2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

Julio3000 said:
Cripes, Bedell. When it comes to what created the media that allowed ISIS to grow, would you compare Obama's dithering in Syria to Bush's leaving the institutions and infrastructure of Iraq in smoldering ruin? Disbanding the Iraqi army?
Click to expand...

I'm referring directly to the claims in the video posted by sturg and liked by 50 and Z in the other thread where the argument is made. I've no interest really in measuring which administration has contributed more. My interest is in this notion that either are what produced ISIS.
 
Heywood said:
But as we've discussed here in Biden thread, it wouldn't be facepalm Bush comedy it'd be that's your raucous weird drunken uncle.

I don't think Biden would be less hawkish than Obama though. Probably a little more if not the same. I also don't know if Biden would be as harsh on wall street as I'd want him to be like Sanders or Warren.

Biden is afterall more of an establishment Washington insider than Hilldog. I could see Biden being more of a Bill Clinton 3rd term than Hillary would.
Click to expand...

He'd be owned by Wall Street too.
 
Rand's gonna get eviscerated in the Republican debates. They're going to hammer foreign policy, and that's essentially going to turn into a contest to see (to steal a phrase from Veep) who has the most eagles flying out of his dick. I think his Senate run is safe.
 
BedellBrave said:
I'm referring directly to the claims in the video posted by sturg and liked by 50 and Z in the other thread where the argument is made. I've no interest really in measuring which administration has contributed more. My interest is in this notion that either are what produced ISIS.
Click to expand...

Care to share specifics?
 
BedellBrave said:
No, though Neo-Con and Obama policy have provided the fertile context for it. It is the creation of a certain brand of Islam, as The Atlantic article so carefully explains.
Click to expand...

Maybe "ISIS" wouldn't exist in its current form but the ideology would still be embraced in that region to the point that it would still be a worldwide danger. Its just too convenient and lazy to pin the current situation the world is in on the big bad US.
 
Dr Ben Carson -- we hardly knew ye

“because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay.”
 
BedellBrave said:
Read the Atlantic piece.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that piece doesn't do much to explain origins. Theological underpinnings and direction, sure, but not a lot of nuts and bolts about who and why. Doctrine, theology, and recruitment strategy explain some things, for sure, but it's far from the whole picture.
 
Julio3000 said:
To be fair, that piece doesn't do much to explain origins. Theological underpinnings and direction, sure, but not a lot of nuts and bolts about who and why. Doctrine, theology, and recruitment strategy explain some things, for sure, but it's far from the whole picture.
Click to expand...

It is the missing ingredient from the picture that sturg's video was presenting which is my point. It's the missing point in so much of non-interventionist and other WEIRD views. And it doesn't explain "some" things - it explains a boatload of very vital things.

I'm fine with Bush & Neo-con haters throwing him & them into the mix.

I'm fine with Obama haters throwing him into the mix as well.

But if you are just throwing American interventionism of whatever stripe into the mix then you are not taking ISIS seriously. You aren't actually asking "what do they want?" - at least with any measure of seriousness. And I find that so annoyingly Western - as if the theology/ideology doesn't mean ****.
 
BedellBrave said:
It is the missing ingredient from the picture that sturg's video was presenting which is my point. It's the missing point in so much of non-interventionist and other WEIRD views. And it doesn't explain "some" things - it explains a boatload of very vital things.

I'm fine with Bush & Neo-con haters throwing him & them into the mix.

I'm fine with Obama haters throwing him into the mix as well.

But if you are just throwing American interventionism of whatever stripe into the mix then you are not taking ISIS seriously. You aren't actually asking "what do they want?" - at least with any measure of seriousness. And I find that so annoyingly Western - as if the theology/ideology doesn't mean ****.
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with your last paragraph. But whatever talismanic power that Atlantic article has for you, it does not explain a lot of hows and whys. Why did so many of the various Syrian resistance groups decide to fold their hand and join the IS? Why did some old Ba'athists do the same?

It may be irrelevant to discuss past American policy with regard to the current situation with ISIS, but it's something that should never be far from the surface. You seem determined to push it out of the conversation, and I'm not sure why. I think that two people can have the same base of knowledge about IS theology, origins, and goals, and still have differing opinions not only about IS goals and efficacy, but about American policy in the region. I'm going to continue back in the IS thread.
 
Julio3000 said:
Sure, I agree with your last paragraph. But whatever talismanic power that Atlantic article has for you, it does not explain a lot of hows and whys. Why did so many of the various Syrian resistance groups decide to fold their hand and join the IS? Why did some old Ba'athists do the same?

It may be irrelevant to discuss past American policy with regard to the current situation with ISIS, but it's something that should never be far from the surface. You seem determined to push it out of the conversation, and I'm not sure why. I think that two people can have the same base of knowledge about IS theology, origins, and goals, and still have differing opinions not only about IS goals and efficacy, but about American policy in the region. I'm going to continue back in the IS thread.
Click to expand...

You are reading me pushing American policy out of the situation why exactly? Because I actually point out that others never give a tinker's damn about ideology? What gives? That's weird to me.
 
BedellBrave said:
You are reading me pushing American policy out of the situation why exactly? Because I actually point out that others never give a tinker's damn about ideology? What gives? That's weird to me.
Click to expand...

This is too funny.

Most people can't think any deeper than "they hate us bc we're free"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top