World War 3

[AshlynCreamher]

CHRIS MATTHEWS 02/10/15 MSNLSD
President Obama is ready to ask Congress for war resolution
Q:
President Obama is ready to ask Congress for a war resolution against ISIS. But what would that war look like, and how much power will Congress give the president?

A:
With only 20,000 troops givin from the Coalition of Nations and the Islamic State reportedly having more than 200,000 assholes with guns - guess what? Americans are going to be fighting yet another war. And how long will it be before we start deploying troops to Ukrainian' going toe to toe with the russkies?

I seriously hope Congress rejects this war resolution

[trish]

I understand the urge to stomp ISIS to death like a cockroach. But I’m afraid it’s more of a flaming bag of shit than an insect. One would think that more than a century of drawing borders, propping up monarchs and two recent, decade long, failed wars in the MiddleEast the West would learn it’s lesson. But the lure of oil and the fear of what an unstable MiddleEast would mean to the security of Western nations is too much to overcome. The chicken hawks in both houses can't wait to kick ass (as long as it’s not their children taking the risks). However, most those chicken hawks hate Obama. Some may not approve his plan because it doesn’t do enough. Others might not approve it because it is, after all, Obama’s plan. I suppose we'll know today whether it’s approved or not.
http://nyti.ms/1IPlUyS

.

[zodiac]

if it is about WWIII I'm more afraid of the current situation in the Ukrain. I hope people keep there wits together and maintain there calm. Yet doing nothing isn't the solution either.
I think a non violent situation is the way to go because chosing to live is always better than choosing to kill. Despite this, the current strategy of the EU and USA isn't going to solve it either (on a short term). Some while ago I was thinking perhaps regular peace concerts by larger than life artist from all over the world (like U2, Rihanna, Muse, Adele etc.) is going to influence the situation more than politicians. You have to win the hearts of the people.
I hope it is not to late for a such an action. Maybe it is naive, but it would do no harm either!

A

[dreamon]

I did not see this. It doesn't surprise me in the least, as every President since the Federal Reserve Act has started at least one war but it is still disappointing.

[trish]

No foreigner was killed by an American soldier, or an American bombing raid during Carter's presidency, which I believe was after the Federal Reserve Act (1913?). Unfortunately that lasted all of four years and was over. Some conservatives blame Carter's military inaction for the solidification of religious rule in Iran and the antithetical rise of Saddam in Iraq. Apparently there are always good reasons to go to war. You just have to know when they outweigh the good reasons not to.

[broncofan]

I think Obama is doing what he should be doing. After the first five or so months he had spent something like only 1 billion dollars. That sounds like a lot but it's very manageable. I also disagree with those on the right like McCain that say the airstrikes have been ineffective. Isis has only given up 1% of its territory but it was expanding quickly before the strikes. I also hear that they are replacing almost as many fighters as we are killing. That's a deceptive claim...the fighters are not joining ISIS simply because we are bombing them. So the 5,000 or so who have supposedly joined in the past 6-8 months might have joined anyway (although the beheadings might be working as a recruitment tool).

I think we did have some responsibility to keep ISIS from running roughshod over all of Iraq, but that does not mean putting troops on the ground.

So what do you guys think about the limited airstrikes that are taking place right now? No American troops killed, not a huge drain on the budget (I think), and maybe keeping Isis from advancing to other cities in convoys and taking over.

[trish]

I think you are probably right about the effect of the airstrikes in halting the expansion of ISIS. But if nothing else changes, as soon as we stop spending that billion bucks every four or five months, the expansion will continue. Something more needs to be done, and I’m not at all convinced that “more” should be military escalation.

Morally, I’m never comfortable with violent solutions to political problems, though I realize that paradoxically sometimes a military solution may be the least destructive course of action. But I’m not ready yet to go on record condoning military escalation against ISIS (like anyone cares about that particular record). I also agree the Pottery Barn Rule does apply here. We broke it, we now have to make it right. The problem is figuring out what right is and how to achieve it.

[dreamon]

No foreigner was killed by an American soldier, or an American bombing raid during Carter's presidency, which I believe was after the Federal Reserve Act (1913?). Unfortunately that lasted all of four years and was over. Some conservatives blame Carter's military inaction for the solidification of religious rule in Iran and the antithetical rise of Saddam in Iraq. Apparently there are always good reasons to go to war. You just have to know when they outweigh the good reasons not to.

The Iran-Iraq War, First Gulf War, Second Gulf War, Afghani Civil War, Afghan War can all be directly attributed to the Carter Administration.

In order for the Federal Reserve to work, the United States needs to be in a constant state of war.

[Odelay]

Carter is also responsible for polio, the black plague, measles, autism and dreamon's current tooth ache.

[AshlynCreamher]

FEBRUARY 9, 2015 BY LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD
You may have missed it, but last month two key members of Congress asked the military to move additional U.S. nuclear weapons and dual-capable aircraft into Eastern Europe.


Absolutely Massive Explosion in Ukraine - few moments ago:

Chemical Plant Explosion or nuclear weapon?

2015: