# Aussies launch air strikes against ISIS!



## Ralphy1 (Oct 9, 2014)

They have joined in the multinational approach to checking and destroying ISIS from the air with their flying machines.  I salute them for this as all of us should...


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 9, 2014)

Our rules of engagement are a bit different.
We're not allowed to bomb innocent civilians.

That's why the first mission pulled out and came back without dropping any bombs.
So far we've only dropped a couple of bombs. That must be terrifying for ISIL.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/10/09/02/04/aust-aims-to-allow-iraq-time-to-rebuild

But you all know what the old lady said as she peed in the sea....


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 9, 2014)

No, we all don't know what the old lady said, so please tell us...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 9, 2014)

Anyone happen to watch the ISIL member (probably American or Canadian judging by his English) on video standing in front of the opposition soldiers and holding a pistol.. The soldiers, he said, were digging their own graves.. and he murdered them.. Are we close getting to a point that Air Strikes are ineffective? Are we getting closer to going in and kicking their murdering arces? I'm not a War Hawk, by anymeans... but these sadists should be stopped. We turned a blind eye to Hitler when all the signs pointed to what he was doing to the Jews.. Sometimes there has to be a stand taken before history repeats itself.. Thoughts?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 9, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> No, we all don't know what the old lady said, so please tell us...


Every little bit helps. :grin:


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 9, 2014)

I should have known better than to ask...


----------



## Falcon (Oct 9, 2014)

It's the Crusades all over again....and that didn't work.  We'd better try harder this time or many more heads will be severed
regardless of the methods used to put a stop to this hideous animal practice.


----------



## AprilT (Oct 9, 2014)

Sorry, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I find the timing of the escalation and person leading these barbaric executions suspect.  Yes, I know, I'm likely waaaaaayyyyyyyyy  off base, but still.


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 9, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Anyone happen to watch the ISIL member (probably American or Canadian judging by his English) on video standing in front of the opposition soldiers and holding a pistol.. The soldiers, he said, were digging their own graves.. and he murdered them.. Are we close getting to a point that Air Strikes are ineffective?* Are we getting closer to going in and kicking their murdering arces? *I'm not a War Hawk, by anymeans... but these sadists should be stopped. We turned a blind eye to Hitler when all the signs pointed to what he was doing to the Jews.. Sometimes there has to be a stand taken before history repeats itself.. Thoughts?



If we send our soldiers back into bloody war again and sit back,again,to watch those planes landing at Dover Air force base filled with body bags.Im gonna really scream....
If we send 50,000 of our men into battle and the rest of our buddies ,the allies,send the same amount then I might calm down.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 9, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> If we send our soldiers back into bloody war again and sit back,again,to watch those planes landing at Dover Air force base filled with body bags.Im gonna really scream....
> If we send 50,000 of our men into battle and the rest of our buddies ,the allies,send the same amount then I might calm down.



Do you see an option? Air Strikes don't seem to be slowing them down. OR.. just let them over-run the middle east and gain strength? That's an option too. Maybe not a bad one... So long as we don't have our troops killed. I agree about our Allies.. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Don't expect them to do anything other than the bare minimum.. and lip service.


----------



## oakapple (Oct 9, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Do you see an option? Air Strikes don't seem to be slowing them down. OR.. just let them over-run the middle east and gain strength? That's an option too. Maybe not a bad one... So long as we don't have our troops killed. I agree about our Allies.. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Don't expect them to do anything other than the bare minimum.. and lip service.


I think that today all Britain CAN offer is the bare minimum, sadly our services have been so run down over the last few years, we don't have many ships, jets etc.It's quite scary how little we have actually.However, if all the countries got together and sent what they had...... that would count!


----------



## Fern (Oct 9, 2014)

oakapple said:


> I think that today all Britain CAN offer is the bare minimum, sadly our services have been so run down over the last few years, we don't have many ships, jets etc.It's quite scary how little we have actually.However, if all the countries got together and sent what they had...... that would count!


The same applies in NZ, however I did hear our PM say our SAS troops will be deployed.
 The bombings have pushed ISIL back from the Turkish border, I'm waiting to see when Turkey takes a stand, they have enough tanks on the border at the ready.


----------



## Debby (Oct 10, 2014)

Well, unless those airstrikes are combined with taking away all the support that ISIS gets (funding, arms, medical intervention, safe haven and training) from the countries as implicated in the following article, this could very well go on indefinitely.  And according to numerous articles that I've read, including the attached, Turkey, a NATO ally, is right up there leading the pack.  If there really is a drive to bring down ISIS, why do we not hear that Washington has taken a stance against Saudi or Turkish support?  Why do we not hear from my own country and other threatened countries, that America must stop handing out money and whatever else (training, etc) to whichever terrorist group they choose for that day, to be used for their own purposes?  Silence on the part of the world on that score.  And the world pays or more specifically, the civilians pay.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2014/10/isis-turkey-and-propaganda-of.html#more

As for your comment AprilT:  Sorry, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I find the timing of the escalation and person leading these barbaric executions suspect. Yes, I know, I'm likely waaaaaayyyyyyyyy off base, but still.

Over time, many 'conspiracy theories' have been proven to be right.    Just Google 'conspiracy theories that are right' and you can find lots of examples.  So really, being a conspiracy theorist is not a bad thing at all.  It simply means that you aren't willing to go along with the herd and accept whatever the talking heads want to dish up for you.  It means you are a skeptic and require real, definitive and unbiased proof of whatever those same talking heads are 'repeating' as gospel.  So hang on to your 'aluminum pie plate' hat and always look for real info.


----------



## Bee (Oct 10, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Do you see an option? Air Strikes don't seem to be slowing them down. OR.. just let them over-run the middle east and gain strength? That's an option too. Maybe not a bad one... So long as we don't have our troops killed. I agree about our Allies.. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Don't expect them to do anything other than the bare minimum.. and lip service.



Not for the first time you have had a go at the allies, perhaps you should consider the fact that the allies are just sick of jumping to the U.S. president the same as Bliar did with Bush invading Iraq....which in _*my*_ opinion if that hadn't happened perhaps IS wouldn't have such a foothold now.


----------



## Vivjen (Oct 10, 2014)

As a democracy; UK has voted against air strikes in Syria , and boots on the ground; although SAS have been there for ages..

Turkey, a member of NATO, is refusing to do anything; just watching; because they have been fighting the Kurds for years..

So, using literal thought; can't we air strike IS with some dead bodies with Ebola, and just leave them....


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 10, 2014)

Viruses don't discriminate between combatants and others, but you knew that, didn't you Vivjen?

Sometimes patience is required to win a war.
We need to play the long game and hang in there until we have checkmate.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 10, 2014)

> Not for the first time you have had a go at the allies, perhaps you should consider the fact that the allies are just sick of jumping to the U.S. president the same as Bliar did with Bush invading Iraq....which in





> _*my* opinion if that hadn't happened perhaps IS wouldn't have such a foothold now._





Or perhaps we realize you really aren't that helpful to us...  Stay out... I don't think anyone is going to miss the UK..   No one here really gives a rat's patoot..  lol!!

As for "having a go" at our so called ALLY?   I like many Americans believed that the people of the UK were our friends.. and ally.   I have learned much differently having participated on other forums.   I was kind of taken aback at the animosity so many brits have against the USA..  what else can you expect.  NO.. I'm not particularly enthralled any longer.  Neither are many Americans..   Keep pokin' that stick in our eye.... and what can you expect.??


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 10, 2014)

It is a truism that wars aren't won when allies don't stick together.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 10, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Viruses don't discriminate between combatants and others, but you knew that, didn't you Vivjen?
> 
> Sometimes patience is required to win a war.
> We need to play the long game and hang in there until we have checkmate.




I agree DW..  it's going to take a long time to wipe out this scourge..  AND it will take patience.   I hate to say it.. but perhaps it's going to take more than air strikes..  It appears that ISIS has over run a city right on the Turkish boarder..  Turkey is still sitting on it's hands..  They are next.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 10, 2014)

One man's story from Kobane

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...ice-from-kobane-battl-201410910315549674.html



> I am originally from Aleppo but I had to leave when ISIL arrived. It was horrible. We saw horrible things. ISIL is so brutal, even Satan himself would cower. They kill people in their homes. In some places, we saw blood streaming from homes. The red blood of humans, our brothers, innocent people.
> 
> It's then that I decided to join the YPG, to help fight against ISIL in any way that I could. I want to rid the world of this evil.
> I went to Kobane, to stay with relatives who gave shelter to me and my family.
> ...


----------



## Bee (Oct 10, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Or perhaps we realize you really aren't that helpful to us...  Stay out... I don't think anyone is going to miss the UK..   No one here really gives a rat's patoot..  lol!!
> 
> As for "having a go" at our so called ALLY?   I like many Americans believed that the people of the UK were our friends.. and ally.   I have learned much differently having participated on other forums.   I was kind of taken aback at the animosity so many brits have against the USA..  what else can you expect.  NO.. I'm not particularly enthralled any longer.  Neither are many Americans..   Keep pokin' that stick in our eye.... and what can you expect.??



Perhaps those people got sick and tired of being puppets to the U.S.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 10, 2014)

Bee said:


> Perhaps those people got sick and tired of being puppets to the U.S.



Well... there ya go...   So don't be... and don't get upset when I say we don't care....  You asked... I told you..    And don't be surprised if you get what you give... know what I mean?


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> As a democracy; UK has voted against air strikes in Syria , and boots on the ground; although SAS have been there for ages..
> 
> Turkey, a member of NATO, is refusing to do anything; just watching; because they have been fighting the Kurds for years..
> 
> So, using literal thought; can't we air strike IS with some dead bodies with Ebola, and just leave them....




Turkey is also guilty of enabling ISIS despite the fact that they are a NATO ally.  Why is America so silent on that score?  Hmmmm, going to have think that one through...oh wait, there's this:  http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/201...a-of.html#more

As for your ebola suggestion, you'd probably have to find a family where they despised their dead 'ebola cousin' anyway to get around family attachments and traditions.  Might be tough to do.


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> .......Keep pokin' that stick in our eye.... and what can you expect.??




Consider that remark in the context of numerous countries around the world and then remember 9/11.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2014)

Not sure what you mean Debby... but I'm not sitting back and letting my country be bashed or belittled...   Not ever..  especially not by "furners"   lol!!  Seems like others can stand up for their countries, but Americans are supposed to sit back and take the bad mouthing..  If we stand up for our country,  we are being Arrogant and obnoxious... Well... So be it...  It that's what I'm being.. then I have one word..  Tough..   AND perhaps two... Tough S


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Not sure what you mean Debby... but I'm not sitting back and letting my country be bashed or belittled...   Not ever..  especially not by "furners"   lol!!



Is it not possible and even likely that people in the Middle East (not the rulers and guys who are getting set up as puppet governments but just the citizens) are fed up with being used by America?  They got tired of a giant country coming in and making decisions on how their country should be run and who should run it.  They got tired of watching that giant country set up dictatorships that only took and took and took from them.  (The Shah of Iran comes instantly to mind and Hosni Mobarik of Egypt) They got tired of being the pawns of that giant country and concocted 9/11?

Did you know that the government of Iran before America's man, the Shah, was actually a democratically elected government?    Ukraine is another modern day example.  That previous government was democratically elected but because the US wants to put NATO military bases on Russia's border, the government that was leaning towards Russia had to go.  And the CIA got in there quietly and started to do what they do best (to the tune of $5 billion) which is to destabilize and manipulate and set up horrible people.  And then along comes the rest of the administration, all approving (John McCain and Biden both made their visits there and Biden's son is now working within Ukraines largest oil and gas company!)  and discounting anything that doesn't go with their agenda and the result is Victoria Nuland famously saying 'f*** the EU'.  The whole concept of 'we're only spreading freedom and democracy around the world' is a crock.

I understand that you are protective of your country.  But don't be deliberately blind.  When your kid is starting to act like a little thug and he's getting into scrapes with the authorities, do you brush it off and blame everybody else or do you call a halt to his activities and get him the help he needs?  

One of my daughters had a bad year as a teen.  She wasn't doing anything illegal but she was hanging out with a crowd of kids that seemed to be heading that way and covering it up with lying and such.  After the final episode which included going down to the police station to look at books and see if she recognized who might have been the guy a friend of hers was claiming had raped her, we took action.  We didn't sit around blaming the school, her friends parents, her friends or anyone else.  She was responsible for her actions and she lost ALL her friends within a week, because we pulled her out of that school  and life as she had known it.....was over.  We acted and she changed and she never ever got in trouble again.  And the point of this story, which while a very individual and personal one is to show that being blind and blaming the other people/countries is not conducive to improving the situation so that everyone benefits.

As I've said to you before, my government hears from me regularly on issues that are of concern to me and in this case, they've heard from me because of our obvious abandonment of our historical Peace Keeping role.

Just as an aside, here's a link to a page that talks about why the government previous to the Shah was booted.  Apparently he wanted to audit the books of the British Petroleum company and when they refused, he tried to nationalize Irans oil fields so Britain and America got rid of him and put in place a military government with the Shah as the defacto monarchy!  The page goes on to point out how the CIA has admitted to it's actions in that country.    

"...The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."[SUP][13]..."[/SUP]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

By the way, as you read the link provided, think about every other national protest around the world and ask yourself, 'is the CIA there, doing exactly what they did in Iran to overthrow that countries elected and popular Prime Minister in 1953.


----------



## oakapple (Oct 11, 2014)

Good post Debby.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2014)

oakapple said:


> Good post Debby.




If you have a pension for conspiracy theories..


----------



## Pam (Oct 11, 2014)

A pension?


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2014)

Pam said:


> A pension?




Penchant..


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 11, 2014)

Criticism coming from your enemies can be discounted but criticism from your friends should always be considered carefully. 
Canadians, Britons and Australians speak boldly to Americans and to each other precisely because we are friends. We do not speak directly to those nations for whom we have no respect.

My country right or wrong is a dangerous motto when that country is the most powerful country in the world.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2014)

Well, perhaps you feel that way..BUT,   I don't like "friends" that insult me....  Do you?     It's something you expect from enemies...  I don't consider critical, insulting people friends at all..   

As for "my country right or wrong"  That's BS..  I certainly don't feel that way and I am very critical of some aspects of our government..  BUT.. there's a difference in being analytic  and being  hateful..   Unfortunately.. I don't see some of the criticisms here as kind or constructive.. Just nasty and unnecessary.   It seems to me that the Canadians, Austrailians and especially the Brits are eager to bad mouth the US.. but are a tad thin skinned when it is handed back to them..  But I guess it's always easy to take pot shots... especially at the most powerful country in the world.


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> If you have a pension for conspiracy theories..




I think the word you were looking for is 'penchant'.  And simply based on your 'accusation', I have a link for you.  This man has credentials that are excellent.  His bio from his website:

_Dr. Paul Craig Roberts _was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.



He talks about various of the lies of the American administration,  Saddam Hussein's WMD being an obvious one, Muammar Gaddafi and his despotic rule, Assad using chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, their involvement in the Ukraine initially and Russia's involvement there, etc., and he goes on to point out how when people point to these obvious and known affronts to honesty and integrity, they are labelled as un-patriotic or conspiracy theorists  (if they're a citizen) and we won't talk about what 'they' say about people like me who aren't citizens but have the audacity to not accept the government propaganda.  

But maybe I'm missing something here and maybe it is that in your wisdom, you have chosen not to speak out because you don't want to wind up on some government watch list.  Not something that has occurred to me, but apparently 1.2 million American citizens are being deliberately and systematically spied on and not necessarily because of violence or suspected crimes but because they may have voiced an opinion.  Like journalists and film makers and.....

To suggest that there are no conspiracies is naive and wishful.  Dr. Roberts says in his column:  "... When the government lies in order to orchestrate wars that benefit special interests, the government breaks trust with the people and becomes arbitrary, dictatorial, and unaccountable."  When a government lies, it is a conspiracy against the people and it's not a theory.  Your government broke trust with you when they started pushing the WMD lie, heck when they got rid of Iran's elected Prime Minister in 1953 and they are lying today.


Dr. Roberts Website:  http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/11/ebola-update-paul-craig-roberts/



Note:  Glen Greenwald reveals that 1.2 million citizens including the filmmaker who filmed him having a meeting with Snowden are on a Watch List.    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nyff-edward-snowden-doc-citizenfour-740060


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2014)

Yes... If you look upthread... you will see that I FOUND the word Penchant..   There are so many conspiracy theories out there.. However do you pick one to believe?    

I believe  that Bush and CHeney lied...  I think I have told you several times that I think they should be in prison.. along with Rumsfeld and Condeliza Rice.. AND I write about it all the time on FB..   I'm not at all concerned about a government "watch List".... If I'm on a watch list, they are watching me quietly.. and good for them.... Doesn't concern me in the least.. 

I can see that in  your mind,  nothing the US does is to be trusted?   How about Germany?   Don't see them being held accountable for Hitler... OR Japan for Hirohito..nd you seem quite happy with Russia...    BUT..  the USA??   Oh man... puke that up forever.. and subscribe to any crazy theory you can dig up.   It's quite evident to  me where you are coming from Debby....  I don't think we have anything further to discuss..  I'm finding your motives and credulity quite suspect and predictable.


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Well, perhaps you feel that way..BUT,   I don't like "friends" that insult me....  Do you?     It's something you expect from enemies...  I don't consider critical, insulting people friends at all..
> 
> As for "my country right or wrong"  That's BS..  I certainly don't feel that way and I am very critical of some aspects of our government..  BUT.. there's a difference in being analytic  and being  hateful..   Unfortunately.. I don't see some of the criticisms here as kind or constructive.. Just nasty and unnecessary.   It seems to me that the Canadians, Austrailians and especially the Brits are eager to bad mouth the US.. but are a tad thin skinned when it is handed back to them..  But I guess it's always easy to take pot shots... especially at the most powerful country in the world.




I am not insulting you Quicksilver although you likely see it that way and I'm sorry about that.  What I'm actually doing is relaying to you what your government and the mainstream media won't tell you.  Every time I've said anything I've included credible links.  And as in the case of Dr. Roberts, a fellow citizen of yours is saying these things.   

It's unfortunate but expected that you would find my posts hateful (I'm assuming I'm one of those on your list) and not constructive even when and maybe especially when the information that I'm merely passing along is far more truthful than anything coming out of Washington. And recognizing the actions of a government run amok is necessary because like any other 'bad habit', you can't get control of it until you recognize it.  

I'll be the first to recognize that many great and wonderful things have come from America.  My own country has benefited from having the US next door in innumerable ways.  But at the same time, I'm not blind to it's failings now that I've become aware of them because those failings threaten the world.  Do you remember all those German citizens who said nothing when the Nazi's were taking away the Jewish families?  I would like to think that when the history books look back, if things go terribly wrong (nuclear war or more terrorists taking down legitimate governments and over running the planet, etc) I won't be included in that shadowy group of people 'who never said anything and just let it happen'.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2014)

Good grief Debby... So.. everyone in the US is an idiot and  is being fooled... BUT YOU, Debby, are privy to the REAL truth?.. Give me a break..  You have no more proof that what you are reading is the truth than anyone here knows EXACTLY what is happening behind closed doors on the world stage.   You are trolling the net for anything you can dig up.. and that's evident.   AND I think it's great how much you recognize the good things about America..  but as they say... with friends like you... who needs enemies.


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Yes... If you look upthread... you will see that I FOUND the word Penchant..   There are so many conspiracy theories out there.. However do you pick one to believe?
> 
> I believe  that Bush and CHeney lied...  I think I have told you several times that I think they should be in prison.. along with Rumsfeld and Condeliza Rice.. AND I write about it all the time on FB..   I'm not at all concerned about a government "watch List".... If I'm on a watch list, they are watching me quietly.. and good for them.... Doesn't concern me in the least..
> 
> I can see that in  your mind,  nothing the US does is to be trusted?   How about Germany?   Don't see them being held accountable for Hitler... OR Japan for Hirohito..nd you seem quite happy with Russia...    BUT..  the USA??   Oh man... puke that up forever.. and subscribe to any crazy theory you can dig up.   It's quite evident to  me where you are coming from Debby....  I don't think we have anything further to discuss..  I'm finding your motives and credulity quite suspect and predictable.






I don't 'pick' a conspiracy theory.  I read multiple opinions other than just what comes out of CNN, MSNBC, CBC, CTV, FOX, etc., and I look at their credentials and their evidence and keeping in mind what history has proven as to past behaviours, etc., and I formulate an opinion.

As I don't read your FB, what you may or may not write there is a mystery to me.  As far as the people you mentioned in your comment,  you and I agree on them.  

Germany, well that government has it's agenda too, of that I have no doubt.  But they are not the issue insofar as their efforts to dominate the world today are they?  Once upon a time, but no longer and the same goes for Japan.  And even Russia, hasn't been involved in a major conflict outside it's borders or the borders of the old Soviet Union since 1993.  And the conflicts that they have been involved in in various areas have come about as parts of what used to be the SU decided to break away and Russia tried to hold onto them which resulted in some fighting.  But if you look at this link which lists them:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_conflicts   you will notice that each incident seldom lasted more than a year and Russia withdrew.  

Compare that to the US record arming terrorists who proceed to overthrow governments and then suddenly the US is whispering in the ear of that new man who is their man.  The Shah of Iran, Hosni Mobaruk, Syria's Husni al-Za'im in 1949, Carlos Armas of Guatemala in 1954, Abdul Salam Arif in Iraq around 1960....several of those mentioned on the following link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions 

The 'best' evidence in those examples of corporate America running your government is the Guatemala war.  According to the page linked, that came about because the previous government was attempting to install agrarian reforms ....... and the United Fruit Company lobbied for a coup by lying and saying the government was communist and America was happy to oblige.  200,000 people died in the ensuing fighting.

"my country right or wrong" right QuickSilver?


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Good grief Debby... So.. everyone in the US is an idiot and  is being fooled... BUT YOU, Debby, are privy to the REAL truth?.. Give me a break..  You have no more proof that what you are reading is the truth than anyone here knows EXACTLY what is happening behind closed doors on the world stage.   You are trolling the net for anything you can dig up.. and that's evident.   AND I think it's great how much you recognize the good things about America..  but as they say... with friends like you... who needs enemies.




Enough of the citizens of America are fooled that your government operates with impunity.  But many of your countries own citizens are speaking out against those actions.  (I just happen to read enough about what's going on these days that I've come across them).

Do you even read any of the links QuickSilver?  Because if you did, you wouldn't be implying that I need 'proof' because the proofs are in those articles (and I'm only linking to them, not making them up).    Names, dates, photos, and after a while the patterns of behaviour become all too evident.....The problem is not that I am given to researching before I put it down in writing, but that you don't research.  

My motives for bothering to discuss and debate like this with people like you are six and three years old respectively and they call me Grandma.  And in Guatemala and Iraq and Somalia and Ukraine and Russia and Germany and all over the world, there are Grandma's and little kids.....and your country has no regard for us apparently.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 11, 2014)

Debby said:


> Enough of the citizens of America are fooled that your government operates with impunity.  But many of your countries own citizens are speaking out against those actions.  (I just happen to read enough about what's going on these days that I've come across them).



As I've stated in the past here, I've never been very 'political' or paid that much attention to the news until I retired.  But I do know the US has done many things behind the scenes that are not reported in the main stream media news that appear to be unethical and devious.  I don't consider everything I hear conspiracy theory, but just some truths that have not been announced on local newscasts for obvious reasons.

I agree with Bee, that Bush should have never invaded Iraq, and perhaps we wouldn't have this mess to deal with now, with ISIS.  Everything is not what it seems to be, and kudos to those who dig deeper via alternative news sources.  None of us should consider news sources like Fox or MSNBC as "bible", IMO.

Since I don't have any part in other 'political' forums, I don't know of any reasons to be angry with the UK or any other countries joining us to help with what is needing to be done in regards to ISIS.  I don't like the idea of boots on the ground, but airstrikes seems to be the next best thing.  It's a mess, and like Debby already said, a lot of the middle east issues come right back to the US actions of the past.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> As I've stated in the past here, I've never been very 'political' or paid that much attention to the news until I retired.  But I do know the US has done many things behind the scenes that are not reported in the main stream media news that appear to be unethical and devious.  I don't consider everything I hear conspiracy theory, but just some truths that have not been announced on local newscasts for obvious reasons.
> 
> I agree with Bee, that Bush should have never invaded Iraq, and perhaps we wouldn't have this mess to deal with now, with ISIS.  Everything is not what it seems to be, and kudos to those who dig deeper via alternative news sources.  None of us should consider news sources like Fox or MSNBC as "bible", IMO.
> 
> Since I don't have any part in other 'political' forums, I don't know of any reasons to be angry with the UK or any other countries joining us to help with what is needing to be done in regards to ISIS.  I don't like the idea of boots on the ground, but airstrikes seems to be the next best thing.  It's a mess, and like Debby already said, a lot of the middle east issues come right back to the US actions of the past.




Actually, we can trace the MIDDLE EAST turmoil all the way back to when Britain and France drew arbitrary borders for Iraq and Iran, with no regard for the tribal alliances that existed, and set the stage for all the unrest to follow..




> Both Britain and France had large interests in the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf. London's strategists had recognized by the early 20th century how important it would be to have access to petroleum production sites. The region also lay directly between Britain and what was then British India.





> Paris, by contrast, had growing business relations with the large harbor cities of the Mediterranean: Beirut, Sidon and Tyrus. Securing access to them was the goal of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.The fate of locals in those areas was all the same to the great powers. With a stroke of the pen, Sykes firmly drew a hooking line - from roughly Kirkuk, Iraq to Haifa, Israel - which gave France control of northern territories and Britain control of the south.
> "The artificiality of state formation has caused numerous conflicts over the last few decades," said Henner Fürtig, director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at GIGA research institute in Hamburg. "These questions haven't been solved for a century and burst open again and again, in a cycle, like now with the ISIS advance in northern Iraq."




http://www.dw.de/sykes-picot-drew-middle-easts-arbitrary-borders/a-17734768

So you can see that the US invading Iraq, was NOT the start of the problems there and the eventual formation of ISIS..  It goes back much farther...  While I agree we had no business invading Iraq.. and did so under false pretenses... ours are not the only hands that are dirty..  There's a lot of blame to go around.  Placing all the blame on the USA conveniently disregards history.  While we may be the biggest target to scapegoat..... Others had a hand in mucking up the region also..


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Well, perhaps you feel that way..BUT,   I don't like "friends" that insult me....  Do you?     It's something you expect from enemies...  I don't consider critical, insulting people friends at all..
> 
> As for "my country right or wrong"  That's BS..  I certainly don't feel that way and I am very critical of some aspects of our government..  BUT.. there's a difference in being analytic  and being  hateful..   Unfortunately.. I don't see some of the criticisms here as kind or constructive.. Just nasty and unnecessary.   It seems to me that the Canadians, Austrailians and especially the Brits are eager to bad mouth the US.. but are a tad thin skinned when it is handed back to them..  But I guess it's always easy to take pot shots... especially at the most powerful country in the world.



I hope I have never set out to insult anyone on this forum. I try to express my thoughts politely. If my posts are seen as critical or insulting I assure you that that is not my intention.

Yes, it is easy to take pot shots but you need to recognise that, being the most powerful country in the world, the rest of the world has a keen interest in what you are doing internationally. Even your internal economic policies and practices spill over and affect smaller economies.

When people complain about the American hegemony they are talking something very real that, for better or for worse, does affect them. It used to be the British hegemony but the baton has been passed to you now. With it comes a lot of odium; some of it unfair but a lot of it is also well deserved.

Please understand that nothing I have just written is hate filled. Whether you find it hateful or not is entirely up to you.


----------



## Debby (Oct 11, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> ........
> 
> So you can see that the US invading Iraq, was NOT the start of the problems there and the eventual formation of ISIS..  It goes back much farther...  While I agree we had no business invading Iraq.. and did so under false pretenses... ours are not the only hands that are dirty..  There's a lot of blame to go around.  Placing all the blame on the USA conveniently disregards history.  While we may be the biggest target to scapegoat..... Others had a hand in mucking up the region also..




You've made some good points, but the US has only continually exacerbated the problem by continually meddling in all of those countries.  And which others have the greatest responsibility for the problems?  I can't recall reading much if anything about France deposing governments or manipulating and setting up puppet governments.  Or Austria or Belgium or Italy....

I might be wrong on that last and if you have some examples, I'll happily include them in my world view, but currently, it still stands that a poll found (from respondents around the world) that most people think the US is the greatest threat to world peace.   http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008  Apparently even 13% of those Americans who were polled rated America as the biggest threat which is only a wee bit behind Canadians who came in at 17%.

So you can get angry at me if you want and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not the only one who fears your country.  Or at least what might happen to the world as a result of your countries policies.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 12, 2014)

I know that this is a side issue but I've just uncovered something interesting about the cost of being an ally of the United States. I'm not exactly sure what all this means but for those who think the allies of the US are somehow not contributing enough, this is food for thought.



> *AUSTRALIA will be billed by the US military for many of the missiles and other bombs RAAF jet fighters drop in the campaign against Islamic State terrorists.                                  *
> 
> US-supplied smart-guided weapons fitted to Australia’s Super Hornets can range in price from less than $70,000 to more than $650,000 each. Weapons-sharing agreements struck between the Australian Defence Force and the Pentagon give the RAAF *access to US aerial ordnance but each missile or bomb used must be paid for.
> 
> ...


War is an expensive business both in money and in blood.

Our population last year was estimated in July as 22,262,500 compared with the USA estimated at 318,892,100. That means that the US is 14.3 times bigger population-wise than Australia. New Zealand is much smaller at 4,242,500. It's not reasonable to expect our military commitments to match the US.

The US population is roughly 5 times the population of the United Kingdom. So pro rata it is unreasonable for the Brits to match US military spending either.

I guess that is why the United States ends up carrying the heaviest load - you have the biggest population and economy and you also have the largest standing army as well as being the main armament supplier to your allies, at "full-cost basis".


----------



## Debby (Oct 12, 2014)

War for profit.  Corporations making huge profits at the cost of human lives.  Oh well, it's 'over there'.


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

Maybe its time to bring out the BIG weapons that enemies pay attention to.
The US has those but worry about cavilian being killed,cant have it both ways.


----------



## Debby (Oct 12, 2014)

Sure, why not Davey?  As long as they're deployed over there and against people who don't have similar BIG weapons... 

(actually I'm not serious about deploying nuclear weapons if that is what you are referring to because that could well be the beginning of the end for all of us!)


----------



## WhatInThe (Oct 12, 2014)

There's a lot of should haves or should not haves but ISIS is a mess that has to be cleaned up. Sure the US messed things invading Iraq but as pointed out the colonial powers that settled and chopped places like Iraq over hundred years ago are just as much to blame. It's a daisy chain of events going back centuries. It is frustrating everyone seems to forget or ignore history. 

The whole problem with war in the middle east is that you wind up fighting an idea. An idea is a lot harder to stop or kill off compared to an actual army following orders.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

Some clarifications need for this thread.    Who decided we should go into Iraq for the second time.

First time it was the UN that asked for some countries to arrive and make sure Saddam would get back into the recognized boundaries.   Many countries did arrive and under the leadership of the US President Bush.   They quickly accomplished that fact.   Over the ten plus years later there were more efforts to move military into Iraq to settle things down.   There were always two or three of the controlling nations of the UN, China, Russia, and sometimes another, would refuse to support the move to re enter Irag and give the people their idea of a government.

So Sir Michael Jackson came forward with his ideas about that situation.    First from one of his books came this comment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by  careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and  concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a  'second' resolution.

(Near the end of the document.)

And also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson

Jackson succeeded General Sir Michael Walker as Chief of the General Staff (CGS)—the professional head of, and highest post in, the British Army—on 1 February 2003,[SUP][48][/SUP] just over a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He later said that he "did his homework" in researching the disputed legality of the war and had convinced himself that the invasion was legal.[SUP][5][/SUP] 
.......................

It seems to me that much of the Iraq activity was shared and joint in coming to what has been accepted activity.   Certainly the US has and does make mistakes but in the Iraq wars, we had help from a good English General to be able to re enter Iraq to end many atrocities that were going on.

The US's follow on decisions were what has turned out to be disastrous for Iraq, and probably much of the Arab nations area.    We should have never left Iraq, a brand new nation, alone to make mistakes without advice from the UN nations and their military leaders.   The near instant withdrawals ordered by our new President has only given the world another big disaster.    I use the WWII efforts of outside efforts to try to keep the recovering nations from just falling back into dictator types of unrepresentative governments being formed again.   The attempt to build representative governments was not a mistake.    Running prior to them becoming adjusted to and trusting representative governments was the biggest mistake for the US to make.


----------



## Vivjen (Oct 12, 2014)

Yes, BobF, the 1919 'drawing straight lines' agreement was dreadful; I have been through that on another thread previously.
it was also practised in Africa; no great success there either; to put it mildly.
Amazing really, especially as UK agreed it with the French; probably the only time French and UK really agreed on anything; perhaps that was why it was such a mess....although I suspect the roots go back even further..

Tony Blair was so determined to become a world statesman, he would have agreed to anything, IMO.
now look at him; ME peace envoy; worth millions...no extra comment needed.

So, Brits have tried to back off a little since that....and that hasn't worked either IMO.

As usual; damned if you do; damned if you don't..


----------



## Debby (Oct 12, 2014)

WhatInThe said:


> There's a lot of should haves or should not haves but ISIS is a mess that has to be cleaned up. Sure the US messed things invading Iraq but as pointed out the colonial powers that settled and chopped places like Iraq over hundred years ago are just as much to blame. It's a daisy chain of events going back centuries. It is frustrating everyone seems to forget or ignore history.
> 
> The whole problem with war in the middle east is that you wind up fighting an idea. An idea is a lot harder to stop or kill off compared to an actual army following orders.






I don't think anybody is ignoring history so much as they're ignoring 'old' history while still seeing recent history and acknowledging the fact that while Saddam Hussein was in charge, the region was relatively stable compared to currently.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2014)

YES!!!   SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....  If we ignore it... then it didn't happen... lol!!!!   Perhaps you are forgetting that Hussein was not exactly a sweetheart.. and commited his own attrocites in order to keep control...  Gassing the Kurds would be one..


----------



## WhatInThe (Oct 12, 2014)

Debby said:


> Sure, why not Davey?  As long as they're deployed over there and against people who don't have similar BIG weapons...
> 
> (actually I'm not serious about deploying nuclear weapons if that is what you are referring to because that could well be the beginning of the end for all of us!)



In a way this is what ISIS or Jihadi John is doing to non military combatants restraining them, then killing and beheading them. How does a retrained person with their hands tied behind their back with others nearby pointing weapons at them get a fair chance. If nothing else this should be a gloves off manhunt for serial killers.


----------



## Debby (Oct 12, 2014)

BobF said:


> ..... We should have never left Iraq, a brand new nation, alone to make mistakes without advice from the UN nations and their military leaders.   The near instant withdrawals ordered by our new President has only given the world another big disaster.    I use the WWII efforts of outside efforts to try to keep the recovering nations from just falling back into dictator types of unrepresentative governments being formed again.   The attempt to build representative governments was not a mistake.    Running prior to them becoming adjusted to and trusting representative governments was the biggest mistake for the US to make.




Are you forgetting that the 'Iraqi government' wouldn't let you stay?  They are after all a sovereign country which means that they have a right to say what happens or doesn't happen in their sovereign country and they decided that it was time for you to go home.  And frankly the goal wasn't really to develop a representative government so much as an effort to stop Hussein from trading his oil for euros and bypassing the American dollar.

"....The Iraq war provides a good example. Until November 2000, no OPEC country had dared to violate the US dollar-pricing rule, and while the US dollar remained the strongest currency in the world there was also little reason to challenge the system. But in late 2000, France and a few other EU members convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the petrodollar process and sell Iraq's oil for food in euros, not dollars. In the time between then and the March 2003 American invasion of Iraq, several other nations hinted at their interest in non-US dollar oil trading, including Russia, Iran, Indonesia, and even Venezuela...."

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2014)

WhatInThe said:


> In a way this is what ISIS or Jihadi John is doing to non military combatants restraining them, then killing and beheading them. How does a retrained person with their hands tied behind their back with others nearby pointing weapons at them get a fair chance. If nothing else this should be a gloves off manhunt for serial killers.



Not to mention the atrocities they are committing against women and young girls... rape.. Selling them... giving them as gifts... etc


----------



## Debby (Oct 12, 2014)

WhatInThe said:


> In a way this is what ISIS or Jihadi John is doing to non military combatants restraining them, then killing and beheading them. How does a retrained person with their hands tied behind their back with others nearby pointing weapons at them get a fair chance. If nothing else this should be a gloves off manhunt for serial killers.




I don't think that starting a nuclear holocaust will solve the worlds problems will it?  Well maybe for the few survivors in some far off land far from the toxic effects.  They could maybe make a go of it.

Hypothetical situation:  America 'accidentally' drops a nuke on Syria, Russia has no choice but to stand up for Assad and they begin deploying their nukes, which causes India who is currently negotiating with Russia on gold and oil, to get involved and they deploy their nukes and then Pakistan who has nukes and a lousy relationship with India gets involved with their BIG weapons.......movie of the week coming up!


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

There were efforts for the Iraq government to allow the US to stay on.    We have a uncompromising government in several areas and negotiating with Iraq was one of those areas.    Our government chose to run, rather than to continue with negotiations.    Our current government had chosen to reduce the size of our military and not go to war again.    They say that out loud these days, as they continue to reduce our military while they increase our government costs in other ways.

And as I pointed out in my previous post, it was more than just an American invasion of Iraq.    It was an agreement among many nations of the world to try to get Iraq cleared and made much more safe for the citizens.    The big innovator of the Iraq innovation was an English General that showed how the countries of the world got back into Iraq without the UN's second agreement.


----------



## Debby (Oct 12, 2014)

BobF said:


> There were efforts for the Iraq government to allow the US to stay on.    We have a uncompromising government in several areas and negotiating with Iraq was one of those areas.    Our government chose to run, rather than to continue with negotiations.    Our current government had chosen to reduce the size of our military and not go to war again.    They say that out loud these days, as they continue to reduce our military while they increase our government costs in other ways.
> 
> And as I pointed out in my previous post, it was more than just an American invasion of Iraq.    It was an agreement among many nations of the world to try to get Iraq cleared and made much more safe for the citizens.    The big innovator of the Iraq innovation was and English General that showed how the countries of the world go back into Iraq without the UN's second agreement.




I was under the impression that while Iraq was willing to allow US troops to stay, they wouldn't grant them immunity if they should commit violent acts.  That belief is supported in this link: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/  which is an article written by Glen Greenwald.  

From the link:  "...The Obama administration — as it’s telling you itself — was willing to keep troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline (indeed, they weren’t just willing, but eager). The only reason they aren’t  is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause ...."

And I find it interesting that you seem to disregard the issue of Saddam Husseins 'euro's for oil' plan.  America's status insofar as having the Reserve Currency has allowed the endless printing of money rather than being restricted to funds supported by a healthy gold balance.   And as France and a couple other EU countries were supportive of that notion, and in combination with the loss of Libya's use of the dollar (Gaddafi wanted to trade oil for gold), it might have been considered a good thing to get rid of the guy who was possibly going to start something.

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar

From the link:  "...The US has reaped many rewards. As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the US dollar rose with it, lifting the US economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the US dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for US dollars, which in turn gained in value. A strong US dollar allowed Americans to buy imported goods at a massive discount – the petrodollar system essentially creating a subsidy for US consumers at the expense of the rest of the world.....There is another downside, a potential threat now lurking in the shadows. The value of the US dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in US dollars. If that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their US money. The resulting sell-off of US dollars would weaken the currency dramatically...."


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

Debby, Obama did not want to continue to negotiate as he just wanted to pull our troops.    A rather bad decision.    I think that those US troops still in Iraq are free of Iraq discipline in case of challenges, or they might also be gone.

I have no idea about all that oil negotiating and so will just not comment.    Which is what I have done in previous post.    The US is soon to be free of needing imported oil on our own oil sources.    Not sure if that means we will not buy from other producers.    That would be bad for Canada I suppose, but doubt that would happen.   It is mostly a claim that the US can be self sufficient if need be.   Once Obama is gone we may be able to complete the pipeline Canada wants to get the oil to the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## Debby (Oct 12, 2014)

BobF said:


> Debby, Obama did not want to continue to negotiate as he just wanted to pull our troops.    A rather bad decision.    I think that those US troops still in Iraq are free of Iraq discipline in case of challenges, or they might also be gone.
> 
> I have no idea about all that oil negotiating and so will just not comment.    Which is what I have done in previous post.    The US is soon to be free of needing imported oil on our own oil sources.    Not sure if that means we will not buy from other producers.    That would be bad for Canada I suppose, but doubt that would happen.   It is mostly a claim that the US can be self sufficient if need be.   Once Obama is gone we may be able to complete the pipeline Canada wants to get the oil to the Gulf of Mexico.




It wasn't a case of protecting access to oil (which is moot at this point apparently) or spreading democracy but a case of protecting the Reserve currency status that the US has enjoyed for decades.  America has gotten rich because of that status and Saddam Husseins plans, and Gaddafi's plan, not to mention the BRIC plans to use Russian currency or the Chinese currency or ....threatens that status.  The link I posted gives a very good outline of that status and the effects of losing that status.  

As for Obama's decision to pull the troops, again it comes because the US wouldn't agree that American soldiers would be held responsible for any future bad acts which was a requirement of the newly minted Iraq government.  Can't blame them really.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

Nor did Obama want to continue to negotiate.   His plan has been to diminish the US military, space program, world wide activities, and lots of other elements so he can build one of the worlds largest and most expensive welfare systems for the population of the US, and all those that just come across our unprotected borders.   Two more years till we can replace this poor performing President with some one else from either party would be fine.   Obama won with about 54%, rose to near 60%, but has been going down for most of his career.   Second election his margin was bout 52% and going down ever since.    Depending on what you read his past score had been at less than 40% and sometimes rises to about 48% then goes down again.   So Obama is a hurting turkey these days.   Today's+ candidates for this next election, on Nov 4 2014, are trying to avoid Obama's name if possible.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2014)

That's just a pile of Right Wing nonsense Bob....








Also, more people have been deported under Obama than Bush... and where did you get your inside information about Obamas plans to put everyone on welfare?   Did he take you into his confidence?   lol!!


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

When Obama took all of us into his government run medical plan he has effectively put us all at the mercy of how the government will take care of us.   For me the cost has gone up and not sure how well the service will be.   Is that welfare in your words?    If so, that was all Obama as not one Republican voted for his plan that he put together in closed sessions with full support of Pelosi.    Who then was replaced by a Republican by popular vote.    November is another election and it will be interesting to see how the counts go again.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2014)

Funny...  10 million people are now insured that weren't before.. and they love it..  It's going to might hard to convince folks that they can no longer keep their kids on their policies until age 26... that they can now be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.. and that they will be thrown off their plans if they get sick due to lifetime limits..   .... Mighty hard.... bobby...  Funny how the GOP is no longer harping on obamacare...  Ebola and ISIS are now the battle cries.... oh well... better than BENGHAZI.... that was getting old...


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

No way that the government can give us full coverage with no restrictions as you claim and do it cheaper.    No reason to argue the Obama care nonsense while he is still in office and has a Democrat slave in his hands with our current leader of the Senate.   If the Republicans take over the Senate and keep the House, some things will get corrected and fixed but no battle on Obama care is possible for as long as Obama is in the big chair.   His program was railroaded through with a strange hold for time, count delayed, to re talk to those that had indicated NO for the program.   Long delayed final count until they had changed enough NO's to YES.   When Obama is gone there will be time to try to improve the operations and try to make them in a payed for, not debt, setup.

Remember that Obama took our national debt from about 10 trillion to near 20 trillion and still rising in his first few years.    Reed and Pelosi had taken the debt from mid 7 trillion to the 10 trillion that Obama had inherited.   This has been an expensive period since Obama took over and no end in sight.

Interesting that your post of graphs sort of supports what I had posted earlier.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2014)

BobF said:


> No way that the government can give us full coverage with no restrictions as you claim and do it cheaper.    No reason to argue the Obama care nonsense while he is still in office and has a Democrat slave in his hands with our current leader of the Senate.   If the Republicans take over the Senate and keep the House, some things will get corrected and fixed but no battle on Obama care is possible for as long as Obama is in the big chair.   His program was railroaded through with a strange hold for time, count delayed, to re talk to those that had indicated NO for the program.   Long delayed final count until they had changed enough NO's to YES.   When Obama is gone there will be time to try to improve the operations and try to make them in a payed for, not debt, setup.
> 
> Remember that Obama took our national debt from about 10 trillion to near 20 trillion and still rising in his first few years.    Reed and Pelosi had taken the debt from mid 7 trillion to the 10 trillion that Obama had inherited.   This has been an expensive period since Obama took over and no end in sight.
> 
> Interesting that your post of graphs sort of supports what I had posted earlier.



If the GOP takes the Senate and Keeps the House.... NOTHING will get done..  Because there is no way they will win the Senate by a veto proof margin.. they need 67 seats for that...  Think that will happen??  lol!!...  PLUS to over turn a veto they need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate... Obama will just veto every single piece of nonsense they try to pass... THEN with more gridlock... the DEMS will sweep in 2016..   So really... It does not concern me at all if the GOP wins the Senate..  It's meaningless.. and might be kind of amusing having the public get a real good look at the kind of garbage they want to pass..  You have to remember that in 2016 there will be more Republican seats in play.. seats that can be won... ESPECIALLY in a presdential election year.. 

As for the grafts.. the point is that GW Bush had lower approval ratings than Obama..  AND he fell farther.... Clinton stayed pretty high.. despite the GOP theater of Impeachment.... what's that tell ya?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 12, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Funny...  10 million people are now insured that weren't before.. and they love it..  It's going to might hard to convince folks that they can no longer keep their kids on their policies until age 26... that they can now be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.. and that they will be thrown off their plans if they get sick due to lifetime limits..



I _always _had health insurance coverage, for my entire adult life.  When I was working I was able to get coverage from Kaiser (whom I've been with over 30 years), either for free or for very little cost through my employer.  I have worked full time and plenty of overtime over the years, and paid all of my taxes which were deducted out of my payroll checks.  I have never been on welfare, food-stamps, etc.

When I retired, I had to begin to pay my "Cobra" coverage out of pocket, and it was ridiculously expensive.  But, although I rarely go to doctors, I would not be without health insurance, in case of a serious medical condition, car accident, etc.  Unfortunately, the cost of the health care premiums were outrageously increased each and every year.  I really resented having to line the pockets of some fat cats in the medical system with my hard earned dollars that I saved for retirement.  BTW, I consider myself middle-class, and am by no means rich, so every dollar counts.

I'm happy with the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).  It has greatly reduced my monthly premium payments, and as you say, has other benefits also.  I don't have any pre-existing conditons, but I'm happy that other people aren't being penalized for them, if they suffer poor health.  Even those in a red state like Kentucky are happy with Obamacare, as long as it remained under another name KyNect, they just wouldn't accept anything related to President Obama. 

Another point is that health care plans can't drop you anymore without notice for no reason at all, they were able to do that before the ACA, and they did do it to many.  I'm all for Obamacare, and the only thing better would be the Single Payer Plan (Universal health insurance).  The countries who have that system find it very agreeable, and any odd complaints about the system are exaggerated for political purposes, IMO.  BTW, I'm not a Democrat.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> If the GOP takes the Senate and Keeps the House.... NOTHING will get done..  Because there is no way they will win the Senate by a veto proof margin.. they need 67 seats for that...  Think that will happen??  lol!!...  PLUS to over turn a veto they need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate... Obama will just veto every single piece of nonsense they try to pass... THEN with more gridlock... the DEMS will sweep in 2016..   So really... It does not concern me at all if the GOP wins the Senate..  It's meaningless.. and might be kind of amusing having the public get a real good look at the kind of garbage they want to pass..  You have to remember that in 2016 there will be more Republican seats in play.. seats that can be won... ESPECIALLY in a presdential election year..
> 
> 
> As for the grafts.. the point is that GW Bush had lower approval ratings than Obama..  AND he fell farther.... Clinton stayed pretty high.. despite the GOP theater of Impeachment.... what's that tell ya?



Pretty sad picture you paint for the Democrat resistance to others  ideas.    There is no reason for such ridiculous activity in our  government.   There are people on both sides of the political picture  that have needs and they should be recognized no matter which side is in  power.   That is why we have a Congress that is supposed to get to  debate and vote on issues.    Something the Obama gang and his desciples  just do not seem to understand or allow.    That is why I keep saying  that after Obama is gone that things will get better  no matter which  side gets elected.   Some fairness and compassion is likely to enter  into our government once again.

For your charts, they are all  pretty close if you look to the correct numbers.    1. Clinton's good  performance was because he had a Republican Congress that made sure the  things he wanted or needed got done.    They also saw that he did not  waste mega bucks with poor legislation.   While the Republicans were  there Clinton's scores went up.    2.   Bush had the opposite situation  when the Democrats took over the Congress in his last two years and  proceeded to spend big bucks and wasted a lot of money for things not  needed.    His average for the years was 49%.    3.  Obama has an average of 50% for his so far unfinished term.    We have to wait for two more years to see his ending average.    He started strong but has constantly been going down.   Recently as low as 38%.   Hard to predict where he might be on average for all 8 years.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2014)

BobF said:


> Pretty sad picture you paint for the Democrat resistance to others  ideas.    There is no reason for such ridiculous activity in our  government.   There are people on both sides of the political picture  that have needs and they should be recognized no matter which side is in  power.   That is why we have a Congress that is supposed to get to  debate and vote on issues.    Something the Obama gang and his desciples  just do not seem to understand or allow.    That is why I keep saying  that after Obama is gone that things will get better  no matter which  side gets elected.   Some fairness and compassion is likely to enter  into our government once again.
> 
> 
> 
> For your charts, they are all  pretty close if you look to the correct numbers.    1. Clinton's good  performance was because he had a Republican Congress that made sure the  things he wanted or needed got done.    They also saw that he did not  waste mega bucks with poor legislation.   While the Republicans were  there Clinton's scores went up.    2.   Bush had the opposite situation  when the Democrats took over the Congress in his last two years and  proceeded to spend big bucks and wasted a lot of money for things not  needed.    His average for the years was 49%.    3.  Obama has an average of 50% for his so far unfinished term.    We have to wait for two more years to see his ending average.    He started strong but has constantly been going down.   Recently as low as 38%.   Hard to predict where he might be on average for all 8 years.




DEBATE?  You mean like how Boehner kept the House is session to debate the air strikes in syria?  The GOP is not interested in debate and they are not interested in compromise....  They LEFT Washington for a 54 day vacation... Now Boehner has said they won't debate the ISIS crisis until after the new congress takes over... THAT means in January... So tell me..  How is that doing their job?  Something as important at what is happening in the MIddle East and Boehner won't allow a debate?   At least the British debated the issue and VOTED...  What about Congress?  What was Obama supposed to do? LOCK them in?  Lay down in front of the doors as they ran over him on their way to the Airport?     Don't blame this on the Dems Or Obama.. Boehner and the teaparty are running the House.

Yes... the point of the Graft was to SHOW you that all Presidents tend to go down in the polls at year SIX...  Obama is not an anomaly..  You tend to conveniently forget Bushes rating..


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> DEBATE?  You mean like how Boehner kept the House is session to debate the air strikes in syria?  The GOP is not interested in debate and they are not interested in compromise....  They LEFT Washington for a 54 day vacation... Now Boehner has said they won't debate the ISIS crisis until after the new congress takes over... THAT means in January... So tell me..  How is that doing their job?  Something as important at what is happening in the MIddle East and Boehner won't allow a debate?   At least the British debated the issue and VOTED...  What about Congress?  What was Obama supposed to do? LOCK them in?  Lay down in front of the doors as they ran over him on their way to the Airport?     Don't blame this on the Dems Or Obama.. Boehner and the teaparty are running the House.
> 
> Yes... the point of the Graft was to SHOW you that all Presidents tend to go down in the polls at year SIX...  Obama is not an anomaly..  You tend to conveniently forget Bushes rating..



I did not forget Bushes numbers.   His is 49% average.   Which is the same for all three to be honest.   His worst two years was under the Democrat leadership of the Congress.   How far down will Obama go in the next two years?

Boehner has no reason to rush into decisions as Obama has already said he is not supporting anything in the middle east.   I hope that changes soon as those people over there need support to defend themselves.   Like the promised weapons that Obama made but so far has failed to present them.    It is still the Dems and their flaky ways of operating.   No one in the world shows much trust for the Americans any more.   All that has been happening in the last 6 years should be going through Congress for debates and approvals.    All these committee run items that Obama has set up have no true authority and will likely disappear after Obama is gone.    Hopefully we will go back to a proper run government, maybe half the size of this Obama mess will come true.   Hillary still has not announced but I am sure she will make a lot more sense than the way Obama is running the government.


----------



## Just plain me (Oct 12, 2014)

I haven't read all this thread, but will as time permits. For now on the topic of ISIS I say I love my country. And will defend it. However we feel about other Goverments does it really matter on this subject? We all agree that ISIS is cruel and barbaric and needs to be stopped. I don't care which country leads, which follows. Let's just join together and stop them now. You can fight them where they are now or you can fight them on your own homeland, where ever that is. Simple as that to me. Those who don't join in will find no help when they need it against the next group of terriorist whether ISIS or whatever. 
  As far as what happens in elections I agree with hubby when he answered a call the other day wanting to know who he was voting for. His simple answer was: "I think that is my business!" Only took two questions for the guy to hang up. I have friends on both sides of the line, but they don't know how I vote. That is why the vote is private. I listen to both sides politely, and both have valid points but when it is all said and done,I am totally responsible for my vote. I will read your pros and cons and learn some things I am sure for you seem to have done your research. Love to all, and to all a goodnight!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 12, 2014)

> As far as what happens in elections I agree with hubby when he answered a call the other day wanting to know who he was voting for. His simple answer was: "I think that is my business!" Only took two questions for the guy to hang up. I have friends on both sides of the line, but they don't know how I vote. That is why the vote is private. I listen to both sides politely, and both have valid points but when it is all said and done,I am totally responsible for my vote. I will read your pros and cons and learn some things I am sure for you seem to have done your research. Love to all, and to all a goodnight!



I fully endorse this sentiment. Voting is a personal and private matter but I am prepared to talk about issues that are important to me; issues that influence the way I vote. I think it is healthy to talk about issues at any time, not just at election time.

I belong to no party and owe none of them my allegiance. They owe it to me to deliver good government, whether I vote for them or not. If they don't I certainly won't reward them at the next election.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2014)

Just plain me said:


> I haven't read all this thread, but will as time permits. For now on the topic of ISIS I say I love my country. And will defend it. However we feel about other Goverments does it really matter on this subject? We all agree that ISIS is cruel and barbaric and needs to be stopped. I don't care which country leads, which follows. Let's just join together and stop them now. You can fight them where they are now or you can fight them on your own homeland, where ever that is. Simple as that to me. Those who don't join in will find no help when they need it against the next group of terriorist whether ISIS or whatever.
> As far as what happens in elections I agree with hubby when he answered a call the other day wanting to know who he was voting for. His simple answer was: "I think that is my business!" Only took two questions for the guy to hang up. I have friends on both sides of the line, but they don't know how I vote. That is why the vote is private. I listen to both sides politely, and both have valid points but when it is all said and done,I am totally responsible for my vote. I will read your pros and cons and learn some things I am sure for you seem to have done your research. Love to all, and to all a goodnight!



I agree with what you have posted.   All the free folks around this world should be joining together to shut down this very nasty, and not true Islamic group,    They are totally focused on their only brand of religion and will kill all others that do not bend and believe as they do.

Unfortunately I have been caught up in a few posts about US politics and not much got done and won't get done till after our next election on Nov 4.   I do appreciate you restarting the thread topic about the ISIS folks and their nasty ways to all.

Have a good night.


----------



## oakapple (Oct 13, 2014)

I don't know a great deal about US politics, but this is all very interesting, a bit like The West Wing!


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 13, 2014)

Yes, the West Wing!  A great show that I think came as close to the reality of Washington politics as possible...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Yes, the West Wing! A great show that I think came as close to the reality of Washington politics as possible...




Not really... The West Wing was filmed long before the TeaParty took over the House and infected the Senate..  US politics is infinately more interesting now.. if you consider interesting to mean.. nothing gets done, and folks trying to outdo each other with the crazy talk.


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 13, 2014)

You are so right, QS, I consider the teaparty to be the most vile evil thing that has happened to our country in recent years.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

Jackie22 said:


> You are so right, QS, I consider the teaparty to be the most vile evil thing that has happened to our country in recent years.



Well they certainly are imaginative... unfortunately, not much is grounded in reality.


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2014)

Which is more to the proper way for our Congress to work.   Our Congress was not set up for 'political parties' to us and was supposed to allow the people of different regions and needs of the country to have a forum to use for their wants and needs.   Our current, last 50 or so years, has had way too much time wasted on trying to make the country way far left socialist.   Conservatives get little ear in the Congress these days as our current President wants to make the country into his ides of what is right, far left for sure.   He has kept the Congress pretty much shut down while his favorite folk get assignments to do this or that which Obama thinks is right.    Two more years and hopefully then we will be able to post a new president that is not so far off the proper way for out government to run, by the peoples voices, not the very biased President.   The President should present his ideas to a Congress who will then debate and accept, modify, or reject, based on the peoples wishes.

The Tea Party has not taken over the Congress.   They do have a voice there, same as any other political group should have.   Right now the Democrat part of the Congress is also split with the more conservative types being totally overpowered by the far left bunch now running the Congress only for the Presidents ideas.   But that idea may get challenged in the new election in Nov 4.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

Boehner is terrified of the TeaParty factor in the House. He refuses to bring up any bill for debate or for a vote... BOBF... ONLY the Speaker of the House can bring up bills.. SO.. now tell me again how Democrats are stopping debate in the House.. If Boehner will not bring a bill to the floor... HOW is it going to get debated? Boehner has destroyed how our government works.. His Congress has been the least productive in history... unless you consider 50+ votes to repeal Obamacare productive.. Me thinks you have the right idea... only you are blaming the WRONG party.. NOW stop it...and go have a cup of tea!!   lol!!


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 13, 2014)

Obama has kept the Congress shut down??  LOL.....All I can say is that you need to come out of that cave you are living in.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

Jackie22 said:


> Obama has kept the Congress shut down?? LOL.....All I can say is that you need to come out of that cave you are living in.



Yes Jackie... didn't you know that?   He shut down the whole government in order that Veterans couldn't go to the war memorials AND he forced Ted Cruz to read Green Eggs and Ham on the floor of the Senate!  But that was just a distraction... so he could scheme to have the ebola epidemic started in Africa... because you know he is FROM Africa.. and then arrange to have it brought to the States...  Which of course is being done by the hundreds of the ISIS combatants that are coming in from Mexico...to take over control of our government and institute Sharia law.... because you know he's a Muslim...   except Duncan, who is probably a relative of Obama brought it in first... WHEW.....


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Boehner is terrified of the TeaParty factor in the House. He refuses to bring up any bill for debate or for a vote... BOBF... ONLY the Speaker of the House can bring up bills.. SO.. now tell me again how Democrats are stopping debate in the House.. If Boehner will not bring a bill to the floor... HOW is it going to get debated? Boehner has destroyed how our government works.. His Congress has been the least productive in history... unless you consider 50+ votes to repeal Obamacare productive.. Me thinks you have the right idea... only you are blaming the WRONG party.. NOW stop it...and go have a cup of tea!!   lol!!



Totally inaccurate.   The House is not the Congress for one item.    Another item is that the Senate can also start a procedure too.   As I understand things.   And no matter how many items the House may start, the Senate, under the direction of one of our most stubborn and uncooperative Senate leader in Reed, just puts them in the  maybe someday look at it basket and the never looks.   So it is Definitely the twisted Democrats that are the problem.    Not the Republican House.

Time to end this stupid discussion and just let the people try to fix the mess we have in about two weeks.

The biggest problem with the Tea Party is their goal to reduce the size of the government and put responsibility into the hands of the people once again, as it once was and still should be.    That is the way our government worked for hundreds of years.   But in the last years from around 1960 and up till today we have just kept on adding to the federal governments size and duties.   This just costs us more in taxes to pay for the extra federal employees and their over payed jobs.   No real benefits seen from much of this stuff.   Just more power points for some of the politicians.

Blaming the wrong party?     For me, I vote often a split ticket, depending on the subject.   Much  better that those that lock on to a party vote as too many do.   It will likely get better if everyone voted the way our Constitution suggests rather than with the closed party vote that too many depend on.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

BobF said:


> Totally inaccurate. The House is not the Congress for one item. Another item is that the Senate can also start a procedure too. As I understand things. And no matter how many items the House may start, the Senate, under the direction of one of our most stubborn and uncooperative Senate leader in Reed, just puts them in the maybe someday look at it basket and the never looks. So it is Definitely the twisted Democrats that are the problem. Not the Republican House.
> 
> Time to end this stupid discussion and just let the people try to fix the mess we have in about two weeks.
> 
> ...




Bobby..... the Senate can and HAS started proceedings... and passed them... however, then it has to go to the HOUSE.. and Boehner won't bring anything to the floor for a vote.. As for Reed... why would he put the nonsense coming from the Republican house up? Like 50 bills to repeal Obamacare... Do you think the President would sign any crap coming from the Teaparty lead House? You really have a strange idea about how this government is working.. or rather not working and why... Exactly what kind of TEA are YOU drinking?

Hey!! Let me give you a little shiver up your leg.... Ready? .................BENGHAZI!


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Bobby..... the Senate can and HAS started proceedings... and passed them... however, then it has to go to the HOUSE.. and Boehner won't bring anything to the floor for a vote.. As for Reed... why would he put the nonsense coming from the Republican house up? Like 50 bills to repeal Obamacare... Do you think the President would sign any crap coming from the Teaparty lead House? You really have a strange idea about how this government is working.. or rather not working and why... Exactly what kind of TEA are YOU drinking?
> 
> Hey!! Let me give you a little shiver up your leg.... Ready? .................BENGHAZI!



And just what has Benghazi got to do with the current election worries?    That is just another of Obama's strange situations.   A situation where our government had not prepared to prevent this problem from happening, other countries did, and then pretty much slept through the event till several were killed and the ambassadors residence was destroyed.   All because of our current governments failures.   Nothing else.

You are right.   Lots of bills to stop Obama care.   Obama care never would have been started if they left the vote stand, but they did not and held the vote open till they had gotten enough votes changed or proposed vote changed to their liking.   In the future, once Obama is gone, there will be special efforts to change or alter how Obama care operates.    It is far too expensive the way it is now going and needs brought into better balance for all.    There was never any reason to put all of the US under the same controls.   We should  have just concentrated on the very poor that could not get medical care from their pocket change.   Most hospitals would take in the poor and give them help.   Then, after the problem was found and help given they were asked to pay.   When they could not pay, there were ways to take care of the problem.   Now with Obama care I wonder how the hospitals do take care of walk in pleas for help.

So far Obama has driven the national debt from 10 trillion to near 20 trillion.    Prior to Obama, the federal debt was about 7 trillion with efforts to hold that level and try to pay down.   Not so with Obama and the future generations will really hurt to pay back for his waste of money and increasing the debts.    As I posted earlyier, Reed and Pelosi managed to spend enough to raise Bush's debt from 7 trillion to 10 trillion in two years.    It was done by attaching large and wasteful spending to Bushes war time budget bills.   To keep the Iraq and Afghanistan situations going Bush had to have such moneys and that meant he had to approve those wasteful dollar's that Reed and Pelosi push on the real bills that had to pass.   Real nice way for fools to get their ways.   Yeah sure.

I have no strange ideas about how this government is working at all.    Obama has just taken over, tossed normal ways for the government to work, wants total party control rather than the debated and voted on Congressional control.   Not much of our government is now run through the Congress as it should.    Too much done with these ordained committees and departments that Obama has set up to avoid the proper debates and votes of our Congress.   Something that many just do not know about or disagree with.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

Strange..... very strange indeed.... :ambivalence:


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Strange..... very strange indeed.... :ambivalence:



Pretty hard for 'party dominated' folks to understand.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

BobF said:


> Pretty hard for 'party dominated' folks to understand.



Pretty hard for rational people to understand Bob...


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Pretty hard for rational people to understand Bob...



When a 'party' decides to ignore the Constitution to do things, it is no longer a US minded government.   That is what we have in control right now.   A non Constitutional minded government.   Too bad for the current government and I suggest that the same political party could be in charge with the next president and I think Hillary will do a much better jjob of running things than Obama has done.   Hillary is much more likely to work through the Congress than to deviate and go around Congress.   Obama was a good speaker and convinced a lot of folks he would do a good job.    But he has failed to prove himself.   Hillary offers hope to go back to the Constitutional ways of running our government for the Democrats.

That is if Hillary decides to officially run again.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

That's fine Bob...  I'll leave you to your delusions..  So long as you aren't going to hurt yourself..


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> That's fine Bob...  I'll leave you to your delusions..  So long as you aren't going to hurt yourself..



It appears you don't like the idea of Hillary being more Constitutional than our worm Obama.

Obama is a nice man with a nice family.   But he fails as a smart politician for the future of the US.   We are currently heading into a great financial problem due to Obama's wasteful ways of depleting our national wealth, his crippling of our business and industry efforts, and his ever growing debt he is creating.


----------



## Fern (Oct 13, 2014)

This thread is about
[h=3]Aussies launch air strikes against ISIS![/h]and it's been hijacked by the US, sounds familiar.


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2014)

Fern said:


> This thread is about
> *Aussies launch air strikes against ISIS!*
> 
> and it's been hijacked by the US, sounds familiar.



Fern, you are quite right.   I should have stopped trading posts with the other lady that did not care when I suggested we quite this political argument.   Unfortunately I did respond to all her misguided and often wrong ideas about our US government and how it should work.

That is  true about the hijack, but not sure what you meant about 'sounds familiar'.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

Fern said:


> This thread is about
> *Aussies launch air strikes against ISIS!*
> 
> and it's been hijacked by the US, sounds familiar.




My sincere apologies Fern...  I guess I can't stop myself from responding to such obvious and blatant nonsense being spouted.   I should not have done that..The thread was about Australia... not the USA...... but you know how we Americans are... all arrogant and filled with self importance..  It's in our blood..  Thank Goodness we have people here that can point that out and keep us in line..


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 13, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> ... but you know how we Americans are... all arrogant and filled with self importance..  It's in our blood..



Not all of us QS.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> Not all of us QS.




Touche SeaBreeze...  I'll keep that in mind.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 13, 2014)

:lofl: It's been entertaining but not all that enlightening.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 14, 2014)

Com'on!  We know Obama started it!


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 14, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Com'on! We know Obama started it!




Of course he did!!   And I stubbed my big toe this morning.. damn him!!!!!


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 14, 2014)

Now we are back on track!  Drat that Obama!


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 14, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Com'on! We know Obama started it!



I rthought it was Bush ? Everyone says its all his fault.


----------



## oakapple (Oct 14, 2014)

Can a group called The Tea Party be all that bad? I see them all balancing dainty cups of tea and a plate of scones and jam on their laps whilst they converse amicably with all around them. [No? It's not like this? Awww.]


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 14, 2014)




----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 14, 2014)

oakapple said:


> Can a group called The Tea Party be all that bad? I see them all balancing dainty cups of tea and a plate of scones and jam on their laps whilst they converse amicably with all around them. [No? It's not like this? Awww.]



:yes:   That's EXACTLY how they are!!


----------



## RadishRose (Oct 14, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Com'on! We know Obama started it!



No, it was El Nino, dontcha know


----------

