the '90s we had the first gulf war, military action in the bull can, somalia, haiti, missile at tacts in iraq, and first al qaeda attacks on the united states. the point of recounting these historical examples is that americans, including all too often our leaders, regard international crises and military conflict as aberrations when, in fact, and sad to say, they are the norm. convinced time and again that a new era of tranquility is at hand, especially after major conflicts, presidents and congresses tend to believe they have a choice when it comes to the priority given national security. and correspondingly significantly reduce the resources provided to defense, the state department, and cia. in the short term at least, until the next crisis arrives, they do have a choice. and the budget cutters and deficit hocks have their way. but in the longer term, there really is no choice. while we may not be interested in aggressor, terrorists revounch and expansionists half a world away, they ultimately are always interested in us or in our interest or our allies and friends. and we always discover

the '90s we had the first gulf war, military action in the bull can, somalia, haiti, missile at tacts in iraqaeda attacks on the united states. the point of recounting these historical examples is that americans, including all too often our leaders, regard international crises and military conflict as aberrations when, in fact, and sad to say, they are the norm. convinced time and again that a new era of tranquility is at hand, especially after major conflicts, presidents and congresses tend to believe they have a choice when it comes to the priority given national security. and correspondingly significantly reduce the resources provided to defense, the state department, and cia. in the short term at least, until the next crisis arrives, they do have a choice. and the budget cutters and deficit hocks have their way. but in the longer term, there really is no choice. while we may not be interested in aggressor, terrorists revounch and expansionists half a world away, they ultimately are always interested in us or in our interest or our allies and friends. and we always discover then that we we

assad, it's to keep the governmental structures in tact because we have seen the failed anchors of what is going on with libya, with yemen, what's going on in iraq, so the thing about it is that shouldn't there be consideration and then secondly, the so-called countries, there is the obama administration is leading against isis, are some of the financial backers. so, i'm just trying consider that shouldn't there be a consideration that united states should engage with putin to have a real concerted effort, not just destroying the forces of isis, but also the financial backers? thanks. >> so, yes, the u.n. speech that mr. peten gave actually did refer to the arms transfer, the syrian forces allegedly supplied by the u.s. and isis, but never named any actors or a country that he was talking about in the u.n. address. at the same time, his rhetoric, very clearly specifies that look at what happened in libya. look at what happened in iraq. in iraq, the u.s. went in and actually created the very isis force because they removed saddam and saddam, however evil he was, he did prevent isis from happening at the time and that is a very powerful rhetoric t