Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

One of several reasons, Rand Paul is an intriguing candidate.

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.

The freshman senator from Kentucky, who supports a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, charged Wednesday that the GOP's foreign policy hawks "created these people." In return, potential GOP rival Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, said Paul is unqualified to be president.

The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized a strategically important swath of the Middle East and in recent days made gains in central Iraq.

"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." He continued: "They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved -- they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."…………..

In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as "a failed state" and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.

"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05 ... rise-isis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Bobby Jindal….

I've said it before, but these tribal and religious factions have been fighting for centuries. Choosing one side or the other to support and arm is pointless, and no amount of carpet bombing or precision airstrikes is going to make them get along. Their level of tolerance for us is minimal, and they demonstrate daily how little tolerance they have for others within the same religion (Sunni, Shiite).

C'mon...ISIS is not simply a result of Conks selling arms. That is ridiculous.

Anyone who is a Muslin, a true Muslin, is a kook. There is no way around that.

ISIS is simply doing what every Muslin is required to do...create a Muslin world and subjugate the infidels.

That's it.

And where is ISIS getting it's arms from? Conk war hawks?

ISIS is supplied by the Iraqi army, the Saudis (and every other Sunni camel jockey), the Soviets, the failed state of Libya (thanks Obama), and every other person, or group, who has a gun to sell.

ISIS isn't a Conk thing...it is a representation of Islam, true Islam, and it manifested itself in this version, at this time, under the name of ISIS/ISIL/Fvcktards, because of a wonderful collection of crappy decisions that stretch back for decades and centuries.

But yeah, blame it on the Conk war hawks.

Neo-cons didn't create ISIS. They armed ISIS.

Islam created ISIS.

Cluck U wrote:C'mon...ISIS is not simply a result of Conks selling arms. That is ridiculous.

Anyone who is a Muslin, a true Muslin, is a kook. There is no way around that.

ISIS is simply doing what every Muslin is required to do...create a Muslin world and subjugate the infidels.

That's it.

And where is ISIS getting it's arms from? Conk war hawks?

ISIS is supplied by the Iraqi army, the Saudis (and every other Sunni camel jockey), the Soviets, the failed state of Libya (thanks Obama), and every other person, or group, who has a gun to sell.

ISIS isn't a Conk thing...it is a representation of Islam, true Islam, and it manifested itself in this version, at this time, under the name of ISIS/ISIL/Fvcktards, because of a wonderful collection of crappy decisions that stretch back for decades and centuries.

But yeah, blame it on the Conk war hawks.

Bullshit...ISIS is only the JV team. Get it right.

To echo some of the points above, saying that we, as a country (and you can pick whichever party had whatever part in that) created ISIS is silly. Those are the same people who are now yearning for the days of strong-arm, brutal dictators (Ghadafi, Sadaam, etc) to dominate and control their countries. Of course, in the wake of the terrorist attacks first in the '90's and then with 9/11, the general thinking from those same people was that these terrorists existed because we, the USA, would advocate freedom, but then would prop up and back very bad men as evil dictators - basically, the terrorists existed because we weren't consistent in our message and actions. Now, we bring "freedom" and democracy to Iraq, which in turn helps to precipitate the Arab Spring in many places throughout the Arab world, and now that they have the freedom to determine their own course and direction, we lament that many have decided that a caliphate like ISIS is the way to go. We are certainly to blame for distributing arms throughout the region, but we are not alone in that (hello Russia, hello China), and haven't been alone for decades. We are not, however, to blame for the disastrous choices and directions people in these areas make when they decide on resorting to religious fundamentalism combined with regional domination by force. That's on them.

This is an excellent, but long, September 2014 article about today's Middle East.

Worth the read.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/15/ ... ia-divide/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Most Americans Don't Have a Clue"
ISIS and Washington’s Ignorance About the Sunni-Shia Divide
by GARY LEUPP
"A couple weeks ago Saudi Arabia was warning against U.S. action against ISIL (ISIS, Islamic State) arguing that it would be perceived as a pro-Shiite intervention in a Sunni-Shiite conflict. Saudi Arabia is of course the land where the Prophet Mohammed lived, and the House of Saud sees itself as the guardian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. It is a bastion of Sunni orthodoxy; the Sharia is rigidly enforced. There are punitive stonings and beheadings. Women must wear the abaya and are forbidden to drive. Saudi Arabia was one of the very few countries that recognized and supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In short, it has much in common with ISIL. Much of ISIL’s funding comes from private Saudi sources and “charities.”

But Saudi Arabia also has a longstanding close relationship with U.S. imperialism. It guarantees the supply of cheap oil to world markets in return for generous U.S. military aid. The regime seeks peace with Israel, and has proposed a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine question endorsed by the Arab League. From 1990 to 2003 it hosted U.S. military forces. (This was the factor that caused Osama bin Laden to break with the regime and call for the overthrow of the monarchy.) ISIL’s “Islamic State” despises the Saudi rulers just as bin Laden did. It wants to ultimately conquer the Arabian Peninsula and raise the black flag of the caliphate in Mecca and Medina.

So Riyadh fears ISIL. It has now succumbed to Washington’s pressure and agreed to take part in some sort of alliance to defeat the Islamic State. But it also fears Iran, a bastion of Shiite orthodoxy with a population three times its size. It has no rational fear of an Iranian attack; Iran indeed has not invaded another country in several hundred years. Iran’s military budget at around $6 billion annually is just 11% of Saudi Arabia’s. U.S. intelligence has long since concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. But according to some reports, Riyadh would even look the other way if Israel flew over its airspace to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. What Riyadh dreads is the prospect of a Shiite rebellion within the Saudi kingdom, backed by Iran."


He then goes on to accurately slay Dubya, Obama, Kerry, and a whole host of people on both sides of the aisle. He even blames the neocons...so kalm should cream his pants.

But, oddly enough, as he attacks the noeocons of today, he backhandidly applauds the original use of force by the Brit Conks because it set up the kingdoms and secular governments that are being torn down by the new bad guys.

ASUG8 wrote:I've said it before, but these tribal and religious factions have been fighting for centuries. Choosing one side or the other to support and arm is pointless, and no amount of carpet bombing or precision airstrikes is going to make them get along. Their level of tolerance for us is minimal, and they demonstrate daily how little tolerance they have for others within the same religion (Sunni, Shiite).

And the Allies after WWI thought it would be a good idea to arbitrarily group them together in nation-states.

Cluck U wrote:This is an excellent, but long, September 2014 article about today's Middle East.

Worth the read.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/15/ ... ia-divide/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Most Americans Don't Have a Clue"
ISIS and Washington’s Ignorance About the Sunni-Shia Divide
by GARY LEUPP
"A couple weeks ago Saudi Arabia was warning against U.S. action against ISIL (ISIS, Islamic State) arguing that it would be perceived as a pro-Shiite intervention in a Sunni-Shiite conflict. Saudi Arabia is of course the land where the Prophet Mohammed lived, and the House of Saud sees itself as the guardian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. It is a bastion of Sunni orthodoxy; the Sharia is rigidly enforced. There are punitive stonings and beheadings. Women must wear the abaya and are forbidden to drive. Saudi Arabia was one of the very few countries that recognized and supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In short, it has much in common with ISIL. Much of ISIL’s funding comes from private Saudi sources and “charities.”

But Saudi Arabia also has a longstanding close relationship with U.S. imperialism. It guarantees the supply of cheap oil to world markets in return for generous U.S. military aid. The regime seeks peace with Israel, and has proposed a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine question endorsed by the Arab League. From 1990 to 2003 it hosted U.S. military forces. (This was the factor that caused Osama bin Laden to break with the regime and call for the overthrow of the monarchy.) ISIL’s “Islamic State” despises the Saudi rulers just as bin Laden did. It wants to ultimately conquer the Arabian Peninsula and raise the black flag of the caliphate in Mecca and Medina.

So Riyadh fears ISIL. It has now succumbed to Washington’s pressure and agreed to take part in some sort of alliance to defeat the Islamic State. But it also fears Iran, a bastion of Shiite orthodoxy with a population three times its size. It has no rational fear of an Iranian attack; Iran indeed has not invaded another country in several hundred years. Iran’s military budget at around $6 billion annually is just 11% of Saudi Arabia’s. U.S. intelligence has long since concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. But according to some reports, Riyadh would even look the other way if Israel flew over its airspace to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. What Riyadh dreads is the prospect of a Shiite rebellion within the Saudi kingdom, backed by Iran."


He then goes on to accurately slay Dubya, Obama, Kerry, and a whole host of people on both sides of the aisle. He even blames the neocons...so kalm should cream his pants.

But, oddly enough, as he attacks the noeocons of today, he backhandidly applauds the original use of force by the Brit Conks because it set up the kingdoms and secular governments that are being torn down by the new bad guys.

It's not a bad piece, but yeah, he seems to gloss over the secular regimes of Sadaam and Assad and actually paints them as some sort of wonderful places because they had rock and roll music available in the country. Of course, these guys held on to power by forcibly and violently supressing any and all opposition, and that opposition was none too pleased with the US since we helped to prop these guys up. And clearly the countries were not won over to secularism as religious strife was clearly bubbling just below the surface of what this guy considers to be a secular nirvana. But he's basically saying what most other people (maybe not kalm, hard to tell his position since he's just trolling) on this thread are saying - the real provocation for the ISIS and other religious violence in the region is due to hundreds of years of such strife, not just the clumsy foreign policies in that region of the past and the current President.

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I've said it before, but these tribal and religious factions have been fighting for centuries. Choosing one side or the other to support and arm is pointless, and no amount of carpet bombing or precision airstrikes is going to make them get along. Their level of tolerance for us is minimal, and they demonstrate daily how little tolerance they have for others within the same religion (Sunni, Shiite).

And the Allies after WWI thought it would be a good idea to arbitrarily group them together in nation-states.

It's still the same litterbox it was pre 1940, just with different lines in it.

I agree with Obama on this one point. Iraq needs to step up and defend themselves if they want to remain a nation. If they aren't going to stand up and die, why should we?

That said, he started his Presidency, with Al Queda beaten into submission and almost non existant in Iraq. And more and more it seems like he will leave office with Baghdad fallen and in ISIS control. He's going to own that all by himself.


...also Iran will have nukes.

andy7171 wrote:I agree with Obama on this one point. Iraq needs to step up and defend themselves if they want to remain a nation. If they aren't going to stand up and die, why should we?

That said, he started his Presidency, with Al Queda beaten into submission and almost non existant in Iraq. And more and more it seems like he will leave office with Baghdad fallen and in ISIS control. He's going to own that all by himself.


...also Iran will have nukes.

Bush's fault.

ASUG8 wrote:I've said it before, but these tribal and religious factions have been fighting for centuries. Choosing one side or the other to support and arm is pointless, and no amount of carpet bombing or precision airstrikes is going to make them get along. Their level of tolerance for us is minimal, and they demonstrate daily how little tolerance they have for others within the same religion (Sunni, Shiite).

/thread. Root cause is religion.

Religion thrives on war and suffering.

Religion kills people dead.

D1B wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I've said it before, but these tribal and religious factions have been fighting for centuries. Choosing one side or the other to support and arm is pointless, and no amount of carpet bombing or precision airstrikes is going to make them get along. Their level of tolerance for us is minimal, and they demonstrate daily how little tolerance they have for others within the same religion (Sunni, Shiite).

/thread. Root cause is religion.

Religion thrives on war and suffering.

Religion kills people dead.

Religion is a tool, an effective one in this case, but a tool nonetheless.

The root cause is people wanting to have dominance over other people. Power. That simple. Religion is just one of many means to bring that about, and in the absence of religion the pursuit of power would still go on, but at the very root of the issue is power.

now you can /thread.

andy7171 wrote:I agree with Obama on this one point. Iraq needs to step up and defend themselves if they want to remain a nation. If they aren't going to stand up and die, why should we?

That said, he started his Presidency, with Al Queda beaten into submission and almost non existant in Iraq. And more and more it seems like he will leave office with Baghdad fallen and in ISIS control. He's going to own that all by himself.


...also Iran will have nukes.

Well when you disband the Republic Guard and Iraqi military and bar any of them from being soldiers again you create the true "JV" squad with the jokers getting their asses handed to them all over Iraq. And give ISIL plenty of trained gunmen.

Another very good, but long, read...it tells about original split in Islam, but then goes into much better detail about the further development and change in the Middle East (and some the rest of the Muslin world) that has resulted in the increased challenges of today.

It sure won't be easy to put the genie back in the bottle.

BTW, the article even includes some maps and diagrams that could help people like skelly.

http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-h ... ide/p33176#!/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hawks?

We should bomb Atlanta.

Brock Landers wrote:

andy7171 wrote:I agree with Obama on this one point. Iraq needs to step up and defend themselves if they want to remain a nation. If they aren't going to stand up and die, why should we?

That said, he started his Presidency, with Al Queda beaten into submission and almost non existant in Iraq. And more and more it seems like he will leave office with Baghdad fallen and in ISIS control. He's going to own that all by himself.


...also Iran will have nukes.

Well when you disband the Republic Guard and Iraqi military and bar any of them from being soldiers again you create the true "JV" squad with the jokers getting their asses handed to them all over Iraq. And give ISIL plenty of trained gunmen.

Wrong.

While the CPA was a disaster and disbanding of the regular Iraqi army was a mistake (the Republican Guard should have been disbanded) that was mostly fixed with the successful 2007 surge.

No, you create the JV squad when in 2010 you refuse to broker a deal that would have put Allawi in power, leaving instead Maliki in power. Maliki then purges the Army of US trained, competent Sunni officers, replacing them with incompetent Shia loyalists.

Rand Paul Needs a History Lesson…
http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=6782" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cluck U wrote:Another very good, but long, read...it tells about original split in Islam, but then goes into much better detail about the further development and change in the Middle East (and some the rest of the Muslin world) that has resulted in the increased challenges of today.

It sure won't be easy to put the genie back in the bottle.

BTW, the article even includes some maps and diagrams that could help people like skelly.

http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-h ... ide/p33176#!/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The maps and diagrams were well done.

The problem is, the genie was never in the bottle. True, outside forces have stoked the flames, or at least redistributed the wood, but that place has been burning for almost 1500 years and doesn't seem likely to stop any time soon.

BDKJMU wrote:

Brock Landers wrote: Well when you disband the Republic Guard and Iraqi military and bar any of them from being soldiers again you create the true "JV" squad with the jokers getting their asses handed to them all over Iraq. And give ISIL plenty of trained gunmen.

Wrong.

While the CPA was a disaster and disbanding of the regular Iraqi army was a mistake (the Republican Guard should have been disbanded) that was mostly fixed with the successful 2007 surge.

No, you create the JV squad when in 2010 you refuse to broker a deal that would have put Allawi in power, leaving instead Maliki in power. Maliki then purges the Army of US trained, competent Sunni officers, replacing them with incompetent Shia loyalists.

Rand Paul Needs a History Lesson…
http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=6782" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok then we'll call them the "freshman" squad

We disband the varsity, and attempt to train up the JV. Then the JV gets hamstrung and you're suck with third stringers.

Cluck U wrote:Another very good, but long, read...it tells about original split in Islam, but then goes into much better detail about the further development and change in the Middle East (and some the rest of the Muslin world) that has resulted in the increased challenges of today.

It sure won't be easy to put the genie back in the bottle.

BTW, the article even includes some maps and diagrams that could help people like skelly.

http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-h ... ide/p33176#!/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice find.

Ive been saying forever that this is just the latest act in a 700 year old civil war

Given the big picture... if we want to be completely pragmatic and act solely in our own interests here- we should do nothing. ISIL will bleed Iran if we leave them be, and its about time they got some of their own proxy medicine

we used to be good at this - back before we entered this paradigm where we take it upon ourselves to cure all the world's ills

CID1990 wrote:Ive been saying forever that this is just the latest act in a 700 year old civil war

Given the big picture... if we want to be completely pragmatic and act solely in our own interests here- we should do nothing. ISIL will bleed Iran if we leave them be, and its about time they got some of their own proxy medicine

we used to be good at this - back before we entered this paradigm where we take it upon ourselves to cure all the world's ills

This.

Gannon and Cluck…blow me.

I never said anything about conks, I simply posted what Rand Paul said. It's an interesting political tactic to differentiate from the rest of the field and acknowledge your own party's mistakes.

Oh the butthurt when conks don't go in lock step.

Kudos to Paul.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Ive been saying forever that this is just the latest act in a 700 year old civil war

Given the big picture... if we want to be completely pragmatic and act solely in our own interests here- we should do nothing. ISIL will bleed Iran if we leave them be, and its about time they got some of their own proxy medicine

we used to be good at this - back before we entered this paradigm where we take it upon ourselves to cure all the world's ills

This.

Gannon and Cluck…blow me.

I never said anything about conks, I simply posted what Rand Paul said. It's an interesting political tactic to differentiate from the rest of the field and acknowledge your own party's mistakes.

Oh the butthurt when conks don't go in lock step.

Kudos to Paul.

Kudos for what? Making a false assertion?