terrorist men are close by - you don't bomb We must change the rules of engagement i.e. if we see a target - bomb the sheeeet out of it

If you look at media coming from different parts of the world other than CNN, you will find that the US drones are already doing this.   And they have a name for it already "collateral damage".  And I believe there is actually a guideline on the type and priority of the target, and 'acceptable' collateral damage. 

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:50pm:

Well jack sheeet I anticipated these questions of yours which is why I posted several thread about Rules of Engagement and Can we learn from Vietnam War In Vietnam - how do you tell the difference between a Viet Cong and a South Vietnamese. The Americans can't but the South Vietnamese could!! Same as Syria - you can't tell the difference between ISIS and Syrian civilians. But the Syrians civilians is more than likely know who ISIS are! Therefore we have to help the the Syrian civilians - who control the Syrian civilians? ASSAD. But Assad is supporting ISIS.

And lets talk about Vietnam War.  Indescriminate killings by US warplane, and use of Agent Orange in Jungles had caused dramatic loss of moral in the US army, decrease in political support for the war at home, and ultimately, it lost the support of the general population, leading to loss of war in Vietnam - undeclared of course.

The exact same thing will happen in Syria if you repeat the history again.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:50pm:

Therefore we have to help the the Syrian civilians -

you don't want to help them, you want to bomb the crap out of them. Grow up.

Isis isn't an country you can bomb to smithereens. It's like saying lets bomb all the greenies. How can you tell a greenie from a lib from 30 000 feet up in the air?

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

And lets talk about Vietnam War.  Indescriminate killings by US warplane, and use of Agent Orange in Jungles had caused dramatic loss of moral in the US army, decrease in political support for the war at home, and ultimately, it lost the support of the general population, leading to loss of war in Vietnam - undeclared of course. The exact same thing will happen in Syria if you repeat the history again.

The US pulled out of Vietnam and they pulled out of the Middle East

The difference is the Vietnamese didn't send suicide bombers to the US and look the Vietnamese economic growth now despite not having the same oil resources like Syria

So the ideology of the Vietnamese and the Syrian are different

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:50pm: Therefore we have to help the the Syrian civilians - you don't want to help them, you want to bomb the crap out of them. Grow up. Isis isn't an country you can bomb to smithereens. It's like saying lets bomb all the greenies. How can you tell a greenie from a lib from 30 000 feet up in the air?

Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq.

They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows?

Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:56pm: And lets talk about Vietnam War.  Indescriminate killings by US warplane, and use of Agent Orange in Jungles had caused dramatic loss of moral in the US army, decrease in political support for the war at home, and ultimately, it lost the support of the general population, leading to loss of war in Vietnam - undeclared of course. The exact same thing will happen in Syria if you repeat the history again. The US pulled out of Vietnam and they pulled out of the Middle East

True, Maqqa. They might have pulled out because the North Vietnamese captured Saigon, but we have to look for the positives here.

Karnal wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq. They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows? Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran.

its these rules of engagement that are convincing more and more people to join those farkwits (Isis).

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:50pm: Therefore we have to help the the Syrian civilians - you don't want to help them, you want to bomb the crap out of them. Grow up. Isis isn't an country you can bomb to smithereens. It's like saying lets bomb all the greenies. How can you tell a greenie from a lib from 30 000 feet up in the air?

ISIS declared it's own caliphate in Raqqa

In terms of bombing the civilians - if there is a high value target and civilians are in the way. I am happy to sacrifice Syrian civilians to protect the West

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq. They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows? Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran. its these rules of engagement that are convincing more and more people to join those farkwits (Isis).

People are joining ISIS anyway - I have a thread called "Verse of the Sword" that explains this

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

I am happy to sacrifice Syrian civilians to protect the West

There's only about 6 million of them, Maqqa. Maybe we could "liberate" them, eh?

That should protect the West.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:06pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq. They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows? Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran. its these rules of engagement that are convincing more and more people to join those farkwits (Isis). People are joining ISIS anyway - I have a thread called "Verse of the Sword" that explains this

People are joining ISIS because they last week watched their loved ones get blown up by bomb dropping on them from US planes. You don't give them a choice when you're killing all their family members.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:57pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:50pm: Therefore we have to help the the Syrian civilians - you don't want to help them, you want to bomb the crap out of them. Grow up. Isis isn't an country you can bomb to smithereens. It's like saying lets bomb all the greenies. How can you tell a greenie from a lib from 30 000 feet up in the air? ISIS declared it's own caliphate in Raqqa In terms of bombing the civilians - if there is a high value target and civilians are in the way. I am happy to sacrifice Syrian civilians to protect the West

I don't give a cap what ISIS declares, we already know they are mad.

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:57pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:50pm: Therefore we have to help the the Syrian civilians - you don't want to help them, you want to bomb the crap out of them. Grow up. Isis isn't an country you can bomb to smithereens. It's like saying lets bomb all the greenies. How can you tell a greenie from a lib from 30 000 feet up in the air? ISIS declared it's own caliphate in Raqqa In terms of bombing the civilians - if there is a high value target and civilians are in the way. I am happy to sacrifice Syrian civilians to protect the West I don't give a cap what ISIS declares, we already know they are mad.

So now we've moved onto giving a crap about ISIS' declaration

you mentioned it like it mattered, not me.

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

you mentioned it like it mattered, not me.

You said ISIS is not a country

My reference is ISIS declared a caliphate

Your response shows me you know SFA

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:10pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:07pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:06pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq. They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows? Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran. its these rules of engagement that are convincing more and more people to join those farkwits (Isis). People are joining ISIS anyway - I have a thread called "Verse of the Sword" that explains this People are joining ISIS because they last week watched their loved ones get blown up by bomb dropping on them from US planes. You don't give them a choice when you're killing all their family members.

So we should just let them bomb and shoot us, eh?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:19pm: you mentioned it like it mattered, not me. You said ISIS is not a country My reference is ISIS declared a caliphate Your response shows me you know SFA

well, I don't know much about ISIS that's true

can you show me where I can find the country of ISIS?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:10pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:07pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:06pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq. They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows? Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran. its these rules of engagement that are convincing more and more people to join those farkwits (Isis). People are joining ISIS anyway - I have a thread called "Verse of the Sword" that explains this People are joining ISIS because they last week watched their loved ones get blown up by bomb dropping on them from US planes. You don't give them a choice when you're killing all their family members. So we should just let them bomb and shoot us, eh?

no, we can always send you to go and talk to them. With your stupidity they'll be laughing so hard they'll be unable to shoot or bomb you.

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 4:15pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:10pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:07pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:06pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq. They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows? Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran. its these rules of engagement that are convincing more and more people to join those farkwits (Isis). People are joining ISIS anyway - I have a thread called "Verse of the Sword" that explains this People are joining ISIS because they last week watched their loved ones get blown up by bomb dropping on them from US planes. You don't give them a choice when you're killing all their family members. So we should just let them bomb and shoot us, eh? no, we can always send you to go and talk to them. With your stupidity they'll be laughing so hard they'll be unable to shoot or bomb you.

Seriously - you don't want our soldiers there and you don't want airplanes dropping bombs on them. how do you think ISIS should be dealt with?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Seriously - you don't want our soldiers there and you don't want airplanes dropping bombs on them. how do you think ISIS should be dealt with?

I would leave them to kill each other ... eventually they'll work it out. Until they do nothing we do or say will do it for them and trying to 'make them' will only make us their target that they can unite against.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Seriously - you don't want our soldiers there and you don't want airplanes dropping bombs on them. how do you think ISIS should be dealt with?

Bernie Sanders who is a Democrat (Hillary and Obama's party) thinks ISIS is caused by climate change so maybe the way to get rid off ISIS is to reduce our carbon emissions

There I fixed your thread title armrest.

  :) 4

I only really saw Abbott and the word clarity...

Imagine my disappointment that this thread was not about a red wine spill.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:10pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:07pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:06pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Well, you can't, but the US aren't adverse to giving it a go. Remember, they wanted revenge against al Qaida in 2001, so they invaded Iraq. They missed Saudi Arabia by about 3 countries, but at least they tried. If we get rid of these messy rules of engagement, who knows? Maybe we could aim for ISIS and accidentally hit Iran. its these rules of engagement that are convincing more and more people to join those farkwits (Isis). People are joining ISIS anyway - I have a thread called "Verse of the Sword" that explains this People are joining ISIS because they last week watched their loved ones get blown up by bomb dropping on them from US planes. You don't give them a choice when you're killing all their family members. So we should just let them bomb and shoot us, eh?

So you’re solution is to just have a go, eh? Go in, shoot em up, and hope for the best.

That could work. If it doesn’t, at least we’ll have opened up the front for the next thousand year war.

The opinion peice got one thing right, Tony Abbott is an idiot.