User Profile: nzkiwi

nzkiwi

Member Since: October 11, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [2] September 29, 2014 at 4:42am

    Actually, Richauthor, it’s not that Mr Obama underestimated ISIS, it’s that his administration actively supported the world’s primary terrorist enemy, al-Qaeda, which brought about the creation of this vicious and savage throwback to the dark ages..

    Mr Obama’s statements are a load of codswallop. Spin, at best. Lies at worst.

    If people like us on the Blaze saw this a ouple of years ago and he supposedly didn’t, then that speaks volumes about his administration.

    The truth is that, in his headlong determination to topple the Assad regime, he supported a hideous terrorist organisation. And now he’s trying to weasel his way out as the truth becomes increasingly obvious.

    The UK has been talking to Mr Assad about crushing ISIS. Finally someone is starting to think clearly.

    The sad thing is that the Obama administration can’t bring themselves to follow suit…

  • September 28, 2014 at 5:48am

    Well, well, well…

    It seems that, at least, the British have finally seen the light…

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/isis-air-strikes-mi6-secret-4336637

  • [3] September 28, 2014 at 4:58am

    Hi Barber.

    You ask “But are our troops the answer ?” I don’t think so.

    I find it ironic that Mr Obama is vainly looking for moderate “rebels” to whom he might provide support, when he must know that there are practically none.

    Syria’s Mr Assad, on the other hand, has a large, battle-hardened army which Mr Obama is ignoring with impressive determination.

    All the West has to do is instruct – INSTRUCT – its Middle-Eastern allies to desist from supporting these vicious savages and let Syria get on with the job unhindered.

    It seems such an obvious solution which the West can support in Iraq, but unfortunately that would mean acknowledging Mr Assad as one of the good guys.

    And that’s something that Mr Obama simply will not do…

  • September 28, 2014 at 4:33am

    That was a good post, Tex.

    May I make the polite suggestion that you break it up into paragraghs.

    I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi; it’s just that it will make your points easier to read and absorb.

    My apologies if I’ve irritated you…

  • [1] September 28, 2014 at 4:29am

    You’re right, Monk, President Obama did boast repeatedly about the demise of al-Qaeda.

    He also presented the “Yemen model” as the way to successfully deal with ISIS terrorists.

    How did that work out? Well, prior to this event, al-Qaeda (which, for all practical purposes, is ISIS) enters Yemen at will, bombs buildings, captures and beheads soldiers, and on one occasion, robbed a bank on the way out.

    So much for the “Yemen model”.

    The President has no defined objective, a prerequisite for going to war, and no cohesive strategy. Ignoble failure is simply a matter of time.

    It seems quite inevitable to me that American soldiers will eventually be placed in harm’s way. Once again, the US will be required to do the heavy lifting and, until a competent president is elected, the losses in blood and treasure will be tragic.

  • [2] September 16, 2014 at 11:19pm

    You’re right, Woodyee.

    Mr Obama is determined to have his war and oust the Assad regime no matter what. The potential for unintended consequences is appalling…

  • September 16, 2014 at 11:12pm

    That’s not as big an exception as you might think, Dad.

    Long association with the EU has given the UK a tinge of pink. The Brits seem pretty keen to exit the EU and to start to fix all the problems that it has caused.

    Perhaps the common denominator is the EU itself and its love affair with socialism, multiculturism and open borders…

  • September 15, 2014 at 11:45pm

    I know what you mean.

    When you start double-posting I’ll know that you are truly lost :)

    And then I’ll welcome you to the ranks of the “I wonder if anybody is actually going to read all this” club.

    Lol…

  • [4] September 15, 2014 at 10:44pm

    Thanks for that link GBTV.

    The picture is becoming increasingly clearer…

  • [3] September 15, 2014 at 10:32pm

    Sorry, Woodyee, I grabbed my keyboard before I read your post.

    We are in complete agreement…

    Also, is it just me or are your posts getting longer…

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 15, 2014 at 10:24pm

    Quite right, DLV. Nicely summed up…

  • [5] September 15, 2014 at 9:22pm

    The asterisks hide the word “shi-ite”. Good grief…

  • [4] September 15, 2014 at 9:21pm

    Precisely, DLV.

    The Obama adminstration’s true intent is to topple the Assad regime. There are various reasons for this, as I’ve previously mentioned, but there is one additional effect.

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, which are Sunnis, are trying to exterminate the ****** nations of Syria, Iran, and to an extent, Lebanon. And then there are the Kurds which Turkey wants to expunge.

    Assuming that they are successful, a Caliphate will have been created, which is the goal of ISIS, and the Obama administration will have been instrumental in bringing this about.

    From a position of geopolitical strength, and with immense financial resources at its disposal, the new Caliphate can then proceed with its plans for the rest of the planet.

    Stopping these backward savages from that point will be a herculean task requiring appalling sacrifice of blood and treasure.

    Watching this happen is dismaying…

  • [4] September 15, 2014 at 8:51pm

    I’m not divided at all, DLV. Look at it this way:

    The Obama administration warns that it will attack Syria if Syria attacks the US while the US is attacking the enemies of Syria.

    I don’t mean to be rude, but what the hell is President Obama smoking?

    Why on earth would Syria attack the US for ostensibly coming to their aid? Unless, of course, he intends to attack Syria anyway, and needs to prepare a narrative…

    Is the President aware that the Saudis are telling Russia they no longer seek to topple the Syrian regime, but insist the coalition should continue arming and training their surrogates in the Free Syrian Army as opposition to ISIS – even though FSA commanders have signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS?

    The al-Qaida-affiliated group, Jabhat al-Nusra, mediated the non-aggression pact between the FSA and ISIS, so, in effect, all Jihadist groups are coalescing under the ISIS banner.

    The Obama administration is apparently going to ask congress for half a billion dollars to train and arm “moderate” Jihadis, but all pretence of moderation is gone. They are now all ISIS.

    So who does the President intend to support, and who does he propose to attack?

    The President should just walk away from what will obviously become a monumental disaster.

    If he truly wants to help the situation, then he should stop helping; he should just get out of Syria’s way…

    Responses (4) +
  • September 15, 2014 at 12:14pm

    Quite right, I’m having the best year ever.

  • [9] September 15, 2014 at 8:56am

    No, it’s “taqiyya” – Islamic deception.

    It’s work well for them in the past, but increasingly people are seeing through it.

  • [3] September 14, 2014 at 9:21pm

    It’s bought internationally, Awakened.

    Some has then been smuggled into Gaza. But, astonishingly, much of it has been allowed in through border crossings by Israel. They came under immense pressure to do so by the UN (supported by the EU and US) as “humanitarian aid” in the form of essential construction materials.

    When it became clear that Hamas was using it to build tunnels, the responsibility for ensuring that the concrete was used only in civilian projects was passed to the local UN Human Rights Commission – the same organisation that handed weapons found on its premises to Hamas.

    On the cessation of hostilities, the Obama administration promised $47 million to Hamas to help rebuild their civilian infrastructure.

    After each conflict, the EU, USA, Qatar, and others promise financial support to Gaza – meaning Hamas – and this enables Hamas to rebuild its military capabilities because there is almost no oversight.

    It seems awfully silly, doesn’t it….

  • [8] September 14, 2014 at 8:47pm

    I agree, Foo.

    If other nations stopped supporting the “rebels”, Syria would crush them in weeks. As it is, they are still making steady progress against the savages – which must be annoying the regime-changers.

    Mr Assad is no saint, but he’s the best option at this time. The worse options are anything that includes Western money and military lives.

    And the worst option of all is an ill-defined, long-term “counter-terrorism” operation.

    A cynic might say that then makes Mr Obama’s choice obvious…

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] September 14, 2014 at 12:17pm

    The best thing that Mr Obama can do now is walk away. The funding and support of ISIS from Turkey, and a frightened Qatar and Saudi Arabia, will dry up, and Syria will crush ISIS and al-Qaeda. The US can then concentrate on stabilising an Iraq that is freed from foreign insurgency, and find a way of controlling Iran.

    The rest of the world can catch its breath will it waits for another fool to think up a new way to set the world on fire…

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] September 14, 2014 at 12:16pm

    The other reasons are; firstly, the enormous benefit to an America that holds political influence over the region (which is why this domino-like regime change policy was originally enacted under Mr Bush), and secondly, the trillions of dollars at stake in future gas supply.

    The Obama administration’s plans are transparent. An oddball story in the Times of Israel about ISIS being an Israeli conspiracy includes this sentence:

    “Meanwhile US forces were also gearing up for airstrikes in Syria, with US planes and drones beginning to gather intelligence on targets and air defense threats in preparation for attacks there.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-arab-leader-shin-bet-behind-islamic-state/#ixzz3DIVbyOuy

    ISIS has no air defences. Now that Mr Assad has been persuaded to divest himself of chemical weapons, Syria’s air defences are his sole remaining deterrent to invasion.

    What may have seemed like a good plan in the beginning, which it wasn’t, has now turned into a pig’s breakfast. Mr Putin would have been aware of these plans and one wonders if this is why he tested Mr Obama’s resolve in the Ukraine. Well, he got himself another naval port out of it.

123 To page: Go