I felt that withdrawing from Syria was a huge mistake, because of both the continuing global threat of ISIS and the fact that Iran's substantial influence would undoubtedly grow. I had argued to Pompeo and Mattis as far back as June that we should end our piecemeal policy in Syria, looking at one province or area at a time (e.g., Manbij, Idlib, the southwest exclusion zone, etc.) and focus on the big picture. With most of the ISIS territorial caliphate gone (although the ISIS threat itself was far from eliminated) the big picture was stopping Iran. Now, however, if the US abandoned the Kurds, they would either have to ally with Assad against Turkey, which the Kurds rightly considered the greater threat (thereby enhancing Assad, Iran's proxy), or fight on alone, facing almost certain defeat, caught in the vise between Assad and Erdogan.
John R. BoltonRelated topics
ally almost area big caliphate catch certain continuing defeat end exclusion facing fact far felt fight focus influence iran isis june looking mistake now picture piecemeal policy province proxy should southwest stopping substantial territorial threat time turkey vise withdrawing zone etc globalRelated quotes
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S. J. Res.23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”.
Barack Obama
One, a caliphate is a global government, and you know that's where we're headed. Everybody is headed now towards a global government. Well, so are the Islamic extremists, except theirs is Sharia law and infidels will be beheaded. The Shiite Muslims, the ones in Iran, believe in - and not all of them, not the people necessarily on the street - but the real radicals, the revolutionaries and the people at the very top are called Twelvers. They believe in the Twelfth Imam. And that will - that Twelfth Imam, when he returns, he will set up a global caliphate in ancient Babylon. This one should gravely concern you because he has all of the earmarks - in their own writings - of an antichrist, or the Antichrist. I don't know if he is or not. But there are those who will just claim, you know, he's the Twelfth Imam, et cetera et cetera. And the way to get there is global chaos.
Glenn Beck
There remains the problem of Goebbels' reputation. He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to say: "Everybody must know what the situation is." He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués (American and neutral opinion) - and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a propaganda success.
Jacques Ellul
It was the verdict of ancient writers that men afflict themselves in evil and weary themselves in the good, and that the same effects result from both of these passions. For whenever men are not obliged to fight from necessity, they fight from ambition; which is so powerful in human breasts, that it never leaves them no matter to what rank they rise. The reason is that nature has so created men that they are able to desire everything but are not able to attain everything: so that the desire being always greater than the acquisition, there results discontent with the possession and little satisfaction to themselves from it. From this arises the changes in their fortunes; for as men desire, some to have more, some in fear of losing their acquisition, there ensues enmity and war, from which results the ruin of that province and the elevation of another.
Niccolò Machiavelli
If a human being is isolated from other humans for a month or more, and is confined to a small area geographically and a small range of activities, his interest in his surroundings and its minutiae increase radically.... Further, if a confined, isolated human is allowed brief contacts with other humans even without a shared language, he begins to find their presence comforting, and a pleasant relief from the "evenness" of his surroundings. If these humans controls his only sources of food as well as his sources of intraspecies stimulation, he mat adapt to their demands in subtle and not so subtle ways. He may, given time, learn their language, take on their beliefs, etc. When we catch a dolphin and put him alone in a small tank, we are imposing similar "solitary confinement" structures on him. Maybe we can thus capture his loyalty and his initiative.
John C. Lilly
