goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Kat Kid on September 10, 2014, 07:53:07 PM
-
I agree with 2007 candidate Obama
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/ (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/)
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.
We have zero business embroiling our selves in Iraq/Syria's civil wars. Regional actors should step up. There is zero evidence that ISIS is an actual or imminent threat to the US.
-
What is he saying? I'm watching the Royals right now.
-
Why not just have congress vote on it :dunno:
-
He pretty much just said "Murica"
-
someone tell me what he said.
-
He pretty much just said "Murica"
is this what he said?
-
I'm watching the Royals right now.
:kstatriot:
-
What a farce. Obama says we have no evidence that ISIS has a plot against the US, yet they have threatened us so we must act.
So because ISIS said they wanted to wave a black flag over the White House and they kidnapped/killed two journalists they get a full Presidential Address and the full might of US airstrikes?
Seems like we just encouraged every two-bit terrorist group on the globe to follow this blueprint.
-
Hey Iraq just formed a totally legit new government with all ethnic groups represented and hey also their army is all good to go because we've "reconstituted" it so no problems so far, let's eliminate ISIS!
-
Hey remember that whole thing about arming the Syrian opposition because it was very difficult to find non-jihadists so it would probably be a bad idea to give them stuff because blowback? Well, Assad is bad so nevermind, enemy of an enemy and let's do this.
-
Thank God the Reverand Al is here to bring his hot mid east foreign policy takes on MSNBC. You won't believe this, but he supports Obama and is saying nothing at all that makes sense.
-
He pretty much just said "Murica"
is this what he said?
He did kinda pronounce America like that, yes. I predict this speech being a big "win" for him.
-
Congress: OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE IS A SOCIALIST MADMAN BECAUSE OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Congress: Want to go to war Obama? Cool with us. Whatever.
-
Well the cashier at Walmart told me that ISIS is in Texas and attacking tomorrow because of 9/11.
-
Well the cashier at Walmart told me that ISIS is in Texas and attacking tomorrow because of 9/11.
My office mate wanted to bet me money that this would happen
-
All of this is happening because Fox News has fear mongered the idiots. The Royals will win the WS before ISIS touches America.
-
Just asked a few folks, none of us has seen ISIS today. However, a plane did crash here in Austin on the eve of 9/11 :sdeek:
-
https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/509875802381774849 (https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/509875802381774849)
jeremy scahillVerified account
?@jeremyscahill
Al Sharpton helpfully tells Chris he is comparing the airstrikes in Yemen and Somalia, not the *results* of those airstrikes. BRILLIANT!!
-
I cannot wait for the day that Al Sharpton is no longer taking his dumb ass on tv.
-
Politicians are all pretty much exactly the same. To put any hope in a presidential candidate is foolishness. McCain or Romney's USA would look basically identical to Obama's.
-
Did not hear speech cause royals, but I agree with Kat Kid
-
I'm sure these bombings will go off without a hitch and we'll hit exactly, and ONLY, what we mean to hit and won't kill any kids or anything and certainly won't increase American dissidence in the region thereby fostering the next generation of terrorists!
-
if we don't stand our ground obummer will weaken america
-
Just asked a few folks, none of us has seen ISIS today. However, a plane did crash here in Austin on the eve of 9/11 :sdeek:
They are hiding in plane sight
-
Politicians are all pretty much exactly the same. To put any hope in a presidential candidate is foolishness. McCain or Romney's USA would look basically identical to Obama's.
This is really dumb.
-
I just read the text of the President's speech. I do not like Obama, but I hope he can achieve his goal. He knows how to kill with drones and bombs. I am glad he is pissed and seems half crazed - hunt the bastards down to the gates of hell if needed. What scares me is leaving the formation of a coalition to John "Lurch' Kerry. Those of you who remember McNamara and Vietnam are probably cringing at the latest developments.
-
I just read the text of the President's speech. I do not like Obama, but I hope he can achieve his goal. He knows how to kill with drones and bombs. I am glad he is pissed and seems have crazed - hunt the bastards down to the gets of hell if needed. What scares me is leaving the formation of a coalition to John "Lurch' Kerry. Those of you who remember McNamara and Vietnam are probably cringing at the latest devopments.
'Murica
-
I just read the text of the President's speech. I do not like Obama, but I hope he can achieve his goal. He knows how to kill with drones and bombs. I am glad he is pissed and seems have crazed - hunt the bastards down to the gets of hell if needed. What scares me is leaving the formation of a coalition to John "Lurch' Kerry. Those of you who remember McNamara and Vietnam are probably cringing at the latest devopments.
Thanks for the insight, Brad.
-
so stupid, can't believe people were sold on this nonsense.
-
All of this is happening because Fox News has fear mongered the idiots. The Royals will win the WS before ISIS touches America.
Are you saying the Royals will win it all this year, or that it's unlikely that terrorists spun out of the ISIS network will ever hit America? If you're saying the latter, I think that's pretty naive.
-
Well, I guess we probably just increased the chances of ISIS related terrorism in the US.
-
Politicians are all pretty much exactly the same. To put any hope in a presidential candidate is foolishness. McCain or Romney's USA would look basically identical to Obama's.
This is really dumb.
Right. Basically identical. Except for no Obamacare, and probably a saner tax policy, and probably a little less federal spending, and fewer EPA regulations on CO2 as a "pollutant", and more pipelines, and a more aggressive stance against Russia, and.....
-
I liked the parts where he said "we will not hesitate to _________". I guess the "will" does not include the past 6 months of hesitation.
But better late than never I suppose. Let's kill as many of these fuckers and destroy as much of their weaponry as we can.
-
Let's kill as many of these fuckers and destroy as much of their weaponry as we can.
It's always worked so well in the region in the past, so I don't see how this strategy can't work.
-
Let's kill as many of these fuckers and destroy as much of their weaponry as we can.
It's always worked so well in the region in the past, so I don't see how this strategy can't work.
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better? No, you can't. So I'll just rely on common sense and human decency. I'm not saying blowback isn't a concern (though I think it's overrated), and I'm not saying we can always be the world police, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. We reached that point a long time ago with ISIS.
It's burdensome having to always step up when other pussy nations won't, but I'm proud that America is willing to shoulder that burden. It's what makes us the worlds greatest superpower and the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
The alternative, allowing this cancer to spread and further destabilize the region, is far worse. You're worried about bombings creating a new generation of terrorists? What do you think ISIS will be teaching in its madrasses in the new Caliphate?
-
Let's kill as many of these fuckers and destroy as much of their weaponry as we can.
It's always worked so well in the region in the past, so I don't see how this strategy can't work.
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better? No, you can't. So I'll just rely on common sense and human decency. I'm not saying blowback isn't a concern (though I think it's overrated), and I'm not saying we can always be the world police, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. We reached that point a long time ago with ISIS.
It's burdensome having to always step up when other pussy nations won't, but I'm proud that America is willing to shoulder that burden. It's what makes us the worlds greatest superpower and the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
The alternative, allowing this cancer to spread and further destabilize the region, is far worse. You're worried about bombings creating a new generation of terrorists? What do you think ISIS will be teaching in its madrasses in the new Caliphate?
You're preaching "common sense and human decency" while also calling the nations that are actually in the region and affected by ISIS "pussy nations"? OK.
-
Let's kill as many of these fuckers and destroy as much of their weaponry as we can.
It's always worked so well in the region in the past, so I don't see how this strategy can't work.
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better? No, you can't. So I'll just rely on common sense and human decency. I'm not saying blowback isn't a concern (though I think it's overrated), and I'm not saying we can always be the world police, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. We reached that point a long time ago with ISIS.
It's burdensome having to always step up when other pussy nations won't, but I'm proud that America is willing to shoulder that burden. It's what makes us the worlds greatest superpower and the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
The alternative, allowing this cancer to spread and further destabilize the region, is far worse. You're worried about bombings creating a new generation of terrorists? What do you think ISIS will be teaching in its madrasses in the new Caliphate?
You're preaching "common sense and human decency" while also calling the nations that are actually in the region and affected by ISIS "pussy nations"? OK.
Yup. We're the only country in this "coalition" that's actually going to do any fighting, so I call a spade a spade. Also, while we're on the subject of allies, it's nice that Iraq is part of the coalition this time around. Thanks GWB!
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
-
Thanks GWB!
Yep. You may not like W, but if there's on thing absolutely nobody can fault him for, it's the war in Iraq.
-
Congress: OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE IS A SOCIALIST MADMAN BECAUSE OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Congress: Want to go to war Obama? Cool with us. Whatever.
There is nothing more bipartisan than a good old fashioned "war on ______"
-
Let's just make this crap happen and get it all over with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs
-
We're forming gi joe with Britain.
-
We're forming gi joe with Britain.
Who is your favorite? http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=32613.msg1169119#msg1169119
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right? I guess you'll have to define "involved." Are you including any if the European nations that are nominally part of this "coalition"? Because they will likely be hit first.
Even if your point was correct, and it isn't, you don't seem to understand that we're already at war with these fuckers. We just haven't been fighting back until now.
-
can someone confirm the status of ISIS in Texas? TIA
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks) Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.
-
Let's kill as many of these fuckers and destroy as much of their weaponry as we can.
It's always worked so well in the region in the past, so I don't see how this strategy can't work.
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better? No, you can't. So I'll just rely on common sense and human decency. I'm not saying blowback isn't a concern (though I think it's overrated), and I'm not saying we can always be the world police, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. We reached that point a long time ago with ISIS.
It's burdensome having to always step up when other pussy nations won't, but I'm proud that America is willing to shoulder that burden. It's what makes us the worlds greatest superpower and the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
The alternative, allowing this cancer to spread and further destabilize the region, is far worse. You're worried about bombings creating a new generation of terrorists? What do you think ISIS will be teaching in its madrasses in the new Caliphate?
You should enlist. Then you can be super proud all the time.
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks) Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.
So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks) Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.
Like, almost all the attacks in non-western locations were targeting western entities.
I'm fine with disagreeing with Rand Paul on this subject.
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks) Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.
So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?
Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. :lol: Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.
I could spend a lot of time recounting the atrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.
-
Can someone detail for me why ISIS is worse than half the crap that has been going down across half of the African continent in the last 15-20 yrs?
-
"Our Dithering Weakling" just isn't catchy enough for a good recurring right wing nickname. Surely there's something better out there?
-
Can someone detail for me why ISIS is worse than half the crap that has been going down across half of the African continent in the last 15-20 yrs?
They threaten oil supplies
-
Can someone detail for me why ISIS is worse than half the crap that has been going down across half of the African continent in the last 15-20 yrs?
They threaten oil supplies
Well, yeah. Atrocities.
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks) Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.
So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?
Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. :lol: Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.
I could spend a lot of time recounting the attrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.
You have evidence of a credible threat against America's homeland? Sounds like you've got better sources than Obama.
They have territory the size of Maryland in the middle of a desert in Iraq/Syria. They are no doubt committing atrocities against people.
Again I ask: "Is it your position that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?"
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks) Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.
So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?
Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. :lol: Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.
I could spend a lot of time recounting the attrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.
You have evidence of a credible threat against America's homeland? Sounds like you've got better sources than Obama.
They have territory the size of Maryland in the middle of a desert in Iraq/Syria. They are no doubt committing atrocities against people.
Again I ask: "Is it your position that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?"
And again, I answer, you're glossing over what ISIS is actually doing. In this case, military intervention is appropriate.
-
can someone confirm the status of ISIS in Texas? TIA
can't confirm but based on today's high temperature Ra is definitely out in force today.
-
Can you prove that doing nothing would have worked better?
Let's see how many isis related terrorist attacks occur in countries that don't involve themselves in this war.
Right, because AQ only attacked countries "involved" in the Iraq and Afghani wars, right?
I honestly don't know who AQ has attacked since 9-11. The London subways? Bali? :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks) Because, like they say, terrorists are only terrorists because we provoke them, and they'd otherwise prefer to just lead peaceful, prosperous lives. Good lord, even Rand Paul supports intervention against ISIS. This isn't even a close call.
So it is your position, that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?
Yes, that's all ISIS is doing. :lol: Just a little "verbal threatening" and "violence halfway around the world." That's all.
I could spend a lot of time recounting the attrocities committed by ISIS, the amount of territory they have conquered, and the threat they pose to America if they are allowed to further metastasize (just as we allowed AQ to do), but let me try to explain this a different way: It's gotten so bad that Our Dithering Weakling - a man so weak-kneed he makes Jimmy Carter look like the lovechild of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher - has decided he's finally got to take some action.
You have evidence of a credible threat against America's homeland? Sounds like you've got better sources than Obama.
They have territory the size of Maryland in the middle of a desert in Iraq/Syria. They are no doubt committing atrocities against people.
Again I ask: "Is it your position that if some group is verbally threatening us and is violent halfway around the world that is absolutely necessary to go to war with this group?"
And again, I answer, you're glossing over what ISIS is actually doing. In this case, military intervention is appropriate.
Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.
-
Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.
"It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention" post incoming
-
Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.
"It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention" post incoming
No, it's just pointless. Crucifictions, beheading men, women, and children, abducting/beheading Americans, further destabliizing the region, creating a breeding ground "the size of Maryland :lol:" for terrorism, etc. I'm not going to convince you, but you look very foolish when you wind up to the left of Obama on foreign policy.
-
So any place where there is violence from the state or a state-like actor against people is a good target for US intervention?
I don't disagree it is a breeding ground for terrorists, but Osama bin Ladin's entire point for 9/11 was to bleed the United States of resources at home and abroad through their response. His goal was not just to win 9/11, it was to win the decades thereafter by declining the US. Now obviously all of his strategic goals weren't realized, but which of our strategic goals were realized? That Osama is dead? That Sadaam Hussein is dead? Really?
-
Have you listed exactly what they're "actually doing"? Because nothing you've mentioned in this thread warrants US military action.
"It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention" post incoming
No, it's just pointless. Crucifictions, beheading men, women, and children, abducting/beheading Americans, further destabliizing the region, creating a breeding ground "the size of Maryland :lol:" for terrorism, etc. I'm not going to convince you, but you look very foolish when you wind up to the left of Obama on foreign policy.
Bombing the crap out of the region and killing even more innocent people than ISIS has should stabilize things in no time. And crucifixions is a new one!
-
Is there anyone here that thinks we will meet the stated objective of annihilating ISIS with or without ground troops? I'm a bit skeptical myself.
-
Bombing the crap out of the region and killing even more innocent people than ISIS
You seriously think our bombing campaign is going to kill "even more innocent people than ISIS"? Really? Maybe check the hyperbole.
And crucifixions is a new one!
And maybe check the news, too. These barbarians are a whole new level of depravity. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ISIS+crucifixion (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ISIS+crucifixion)
-
Is there anyone here that thinks we will meet the stated objective of annihilating ISIS with or without ground troops? I'm a bit skeptical myself.
I guess that depends upon your definition of "annihilating." I'm not so naive to believe that ISIS or any teeorist orginaization can be completely wiped out or defeated by air strikes or even boots on the ground. We can, however, bomb the crap out of them and their equipment and seriously set them back.
-
So any place where there is violence from the state or a state-like actor against people is a good target for US intervention?
I don't disagree it is a breeding ground for terrorists, but Osama bin Ladin's entire point for 9/11 was to bleed the United States of resources at home and abroad through their response. His goal was not just to win 9/11, it was to win the decades thereafter by declining the US. Now obviously all of his strategic goals weren't realized, but which of our strategic goals were realized? That Osama is dead? That Sadaam Hussein is dead? Really?
Respectfully, I think you're giving OBL a bit too much credit. And you haven't set forth any counterproposal to stopping the spread of ISIS. This campaign is kind of like treating a nasty cancer with chemo - it sucks, and there's at least a 50% chance the cancer will come back - but it's at least worth trying.
-
Bombing the crap out of the region and killing even more innocent people than ISIS
You seriously think our bombing campaign is going to kill "even more innocent people than ISIS"? Really?
Based on our recent campaigns in the region, yes.
-
Politicians are all pretty much exactly the same. To put any hope in a presidential candidate is foolishness. McCain or Romney's USA would look basically identical to Obama's.
This is really dumb.
This is why I didn't vote
-
If we make it so that ISIS is no more, it will be because soon-to-be terrorists stop joining them only to join other terrorist groups with similar beliefs and tactics.
-
So any place where there is violence from the state or a state-like actor against people is a good target for US intervention?
I don't disagree it is a breeding ground for terrorists, but Osama bin Ladin's entire point for 9/11 was to bleed the United States of resources at home and abroad through their response. His goal was not just to win 9/11, it was to win the decades thereafter by declining the US. Now obviously all of his strategic goals weren't realized, but which of our strategic goals were realized? That Osama is dead? That Sadaam Hussein is dead? Really?
Respectfully, I think you're giving OBL a bit too much credit. And you haven't set forth any counterproposal to stopping the spread of ISIS. This campaign is kind of like treating a nasty cancer with chemo - it sucks, and there's at least a 50% chance the cancer will come back - but it's at least worth trying.
My counter-proposal would be to encourage the regional powers to do something, coordinate intelligence with them and try to bring them to the table. From the perspective of a Kansan, I'm not that concerned about the threat of ISIS as it relates to me personally. I don't think the US has nearly as much of a strategic interest in stopping ISIS as you do and they would be better served motivating the regional actors to do the work, as they should have a much more vital strategic interest than us.
I don't think there is very much evidence that humanitarian interventions work well minus a clear humanitarian case, a NATO coalition, a NATO/UN mandate and lead by the US or NATO partners. The track record is terrible. The fact that Obama cited Yemen and Somalia as his examples of this "containment" by drone and those are both disasters. It has absolutely failed on its own terms: there has been no elimination of the terrorist threat in either nation and the drone attacks have in many ways made the population more antagonistic. Keep in mind, this is with the full cooperation of a partner government in the case of Yemen. Do we expect Syria or Iraq to cooperate to that extent?
You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us. But to what end? Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics. That is not a strategy.
-
You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us. But to what end? Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics. That is not a strategy.
I didn't say "blow up some crap" - I said "blow up some terrorists." Lots and lots of terrorists. The proposals you listed above are fine components to an overall strategy, but they're not mutually exclusive with military intervention. The U.S. needs to send a clear message that you are not free to assemble a terrorist army, operating in the open. We must keep them scattered and on the run, even if we obviously cannot kill them all. None of those "regional powers" have the adequate air power to do this.
-
Can't we just take out isil with a missile?
-
You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us. But to what end? Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics. That is not a strategy.
I didn't say "blow up some crap" - I said "blow up some terrorists." Lots and lots of terrorists. The proposals you listed above are fine components to an overall strategy, but they're not mutually exclusive with military intervention. The U.S. needs to send a clear message that you are not free to assemble a terrorist army, operating in the open. We must keep them scattered and on the run, even if we obviously cannot kill them all. None of those "regional powers" have the adequate air power to do this.
Turkey could definitely do some damage, but they won't even let us launch strikes from their bases.
http://www.ibtimes.com/nato-coalition-against-isis-turkey-role-mostly-symbolic-1680708
-
You have stated that you think it is important for us to meet the war that has already been declared on us. But to what end? Blow up some crap is what you've said when asked for specifics. That is not a strategy.
I didn't say "blow up some crap" - I said "blow up some terrorists." Lots and lots of terrorists. The proposals you listed above are fine components to an overall strategy, but they're not mutually exclusive with military intervention. The U.S. needs to send a clear message that you are not free to assemble a terrorist army, operating in the open. We must keep them scattered and on the run, even if we obviously cannot kill them all. None of those "regional powers" have the adequate air power to do this.
The Saudi air force is absolutely capable of doing something. I still don't know what the actual goal is so "this" is kind of vague.
-
We will be using capture kill missions in iraq and Syria.
-
We will be using capture kill missions in iraq and Syria.
"Advising"
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=_0USVKeNOYWyyATmu4KYAQ&url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-special-forces-forming-hunter-4097083&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFpRVgt9aMhTEqFVClVv7Ul3FVOSw&sig2=gXdgZNnRIaJh6yJWdFmU0A
-
Turkey will not send troops or allow their bases to be used.
U.K. will only do humanitarian things.
So looks like the Saudis and Iran are our only hope for Muslim coalition partners.
-
Turkey will not send troops or allow their bases to be used.
U.K. will only do humanitarian things.
So looks like the Saudis and Iran are our only hope for Muslim coalition partners.
Saudi Arabia, the United States and Iran. The world's moral authority.
-
In are in major trouble. Our president has shown he has zero idea what foreign policy means. He didn't have any experienced when he was elected and it has shown.
ISIS is a huge threat to the Middle East and unfortunately will soon pose a grave threat to our national security. We would be naive to believe that terrorist have not, are not and will not cross what is supposed to be our southern border.
-
Mr. Gorbachev, put up that wall!
-
So, you're saying that we would be naive to believe they have not cross and are not cross our southern border? Interest, if be true.
-
:lol:
-
Oh crap, the auburn posters found the pit. This could get interesting.
-
In are in major trouble. Our president has shown he has zero idea what foreign policy means. He didn't have any experienced when he was elected and it has shown.
ISIS is a huge threat to the Middle East and unfortunately will soon pose a grave threat to our national security. We would be naive to believe that terrorist have not, are not and will not cross what is supposed to be our southern border.
Thanks Sean Hannity! Pro tip: when you take a political argument about immigration and morph it into a national security threat, it doesn't make it true.
-
In are in major trouble. Our president has shown he has zero idea what foreign policy means. He didn't have any experienced when he was elected and it has shown.
ISIS is a huge threat to the Middle East and unfortunately will soon pose a grave threat to our national security. We would be naive to believe that terrorist have not, are not and will not cross what is supposed to be our southern border.
What in the world?
-
All of this is happening because Fox News has fear mongered the idiots. The Royals will win the WS before ISIS touches America.
I've always been pretty amazed by the amount of butthurt by libtards for fox sports, while they have every other news outlet known to man.
-
butthurt by libtards for fox sports
:D
-
butthurt by libtards for fox sports
:D
THAT'S OUR WACKY!
-
#myteamYourteamPolitics
-
I think we can all agree that fox sports has nothing to do with Obama being the worst president ever.
-
I think we can all agree that fox sports has nothing to do with Obama being the worst president ever.
Ulysses S Grant is cackling and rolling a blunt
-
ksuwildcats is both a nut and a shitbrain. He's certain he's not either of those things though.
-
Western Ks feedlots gather up steer crap, cook it, and feed it to the steers they are fattening. Seems like the stuff coming out of the Obama administration. Though I hope he is successful. People like me who work in the infrastructure industry know how vulnerable our rail, highway, electrical, and drinking water systems are. A few of those crazed ISIS bastards could cause a lot of damage and harm to people very simply by attacking these systems. I have no faith that Sec'y Lurch Kerry can form a war coalition. This is the turd that spit in the eye of Nam vets. And what about Biden, someone pushed a burr up his butt, and he now wants to chase Isis to the gates of hell - maybe they should listen to him.
-
FSD and KSUW are BITP, without them the pit would be unreadable.
-
FSD and KSUW are BITP, without them the pit would be unreadable.
Sorry, there is a new sheriff in town and his name is renocat and his title is Sheriff.
-
Lol
-
FSD and KSUW are BITP, without them the pit would be unreadable.
Sorry, there is a new sheriff in town and his name is renocat and his title is Sheriff.
Can renocat keep up the consistency of fsduwildcats?
-
All of this is happening because Fox News has fear mongered the idiots. The Royals will win the WS before ISIS touches America.
I've always been pretty amazed by the amount of butthurt by libtards for fox sports, while they have every other news outlet known to man.
the butthurt libtards sport for fox?
-
Renocat is a true conservative
-
You guys know I meant Fox News. :curse:
-
Borders are so last last decade. Lets start conquering land. Play some Risk. It's exhausting having to go kick ass in the same areas over and over. Just kick some ass and ad it as another territory ala Puerto Rico.
-
Well old Sec'y Of (Stupid) State Lurch Kerry has about 40 countries lined up to give humanitarian aid to people terrorized by ISIS and to help pay for the ISIS response, but no one has offered to help militarily except France who will help bomb. France? Its 10 aircraft will scare the hell out the ISIS crazed bastards. France wants Iran to join the coalition to provide boots on the ground. Rabid Iranians running hog wild through Iraq surely will thrill Isreal. Isreal will not go on a 40 nation butt slapping tour; they will take action and the whole region will become a big nightmare. Obama likes Bush's 1 Kuwait coalition model. Too bad he has a doofus for Secretary of State that can't find other countries who will fight like Sec'y Baker did for Big Daddy Bush.
-
Well old Sec'y Of (Stupid) State Lurch Kerry has about 40 countries lined up to give humanitarian aid to people terrorized by ISIS and to help pay for the ISIS response, but no one has offered to help militarily except France who will help bomb. France? Its 10 aircraft will scare the hell out the ISIS crazed bastards. France wants Iran to join the coalition to provide boots on the ground. Rabid Iranians running hog wild through Iraq surely will thrill Isreal. Isreal will not go on a 40 nation butt slapping tour; they will take action and the whole region will become a big nightmare. Obama likes Bush's 1 Kuwait coalition model. Too bad he has a doofus for Secretary of State that can't find other countries who will fight like Sec'y Baker did for Big Daddy Bush.
Yeah because none of Iraq's issues are related to the half decade of political and social neglect which the Maliki government imposed on the Sunni tribes.
Here is something which will blow the right's collective mind. Some problems you can't solve by invasion.
-
Obama now less popular than W, despite the endless vitriol against W and delusional worship of this failed asshat.
-
And a plurality of Americans now think the US is less safe than it was before 9/11.
EPIC Fail
-
I used to think we should stop involving ourselves in so many foreign affairs and then I read a bunch about the repercussions of exiting the world stage and now I'm not so sure.
-
Its like, we're dicks and probably shouldn't be in charge of the world, but other countries are dicks too or might be even bigger dicks and suck at it even worse than we do.
-
Obama now less popular than W, despite the endless vitriol against W and delusional worship of this failed asshat.
pro tip: criticizing W doesn't make you a lib
pro tip II: calling out your bullshit criticism of Obama doesn't make you anything either
-
Well old Sec'y Of (Stupid) State Lurch Kerry has about 40 countries lined up to give humanitarian aid to people terrorized by ISIS and to help pay for the ISIS response, but no one has offered to help militarily except France who will help bomb. France? Its 10 aircraft will scare the hell out the ISIS crazed bastards. France wants Iran to join the coalition to provide boots on the ground. Rabid Iranians running hog wild through Iraq surely will thrill Isreal. Isreal will not go on a 40 nation butt slapping tour; they will take action and the whole region will become a big nightmare. Obama likes Bush's 1 Kuwait coalition model. Too bad he has a doofus for Secretary of State that can't find other countries who will fight like Sec'y Baker did for Big Daddy Bush.
Yeah because none of Iraq's issues are related to the half decade of political and social neglect which the Maliki government imposed on the Sunni tribes.
Here is something which will blow the right's collective mind. Some problems you can't solve by invasion.
Here's something that is going to be blow the collective lefts Obama can never do wrong if you criticize Obama you're a racist mind . . . you only create more problems by using asymmetrical methodologies and invasion by proxy to overthrow stable regimes and then strangely back the worst of the worst anti government factions.
Not to mention one of the reasons you have an ever growing radical Islamist movement in Western Europe is because the United States under the guise of NATO overthrew a stable government in the Balkans . . . and on and on it goes. Many people were saying that would happen fifteen years ago or so, but nobody wanted to listen.
You said a lot of things which have nothing to do with Iraq
1) The invasion wasn't asymmetric warfare
2) Iraq wasn't "stable", well maybe by Mid East standards.
3) It wasn't an invasion by proxy
No one looks to the rough ridin' Balkans dude, give it up. You are aware that NATO stopped the slaughter of muslims there right? And also that whole "stable" thing eludes your point once again. :lol: death camps = stable
-
1. I wasn't talking about Iraq when I mentioned Asymmetric Warfare as conducted by the U.S. and its proxies.
2. I wasn't talking about Iraq when I mentioned stability. Isis is born of instability and emboldened in Syria.
3. The KLA and its ilk were loaded with radical Islamists and received direct support from Iran (with a CIA/Clinton wink and a nod) and even had Al Qaeda/Bin Laden ties. The bombing of Yugoslavia was explicitly done to overthrow a Russian oriented regime. Numerous sources said repeatedly that such a thing would provide a prime conduit for radical Islamic entities to move into Western Europe.
Okay don't respond to posts about a specific country with random vague tangents.
and GTFO with that conspiracy theory crap or find something backed up by legitimate journalists (not the weekly standard or genocide deniers). The fact is that radical Islam has not infiltrated through the Balkans in almost 20 years. I mean the simplest of histories shows that your links are totally made up by nationalists who insist on creating an Islamic bogeyman to hide behind.
-
Obama now less popular than W, despite the endless vitriol against W and delusional worship of this failed asshat.
pro tip: criticizing W doesn't make you a lib
pro tip II: calling out your bullshit criticism of Obama doesn't make you anything either
Okay, libtard
-
Obama now less popular than W, despite the endless vitriol against W and delusional worship of this failed asshat.
pro tip: criticizing W doesn't make you a lib
pro tip II: calling out your bullshit criticism of Obama doesn't make you anything either
Okay, libtard
:runaway:
-
Protip: endless apologizing and post hoc rationalizations for the weak minded sycophant is prima facie libtard behavior
-
Protip: endless apologizing and post hoc rationalizations for the weak minded sycophant is prima facie libtard behavior
404 endless apologizing. Calling your side out for their outright lies at times isn't being beholden to a party, its being beholden to the truth. What your side continually fails to realize is that Obama is just like every other president for the last 60 years, arguably more. Your chicken little routine betrays two things, your outright intellectual dishonesty and the overt racism thst many of your ilk harbor. While you may think you reject that part, I ask you to look at the miliue of your peers and see that now the failures of a president are because he is a hybrid of impossible characteristics which only the dullest of mental gymnasts can connect. The fact is we are looking at a legacy of economics, global interventions, and domestic policies which arguably reach back to Teddy Roosevelt. While you pine for the good ole days of the nineteenth century where labor could be broken with force, those "boys" had their "place", and the US could isolate itself and only concern itself with our little central/south American backyard, the world has left you by. Your self interested shtick only further shows just how against the project of America you are.
-
Good example of endless apologizing and post hoc rationalization. Sprinkling in unfounded claims of racism was a nice touch, libtard.
-
Good example of endless apologizing and post hoc rationalization. Sprinkling in unfounded claims of racism was a nice touch, libtard.
white man in office no issues with birth
black man in office, zomg Manchurian candidate from Kenya :runaway:
-
Good example of endless apologizing and post hoc rationalization. Sprinkling in unfounded claims of racism was a nice touch, libtard.
white man in office no issues with birth
black man in office, zomg Manchurian candidate from Kenya :runaway:
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.
-
Is John McCain white?
-
Props to edna, he's summarily beaten down numerous arguments neither raised nor germane to this thread. As far as goE schizophrenics go, he's the most persuasive.
-
Good example of endless apologizing and post hoc rationalization. Sprinkling in unfounded claims of racism was a nice touch, libtard.
white man in office no issues with birth
black man in office, zomg Manchurian candidate from Kenya :runaway:
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563.html
bigger indicator is people who are predisposed to hate Obama.
But point still stands about the radicals who took the birther thing and ran with it and mashed it in with the rest of their racial standards.
-
Remember the 9/11 truthers? What a weird collection of racists (Colin Powell?)
-
We were bombing the eff out of ISIS last night.
https://news.vice.com/article/pentagon-video-shows-islamic-state-targets-obliterated-during-us-led-airstrikes-in-syria
-
We were bombing the eff out of ISIS last night.
https://news.vice.com/article/pentagon-video-shows-islamic-state-targets-obliterated-during-us-led-airstrikes-in-syria
Islamic State fighters warned on Sunday they would target Western citizens in retaliation for such actions, "especially the spiteful and filthy French".
LOL
-
:lol:
-
ISIS is trolling.
-
"The foreign minister received a letter from his American counterpart via the Iraqi foreign minister, in which he informed him that the United States and some of its allies would target (Islamic State positions) in Syria," the department said. "That was hours before the raids started."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKIE4KoY.png&hash=d1ed4652c9b4d9f1839f391ea28c72aed3d38770)
-
News reports state ISIS is on the outskirts of Baghdad. Fear they will overrun the city. Bombing is failing to halt the advance. ISIS is using our weapons they captured from Iraq troops. What big mess - I am afraid the President is going to melt down. I hope he gets good advice from our generals and he listens to them instead of campaign advisers.
-
Reno, what do you think the odds are that Obummer just pees his pants and hides at Camp David for the next two years? I bet they are super high.
-
Reno, what do you think the odds are that Obummer just pees his pants and hides at Camp David for the next two years? I bet they are super high.
Probably rupture his bladder before he pees himself. Can't cause a violation of the clean water act. If he craps his drawers it will cause global warming. He will likely cuss his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) dog, eat greasy food while Michelle.yells at him, and starts smoking again.
-
Reno, what do you think the odds are that Obummer just pees his pants and hides at Camp David for the next two years? I bet they are super high.
Probably rupture his bladder before he pees himself. Can't cause a violation of the clean water act. If he craps his drawers it will cause global warming. He will likely cuss his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) dog, eat greasy food while Michelle.yells at him, and starts smoking again.
He will probably board AF1 and take a vacation right after.
-
I bet obummer has pooped on af1, talk about disrespectful :bang:
-
Is there anything worse than a half-assed war? Like if we're going in, we might as well roll tanks and robots through their downtown and just try to win the thing, right? Is it really as simple as surgical bombings sound better to the American public than all-out war?
-
I can't believe he called them JV, what a dolt.
It's rough ridin' remarkable, he's literally been wrong about every single foreign policy decision. You'd think he'd at least guess right once.
-
I can't believe he called them JV, what a dolt.
It's rough ridin' remarkable, he's literally been wrong about every single foreign policy decision. You'd think he'd at least guess right once.
We elected him. Twice. I guess we've gotten a lot dumber as a nation since Carter.
-
I give you the twits Obama has selected to talk foreign policy. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/07/state_depts_psaki_unable_to_list_gains_made_against_isis_under_obama_strategy.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/07/state_depts_psaki_unable_to_list_gains_made_against_isis_under_obama_strategy.html)
-
Obama can't figure out how to get ISIS knotheads to vote for him and old bastard Reid and his cronies. Campaigning to have power is what the President excells at, but it doesn't make him the leader we now need. IMO we are on the verge of a large regional war that could escalate into something even worse if this morphs into a religious war. Inaction is emboldening ISIS. Today it was reported Obama was busy fund raising (campaigning). Mr. Obama be the President. George, Bill, Daddy Bush, Reagan, and even worthless Carter thought it was more important to do thier job than to pursue vanity for themselves. Ignorant voters are getting what they voted for, an incompetent President.
-
Those knotheads would totally vote for Obama anyway
-
I agree with the OP. Leave the unwinable wars to the Republicans, Obama, and focus on domestic issues.
-
Those knotheads would totally vote for Obama anyway
He has a point that we don't want this morphing into a religious war. What we want is what we presently have and that is exclusively secular war in the Middle East.
-
Politico: Jimmy Carter says Obama is an indecisive weakling who blew it on ISIS (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/jimmy-carter-barack-obama-isil-111692.html)
In an interviewed published Tuesday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the 39th president said the Obama administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIL to build up its strength.
“[W]e waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” he said, using an alternate name for the terrorist group. “Then when [ISIL] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned. Obama is an indecisive weakling - even weaker than me, and that's saying something. Where is Reagan when we need him?"
-
Jimmy is campaigning to get off the top of the "worst president" list. I think he's going to be a firm #2 now. Good for him.
-
Sounds like an onion article
-
Mixed results so far. Fox News reported ISIS fighters like chocolate candy bars like Snickers. Ah Ha!! Let's use high potency ex-lax chocolate to make their bars, ISIS defeated by the brown scourge. Obama can claim he purged ISIS.
-
So, now an IS-affiliated terrorist group in Egypt has publicly claimed the killing of an American there. This is gonna be a delicate statement from the White House this morning (at the time of the killing, they group responsible - now called Wilayat Sinai or "Province of Sinai" - was not yet an IS affiliate, they were just the the Ansar Bait Al-Maqdes who was responsible for most of the bombings in Sinai).
-
So, these fuckers have drones?
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/835501059682480128
-
Amazon Prime.
-
They use the same drones we could buy and drop granades and such
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Grenades were cheap on Prime Day, bet ISIS stocked up.