, but really, are we going to seriously nitpick when it's clear this threat goes well beyond even Nazi ideology?

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Admiral Kirby (Pentagon Spokesman) clearly seems to be more informed and well knowledgeable concerning this

Oh? Did he produce a congressional authorization?

 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not to mention they're squarely painted Hypocrite on themselves given this is very similar to what Bush did, and that they screamed bloody murder over.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Admiral Kirby (Pentagon Spokesman) clearly seems to be more informed and well knowledgeable concerning this

Oh? Did he produce a congressional authorization?

 Frazzled wrote:
And which ones said Saddam Hussein was?

 Frazzled wrote:
And which ones said Saddam Hussein was?

some 6,500 chemical bombs containing 1,000 tons of chemical agents and “several thousand” chemical rocket warheads are unaccounted for…. Inspectors found a “laboratory quantity” of thiodiglycol, a precursor of mustard gas…. Iraq has prepared equipment at a chemical plant previously destroyed by the UN.’

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.

Thank you, I think so too.

I think the executive has been overreaching quite a bit in my lifetime, and it's independent of party. I think it accelerated quite a bit under George W. Bush, but that has less to do with his innate Bushness then him simply being in the office at the time circumstances allowed for even more unbalancing. The Obama administration has simply taken this ball and run with it to ever-more frightening extremes - even Mr. Bush in his wildest dreams never claimed he had the legally sanctioned ability to order an American citizen killed without any oversight.

So yes, I would like to see the Congress push back on this administration and put some muscle into the War Powers Resolution. This is I think a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them. I think it needs to happen not because I'm on the "opposing team" (I'm an independant who votes for both parties, and third parties more or less equally), and not because he's the black guy (I voted for him, and I think he has done more good than bad) but because, even though this has been going on for a while, it needs to stop at some point. Our foreign adventures need to come to a close. I agree ISIL are terrible people, and they need to get got, but I firmly believe in a United States that does not seek out monsters to destroy.

 Ouze wrote:

This is, I think, a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them.

elotar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

This is, I think, a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them.

It really looks like some epic US fail.
Before this campain there was narrative "dumb wars were Bush's fault", now it's definetly broken.

I'm a little biased, maybe, cause here in Russia we got government, which totally embrace the idea of dumb wars, but without any dumb anxiety about lives of it's soldiers.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.

Thank you, I think so too.

I think the executive has been overreaching quite a bit in my lifetime, and it's independent of party. I think it accelerated quite a bit under George W. Bush, but that has less to do with his innate Bushness then him simply being in the office at the time circumstances allowed for even more unbalancing. The Obama administration has simply taken this ball and run with it to ever-more frightening extremes - even Mr. Bush in his wildest dreams never claimed he had the legally sanctioned ability to order an American citizen killed without any oversight.

So yes, I would like to see the Congress push back on this administration and put some muscle into the War Powers Resolution. This is I think a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them. I think it needs to happen not because I'm on the "opposing team" (I'm an independant who votes for both parties, and third parties more or less equally), and not because he's the black guy (I voted for him, and I think he has done more good than bad) but because, even though this has been going on for a while, it needs to stop at some point. Our foreign adventures need to come to a close. I agree ISIL are terrible people, and they need to get got, but I firmly believe in a United States that does not seek out monsters to destroy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys

4) Some of our allies in the region, may have been funding the bad guys we're now fighting

5) And some rubbish about 60 days in congress


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?

BEIJING, China — The Islamic State is flush with cash, territorially ambitious and eager for recognition.

But is IS a threat to China?

That’s been a question on foreign policy minds since US National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s trip to Beijing earlier this month.

The trip, billed as preparation for President Obama’s trip to China in November, went off without serious glitches — other than a mildly embarrassing mix-up on state TV with that other Rice (Condoleezza).

But Rice's visit was overshadowed by the unfolding chaos in Iraq and Syria, brought about by IS.

Would China be willing to lend its support to an international coalition against this growing threat to world security?

The official response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) was boilerplate: “The Chinese government staunchly fights against any form of terrorism.”

Privately, “They are interested,” argues Chen Dingding, assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau.

The Communist Party has long insisted on refusing to “interfere with the internal affairs” of sovereign states, a policy pointedly directed at other powers to stay out of China’s domestic matters. But Beijing’s status — as the world’s second-biggest economy, with an increasingly powerful military — is bringing with it the uncomfortable realization that such a simplistic stance is getting tougher to maintain.

China now has its own overseas interests to protect — as demonstrated by its mass evacuation of troops from Libya in 2010 — and uneasy friendships with countries that have their own bad habits.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and incursions into Ukraine have met with only diplomatic blandishments from the People’s Republic. “A political solution is the only way… sanctions do not help to solve the underlying problems,” a MoFA spokesman said in early September.

In fact, as a gathering of scholars at an international conference in Stockholm recently concluded, China has been a main beneficiary of Russia’s aggression, securing a 30-year gas deal (long in the pipeline), oil and arms exports, energy exports and regional solidarity with its erstwhile foe — all while (or by) doing nothing.

The Islamic State may be a different matter, however. The terrorist group is already seeding unlikely alliances against it, such as Syria’s President Assad, Iran and the US. IS has included China among a list of avowed enemies and, reportedly, a Chinese national fighting for IS has already been captured by Iraqi forces, a fact that MoFA says they are “verifying,” while police in Indonesia say they have arrested four Chinese men accused of traveling there “with the intent of connecting with a local [IS] chief.”

If the captured Chinese IS fighter turns out to be a member of the Turkic-speaking Uighur population from Xinjiang, as is widely thought, it would be evidence that China has become a recruiting ground — and may even have IS cells. That renders a response unavoidable. (China has released no official figures on how many of its nationals have joined IS ranks, although its Middle East envoy has claimed that at least 100 Chinese were training with IS)

Xinjiang, an ethnically divided part of northwest China, has long been considered a hotbed of terrorism. Since April 2013, over 300 deaths have been reported in incidents that state media term as “terrorism” but are impossible to independently verify.

isis 02
AP Images
ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi addresses followers in Mosul, Iraq

This year, the violence has worsened and grown more public, spilling over into civilian attacks in outside provinces, such as a horrific massacre at a Kunming train station that left 34 dead and a suicide attack on Tiananmen Square that killed two bystanders. The arrival of any IS forces on Chinese borders could only intensify this unrest.

Chen Dingding has made a persuasive case for China’s involvement in battling IS, arguing that Beijing has nothing to lose, and could meanwhile gain from international standing, cooperation, and military experience.

Of course, it also risks exposing inexperienced People’s Liberation Army troops to potential defeat and loss of life (and face), as well as entanglement in contentious Middle Eastern politics. Then there’s the matter of domestic politics.

“Some strategists in China have reservations on such cooperation because they view US-China relations as a zero-sum competition,” says Xiayu Pu, assistant professor at the University of Nevada’s Department of Political Science. “In their view, China should not do the US a favor.”

Most analysts therefore agree that China’s role is likely to be political and diplomatic: There will be no “boots on the ground” for the foreseeable future.

“China will stick to its non-interventionist policy for a while, though it might increase efforts in peacekeeping,” says Chen. “It will take time to adjust.”

Beijing’s waiting game may annoy some, but any attempts to rebuke China for complacency risk provoking outrage. After Obama suggested, in an August interview, that China had been a “free rider” in the region, an editorial in People’s Daily, a Beijing mouthpiece, argued that China was a “partner and builder,” while the US was an “invader and deserter.”

The article didn’t mention that China’s first action since the emergence of IS was to evacuate all its 10,000 citizens in Iraq.

Labels aside, “Most would probably agree that China’s dominant strategy has been a low-profile approach in global affairs,” argues Xiaoyu. “From an analytical perspective, such a strategy is essentially a ‘free rider’ strategy. As an inward-looking emerging power, China wants to focus on domestic growth without active entanglement with global affairs.”

And if Obama does persuade a reluctant China to assist in maintaining what is still, essentially, a US-led world order and repair damage caused at least partly by its Middle East strategy, it might find having a new military partner at the table brings with it its own problems.

“If China abandons its ‘free rider’ approach,” asks Xiaoyu, “will the US be ready to share more power and status with China on the world stage?”

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Next Sebster will suddenly have a revalation and espouse the greatness of the US Republican Party. wo.

Not gunna happen anytime soon!

To be fair... Ouze has been very consistent with his stance.

Thank you, I think so too.

I think the executive has been overreaching quite a bit in my lifetime, and it's independent of party. I think it accelerated quite a bit under George W. Bush, but that has less to do with his innate Bushness then him simply being in the office at the time circumstances allowed for even more unbalancing. The Obama administration has simply taken this ball and run with it to ever-more frightening extremes - even Mr. Bush in his wildest dreams never claimed he had the legally sanctioned ability to order an American citizen killed without any oversight.

So yes, I would like to see the Congress push back on this administration and put some muscle into the War Powers Resolution. This is I think a unique circumstance - a military action without any clear constitutional basis, with mixed public support, in a term-limited president, with incredible partisan hostility in the Congress that this time doesn't have a voting record that will bite them. I think it needs to happen not because I'm on the "opposing team" (I'm an independant who votes for both parties, and third parties more or less equally), and not because he's the black guy (I voted for him, and I think he has done more good than bad) but because, even though this has been going on for a while, it needs to stop at some point. Our foreign adventures need to come to a close. I agree ISIL are terrible people, and they need to get got, but I firmly believe in a United States that does not seek out monsters to destroy.

“The American people weren’t just failed by a president, they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts… And, most of all by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that voted to give the president the power to wage war that he uses to this day. Without that vote, there would be no war.”

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?

Tibbsy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?

That's definitely the right thing for us to do. They're one of only 20-odd countries we haven't invaded yet, so I'd say it's well past time they were exposed to some good old-fashioned British Imperialism and introduced to tea, well buttered crumpets and sports we're now gak at.

 Ouze wrote:
I still hold that there is no lawful, constitutional basis for this military action. the language of the 2001 AUMF is clear and unambiguous. ISIL had nothing to do with the planning of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. They are an offshoot of a terrorist group that didn't even form until 2004. The whole thing is just nonsense. Anyway, I'll stop railing about this because it's clearly needless pedantry at this point.

 Medium of Death wrote:
It is strange. A girl from about 3 or 4 miles away left the country to go join them. We also had that story of the two American girls that went over and are now apparently pregnant.

I'd just love to see their thought process. I mean, I'd maybe get it if this was a stable nation state but it isn't. It's a loosely defined area of contested land that's about to get the absolutely gak bombed out of it.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'd just love to see their thought process.

Tibbsy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?

That's definitely the right thing for us to do. They're one of only 20-odd countries we haven't invaded yet, so I'd say it's well past time they were exposed to some good old-fashioned British Imperialism and introduced to tea, well buttered crumpets and sports we're now gak at.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys

4) Some of our allies in the region, may have been funding the bad guys we're now fighting

5) And some rubbish about 60 days in congress


I am totally and utterly confused! Getting the impression that sensible thing to do right now would be an attack on outer Mongolia?