Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Bhairitu, maybe pork from Iowa is tastier? Probably it's just cheaper... On Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:51 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Do Iowa pigs speak Mandarin? (Sounds sorta like a Philip K Dick title). On 09/11/2014 09:04 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Bhairitu, what grabbed my attention was that bit about all the pigs in China. Strange because I hear that CAFOs are so big in Iowa because there is a DEMAND for Iowa pork in China! Go figger! On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 09/10/2014 09:59 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Bhairitu, are you saying we no longer have to keep up with our Mandarin lessons?! http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-rise-and-fall-of-modern-empires-2014-9
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
dear salyavin, now what heresy would that be?! When I said power, I meant a political power. I still believe that life itself is the power that gives rise to all events. And no need to worry. We witches learned a lot about staying safe during the last Inquisition (-: On Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:39 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ah, Mike the hubris of us humans. To think we can control global events. Shhh, don't tell Buck about your heresy! For proof to the contrary, I see the ebola tragedy. That is far from being over. The world now is too complex and too interconnected to think with any validity that a power can control the whole world by controlling one aspect of it. That delusion is based on dead Old World thinking. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:38 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, when I say push the hardest I'm meaning putting forth the most effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Bhairitu, what grabbed my attention was that bit about all the pigs in China. Strange because I hear that CAFOs are so big in Iowa because there is a DEMAND for Iowa pork in China! Go figger! On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 09/10/2014 09:59 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Bhairitu, are you saying we no longer have to keep up with our Mandarin lessons?! http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-rise-and-fall-of-modern-empires-2014-9
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Do Iowa pigs speak Mandarin? (Sounds sorta like a Philip K Dick title). On 09/11/2014 09:04 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Bhairitu, what grabbed my attention was that bit about all the pigs in China. Strange because I hear that CAFOs are so big in Iowa because there is a DEMAND for Iowa pork in China! Go figger! On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 09/10/2014 09:59 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com mailto:sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Bhairitu, are you saying we no longer have to keep up with our Mandarin lessons?! http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-rise-and-fall-of-modern-empires-2014-9
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : dear Salyavin, now what heresy would that be?! Just a little joke my dear, aimed mostly at Buck who gets upset about these things. The idea that someone in his midst who thinks it hubris that people can affect the world might invite a drone strike! Oh well, it amused me anyway... When I said power, I meant a political power. I still believe that life itself is the power that gives rise to all events. And no need to worry. We witches learned a lot about staying safe during the last Inquisition (-: Cool, some of my best friends are witches. Dancing round fires in the woods is a yagya I can get into any time! On Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:39 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ah, Mike the hubris of us humans. To think we can control global events. Shhh, don't tell Buck about your heresy! For proof to the contrary, I see the ebola tragedy. That is far from being over. The world now is too complex and too interconnected to think with any validity that a power can control the whole world by controlling one aspect of it. That delusion is based on dead Old World thinking. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:38 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, when I say push the hardest I'm meaning putting forth the most effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
On 9/9/2014 9:35 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. The Iraqi army cannot defeat ISIS in Syria, without U.S. air power, that's my point. Only the U.S. has the stockpile of arms to continue the strikes against ISIS. There is nobody willing to put boots down on the ground in Iraq in order to defeat ISIS except the Kurds. The problem is when ISIS goes for Pakistan, a nuclear state, and then threatens India with a nuclear strike. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
America does not need nor can afford empires. On 09/09/2014 08:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Then prepare to be *empired* upon. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:50 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: America does not need nor can afford empires. On 09/09/2014 08:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
By whom? Aliens from another planet? :-D On 09/10/2014 08:51 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Then prepare to be *empired* upon. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:50 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: America does not need nor can afford empires. On 09/09/2014 08:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com mailto:mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Bhairitu, are you saying we no longer have to keep up with our Mandarin lessons?! On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:48 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: By whom? Aliens from another planet? :-D On 09/10/2014 08:51 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Then prepare to be *empired* upon. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:50 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: America does not need nor can afford empires. On 09/09/2014 08:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
On 9/10/2014 11:48 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: By whom? Aliens from another planet? :-D Maybe you haven't been keeping up with the news - aliens from across the border. The southern border of the United States is less guarded than at anytime since 9/11. For all practical purposes, enforceable immigration laws simply no longer exist. The result is that we have no idea who is crossing into the United States or for what purposes. 'World at War' http://www.hoover.org/research/world-war On 09/10/2014 08:51 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Then prepare to be *empired* upon. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:50 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: America does not need nor can afford empires. On 09/09/2014 08:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com mailto:mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
The war on terror is a scam. It is to have endless war like described in Orwell's 1984. It makes the evil old men you run the military industrial complex lick their chops. And we can see that even on FFL there are sheeple who buy the propaganda. On 09/10/2014 09:59 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Bhairitu, are you saying we no longer have to keep up with our Mandarin lessons?! On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:48 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: By whom? Aliens from another planet? :-D On 09/10/2014 08:51 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com mailto:mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Then prepare to be *empired* upon. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:50 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net mailto:noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: America does not need nor can afford empires. On 09/09/2014 08:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com mailto:mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
On 09/10/2014 09:59 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Bhairitu, are you saying we no longer have to keep up with our Mandarin lessons?! http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-rise-and-fall-of-modern-empires-2014-9
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Share, when I say push the hardest I'm meaning putting forth the most effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Ah, Mike the hubris of us humans. To think we can control global events. For proof to the contrary, I see the ebola tragedy. That is far from being over. The world now is too complex and too interconnected to think with any validity that a power can control the whole world by controlling one aspect of it. That delusion is based on dead Old World thinking. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:38 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, when I say push the hardest I'm meaning putting forth the most effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
That way of thinking may be dead in your mind. Try convincing all the scoundrels in the world of that. They may never have absolute control over the world but they'll sure raise enough hell trying to. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:03 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Ah, Mike the hubris of us humans. To think we can control global events. For proof to the contrary, I see the ebola tragedy. That is far from being over. The world now is too complex and too interconnected to think with any validity that a power can control the whole world by controlling one aspect of it. That delusion is based on dead Old World thinking. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:38 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, when I say push the hardest I'm meaning putting forth the most effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ah, Mike the hubris of us humans. To think we can control global events. Shhh, don't tell Buck about your heresy! For proof to the contrary, I see the ebola tragedy. That is far from being over. The world now is too complex and too interconnected to think with any validity that a power can control the whole world by controlling one aspect of it. That delusion is based on dead Old World thinking. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:38 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, when I say push the hardest I'm meaning putting forth the most effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works. Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism? To those that are given much, much is expected. What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife] mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
On 9/8/2014 9:34 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. The way to defeat ISIS is for the U.S. people to decide they want them defeated and communicate that to their representative. Until that happens ISIS will not be defeated. It will be up to the European and Middle Eastern powers to maintain the status quo, or not. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Well, why did we abandon the Mujaheddin the first time if we wanted all those minerals? Didn't we go into Iraq the second time for all that oil? No blood for oil.Why did we leave that? Did the US actually support ISIS? As I recall, there were several anti- Assad resistance groups, some *good* some *bad*. We didn't know which to support. Maybe Obama has been letting the world go- in- a- hand basket while cutting defense, letting the military industrial complex stock values decline in order to buy at a low price, knowing we would have to rev it up in the future and watch it's value increase. Buy low , sell high! There are boogeymen everywhere! On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:12 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Heard yesterday from SF Bay Area comedian Will Durst: /Why's everyone blaming Obama? He hasn't done anything. /On 09/09/2014 11:10 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Well, why did we abandon the Mujaheddin the first time if we wanted all those minerals? Didn't we go into Iraq the second time for all that oil? No blood for oil.Why did we leave that? Did the US actually support ISIS? As I recall, there were several anti- Assad resistance groups, some *good* some *bad*. We didn't know which to support. Maybe Obama has been letting the world go- in- a- hand basket while cutting defense, letting the military industrial complex stock values decline in order to buy at a low price, knowing we would have to rev it up in the future and watch it's value increase. Buy low , sell high! There are boogeymen everywhere! On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:12 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
On 9/9/2014 1:42 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: Heard yesterday from SF Bay Area comedian Will Durst: /Why's everyone blaming Obama? He hasn't done anything. / / /The key words here are the [U.S. Congress] hasn't done anything. Just a few months ago Barack Obama and Joe Biden and said we were winding down the war, that we had won. If we won the war, why is the war expanding and getting worse? What happened? Go figure. // / /On 09/09/2014 11:10 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Well, why did we abandon the Mujaheddin the first time if we wanted all those minerals? Didn't we go into Iraq the second time for all that oil? No blood for oil.Why did we leave that? Did the US actually support ISIS? As I recall, there were several anti- Assad resistance groups, some *good* some *bad*. We didn't know which to support. Maybe Obama has been letting the world go- in- a- hand basket while cutting defense, letting the military industrial complex stock values decline in order to buy at a low price, knowing we would have to rev it up in the future and watch it's value increase. Buy low , sell high! There are boogeymen everywhere! On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:12 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Richard, As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a war mood and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
[FairfieldLife] How to Defeat ISIS
It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
