What is Al Quaida and ISIS/ISIL/UNCLE? Religious groups?

Do they currently have a nation? No?

Do they get tax from Industry or Income? (No, except for some gains from dimmitude?)

So where does these groups get their money? How do they pay for their arms, bombs, and slick You Tube video productions?

Do many of the Uber Wealthy Saudis and Uber Wealthy from other Arab states like UAE support these people?

So if you were serious about dealing with Al Quaida/Isis/Isil then wouldn't you take steps to cut off the money?

And if you don't, doesn't that ensure that the situation drags on?

@mohican said:

Stop trying to bomb the crap out of anything in a turban.

@calfoxwc said:

Really? What is the cost of lives and money since the full time occupation of Iraq under Bush II and full time occupation of Afghanistan under Obama?

And has this dampened down anything? Little if any.

What would we have to do if we were really serious about stopping these groups?

@logicisforsquares said:

Yeah, I kinda got riled up at that!

But you can sense that Obama doesn't want another "10 years of soldiers in the middle east" situation, and so is looking to get other countries involved - while still doing a 'fair share' of course - to take on ISIL. Like I said, nobody likes them, nobody backs them, and they're pissing off a lot of people. People from across Europe are being sucked in - apparently France has the highest number who have gone to fight. Australia's 'ginger muslim' has made a lot of people angry as well.

This isn't like Iraq, with claims of WMDs that turned out to be 'optimistic' and we went through with the war anyway, or however you spin that. There's a definitive 'bad guy' that the world has no interest in appeasing or accommodating.

says I.

WSS

@gftchris said:

Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.

Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.

I was speaking in a broader sense of how things normally are. We feel as if we have to police every bad situation when we could stand to sit some out. It should be resolved by others sometimes.

To be honest, I should not have mentioned the Brits because they are usually along for the ride on every adventure the U.S. goes on.

@logicisforsquares said:

Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.

Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.

But they won't. At least we should have had the Brits, etc, going after isil when I said they should have.

BTW, I was watching a report on the corrupt, cowardly "president" - they knew where the hostages

were, but would not make a decision on rescuing them til about two to three months later, and then

they had been moved.

This obamao regime doesn't care about anything but keeping their power. And doing nothing is

to them, politically expedient.

I mean, they had both houses of Congress and the presidency, and they did jack nothing good for two years.

So, there ya go.

Ignoring "small" threats, just lets them grow into huge threats.

But then, stopping the huge threat is so much loss of life of our own soldiers.

We already should have blasted isil while they were in a big convoy, coming up

that main road from syria into iraq. Now, it's a giant clusterfook.

Clinton ignored al quaida in afghanistan, sending only some missiles into the desert.

Then, we were hit with 9/11, after they planned it for at least 3 years.

We are slow learners at times.

WSS

@logicisforsquares said:

But, but, but,, he was the ONE!! The guy that won a Nobel peace prize for........

He had a fucking super majority for 2 yrs and all we got out of it was the worst pc of legislation that has ever been rammed down the throat of a civilized society in the history of man!!

@axe said:

Obama won't be impeached. He will leave office and some new stooge will take the fall guy seat.

@logicisforsquares said:

Nixon was impeached.. I like where you are going with this

@pumpkin-eater said:

Thanks

as far as driving the sick sob's out of power. Obamao deserted it, like

Nixon deserted Vietnam.

LBJ tied our military's "hands behind their backs", and so has

Obamao.

I had a link about that, but I forgot to put it in the post. We didn't have to go

into Vietnam. JFK had about what, 6500 advisors there? Then LBJ went all

stupid and sent way, way over a hundred thousand over there.

I didn't agree with staying in Iraq after the war ended. Those people aren't going to

change, those terrorist dirtbags.

Obamao may as well put on a skirt and a blouse, and change his name to Jane Obamafonda.

LOL. I think I'll keep that for future reference....

We would have to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least another hundred years if the goal is some grand cultural change. No one wants to be policeman for another country for that long, investing the kind of money we would have to in the process.

was the most beautiful song.

Obamao did, however.

Nixon never said push come to shove, he'd side with Muslims.

Obamao did.

Nixon never turned his back on Israel. Obamao certainly has.

But, as this article explains, there are similarities to the withdrawal from nv, and Iraq.

And differences. After the TET offensive, many folks were convinced sv could never win.

Vietnam was an idealogical clusterfook from the gitgo. Iraq and Afghanistan were not.

But all the gains we made there, were thrown out the window by Obamao's naivete and left wing/marxist

garbage'.

Egad. I just thunk a thought. I wonder why Jane "Traitor" Fonda hasn't gone over

to Iraq, and worn a suicide vest, laughing all the way. Never mind.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBT.GrMlFUj5sAqDJXNyoA?qid=20101117085910AAcOqlt