Sanders backs Obama on ISIS

[Knives]

So almost 2 years after she left the state department people are beginning to realise Hillary was right all along...

Right about what?  That intervening earlier, deposing Assad, and letting ISIS take Syria was the right course of action?  

Free Syrian Army does not equal ISIS.

Maybe not, but they clearly had a number of members who were jihadists, as evidenced by their killing of religious minorities and the fact that a bunch of then-FSA fighters have now defected to ISIS.

The FSA leader clearly stated they had no other goals except the removal of Assad.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-free-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/

This is from 2013, Hillary had been calling for something to happen in Syria since mid-2011.

[GOON]

So almost 2 years after she left the state department people are beginning to realise Hillary was right all along...

Right about what?  That intervening earlier, deposing Assad, and letting ISIS take Syria was the right course of action?  

Free Syrian Army does not equal ISIS.

Maybe not, but they clearly had a number of members who were jihadists, as evidenced by their killing of religious minorities and the fact that a bunch of then-FSA fighters have now defected to ISIS.

The FSA leader clearly stated they had no other goals except the removal of Assad.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-free-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/

This is from 2013, Hillary had been calling for something to happen in Syria since mid-2011.

That still would have allowed al-Queda and/or ISIS to take Damascus once Assad was deposed.  It doesn't matter if/when we intervened.  The result would have been the same.  Have we learned nothing from prior failures of regime change?

[Deus Naturae]

The FSA leader clearly stated they had no other goals except the removal of Assad.

And in the pursuit of that goal, they were willing to ally with jihadists and kill people because they didn't like their religion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, killing civilians is fine because of their political allegiance? That's pretty disgusting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that any group whose members would join ISIS because foreigners wouldn't give them enough money would've used that money for honorable purposes anyway.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The idea of trying to find "moderate" non Kurdish rebels to support is ridiculously idiotic. Those weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists.  The vote for this first class idiocy passed the House 273-156.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll507.xml

So much for Obama being against stupid wars. This will not go well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As would anyone with half a brain.

[politicus]

As would anyone with half a brain.

While the goal is admirable, some of the means are very risky and it lacks an exit strategy - it drags America into the quagmire of the Syrrian civil war.

[Deus Naturae]

As would anyone with half a brain.

Why are you so arrogant?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm a little confused here. It looks like Sanders was one of 22 nays on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world/middleeast/senate-approves-isis-bill-avoiding-bigger-war-debate.html


Roll call:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00270

[Mr. Morden]

I'm a little confused here. It looks like Sanders was one of 22 nays on this.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00270

He was for it before he was against it?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm a little confused here. It looks like Sanders was one of 22 nays on this.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00270

He was for it before he was against it?

Maybe he realized how dumb an idea it was before the vote came up.

Here are the nays. An odd collection, I must say. A lot of the Democrats (and Sanders) are the more liberal Senators, but there's Manchin. And Begich isn't that liberal. As for the 12 Republicans, a lot of the are tea partiers, but Heller isn't.

Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Brown (D-OH)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Warren (D-MA)

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It looks like the more independent-minded politicians voted against this, does not surprise me at all.

[MalaspinaGold]

Warren being on that list rather shocked me, considering that she supported Syria strikes in 2013, also that her and Obama tend to have similar foreign policy views.

Sanders wants the Saudis to foot the bill for arming the rebels, though he still supports the strikes: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-to-vote-no-on-war-funds

Manchin I'm not surprised about, West Virginia politicians tend to have a noninterventionist streak (see Robert Byrd). Plus, he opposed the 2013 strikes. Begich is a bit more left libertarian-y, so again that is not surprising. I was mildly surprised to see Tester and Wyden voting yes.

Gillibrand and Leahy voting no seemed odd, since they're fairly establishment (though Leahy also has an independent streak).

And Rand Paul once again shows himself as a mindless flip-flopper.

[Deus Naturae]

And Rand Paul once again shows himself as a mindless flip-flopper.

How so?

[MalaspinaGold]

This whole "me-too" ism regarding beating up ISIS even harder than Obama, while at the same time opposing this bill.  It pretty much reeks of trying to have it both ways, and just underscores the lack of a coherent policy he actually has about regarding middle east policy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

[Beet]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

That's like saying a lot of people are fine with removing a flat tire, but installing a new one is retarded. What's the end game of bomb, bomb, bomb? Bombing things isn't going to fix anything without an idea of who you want to be in charge. Progressives should know better than this.

[Deus Naturae]

This whole "me-too" ism regarding beating up ISIS even harder than Obama,

When has he said this? Sure you're not thinking of Ted Cruz?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

That's like saying a lot of people are fine with removing a flat tire, but installing a new one is retarded. What's the end game of bomb, bomb, bomb? Bombing things isn't going to fix anything without an idea of who you want to be in charge. Progressives should know better than this.

LOL, I listed a lot of things that can be done to go after ISIS without arming al-Nusra and their allies.

[MalaspinaGold]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

That's like saying a lot of people are fine with removing a flat tire, but installing a new one is retarded. What's the end game of bomb, bomb, bomb? Bombing things isn't going to fix anything without an idea of who you want to be in charge. Progressives should know better than this.

LOL, I listed a lot of things that can be done to go after ISIS without arming al-Nusra and their allies.

I don't think there was ever any discussion of arming Nusra Front.

@Deus: http://time.com/author/sen-rand-paul/

[Deus Naturae]

@Deus: http://time.com/author/sen-rand-paul/

In that very article, Paul condemns previous attempts to aid Syrian rebels, yet you call him a flip flopper for voting against such aid now? If anything, it would've been a flip flop for him to vote in favor.

[MalaspinaGold]

It's not so much flip-flopping, as trying to be on Obama's left and right at the same time. It would be better if he actually specified how he would combat ISIS harder than Obama, but as it is, he's trying to score primary points from both the libertarians and the hawkish base at the same time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rand and Sanders support striking ISIS but the sticking point, as for many observers, is arming the Syrian rebels. Sanders sounded like he was open to being convinced on arming the rebels but in the end Obama didn't make the sale.

I think most people are fine with going after in ISIS in Iraq.

A lot of people would be fine with bombing ISIS in Syria and arming the Syrian Kurds.

But arming al-Nusra and its allies is just retarded.

That's like saying a lot of people are fine with removing a flat tire, but installing a new one is retarded. What's the end game of bomb, bomb, bomb? Bombing things isn't going to fix anything without an idea of who you want to be in charge. Progressives should know better than this.

LOL, I listed a lot of things that can be done to go after ISIS without arming al-Nusra and their allies.

I don't think there was ever any discussion of arming Nusra Front.

@Deus: http://time.com/author/sen-rand-paul/

So we will merely arm the fellow Wahabbi jihadist allies of Al Nusra? That's so much better. Look, the Kurds are the only actual moderates in Syria.

[MalaspinaGold]

I've heard a lot of things about the FSA, but not that they were either Wahabbi or Jihadi.

And the problem with the Kurds is that they will only fight in the far Northern areas of Syria, the parts that are actually Kurdish. And asking them to fight significantly outside of Kurdish Syria is a literal disaster waiting to happen.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've heard a lot of things about the FSA, but not that they were either Wahabbi or Jihadi.

And the problem with the Kurds is that they will only fight in the far Northern areas of Syria, the parts that are actually Kurdish. And asking them to fight significantly outside of Kurdish Syria is a literal disaster waiting to happen.

FSA was just some phony western friendly front of a generally jihadist terrorist side of the war, and they are probably fighting Assad more than ISIS.

As for the Syrian Kurds, a lot of them aren't fighting in Syria at all. 60,000 just fled from ISIS into Turkey.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-takes-over-syria-kurdish-villages-as-thousands-flee-to-turkey-1.2772850