Biden blames US allies in Middle East for rise of ISIS

What we have here folks is a perfect example of narcissism. It is also the same disorder our commander and chief suffers from. It is one of the easier recognized mental disorders as the sufferer rarely knows they are afflicted.
"



Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

Narcissistic personality disorder treatment is centered around psychotherapy."

 

They gave birth to another Hitler (Just like Hitler appeared). They caused a WW3. Now in order to have a chance to remain in history they need to blame someone else of their own crimes. Very predictable. Has anyone had any other ideas? White House officials lost the sense of internal law. Since they went unpinished for lie in Iraq they made another lie, which was even bigger. It would continue until they don't destroy the planet or are not stopped by someone else. Another chance is that the law would return to Washington DC but I don't believe in miracles.

 

Turks are not allies to US.
Sultan Erdojan hates them.

 

If Old Bossy's ticker gives out, Biden could be the next Democrat standard bearer.

 

Well, gotta clean up the cow pie.

Biden issues second apology, to United Arab Emirates, over comments

The guy is a gaffe machine and has foot in mouth disease. See my sig.

 

And IMO, that is the only mistake Biden made. I'm glad to see he called Turkey out. They have no intention of supporting the war against ISIS unless ISIS starts a war with them. Screw diplomacy Joe.

 

Turkey signed on to support but also worry about the Kurds who they have a long standing disagreement about a separate Kurdistan. Basically, Biden insulted another one of our Allies.

 

Americans and Zionists know well how to say lie to the world by their propaganda. 180,000 people were killed, mostly innocents, and more than 3,000,000 people are refugees in Syria. And now they accusing each other for supporting extremists and rising ISIS!!
In bad conditions you will find your real friends and real enemies. Erdogan and Turkey should be responsible for Syria and Iraq crisis the same as Gulf states Arab puppet regimes.
I am sure Assad will be the victorious of this war and we in Iran with our friends in Iraq and Lebanon will help him and his nation as much as we can.
Winter will go and shame and black face will remain for coal !

 

Wow, that's quite a claim. Please provide factual evidence that the United States started this madness. Please provide us with the intelligence you somehow gathered regatrding the matter. We'd all like to verify your wild claims.

 

Except for your obviously anti-Semitic upbringing (which I find typical in Iranians) you are right, in fact the US should support Assad in the fight against ISIS but our liberal pansies don't see it that way.

 

I don't see Turkey as an ally. They refused to authorize fights over their country during the Iraq War. They are only looking out for their own borders.

 

They are also majority Sunni so they have a tightrope to walk.

 

If Turkey has a country full of extreme Sunnis they are already in trouble. Lot's of Sunnis in Saudi Arabia as well.

 

I am wondering if anyone here noted anything incorrect in Biden's diatribe, or if this is simply a mixture of PC thought and partisanship.

 

His accusations were spot on and I commend him for being honest.

 

You're right! But Turkey knows the power of its location, which is theirs courtesy of Her Royal Highness Queen Victoria and Western Europe's embedded anti Russian DNA...which as far as I can tell goes back to the Crusades and the split between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Turks can shoot at American soldiers and the news media, commit all kind of atrocities against the Kurds as well as others, ignore treaties whenever it wants, lie with impunity about everything and anything and get furious if anyone dares mention it...

But that's okay, Turkey is right there next to the West's greatest enemy of all times; Russia, which means Washington needs Turkey...believe it or not? There is a saying birds of a feather flock together, which doesn't say much for Washington now does it?

 

John McCain and Lindsey Graham have written an editorial for the WSJ advocating their remedy for everything .... more war.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://m.wsj.com/articles/john-mcca...0362228127429084907704580192191250781492.html

The airstrikes and other actions President Obama is taking against Islamic State deserve bipartisan support. They are beginning to degrade the terrorist group, also known as ISIS, but will not destroy it, for one reason above all: The administration still has no effective policy to remove Bashar Assad from power and end the conflict in Syria.

Administration officials have called their approach “ISIS first.” As for Mr. Assad, in the words of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the administration will “defer that challenge into the future.” This is not a luxury we get to choose. And Mr. Obama himself recently said he does “recognize the contradiction” in his own policy—which is that by confronting Islamic State but not Assad, the U.S. may unintentionally benefit the ruler whose ouster he continues, rightly, to demand.

Unfortunately, this is not the only self-defeating contradiction in the administration’s Syria policy.

After Islamic State stormed into Iraq in June, Mr. Obama argued that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ’s alienation of Sunnis had strengthened the terrorist group. Destroying Islamic State in Iraq, the administration suggested, required Mr. Maliki’s removal and an inclusive new government. Why not the same urgency about Syria?

Mr. Assad all but created Islamic State through his slaughter of nearly 200,000 Syrians, and he has knowingly allowed the group to grow and operate with impunity inside the country when it suits his purposes. Until we confront this reality, we can continue to degrade Islamic State in Syria, but Mr. Assad’s barbarism will continue to empower it.

This points to another contradiction: How can we arm and train 5,000 Syrians and expect them to succeed against Islamic State without protecting them (and their families) from Assad’s airstrikes and barrel bombs? Or expect moderate groups in Syria fighting Islamic State to take advantage of U.S. airstrikes if we do not coordinate or communicate our operations with them? This is reportedly not happening. Instead, Mr. Assad is exploiting U.S. airstrikes to kill the very people we want as our partners. This is not just a recipe for failure; it is immoral.

Our efforts to build up a viable Free Syrian Army to liberate Syria from the evils of Islamic State and Mr. Assad will surely fail if the Syrian ruler is not dealt with. To expect Mr. Assad to sit on the sidelines as the Free Syrian Army gains capacity would be a colossal mistake and doom efforts to stop Syria from sinking further into the abyss.

It’s unlikely that the U.S. can maintain public support among Syrians for the fight against Islamic State, or succeed without their support, unless it does more to end Assad’s war against them. Syrians are already asking why America is bombing Islamic State but not stopping Mr. Assad from bombing them. This only hardens their pervasive belief that America cares only for itself. This belief threatens to strengthen Islamic State and discredit our moderate partners among the anti-Assad forces.

There’s another shortcoming in the president’s policy. Mr. Obama has ruled out what 13 years of experience building security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown is crucial for success—embedding U.S. military advisers with our foreign partners as they head into combat. These advisers help local forces with tasks they cannot yet perform, such as command and control, and enable them with the U.S. military’s unique capabilities, such as directed airstrikes, intelligence and special forces. When the U.S. took these steps in Afghanistan and Iraq, we largely succeeded. When we did not, we failed.

What’s more, airstrikes can only be partially successful without U.S. forces on the ground to direct them. Identifying targets, hitting them effectively and avoiding collateral damage is significantly harder when done exclusively from the air.

The greatest contradiction of Mr. Obama’s military intervention in Syria is that it appears unconnected to his political goal: a “transition” from Assad to an inclusive, sustainable political order. This goal will require the U.S. to militarily degrade the Assad regime, upgrade the moderate opposition, change the momentum of the conflict and create conditions for a political solution.

At a minimum, this means a larger role for U.S. military advisers and forward air controllers. It also means declaring safe zones in Syria and telling Mr. Assad that if his forces and aircraft operate there, they will be targeted like Islamic State. Key regional partners realize that we must confront Mr. Assad as well as Islamic State, and they are willing to join America in doing so.

These would not be minor military operations, and we sympathize with the president’s reluctance to get more involved in the Syrian conflict. But for three years, this reluctance has allowed the conflict to become dramatically worse, and now, with the rise of Islamic State, more directly threatening to the United States. This has compelled Mr. Obama to take nearly every military action that he once disparaged and ruled out. Unfortunately, this gradual U.S. escalation has consistently been a day late and a dollar short.

The reality is that defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad. Avoiding this reality, as Mr. Obama still tries to do, will only postpone the problem at growing risk to Syrian lives and American security. And when Syria deteriorates further, as it surely will, the U.S. will be compelled to respond once again, but our options will be fewer, worse and costlier.

 

if you look at a map of territory controlled by ISIS then ask if ISIS is selling oil how is it getting it out of syria?...the sea coast is controlled by assad...Lebanon ? Nope... Jordan, nope...iraq, kuristan? Nope...so that only leaves the turkish border areas they control...turkey appears to playing a double game....

 

More lies from Washington. This isn't news anymore... It's the norm. Are politicians are a reflection of our community. Most Americans are lying, egotistical people. Should we expect our politicians are any better? 90% of the population is so fake they don't even know how to be genuine. So afraid of what some one might think about them... Yet we act surprised when we are lied to.

 

and if we would of never invaded Iraq, there would be no ISIS taking over Iraq... but ISIS is still the only one responsible for their own actions

 

Turkey has been buying oil from ISIS, but the excuse was that ISIS was holding the hostages from the consulate...which never were there in the first place.

 

Yeah, there's another option. He should have blamed the guys who toppled Saddam's regime and an American public that wanted our arses out of Iraq. If you're looking for options, that is the only one.

Wtf did you neo-boys think was going to happen when you blew up Saddam's army, Sunni and Shia sitting around a camp fire with a Coke singing "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" and "Kum-ba-ya"?

 

What's your point? What if we never took America from the indians? What if we never have slaves?

What if, is a really stupid argument.

 

Let's hope Assad is victorious in this war, because he's fighting for the survival of his people, and all the minorities in Syria. He knows they will all be massacred if he falls, and the U.S. knows it too, but as always they'll throw their arms up in the air and say but we tried out best to stop the massacre.

 

What happened in Iraq was Paul Bremers fault. He's the one who disbanded the Iraqi army after the invasion and left the Iraqis without an income and nothing to do. Since he was close to Kissinger, it makes me wonder if it was under his guidance...I mean Kissinger is the one who gave Turkey one third of Cyprus and caused the mess there. But this is what happens when a foreign policy is being formed by people who were neither born or nurtured in the U.S....such as .Zbigniew Brzezinski, and whose world view revolves around their own prejudicial historical experiences. Anyway that's my opinion.