Obama Get's A "Do Over" Tonight...

[Guinevere]

We?

I don't see the UK or Oz listed as participating in the attacks and could find nothing in an internet search as to whether they were helping out.

Eta: from the BBC twitter feed: The UK Ministry of Defence tells the BBC the UK "has not committed anything yet. Conversations are ongoing... We have not ruled ourselves out."

So yeah, you're welcome...and you should thank the French, too.

[Lord Jim]

To be fair:

Australia says jets to help with air strikes against Islamic State

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Australia's defense minister David Johnston said on Monday during a visit to Baghdad that his country's fighter jets will play a part in U.S.-led air strikes on Islamic State positions in Iraq.

Johnston told reporters that up to eight Super Hornet aircraft will participate in a U.S.-led coalition "delivering air strikes to degrade, disrupt and ultimately seek to destroy ISIL (Islamic State)".

Australian Special Forces will be serving as advisers to Iraqi forces, Johnston said after a meeting with Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

Johnston did not elaborate on whether Australia's fighter jets would carry out air strikes. Their mission will include "the use of airpower", he said, without commenting further.

Asked about the Australian military advisers, Johnston said his country's special forces would "assist in the logistical support of the Iraqi forces". He gave no further information.

Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Sept. 14 that a 600-strong force comprising some 400 airforce personnel and 200 special forces soldiers would be deployed to a U.S. military base in the United Arab Emirates to help fight Islamic State. Abbott said Australia was also providing an aerial refueling aircraft and an early warning and control aircraft.

http://news.yahoo.com/australia-says-je ... 08445.html

And now that they've got that Scottish thing behind them:

Parliament faces recall as US begins air strikes against Isis



Parliament could be recalled as soon as Thursday to authorise Britain’s participation in air strikes against Islamic State militants.

Up until now Downing Street has been tight-lipped about exactly what timescale it envisages for ramping up the UK’s involvement in the actions against Isis.

But the overnight strikes by the US against Isis forces around Raqqa in Syria overnight is expected to speed the process up.

Labour will today signal its willingness to support a vote for limited military action at its conference in Manchester.

This clears the way for Parliament to be recalled on Thursday or Friday and vote for British air strikes against Isis positions in Iraq. However at this stage British forces are thought unlikely to play any role in Syria.

For domestic reasons the Conservatives would favour an early recall. Ukip is due to hold its annual conference on Friday and any Parliamentary debate would overshadow Nigal Farage’s key note event before the next election.

Downing Street has made clear that David Cameron would not authorise the participation of UK forces without the approval of MPs.

Any announcement is likely to be made at the United Nations in New York where David Cameron is currently attending the United Nations General Assembly. He is expected to make a speech in the early hours of Thursday morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/australia-says-je ... 08445.html

[Guinevere]

So you meant to say, yes Guin, you are correct, neither the UK or Australia is actually participating in the attacks against ISIS in Syria . . .

[rubato]

We?

I don't see the UK or Oz listed as participating in the attacks and could find nothing in an internet search as to whether they were helping out.

Eta: from the BBC twitter feed: The UK Ministry of Defence tells the BBC the UK "has not committed anything yet. Conversations are ongoing... We have not ruled ourselves out."

So yeah, you're welcome...and you should thank the French, too.

The French continue to step up and take care of business. They have led where our other 'allies' have only followed.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Well, to be fair to the Aussies--

Australian Special Forces will be serving as advisers to Iraqi forces, Johnston said after a meeting with Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

Americans know all too well where putting "advisors" in-country leads.

[Lord Jim]

So you meant to say, yes Guin, you are correct, neither the UK or Australia is actually participating in the attacks against ISIS in Syria . . .

Well, I interpreted "helping out" in the broad sense of the overall war against ISIS; not just who did or did not participate in the initial rounds of airstrikes in Syria last night...

Also, airstrikes are a fungible commodity; any that allies carry out in Iraq represent strikes we don't have to conduct, and frees up that ordnance for strikes in Syria...

Also in the interest of fairness:

I've had a lot of criticism (fully justified and deserved) for Obama and Kerry over the way they have conducted foreign policy in general, and in dealing with the situation in Syria in particular.

But credit where credit is due; getting some of the Arab countries to join with us in military action in another Arab country is a genuine and noteworthy accomplishment. It cannot have been easy, especially since to do it they must have convinced these countries of our resolve to see this through, ( no small task, in light of the ambivalence and lack of resolve that this Administration has frequently displayed.)

There are two major players in the region that haven't put skin in the game yet that I'd also really like to see stepping up; Egypt and Turkey.

The behavior of the Turkish government has been particularly disappointing as a supposed NATO ally, ("with friends like this...") but they've had a specific issue with 49 of their nationals that we're captured by ISIS at their consulate in Mosul when that city was overrun. Now that these people have been released, hopefully we'll see more cooperation forthcoming. There have been some signs and reports that this will be the case.

In just the past couple of days, ISIS military action in Syria has resulted in another 100,000 Kurdish refugees streaming over the Turkish border; on top of all the refugees from the Syrian Civil War that are already there. "More Kurds" is not exactly at the top of the Turkish wish list...They have a vested interest in pitching in.

[Lord Jim]

BTW, contrary to the impression given by a couple of other posters here, the French have not signed on for airstrikes in Syria either:

France rules out air strikes in Syria

Reuters, AFP
Monday, 22 September 2014

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Monday his nation would not launch air strikes against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants based in Syria despite having bombed a suspected target of the group in northern Iraq last week.

France is the first nation to join the United States in launching military action against ISIS, which has forced Kurdish refugees to flee over the border into Turkey.

Asked why France would send jets to bomb a target near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and not do the same against ISIS in Syria, Fabius said his government acted at the behest of Baghdad to provide air protection.

“We have decided to say yes according to the Article 51 of the U.N. charter and President Hollande ordered air strike, which has taken place a few days ago,” Fabius said, answering questions at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Fabius reiterated France's position that it will continue to support the moderate opposition against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but that “the French president has said we do not have intention to do the same in Syria, I mean by air.”

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mi ... Syria.html

yrs,

Lord "The Thoughtful One" Jim

[rubato]

40 countries have signed on to assist. Which would not have happened by Aug 15th. So much for the "do over" bullshit.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LMAO !!!

You really don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about do you?

One of the funniest things about you rube, is the way that you never allow complete ignorance to serve as an impediment to expounding about something....

In fact you seem to wear it as some sort of badge of honor...

[BoSoxGal]

I wish people would stop feeding into the egos of these monsters by calling them the "Islamic State" - it's degrading to Muslims and Islam.

[Lord Jim]

I agree with you on that one...

[Econoline]

I heard a BBC interview with a Bahraini official about this (in which he thanked the U.S. for bringing this alliance together), and I noticed that he referred to the group as "Da'ash".

[rubato]

I heard a BBC interview with a Bahraini official about this (in which he thanked the U.S. for bringing this alliance together), and I noticed that he referred to the group as "Da'ash".

Why now and then are fundamentally different. Attacking Da-esh with the overt support of nearly all of the Islamic world allows a positive outcome which is impossible otherwise. It has taken time for the events to unfold and time for them to be appreciated for what they are by Muslims everywhere; they needed time to see and to absorb the fact that Da'esh are genocidal thugs and we needed time to enlist them one by one in private conversation.

Going into Syria against Da'esh with air power without them would have been a stupid blunder, not as stupid as attacking Iraq was because Da'esh really are a threat and no one is making things up, but the harm in unilaterally attacking a Muslim state would have unified resistance against us and made success nearly impossible, just the same.

Now that the world is unified against them Da'esh have lost. They will never be a state. Because to be a state means to be a fixed target and we can hit a fixed target anywhere on the planet. They might persist as a terrorist organization but only at a much lower level. Unifying the world against them, or allowing the time for them to unify, was the move which guaranteed strategic success.

Unifying ' in opposition to' is a powerful force in overcoming differences and allowing for greater mutual success especially between former antagonists or those with antipathies.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Go back and re-read the OP rube; (assuming you read it the first time) you obviously didn't understand it.

The "Do Over" does not refer to the policy; I make clear that I support the policy...It refers to the confusing, contradictory way in which Obama repeatedly attempted to explain the policy to the public...

This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you. Life is waaaay to short to waste it trying repeatedly to make something incredibly obvious clear to a person with your level of learning disability.

ETA:

Here's my very first sentence in the OP:

I call it a "do over" because as I discussed in another thread, while the Administration's strategy in terms of implementation has been clear (and given the circumstances we find ourselves in today, it's the best possible course) the President's ability to articulate it in a clear, consistent and unconfusing fashion has been sorely lacking...

Christ on a bike, how friggin' dense or illiterate does a person have to be to not be able to grasp the meaning of that sentence?

Maybe I should have tried to explain it using pictures for you...

Now the only question is, will you finally drop this and stop embarrassing yourself by demonstrating (yet again) your inability to understand a simple sentence, or will you dig yourself a deeper hole?

I make it 6-5 pick 'em....

[Lord Jim]

“No god condones this terror. No grievance justifies these actions. There can be no reasoning, no negotiation, with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this, is the language of force,”

Well said Mr. President; very well said indeed...

[rubato]

You have to admit that Obama (et al) did it exactly the right way. They hit as many targets as they could as fast and hard as they could on day 1 which takes away the ability of the enemy to learn and respond.

It is important to recall that our opponents are human beings like us and learn from experience. Hitting as many things at once as possible makes the best use of surprise.

Good job.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Go back and re-read the OP rube; (assuming you read it the first time) you obviously didn't understand it.

The "Do Over" does not refer to the policy; I make clear that I support the policy...It refers to the confusing, contradictory way in which Obama repeatedly attempted to explain the policy to the public...

This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you. Life is waaaay to short to waste it trying repeatedly to make something incredibly obvious clear to a person with your level of learning disability.

ETA:

Here's my very first sentence in the OP:

I call it a "do over" because as I discussed in another thread, while the Administration's strategy in terms of implementation has been clear (and given the circumstances we find ourselves in today, it's the best possible course) the President's ability to articulate it in a clear, consistent and unconfusing fashion has been sorely lacking...

Christ on a bike, how friggin' dense or illiterate does a person have to be to not be able to grasp the meaning of that sentence?

Maybe I should have tried to explain it using pictures for you...

Now the only question is, will you finally drop this and stop embarrassing yourself by demonstrating (yet again) your inability to understand a simple sentence, or will you dig yourself a deeper hole?

I make it 6-5 pick 'em....

The braying makes you look like an ass. The lying about the "do over" makes you look like a lying ass. Not that I care.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

ROTFLMFAOAY!!!!



I don't know what I was thinking to actually make it even money that you wouldn't make a complete fool out of yourself yet again... I must have been struck blind by a sudden surge of irrational optimism...

You're so unbelievably thick, that you actually quoted what I said and then let loose with this bit of hilarity:

The lying about the "do over" makes you look like a lying ass.

Read this again slowly rube, (don't worry about moving your lips):

I call it a "do over" because as I discussed in another thread, while the Administration's strategy in terms of implementation has been clear (and given the circumstances we find ourselves in today, it's the best possible course) the President's ability to articulate it in a clear, consistent and unconfusing fashion has been sorely lacking...

Since figuring out how to go to the OP to verify what I said is obviously too challenging for you, here's the direct link:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11844&p=146323&hili ... er#p146323

Can you manage that?

If there's anyone left here who's still in the "Oh come on, rube can't possibly be that stupid" camp, I present this as yet another example proving that, "yes, indeed he can"...

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if he comes back to this thread and does it again....

[BoSoxGal]

Has it never occurred to you that he purposely goads you into wasting time, energy and peace of mind by arguing with him?

[Lord Jim]

Well, if that's the case, then he's failing miserably because all he's doing is "goading" me into laughing my ass off at him...

Maybe he secretly really likes me and just pretends to be a complete imbecile in order to provide me with amusement....

If that's the case, then he's succeeding brilliantly...(If it's an act, he certainly deserves an Academy Award, because he's really got the role nailed..)

But personally I'm going to apply Occam's razor and assume that the most likely explanation for his behavior is that he really is every bit as stupid as he appears to be. In 15 years of reading his hoo ha, I've seen absolutely nothing that would tend cast doubt on that simple and straight forward explanation.