Obama ISIS speech

[renocat]

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.

[Spracne]

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

[DQ12]

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.

[michigancat]

so stupid, can't believe people were sold on this nonsense.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[michigancat]

Well, I guess we probably just increased the chances of ISIS related terrorism in the US.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.....

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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?

[michigancat]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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!

[DQ12]

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. 

[DQ12]

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.

[AbeFroman]

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 ______"

[Asteriskhead]

Let's just make this crap happen and get it all over with.

[Cire]

We're forming gi joe with Britain.   

[Asteriskhead]

We're forming gi joe with Britain.

Who is your favorite? http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=32613.msg1169119#msg1169119

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[OK_Cat]

can someone confirm the status of ISIS in Texas?  TIA

[michigancat]

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?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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?

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.

[Dugout DickStone]

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.

[Kat Kid]

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?

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?

[michigancat]

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?

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.