Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BialaPolska
Joined: 5/20/2015
Msg: 51
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!Page 3 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
I will fall into zio media intellectual lock step when israel is finally attacked by ISIS.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 52
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 6/11/2015 9:19:16 AM
Chances are, Cotter's "dirty bomb" isn't the pair we dropped on Japan back in the 1940's, nor Agent Orange, but the depleted uranium-coated munitions we use (and sold to Israel who used it in the 'territories) and which leach into the ground water.

A terrorist group having a dirty bomb of their own isn't a case of IF, but WHEN. Our FORTE satellite might pick it up depending upon its output. There are locations prime for this type of assault, which obviously i'm not going to publish.

in theory, the CINC should lead the Pentagon around by the nose, but latter remembers the "evidence of WMD" leading up to the first invasion of Iraq (Cheney visiting the CIA, Powell made a fool of in front of the UN, Judy Woodruff, etc) and how after the toppling, Ahmed Chalabi failed to show up for his first day at work and there was no back up plan for occupation, few up-armored Humvees, etc. You might be surprised to know how many working at the Pentagon focus more on their career and avoiding blemishes that can cut into their pension.

For example, check out the book "Losing Bin Ladin" by Richard Miniter who shows up regularly on Fox News. He tries to blame Clinton for it but points out on page 201 how the JCS' Chairman General Henry H. Shelton got in the way. For a simple snatch-and-grab rendition of OBL, their plan was to have thousands of troops in Taliban-held Afganistan for backup. They worried about a repeat of Desert One or "Blackhawk Down". So the Pentagon plan was intentionally unwieldy.

A CINC leaving a foreign policy mess to the next resident? Well, at least there' a precedent, Bush 1 and Somalia.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 53
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 6/11/2015 10:27:32 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/10/isis-onslaught-has-broken-al-qaida-its-spiritual-leaders-admit?

First Assad, now Al Qaida. Ironically, ISIS might do our work for us. then it may be too weak afterward to fight anyone who decides to step in. which hopefully will be us, not some even worse offspring group. Or maybe petrobillionaires will stop supporting it, and once again it will have to run on its own cash, which gets real expensive real soon.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 54
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 9/14/2015 11:02:22 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html

Interesting read with secret plan from IS.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 55
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 9/18/2015 4:58:45 PM
and now the Russians are gearing up for airstrikes. Syrian airspace isn't that big. this should make for some close calls. Unless we really feel like sharing tac intel.
 InnerGorilla
Joined: 4/1/2014
Msg: 56
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 9/25/2015 2:03:58 PM

and now the Russians are gearing up for airstrikes. Syrian airspace isn't that big. this should make for some close calls. Unless we really feel like sharing tac intel.


Dude, that was some great post you did earlier on.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 57
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 9/29/2015 8:14:47 AM
thank you. Now Assad has learned what a great military weapon refugees can be--let a bunch run to Europe, and European leaders are ready to let him stay in. Meanwhile this morning, Afganistan lost another town to rebels before the usual winter cease fire, perhaps ISIS might in five years decide Syria is too warm, time to try Afganistan where they already know some people.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 58
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 9/30/2015 7:04:51 PM
Hmmmm ...

How many are ready for President McCain to take over?

How many are ready to send their loved ones into war without knowing what the "Republican" plan is?
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 59
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 9/30/2015 11:18:47 PM
PLEASE people, next stop..BACK to Iraq, within..weeks.
2 months? .. Libya. Then to Syria. .. Big time war if we don't say no.

I feel like a "little Miss know it all," but maybe I'm getting more info? Iran is going to get very P.O'd, (as well they should be) if we let Pakistan lose their "special" status..which Saudi /Israel wants and..seems to be the next step...Yemen? Guess why?

DO NOT go to WAR. It's not for democracy/ Check out the pipeline/oil routes.

ISIL is a break away from the "moderates" we supported. (they break away because..WHY do you think.?
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 60
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:33:20 AM
We can trace ISIS back to Zarqawi chopping heads in Iraq during the occupation. As al Quada fell, it****red over whether or not to support this psychotic. Like any business, they wanted to be the "go-to, one-stop-shop" source for jihadis. they wanted to be more "professional" if you will, than the new generation raised on video games and movies where cutting heads off enemies were proof of seriousness. Eventually, al Quada decided Iraq was the battlefield of the future, and took Zarqawi into the fold.

The idea we were promoting him as the next Hitler, since we had just pulled the last one out of a spiderhole, didn't hurt. We elevate our enemies, in the hopes that killing them will lead the rest wandering around going, "duuuuh, what do we do now?"

Yet after we got him, the problems for Sunnis in Iraq...just didn't go away. When problems for other people fail to go away...those people are still willing to go to war for the solution.

the real problem for us with the Mideast is...they don't have our interests in mind. they have their own interests in mind. and we aren't the only oil buyers any more, the Chinese aren't too worried about the interest of the Shi'a and the Sunni to kill each other. and gee, the last time Iraq was a war zone, Wall Street bid up the price of oil futures. Does that help Putin in any way?

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/1/rashid_khalidi_on_syria_the_beginning

since someone will say its Obama's fault for following the Bush plan to pull out...how would America pay for continued occupation? I thought the Redumblicans are all against government spending? they never seem to answer this question.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 61
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/2/2015 2:06:36 PM
President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Distinguished heads of state and government,

Ladies and gentlemen,

The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future.

In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay a solid foundation for the postwar world order. Let me remind you that key decisions on the principles defining interaction between states, as well as the decision to establish the UN, were made in our country, at the Yalta Conference of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The Yalta system was truly born in travail. It was born at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars that swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let’s be fair: it helped humankind pass through turbulent, and at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in terms of legitimacy, representation and universality. True, the UN has been criticized lately for being inefficient or for the fact that decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, especially among Security Council members.

However, I’d like to point out that there have always been differences in the UN throughout the 70 years of its history, and that the veto right has been regularly used by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. It is only natural for such a diverse and representative organization. When the UN was first established, nobody expected that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. The decisions debated within the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don’t. Any action taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary international law.

We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way.
70th session of the UN General Assembly
70th session of the UN General Assembly

That’s why they say that the UN has run its course and is now obsolete and outdated. Of course, the world changes, and the UN should also undergo natural transformation. Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force. The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly independent states we will have protectorates controlled from outside.

What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future.

By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn’t play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.

We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one.

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done? But I’m afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.

Power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State.

In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond. Their plans go further.
70th session of the UN General Assembly.
70th session of the UN General Assembly.

The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.

I’d like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it’s a big question: who’s playing who here? The recent incident where the most “moderate” opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.

We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic State. Unfortunately, Russia is no exception.

Now that those thugs have tasted blood, we can’t allow them to return home and continue with their criminal activities. Nobody wants that, right?

Russia has consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other regional countries fighting terrorist groups. We think it’s a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground.

We should finally admit that President Assad’s government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria. Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia’s part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.

What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And of course, Muslim nations should play a key role in such a coalition, since Islamic State not only poses a direct threat to them, but also tarnishes one of the greatest world religions with its atrocities. The ideologues of these extremists make a mockery of Islam and subvert its true humanist values.

I would also like to address Muslim spiritual leaders: Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people targeted for recruitment by extremists from making hasty decisions, and those who have already been deceived and, due to various circumstances, found themselves among terrorists, must be assisted in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.
70th session of the UN General Assembly.
70th session of the UN General Assembly.

In the days to come, Russia, as the current President of the UN Security Council, will convene a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose exploring opportunities for adopting a resolution that would serve to coordinate the efforts of all parties that oppose Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Once again, such coordination should be based upon the principles of the UN Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery in the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for setting up more refugee camps. Today, the flow of people forced to leave their native land has literally engulfed, first, the neighbouring countries, and then Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of them now, and before long, there might be millions. It is, essentially, a new, tragic Migration Period, and a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress that refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen government institutions where they still exist, or are being re-established, to provide comprehensive military, economic and material assistance to countries in a difficult situation, and certainly to people who, despite all their ordeals, did not abandon their homes. Of course, any assistance to sovereign nations can, and should, be offered rather than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter. In other words, our Organisation should support any measures that have been, or will be, taken in this regard in accordance with international law, and reject any actions that are in breach of the UN Charter. Above all, I believe it is of utmost importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone. Indeed, it is a challenging, complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no alternative.

Neoconed

Sadly, some of our counterparts are still dominated by their Cold War-era bloc mentality and the ambition to conquer new geopolitical areas. First, they continued their policy of expanding NATO – one should wonder why, considering that the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist and the Soviet Union had disintegrated.

Nevertheless, NATO has kept on expanding, together with its military infrastructure. Next, the post-Soviet states were forced to face a false choice between joining the West and carrying on with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a major geopolitical crisis. And that is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the people’s widespread frustration with the government was used for instigating a coup d’état from abroad. This has triggered a civil war. We are convinced that the only way out of this dead end lies through comprehensive and diligent implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015. Ukraine’s territorial integrity cannot be secured through the use of threats or military force, but it must be secured. The people of Donbas should have their rights and interests genuinely considered, and their choice respected; they should be engaged in devising the key elements of the country’s political system, in line with the provisions of the Minsk agreements. Such steps would guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, and a vital link in creating a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have deliberately mentioned a common space for economic cooperation. Until quite recently, it seemed that we would learn to do without dividing lines in the area of the economy with its objective market laws, and act based on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, which embrace free trade and investment and fair competition. However, unilaterally imposed sanctions circumventing the UN Charter have all but become commonplace today. They not only serve political objectives, but are also used for eliminating market competition.
70th session of the UN General Assembly.
70th session of the UN General Assembly.

I would like to note one more sign of rising economic selfishness. A number of nations have chosen to create exclusive economic associations, with their establishment being negotiated behind closed doors, secretly from those very nations’ own public and business communities, as well as from the rest of the world. Other states, whose interests may be affected, have not been informed of anything, either. It seems that someone would like to impose upon us some new game rules, deliberately tailored to accommodate the interests of a privileged few, with the WTO having no say in it. This is fraught with utterly unbalancing global trade and splitting up the global economic space.

These issues affect the interests of all nations and influence the future of the entire global economy. That is why we propose discussing those issues within the framework of the United Nations, the WTO and the G20. Contrary to the policy of exclusion, Russia advocates harmonizing regional economic projects. I am referring to the so-called ”integration of integrations“ based on the universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union with China’s initiative for creating a Silk Road economic belt. We continue to see great promise in harmonizing the integration vehicles between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.

However, I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue. Admittedly, we may be able to defuse it for a while by introducing emission quotas and using other tactical measures, but we certainly will not solve it for good that way. What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. On January 10th, 1946, the UN General Assembly convened for its first meeting in London. Chairman of the Preparatory Commission Dr. Zuleta Angel, a Colombian diplomat, opened the session by offering what I see as a very concise definition of the principles that the United Nations should be based upon, which are good will, disdain for scheming and trickery, and a spirit of cooperation. Today, his words sound like guidance for all of us.

Russia is confident of the United Nations’ enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN’s central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples.

Thank you.
Copyright © President Vladimir Putin, United Nations. Transcript, Russian Presidency, 2015
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2015/10/vladimir-putins-address-to-the-united-nations-security-council-video-and-transcript/
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 62
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/2/2015 2:20:11 PM
President Obama's Speech: http://www.newsweek.com/read-full-transcript-president-obamas-speech-united-nations-general-assembly-377504

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations, it is worth reflecting on what, together, the members of this body have helped to achieve.

Out of the ashes of the Second World War, having witnessed the unthinkable power of the atomic age, the United States has worked with many nations in this Assembly to prevent a third world war—by forging alliances with old adversaries; by supporting the steady emergence of strong democracies accountable to their people instead of any foreign power; and by building an international system that imposes a cost on those who choose conflict over cooperation, an order that recognizes the dignity and equal worth of all people.

That is the work of seven decades. That is the ideal that this body, at its best, has pursued. Of course, there have been too many times when, collectively, we have fallen short of these ideals. Over seven decades, terrible conflicts have claimed untold victims. But we have pressed forward, slowly, steadily, to make a system of international rules and norms that are better and stronger and more consistent.

It is this international order that has underwritten unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity. It is this collective endeavor that’s brought about diplomatic cooperation between the world’s major powers, and buttressed a global economy that has lifted more than a billion people from poverty. It is these international principles that helped constrain bigger countries from imposing our will on smaller ones, and advanced the emergence of democracy and development and individual liberty on every continent.

This progress is real. It can be documented in lives saved, and agreements forged, and diseases conquered, and in mouths fed. And yet, we come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a straight line, that our work is far from complete; that dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.

Today, we see the collapse of strongmen and fragile states breeding conflict, and driving innocent men, women and children across borders on an epoch epic scale. Brutal networks of terror have stepped into the vacuum. Technologies that empower individuals are now also exploited by those who spread disinformation, or suppress dissent, or radicalize our youth. Global capital flows have powered growth and investment, but also increased risk of contagion, weakened the bargaining power of workers, and accelerated inequality.

How should we respond to these trends? There are those who argue that the ideals enshrined in the U.N. charter are unachievable or out of date—a legacy of a postwar era not suited to our own. Effectively, they argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history and that pre-date this institution: the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals don’t matter; and that in a time of rapid change, order must be imposed by force.

On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law. We see an erosion of the democratic principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution’s mission; information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society restricted. We’re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it’s the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.

The increasing skepticism of our international order can also be found in the most advanced democracies. We see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants. Most ominously, we see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to sectarianism, or tribalism, or racism, or anti-Semitism; appeals to a glorious past before the body politic was infected by those who look different, or worship God differently; a politics of us versus them.

The United States is not immune from this. Even as our economy is growing and our troops have largely returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, we see in our debates about America’s role in the world a notion of strength that is defined by opposition to old enemies, perceived adversaries, a rising China, or a resurgent Russia; a revolutionary Iran, or an Islam that is incompatible with peace. We see an argument made that the only strength that matters for the United States is bellicose words and shows of military force; that cooperation and diplomacy will not work.

As President of the United States, I am mindful of the dangers that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.

But I stand before you today believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. We cannot look backwards. We live in an integrated world—one in which we all have a stake in each other’s success. We cannot turn those forces of integration. No nation in this Assembly can insulate itself from the threat of terrorism, or the risk of financial contagion; the flow of migrants, or the danger of a warming planet. The disorder we see is not driven solely by competition between nations or any single ideology. And if we cannot work together more effectively, we will all suffer the consequences. That is true for the United States, as well.

No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone. In Iraq, the United States learned the hard lesson that even hundreds of thousands of brave, effective troops, trillions of dollars from our Treasury, cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land. Unless we work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law that offer legitimacy to our efforts, we will not succeed. And unless we work together to defeat the ideas that drive different communities in a country like Iraq into conflict, any order that our militaries can impose will be temporary.

Just as force alone cannot impose order internationally, I believe in my core that repression cannot forge the social cohesion for nations to succeed. The history of the last two decades proves that in today’s world, dictatorships are unstable. The strongmen of today become the spark of revolution tomorrow. You can jail your opponents, but you can’t imprison ideas. You can try to control access to information, but you cannot turn a lie into truth. It is not a conspiracy of U.S.-backed NGOs that expose corruption and raise the expectations of people around the globe; it’s technology, social media, and the irreducible desire of people everywhere to make their own choices about how they are governed.

Indeed, I believe that in today’s world, the measure of strength is no longer defined by the control of territory. Lasting prosperity does not come solely from the ability to access and extract raw materials. The strength of nations depends on the success of their people—their knowledge, their innovation, their imagination, their creativity, their drive, their opportunity—and that, in turn, depends upon individual rights and good governance and personal security. Internal repression and foreign aggression are both symptoms of the failure to provide this foundation.

A politics and solidarity that depend on demonizing others, that draws on religious sectarianism or narrow tribalism or jingoism may at times look like strength in the moment, but over time its weakness will be exposed. And history tells us that the dark forces unleashed by this type of politics surely makes all of us less secure. Our world has been there before. We gain nothing from going back.

Instead, I believe that we must go forward in pursuit of our ideals, not abandon them at this critical time. We must give expression to our best hopes, not our deepest fears. This institution was founded because men and women who came before us had the foresight to know that our nations are more secure when we uphold basic laws and basic norms, and pursue a path of cooperation over conflict. And strong nations, above all, have a responsibility to uphold this international order.

Let me give you a concrete example. After I took office, I made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body—the nuclear non-proliferation regime—was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something.

But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners—including Russia, including China—stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.

That same fidelity to international order guides our responses to other challenges around the world. Consider Russia’s annexation of Crimea and further aggression in eastern Ukraine. America has few economic interests in Ukraine. We recognize the deep and complex history between Russia and Ukraine. But we cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. If that happens without consequence in Ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today. That’s the basis of the sanctions that the United States and our partners impose on Russia. It's not a desire to return to a Cold War.

Now, within Russia, state-controlled media may describe these events as an example of a resurgent Russia—a view shared, by the way, by a number of U.S. politicians and commentators who have always been deeply skeptical of Russia, and seem to be convinced a new Cold War is, in fact, upon us. And yet, look at the results. The Ukrainian people are more interested than ever in aligning with Europe instead of Russia. Sanctions have led to capital flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more educated Russians.

Imagine if, instead, Russia had engaged in true diplomacy, and worked with Ukraine and the international community to ensure its interests were protected. That would be better for Ukraine, but also better for Russia, and better for the world—which is why we continue to press for this crisis to be resolved in a way that allows a sovereign and democratic Ukraine to determine its future and control its territory. Not because we want to isolate Russia—we don't—but because we want a strong Russia that’s invested in working with us to strengthen the international system as a whole.

Similarly, in the South China Sea, the United States makes no claim on territory there. We don't adjudicate claims. But like every nation gathered here, we have an interest in upholding the basic principles of freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce, and in resolving disputes through international law, not the law of force. So we will defend these principles, while encouraging China and other claimants to resolve their differences peacefully.

I say this, recognizing that diplomacy is hard; that the outcomes are sometimes unsatisfying; that it's rarely politically popular. But I believe that leaders of large nations, in particular, have an obligation to take these risks—precisely because we are strong enough to protect our interests if, and when, diplomacy fails.

I also believe that to move forward in this new era, we have to be strong enough to acknowledge when what you’re doing is not working. For 50 years, the United States pursued a Cuba policy that failed to improve the lives of the Cuban people. We changed that. We continue to have differences with the Cuban government. We will continue to stand up for human rights. But we address these issues through diplomatic relations, and increased commerce, and people-to-people ties. As these contacts yield progress, I’m confident that our Congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore. Change won’t come overnight to Cuba, but I’m confident that openness, not coercion, will support the reforms and better the life the Cuban people deserve, just as I believe that Cuba will find its success if it pursues cooperation with other nations.

Now, if it’s in the interest of major powers to uphold international standards, it is even more true for the rest of the community of nations. Look around the world. From Singapore to Colombia to Senegal, the facts shows that nations succeed when they pursue an inclusive peace and prosperity within their borders, and work cooperatively with countries beyond their borders.

That path is now available to a nation like Iran, which, as of this moment, continues to deploy violent proxies to advance its interests. These efforts may appear to give Iran leverage in disputes with neighbors, but they fuel sectarian conflict that endangers the entire region, and isolates Iran from the promise of trade and commerce. The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the Iranian people, and good for the world.

Of course, around the globe, we will continue to be confronted with nations who reject these lessons of history, places where civil strife, border disputes, and sectarian wars bring about terrorist enclaves and humanitarian disasters. Where order has completely broken down, we must act, but we will be stronger when we act together.

In such efforts, the United States will always do our part. We will do so mindful of the lessons of the past—not just the lessons of Iraq, but also the example of Libya, where we joined an international coalition under a U.N. mandate to prevent a slaughter. Even as we helped the Libyan people bring an end to the reign of a tyrant, our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind. We’re grateful to the United Nations for its efforts to forge a unity government. We will help any legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse.

And that’s why we should celebrate the fact that later today the United States will join with more than 50 countries to enlist new capabilities—infantry, intelligence, helicopters, hospitals, and tens of thousands of troops—to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping. These new capabilities can prevent mass killing, and ensure that peace agreements are more than words on paper. But we have to do it together. Together, we must strengthen our collective capacity to establish security where order has broken down, and to support those who seek a just and lasting peace.

Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs—it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that’s not a single nation’s national security problem—that is an assault on all humanity.

I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists.

But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.

Let’s remember how this started. Assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the environment for the current strife. And so Assad and his allies cannot simply pacify the broad majority of a population who have been brutalized by chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing. Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild.

We know that ISIL—which emerged out of the chaos of Iraq and Syria—depends on perpetual war to survive. But we also know that they gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. So part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.

This work will take time. There are no easy answers to Syria. And there are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa. But so many families need help right now; they don’t have time. And that’s why the United States is increasing the number of refugees who we welcome within our borders. That’s why we will continue to be the largest donor of assistance to support those refugees. And today we are launching new efforts to ensure that our people and our businesses, our universities and our NGOs can help as well—because in the faces of suffering families, our nation of immigrants sees ourselves.

Of course, in the old ways of thinking, the plight of the powerless, the plight of refugees, the plight of the marginalized did not matter. They were on the periphery of the world’s concerns. Today, our concern for them is driven not just by conscience, but should also be drive by self-interest. For helping people who have been pushed to the margins of our world is not mere charity, it is a matter of collective security. And the purpose of this institution is not merely to avoid conflict, it is to galvanize the collective action that makes life better on this planet.

The commitments we’ve made to the Sustainable Development Goals speak to this truth. I believe that capitalism has been the greatest creator of wealth and opportunity that the world has ever known. But from big cities to rural villages around the world, we also know that prosperity is still cruelly out of reach for too many. As His Holiness Pope Francis reminds us, we are stronger when we value the least among these, and see them as equal in dignity to ourselves and our sons and our daughters.

We can roll back preventable disease and end the scourge of HIV/AIDS. We can stamp out pandemics that recognize no borders. That work may not be on television right now, but as we demonstrated in reversing the spread of Ebola, it can save more lives than anything else we can do.

Together, we can eradicate extreme poverty and erase barriers to opportunity. But this requires a sustained commitment to our people—so farmers can feed more people; so entrepreneurs can start a business without paying a bribe; so young people have the skills they need to succeed in this modern, knowledge-based economy.

We can promote growth through trade that meets a higher standard. And that’s what we’re doing through the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a trade agreement that encompasses nearly 40 percent of the global economy; an agreement that will open markets, while protecting the rights of workers and protecting the environment that enables development to be sustained.

We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies, and help economies lift people out of poverty without condemning our children to the ravages of an ever-warming climate. The same ingenuity that produced the Industrial Age and the Computer Age allows us to harness the potential of clean energy. No country can escape the ravages of climate change. And there is no stronger sign of leadership than putting future generations first. The United States will work with every nation that is willing to do its part so that we can come together in Paris to decisively confront this challenge.

And finally, our vision for the future of this Assembly, my belief in moving forward rather than backwards, requires us to defend the democratic principles that allow societies to succeed. Let me start from a simple premise: Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place in countries where there is genuine democracy and respect for the universal values this institution is supposed to defend.

I recognize that democracy is going to take different forms in different parts of the world. The very idea of a people governing themselves depends upon government giving expression to their unique culture, their unique history, their unique experiences. But some universal truths are self-evident. No person wants to be imprisoned for peaceful worship. No woman should ever be abused with impunity, or a girl barred from going to school. The freedom to peacefully petition those in power without fear of arbitrary laws—these are not ideas of one country or one culture. They are fundamental to human progress. They are a cornerstone of this institution.

I realize that in many parts of the world there is a different view—a belief that strong leadership must tolerate no dissent. I hear it not only from America’s adversaries, but privately at least I also hear it from some of our friends. I disagree. I believe a government that suppresses peaceful dissent is not showing strength; it is showing weakness and it is showing fear. History shows that regimes who fear their own people will eventually crumble, but strong institutions built on the consent of the governed endure long after any one individual is gone.

That's why our strongest leaders—from George Washington to Nelson Mandela—have elevated the importance of building strong, democratic institutions over a thirst for perpetual power. Leaders who amend constitutions to stay in office only acknowledge that they failed to build a successful country for their people -- because none of us last forever. It tells us that power is something they cling to for its own sake, rather than for the betterment of those they purport to serve.

I understand democracy is frustrating. Democracy in the United States is certainly imperfect. At times, it can even be dysfunctional. But democracy—the constant struggle to extend rights to more of our people, to give more people a voice—is what allowed us to become the most powerful nation in the world.

It's not simply a matter of principle; it's not an abstraction. Democracy—inclusive democracy—makes countries stronger. When opposition parties can seek power peacefully through the ballot, a country draws upon new ideas. When a free media can inform the public, corruption and abuse are exposed and can be rooted out. When civil society thrives, communities can solve problems that governments cannot necessarily solve alone. When immigrants are welcomed, countries are more productive and more vibrant. When girls can go to school, and get a job, and pursue unlimited opportunity, that’s when a country realizes its full potential.

That is what I believe is America’s greatest strength. Not everybody in America agrees with me. That's part of democracy. I believe that the fact that you can walk the streets of this city right now and pass churches and synagogues and temples and mosques, where people worship freely; the fact that our nation of immigrants mirrors the diversity of the world—you can find everybody from everywhere here in New York City—the fact that, in this country, everybody can contribute, everybody can participate no matter who they are, or what they look like, or who they love—that's what makes us strong.

And I believe that what is true for America is true for virtually all mature democracies. And that is no accident. We can be proud of our nations without defining ourselves in opposition to some other group. We can be patriotic without demonizing someone else. We can cherish our own identities—our religion, our ethnicity, our traditions—without putting others down. Our systems are premised on the notion that absolute power will corrupt, but that people—ordinary people—are fundamentally good; that they value family and friendship, faith and the dignity of hard work; and that with appropriate checks and balances, governments can reflect this goodness.

I believe that’s the future we must seek together. To believe in the dignity of every individual, to believe we can bridge our differences, and choose cooperation over conflict—that is not weakness, that is strength. It is a practical necessity in this interconnected world.

And our people understand this. Think of the Liberian doctor who went door-to-door to search for Ebola cases, and to tell families what to do if they show symptoms. Think of the Iranian shopkeeper who said, after the nuclear deal, “God willing, now we’ll be able to offer many more goods at better prices.” Think of the Americans who lowered the flag over our embassy in Havana in 1961—the year I was born—and returned this summer to raise that flag back up. One of these men said of the Cuban people, “We could do things for them, and they could do things for us. We loved them.” For 50 years, we ignored that fact.

Think of the families leaving everything they’ve known behind, risking barren deserts and stormy waters just to find shelter; just to save their children. One Syrian refugee who was greeted in Hamburg with warm greetings and shelter, said, “We feel there are still some people who love other people.”

The people of our United Nations are not as different as they are told. They can be made to fear; they can be taught to hate—but they can also respond to hope. History is littered with the failure of false prophets and fallen empires who believed that might always makes right, and that will continue to be the case. You can count on that. But we are called upon to offer a different type of leadership—leadership strong enough to recognize that nations share common interests and people share a common humanity, and, yes, there are certain ideas and principles that are universal.

That's what those who shaped the United Nations 70 years ago understood. Let us carry forward that faith into the future—for it is the only way we can assure that future will be brighter for my children, and for yours.

Thank you very much.
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/2/2015 5:39:53 PM
Holy sh!t. Hehe.

And Elvis has left the building.
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 64
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:37:29 PM
How about the "Coles Notes"?
As for the the middle east and the Russian return to prominence Putin must be laughing all the way to the bank. The alliance between Russia, Iran and China will have last effects with ripples and ultimately waves felt around the world.
Putin attacks the Obama backed rebels and ISIS/ISIL goes unscathed.
What a "maroon"!
Obama at his finest. It took one great president to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union and one lousy president to reinvigorate Russia. Atlas shrugged.
 Orione7
Joined: 12/22/2014
Msg: 65
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/10/2015 4:45:36 AM
You mean Gorbachev and Pope John Paul 2.
Not the memory loss kid.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 66
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/10/2015 6:41:58 PM
#65



It took one great president to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union


Even if you were right, do you think that it was all the effort of just "one" president?
But I guess I could answer that for you since most of the simplistic folk of your ilk have been easily duped into believing that RR saved the world from communism single handedly.

He got 256 US marines needless killed in Beirut which exposed him for the callous idiot that he truly was; and I'm not even gonna get into the Iran contra issue which heralded all that!

If you truly had any sense, you'd realize just how dangerous RR really was in that his irresponsible rhetoric heightened tensions within the Kremlin to the point where everyone there was expecting a nuclear strike from the US at anytime during his 1st 4 years.

see link below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

If it wasn't for the GOOD judgment of a soviet missile commander, we'd all be (radioactive) toast by now,
and this planet would be as sterile as Mars! It could have gone either way, just like the toss of a coin!


one lousy president to reinvigorate Russia.


Only the dimmest of neocons could actually think that Russia could indefinitely be kept in the cellar since the fall of communism; especially with their vast resources that are mostly untapped.

It may surprise you to know that:
1. Russia has oil; and China does not
2. Russia has no allies to the West; and needs whatever allies it can get to buffer its borders


ISIS/ISIL goes unscathed.


And you really think that Assad is gonna keep ISIS intact and in control of 1/3 of Syria!

What a "maroon" indeed!
 Baffalobill
Joined: 6/18/2014
Msg: 67
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/11/2015 1:04:29 AM
Leave it up to Putin and the Russians...

Apparently there going to give ISIS a good Floggin e.g. Run for there money...

So... We will have to see...!!!!!
 DrKimball
Joined: 10/7/2015
Msg: 68
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/11/2015 6:10:35 AM
Vlad should be more of an aggressive Nationalist. Who knows? Maybe barry could be eventually deposed in a coup. US Nationalists could participate in the formation of the largest most powerful Ethno State the World has ever seen. However misguided , Putin does have leadership qualities that could negate the EU NWO and their geNOcidal practices.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 69
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/27/2015 3:48:45 AM
Why did the USA turn on Assad like it turned on Mubarak and Gaddafi?

How in any way does it benefit the USA?
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 70
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/27/2015 6:29:45 AM
@00spy:

The alliance between Russia, Iran and China will have last effects with ripples and ultimately waves felt around the world.

and @Yule_liquor:

1. Russia has oil; and China does not
2. Russia has no allies to the West; and needs whatever allies it can get to buffer its borders

Anybody who thinks that Russia and China are going to be allies in any even remotely meaningful manner has absolutely no knowledge of either Russian or Chinese history - and certainly no knowledge of their interactions in the past.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 71
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/27/2015 10:50:13 AM
I'll agree it's pretty unlikely that China and Russia are going to be allies. But it wouldn't be the first time long time enemies have joined forces. England and France fought each other for several centuries before their mutual interests brought them together. Hell, Churchill planned his own funeral procession just so he could force de Gaulle to go past the statue of Nelson, Trafalgar Square and just about every monument to English victories over France.

You have far more knowledge of this than I do, so I'm not going to second guess you on this. But states don't have friends, just interests. There could be a confluence of events that might draw them together.
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 72
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/27/2015 3:53:53 PM
Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah are all heavily invested in the Bashar al-Assad regime and will do whatever it takes to insure his survival. That may not be ground troops for all as Russia and Iran have supplied but there are many other ways to secure the regime. China can work through the UN vetoing resolutions.

As for Regan and the fall of the Soviet Union, do some of you disagree with the statement "hasten the fall of the Soviet Union"? Do you deny that Reagan played a role? Do you disagree with the vast majority of historians that attribute his contribution?
As for ISIS/ISIL in the last few days they have invented new ways to murder; first by executing a teenage Syrian soldier by running him over with a tank, secondly by executed three detainees in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra by strapping them to pillars and then blowing them up along with antiquities.

Creative group those ISIL thugs.
And Obama sits weakly by.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 73
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/27/2015 3:58:30 PM
There aren't any legitimate historians who would claim that Reagan played any meaningful role in the fall of the Soviet Union. He did exactly what all of his predecessors did going back to the game plan set out by Truman. He added more jibber jabber and invaded Grenada.

George Soros on the other hand pretty much single handedly funded Solidarity in Poland. That was the crucial chink that eventually lead to the fall of the Soviet Union.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 74
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/27/2015 4:17:06 PM
It can be said that Ray gun spent the Soviets (the Soviets tried to keep up) into failure through failed defense programs like Star Wars ($250 billion)...which helped to create the first trillion dollar American debt.
 aj7125
Joined: 11/28/2014
Msg: 75
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 10/27/2015 6:24:40 PM
"It sure seems like 00Spy is a bigger fan of ISIS than he is of the president. He starts a thread talking about how ISIS has a good week. He's bragging about the techniques ISIS uses to kill people. All the while, he bashes the president...while bragging on ISIS. Most people hold them in the lowest of esteem. Not 00Spy."

^^^^^^^If I was skoochie or cotter, I would insult after a post like that but I won't stoop to immaturity. I will just point out that the post above is so sad. 00Spy isn't a fan at all and isn't bragging on ISIS, he is stating facts and how this President is so terrible in foreign affairs. Pointing out facts hurts when you don't want to hear them.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!