ReeferMadness

Because we only have a single person doing the screening working 24/7?

I don't know exactly how Turkey sees ISIS but there are a couple of reasons why Turkey may not be in a hurry to see them defeated. First, Turkey is insistent that Assad be removed. If ISIS disappears, that is less likely to happen. Second, the Kurds are fighting ISIS on the ground. There is a Kurdish minority within Turkey that includes a strong separatist element. Turkey regards the Kurdish Workers Party (the PKK) as a terrorist organization. If ISIS disappears, the Kurds will have a chance to consolidate within Iraq and agitate within Turkey (again). Finally, it turns out that Turkey has been implicated in ISIS oil sales. When I read crap like this, it becomes obvious that there is a huge political game afoot that is mostly being ignored in the media and in official statements. Turkey is neck deep in political games. Agreed and agreed. Trudeau is right not to play this stupid game. International politics is a cesspool of hypocrisy and we should have no part in this.

I wouldn't be opposed to bombing if it were part of an overall strategy that had a chance of working. But I get the sense that bombing is being done because the people making decisions can't figure out what to do. The right wing press and politicians get the public cranked up so governments have to "do something". Bombing is easy because the likelihood that we'll lose soldiers as a result is low. Meanwhile, the bombing keeps the ISIS recruits coming in the door.

Noooo. Of course not. The US was "invited" to come to South Vietnam by a puppet regime that depended on the US protecting it from its own citizens.

Oh, so no complaining allowed unless people are "impoverished"? Duly noted for the next time you right wingers whine about taxes. Which happens about ever 30 milliseconds around here. I'll send them to talk to you.

Damn. I'm always impressed when people don't even understand their own links. Are you used to dealing with people who don't bother to read your links? Because yours directly contradicts the bullshit you just wrote. So, since they weren't properly identified as American soldiers, technically, they were, what, spies?

Wow. I don't know what wingnut school taught you history but you should definitely get a refund.

A point that is seemingly lost on the "let's go bomb 'em crowd". Like we haven't been bombing them enough yet.

It's not even clear whether it's slowing them down that much. Follow the money to stop them.

And the Gripen.

I get what you're saying about losing priceless artifacts. However, the trade is no different from blood diamonds and if countries really want to stop ISIS, they would be cracking down on this. I think the big items are the oil sales and the arms purchases. If ISIS has a lot of support in the region (as they must), then I question the efficacy of bombing or invading.

I'm not familiar with military procurement but in the software business, I know that companies will try to suss out the politics to see whether the competition is really open or whether there is a product all but picked. It could be that Saab read the political tea leaves and decided it was a waste of money. Complete guess but it's possible.

Oh. Why not? The offer was made to extradite. You can claim that it wasn't serious or they couldn't do it. But Bush didn't even bother trying. Instead, he invaded, making a huge mess of the country and didn't even finish the job before he invaded Iraq and made a mess of it. Now the world is paying the price.

Neil Macdonald shows a level of honesty uncharacteristic of most mainstream journalism. However, even he falls well short. If you want to defeat them, follow the money. ISIS pays its 30,000 fighters $500 to $1,000 per month, a fair bit of money in a poor area. In addition to the fighters, it has to buy weapons, ammunition, vehicles and fund its administration. Where does money come from? - Theft from the territory it conquered, including almost half a billion dollars from the central bank in Mosul - Government workers are taxed at 50% of their income. Incredibly, the governments of Iraq and Syria are only now ceasing payments to government workers in ISIS controlled regions - Sale of looted antiquities - like the theft, this is a one time thing and it begs the question - who is buying? - Sale of oil - this kills me. How the hell do you sell oil in the middle of a desert in the middle of a war zone so that nobody notices? The US has now started bombing oil trucks. ???? It's not like that oil has a lot of places it could go. Check a map. Iraq and Syria are ringed by a bunch of countries who are all supposedly fighting ISIS. Could they not just stop the oil trucks at the border and confiscate them? - Kidnapping and extortion - they make money at this but it's not going to fund the Islamic state The US has recently offered a $5 million reward for information "information leading to the significant disruption of the sale and/or trade of oil and antiquities by, for, on behalf of, or to benefit ISIL". wtf? Between satellite surveillance, electronic intelligence, drone surveillance and all of the various armies in the area, they can't figure out where the oil is going? How is that even possible? And I haven't even covered the issue as to how ISIS is getting ammunition, weapons, trucks and other material for its war effort. None of this adds up so I have to conclude we're not getting the full picture. The logical conclusion is that ISIS is getting all kinds of assistance and support from someone in the region. Who would that be? Its unlikely to be Iran or Russia, who are backing Assad. So, it's probably individual or state actors within the group of western allies in the region. The hacker group Anonymous, which has recently declared war on ISIS, has called out Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Al Jazeera.

I think that stopping ISIS is an awesome idea - I don't know how you would have been conflicted in the first place. How exactly do you propose to stop an organization that is so successful at recruiting disaffected people the world over? It seems like bombing sufficient to kill 2 attracts 4 more to take their place.

So, we need a base in the Arctic Ocean?

That's different from the chart in the link I provided. It says the Gripen has a 1,300 km range with a 290 gal centreline tank. And a 4,000 km+ ferry range with external tanks.

Unreasonable standard? Would it have been unreasonable for him to stand up to Cheney and the warmongers when they told him they decided to invade Iraq? And how much effort was made to bring bin Laden to trial without invading Afghanistan? I recall there was an offer by the Taliban to extradite him to a neutral country for a trial. Bush swatted this away as he and his bunch had already decided to go to war.

According to my link, the F-35 has 1,100 km range - hardly "massive" in Canada.

Again, it sounds handy. Has the airforce deemed it a requirement?

Sounds handy but is that enough of a reason to make a decision?

I don't know why I provide these links. Clearly, everyone here has already made up their minds and nobody reads them.

Awwww - worried about your shares in Lockheed Martin?

Air to air refuelling? The gripen can do that as well.

It's not more expensive than the butterball.