While ISIS tightens its bloody grip on the Middle East, two groups have been willing to stand strongly against them, the Israelis and the Kurds. In fact, as the beheading video was being broadcast, Kurds have recaptured 163 villages and have taken a critical hill in Raqqa Province.
ISIS' latest atrocities, which includes the execution of a Jordanian pilot by burning him alive, might spur other voices of moderation in the Middle East.
And here, one lone brigade of 4,000 soldiers - the 3rd Brigade Combat team - is on its way to Kuwait.
Obama, who not long ago reminded everyone that Christians were the aggressors during the Crusades, is making his usual tepid response where nothing less than strong leadership is needed. He and Congress will talk while more people are beheaded.
Interestingly, it was possible for ISIS to perform these grisly beheadings in Libya precisely because The United States was leery of sending ground troops into Libya, even after the American Ambassador was killed.
Incidentally, Coptic Christianity is now nearly extinct. A Jew from Allentown, Michael Molovinsky, has been chronicling their demise for years. Four years ago, he noted that Saint Mena Coptic Orthodox Church, which dates back to the 6th century, was put to the torch by an Egyptian mob while the army stood by.
34 comments:
Yes by all means lets us send troops to every Mideast country. Don't forget Egypt and Libya. Do we have enough troops. Oh who gives a shot. Just do it. Makes me feel like a man when politicians send other people to war.
@12:32, no, but perhaps we could be more supportive of the kurds, and less critical of israel, as both people defend and survive among those who wish them only dead.
the kurks have been doing the heavy lifting in both iraq and syria, and providing protection to the christians
It's called diplomacy. and it works,
not my sons....
@6:34, another sick comment, probably from the blog mentor. jews like me create anti-semitism, but not from "jews" like you?
blog mentor@7:09, your hatred and repetitive insults are transparent and obvious to everyone. for the record, neither me or israel ever wanted united states to fight for them
I jave deleted a seroes of anonymous comments posted by the Blog Mentor, who hates MM. He will call MM a zionist, which MM is. So am I. Except whne Blog Mentor does it, it is to draw attention to MM's religion. He is a disgusting piece of shit who will go on and make anti-Semiitic remarks, too, to get a rise. I encourage MM, Fr. Ales, Michael Donavan, Chris Casey nd others to contact the Sprage firm so they cabn piggyback onto the lawsuit already filed agains this phony whose ide of free speeech is muzzling everyone else so only his view is heard.
Can the state of PA hire isis as a consulting group and take care of the death row population?
"Sending ground troops" from the U.S. to Syria, Iraq, Libya or wherever in the MidEast the ISIS next beheads people is exactly what ISIS wants: "Crusaders" to shoot at (and behead, when troops are captured). They behead people to prompt our understandable relex for revenge.The more we send Americans to fight them, the more recruits they get.
The reality is, we don't do "let's fix the MidEast very well (see, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen). We cannot exterminate ISIS with U.S. troops -- many in ISIS came from our failed actions in Iraq and are the same people we fought in Fallujah 11 years ago when we had 150,000 troops in Iraq.
By all means,give much more support to the Kurds, who do fight these monsters well. And how about we tell Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (all of whose military we have armed and trained lavishly for over 50 years) that if they don't use their large armies to fight ISIS the U.S. funding spigot will be turned off? (Oh, I forgot: the Saudis have espoused and funded virtually the same religious philosophy as ISIS for decades and thus are largely responsible for ISIS's rise.)
Not one more young American life to "fix" the MidEast. Just like our own problems here at home, those in the MidEast must solve theirs themselves.
Don, I opposed us going in there at tthe time we did precisely because of the pottery barn rule. We did break it. We created the instability that exists there today. Now we have to fix it. We left too soon, and the senseless slaughter is proof.
Bernie, I respect your opinion but "we left too soon"? Eleven years and 150,000 troops weren't enough? As I said, we just don't do fixing the MidEast very well (could it be we just don't really understand the neighborhood?). Americans have great trouble with "Do Nothing" as a response to an international mess. But after over six decades of our failed efforts to "fix" things there (results: barbaric anarchy (Syria, Libiya), military dictatorships (Egypt), corrupt monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE), fanatical religious dictatorships (Iran), when do we figure out we're real bad at it?
I know it's unAmerican to say there's something we can't do -- but there is: what we've been doing there since the 1950's.
ISIS will only "come over here" if we keep reinforcing their propaganda that "America wants to dominate us". It only persuades more disillusioned/sick young men to travel there to join them. If we stop helping them to recruit more followers, we can concentrate on keeping the few who come back here from harming us -- what we pay hundreds of billions to Homeland Security to do.
ISIS is a U.S. home security problem, not a foreign military problem. I know it's hard for us to grasp but the best way to protect ourselves from ISIS is:
No. More. U.S. Troops. To. The MidEast.
No Don, in my view, we left while the area was still too unstable. We have created this instability.
Weve left the entire region unstable since we overthrew the legally elected government in Iran in 1953. Time to bail. Surely there must be a different part of the world the republicans could spend all of our money and sacrifice our troops for.
the region has only been "stable" in the past 200 or so years due to a massive western presence. when the west left, it destabilized. not our problem. not my sons' problem either
I tend to agree with Miles and 11:57, though they may not agree with where I go from their points.
As Miles suggested, it doesn't sit well with America from the cold war Project Ajax in Iran to the Bush doctrine of preemption. To not rush in brings the mantra "appeaser in chief", which I think you've even used. Yet, while acknowledging the blowback from US policies in the past, at least the Cold War policy of establishing a realpolitik relationship with friendly-enough "strongmen" govts who could keep all these cultural forces that have been recently unleashed under thumb served our interests while keeping US troops out of any quagmire. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and power vacuums in that region of the world are dangerously unpredictable ... so we propped up the Shah to help contain the USSR and protect cheap oil; Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid for decades; we've largely turned a blind eye to the wahhabism of the house of Saud (even though bin Laden and ISIS have been by-products of that same austere strain); we helped Saddam Hussein vs. Iran, then when he got to big in his estimation of himself and invaded Kuwait we had boots on the ground to stop him, but stopped short of toppling him and creating the power vacuum we subsequently unleashed when GWB thought it was wise to start a war of choice in Iraq, and unfortunately diverting our focus on getting a strong enough pro-US govt in Afghanistan. Re Syria the GOP wanted action against Assad, yet many Allentown Syrians praise him, and not surprisingly, for US interests he looks good compared to the vacuum that would have been created with his demise had we acted--you think ISIS is bad now? Imagine what they could have become with him gone.
Ironically, we sold Iran its first nuclear reactor back when we were "allies." The economic sanctions ARE bringing them to the table. Does it make us bristle that we have to negotiate? Sure, but what is the alternative?... all you looking for brinkmanship and military strikes should look at the big picture. Whenever we help create a power vacuum we make things worse for ourselves. No appeasement, but temper ourselves with a healthy does of realpolitik.
"Eleven years and 150,000 troops weren't enough?"
No; not even close.
Sincerely,
US Troops in Korea Since 1953
"Weve left the entire region unstable since we overthrew the legally elected government in Iran in 1953. Time to bail. Surely there must be a different part of the world the republicans could spend all of our money and sacrifice our troops for."
Please see above comment about occupation commenced under two Democratic presidents.
Sincerely,
US Troops in Korea Sice 1953
The greatest fear of ISIS is another Obama hashtag war and subsequent candlelight vigil. #warishell #eathealthierlunches
The only reason we got the stability of 1953 was the threat of using the bomb and the Chinese believing us. Stop living with political labels and realize we are not the Roman Empire.
From Iran to Iraq, we have tried to "nation manage" and failed miserably.
The term "appeaser in chief" works because it short enough to make Fox views understand.
Obama knows precisely what his strategy is. He hasn't clearly communicated it because it is very unpopular. His speech to Vox (it wasn't a serious interview) and Susan (who still maintains Benghazi was a violent film review) Rice's recent speech gave keen insight into their view of the world.
Obama sees no Islamic terrorists, only fringe radicals committing random killings. If you refuse to call them a movement to be stopped, you don't have to fight them. Clinton attempted the same approach to Bin Laden. He approached the '93 WTC bombing tactically as a criminal investigation and missed the strategic picture that resulted in the return to the WTC in 9/11/01.
The president has rid all Palm Beach golf courses of terrorists. Baby steps.
Obama is a lame duck and lame ducks don't have to care.
Obama is doing exactly the right thing and the thing he was elected to do. Other countries need to take the lead and now maybe Egypt and Jordan along with European countries will get serious. We've BEEN serious about the ME for a long time and it cost us trillions and thousands of lives. We need Turkey and Iran to get serious too. ISIL is trying to provoke a massive response from the USA - I'd like to see a massive response from others first. Of course, there is the issue of creating a massive war over several dozen staged murders. A massive ground invasion would be an overreaction. Thank god Obama is able to think.
1) Because of the possibility that you are the Blog mentor, you are deleted. I refuse to allow anything from that filthy person on this blog. So if you refer to MM and insult him anonymously, expect to be deleted. The cure to having your voice heard is to identify yourself, and in a way that we all know you are not one of Blog mentor's many made up names. Finally, if you want to claim that the Kurds are bigger terrorists than ISIS, better back that up with links.
My lost post did not address anyone by name nor did it insult anyone. I'm not sure how you expect any dialogue when suspecting everyone is the Blog Mentor. I would have happily supplied a link if the conversation was going to continue. (I think you fully understand why some of us remain anonymous.)
In the interest of dialogue (even though I am upset that yet again a post of mine has been deleted:
Who Are the Kurds, and Why Should We Help Them?
Supporting the Peshmerga has so far helped the White House avoid 'boots on the ground,' but at what cost?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/26/the-dangers-of-helping-the-kurds-fight-the-islamic-state-group-in-iraq
Discuss the issue and not the persons and you will be fine. The Blog Mentor has an irrational hatred of MM, constantly sends him insulting comments and posts filth on his blog about him. That is why i am careful. i don't give a shit whether you understand.
Why the hostility toward a reader and commenter? Jesus.
I only mentioned the person's name in response. I will use times from now on. Sorry.
Post a Comment