When hawks collide: McCain splits with Lindsey Graham on whether U.S. should coordinate with Iran to help Iraq

posted at 3:21 pm on June 16, 2014 by Allahpundit

As you might expect for any foreign-policy “dispute” between Maverick and Grahamnesty, the point of contention here is whether we should intervene aggressively or really aggressively. Graham wants the U.S. in ASAP to help save Baghdad, and since that means fighting a Sunni jihadist threat that Iran’s also busy fighting right now, it also means de facto coordination. If you’re going to coordinate tactically de facto, why not just suck it up and talk to them about formal coordination? The better the cooperation is, in theory the quicker the task at hand can be accomplished. McCain, meanwhile, thinks it’s insane to be working with a country that’s spent more than 10 years aggravating the sort of sectarian resentment in Iraq that helped make ISIS possible. The only solution, he thinks, is to reduce that tension, and step one in that process is reducing Iran’s footprint in the country. In other words, the U.S. should take a larger role in the fight against ISIS so that the Iranians can withdraw.

Basically, they’re arguing over whether the U.S. should be a global cop or a global Robocop,

But the South Carolina Republican said in order to blunt Iran’s rise in the region, the U.S. must take the uncomfortable step of working with Tehran.

“The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn’t fall. We need to coordinate with the Iranians,” Graham said on CNN. “To ignore Iran and not tell them,’Don’t take advantage of this situation,’ would be a mistake.”

CNN’s Dana Bash seemed to be in disbelief: “It’s sort of hard for me to believe that I’m hearing a Republican saying, sit down and talk with … Iran.”

Seems like a shrewder strategy to “blunt Iran’s rise in the region” would be to force them to fight a two-front war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq without western help, not to start bombing their enemies while sternly warning them not to capitalize once we’re gone. McCain’s retort:

“The reality is, U.S. and Iranian interests and goals do not align in Iraq, and greater Iranian intervention would only make the situation dramatically worse. It would inflame sectarian tensions, strengthen the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), drive more Sunnis into ISIS’s ranks, empower the most radical Shia militants, deepen the Iraqi government’s dependence on Iran, alienate U.S. allies and partners in the region, and set back the prospects of national reconciliation.

“For all of these reasons, and more, the United States should be seeking to minimize greater Iranian involvement in Iraq right now, not encouraging it. That means rapid, decisive U.S. action to degrade ISIS and halt their offensive in Iraq. And it means dramatically increasing U.S. military assistance and support to moderate opposition forces in Syria that are fighting both ISIS and the Assad regime. The longer we wait to act, the more our Iraqi partners grow dependent on the Iranian regime. That is neither in our interest nor consistent with the values for which we stand.”

The X factor is Iran’s nukes, needless to say. If we make a deal with them to defend Baghdad together, the odds that Obama ends up bombing their enrichment facilities when, not if, our nuclear “deal” with them falls apart drop even further. That’s one of the reasons why Kerry supports direct talks with Iran on Iraq, I assume. The more cooperative Iran is with us on this, the more cover Obama will have later to defend his decision not to attack their program. (“They’ve showed they can be responsible actors. Relations between us have improved, reducing the threat they pose.” Etc.) Either Graham’s blind to the way the White House will use Iran’s help politically or he perceives no reason why teaming up to save Iraq would or should give the U.S. second thoughts later about bombing Natanz or Fordow. Essentially, he’s prepared to bomb Iran’s enemies this week and bomb Iran itself next.

Another way to approach this is to ask which is the bigger threat to U.S. national security — Iranian nukes or ISIS building a terrorist Disneyland in the Sunni parts of what used to be Syria and Iraq. The best outcome for America from the standpoint of cold realpolitik is a long war of attrition between them that weakens both sides, but there’s no guarantee that that happens. In fact, there’s a chance we’ll end up with the worst of both worlds: If Iran can drive ISIS out of Syria and away from Baghdad and southern Iraq, maybe they’d tolerate leaving them alone with their own little caliphate in Anbar province. Iran’s never had a problem with Sunni fanatics harassing Sunni regimes or targeting U.S. interests with terror attacks, as Al Qaeda could tell you. On the other hand, maybe ISIS is now so committed to sectarian war, if only in the name of rallying Sunnis in the region to the cause of jihad, that they won’t reach an accommodation with Iran, which means a long war. The question for U.S. strategists is how to avoid the Iran/ISIS “accommodation” scenario while also not increasing either one’s power much in the process. Is there a way to do that?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Start with Tehran, ISIS will get the point.

Bishop on June 16, 2014 at 3:23 PM

One wants the devil to save god, and the other doesn’t.

WH is split from Kerry too.

Schadenfreude on June 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I could just imagine what our current crop of leaders would force our troops to do or to ignore just so no soldier offended a single Iranian… as we worked for (not with) them.

JellyToast on June 16, 2014 at 3:25 PM

“Don’t be cynical”

Schadenfreude on June 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM

I stand with Graham. I can’t believe I just wrote that. These are some weird times we are in. XD

coolrepublica on June 16, 2014 at 3:28 PM

WOW- McRINO’s ventriloquism dummy can speak on his own!
Who knew???!!!

MicahStone on June 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM

One wants the devil to save god, and the other doesn’t.

WH is split from Kerry too.

Schadenfreude on June 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM

The white house did not split from Kerry. The White House is covering the bases to have plausible deniability. They will not be “direct” cooperation with Iran,(because Obama does not want McCain to suffer a stroke) but there will be cooperation none the less. There has to be. And everyone from Tehran, Istanbul, Riyadh all the way to Washington knows that.

coolrepublica on June 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Help with Iran? Well, they never got what was coming to them after the hostage crisis. So let’s pull a Patton: ally with them on this and then carpet bomb Tehran while we’re over there.

dorkintheroad on June 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM

If the situation is so bad that a few thousand fanatics in Toyota pick-ups can conquer a city of 7 million people, there’s no propping up this regime.

forest on June 16, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Like the Russian front in WWII, take the attitude that, while one may be offensive, the other is repulsive.

formwiz on June 16, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Whatever it takes to fuel the RINO divide – I’ll gladly feed it. I’ll play both sides against each other.

As far as Iraq in general, I don’t care. And if the Dems are for further military action in that region – I will oppose them relentlessly simply on the grounds of political Schadenfreude.

In other words, I will repay the DemoCommies in kind for their self-serving disingenuous opposition to the Iraq War all during Bush’s tenure.

This is purely a national political war. And paybacks are a sweet sweet biatch.

Augustinian on June 16, 2014 at 3:41 PM

The white house did not split from Kerry. The White House is covering the bases to have plausible deniability. They will not be “direct” cooperation with Iran,(because Obama does not want McCain to suffer a stroke) but there will be cooperation none the less. There has to be. And everyone from Tehran, Istanbul, Riyadh all the way to Washington knows that.

coolrepublica on June 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM

So much for not negotiating with terrorists, right? Now we simply join up with them. Since you know it all, tell me.. Are Barky and the Mullahs gonna have dinner and drinks when it’s all over? Maybe a little State Dinner with Jay Z, Beyonce and the Sasquatch??

bimmcorp on June 16, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Lindsey Graham – And you wonder how come South Carolina didn’t show him the door. I’ve been to South Carolina – you can’t find anybody from there, just a bunch of people there who are the help.

Nat George on June 16, 2014 at 3:42 PM

These two are not hawks, they’re more like homing pigeons that home in on the Sunday morning TV talk shows. They do not have to make sense, just make noise.

savage24 on June 16, 2014 at 3:42 PM

“It’s going to need more help from us, and it’s going to need more help from the international community,” Obama said Thursday. “… I don’t rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothoold in either Iraq or Syria.” -CNN

|||||Holy cow|||||


“Jihadists”? What?

In referring to the fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria as “jihadists,” Obama broke with his own administration’s policy. CIA chief John Brennan said in 2010 that Islamic jihadists were not Islamic jihadists: “They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing — absolutely nothing — holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

This was not just Brennan’s opinion: in October 2011, the Obama administration placed off-limits any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists, overseeing the scrubbing of all counter-terror training materials of all mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism. At that time, Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

But if the people who just took Mosul are indeed engaged in an Islamic jihad, then Islam is at least arguably “a religion of violence or with a tendency toward violence.” In this, of course, Obama fell into the chasm between his fantasy-based counter-terror policy and what is obvious and manifest reality: he knows that the warriors of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are jihadists, and in an unguarded moment, said so – thereby demonstrating the incoherence of his own position on this question.

Aiding jihadists in Syria and opposing them in Iraq

Last year, Barack Obama wanted to invade Syria on the side of the “jihadists” he is now saying must be stopped. He has given weapons to groups in Syria that he claimed were “moderate,” but which actually were collaborating with these jihadists: the Long War Journal reported on June 29, 2013, that the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, which is “al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria,” has “cooperated with Free Syrian Army units to establish sharia, or Islamic law, in Aleppo and in eastern Syria.”

What is the Free Syrian Army? The “moderates” whom we are training and to whom we are giving weapons: “the US government is backing the Free Syrian Army despite the group’s known ties to the Al Nusrah Front.”

So apparently it’s all right for the group the U.S. backs to establish Islamic law in Aleppo, but not all right for a similar and allied group to establish Islamic law in Mosul.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy is utterly incoherent, and the world is on the brink of catastrophe because of it.

Akzed on June 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Think this through, folks.

1. We save Baghdad and even drive ISIS/al Qaeda out of the Iraq.

2. Then what? Eventually we will have to leave, right?

Let’s say we stay 25 years: Then we leave. In come the Islamists or some equally bad Arab leader, and — at best — we are back to where we started in 2001.

Why? Because Arab nations are run by Arabs.

We need to admit something, fellow conservatives. We made a huge mistake thinking we could bring democracy to the Arabs. Can’t be done.

Stay out of the Iraq until our vital national interests are clearly threatened. If that happens, go in like the gates of hell have been opened wide and make them all regret the day they were born. They leave with a promise to repeat as necessary.

Just say no to nation-building these third world toilets. They are toilets for a reason.

Nomennovum on June 16, 2014 at 3:45 PM

The question for U.S. strategists is how to avoid the Iran/ISIS “accommodation” scenario while also not increasing either one’s power much in the process. Is there a way to do that?

Yes there is a way to do that and let me yell it out :
STOP ARMING ,FUNDING AND TRAINING JIHADIES .
JUST STOP IT. ALL THOSE KICKBACKS FROM JIHADIS INTO YOUR PACs ARE NOT WORTH IT. OH AND USE THE US MILITARY TO SEAL OUR OWN DAMN BORDERS.

burrata on June 16, 2014 at 3:46 PM

I’m a hawk. But we’ve spilled enough blood there already.

If a muslim group tried to overthrow Hanoi would we defend Vietcoms?

What would Jane say?

davidk on June 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM

After the administration blundered on Benghazi, on the Arab Spring, and Syria, Heaven itself has afforded it one last chance to set itself right. It is almost impossible for the administration to screw it up. All it has to do is……… nothing.

Let Them Kill Each Other

Katfish on June 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Senior DHS Official: Why, Yes, The Caliphate Is Returning And We Should Treat It Like A Muslim Version Of The EU…Or Something.

Resist We Much on June 16, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Job security for the DHS.

davidk on June 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM

CNN’s Dana Bash seemed to be in disbelief: “It’s sort of hard for me to believe that I’m hearing a Republican saying, sit down and talk with … Iran.”

Shouldn’t surprise anyone. A person who is okay with America being invaded is capable of pretty much anything.

Hey Graham, how about we just let Iraq fall? The Islamic radical takeover of the Middle East is inevitable, and we better get on board with it now or they won’t like us in 2050.

xblade on June 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Depending on how this pans out I wouldn’t be surprised if many of our voluntary military takes the closest path out of service. What a horrible time to be in a military career with Obama at the helm.

tej on June 16, 2014 at 3:49 PM

WOW- McRINO’s ventriloquism dummy can speak on his own!
Who knew???!!!

MicahStone on June 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM

I pass it off as a byproduct of its being a re-election year for Lindsey.

hawkeye54 on June 16, 2014 at 3:50 PM

What a horrible time to be in a military career with Obama at the helm.

tej on June 16, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Well, then, that there may explain why the admin is so eager to recruit desperate and unaware illegals.

hawkeye54 on June 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM

If a muslim group tried to overthrow Hanoi would we defend Vietcoms?

davidk

Probably. But if the same muslim group tried to overthrow Washington, Lindsey Graham would say we have to let them do it or they won’t vote for us.

xblade on June 16, 2014 at 3:52 PM

McLame is a war mongering hypocritical pig. He’s such a “fighter” that he refused to talk about anything in obamas past in 08, allowing obamas attacks to make that much more of a difference in his campaign.

I’ll never listen to another word either mclame or gramnesty have to say.

They are both dead to me.

Diluculo on June 16, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Air and intelligence assets and enough troops to make attacking the Green Zone suicide. Keep Baghdad in nominally friendly hands and make it difficult for these groups to get established in areas of the country that the government can’t control.

LukeinNE on June 16, 2014 at 3:53 PM

What a horrible time to be in a military career with Obama at the helm.

tej on June 16, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Well, then, that there may explain why the admin is so eager to recruit desperate and unaware illegals.

hawkeye54 on June 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM

Hice un viaje a los Estados Unidos y todo lo que conseguí fue las órdenes de Irán.

davidk on June 16, 2014 at 3:56 PM

..but there will be cooperation none the less. There has to be. And everyone from Tehran, Istanbul, Riyadh all the way to Washington knows that.

coolrepublica on June 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM

No, there doesn’t. The Saudis, who loathe Obama about equally with Iran, are already on record opposing “foreign intervention” in Iraq– their polite way of telling both the U.S. and Iran to stay out.

It’s in the interest of the Saudis– who are Sunni and the biggest financiers of Sunni jihadist movements everywhere– to see Iraq stabilized with the Sunni majority in charge, or at least with a larger say in the government of what’s left of Iraq. They are horrified at the prospect of Shia Iran acquiring the Islamic Bomb, and any cooperation between the U.S. and Iran that advances the prospect. (But as I’ve already said, they loathe Obama.)

de rigueur on June 16, 2014 at 3:57 PM

So, which one is the whackobird?

Have they decided?

Resist We Much on June 16, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Let Them Kill Each Other

Katfish on June 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM

I agree. We already strengthened Iran when we knocked over Iraq’s Sunni/Baathist government. And we supported these Sunnis by arming the Syrian rebels. Now – we should let them fight it out. In fact, we should provide intelligence to both sides to keep it going as long as possible.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/let_them_kill_each_other.html

TarheelBen on June 16, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Obama surrendered northern Iraq to Al Qaeda on Friday.

Why are we talking about anything else?

Wait until women voters find out that Obama allowed AQ to set up a country?

Are we safer yet?

faraway on June 16, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Seems like a shrewder strategy to “blunt Iran’s rise in the region” would be to force them to fight a two-front war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq without western help, not to start bombing their enemies while sternly warning them not to capitalize once we’re gone.

Yes. Exactly.

Am I the only one thinking that in the context of the new, increasingly left-leaning Hot Air, Allahpundit has become our (only) hard-core, ruthless paleoconservative foreign policy realist?

David Blue on June 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Ya think?:

Forces allied with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have almost certainly committed war crimes by executing hundreds of non-combatant men in Iraq over the past 5 days, UN human rights chief Navi Pillay says – @Reuters

davidk on June 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM

David Blue on June 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM

No, oddly the gilled one is with you. Must have something to do with blue?/

Bmore on June 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM

So, which one is the whackobird?

Have they decided?

Resist We Much on June 16, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Yes. They both are!!

Deano1952 on June 16, 2014 at 4:13 PM

I don’t see any of these Chamber of Commerce shills worrying about our border.

crankyoldlady on June 16, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Important stuff:

Reports of President Obama planning to sign order extending LGBT protections comes on day before he will attend DNC fundraising event in New York – @markknoller

davidk on June 16, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Let Help Them Kill Each Other – Katfish at 3:47 PM

We need to return to our old ways of war profiteering by making these wars as long, bloody and pointless as possible. A review of British policy on the Continent would be helpful, given the expertise they developed over the centuries.

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 4:16 PM

The white house did not split from Kerry. The White House is covering the bases to have plausible deniability. They will not be “direct” cooperation with Iran,(because Obama does not want McCain to suffer a stroke) but there will be cooperation none the less. There has to be. And everyone from Tehran, Istanbul, Riyadh all the way to Washington knows that.

coolrepublica on June 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM

So much for not negotiating with terrorists, right? Now we simply join up with them. Since you know it all, tell me.. Are Barky and the Mullahs gonna have dinner and drinks when it’s all over? Maybe a little State Dinner with Jay Z, Beyonce and Moochelle??

bimmcorp on June 16, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Meaningless noise.

We aren’t going to do sh** in Iraq. Drone strikes won’t cut it (even if they had the human intel) and Obama is gutting the real military and the money (I mean debt) will be redirected for vote-buying (and insurance company risk corridors) for the next two election cycles.

Yes, it is that simple.

M240H on June 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM

You know, I believe the situation in the ME is pretty complex. Again, these guys are more than happy to fight and die for changes that could be more than a century in the making. The West wants to come up with a quick fix. It just ain’t happening. Wake up. Either pulverize them or learn how to survive as a dhimmi.

Actually, I think this is all part of a greater plan, ie:Revelations!!

Deano1952 on June 16, 2014 at 4:18 PM

CNN’s Dana Bash seemed to be in disbelief: “It’s sort of hard for me to believe that I’m hearing a Republican saying, sit down and talk with … Iran.”

Probably has something to do with their oil stocks.

crankyoldlady on June 16, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Yes, it is that simpleminded.

M240H on June 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM

FIFY

Deano1952 on June 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Virginia Republican congressional candidate Dave Brat announces he is bringing on former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein as communications director – @ZekeJMiller

davidk on June 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM

We were arming these same monsters when they were fighting Syria.

If anyone thinks we were caught unawares or surprised by this, I got a bridge in Benghazi you might be interested in.

Akzed on June 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM

OT
Harris Faulkner just reported on FOX
the a Iraqi army helicopter just got shot down..
no report on deaths or the type of craft..

“Or would the helicopter be shot at?”
“Of course not. They’re not allowed to shoot at the helicopters.”

guess that debate is settled…
(yes HD I know you were in full sarc on that…)

also BHO is sending in 500 Marines to help evacuate Americans

so Mr no boots on the ground…..lied yet again

going2mars on June 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Help them kill each other. We should encourage Iran to go in there, and maybe beef up the Sunnis a little to make it as expensive for Iran as possible.

Too bad Obama didn’t drop off those 5 Taliban commanders in there to fight with the ISIS. They would fit right in. Maybe we could collect Talibans from Afghanistan and drop them in there to fight on the Sunni side.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/let_them_kill_each_other.html

TarheelBen on June 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM

You know, I believe the situation in the ME is pretty complex.

Huh…

Actually, I think this is all part of a greater plan, ie:Revelations!!
Deano1952 on June 16, 2014 at 4:18 PM

There’s no S in Revelation.

Akzed on June 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM

I don’t see any of these Chamber of Commerce shills worrying about our border.

crankyoldlady on June 16, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Absolutely.

America doesn’t have to defend Iraq’s border. America doesn’t have to defend the borders of an emerging Kurdistan. America doesn’t have to defend the borders of Ukraine.

America absolutely does have to defend America’s borders. Otherwise the nation is going away, crushed by mass immigration, both legal and illegal.

That is the absolute core reality for anything worth calling a “defense policy” or a “security policy”.

Military action not based on that reality (like the totally pointless destruction of Libya) is an aggression policy, or an offensive war policy, or something like that.

All Chamber of Commerce shills are worthless and should not be posing as if they were “security experts” or “defense experts” or anything like that. They have nothing to do with security and defense. Their expertise, if any, is in starting counterproductive, useless, bloody, very expensive and fundamentally irrelevant wars.

David Blue on June 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Harris Faulkner just reported on FOX
the a Iraqi army helicopter just got shot down..
no report on deaths or the type of craft..

going2mars on June 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM

2 dead

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-16-15-55-00

Resist We Much on June 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM

No, oddly the gilled one is with you. Must have something to do with blue? – Bmore at 4:12 PM

You morons set up blogs just to attack and ridicule each other?

If I moderated here, you would be banned for posting such a link or creating such a site. It’s pure trollbait and makes HA into a trollish forum. No wonder there is so much nastiness toward other posters and hostility to your hosts. HA’s admins are cowards or simply don’t care how much you trash the forum. What are you, a bunch of inbred Freepers?

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 4:30 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/marines-reinforce-us-embassy-baghdad-24150310

here is ABC’s bit…

going2mars on June 16, 2014 at 4:33 PM

When hawks turkeys collide

VorDaj on June 16, 2014 at 4:40 PM

If Iran can drive ISIS out of Syria and away from Baghdad and southern Iraq, maybe they’d tolerate leaving them alone with their own little caliphate in Anbar province.

Iran can’t even drive ISIL to the Seven-Eleven.

The Qods Force has been fighting with the Syrian Arab Army for three years now. Hezbollah is in the mix too.

Even with the rebels all fighting ISIL and Assad, Iran and Syria are incapable of bringing about decisive victory.

Without help from a First World military, Iraq will turn into the Lebanon of the seventies.

If we’re going to confront ISIL, we’ll have to send ground forces back in. If we’re not willing to do that, we shouldn’t do anything.

The price for more help should be permanent bases, like in Germany and Japan, with US forces immune from prosecution by Iraq’s religious kangaroo courts.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 16, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Report: Obama Considering Sending U.S. Special Forces To Iraq…

Resist We Much on June 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Hasn’t he gotten enough of them killed already?

VorDaj on June 16, 2014 at 4:44 PM

You morons set up blogs just to attack and ridicule each other?

If I moderated here, you would be banned for posting such a link or creating such a site. It’s pure trollbait and makes HA into a trollish forum. No wonder there is so much nastiness toward other posters and hostility to your hosts. HA’s admins are cowards or simply don’t care how much you trash the forum. What are you, a bunch of inbred Freepers?

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 4:30 PM

No most of us just go around calling each other morons and inbred Freepers. When we disagree with someone we might also call them trolls. We find that a satisfactory way to be nasty and hostile. Sounds like you might be on board with that Idea. Congrats. Frankly I really appreciate the hosts here at HA and generally don’t think of them as cowards at all. So we will just have to disagree on that count. Here is your link. Have a nice day.

Bmore on June 16, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Must have been a disgruntled South Carolinian. You have every right to be proud of your vote Sir.

Bmore on June 16, 2014 at 4:47 PM

So let’s recall some recent history shall we. Mclame and Lindsey advocated arming Syrians who were radical AQ even though they both denied that fact. Those same AQ jihadists fighting in Syria are pouring into the fight in Iraq using American arms including stinger missiles. Now one of the two nitwits, Lindsey, wants to cooperate with the terror state of Iran to fight the AQ they helped arm in Syria. the other nitwit doesnt take any responsibility for arming the Syrian jihadists. They have no credibility. We’ve elected morons and we expect what exactly?

cthemfly on June 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM

why the hell does anyone listen to any of these idiots who led us into this mess in the first place?

it’s insane. ignore them. they are always wrong.

everdiso on June 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM

It doesn’t really matter whether we say we will or will not cooperate with Iran. To them, we are the Great Satan. Any ‘cooperating’ they do with us will be while studying where to place the knife.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM

America absolutely does have to defend America’s borders. Otherwise the nation is going away, crushed by mass immigration, both legal and illegal.

There you have it. The plan IS to have our nation, at least as we’ve known it, go away, crushed by the overwhelming influx of mass immigration.

Meanwhile instead of our armed forces protecting our own borders from an invasion, which is actively aided and encouraged by our own government, our armed forces are sent out elsewhere to be embroiled in the affairs of other nations to no good end with this admins goals in mind.

hawkeye54 on June 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Report: Obama Considering Sending U.S. Special Forces To Iraq…

Resist We Much on June 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Hasn’t he gotten enough of them killed already?

VorDaj on June 16, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Not hardly. If their use suits the needs of Obumble, no price paid is too high.

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on June 16, 2014 at 5:07 PM

why the hell does anyone listen to any of these idiots who led us into this mess in the first place?

it’s insane. ignore them. they are always wrong.

everdiso on June 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Because he’s the Commander in Chief.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM

McCain once again proves that a stopped clock can display the right time twice a day.

landlines on June 16, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Here is your link. Have a nice day. – Bmore at 4:44 PM

And on a good day, when AP has a full charge of caffeine and a red-meat story to tear into, she was right. He is (or can be) one of the top tier of writers of the Right blogosphere. He has a subtle grasp of politics and news analysis. I would put Ed Morrissey in the same category, a very steady performer. Also Ace and DrewM from AoS (though I stopped posting there with their screwy comment system, even worse than HA’s is).

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Okay, I think we can all see where this ISIS situation is headed now.

At the end, Iran’s Quds special forces will be fighting it out with ISIS outside our glamorous embassy over who gets to take our 5,000 embassy staff hostage (or crucify them, or hold them hostage, or trade them for Gitmo prisoners, iPhones, sharia porn and lottery tickets).

Is it too early to start a betting pool on that?

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM

See, we do agree then. I am hopeful Noah will be a great addition here as well. Lest I be mistaken some seem to not get his brand of sarcasm. Perhaps that will evolve. You are definitely one of us. ; ) P.S. Can’t do the Ace place. Too weird and the comment system sucks. I do think HA has the best comment system around. Being able to create meaningful, sometimes meaningless, conversations between commenters seems a hard code to crack for most other places I’ve been to.

Bmore on June 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM

The question for U.S. strategists is how to avoid the Iran/ISIS “accommodation” scenario while also not increasing either one’s power much in the process. Is there a way to do that?

For starters stay out of their way and don’t unite them by creating lists with both of them together (like the Axis of Evil). If America stays out of their way they will be forced to fight each other. This has to do with the fact that Hezbollah and Assad are also in this fight in the west so the Sunni Jihadists in Syria and Iraq will have to have peace with a lot of people which they are not capable of doing. Peace means no Jihad, and no Jihad means no Jihadist group.

America should watch for opportunities to hurt either side, when convenient, but it should be economically viable and worth the risk, like hurting the Iranian nuclear program. Just an example of why these is going to be no peace…

Iran vs. Pakistan

William Eaton on June 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Actually it seems they’re arguing whether or not we should treat Iran as an ally against Al Qaeda. McCain is right that it would be nuts to do so, and Graham’s line of thinking has been adopted by the current President ( minus of course boots on the ground)

Either way it would be nuts to put boos on the ground in any scenario ( let alone in one where we’d be coordinating or worse operating in the same zone as the Iranians)

The only acceptable military scenario is for us to go hardcore desert storm on the ISIS mofos, and make it public knowledge that the same will happen to whoever ( Iranians, Shia militants etc.) don’t get the F*** out of our way.

And there isn’t a single American Politician ( GOP or D) that is willing to even suggest such a scenario, hence its irrelevant.

Iraq has been lost by this YOLO president, no amount of useless bluster from McCain or Graham is going to change that, we might as well just agree to Turkey and Iran partitioning it.

MWC_RS on June 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM

In my opinion we need to stay out of there. The sunnis will fight the shia, the sunnis will lose and be extremely weak if not nearly dead in the end. If we stay out of the fighting directly Iran will expend their resources clobbering the sunnis.

Yes, so what, Iran will win. We aren’t exactly soul mates with Iran now are we? Iraq, over a third of it anyway already is aligned with Iran. No change really, except that Iran will be a bit more beaten up in the end and the picture will be clearer once the sunnis are impaled in the middle of the desert. So much for their caliphate.

Worst case, which isn’t all that bad either, is that the egyptians and saudis out themselves by backing the sunnis strongly with men, arms, cash, etc. We just need to make sure that neither side has a huge advantage and they will turn each other into pulp with minimal effort on our part.

We need some slick behind the curtains work here though, not sure if this admin hasn’t completely destroyed our ability to do such things.

Diluculo on June 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM

I do think HA has the best comment system around. Being able to create meaningful, sometimes meaningless, conversations between commenters seems a hard code to crack for most other places I’ve been to. – Bmore at 5:55 PM

I see you guys can find each other’s old posts to quote but I can’t seem to understand how you do it (not that I consider it productive to carry on forum grudge matches). I understand the old Web 1.0 sites like Freeperville better. I am still on the fence about whether it’s better to allow or not allow YouBoob vids or pix. Sometimes I really like ‘em, other times I see people just trash a forum that allows them.

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 7:53 PM

The history of HA is permanently archived. It is actually very easy to search out info on prior comments of commenters and or mods here. I do this a great deal in order to know a wee bit more about who it is I am addressing. I did it for your nom. One way, google. Type in Hotair, the posters nom, the word or search for phrasing you are looking for. Some folks will use keywords as an identifier of pages as well. For instance, sometimes if I want to remember a page I will put a certain phrase somewhere on the thread. For example, Meow. If you ever pass rogerb in the halls here, ask him to show you his animated google search technique. rogerb is one of the best at this technique here at HA. You seem to know the comment box stuff well, however if you have any questions about it, I put together this tutorial just for some of the finer points. It may or may not be helpful, just thought I would mention it. ; )

Bmore on June 16, 2014 at 8:48 PM

P.S. There are histories between commenters here you may not be completely aware of. Something to consider.

Bmore on June 16, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Nice tutorial. Looking at the page source code, I notice the edit buttons have these shortcuts defined (at least with Safari on the Mac). They seem to make more provision for IE and Firefox. You might try these on a Windows box.

ctrl-alt-i for emphasis
ctrl-alt-b for strong
ctrl-alt-s for strike
ctrl-alt-a for link
ctrl-alt-q for blockquote

For CloseTags, there is no keyboard equivalent. They could define it, they choose not to. I wish they allowed the ordered and unordered lists but I can see why they might not want these compound tags on their comment pages.

Of course, now I’ll have to resist the temptation to sneak a few HTML tags past the goalie.

Toocon on June 16, 2014 at 10:00 PM

The time has long passed since Lyndsey Graham or John McCain’s words meant anything.

Obviously, it is unwise to court your mortal enemy. Idiot!

virgo on June 17, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Still, it’s an impressive achievement for Obama: America has gone from being Iran’s enemy to being Iran’s client. A step forward in the Middle East Peace Process!

PersonFromPorlock on June 17, 2014 at 8:19 AM

Now that DADT has been repealed Miss Lindsey,you can safely go to Iraq and lose your limbs or maybe your life fighting for people that hate us and are savages.So before you go and send anybody else over there go first.At least then it won’t have been a total loss!

redware on June 17, 2014 at 1:55 PM