goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2014, 09:56:38 AM

Title: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2014, 09:56:38 AM
Libtards:  "Wright War, Wright Time."

Because a Democrat is president

Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 08, 2014, 09:58:54 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaFygeknae8
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: steve dave on August 08, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
someone get a body bag for that straw man
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 10:10:38 AM
We should let them sort it out on their own. Even when we mean well, we always do more harm than good.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 08, 2014, 10:19:50 AM
We should let them sort it out on their own. Even when we mean well, we always do more harm than good.

Iraq is teetering on the edge of becoming the heart of a radical Islamist caliphate - not sure this is the time or place to "let them sort it out." But Rand Paul would probably agree with you.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 08, 2014, 10:32:24 AM
We should let them sort it out on their own. Even when we mean well, we always do more harm than good.

Iraq is teetering on the edge of becoming the heart of a radical Islamist caliphate - not sure this is the time or place to "let them sort it out." But Rand Paul would probably agree with you.

So you think Obama is doing the right thing?  I think we need to pound ISIS back a bit but wish it wouldn't screw up the DOW
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2014, 10:43:12 AM
This is a good bombing (Democrat is President).


Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: 8manpick on August 08, 2014, 10:45:19 AM
Nope, we need to stop bombing them
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 10:45:45 AM
We should let them sort it out on their own. Even when we mean well, we always do more harm than good.

Iraq is teetering on the edge of becoming the heart of a radical Islamist caliphate - not sure this is the time or place to "let them sort it out." But Rand Paul would probably agree with you.

If you're not sure about what should be done you should probably err on the side of minding your own beeswax.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: 8manpick on August 08, 2014, 10:45:49 AM
(Even when a Dem is president)
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2014, 10:46:24 AM
Wolfe Blitzer is about to have another orgasm over this.  Wolfe loves it when a Democratic President takes good, decisive bombing action.

Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 10:47:11 AM
And really, what do I care ig they want a radical Islamist caliphate? I'm fine with as much humanitarian aid to their victims as we can muster, but bombing them isn't going to stop their cause, and might even make it stronger.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2014, 10:49:33 AM
And really, what do I care ig they want a radical Islamist caliphate? I'm fine with as much humanitarian aid to their victims as we can muster, but bombing them isn't going to stop their cause, and might even make it stronger.

cRusty, remember when the various progressive liberal talking heads hit the 24/7/365 news channel circuit wringing their hands about "blow back"  during Iraq II and Afghanistan?   Any thoughts about where they all went after 2008?

I mean hell, if there's been an administration that's planted the seeds for "blow back" across the globe, its been this one.

Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 10:52:03 AM
And really, what do I care ig they want a radical Islamist caliphate? I'm fine with as much humanitarian aid to their victims as we can muster, but bombing them isn't going to stop their cause, and might even make it stronger.

cRusty, remember when the various progressive liberal talking heads hit the 24/7/365 news channel circuit wringing their hands about "blow back"  during Iraq II and Afghanistan?   Any thoughts about where they all went after 2008?

I mean hell, if there's been an administration that's planted the seeds for "blow back" across the globe, its been this one.



kick the crap out of those guys, dax.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: steve dave on August 08, 2014, 10:52:40 AM
dax is kicking the crap out of the lifeless strawman that fsd murdered
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2014, 11:03:20 AM
Come on guys, you just don't like the reality of the message.  It angers you up.

Just admit it and move on, it's O K.

Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 11:16:44 AM
Come on guys, you just don't like the reality of the message.  It angers you up.

Just admit it and move on, it's O K.



OK, dax! :thumbs:
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2014, 11:18:55 AM
Guys, I guess with Wolfe in the background really cheerleading this thing on, I got caught up in 'Merica-F_ck Yeah enthusiasm.

No answer to the question cRusty?  What a . . . shame.

Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 11:25:45 AM
Your questions about the various progressive liberal talking heads on the 24/7/365 news channel circuit? Yeah, I'm not sure, I haven't been watching the various progressive liberal talking heads onthe 24/7/365 news channel circuit. (Then or now). I don't remember them, and I'm not sure where they went after 2008. I'm sure many are trying to justify the strikes, and you are justified in kicking the crap out of them all over this message board. Go get 'em, dax!



Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 08, 2014, 11:32:06 AM
We should let them sort it out on their own. Even when we mean well, we always do more harm than good.

Iraq is teetering on the edge of becoming the heart of a radical Islamist caliphate - not sure this is the time or place to "let them sort it out." But Rand Paul would probably agree with you.

So you think Obama is doing the right thing?  I think we need to pound ISIS back a bit but wish it wouldn't screw up the DOW

The right thing would have been for our dithering weakling to do this a month ago. Better late than never, I guess.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: 8manpick on August 08, 2014, 11:39:00 AM
We should let them sort it out on their own. Even when we mean well, we always do more harm than good.

Iraq is teetering on the edge of becoming the heart of a radical Islamist caliphate - not sure this is the time or place to "let them sort it out." But Rand Paul would probably agree with you.

So you think Obama is doing the right thing?  I think we need to pound ISIS back a bit but wish it wouldn't screw up the DOW

The right thing would have been for our dithering weakling to do this a month ago. Better late than never, I guess.
The right thing would be for him to never do it at all
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: SdK on August 08, 2014, 11:40:54 AM
Why must we kill?
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 11:46:35 AM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 08, 2014, 12:19:43 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: SdK on August 08, 2014, 12:26:01 PM
I wonder what it's like to live in a country that isn't the world police. Like when something terrible happens, it doesn't mean my brothers and sisters may have to go to war.  :frown:
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 12:34:20 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 08, 2014, 01:00:53 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 01:05:25 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 08, 2014, 01:07:36 PM
I liked how we dropped the food and supplies to the people stranded on the mountain. I'm not very big on the bombing, but it was nice to see us do the right thing for those other people.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 08, 2014, 01:08:25 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

They did a lot of good for Kuwait.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 01:20:07 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

They did a lot of good for Kuwait.

Was it good for the region overall?
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 08, 2014, 01:20:59 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

They did a lot of good for Kuwait.

Was it good for the region overall?

It's hard to say, since we don't know what the region would look like had Hussein conquered them.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: CNS on August 08, 2014, 01:22:42 PM
The best thing that could happen to that region is if their oil dried up.  Then the rest of the world would cease to GAF about them and let them about their business without interference, Darfur style.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 08, 2014, 01:44:23 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

They would have prevented 9/11 had they fired when we had the opportunity.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: steve dave on August 08, 2014, 01:44:55 PM
omg
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 08, 2014, 01:48:32 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

They would have prevented 9/11 had they fired when we had the opportunity.

Which reminds me, has this been mentioned yet? Nice timing Bill!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bill-clinton-hours-911-attacks-killed-osama-bin/story?id=24801422 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/bill-clinton-hours-911-attacks-killed-osama-bin/story?id=24801422)
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 08, 2014, 01:52:49 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

Are you asking me for specific examples of what specific attacks were foiled by vaporizing terrorists? I'll have to get back to you on that once I finish my "let's prove a negative by traveling back in time to not kill terrorists and see what ends up happening" machine. Does anyone have any plutonium I can borrow?
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: steve dave on August 08, 2014, 01:53:37 PM
lol
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 08, 2014, 01:57:50 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

Are you asking me for specific examples of what specific attacks were foiled by vaporizing terrorists? I'll have to get back to you on that once I finish my "let's prove a negative by traveling back in time to not kill terrorists and see what ends up happening" machine. Does anyone have any plutonium I can borrow?

Iran has some.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 08, 2014, 02:00:58 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

Are you asking me for specific examples of what specific attacks were foiled by vaporizing terrorists? I'll have to get back to you on that once I finish my "let's prove a negative by traveling back in time to not kill terrorists and see what ends up happening" machine. Does anyone have any plutonium I can borrow?

Iran has some.

Not a lot tho.  Thanks Israel!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 08, 2014, 02:02:55 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

Are you asking me for specific examples of what specific attacks were foiled by vaporizing terrorists? I'll have to get back to you on that once I finish my "let's prove a negative by traveling back in time to not kill terrorists and see what ends up happening" machine. Does anyone have any plutonium I can borrow?

Iran has some.

Not a lot tho.  Thanks Israel!  :thumbsup:

You too, Obama! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 02:07:33 PM
The best thing that could happen to that region is if their oil dried up.  Then the rest of the world would cease to GAF about them and let them about their business without interference, Darfur style.

Yeah, we're kidding ourselves if we think this is about "terrorism" or innocent local civilians. Our policy and presence in the Middle East has always been all about oil.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2014, 03:11:13 PM
The case can be made that we made ISIS who they are today.   

Honestly, just like with Iraq, the policies this current administration had towards Libya and Syria are proving to be a long term disaster.   



Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 03:14:07 PM
The case can be made that we made ISIS who they are today.   

I'm not sure how anyone could really argue that, unless you want to go back further to the British Mandate and associated fallout.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 08, 2014, 03:22:40 PM
The right thing to do would have been for western powers to not start meddling in the region 100 years ago. Now would be a good time to stop meddling. Better late than never, I guess.

Right, as ISIS literally butchers thousands of innocents - now, that's the good time to stop.

it really sucks, but yes, at least when it comes to bombing. Do whatever we can with humanitarian aid.

You realize ISIS is advancing on a town with an American consulate, right? And that's what prompted our dithering weakling to finally take some action? "Humanitarian aid" is all well and good, but only so effective without military intervention. See Gaza. And that doesn't mean we need a massive ground incursion every time we need to "be the world police." Sometimes a few well-placed cruise missles are just what the doctor ordered.

Great, let's get the Americans out of there.

Just curious, what have a few well-placed cruise missles accomplished in the Middle East in the past?

They would have prevented 9/11 had they fired when we had the opportunity.

 :buh-bye:
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2014, 03:24:33 PM
dax is kicking the crap out of the lifeless strawman that fsd murdered

You don't know what a strawman is. But you do know how to toe the libtard line.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
Guys, Iraq didn't even attack us. Nor ISIS. How is this okay?
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 08, 2014, 03:28:01 PM
Guys, Iraq didn't even attack us. Nor ISIS. How is this okay?

Tons of angry white dudes will call Obama a wimp if he doesn't bomb them.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: michigancat on August 08, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
Guys, Iraq didn't even attack us. Nor ISIS. How is this okay?

It isn't OK!
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2014, 10:26:49 AM
If there isn't already (and I think there are), there needs to be U.S. military advisers working with the Kurds at all times, intelligence assets need to be assigned full time to helping the Kurds, and we need to be supplying and arming the Kurds to the hilt so they can protect themselves against these guys.



Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: SdK on August 09, 2014, 10:39:37 AM
Then they would be Dionisis!
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: _33 on August 09, 2014, 05:30:59 PM
You know what is far more dangerous to us than ISIS?  This constant bickering.  Let's agree that everyone is entitled to their own point of view, recognize the validity of their view, and agree to disagree.  Let's drone strike this bickering off the face of the earth.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ben ji on August 09, 2014, 06:42:23 PM
If there isn't already (and I think there are), there needs to be U.S. military advisers working with the Kurds at all times, intelligence assets need to be assigned full time to helping the Kurds, and we need to be supplying and arming the Kurds to the hilt so they can protect themselves against these guys.

I'm a big fan of the Kurds as they seem to be pretty reasonable, but do we really need to resort to large scale weapon shipments?

Pretty much anytime we hand out guns in the region everything goes to hell. Syria/ISIS.....Libya/Benghazi....Afghanistan/Muhjahadeen..Iraq/Iran war(Both sides).

About the only "Success" we have had handing out guns is our strong relationship with Saudi Arabia(Who also happens to be the most radical of all)
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: steve dave on August 09, 2014, 06:51:27 PM
We hand our shitloads of guns to Israel. That one has been pretty successful.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ben ji on August 09, 2014, 07:18:11 PM
We hand our shitloads of guns to Israel. That one has been pretty successful.

No arguing that.

I was just referring to our history of arming dissident Muslim/Arab groups in the region.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 07:32:45 PM
handing out guns to Kurds should be the first thing we do now.  Supposedly, the Kurd militia was on equal ground with ISIS both in numbers and weapons until the ISIS guys raided some weapons stash left over from us being in country and now the ISIS guys have the advantage.  Even the playing field and let Kurds do their thing, IMO.  Maybe even do more than level the playing field and just give the Kurds a eff load more and be done?  Seems reasonable to do this so that we aren't entangled for when Russia gets real(not that Russia will actually result in military stuff, but we need to have the illusion of capability for threats and stuff).
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ben ji on August 09, 2014, 08:05:08 PM
handing out guns to Kurds should be the first thing we do now.  Supposedly, the Kurd militia was on equal ground with ISIS both in numbers and weapons until the ISIS guys raided some weapons stash left over from us being in country and now the ISIS guys have the advantage.  Even the playing field and let Kurds do their thing, IMO.  Maybe even do more than level the playing field and just give the Kurds a eff load more and be done?  Seems reasonable to do this so that we aren't entangled for when Russia gets real(not that Russia will actually result in military stuff, but we need to have the illusion of capability for threats and stuff).

Kurds are awesome and would definitely kick some ass with some Grade A Made In the US of A guns.

I'm just saying maybe we should sit on this Piping Hot Grade A Weaponry a little bit longer and think through every possible negative consequence that may happen if we arm the kurds.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 09, 2014, 09:20:17 PM
They kill a few more Turks?

Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6

Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 09:25:59 PM
handing out guns to Kurds should be the first thing we do now.  Supposedly, the Kurd militia was on equal ground with ISIS both in numbers and weapons until the ISIS guys raided some weapons stash left over from us being in country and now the ISIS guys have the advantage.  Even the playing field and let Kurds do their thing, IMO.  Maybe even do more than level the playing field and just give the Kurds a eff load more and be done?  Seems reasonable to do this so that we aren't entangled for when Russia gets real(not that Russia will actually result in military stuff, but we need to have the illusion of capability for threats and stuff).

Kurds are awesome and would definitely kick some ass with some Grade A Made In the US of A guns.

I'm just saying maybe we should sit on this Piping Hot Grade A Weaponry a little bit longer and think through every possible negative consequence that may happen if we arm the kurds.

OK.  What if we give them a head spinning amount of Grade B stuff, tho?
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ben ji on August 09, 2014, 10:05:03 PM
handing out guns to Kurds should be the first thing we do now.  Supposedly, the Kurd militia was on equal ground with ISIS both in numbers and weapons until the ISIS guys raided some weapons stash left over from us being in country and now the ISIS guys have the advantage.  Even the playing field and let Kurds do their thing, IMO.  Maybe even do more than level the playing field and just give the Kurds a eff load more and be done?  Seems reasonable to do this so that we aren't entangled for when Russia gets real(not that Russia will actually result in military stuff, but we need to have the illusion of capability for threats and stuff).

Kurds are awesome and would definitely kick some ass with some Grade A Made In the US of A guns.

I'm just saying maybe we should sit on this Piping Hot Grade A Weaponry a little bit longer and think through every possible negative consequence that may happen if we arm the kurds.

OK.  What if we give them a head spinning amount of Grade B stuff, tho?

Soviet bloc countries have warehouses full of Grade B stuff for like free.

If ben ji's dad can buy a surplus russian rifle from WW2 for $100 I'm sure the kurds can figure something out.

Maybe instead of covertly giving them guns we covertly help them sell their oil? (I have not thought this all the way through, just spitballing on what we could do instead of just airdropping some Grade A Primo Weaponry)
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 11:08:10 PM
Covertly selling oil is exactly what ISIS is doing now.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ednksu on August 10, 2014, 03:54:09 AM
handing out guns to Kurds should be the first thing we do now.  Supposedly, the Kurd militia was on equal ground with ISIS both in numbers and weapons until the ISIS guys raided some weapons stash left over from us being in country and now the ISIS guys have the advantage.  Even the playing field and let Kurds do their thing, IMO.  Maybe even do more than level the playing field and just give the Kurds a eff load more and be done?  Seems reasonable to do this so that we aren't entangled for when Russia gets real(not that Russia will actually result in military stuff, but we need to have the illusion of capability for threats and stuff).

Kurds are awesome and would definitely kick some ass with some Grade A Made In the US of A guns.

I'm just saying maybe we should sit on this Piping Hot Grade A Weaponry a little bit longer and think through every possible negative consequence that may happen if we arm the kurds.

OK.  What if we give them a head spinning amount of Grade B stuff, tho?

Soviet bloc countries have warehouses full of Grade B stuff for like free.

If ben ji's dad can buy a surplus russian rifle from WW2 for $100 I'm sure the kurds can figure something out.

Maybe instead of covertly giving them guns we covertly help them sell their oil? (I have not thought this all the way through, just spitballing on what we could do instead of just airdropping some Grade A Primo Weaponry)
we're overtly helping them sell oil right now
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-the-us-got-mixed-up-in-a-fight-over-kurdish-oil--with-a-unified-iraq-at-stake/2014/08/04/4a00a6e2-1900-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ednksu on August 10, 2014, 03:55:11 AM
And we shouldn't have too many issues arming the Kurds as long as they don't get frisky with the Turks.  But when the Kurds and Turks are working together, you know ISIS is a mumped up group which needs to be deaded. 
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ben ji on August 10, 2014, 09:58:30 AM
And we shouldn't have too many issues arming the Kurds as long as they don't get frisky with the Turks.  But when the Kurds and Turks are working together, you know ISIS is a mumped up group which needs to be deaded.
There shouldn't be too many issues arming the mujahadeen, they are fighting the Russians who totally suck.

There shouldn't be too many issues arming the Iranians, they are our best ally in the region and the shah is our man.

Their shouldn't be too many issues arming the Iraqi's, they are fighting those cocksuckers from Iran.

There shouldn't be too many issues arming the Libyan rebels, they hate ghaddafi too!

There shouldn't be any issue arming the Syrian rebels, they are fighting against Assad who is a maniac who gasses his own people.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: CNS on August 10, 2014, 10:04:02 AM
Consistency is important.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ednksu on August 10, 2014, 04:45:32 PM
Our alliance with the Kurds is radically different than all those groups you've listed.  We've cultivated a relationship with them for decades.  We know they are no extremists (mostly).  We are basing an alliance with them off mutual interests rather than an "enemy of my enemy" pragmatic relationship.  The Kurds have had ample opportunity to toss many wrenches in American foreign policy goals for decades and have been willing participants in may of America's longer term actions.  Key thing to show they are different, they haven't declared an independent state in northern Iraq/southern Turkey, pretty much at the behest of American interests.  If you ware willing to give up state sovereignty, you're probably a pretty good ally.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ednksu on August 10, 2014, 04:51:07 PM
And ben ji, half of your examples aren't that great.

The US did have a great ally in the Shah's Iran.  Was he a rough rider? Yes, but did Iran mostly prosper?  Well, yes, kinda.  Surely a crap load better than the Islamist regime.

The Muj and Iraqi in the 80s are clearly mistakes which were more pragmatic mistakes rather than pronounced failures in picking allies.  By that I mean we failed totally in character judgement, but it was a relationship of pragmatism IMO, rather than a failure in picking a true ally. 

The Libyan rebels is debatable since we didn't arm them or help them out as much as many other western nations did (France).  Its a little too convenient to lay that America's doorstep instead of NATO's or western Europe. 

And the test isn't really finished for Syria.  If we have worked with the moderate FSA earlier the entire region would look much different than it does today.  It just shows you how many times the US has failed to pick the right groups early and support them with the correct amount of enthusiasm. 
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: ben ji on August 10, 2014, 06:03:54 PM
And ben ji, half of your examples aren't that great.

The US did have a great ally in the Shah's Iran.  Was he a rough rider? Yes, but did Iran mostly prosper?  Well, yes, kinda.  Surely a crap load better than the Islamist regime.

The Muj and Iraqi in the 80s are clearly mistakes which were more pragmatic mistakes rather than pronounced failures in picking allies.  By that I mean we failed totally in character judgement, but it was a relationship of pragmatism IMO, rather than a failure in picking a true ally. 

The Libyan rebels is debatable since we didn't arm them or help them out as much as many other western nations did (France).  Its a little too convenient to lay that America's doorstep instead of NATO's or western Europe. 

And the test isn't really finished for Syria.  If we have worked with the moderate FSA earlier the entire region would look much different than it does today. It just shows you how many times the US has failed to pick the right groups early and support them with the correct amount of enthusiasm.

Agreed

Our alliance with the Kurds is radically different than all those groups you've listed.  We've cultivated a relationship with them for decades.  We know they are no extremists (mostly).  We are basing an alliance with them off mutual interests rather than an "enemy of my enemy" pragmatic relationship.  The Kurds have had ample opportunity to toss many wrenches in American foreign policy goals for decades and have been willing participants in may of America's longer term actions.  Key thing to show they are different, they haven't declared an independent state in northern Iraq/southern Turkey, pretty much at the behest of American interests.  If you ware willing to give up state sovereignty, you're probably a pretty good ally.

We never felt the need to ship the kurds some Primo Hot Guns until we both found a common enemy.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 10, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
John McCain was right.
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 11, 2014, 01:16:07 PM
Huh, I guess even the President can have his tee time bumped by bad weather. Kinda funny that this so rare it consitutes news. Obama Spends Morning On Foreign Policy Crisis (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article1192042.html). I think the headline maybe meant to say "Obama Spends Morning in Crisis Over His Foreign Policy."
Title: Re: Bombing Iraq
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 11, 2014, 01:20:39 PM
Huh, I guess even the President can have his tee time bumped by bad weather. Kinda funny that this so rare it consitutes news. Obama Spends Morning On Foreign Policy Crisis (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article1192042.html). I think the headline maybe meant to say "Obama Spends Morning in Crisis Over His Foreign Policy."

Have you seriously never submitted this gold to the Onion or something?