• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On August - 11 - 2014

Yazidis

The media and politicians are so excited to call “Hypocrite!” on others that they are almost cartoonishly oblivious to what hypocrites they turn themselves into just to make that claim.

President Obama won two presidential elections in part to his opposition to the Iraq War and his vow to end it. He kept his word and also followed the withdrawal agreement made by President George W. Bush with the Iraqi government to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Now, when a rabid and murderous terrorist group has invaded Iraq and is killing thousands of people in addition to threatening a virtual genocide of the Yazidis and the Iraqi military is unable to stop them, Pres. Obama is called a hypocrite by agreeing to the Iraqi requests that the U.S. make targeted airstrikes against the ISIS terrorists to protect these innocent people.

And such sentiments can be found all across the political spectrum, there are Democrats and Republicans, MSNBC and Fox pundits who all come together either explicitly or through inference to call Pres. Obama a hypocrite…because it’s good for their business.

Are they correct? Is a war of invasion launched to take over Iraq the same as using military force to protect a religious community of 50,000 people in Iraq from an invading army? Yes, they both have the country of Iraq in common for where military force is used but is such a simplistic reason for  branding both actions similar reflective of reason?

Imagine that the police raided a home for the wrong reasons and it led to innocent people (and themselves) being hurt or killed. Then imagine that ten years later, that same homeowner calls police for help because there are armed men inside his house who are killing people there. When the police go into the home to stop the armed men, is that identical to wrongly raiding the house as they did ten years before?

What if ISIS was invading Jordan or Israel or even somewhere in Europe and on a murderous march through the country, would President Obama be just as much of a hypocrite if he acted against them then? Are hypocrisy and conscience conditional based on what the latitude and longitude is of a terrorist-driven slaughter? If it’s within the borders of a nation we wrongly invaded, we shouldn’t act but if it’s in a nation we haven’t invaded before, we should? Wouldn’t it be the least we could do after Bush and the neocons devastated Iraq, to come to their aid when another invading force threatens their people?

Iraq’s military is weak, fearful and scattered, they allowed the ISIS terrorists to take their military equipment and rob at least half a billion from banks, so ISIS has basically become the dominant army in Iraq. Even the vaunted Kurdish military, the Peshmerga, was routed by them and the Kurds were on the brink of defeat and invasion before the U.S. stepped in.

And what is the result from the limited airstrikes Pres. Obama ordered against ISIS?

Exodus from the mountain: Yazidis flood into Iraq following U.S. airstrikes

Burned by the sun, blistered with thirst and weak from exhaustion, thousands of Yazidis on Sunday fled the mountain on which they had been trapped for a week, streaming into Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region after a harrowing escape from extremist fighters that some said was aided by U.S. airstrikes.

After the strikes on Friday dispersed Islamic State fighters, Syrian Kurdish fighters with the PYD — an affiliate of the Turkey-based Kurdish Workers Party, or PKK — arrived to secure a passageway into Syria, then back into Iraq, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/exodus-from-the-mountain-yazidis-flood-into-iraq-following-us-airstrikes/2014/08/10/f8349f2a-04da-4d60-98ef-85fe66c82002_story.html

50,000 innocent people driven from their homes to a mountain top by murderous terrorists. Children and elderly dying from exposure and lack of food and water…not to mention the 500 of them already murdered by ISIS and the many women kidnapped to become their slaves. No one would help them, not one country in the world, especially not Iraq itself. Despite the potential for political attacks against him, Pres. Obama decided that we could not stand by and watch the Yazidi or Kurds massacred by ISIS so the U.S. stepped in and both groups have been aided. Isn’t this the kind of use of our military that we would want? Defending and rescuing the innocent from the bloodthirsty?

The U.S. has always represented that its military is supposed to be a force for good in the world. Whether in Libya, Bosnia or in other interventions intended to protect innocent people from being mass murdered, the U.S. has stepped in militarily at times (not all the time) to defend many in another country who are in immediate danger. It is also true that the U.S. has used its military wrongly to invade other nations and/or prosecute unjustified wars. However, it is not sensible to throw away our ability to reason and discriminate between different situations and instead just lump together all that our military does just because it happens within the same borders. Isn’t there a glaring difference between lying to invade and take over another country and launching limited bombing attacks on terrorists to stop them from murdering innocent civilians?

Every news report that claims this is deja vu, that “Here we go again!”, that President Obama is going back on his word and being a hypocrite for sending our military back into Iraq are simplifying things just because the story they want to tell is more advantageous to their bottom line or agenda, not because they actually possess the morals and principles to be “outraged” at true hypocrisy.

And that would seem to make them the ultimate hypocrites.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

61 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. sillylittleme says:

    Ad, great article. As humans we should always be in favor of saving the innocent and destroying those who would destroy us. The President has consistently been in favor of using the military for strategic, surgical removal of those who wish harm on their fellow humans. Anyone who can’t get behind that has obviously lost their humanity.

  2. RSGmusic says:

    AdLib, yep yep yep and 10.

    Your article covers a lot of what is/will happen.

    As much as agreeing with the prez so far. I did post on hp that the USA would blast a way to escape to the north. Thank the others for assisting us/assisting them. What is sad many did not have the strength to get out of the reason.

    Genocide is something that happens in a religious war more often then not. Even convention war for a territory does not use it completely.
    Example the native america Indians. OH do not think it was not. It was a try to do so. It is still a sore spot for many of us, including me and my fathers line back in time before america was found by others.
    Religion is a hard thing to fight. It is not in just one region. IT also can not be stamped out with conventional war. It will reform yrs later. They have been fighter for thousands of yrs with much of break in time.

    Religion the easiest thing to go to war for. It needs no proof other then a fanatic leading the charge in most cases.

    I hope we do not put boots on the ground. The republicans and some dems you talked about are for getting back in. Follow the money they have dealings with defense and weapons in some way.

    Worded in a song of mine back in 1978. ( Child’s Play )

    ” Why do we stand their and watch the children play.
    Moving the pieces, chess master in a game.
    Young men sent to battle while politicians gain. ”

    longlife in peace AdLib.

    A synthesizer can create any instrument made and others that have not be created yet.

  3. Adlib--I think you’re right to call out politicians for their hypocrisy on intervention in Iraq. But I also think that people are naturally gun-shy about getting into another ‘crusade’ in the Persian Gulf. And every time I read about ISIS, there’s a list of questions.

    And by no coincidence, Wikileaks published a series of cables between Syria and the US on the subject of ISIS (apparently, there’s another mole at the NSA--these are dated Feb 2010). Syria was warning the US of an upstart terrorist group called ISIS and the threat it posed to both the US and Syria, and offered intelligence on them to the CIA in Damascus. Link is here: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10DAMASCUS159_a.html#efmBraBr6BsHB6RB6UCDN
    I think humanitarian intervention is a wonderful thing. but I don’t wanna get lied to again.

  4. Kalima says:

    Excellent article, AdLib.

    We get it. They don’t want to. It’s much more profitable to throw shit at the walls to see what sticks there.

    Your msm, faux Dems, and a few Repubs should just STFU. Have they forgotten who started this chaos in the first place? I’m sure they must have. (Snark)

    I have to seriously wonder about the Dems. Do they really want GOP control of the Senate? Is a country and government running smoothly just too boring? Do they need the drama when it could mean the life or death of their fellow countrymen and women? Would they have preferred a President McCain or President Romney? When I hear and read all the crap, it’s hard to draw any other conclusion than that maybe they would have.

    Maliki was a weak puppet installed by the bush cartel. His motives were never to join forces in Iraq with opposition factions, his motives and agenda was for revenge for the years of oppression under Hussein. He crushed the voices in the government who might have been moderate enough to stop the forming of insurgent groups, and ISIS is the direct consequence of his 8 years of bad leadership.

    What your President did was the right thing to do, and for those dumb enough to criticise and compare him to bush, I’ll keep it simple. He ordered the strikes to save lives, not to take lives, and there is the difference. Saving the lives of close to 40,000 to 50,000 helpless people from immediate genocide can never compare to an invasion, an illegal invasion at that, and bombing the hell out of them as they slept, torturing them or killing whole families for sport.

    President Obama should be praised for his quick action in saving lives, not dragged through the trenches while the bush criminals responsible write books of untruths, paint rubbish in their bathrooms, and rant endless lies and pure bs on the tv.

    More than five years later, Obama is still cleaning up the mess left behind by the bush criminals. There should be no biography written about these murdering for profit crooks, just take a look at Iraq and you will find their legacy there.

    —-

    Islamic State killed 500 Yazidis and buried some victims alive, Iraq minister says

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/08/10/world/islamic-state-killed-500-yazidis-buried-victims-alive-iraq-minister

    —-

    John Kerry insists any US moves in Iraq will not involve combat troops

    Secretary of state says the US will look to ‘additional options’ to help stabilise a new government, but not troops

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/12/john-kerry-insists-us-iraq-not-involve-combat-troops

    Had the world moved more quickly, there might never have been so many people butchered through genocide in Rwanda, Dafur and even Syria.

    I commend the President for taking this action, and condemn those immoral people who speak against it just to make a political game out of the suffering of others. Shame on you!!

    • EXFANOFARIANA says:

      I respectfully do not agree….Should we go back into HISTORY???? O 9/11 1983, the fanatics were deceived. And what fanatical Islamist’s who follow their “prophet”, vowed to cut their heads, rape their children and women until they submit to Islam fanaticism? This go back centuries ago and Americans are not to be blamed.Everybody is trying to blame the west…..Go back to that age.Thank you.We are witnessing an upheaval of fanatical muslims as much as fanatical xtians. HISTORY repeats itself.Peace.But if you ask me which side I am lingering on? ISRAEL.By all means. They do not use human -- their own -- to project a “poor people project”. Israel defend themselves. I do not intend to be forced to convert to any kind of mental health disease. RELIGION.

      • Kalima says:

        I do not understand your anger, ExFan. Did you understand what AdLib’s post was about? This article is not about Gaza or Israel.

        What is happening in Iraq is the direct cause of an illegal war and upheaval caused by bush and his cronies.

        This was a humanitarian effort and has nothing to do with the people who were saved by the strikes being Muslims.

        You are being brainwashed into believing that women and children were used as human shields in Gaza. At least three people here, including me, have explained why that was propaganda from Israel to excuse the high numbers of civilian deaths, but you are free to believe what you want to believe. Aid groups on the ground during the slaughter have firmly denied this claim by Israel. Are you saying that these aid groups and Doctors Without Borders are all lying?

        Please do not lump every Muslim in your “to hate” group, there are more good people than bad people in every religion.

        For your information and just to be clear, the following is part of The Planet’s “Terms of Use”.

        No Hate Speech or Threats
        Racism, sexism, gay bashing, anti-semitism and any and all types of prejudicial hatreds in a post or comment will result in their deletion and possibly the moderation or permanent banning of that member. We certainly recognize the big difference between differing opinions on religions, Israel, immigration, etc. that are welcome on this site and nakedly hurtful and/or hateful speech which will not be tolerated. The same applies to any threats made against public officials, members of this site, etc., such people will have to find somewhere else for such behavior to be acceptable.

        • EXFANOFARIANA says:

          BTW I am not angry. I am in desperation to watch all this obscenity named religion to vanish from this planet.And yes I am (EYE-TALIAN) as the CONS pronounce it hence a hot head. Never pretended to be someone else.

          • Kalima says:

            I have many Italian friends, and I would call them “passionate”. I too can become very loud whenever I see injustice, and have never been afraid to speak my mind, so I don’t consider it to be a bad thing.

            • EXFANOFARIANA says:

              Yes we are very passionate but very loud too. My analyst insisted once that I should try to get some Scandinavian blood transfusion LOLOLOL.

        • EXFANOFARIANA says:

          Actually I am a monthly contributor to Medecins Sans Frontiers. And I am so sorry to have mis written the date: it was 9/11/1683.I got NOTHING against Muslims ..but everything against fanatical people.xtians included. FYI my oldest nephew converted to Islam and married a wonderful girl from Saudi Arabia. They are now parents of 4 of wonderful kids.. But since I can read in several languages …I hope I am not being brainwashed as you’ve claimed.Even MOST of my Muslim friends are against HAMAS.So sorry…That is the truth. Evidently it was all initiated by YOUR president -- the fool in chief and his thugs, being DICKcheney the Mastermindcriminal and their Poodle Blair. Altogether with my mob premier,the pathetic Berlusconi whom, through his printing plants, fabricated the “yellow cake” memorandum from Niger.
          Basically, Kalima, I am fully disgusted with ANY religious organized faith.We should be free from these illness.Want to delete my previous post? Go ahead.PEACE.

          • Kalima says:

            Hello ExFan. I don’t have a President, I’m a German born of Swedish and Estonian heritage, naturalised Brit living for over 30 years in Asia.

            I understand the feelings about extremists in any religion because I share them, but this article has nothing to do with Hamas.

            If I were you, living in America, I would be more afraid and angry with the Religious Right who actually are trying and succeeding to make Americans convert to their crazy religious beliefs by using politicians to bring about legislation that take away your rights and your freedom every time they vote. The other extremists are on the other side of the world and won’t be coming to your neighbourhood any time in the future.

            No, I don’t want to delete your comment, I just wanted you to be aware of our policy on harsh speech against any religious group. For instance, I have been a Roman Catholic all of my life, my family too. Does that make me a paedophile?

            Maybe it’s not your intention but it does sometimes sound as if you are venting against all Muslims. I accept your explanation.

            • EXFANOFARIANA says:

              Kalima as I’ve said above, I ABHOR extremism in any form or side.I call the right wing nuts in “Murika” talibangelists and they are even worst than the Islam fundamentalists.We are both on the same level here. I am sorry -- should have remembered you are German and hence is Merkel for you :) and Joachim Gauck, the Prez…

        • sillylittleme says:

          Kalima, spot on as usual!!!

  5. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    One of the very best of many fine contributions AdLib! 10 out of 10

    I have posted the link to it over at Yabberz.

    Your analogy- the cops and the house- is accessible and descriptive. With your indulgence I take it a step further. The house, in the second half of your example, is not just being invaded, it is being besieged by a maddened, raging gang.

    The Kurds are now at the center of this drama.

    This has been breaking in the last couple of hours.

    “The U.S. government has begun to funnel weapons directly to Kurdish forces fighting Islamist militants in northern Iraq, U.S. officials said Monday, deepening American involvement in a conflict that the Obama administration had long sought to avoid.

    The decision to arm the Kurds, via a covert channel established by the CIA, was made even as Pentagon officials acknowledged that recent U.S. airstrikes against the militants were having only a temporary deterrent effect and were unlikely to sap their will to fight.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sending-weapons-directly-to-kurdish-forces-officials-say/2014/08/11/7055b98c-2165-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

    • funksands says:

      Murph, I’ll be really interested to see how Turkey responds now that their presidential election is over. They’ve seemed to be satisfied looking the other way as gobs of private citizen dollars went to fund ISIS in Syria, and have been pretty silent about the incursion into N. Iraq.

      Unfortunately I suspect they’d be happy for ISIS to wipe out the Kurds, and chase them all in to big internment camps across the border.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks so much, Murph!

      Yes, the Kurds are the ones who should be fighting on the ground in Iraq (along with the Iraqi Army if they can get it together!). It’s their country (right now at least, carving up the country would seem to be a good idea at this point, Iran would hate it and Joe Biden would be proven right) and they have everything to lose. They have a credible military and their fighting ISIS could at a minimum diffuse the anti-Americanism that would be a great recruitment tool for ISIS if the US put troops on the ground again.

      If we arm and fund the Kurds who have been longtime allies of the US then support them with our air power, Iraqis could defeat this terrorist army invading their own country.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Sounds like a plan…

        Seriously it does….

        We do what we can do most effectively and keep our feet out of the way.

        A three way partition.

        Have you ever seen these maps. http://www.vox.com/a/maps-explain-the-middle-east

        Very useful.

        • Nirek says:

          Hey Murph, the people in that part of the world have never recognized the borders in the region. They have a different set of boundaries.

        • RSGmusic says:

          Agreed murph!!
          Religion is a hard thing to fight. It is not in just one region. IT also can not be stamped out with conventional war. It will reform yrs later. They have been fighter for thousands of yrs with much of break in time.

          Religion the easiest thing to go to war for. It needs no proof other then a fanatic leading the charge in most cases.

          Remember the case we talked about off line. The reason it was called off is their is no formal religion. It was called off because it would make us as bad as the enemy.

          peace and long life!

  6. Nirek says:

    Ad, you have written an excellent article here. I agree that President Obama has done the right thing for the right reason. This is nothing like invading Iraq under bush! This is a humanitarian effort by Obama. In my estimation President Obama is a thousand times better than bush ever was!

    You know I hate war and do not want boots on the ground, but we can and should help the people. Give them what they need to defend themselves.

    • AdLib says:

      Nirek, I think it is evidence of the MSM’s disinterest in the truth that they invent a meme that will be most likely to lead to greater profits. They simply don’t care that what they’re saying isn’t painting an accurate picture, the greater profit for corrupting the truth is self-justifying.

      Indeed, this is not a new war in Iraq, no need for US troops, this is an Iraq issue that they need to deal with. But surely, coming to the aid of innocent people being stalked by murderous terrorists isn’t a bad thing.

  7. SearingTruth says:

    “Most often we cannot tell them they are wrong.

    They must discover it.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  8. Beatlex says:

    I have seen SmotPoker on the site Raw Story.He still can’t hear,but he hopes his implant will work eventually.He said he would make an appearance at Vox Populi this Friday

  9. SearingTruth says:

    “Compassion is humanities most common request.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  10. funksands says:

    Ad, I think this is an excellent article. It raises a lot of thought-provoking questions and challenges the reader’s pre-conceptions.

    Some thoughts and questions of my own:

    In answer to your question; no it isn’t the same. I suspect many that say it is have either an agenda or are just bone-weary of our being the world’s policeman.

    That said, IF you are going to be the world’s policeman, restricting your resources to circumstances like this would be ideal.

    1) I constantly hear individuals and even news organizations fail to recognize that ISIS started in Iraq and then entered the Syrian conflict. Not the other way around. Whether disingenuous or not, this has muddied a lot of opinions about this issue. It’s important because if this was a group that arose in Syria due to any lack of action on our part or even because of our efforts or arms and then spread into Iraq, our strategy and prescriptions would be much different, maybe focusing more on Syria than Iraq.

    2) Why are we focusing on stopping ISIS in Iraq and not Syria? Their presence in Syria has made it even harder to dislodge Bashar, because now his claims that he is fighting extremists have some basis in fact, even if just to paper over his claims. Are we doing it in Iraq simply because we can? Because we have assets there? It’s easier? There are smaller political dangers of acting?

    It seems sometimes that our diplomatic capabilities are hamstrung by our overwhelming military. Our first reaction seems to be to bomb something, while our military and willingness to use it seems to make other nations a bit lazy when it comes to committing resources, military or diplomatic help. Maybe they figure that we’ll just do it, pay for it and suffer the consequences.

    Or not. What do you think?

    • AdLib says:

      Funk, excellent point on the genesis of ISIS being in Iraq but never reported as such. The MSM seems to prefer a scenario that doesn’t tie ISIS directly to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but to Obama’s handling of Syria. You’re right, fully understanding this could make a real difference in how the MSM portrays this bloody crusade by ISIS, the causes, best approaches to stop them, etc.

      As to Syria, supporting the better elements in the rebels makes sense but the problem persists that defining who are the reliably “good” rebels (who won’t become our enemies in the future) is not easy. I’ll bet McCain, if he was President, would have provided aid to ISIS when they were just fighting in Syria. That would have made for an even worse mess. I do think that the situation in Iraq is pretty straightforward and clear, who the enemy is and how they are marching across Iraq leaving a trail of blood and bodies in their wake. Having to thread between Assad and ISIS in Syria with unreliable or unknown entities on the rebel side, could be tricky indeed. What if ISIS takes over whatever rebel group we backed and US money and arms go into ISIS’ hands in Syria? Very complex situation there, pretty simple in comparison in Iraq.

      Agreed, the simplistic McCain-type thinking is a reaction to any bad event that happens in the world is, “Bomb them! Invade and kill them!”

      No lessons from Vietnam or Iraq have been learned by these types, they just want to be respond to what they don’t like with immediate violence even if it undermines our own country and unnecessarily kills our own soldiers.

      Yep, they’re so patriotic, those Republicans.

      • funksands says:

        Ad, I wish more policy-makers would be willing to think outside the box when it comes this situation. The surge in 2005 worked in Iraq not because we sent in more troops, but because we paid the Sunnis to stand down.

        We paid tribal and municipal leaders gobs of cash to police and corral their rowdier elements.

        Even if we were STILL paying them, it would be 1000x cheaper than our other strategies.

        Same goes for the Afghan drug trade: Buy ALL the opium. ALL of it. Burn it, sell it, whatever, but remove the funding for the Taliban and remove the leverage they have over poor farmers to grow opium or die.

        Or is that not “noble” enough? Or does that make us look like pussies?

        Maybe we should try paying the Sunnis again? It worked before.

        • AdLib says:

          Funk, as much as it feels wrong, like bribery, to some to pay your adversaries to stop fighting you, are the deaths of innocents easier to justify?

          Obviously, it is not a situation that should go on indefinitely but if giving money to the forces inside Iraq that are supporting ISIS peels them off and helps stop then take down ISIS, it is a small term, strategic investment that saves lives and hastens bringing an end to killings for less money than fighting all of them in an ongoing ground war would.

  11. GreenChica says:

    I agree. This is a case where the military is being used as a force for good. I read somewhere that Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was that he did not take action on the slaughter in Rwanda. We could have saved at least some of those people but didn’t. This type of effort is the most legitimate use of our military.

    • AdLib says:

      GC, it’s hard for me to understand the de facto argument of those attacking Obama, that the US should have sat on its hands and let 50,000 human beings be slaughtered.

      Your point about Clinton and Rwanda is resonant, to be in such a powerful position and decide not to use that power to save between half a million to one million human beings should haunt a President with any conscience.

      Then again, there’s Bush who’s personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not a million Iraqis…and he just paints portraits of himself taking a bath.

      It should be taking a bath in blood.

    • Nirek says:

      GC, I loath war. But we have to help people who are being victims of genocide. It is not just being the world police. It is doing the right thing for the right reason.

  12. kesmarn says:

    AdLib, forgive me for telling a little anecdote that will seem completely unrelated at first glance. But bear with me.

    One of my co-workers at the polling place last week was talking about a recent conversation that her brother-in-law had told her about. He’s a plumber (no, not Joe) and had gotten a call to do some plumbing work at a house in a suburban area near Toledo.

    This was during the recent Toledo water crisis, during which all Toledo tap water was declared unsafe for consumption. So people were scrambling to find bottled water. There was 24 hour semi-hysterical coverage on all the local media as well as a lot on the national media.

    This plumber arrived at the house he’d been called to just as the homeowner had finished unloading 100 large bottles of water from his SUV. (The plumber’s task wasn’t related to the water crisis.)

    He mentioned to the homeowner that he felt very lucky that he’d been spared the misery of finding bottled water and standing in line to buy it. “I’m so fortunate. I have a well, so this doesn’t affect me.”

    Suddenly the homeowner’s eyes got big.

    “Wait a minute…. I have a well…..”

    Hilarity followed when my co-worker told this story. But in real life there’s a more sobering undertone.

    This guy had been so conditioned to take the media seriously that he allowed himself to be stampeded into group-think and panic. He wasn’t able to use his own brain to ask a very simple question:

    “Does this make sense?”

    That’s the crucial question you’ve asked here.

    Does it make sense for the President to try to stop the advance of ISIS? It sure does. As you said, no one else was going to rescue those people.

    Does it make sense for the media to declare that what he’s done is the same thing that Dubya did? It sure doesn’t. But it does stoke the hysteria fires.

    Critical thinking skills really are critical.

    I loved your analogy of the mistaken police home invasion as opposed to the rescue call. Perfect. I think we might also take a minute to ask if punching a guy to stop a rape is the same as punching a woman so that you can rape her. The later sounds a lot more like what Dubya did to me. The former is what the President has done.

    Does that make sense?

    • AdLib says:

      Kes, that makes a great deal of sense. And your illustration of how people just swallow whatever the media feeds them instead of using their own minds to reason is very poignant.

      At this point, has the MSM just decided to voluntarily lobotomize its reason center so that they can more quickly and easily twist every event into a profit-making effort? Sure looks that way.

  13. Beatlex says:

    Good post AdLib,it is the same old with Obama’s critics.Hell! Lindsay Graham says that their next stop is America itself!And of course,McCain is chiming in with his usual “SEND IN THE TROOPS!” tripe.It is all so predictable

  14. SearingTruth says:

    Gentle friend AdLib, I agree.

    Our nation has spent so long screaming “wolf”, that, as in the fairy tale, many do not believe us.

    But to my friends among them, especially my liberal ones, I ask that you reconsider.

    The Iraq war was started with such atrocious breaches of truth that it took months to semi-justify. Indeed, Saddam was a bad guy, but not a threat to the world.

    ISIS, on the other hand, posts evidence of their mass atrocities on the Internet, posts their intent to dominate the world with a ruthless ideology, and has been amazingly successful militarily so far.

    There is no need for long review.

    ISIS is evil.

    And they like it.

    And if we are human and humane, we must protect the innocent they pursue, and bring ISIS to justice.
    ST

    “The thirst of evil can never be quenched.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

    • AdLib says:

      And while I do support Obama’s ordering air strikes on ISIS to weaken them and protect the people ISIS is trying to murder, I think it is up to Iraqis and Kurds to bring them to justice.

      • Nirek says:

        Ad, I agree we need to help the people to fight their own battles. But first they need help like water and food and then they can defend themselves.

        ISIS is a terrorist group as bad as they come. We can weaken them with air strikes which will help the people on the mountain top.

    • AdLib says:

      ST, it does seem so hard to understand how so many in the media can’t or won’t recognize the difference between invading a country and protecting the lives of tens of thousands of people from a terrorist army.

      Do they really not see the difference, is this all about being anti-Obama no matter what the issue is or is it just a cynical move to increase viewership and readership by creating an attention grabbing attack on Obama?

      Probably the last proposition which is sad when one considers how critical the role of the press was envisioned to be in informing the public of truths if the government failed to do so.

      At least we know not to trust them now.

    • ST, what are you suggesting? Are you calling for an escalation of military force in Iraq? Honest questions.

      • SearingTruth says:

        Gentle friend KillgoreTrout, I’m suggesting that we destroy ISIS before it can commit anymore crimes against humanity.

        And that we should provide their victims any weapons and defense necessary.

        Except for one.

        They must provide the “boots on the ground.”

        Sadly, it is their children who must fight and die for their freedom.

        We have already surrendered far too many of ours.
        ST

        “You do not fight evil when it is convenient, in fashion, or assured victory.

        You fight it when it appears.”
        SearingTruth

        A Future of the Brave


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features