fate

1. It's not the Saudis who failed to secure an agreement to keep troops in Iraq.

One of the sticking points in the negotiations with Iraq was a US demand that American forces remaining in the country after December would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as they do now. The Iraqi government, conscious of public anger over many controversial incidents involving US troops and defence contractors over the last decade, refused.

Would you have allowed US forces to be under Iraqis jurisprudence?

fate

2. It's not the Saudis who virtually ignored ISIS, calling them the JV team.

No, many in the KSA did not ignore DEASH. They were among the original funders...
Its not necessarily surprising that American Intelligence didn't warn Obama about ISIS.... They missed warning about the fall of communism in Russia, and about the difficulties that would arise from occupying Iraq.. Apparently they did warn Bush II about the possibility of 9/11...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ush-213353
I don't remember too many politicians in the SU warning about ISIS before 2014... But it started back in 2006 and was the direct result of the Iraq occupation and the attempts to put down the Sunni insurgents. Using a school sports term to describe them was insipid.
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/19/t ... /21269224/

fate

3. It's not the Saudis who have steadfastly refused to arm the Kurds

Actually the Saudis HAVE steadfastly refused to arm Kurds.
And the policy against arming the Kurds started with Bush.

For decades, the United States backed the Kurds of northern Iraq in their wars of independence against Baghdad. In 1992, with U.S. warplanes flying top cover, the Kurds succeeded in establishing a mostly autonomous region inside Iraq.
But since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq proper in 2003, the politics have changed. Now Washington has a major stake in preserving Iraq’s unity rather than shattering it. Until very recently, U.S. policy barred the Pentagon from directly arming the Kurds

.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... you-do-it/
The Pentagon became increasingly reticent about arming rebel groups, because the arms often ended up with ISIS. Sometime, as in the case of the Iraqis arms, because the army of Iraq ran and left their heavy weapons behind for ISIS.

Fate

4. It's not the Saudis who failed (until the last few days) to target ISIS supply trucks.

Well, its true that the Saudis are busy bombing Yemeni rebels.... no coalition forces have been reluctant to engage legitimate ISIS targets. Discerning what is a legitimate target is difficult.

Fate

5. It's not the Saudis who placed such restrictive ROE on our planes that 75% of our "combat missions" drop no bombs at all

Your in favour of bombing anything that moves are you?
What makes you think that the US professional army can't determine effective ROE ? No faith in the military? Or just a lot more reckless with human life than the military?

Fate

6. It's not the Saudis who put in place a $500M training program that produced less than 10 fighters--all of whom were subsequently killed or captured.

So you put more money into this program despite the evidence that it doesn't work?

Fate

Riddle me this: what is the "strategy" Obama has in place for dealing with ISIS?

He's been bombing the shit out of them...
Without the political will, from anyone but Lyndsey Graham, there won't be a land war....
With the Russians flying in Syria, there won't be a no fly zone. (Or would you shoot down the Russians too)
The Iraqis are unreliable allies. The Turks are opposed to anyone arming the Kurds. And spend much of their time attacking the Kurds.
So, yeah, he is buying time.
But no one has really made any concrete proposals that are significantly different. Unless you want to put an occupation force in to deal with ISIS and the Syrians (and maybe Russia) ...the options being offered are hair splitting rhetoric.

rickyp wrote:fate

1. It's not the Saudis who failed to secure an agreement to keep troops in Iraq.

One of the sticking points in the negotiations with Iraq was a US demand that American forces remaining in the country after December would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as they do now. The Iraqi government, conscious of public anger over many controversial incidents involving US troops and defence contractors over the last decade, refused.

Would you have allowed US forces to be under Iraqis jurisprudence?

Duh, but if you believe Obama had no leverage, then you'll believe just about anything.

Oh. I apologize for the redundancy.

fate

2. It's not the Saudis who virtually ignored ISIS, calling them the JV team.

No, many in the KSA did not ignore DEASH. They were among the original funders...
Its not necessarily surprising that American Intelligence didn't warn Obama about ISIS.... They missed warning about the fall of communism in Russia, and about the difficulties that would arise from occupying Iraq.. Apparently they did warn Bush II about the possibility of 9/11...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ush-213353
I don't remember too many politicians in the SU warning about ISIS before 2014... But it started back in 2006 and was the direct result of the Iraq occupation and the attempts to put down the Sunni insurgents. Using a school sports term to describe them was insipid.
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/19/t ... /21269224/

Now, that is just stupid--your comments. I cite a DIA report from 2012. I quote General Flynn who worked for Obama. Your response?

Nothing but "Look over there!"

Pathetic.

Obama is responsible for what he did. Period. He's had more than 3 years. His response has been feeble, to be charitable.

fate

3. It's not the Saudis who have steadfastly refused to arm the Kurds

Actually the Saudis HAVE steadfastly refused to arm Kurds.
And the policy against arming the Kurds started with Bush.

For decades, the United States backed the Kurds of northern Iraq in their wars of independence against Baghdad. In 1992, with U.S. warplanes flying top cover, the Kurds succeeded in establishing a mostly autonomous region inside Iraq.
But since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq proper in 2003, the politics have changed. Now Washington has a major stake in preserving Iraq’s unity rather than shattering it. Until very recently, U.S. policy barred the Pentagon from directly arming the Kurds

.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... you-do-it/
The Pentagon became increasingly reticent about arming rebel groups, because the arms often ended up with ISIS. Sometime, as in the case of the Iraqis arms, because the army of Iraq ran and left their heavy weapons behind for ISIS.

More "Look over there!"

Has Obama armed the Kurds? Yes or no? "US policy" is set by . . . Obama!

Fate

4. It's not the Saudis who failed (until the last few days) to target ISIS supply trucks.

Well, its true that the Saudis are busy bombing Yemeni rebels.... no coalition forces have been reluctant to engage legitimate ISIS targets. Discerning what is a legitimate target is difficult.

Your arguments are unworthy of a third-grader. You never even address my points.

Fate

5. It's not the Saudis who placed such restrictive ROE on our planes that 75% of our "combat missions" drop no bombs at all

Your in favour of bombing anything that moves are you?

Straw man.

Make up something I didn't say.

More grade school clap-trap.

What makes you think that the US professional army can't determine effective ROE ? No faith in the military? Or just a lot more reckless with human life than the military?

I will pay you $1000 tomorrow, wired to the account of your choice, if you can prove to me that the Obama Administration has nothing to do with the ROE and it is purely professional military folks making the recommendations. Really, all you have to prove is that there was a good MILITARY reason for the restrictions on fuel trucks that existed until Monday.

If you were remotely in touch with reality, you'd laugh at your own arguments.

Fate

6. It's not the Saudis who put in place a $500M training program that produced less than 10 fighters--all of whom were subsequently killed or captured.

So you put more money into this program despite the evidence that it doesn't work?

Another straw man.

Do you have ANY logic at all?

Fate

Riddle me this: what is the "strategy" Obama has in place for dealing with ISIS?

He's been bombing the shit out of them...

No, he hasn't.

1. I've already stated 75% of sorties were coming back with zero bombs dropped.
2. The Russians and French have done more damage in the last week than Obama has done period.
3. Obama didn't even approve ROE that would permit undercutting ISIS' infrastructure (supply lines).

I would expect more coherent reasoning from someone of your age. Your entire post was a joke--and not a "ha ha" joke.

fate

Duh, but if you believe Obama had no leverage, then you'll believe just about anything

I need evidence. Your the one who believes things on faith.
Or do you have actual evidence that Obama had a genuine choice?
Nor did you answer whether you think it was wise for an American president to place his soldiers under the jurisprudence of the Iraq government.

Fate

I cite a DIA report from 2012. I quote General Flynn who worked for Obama

From the last line of your pull quote.

No report or event can stand in hindsight as the single missed key to the now terrifyingly complex puzzle of the Islamic State

You seem not to comprehend the complexity of the situation.
When you complain about not arming the Kurds you forget that US allies Turkey and Iraq were opposed to this idea.
Fate

Really, all you have to prove is that there was a good MILITARY reason for the restrictions on fuel trucks that existed until Monday.

Humanitarian reasons don't matter?
When you complain about not bombing fuel trucks you ignore the information in your story that says that the trucks were driven by civilians. And if you look elsewhere many are forced to drive them.
Plus it seems that a strategy was developed to warn the drivers before the bombings...

“Seventy-five percent of the sorties that we’re currently running with our attack aircraft come back without dropping bombs, mostly because they cannot acquire the target or properly identify the target,” said U.S. Army General (ret) Jack Keane in testimony before the U.S. Senate last week

.
So you think it would be better to drop the bombs with no real target?
Or drop them on civilians?
Can you accept that there are both military and humanitarian reasons that bombers don't drop their loads?

rickyp wrote:fate

Duh, but if you believe Obama had no leverage, then you'll believe just about anything

I need evidence. Your the one who believes things on faith.
Or do you have actual evidence that Obama had a genuine choice?

More garbage from you. We've been down this road a hundred times. You seem to feel the US had no leverage whatsoever and that we were forced out.

Nor did you answer whether you think it was wise for an American president to place his soldiers under the jurisprudence of the Iraq government.

Because it's idiotic.

To remind you, since you seem INCAPABLE of actually following a line of reasoning, here's what I ACTUALLY SAID:

It's not the Saudis who failed to secure an agreement to keep troops in Iraq.

That's just a fact. Argue against it since you're "fact-based" and all that.

Obama didn't get a SOFA, then pronounced victory. That's nothing like what GWB did. He said a precipitous removal of troops would lead to chaos.

So, which one was right?

Fate

I cite a DIA report from 2012. I quote General Flynn who worked for Obama

From the last line of your pull quote.

No report or event can stand in hindsight as the single missed key to the now terrifyingly complex puzzle of the Islamic State

You seem not to comprehend the complexity of the situation.

No, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH.

Obama was warned in 2012. His DIA said he didn't take it seriously. In early 2014, he called ISIS "JV." What part of that is so difficult? It's not complex--your hero made a hash out of the situation he inherited.

When you complain about not arming the Kurds you forget that US allies Turkey and Iraq were opposed to this idea.

Okay. And, a leader does what? Caves in to the unreasonable demands of "allies" like SA and Turkey?

Fate

Really, all you have to prove is that there was a good MILITARY reason for the restrictions on fuel trucks that existed until Monday.

Humanitarian reasons don't matter?

Is it humanitarian to permit ISIS to maintain their supplies so they can continue their murder spree?

You don't even make sense.

When you complain about not bombing fuel trucks you ignore the information in your story that says that the trucks were driven by civilians. And if you look elsewhere many are forced to drive them.
Plus it seems that a strategy was developed to warn the drivers before the bombings..

.

Actually, it's suggested that they might be driven by civilians. And, guess what? It's a war. That's a lot more merciful way to die, even IF they are civilians, than what ISIS does.

“Seventy-five percent of the sorties that we’re currently running with our attack aircraft come back without dropping bombs, mostly because they cannot acquire the target or properly identify the target,” said U.S. Army General (ret) Jack Keane in testimony before the U.S. Senate last week

.
So you think it would be better to drop the bombs with no real target?
Or drop them on civilians?
Can you accept that there are both military and humanitarian reasons that bombers don't drop their loads?

There are no "military" reasons.

Again, the question is this: defeat ISIS or make them look like they are undefeatable?

Obama has chosen the latter.

And, with all due respect, you might want to think about making coherent arguments.

Oh, and nice job wishing condolences to RJ.

The real reason nothing has been done about ISIS in Syria is that there wasn't enough political support for it. If you recall, Obama was all for launching a proper series of attacks in Syria but then Cameron pulled out at the last minute, which emboldened the critics in Congress. I think it would have been very difficult to get Congressional approval for a war in Syria. The Paris attacks may have changed the equation though, we'll have to wait and see.

None of which has very much to do with the European migrant crisis...

Sassenach wrote:None of which has very much to do with the European migrant crisis...

Well, if we do more in Syria it may affect the numbers of people fleeing. But yes, we do seem to have strayed a long way off. All due respect to RJ, but the attackers in which his friend's son was killed was not related to the European migrant issue either.

Sassenach wrote:The real reason nothing has been done about ISIS in Syria is that there wasn't enough political support for it. If you recall, Obama was all for launching a proper series of attacks in Syria but then Cameron pulled out at the last minute, which emboldened the critics in Congress. I think it would have been very difficult to get Congressional approval for a war in Syria. The Paris attacks may have changed the equation though, we'll have to wait and see.

None of which has very much to do with the European migrant crisis...

Would the crisis exist if all was well in Syria? Well, it certainly would not be of the same scale.

In any event, yes, the politics have been problematic. However, it was about 14 months ago that President Obama launched the effort do "degrade and destroy" ISIS/ISIL. The ROE are an issue. I was going to meet a relative today who has flown airstrikes in the region, but it looks like that is going to be postponed. I was hoping to get some additional insight into it, but I do know he has felt very restricted.

Even now, if we were willing to let (the butcher) Assad remain in power, ISIS could be vanquished in weeks. If we were willing to be brutally efficient about it, most could be killed or captured. However, my guess is we will let most of them go home, so we can do this all over again, probably somewhere else. War is often a matter of will. We have little--at least at the top.

fate
S

o, which one was right?

The original sin was invading and occupying Iraq.
It was Bush who negotiated the terms of leaving.
Obama did fail to get a revision to Bushes agreement. For what were very good reasons.

Fate

You seem to feel the US had no leverage whatsoever and that we were forced out.

You've never said what the alternative was, other than your magical thinking that he could just impose a SOFA on them.
And impose the US will to aiid Kurds on their allies.
What makes you think it is possible for the US to simply impose its will on other nations?
And lets do remember that it was the will of the American people that the US get out of Iraq and not get involved in another Middle Eastern land war.... That hasn't changed.

rickyp wrote:fate
S

o, which one was right?

The original sin was invading and occupying Iraq.
It was Bush who negotiated the terms of leaving.
Obama did fail to get a revision to Bushes agreement. For what were very good reasons.

No, they weren't.

Here's your problem: Bush has been out of office for almost 7 years, Obama knew what he was inheriting, and he completely hashed it up.

Now, why not go drink some maple syrup and let the Americans run their own country, eh?

Fate

You seem to feel the US had no leverage whatsoever and that we were forced out.

You've never said what the alternative was, other than your magical thinking that he could just impose a SOFA on them.

I have and I don't care to rehash them with you. I've provided inside info--and it's not hard to find. So, I'm forced to conclude you're too lazy or too dumb to find it.

And impose the US will to aiid Kurds on their allies.

No, we can do it directly. We're the freaking USA.

What makes you think it is possible for the US to simply impose its will on other nations?

Maybe we should start with your useless nation.

Giving weapons to the Kurds is not imposing anything. If they don't want them, they should stop asking for them.

Like I'm going to ask you, in vain I'm sure, to stop being a jackass.

And lets do remember that it was the will of the American people that the US get out of Iraq and not get involved in another Middle Eastern land war.... That hasn't changed.

Actually, it has changed. And, actually, that wasn't what our argument was about. Again, you're being dishonest and a fool.

While a slight majority are against boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, there is one thing that is far less popular: the way your idol is handling ISIS:

Sixty-four percent of American adults said they disapprove of the way that President Barack Obama is dealing with the ISIS terrorist group, according to a Gallup poll that was conducted Nov. 4-8.

The results of the poll, which was completed five days before the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, were cited and linked in a Gallup analysis released Monday.

Deal with it. He's an embarrassment.

Fate

No, we can do it directly. We're the freaking USA

.
Which is the same attitude that brought about the invasion of Iraq. We can do anything we want, and the consequences be damned.
And for that matter the Viet Nam war.
How'd those things work out?
If arming the Kurds earlier would have had unintended consequences that might have created an open war between the Kurds and Turks?
If arming the Kurds earlier would have caused the Turks to ally with Iran or Russia?
If arming the Kurds earlier would have sent the Saudis with their oil to a close alliance with China or Russia?
Those things were all potential consequences.... None of them good.

Fate

While a slight majority are against boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, there is one thing that is far less popular: the way your idol is handling ISIS:

Because there is no better gauge of whether a foreign policy is right than the opinion of an ignorant populace.
As Americans actually learn, and the poor quality of your information media doesn't help, attitudes change. Understanding changes. As they are actually faced with understanding the consequences of ill considered unilateral actions ... a significant number change the way they think.
Since a solid third still think Obama is a Muslim, and are therefore entirely resistant to learning facts... (And probably couldn't find Syria on a map) he will always have a substantial critical group.
Those with ODS like you.


hile a slight majority are against boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, there is one thing that is far less popular: the way your idol is handling ISIS:

rickyp wrote:Fate

No, we can do it directly. We're the freaking USA

.
Which is the same attitude that brought about the invasion of Iraq. We can do anything we want, and the consequences be damned.

Nope. You accused me of "magical thinking," like there was no way we could supply the Kurds.

So, logically, you equate that with the invasion of Iraq.

That makes sense.

And for that matter the Viet Nam war.
How'd those things work out?
If arming the Kurds earlier would have had unintended consequences that might have created an open war between the Kurds and Turks?

There is no evidence for your argument.

If arming the Kurds earlier would have caused the Turks to ally with Iran or Russia?
If arming the Kurds earlier would have sent the Saudis with their oil to a close alliance with China or Russia?
Those things were all potential consequences.... None of them good.

You know, now that you mention it, arming the Kurds could have caused the Turks to ally with Martians too. Valid point!

Fate

While a slight majority are against boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, there is one thing that is far less popular: the way your idol is handling ISIS:

Because there is no better gauge of whether a foreign policy is right than the opinion of an ignorant populace.

This is so funny! You can't even see how stupid your reasoning is. I was responding to your claim:

rickyp wrote:And lets do remember that it was the will of the American people that the US get out of Iraq and not get involved in another Middle Eastern land war.... That hasn't changed.

So, I'm going to let you rebut you:

Because there is no better gauge of whether a foreign policy is right than the opinion of an ignorant populace.

As Americans actually learn, and the poor quality of your information media doesn't help, attitudes change. Understanding changes. As they are actually faced with understanding the consequences of ill considered unilateral actions ... a significant number change the way they think.
Since a solid third still think Obama is a Muslim, and are therefore entirely resistant to learning facts..

.

Maybe you missed President Obama confusing C-Span the other day.

“I think on the one hand, non-Muslims cannot stereotype. But I also think the Muslim community has to think about how we make sure that children are not being infected with this twisted notion that somehow they can kill innocent people and that is justified…”

So, if he self-identifies with the Muslim community, wouldn't it be wrong to contradict him?

(And probably couldn't find Syria on a map) he will always have a substantial critical group.
Those with ODS like you.

You are the one who used to love polls. Now you apparently think they're invalid. That's fine.

You seem to suffer from OPS (Obama Promotion Syndrome). The good news is the rest of the world is slowly figuring out what a disaster he is.

Have a nice day. Don't skip any meds!

Fate

Nope. You accused me of "magical thinking," like there was no way we could supply the Kurds.
So, logically, you equate that with the invasion of Iraq.
That makes sense

I accused you of magical thinking because you think there was a magical way to impose a SOFA on Iraq...
You've never actually provided evidence that Iraq would have bent to US will. You just seem to think, as in everything that

"We're the freaking USA"

You're probably unaware of the long conflict between Turkey and the Kurds....
Its been going on for decades...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey%E2 ... K_conflict

The Saudis were also opposed to arming the Kurds. I suppose simply ignoring their wishes would have been a good idea?

if you think Turkey would have been happy about the US arming the Kurds, or that there wouldn't have been consequences at the time....that is as magical as thinking that the occupation of Iraq was going to pay for itself or be easy.

Now you offered an opinion poll of Americans as evidence that Obama's policies were wrong. Politically they might, at the moment, be judged wrong by the American voter. But that doesn't make the American people a good judge of the validity of the policies. Its just uninformed opinion. Like you most of the time.
What you conflate that with is the reality that the American people were dead set on getting out of Iraq and that the political will did not exist for America continuing its ill considered occupation. In that case, political will is important because Obama faced re-election .
By the way, in that case, the opinion of the American people was that leaving forces was a bad idea. So if you use your metric of American public opinion to gauge the validity of an action, you'd have to rule that renegotiating a SOFA was unnecessary. getting out was all that was on the table for public opinion.

How would leaving 5,000 troops in Iraq, penned up on a base, have stopped ISIS anyway? The occupation force in Iraq was, at its peak, 180,000. The surge moved the force from 160,000 to 180,000 ....so how would a handful of troops make a difference to the evolution of Al Queda in Iraq to ISIL?

rickyp wrote:Fate

Nope. You accused me of "magical thinking," like there was no way we could supply the Kurds.
So, logically, you equate that with the invasion of Iraq.
That makes sense

I accused you of magical thinking because you think there was a magical way to impose a SOFA on Iraq...
You've never actually provided evidence that Iraq would have bent to US will. You just seem to think, as in everything that

"We're the freaking USA"

You are dishonest.

I said, "We're the freaking USA" with regard to sending weapons to the Kurds SPECIFICALLY

To use it for something else, anything else, and present it as my argument is a lie. You are a liar.

You're probably unaware of the long conflict between Turkey and the Kurds....
Its been going on for decades...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey%E2 ... K_conflict

The Saudis were also opposed to arming the Kurds. I suppose simply ignoring their wishes would have been a good idea?

if you think Turkey would have been happy about the US arming the Kurds, or that there wouldn't have been consequences at the time....that is as magical as thinking that the occupation of Iraq was going to pay for itself or be easy.

So, your argument, such as it is, is that Obama did not arm the Kurds because Turkey and the Saudis would have been mad?

In other words, their opinions were more important than defeating ISIS. Well, good to know where Obama's priorities are.

Now you offered an opinion poll of Americans as evidence that Obama's policies were wrong. Politically they might, at the moment, be judged wrong by the American voter. But that doesn't make the American people a good judge of the validity of the policies. Its just uninformed opinion. Like you most of the time.

That's funny! You are so funny!

Of course the American people are wrong! They're wrong on the ACA. They're wrong on Hillary! They're wrong on global warming!

So, leave the Americans alone!

What you conflate that with is the reality that the American people were dead set on getting out of Iraq and that the political will did not exist for America continuing its ill considered occupation. In that case, political will is important because Obama faced re-election .

Oh, so sometimes polls do matter?

You argue a very . . . unusual case.

By the way, in that case, the opinion of the American people was that leaving forces was a bad idea. So if you use your metric of American public opinion to gauge the validity of an action, you'd have to rule that renegotiating a SOFA was unnecessary. getting out was all that was on the table for public opinion.

So, being willing to do the (demonstrably) wrong thing for political purposes is, what, leadership?

GWB predicted what would happen if we drew out precipitously.

Biden and Obama took victory laps as they took the troops out.

Then it all went to hell in a handbasket.

How would leaving 5,000 troops in Iraq, penned up on a base, have stopped ISIS anyway? The occupation force in Iraq was, at its peak, 180,000. The surge moved the force from 160,000 to 180,000 ....so how would a handful of troops make a difference to the evolution of Al Queda in Iraq to ISIL?

Read about it for yourself. The sensible people made sensible policies.

Meanwhile, your god pronounced ISIS the JV. He's known about them for nearly 4 years and has done little more than flap his gums. No wonder you love him.

And, no wonder you're a liar.

fate

So, your argument, such as it is, is that Obama did not arm the Kurds because Turkey and the Saudis would have been mad?

Bush certainly. Obama up until the Iraq government took over from the occupying authority.
Then the US congress.
Under current law, the U.S. government is only allowed to send weapons to internationally recognized sovereign governments -- not to autonomous regions within countries like Kurdistan. Since they cannot receive U.S. equipment directly, the Kurds must wait for the central government in Baghdad to share it.

FATE

I said, "We're the freaking USA" with regard to sending weapons to the Kurds SPECIFICALLY

I guess the fact that congress hasn't passed a law to allow direct supply to the kurds can also be put down to We're the freaking USA"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/2 ... 47068.html

rickyp wrote:fate

So, your argument, such as it is, is that Obama did not arm the Kurds because Turkey and the Saudis would have been mad?

Bush certainly. Obama up until the Iraq government took over from the occupying authority.
Then the US congress.
Under current law, the U.S. government is only allowed to send weapons to internationally recognized sovereign governments -- not to autonomous regions within countries like Kurdistan. Since they cannot receive U.S. equipment directly, the Kurds must wait for the central government in Baghdad to share it.

FATE

I said, "We're the freaking USA" with regard to sending weapons to the Kurds SPECIFICALLY

I guess the fact that congress hasn't passed a law to allow direct supply to the kurds can also be put down to We're the freaking USA"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/2 ... 47068.html

You lied. Admit it.

Your article says the Democrats voted against the bill--and the White House was against it. Of course, that's because they feared the "Biden Partition" of Iraq into three countries.

Again, stopping ISIS is less important than keeping sometime allies happy. #leadingfrombehind