PDA

View Full Version : When do we all agree we must do "whatever it takes" to destroy ISIS?


Pages : [1] 2 3

garandman
08-19-2014, 08:15 PM
I admit to being right leaning but definitely not a war monger. I feel it was a mistake to intervene in Iraq but we did and nothing can change that.

With the multiple reports of unbelievable brutality (beheading children among other atrocities) we now hear an American journalist has been beheaded.

This is pure evil we haven't seen since the Nazi's.
In my opinion, we can continue to bury our head in the sand and hope they destroy themselves..or we can accelerate our strategy now beyond bombing and yes "boots on the ground" and with overwhelming force destroy these monsters before the next "9-11" occurs and would most likely be dwarfed by what they would plan... They are well trained and most importantly very well funded.

Do it now or it will only be more painful later !

God bless our troops and god bless our country, blue or red, we are still one people, at least i hope so!

The Lone Bolt
08-19-2014, 08:18 PM
The beheadings, and especially this one, were a huge tactical mistake by ISIS. An American public that was reluctant to get involved again in Iraq will now be screaming for ISIS blood.

Furthermore they've chosen to fight a war on two fronts. Never fight a war on two fronts.

garandman
08-19-2014, 08:21 PM
Agreed.. Obama is very reluctant for "mission creep".. This changes the calculus for the American public.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-19-2014, 11:32 PM
What a cluster****.

ISIS is a monster we (read: BushCo) created.

Like Dr. Frankenstein, we have to keep the monster from wreaking havoc on the world.

cutthemdown
08-20-2014, 12:16 AM
We didn't create ISIS. More liberal lies.

cutthemdown
08-20-2014, 12:17 AM
It's time to uncork drones and airstrikes on ISIS that don't stop. Literally an all out effort to make them pay.

The Lone Bolt
08-20-2014, 12:28 AM
It's time to uncork drones and airstrikes on ISIS that don't stop. Literally an all out effort to make them pay.

I agree. There must be not just an American effort, but an international effort, to completely crush ISIS.

At this point I would -- swear to God -- go out there and shoot some of those ****ers personally.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-20-2014, 01:19 AM
If we're going to do this, then we better not do it half-assed this time.

We need to bomb these **** sticks back to the stone age.

Heavy ordinance, and lots of it.

Guess Who
08-20-2014, 01:23 AM
I agree with what is going on right now. Targeted strikes and support the Iraqi's and Kurds to take back their country. It won't happen fast but they need to do it themselves.

pricejj
08-20-2014, 01:39 AM
Democrats were anti-war in Iraq until Obama's involvement became public. Now they are gung ho? Hilarious!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-20-2014, 01:57 AM
Democrats were anti-war in Iraq until Obama's involvement became public. Now they are gung ho? Hilarious!

What a brainless take. :oyvey:

Most liberals were against your hero's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Now it seems we have little choice but to put down the monster your hero created.

cutthemdown
08-20-2014, 03:54 AM
After ISIS it will be some other terrorist group. It's just how it's going to play out for many more decades. Not sure we should work with too many other countries on it though. Iran not a good partner and they seem to be the only one willing to do it.

peacepipe
08-20-2014, 05:21 AM
No troops,targeted strikes as we have been doing.

W*GS
08-20-2014, 07:22 AM
No.

We need to pull out of the ME entirely and quit supporting Israel, Egypt, and all the other actors in this tragedy.

There's nothing we can do to fix their problems, and every time we try, we make things worse.

TonyR
08-20-2014, 08:12 AM
The beheadings, and especially this one, were a huge tactical mistake by ISIS.

Lol, no. Quite the opposite. You clearly don't understand how terrorist organizations work or what their goals are. The reactions are exactly what they're going for. Just like invading Iraq was exactly what OBL hoped for in the wake of the Twin Towers going down. He wanted American blood spilled on "Islamic soil". He wanted the U.S. embroiled in war over their, with soldiers dying and $ hundreds of billions being spent. The guy was radical and wacky, but he wasn't stupid. These groups want attention. It helps them recruit new members, it creates fear and chaos, and by invading and blowing things up it helps them frame us as the "bad guys".

Rohirrim
08-20-2014, 08:18 AM
What really should happen in an instance like this is that every civilized country in the world, from Chile to South Africa, Finland to Malaysia, and everybody in between, should get together a battalion of armed soldiers until they amass a force of somewhere around 500,000, the U.S and Europeans could fly them in, including their own contingents, and clean this ****ing ****hole out in about a month. That's how the world needs to deal with these psychopaths. A message must be sent. If you want to go full-on crazy, you will be obliterated. And then present a bill to Saudi Arabia for the whole operation with the 500,000 troops sitting on their border. After all, they're the ones funding these psychos and their Wahhabist brethren.

But that's not what happens. What happens is, the rest of the world sits on their asses picking their noses and wonders when the U.S. is going to do something about it. Which is another great argument for us to withdraw from all of these entanglements and let the world go **** itself.

ant1999e
08-20-2014, 09:44 AM
How bad ass are the Kurds. Going in and taking care of business after the Iraq military ran away.

crush17
08-20-2014, 10:03 AM
No.

We need to pull out of the ME entirely and quit supporting Israel, Egypt, and all the other actors in this tragedy.

There's nothing we can do to fix their problems, and every time we try, we make things worse.

THIS.

Get the eff outta there and let them figure it out for themselves.

The only reason the US is over there in the first place is OIL.

Our government does not care one iota about the "people" in the Middle East. It's all about that oil baby.

peacepipe
08-20-2014, 10:06 AM
How bad ass are the Kurds. Going in and taking care of business after the Iraq military ran away.

Not really all that bad ass, it took a few U.S. Air strikes to get them going.

ant1999e
08-20-2014, 10:29 AM
Not really all that bad ass, it took a few U.S. Air strikes to get them going.

They were fighting them before we started bombing. They've done more to fight ISIS than the Iraqi military.

24champ
08-20-2014, 10:52 AM
Hopefully liberals will develop a hashtag soon that will send ISIS running for the hills.

BroncsRule
08-20-2014, 10:53 AM
I have a lot of respect for the Kurds, their plight and how they conduct themselves.

The Iraqi government, not so much.

pricejj
08-20-2014, 10:55 AM
No troops,targeted strikes as we have been doing.

There are already over 800+ (publicly disclosed) US troops in Iraq, and that number is growing.

Why would Obama go to war now when the entire region has disintegrated, after he deliberately avoided maintaining the US hard fought established order in the region?

None of what this guy does makes any sense.

ludo21
08-20-2014, 11:06 AM
ISIS does need to be squelched. Not sure how, but I agree something needs to be done as the genocide has to be stopped.

Rohirrim
08-20-2014, 11:32 AM
There are already over 800+ (publicly disclosed) US troops in Iraq, and that number is growing.

Why would Obama go to war now when the entire region has disintegrated, after he deliberately avoided maintaining the US hard fought established order in the region?

None of what this guy does makes any sense.

"...hard fought established order?" When was that?

Rohirrim
08-20-2014, 11:32 AM
ISIS does need to be squelched. Not sure how, but I agree something needs to be done as the genocide has to be stopped.

I thought that's why the UN was created?

Fedaykin
08-20-2014, 11:34 AM
Destroy ISIS? What do you have against mobile wallets?

W*GS
08-20-2014, 11:39 AM
"...hard fought established order?" When was that?

Never.

Johnykbr
08-20-2014, 11:49 AM
What really should happen in an instance like this is that every civilized country in the world, from Chile to South Africa, Finland to Malaysia, and everybody in between, should get together a battalion of armed soldiers until they amass a force of somewhere around 500,000, the U.S and Europeans could fly them in, including their own contingents, and clean this ****ing ****hole out in about a month. That's how the world needs to deal with these psychopaths. A message must be sent. If you want to go full-on crazy, you will be obliterated. And then present a bill to Saudi Arabia for the whole operation with the 500,000 troops sitting on their border. After all, they're the ones funding these psychos and their Wahhabist brethren.

But that's not what happens. What happens is, the rest of the world sits on their asses picking their noses and wonders when the U.S. is going to do something about it. Which is another great argument for us to withdraw from all of these entanglements and let the world go **** itself.

The Saudi royal family is terrified of ISIS. It may be Saudis that are funding them but it isn't them. I am confident they would have no problem with a response like you proposed.

Johnykbr
08-20-2014, 11:54 AM
THIS.

Get the eff outta there and let them figure it out for themselves.

The only reason the US is over there in the first place is OIL.

Our government does not care one iota about the "people" in the Middle East. It's all about that oil baby.

I hate this "logic." The same people that say pull out and let them sort it out are the same that would complain about waiting in line for hours to pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas during an oil embargo or would complain if the US tapped into its own reserves.

The fact remains, they have what the world needs and since we already chose a side, we can't wait it out like China or India.

Mr.Meanie
08-20-2014, 12:09 PM
Destroy ISIS? What do you have against mobile wallets?

ISIS (the mobile payment platform) must be pissed about this, and I wonder how long until they rebrand themselves. It must be frustrating to spend a ton of money developing a brand, and then a brutal, ruthless terrorist organization starts using it. :spit:

The Lone Bolt
08-20-2014, 12:10 PM
Lol, no. Quite the opposite. You clearly don't understand how terrorist organizations work or what their goals are. The reactions are exactly what they're going for. Just like invading Iraq was exactly what OBL hoped for in the wake of the Twin Towers going down. He wanted American blood spilled on "Islamic soil". He wanted the U.S. embroiled in war over their, with soldiers dying and $ hundreds of billions being spent. The guy was radical and wacky, but he wasn't stupid. These groups want attention. It helps them recruit new members, it creates fear and chaos, and by invading and blowing things up it helps them frame us as the "bad guys".


Umm... no.

Look, the reason ISIS has been so successful so far is that they've become organized like a standard military, using standard military weapons and tactics. The upside of this is that they've been able to overwhelm inferior forces and take large amounts of territory. The downside is that they're now playing our game, and nobody is better at it than us.

In conventional warfare, he who controls the skies controls the war. This is especially true in a desert region like Iraq where there is no natural cover. As a result of the US bombing campaign (and arming of the Peshmerga), ISIS has lost significant territory. If things continue they are looking at eventual defeat because we have the power to monitor and destroy troop movements, pin their soldiers down, and cut off their supplies. All without American boots on the ground.

ISIS doesn't want deeper US involvement. They desperately want us to stop an air campaign that has been devastating to them. Their hope is that the US public will blame Obama for the beheading of James Foley, but I think it's going to backfire.

broncocalijohn
08-20-2014, 12:40 PM
If we're going to do this, then we better not do it half-assed this time.

We need to bomb these **** sticks back to the stone age.

Heavy ordinance, and lots of it.

I never would have thought this would be from you. If not sarcastically stated, do you mean ground troops because I know you were against that going back into IRaq. This fight would be in Iraq.

Rohirrim
08-20-2014, 02:43 PM
Umm... no.

Look, the reason ISIS has been so successful so far is that they've become organized like a standard military, using standard military weapons and tactics. The upside of this is that they've been able to overwhelm inferior forces and take large amounts of territory. The downside is that they're now playing our game, and nobody is better at it than us.

In conventional warfare, he who controls the skies controls the war. This is especially true in a desert region like Iraq where there is no natural cover. As a result of the US bombing campaign (and arming of the Peshmerga), ISIS has lost significant territory. If things continue they are looking at eventual defeat because we have the power to monitor and destroy troop movements, pin their soldiers down, and cut off their supplies. All without American boots on the ground.

ISIS doesn't want deeper US involvement. They desperately want us to stop an air campaign that has been devastating to them. Their hope is that the US public will blame Obama for the beheading of James Foley, but I think it's going to backfire.

That's because much of their leadership are ex-Baathist, Iraqi military men who were kicked to the curb in disgrace under Bush's "no end-game in sight" invasion.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/mission.bmp

Johnykbr
08-20-2014, 02:53 PM
That's because much of their leadership are ex-Baathist, Iraqi military men who were kicked to the curb in disgrace under Bush's "no end-game in sight" invasion.



al-Baghadi is neither of those things. He was a cleric that went psycho and was captured and held in a US prison camp where he was released in 2009 when the camp was closed.

peacepipe
08-20-2014, 03:06 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-release-george-bush

He was handed over to the Iraqi gov. Who then decided to let him go free.

mhgaffney
08-20-2014, 04:56 PM
The best approach is simply to stop supporting ISIS.

As for instance by US allies S Arabia and Turkey. How to make this happen is the question.

Here in the US, we need to figure out a way to generate political pressure -- to block Obama's proposed support for the anti Assad rebels in Syria.

elsid13
08-20-2014, 04:59 PM
Umm... no.

Look, the reason ISIS has been so successful so far is that they've become organized like a standard military, using standard military weapons and tactics. The upside of this is that they've been able to overwhelm inferior forces and take large amounts of territory. The downside is that they're now playing our game, and nobody is better at it than us.

In conventional warfare, he who controls the skies controls the war. This is especially true in a desert region like Iraq where there is no natural cover. As a result of the US bombing campaign (and arming of the Peshmerga), ISIS has lost significant territory. If things continue they are looking at eventual defeat because we have the power to monitor and destroy troop movements, pin their soldiers down, and cut off their supplies. All without American boots on the ground.

ISIS doesn't want deeper US involvement. They desperately want us to stop an air campaign that has been devastating to them. Their hope is that the US public will blame Obama for the beheading of James Foley, but I think it's going to backfire.

ISIS efforts are consider "Hybrid Warfare", so you are both right. TonyR right that they will use traditional terrorist efforts to recruit and receive funds. You are right they have moved to more conventional efforts.

pricejj
08-20-2014, 07:04 PM
"...hard fought established order?" When was that?

I know it's hard to remember, with all the chaos Obama has brought to the region.

http://colleeneliza.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/iraq-women-vote_telegraph-co-uk.jpg?w=640

barryr
08-20-2014, 07:14 PM
There are idiots in this country who refuse to acknowledge Islamic terrorism and continue to give excuses for their mass killings and prejudices. Until our leaders stop being scared to offend, not much will occur until millions are slaughtered. History does seem to repeat.

Rohirrim
08-20-2014, 07:17 PM
al-Baghadi is neither of those things. He was a cleric that went psycho and was captured and held in a US prison camp where he was released in 2009 when the camp was closed.

None of these factors were easily predictable. ISIS, being led by ex-Iraqi army officers, supported by the Bathist organisational network and was embraced by the unhappy Sunni tribes, who previously ruled Iraq and had been alienated by Al-Maliki. ISIS has now struck its near-fatal blow on Iraq and the Middle East Order.
http://rudaw.net/english/opinion/14062014

Rohirrim
08-20-2014, 07:20 PM
I know it's hard to remember, with all the chaos Obama has brought to the region.

http://colleeneliza.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/iraq-women-vote_telegraph-co-uk.jpg?w=640

They voted. That equals "hard fought established order?" If I remember correctly, all those elections were marred by numerous bombings.

Guess Who
08-20-2014, 10:17 PM
How bad ass are the Kurds. Going in and taking care of business after the Iraq military ran away.

ISIS licked the Kurds ass until we started dropping bombs and arming them. In general they are probably the most reliable fore in the country.

ant1999e
08-20-2014, 11:12 PM
ISIS licked the Kurds ass until we started dropping bombs and arming them. In general they are probably the most reliable fore in the country.

Your knowledge of this situation is as reliable as your use of the English language.

broncocalijohn
08-20-2014, 11:38 PM
Your knowledge of this situation is as reliable as your use of the English language.

Kurds held them off at the beginning of the summer but then lost two major cities. We came in and bombed them out. Kurds will need outside help in the long run.

Guess Who
08-21-2014, 12:44 AM
Your knowledge of this situation is as reliable as your use of the English language.

It is not knowledge of the English language it is typing errors and my lack of caring to proof read...... idiot. My grasp of the situation is far far far greater than yours. ISIS was on the march to Erbil Iraq, basically the Kurdish Capital. The Kurds had retreated when the U.S. intervened and started their targeted attacks. Since then the Kurds have regrouped and with the help of the U.S. they are retaking their country or retaking their part of the country anyway.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Aug-09/266605-us-bombs-isis-as-it-advances-on-irbil.ashx

Now after proving you to be an imbecile and incorrect in your ASSumptions I did agree that the Kurdish army is one of the most loyal and sophisticated in the country.

And before you claim I spelled Erbil wrong there are many English spellings of the city.

TailgateNut
08-21-2014, 03:26 AM
"...hard fought established order?" When was that?

The stupidity is amazing. There was more "order" before Bush went in on his unfunded "Revenge Tour" .

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 04:14 AM
^

Worth revisiting:

In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact which the administration’s policies — specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf) (.pdf) and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce. It’s well worth reviewing their analysis, as it has as much resonance now as it did then (h/t sysprog (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/19/rohde/permalink/c335803c746e2471ba62933294edc1ba.html)).The Task Force began by noting what are the “underlying sources of threats to America’s national security“: namely, the “negative attitudes” towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and “the conditions that create them”

Of course, the PDF file has disappeared down the memory hole...

B-Large
08-21-2014, 06:20 AM
Maybe we pull out 100 percent of the ME and let those people figure it out for themselves? We stood by and let 800k be butchered in Rwanda and didn't launch multibillion dollar military missions...

Saddam was bad, but thanks to us, we've delivered much worse... Mission Accomplished I guess?

Here's a thought- let's take all those resources and secure our border, if we are really serious about national security....

W*GS
08-21-2014, 06:25 AM
There are idiots in this country who refuse to acknowledge Islamic terrorism and continue to give excuses for their mass killings and prejudices. Until our leaders stop being scared to offend, not much will occur until millions are slaughtered. History does seem to repeat.

Goddamn, but you're a ****ing idiot.

Rohirrim
08-22-2014, 12:47 PM
The “war on terror” has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The U.S. did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.

The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa‘ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the U.S., closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the “war on terror” claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.

In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa‘ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa‘ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.

In other words, the “war on terror,” the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175884/tomgram%3A_patrick_cockburn%2C_how_to_ensure_a_thr iving_caliphate/

Johnykbr
08-22-2014, 01:10 PM
Maybe we pull out 100 percent of the ME and let those people figure it out for themselves? We stood by and let 800k be butchered in Rwanda and didn't launch multibillion dollar military missions...

Saddam was bad, but thanks to us, we've delivered much worse... Mission Accomplished I guess?

Here's a thought- let's take all those resources and secure our border, if we are really serious about national security....

As much as I would like the idea, it is not an option whatsoever.

B-Large
08-22-2014, 01:26 PM
As much as I would like the idea, it is not an option whatsoever.

Why?

Rohirrim
08-22-2014, 01:43 PM
Why?

For one thing, because in large part, we, and especially George Bush and his cowboy politics, created it. Or at least provided the environment that allowed for its creation. Read the article in the post above for more details.

Think of the new “caliphate” of the Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's gift to the world (with a helping hand from the Saudis and other financiers of extremism in the Persian Gulf). How strange that they get so little credit for its rise, for the fact that the outlines of the Middle East, as set up by Europe’s colonial powers in the wake of World War I, are being swept aside in a tide of blood.

Had George and Dick not decided on their “cakewalk” in Iraq, had they not raised the specter of nuclear destruction and claimed that Saddam Hussein’s regime was somehow linked to al-Qaeda and so to the 9/11 attacks, had they not sent tens of thousands of American troops into a burning, looted Baghdad (“stuff happens”), disbanded the Iraqi army, built military bases all over that country, and generally indulged their geopolitical fantasies about dominating the oil heartlands of the planet for eternity, ISIS would have been an unlikely possibility, no matter the ethnic and religious tensions in the region. They essentially launched the drive that broke state power there and created the kind of vacuum that a movement like ISIS was so horrifically well suited to fill.

All in all, it’s a remarkable accomplishment to look back on. In September 2001, when George and Dick launched their “Global War on Terror” to wipe out -- so they then claimed -- “terrorist networks” in up to 60 countries, or as they preferred to put it, “drain the swamp,” there were scattered bands of jihadis globally, while al-Qaeda had a couple of camps in Afghanistan and a sprinkling of supporters elsewhere. Today, in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and an air power intervention in Libya, after years of drone (and non-drone) bombing campaigns across the Greater Middle East, jihadist groups are thriving in Yemen and Pakistan, spreading through Africa (along with the U.S. military), and ISIS has taken significant parts of Iraq and Syria right up to the Lebanese border for its own bailiwick and is still expanding murderously, despite a renewed American bombing campaign that may only strengthen that movement in the long run.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 01:46 PM
For one thing, because in large part, we, and especially George Bush and his cowboy politics, created it. Or at least provided the environment that allowed for its creation. Read the article in the post above for more details.

Think of the new “caliphate” of the Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's gift to the world (with a helping hand from the Saudis and other financiers of extremism in the Persian Gulf). How strange that they get so little credit for its rise, for the fact that the outlines of the Middle East, as set up by Europe’s colonial powers in the wake of World War I, are being swept aside in a tide of blood.

Had George and Dick not decided on their “cakewalk” in Iraq, had they not raised the specter of nuclear destruction and claimed that Saddam Hussein’s regime was somehow linked to al-Qaeda and so to the 9/11 attacks, had they not sent tens of thousands of American troops into a burning, looted Baghdad (“stuff happens”), disbanded the Iraqi army, built military bases all over that country, and generally indulged their geopolitical fantasies about dominating the oil heartlands of the planet for eternity, ISIS would have been an unlikely possibility, no matter the ethnic and religious tensions in the region. They essentially launched the drive that broke state power there and created the kind of vacuum that a movement like ISIS was so horrifically well suited to fill.

All in all, it’s a remarkable accomplishment to look back on. In September 2001, when George and Dick launched their “Global War on Terror” to wipe out -- so they then claimed -- “terrorist networks” in up to 60 countries, or as they preferred to put it, “drain the swamp,” there were scattered bands of jihadis globally, while al-Qaeda had a couple of camps in Afghanistan and a sprinkling of supporters elsewhere. Today, in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and an air power intervention in Libya, after years of drone (and non-drone) bombing campaigns across the Greater Middle East, jihadist groups are thriving in Yemen and Pakistan, spreading through Africa (along with the U.S. military), and ISIS has taken significant parts of Iraq and Syria right up to the Lebanese border for its own bailiwick and is still expanding murderously, despite a renewed American bombing campaign that may only strengthen that movement in the long run.

Speaking of mistakes, can we finally agree that not leaving 15-20k stationed in Iraq was also a mistake that helped fuel this particular fire?

And if I'm not mistaken, Al Qaeda in Libya has also expressed its own desire for a Caliphate. You ready to weigh in on that situation yet? Or you still crossin' fingers there and hoping that your guy's 'cowboy diplomacy' just works better?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 01:52 PM
Speaking of mistakes, can we finally agree that not leaving 15-20k stationed in Iraq was also a mistake that helped fuel this particular fire?


If the Mad Cowboy you spent eight years cheerleading hadn't invaded Iraq, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Amazing how you can lose sight of something so fundamental and obvious.

Rohirrim
08-22-2014, 01:54 PM
Speaking of mistakes, can we finally agree that not leaving 15-20k stationed in Iraq was also a mistake that helped fuel this particular fire?

And if I'm not mistaken, Al Qaeda in Libya has also expressed its own desire for a Caliphate. You ready to weigh in on that situation yet? Or you still crossin' fingers there and hoping that your guy's 'cowboy diplomacy' just works better?

Read the article before you blather in the protection of your hero. There's much more than Bush's blunders covered in there. Remember how we completely misconceived who the enemy was in Vietnam? We did the same thing with Al Queda as the writer details in this article. Ergo, our response was wrong.

ant1999e
08-26-2014, 12:14 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-dempsey-pentagon-will-move-against-isis-if-necessary/

Gen. Martin Dempsey said Sunday that once he determines the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants in Iraq have become a direct threat to the U.S. homeland, he will recommend the U.S. military move directly against the group in Syria.

But the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that right now, he still believes the insurgent group is still more a regional threat and is not plotting or planning attacks against either the U.S. or Europe.

But the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that right now, he still believes the insurgent group is still more a regional threat and is not plotting or planning attacks against either the U.S. or Europe.

gyldenlove
08-26-2014, 07:09 AM
It will sooner or later come down to a choice. Do we prefer secular dictators or extremist dictators. We can either have guys like Assad and Saddam or we can have guys like Ahmadinejad and the Sauds. The middle east is not a peaceful place, it won't be a peaceful place for a long time to come and that is just the way it is.

The mistakes that have been made have been due to not understanding the region and the mixture of religious and ethnic dynamics and a fatal shortsightedness.

Certainly both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have created far more instability and terrorrism than they solved. The "Arab spring" movement and the gross mishandling of that whole affair created even more damage. Not to mention the ****ed up situation in Africa where Al Qaeda offshoots and salafist movements are on the offensive in at least 10 different countries.

The only way to get the situation even marginally under control right now is to support the regional strong men and let them do whatever the hell they want with those who oppose them. If the world as a whole want to really hit IS, we need to arm Assad in Syria and give him free reign. We need to arm and back the PKK, including forcing both the Iraqis and Turks to work towards the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

The truth is that if another invasion takes place, the same thing will happen. The IS fighters will hide their weapons and blend into the population and wait for the international forces to leave and then just pick up where they left off.

Rohirrim
08-26-2014, 08:53 AM
It will sooner or later come down to a choice. Do we prefer secular dictators or extremist dictators. We can either have guys like Assad and Saddam or we can have guys like Ahmadinejad and the Sauds. The middle east is not a peaceful place, it won't be a peaceful place for a long time to come and that is just the way it is.

The mistakes that have been made have been due to not understanding the region and the mixture of religious and ethnic dynamics and a fatal shortsightedness.

Certainly both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have created far more instability and terrorrism than they solved. The "Arab spring" movement and the gross mishandling of that whole affair created even more damage. Not to mention the ****ed up situation in Africa where Al Qaeda offshoots and salafist movements are on the offensive in at least 10 different countries.

The only way to get the situation even marginally under control right now is to support the regional strong men and let them do whatever the hell they want with those who oppose them. If the world as a whole want to really hit IS, we need to arm Assad in Syria and give him free reign. We need to arm and back the PKK, including forcing both the Iraqis and Turks to work towards the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

The truth is that if another invasion takes place, the same thing will happen. The IS fighters will hide their weapons and blend into the population and wait for the international forces to leave and then just pick up where they left off.

Or just pick off Americans with IEDs and snipers for who knows how long.

gyldenlove
08-26-2014, 11:22 AM
Or just pick off Americans with IEDs and snipers for who knows how long.

Foreigners just won't be able to do it. You need locals who can tell friend from foe.

B-Large
08-26-2014, 06:58 PM
For one thing, because in large part, we, and especially George Bush and his cowboy politics, created it. Or at least provided the environment that allowed for its creation. Read the article in the post above for more details.

Think of the new “caliphate” of the Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's gift to the world (with a helping hand from the Saudis and other financiers of extremism in the Persian Gulf). How strange that they get so little credit for its rise, for the fact that the outlines of the Middle East, as set up by Europe’s colonial powers in the wake of World War I, are being swept aside in a tide of blood.

Had George and Dick not decided on their “cakewalk” in Iraq, had they not raised the specter of nuclear destruction and claimed that Saddam Hussein’s regime was somehow linked to al-Qaeda and so to the 9/11 attacks, had they not sent tens of thousands of American troops into a burning, looted Baghdad (“stuff happens”), disbanded the Iraqi army, built military bases all over that country, and generally indulged their geopolitical fantasies about dominating the oil heartlands of the planet for eternity, ISIS would have been an unlikely possibility, no matter the ethnic and religious tensions in the region. They essentially launched the drive that broke state power there and created the kind of vacuum that a movement like ISIS was so horrifically well suited to fill.

All in all, it’s a remarkable accomplishment to look back on. In September 2001, when George and Dick launched their “Global War on Terror” to wipe out -- so they then claimed -- “terrorist networks” in up to 60 countries, or as they preferred to put it, “drain the swamp,” there were scattered bands of jihadis globally, while al-Qaeda had a couple of camps in Afghanistan and a sprinkling of supporters elsewhere. Today, in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and an air power intervention in Libya, after years of drone (and non-drone) bombing campaigns across the Greater Middle East, jihadist groups are thriving in Yemen and Pakistan, spreading through Africa (along with the U.S. military), and ISIS has taken significant parts of Iraq and Syria right up to the Lebanese border for its own bailiwick and is still expanding murderously, despite a renewed American bombing campaign that may only strengthen that movement in the long run.

Still, why can't we just brush our hands and be done? There is no compelling reason to stay there, go back, get involved, etc.... Where are the leaders in the Arab/ Muslim world arming up to intervene on behalf of their Muslim brothers and sisters? No matter what we do, no matter how much we spend, no matter how many ISIS clods we vaporize, it will never end. Ever.

How bout we turn to solving our own issues: scaling back the scope of Federal Power, making REAL progress on LTD reduction, make real progress on immigration and seeing up our borders, bolstering our education system and turn out skilled students to compete in the global marketplace, getting cohesive Heathcare policy in place instead of this ragtag piecemeal trainwreck we have in place?

There is no compelling reason to stay, we've already **** Trillions on this crap, time to wipe it clean and walk away. Let the Arabs jihad all over each other, I don't care if they kill each other anymore- that area of the world is a sewer and were being dragged down into the festering Nidus... Time to cut bait.

cutthemdown
08-26-2014, 07:03 PM
Obama should have handled this mess months ago.

TailgateNut
08-26-2014, 07:40 PM
Obama should have handled this mess months ago.

They need more boots on the ground.......go ahead and volunteer. Considering the fact that you are always the first one who wants soldiers to go to battle.....

cutthemdown
08-26-2014, 08:10 PM
Nope not me I have too much talent. I would have been in the band playing for you at your funeral or something. In other words your platoons big celebration party.

barryr
08-26-2014, 08:14 PM
At least since Obama has been president liberals have laid off claiming all military members are stupid and baby killers. They seem to pull that BS out when a republican is in the WH.

TailgateNut
08-26-2014, 08:21 PM
Nope not me I have too much talent. I would have been in the band playing for you at your funeral or something. In other words your platoons big celebration party.


The only ****ing talent you have is blowing hot air up everyones' ass and cowards will not be attending my funeral. There will be seven vets with rifles and my family and friends.

cutthemdown
08-26-2014, 10:34 PM
The only ****ing talent you have is blowing hot air up everyones' ass and cowards will not be attending my funeral. There will be seven vets with rifles and my family and friends.

I'm sure all 7 will have a great time.

cutthemdown
08-27-2014, 12:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ

Here is the song I will play Tailgate.

Johnykbr
08-27-2014, 08:43 AM
Still, why can't we just brush our hands and be done? There is no compelling reason to stay there, go back, get involved, etc.... Where are the leaders in the Arab/ Muslim world arming up to intervene on behalf of their Muslim brothers and sisters? No matter what we do, no matter how much we spend, no matter how many ISIS clods we vaporize, it will never end. Ever.

How bout we turn to solving our own issues: scaling back the scope of Federal Power, making REAL progress on LTD reduction, make real progress on immigration and seeing up our borders, bolstering our education system and turn out skilled students to compete in the global marketplace, getting cohesive Heathcare policy in place instead of this ragtag piecemeal trainwreck we have in place?

There is no compelling reason to stay, we've already **** Trillions on this crap, time to wipe it clean and walk away. Let the Arabs jihad all over each other, I don't care if they kill each other anymore- that area of the world is a sewer and were being dragged down into the festering Nidus... Time to cut bait.

Oil is the reason. Like I said before, we HAVE to be involved. Look what they did back in the 70's and that was when we didn't even have large amounts of troops there. If we pull out, they will set an embargo on us and send the oil to China and India.

The US currently does not produce enough oil to make up for this loss and half the population doesn't even want us to tap into that oil.

Rohirrim
08-27-2014, 11:44 AM
Still, why can't we just brush our hands and be done? There is no compelling reason to stay there, go back, get involved, etc.... Where are the leaders in the Arab/ Muslim world arming up to intervene on behalf of their Muslim brothers and sisters? No matter what we do, no matter how much we spend, no matter how many ISIS clods we vaporize, it will never end. Ever.

How bout we turn to solving our own issues: scaling back the scope of Federal Power, making REAL progress on LTD reduction, make real progress on immigration and seeing up our borders, bolstering our education system and turn out skilled students to compete in the global marketplace, getting cohesive Heathcare policy in place instead of this ragtag piecemeal trainwreck we have in place?

There is no compelling reason to stay, we've already **** Trillions on this crap, time to wipe it clean and walk away. Let the Arabs jihad all over each other, I don't care if they kill each other anymore- that area of the world is a sewer and were being dragged down into the festering Nidus... Time to cut bait.

Part of the reason that we, and the rest of the world, have to take action is explained here by Wesley Clark:

The U.S. has learned the hard way that Western armies inflame extremists and serve as recruiting magnets for terrorists. Instead, other nations, and particularly Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states, must put their soldiers forward, and bear the brunt of the fighting.
The U.S. can use diplomacy and economic assistance, and it can strike using airpower, or special forces, to reinforce the efforts of our allies, but we cannot fight a religious war as proxies for our Islamic friends in the region.

5 key questions in the fight against ISIS

The Mideast is approaching its moment of truth, particularly for Saudi Arabia. Having exported and promoted extremist Sunni religious ideology, Saudi Arabia must face up to the threat posed by its own, even more extremist progeny. It must summon the courage to take a firm stand now, before ISIS becomes even stronger.

For the U.S. there is nothing to be gained by delay. We must work urgently, behind the scenes, to shape an effective regional response, in coordination with our friends and allies, now.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/opinion/clark-u-s-syria-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

If ISIS is allowed to coalesce into a state and continue to gather weapons and more oil money (including funding from extremist Saudis) they will probably go after Jordan next, then the big prize, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is ripe for its own "Arab Spring" because it keeps a large, disaffected population under its authoritarian heel. If they can't see what's coming, as Clark points out, then their oil wealth has not only made them fat and lazy, but stupid as well. If ISIS took Saudi Arabia, there would be hell to pay.

TonyR
08-27-2014, 01:38 PM
Rather than turn ISIL into a military priority and take America into war against the group, Washington should organize an Islamic coalition against the Islamic State. Even Gen. Dempsey called for a regional effort to “squeeze ISIS from multiple directions,” but that actually requires Washington to do less militarily. ISIL’s rise has set in motion the very forces necessary for its defeat. Rather than hinder creation of a coalition by taking charge militarily, Washington should encourage it by stepping back. The U.S. already has gone to war twice in Iraq. There’s no reason to believe that the third time will be the charm. http://www.cato.org/blog/defeat-islamic-state-allowing-syria-others-kill-radicals?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29

TonyR
08-27-2014, 01:40 PM
As Mr. Obama considered new strikes, the White House began its diplomatic campaign to enlist allies and neighbors in the region to increase their support for Syria’s moderate opposition and, in some cases, to provide support for possible American military operations. The countries likely to be enlisted include Australia, Britain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, officials said. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/world/middleeast/us-mobilizes-allies-to-widen-assault-on-isis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

TonyR
08-27-2014, 01:46 PM
Obama’s remarks express a sense of proportion missing from alarmist claims that ISIS is on the verge of taking over Iraq or establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Contrary to these absurd warnings, ISIS is, as the President noted, engaged in a “regional power struggle” one in which its support is capped by its Sunni sectarian nature, which limits its maximum appeal to the 20% of Iraqis who are Sunni. Furthermore, Obama is correct to note that ISIS is far less of a direct threat to the United States than it is to Iran, Damascus, and Riyadh, and by extension Moscow. All have a much greater strategic interest in preventing a collapse of the Iraqi state, and all will therefore intervene directly to prevent such an eventuality, provided the United States does not do it for them. That said, if the United States is willing to pay the financial and military burden of stopping ISIS, Tehran and Moscow will be overjoyed, though that pleasure will not stop them from attempting to extract a political payment for allowing the US to do their own work for them. Obama appears determined to ensure that the US will not be left alone for the bill for what is in reality a geopolitical public service for the region. http://www.therestlessrealist.com/2014/08/obamas-wise-disdain-for-isis.html

BroncoBeavis
08-27-2014, 02:29 PM
http://www.therestlessrealist.com/2014/08/obamas-wise-disdain-for-isis.html

Sweet. Only 6 years later and we've been conditioned to think of a huge Iranian proxy state as a net positive.

Iraq needs to balance Iran. Not join it.

BroncoBeavis
08-27-2014, 02:33 PM
Oil is the reason. Like I said before, we HAVE to be involved. Look what they did back in the 70's and that was when we didn't even have large amounts of troops there. If we pull out, they will set an embargo on us and send the oil to China and India.

The US currently does not produce enough oil to make up for this loss and half the population doesn't even want us to tap into that oil.

The oil market is too fluid for these kinds of worries. If they sell theirs to China to fill demand, we'll get more from Canada, or Mexico.

The only way the Saudis and friends can hurt us with oil anymore is if they stop selling it entirely. And nowadays that's more untenable for them than it is for us.

Rohirrim
08-27-2014, 03:57 PM
Excellent article on the history of Wahhabism, where ISIS came from, and why Saudi Arabia is split when it comes to dealing with it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

It also shows the dangerous possibility that ISIS winning Saudi Arabia is not out of the question, perhaps not even by attacking them, but from within.

Rohirrim
08-27-2014, 04:00 PM
Sweet. Only 6 years later and we've been conditioned to think of a huge Iranian proxy state as a net positive.

Iraq needs to balance Iran. Not join it.

That ship sailed long ago, when Bush disbanded the Iraq army.

BroncoBeavis
08-27-2014, 04:06 PM
That ship sailed long ago, when Bush disbanded the Iraq army.

It sailed not all that long ago, when we went out for a pack of smokes and left zero long-term footprint in Iraq.

Rohirrim
08-27-2014, 04:08 PM
It sailed not all that long ago, when we went out for a pack of smokes and left zero long-term footprint in Iraq.

Yeah. It's got to be Obama's fault, no matter what. Partisan stupidity.

BroncoBeavis
08-27-2014, 04:13 PM
Yeah. It's got to be Obama's fault, no matter what. Partisan stupidity.

I blame Bush and Obama jointly on that one.

Rohirrim
08-27-2014, 04:43 PM
I blame Bush and Obama jointly on that one.

Yeah. Bush and Cheney ran the boat up onto a reef, then dropped Obama on deck, abandoned ship, and blamed him because he couldn't float the damn thing again. :rofl:

Bush1 and Brent Scowcroft published a letter in the Times explaining why they would not invade Iraq. Every item they detailed in that letter came true. But you neocons just had to have your little invasion, no matter the cost, no matter the lies you had to tell to get it. Your ideology demanded it. Your big dreamscape of shoving democracy down the ME's throat demanded it. And now, of course you can't admit that your ideology is a massive failure, so instead of facing the truth, you find a scapegoat. Pathetic.

The Lone Bolt
08-27-2014, 05:35 PM
Gotta give Yertle some credit.

Nicholasville, Kentucky (CNN) – Sen. Mitch McConnell knew how surprising it was going to sound to room full of Kentucky voters that he backs President Barack Obama on something.

"I think the President now, at this point - this will shock you when I say it - at this point, is doing the right thing,” he said Wednesday in a speech to the Chamber of Commerce here.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/27/mcconnell-to-cnn-obama-would-have-a-lot-of-congressional-support-for-action-against-isis/?hpt=hp_t2

Rohirrim
08-27-2014, 07:17 PM
Has the Chamber of Commerce always been a wing of the Republican Party, or is this a recent development?

Guess Who
08-27-2014, 07:22 PM
Has the Chamber of Commerce always been a wing of the Republican Party, or is this a recent development?

I don't know I guess it alwasy has but it just seems the last 6 years they have been really out there with their politics.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 12:38 AM
I blame Bush and Obama jointly on that one.

Ha ha ha!

Funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Where was your "blame" when GeeDubya was in office?

Where were you during that eight-year period?

Why, you were busy shaking your "W" pom poms and denouncing those anti-war "traitors" as "America haters."

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 12:51 AM
Yeah. Bush and Cheney ran the boat up onto a reef, then dropped Obama on deck, abandoned ship, and blamed him because he couldn't float the damn thing again. :rofl:

Bush1 and Brent Scowcroft published a letter in the Times explaining why they would not invade Iraq. Every item they detailed in that letter came true. But you neocons just had to have your little invasion, no matter the cost, no matter the lies you had to tell to get it. Your ideology demanded it. Your big dreamscape of shoving democracy down the ME's throat demanded it. And now, of course you can't admit that your ideology is a massive failure, so instead of facing the truth, you find a scapegoat. Pathetic.

Yes, it's almost surreal now when you look back on that letter from Poppy which detailed the reasons why an invasion/occupation of Iraq would be ill-advised.

I don't think the support for the invasion by the Bush Youth was even ideologically-driven - I think it was just simple, blind party loyalty, i.e., the impulse to "stand by your man" and "support your team" no matter what - right or wrong. Most of these right-wing schmucks are too stupid to even understand the ideological basis for their heroes' high crimes and misdemeanors.

These mouth breathers had just "suffered" through eight years of Clinton/Gore, and they were hungry for a "win" for Team GOP.

There was no Bush crime these morally stunted jackals didn't defend or excuse during Dumbya's eight year watch.

TonyR
08-28-2014, 08:06 AM
Now should be the time to recognize that the U.S. isn’t any good at trying to finesse or manipulate a foreign civil war, acknowledge that the regime change goal in Syria was a mistake, and leave the fight against ISIS to the local and regional actors that have the most at stake in resisting them. The U.S. will only be pulled in deeper and become embroiled in a much longer conflict unless it avoids escalation now.http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-us-must-avoid-escalation-in-iraq-and-syria/

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 08:33 AM
Ha ha ha!

Funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Where was your "blame" when GeeDubya was in office?

Where were you during that eight-year period?

Why, you were busy shaking your "W" pom poms and denouncing those anti-war "traitors" as "America haters."

Lolz. Says the guy singing

"Rah rah Ri!
Al Qaeda just took Tripoli!
Goooooooooooooobama!"

Intervention in Iraq was a mistake that everyone should acknowledge. There should just be a little less gloating from the church members who've simultaneously cheered every other insane middle-east intervention since. It's one thing to make a mistake. Another to keep making the same mistake. And cheering those mistakes along the way because you like a (D) behind someone's name.

DenverBrit
08-28-2014, 08:37 AM
Lolz. Says the guy singing

"Rah rah Ri!
Al Qaeda just took Tripoli!
Goooooooooooooobama!"

Intervention in Iraq was a mistake that everyone should acknowledge. There should just be a little less gloating from the church members who've simultaneously cheered every other insane middle-east intervention since. It's one thing to make a mistake. Another to keep making the same mistake. And cheering those mistakes along the way because you like a (D) behind someone's name.

A "mistake"? Taking a wrong turn is a "mistake"

Invading Iraq was a catastrophe.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 08:40 AM
Lolz. Says the guy singing

"Rah rah Ri!
Al Qaeda just took Tripoli!
Goooooooooooooobama!"
.

And this singing took place when and where?

In some hallucination of yours?

Sounds like you need to lay off the paint thinner.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 08:44 AM
A "mistake"? Taking a wrong turn is a "mistake"

Invading Iraq was a catastrophe.

You have to L0L @ Cletus thinking he has any credibility with folks who recognized Dim Son's invasion/occupation as a "mistake" before it even happened.

Cletus and his fringe-right pals weren't calling it a "mistake" during the run-up to war.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 08:48 AM
Yes, it's almost surreal now when you look back on that letter from Poppy which detailed the reasons why an invasion/occupation of Iraq would be ill-advised.

Yet IIRC, Bush Sr took tons of flack at the time from the left for not "finishing the job"

It's one thing to recognize Bush Sr's wisdom at the time. Quite another to pretend you shared it when you've shown little evidence of it since.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 08:49 AM
A "mistake"? Taking a wrong turn is a "mistake"

Invading Iraq was a catastrophe.

As is Libya. As would have been regime change in Syria. And on and on.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 08:52 AM
And this singing took place when and where?

In some hallucination of yours?

Sounds like you need to lay off the paint thinner.

A man who only imagines others' cheerleading of course can't hear his own. Not surprising.

You say the lack of right-wing criticism of Bush a decade ago meant something. What does your lack of criticism of Libya mean today?

Point me to where you criticized our intervention in Libya. I await with bated breath. LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 08:59 AM
Yet IIRC, Bush Sr took tons of flack at the time from the left for not "finishing the job"

It's one thing to recognize Bush Sr's wisdom at the time. Quite another to pretend you shared it when you've shown little evidence of it since.

Took flack from the left? Is that really your final answer? L0L.

But how clear could your "recollections" of Gulf War I be when you were only in grade school at the time?

As for the whole timing of the recognition of Poppy's "wisdom" thing - who are you? The Amazing Kreskin? Did your crystal ball tell you what I was thinking or doing in 1990? L0L.

Now, your homework for today is to show me where I've supported any of Obama's interventions in the Mid-East...

Rohirrim
08-28-2014, 08:59 AM
A man who only imagines others' cheerleading of course can't hear his own. Not surprising.

You say the lack of right-wing criticism of Bush a decade ago meant something. What does your lack of criticism of Libya mean today?

Point me to where you criticized our intervention in Libya. I await with bated breath. LOL

Why did we "intervene" in Libya? Wasn't it because Gaddafi's army was advancing on rebels with heavy military equipment that they couldn't match and promising a "massacre" of every living person in the vicinity? Wasn't our "intervention" in the form of air support for other NATO countries like France, who led the way? Did we put boots on the ground? No? But you make it sound like an invasion. Was it an invasion of Libya?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 09:02 AM
A man who only imagines others' cheerleading of course can't hear his own. Not surprising.

You say the lack of right-wing criticism of Bush a decade ago meant something. What does your lack of criticism of Libya mean today?

Point me to where you criticized our intervention in Libya. I await with bated breath. LOL

I "imagined" your support for Dim Son's invasion of Iraq? Really?
Tell me more.

Point me to where I supported Obama on Libya even once.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:07 AM
I "imagined" your support for Dim Son's invasion of Iraq? Really?.

Well you must have, being that I never posted on this site until 2011. LOL

Point me to where I supported Obama on Libya even once

You've already said that my lack of criticism of Bush in Iraq = Support. Show me your criticism of Obama on Libya.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 09:09 AM
You say the lack of right-wing criticism of Bush a decade ago meant something. What does your lack of criticism of Libya mean today?
LOL

You're going to sit there and characterize the right's response to Bush's invasion as a mere "lack of criticism?"

Ha ha ha! :rofl:

You are hysterical.

Try "full-throated, furious support coupled with vicious condemnation of the "traitors" and "America haters" who disagreed.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:10 AM
Why did we "intervene" in Libya? Wasn't it because Gaddafi's army was advancing on rebels with heavy military equipment that they couldn't match and promising a "massacre" of every living person in the vicinity? Wasn't our "intervention" in the form of air support for other NATO countries like France, who led the way? Did we put boots on the ground? No? But you make it sound like an invasion. Was it an invasion of Libya?

See, you're essentially defending the Libyan intervention here. You have no room to criticize. Saddam was a bad dude too.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:11 AM
You're going to sit there and characterize the right's response to Bush's invasion as a mere "lack of criticism?"

Ha ha ha! :rofl:

You are hysterical.

Try "full-throated, furious support coupled with vicious condemnation of the "traitors" and "America haters" who disagreed.

I can find plenty of that from the Left on Libya as well. So the ball is still in your court. Either you said something to mark your difference of opinion on Libya, or you were with them?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 09:13 AM
Well you must have, being that I never posted on this site until 2011. LOL



You've already said that my lack of criticism of Bush in Iraq = Support. Show me your criticism of Obama on Libya.

2011?

Really?

That's interesting - your join date says 2013.

But we all know how often you guys change your user names and/or hide behind alternate accounts.

In the immortal words of a guy who did a pretty mean Poppy impersonation: "How conveeeeeeenient!"

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 09:17 AM
I can find plenty of that from the Left on Libya as well. So the ball is still in your court. Either you said something to mark your difference of opinion on Libya, or you were with them?

Really?

You can find voices on the left calling opponents of Obama's actions in Libya "traitors," "America haters" and similarly vile stuff?

Do share!

And I know it would be pointless of me to ask you directly whether you supported Bush's invasion of Iraq or not.

After all, you've only been posting here since 2011.

Or was it 2013? ;)

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:29 AM
2011?

Really?

That's interesting - your join date says 2013.

But we all know how often you guys change your user names and/or hide behind alternate accounts.

In the immortal words of a guy who did a pretty mean Poppy impersonation: "How conveeeeeeenient!"

Yeah, I was part of the great account purge last year that happened to newer accounts. As for the rest, believe me or not, it doesn't really matter to me. Whatever gets you hard.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:33 AM
Really?

You can find voices on the left calling opponents of Obama's actions in Libya "traitors," "America haters" and similarly vile stuff?

Do share!

And I know it would be pointless of me to ask you directly whether you supported Bush's invasion of Iraq or not.

After all, you've only been posting here since 2011.

Or was it 2013? ;)

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/24/hillary-clinton-to-libya-war-c

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi's side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?

-BillHilly.

You're either on the side of Libyan intervention or you're a Qadhafiite. LOL

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:36 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/10/obama_s_libya_debate_answer_he_s_exploiting_patrio tism_just_like_bush.html

Last night, in a confrontation over Libya, President Obama beat the stuffing out of Mitt Romney. Liberals are ecstatic. They shouldn’t be. Obama’s response to the Libya question was a carbon copy of George W. Bush’s response to questions about Iraq in 2004. Democrats have learned the cynical art of turning patriotism against dissent.

Rohirrim
08-28-2014, 09:41 AM
See, you're essentially defending the Libyan intervention here. You have no room to criticize. Saddam was a bad dude too.

Another weak deflection from you. That's all you've got, isn't it? No. I'm asking you to clarify your position. Do mean to say that providing command support under a UN Security Council action to secure a no-fly zone over Libya is the same thing as invading Iraq? Is that what you partisan hacks believe? We didn't even have the lead position in Libya, the Brits and French did. We didn't overthrow, capture and kill Gaddafi, the Libyans did. How many armored vehicles did we have in Libya? How many troops? How much Libyan territory did we invade and secure? How many bases did we build in Libya? How long did we hold and administer the territory? How much nation-building did we do in Libya?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 09:44 AM
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/24/hillary-clinton-to-libya-war-c



-BillHilly.

You're either on the side of Libyan intervention or you're a Qadhafiite. LOL

Pretty tame stuff compared to what the right was dishing out during the run-up to Smirk's war.

But do you really think anyone is taking your ridiculous attempts at revisionism seriously here?

Do you really think our memories are that short?

There is no comparison between the way the right behaved toward Dim Son's Iraq critics and how the left responded to critics of Obama's intervention in Libya.

Period.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 09:46 AM
Yeah, I was part of the great account purge last year that happened to newer accounts. As for the rest, believe me or not, it doesn't really matter to me. Whatever gets you hard.

Which one of your accounts was purged?

And where were you between 2001 and 2009?

How convenient for you, in any event.

But I guess plausible deniability has always been the right's stock in trade, eh?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 09:48 AM
Do mean to say that providing command support under a UN Security Council action to secure a no-fly zone over Libya is the same thing as invading Iraq? Is that what you partisan hacks believe?

My God, I think he really does believe this.

Crazy! :crazy:

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:51 AM
Another weak deflection from you. That's all you've got, isn't it? No. I'm asking you to clarify your position. Do mean to say that providing command support under a UN Security Council action to secure a no-fly zone over Libya is the same thing as invading Iraq? Is that what you partisan hacks believe? We didn't even have the lead position in Libya, the Brits and French did. We didn't overthrow, capture and kill Gaddafi, the Libyans did. How many armored vehicles did we have in Libya? How many troops? How much Libyan territory did we invade and secure? How many bases did we build in Libya? How long did we hold and administer the territory? How much nation-building did we do in Libya?

So in essence, what you're saying is when y'all criticized Bush for lowballing Iraq and "Shinseki-ing" the troop estimates, if Bush would've said "You don't think 100,000 will be enough? How about Zero. We'll just sow revolution from the air and let Allah decide who takes over next" you would've been all "Bravo Sir! Well played!"

There are tinpot dictators in probably 50 countries we could unseat with minimal ground involvement. Doing so indiscriminately is not better than making even a half-assed effort at filling the vacuum. It is worse.

As you guys were always fond of quoting Colin Powell on... "You break it, you own it" But now that Obama does the breaking it's "Well if you break it by long-distance remote, then it's not your problem"

The pinnacle of double-standardry.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 09:54 AM
My God, I think he really does believe this.

Crazy! :crazy:

Not as crazy as you kids believing that all we did in Libya is institute a no-fly zone. LOL

Rohirrim
08-28-2014, 09:57 AM
So in essence, what you're saying is when y'all criticized Bush for lowballing Iraq and "Shinseki-ing" the troop estimates, if Bush would've said "You don't think 100,000 will be enough? How about Zero. We'll just sow revolution from the air and let Allah decide who takes over next" you would've been all "Bravo Sir! Well played!"

There are tinpot dictators in probably 50 countries we could unseat with minimal ground involvement. Doing so indiscriminately is not better than making even a half-assed effort at filling the vacuum. It is worse.

As you guys were always fond of quoting Colin Powell on... "You break it, you own it" But now that Obama does the breaking it's "Well if you break it by long-distance remote, then it's not your problem"

The pinnacle of double-standardry.

Your bull**** is very thin. It's not difficult for anyone to see you're just talking through your ass. The UN operation in Libya lasted a little over a week. You're trying to argue that's the same thing as the ten year full scale invasion of Iraq? Here's you - :clown:

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 10:02 AM
Your bull**** is very thin. It's not difficult for anyone to see you're just talking through your ass. The UN operation in Libya lasted a little over a week. You're trying to argue that's the same thing as the ten year full scale invasion of Iraq? Here's you - :clown:

So if we would've plinked Saddam in 3 days, then went out for smokes and pancakes, you would've supported it?

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 10:06 AM
There is no comparison between the way the right behaved toward Dim Son's Iraq critics and how the left responded to critics of Obama's intervention in Libya.

Period.

Of course not. Because (D). And (R).

Anyway, Roh's right here defending the Libyan intervention. Now's your chance to shine. Go!

Johnykbr
08-28-2014, 10:23 AM
The oil market is too fluid for these kinds of worries. If they sell theirs to China to fill demand, we'll get more from Canada, or Mexico.

The only way the Saudis and friends can hurt us with oil anymore is if they stop selling it entirely. And nowadays that's more untenable for them than it is for us.

I still disagree, just the threat would send speculations through the roof and would drive up oil then gas and diesel substantially.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 10:28 AM
I still disagree, just the threat would send speculations through the roof and would drive up oil then gas and diesel substantially.

Some short term turmoil, sure. But there's no point in the last 40 years that we were more capable of dealing with it.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/08/26/how-north-american-production-has-helped-bring-calm-to-oil-prices/

The Middle East is convulsing and oil demand is expected to grow ahead of the well-travelled Labour Day-long weekend.

It could have been a recipe for a hefty risk premium. Instead oil prices are hobbling near a seven-month low, closing Tuesday at US$93.86, up US$51¢, on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

It’s an indication of the economic and political freedom gained from growing production of oil in the United States and Canada.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 10:39 AM
Of course not. Because (D). And (R).

Anyway, Roh's right here defending the Libyan intervention. Now's your chance to shine. Go!

He's not so much defending the intervention as refuting your ridiculous false equivalences.

But I know such subtle distinctions aren't exactly your forte.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 10:43 AM
He's not so much defending the intervention as refuting your ridiculous false equivalences.

But I know such subtle distinctions aren't exactly your forte.

Why did we "intervene" in Libya? Wasn't it because Gaddafi's army was advancing on rebels with heavy military equipment that they couldn't match and promising a "massacre" of every living person in the vicinity?

Yeah. If this isn't a moral defense, I don't know what is.

Set him straight, Labron! Tell him what a mistake Libya was!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 10:48 AM
Yeah. If this isn't a moral defense, I don't know what is.

Set him straight, Labron! Tell him what a mistake Libya was!

Clearly, it is you who needs to be set straight, Cletus.

Challenging your false narrative isn't a moral defense.

So what was your position on Dim Son's invasion of Iraq, anyway?

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 11:07 AM
Clearly, it is you who needs to be set straight, Cletus.

Challenging your false narrative isn't a moral defense.

So what was your position on Dim Son's invasion of Iraq, anyway?

Just can't find a critical word for the ol' team captain, can you? Always talking about the other team's captain instead.

You know Saddam did many of the things after Gulf I that Roh's saying we absolutely needed to prevent in Libya. Should we have stayed in Iraq to "finish the job" back in 1991?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 11:18 AM
Just can't find a critical word for the ol' team captain, can you? Always talking about the other team's captain instead.

You know Saddam did many of the things after Gulf I that Roh's saying we absolutely needed to prevent in Libya. Should we have stayed in Iraq to "finish the job" back in 1991?

You're the other team captain?

And to think that all this time I thought you were Gilligan. :D

Anyway, I think the problem here is your usual lack of reading comprehension.

That is, how do you get "absolutely needed" from a simple assessment re: mission objective?

The "moral defense" only exists in your mind, as far as I can tell.

BTW, are you ready to reveal your position on Dumbya's Iraq invasion yet?

C'mon - you can do it! :D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 11:22 AM
Just can't find a critical word for the ol' team captain, can you?

If, by any chance, you meant Obama, then maybe you're not lying when you say you only discovered the OM in 2011.

You clearly have no clue re: my opinions about the man.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 11:23 AM
You're the other team captain?

And to think that all this time I thought you were Gilligan. :D

Anyway, I think the problem here is your usual lack of reading comprehension.

That is, how do you get "absolutely needed" from a simple assessment re: mission objective?

The "moral defense" only exists in your mind, as far as I can tell.

BTW, are you ready to reveal your position on Dumbya's Iraq invasion yet?

C'mon - you can do it! :D

Oh, I get it. So you're saying Roh also opposed the Libyan intervention. Here he's just reiterating OTHER people's rationalizations.

So instead of tapdancing around whether quoted rationalizations are really yours or just reinterations of someone else's, let's just get you kids on record. Was the intervention in Libya a bad idea, or not?

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 11:24 AM
If, by any chance, you meant Obama, then maybe you're not lying when you say you only discovered the OM in 2011.

You clearly have no clue re: my opinions about the man.

Can't say that I would.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 11:31 AM
Oh, I get it. So you're saying Roh also opposed the Libyan intervention. Here he's just reiterating OTHER people's rationalizations.

So instead of tapdancing around whether quoted rationalizations are really yours or just reinterations of someone else's, let's just get you kids on record. Was the intervention in Libya a bad idea, or not?

I have no idea whether he opposed the intervention or not. Why don't you ask him? I was simply addressing your misguided attempts to construe his statement about the mission objectives as a "moral defense."
Apparently you don't realize how silly that sounds. Ha!

As for your question about Libya, I generally fall into the "America should not be the world's policeman" camp, so I seldom support such interventions - no matter which party controls the WH at the time.

BroncoBeavis
08-28-2014, 11:37 AM
I have no idea whether he opposed the intervention or not. Why don't you ask him? I was simply addressing your misguided attempts to construe his statement about the mission objectives as a "moral defense."
Apparently you don't realize how silly that sounds. Ha!

As for your question about Libya, I generally fall into the "America should not be the world's policeman" camp, so I seldom support such interventions - no matter which party controls the WH at the time.

I didn't ask if you supported it. Do you oppose it? Because you've already said that silence during the bush years basically equaled support. Yet I've never heard you say a word about the mess in Libya. Other than to dismiss the concerns of others.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 11:51 AM
I didn't ask if you supported it. Do you oppose it? Because you've already said that silence during the bush years basically equaled support. Yet I've never heard you say a word about the mess in Libya. Other than to dismiss the concerns of others.

Um, no.

Why would I concern myself with a non-existent silence from the right?

Are you suggesting the right was silent about Iraq during the Bush misadministration?

In what parallel universe was that the case?

And do you realize how ridiculous your attempts to compare Iraq to Libya sound?

I would like to hear your comparison re: body counts, loss of American treasure, veterans filling the wards of our hospitals, etc.

As for your initial question, I can't really think of anything Obama has done that I haven't opposed, so hopefully that blanket statement will satisfy you.

ant1999e
08-28-2014, 11:17 PM
President Obama on ISIS: 'We Don't Have a Strategy Yet'
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-obama-isis-we-dont-have-strategy-yet-n191286

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-29-2014, 01:01 AM
^

You should recommend he try the Bush/Cheney strategy.

After all, that turned out so well.

Guess Who
08-29-2014, 02:13 AM
President Obama on ISIS: 'We Don't Have a Strategy Yet'
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-obama-isis-we-dont-have-strategy-yet-n191286

Obama is waiting it out so he can build a coalition of countries to help with whatever the future actions may be. If not military support he wants a consensus among nations that something must be done.

I am in no hurry for the U.S. to go ballistic. I mean lets face it ISIL can capture as much desert as they want but anytime The U.S. wants to take it back it will not be hard at all. They need to build up support among Arab countries and the international community.

Just keep up the airstrikes and build up support.

El Guapo
08-29-2014, 08:17 AM
President Obama on ISIS: 'We Don't Have a Strategy Yet'
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-obama-isis-we-dont-have-strategy-yet-n191286

We have a contingency plan in case of an alien/zombie invasion but not this. Good job, Obama. You finally admitted your ineptness.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 08:21 AM
I would like to hear your comparison re: body counts, loss of American treasure, veterans filling the wards of our hospitals, etc.

Lolz. Back to the usual "Only American Blood Counts" meme. Guess we should've just went all Andrew Sullivan and nuked Iraq then. In the name of Progressivism. LOL

As for your initial question, I can't really think of anything Obama has done that I haven't opposed, so hopefully that blanket statement will satisfy you.

Ah, the fabled Lame Duck second-thoughts period has finally come. We saw it from Republicans starting in 2006.

"Now that the President no longer cares or needs support for anything, I'll mark a few meaningless distinctions that mean and cost nothing. Gives me more non-lapdog street cred."

You're as blindly partisan as any dude on this board Labron. Just own it.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 08:24 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=34684&stc=1&d=1409289470

Ha. Great image. The whole country feels like this. So much **** going down all over the world. And so little leadership in response.

Tough time in American history. Hopefully we still have it in us to come roaring back. But it all starts with a leader for the times. Wish I could see the right guy out there. Just not sure.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-29-2014, 08:41 AM
Lolz. Back to the usual "Only American Blood Counts" meme. Guess we should've just went all Andrew Sullivan and nuked Iraq then. In the name of Progressivism. LOL

Ah, the straw man - last refuge of the wingnut who's out of ammo.

When I mentioned body count, I was including the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of your hero's immoral and illegal war as well.

Once again, there is simply no comparison to Libya.



Ah, the fabled Lame Duck second-thoughts period has finally come. We saw it from Republicans starting in 2006.

"Now that the President no longer cares or needs support for anything, I'll mark a few meaningless distinctions that mean and cost nothing. Gives me more non-lapdog street cred."

You're as blindly partisan as any dude on this board Labron. Just own it.

You wouldn't know sh*t if you fell in it where my history here is concerned.

After all, you only discovered the OM in 2011, right?

I had Obama pegged as the poster boy for GOP Lite before the 2008 election.

I argued then that BO wasn't that far to the left of the '08 GOP candidates.

I'm on record here stating that I only voted for Obama to do my part in preventing a Bible Barbie presidency. Ditto re: Mittens in 2012.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 08:54 AM
Ah, the straw man - last refuge of the wingnut who's out of ammo.

When I mentioned body count, I was including the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of your hero's immoral and illegal war as well.

I went over this with Tony before. I think it was 25,000 or so ALREADY in Libya, in a country with 1/5th the population if Iraq. And the place is still mid-civil war, with no end in sight. Give your favorite leader's grand regional vision more time to truly unfold.

Once again, there is simply no comparison to Libya.

You're right. Year 3 vs Year 11. No real comparison to be made (yet)



You wouldn't know sh*t if you fell in it where my history here is concerned.

Maybe you can fill me in with more of Gaff's favorite Reagan conspiracy theories? LOL

After all, you only discovered the OM in 2011, right?

I had Obama pegged as the poster boy for GOP Lite before the 2008 election.

I argued then that BO wasn't that far to the left of the '08 GOP candidates.

I'm on record here stating that I only voted for Obama to do my part in preventing a Bible Barbie presidency. Ditto re: Mittens in 2012.

Tons of people voted for Bush while rhetorically holding their "lesser of two evils" noses as well. Doubt you'd give them the same benefit of the doubt.

TonyR
08-29-2014, 09:00 AM
I went over this with Tony before.

LOL Yes, after I schooled you on this once I'm surprised you're doubling down...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-29-2014, 09:02 AM
Tons of people voted for Bush while rhetorically holding their "lesser of two evils" noses as well. Doubt you'd give them the same benefit of the doubt.

Trouble is, Cletus, no rational person would ever consider Bush the lesser of evils in any election scenario - unless Dim Son were running against Pol Pot or Hitler.

But then right-wingnuts like you and the Bush Youth are anything but rational.

As for your Iraq = Libya comparisons, all I can say is you must be really desperate to vindicate your hero re: Iraq to be reaching so hard here.

It's actually pretty funny to watch. Ha!

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 09:05 AM
LOL Yes, after I schooled you on this once I'm surprised you're doubling down...

Did Labron back this up in pictorial form, or how did you find out?

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 09:07 AM
Trouble is, Cletus, no rational person would ever consider Bush the lesser of evils in any election scenario - unless Dim Son were running against Pol Pot or Hitler.

Straight to the Reductio ad Hitlerum. Well done.

Would expect nothing less from the OM's second-place kook conspiracy theorist.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-29-2014, 09:12 AM
Straight to the Reductio ad Hitlerum. Well done.

Would expect nothing less from the OM's second-place kook conspiracy theorist.

Cletus: "Obama is as bad as Bush. Evidence? Libya equals Iraq as a foreign policy disaster."

LABF: "Um, no, your claim is completely unsupported by facts or any objective metrics."

Cletus: "You're nothing but a blind partisan/Obama shill!"

Keep the laughs coming, Cletus. :D

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 09:34 AM
IBC put Iraqi deaths at around 30,000 3 years into the conflict.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/year-three/

Let's stick with Apples to Apples here as opposed to Labron's favored Apples to Nazis.

TonyR
08-29-2014, 09:38 AM
IBC put Iraqi deaths at around 30,000 3 years into the conflict.

How many U.S. soldiers died in Iraq vs. Libya? How much money has the U.S. spent in Iraq vs. Libya? You don't have to respond, just take a look and then realize that you're still just as wrong on this point as you were the last time we discussed it. You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em, Beavis.

cutthemdown
08-29-2014, 09:42 AM
The big problem with Libya was that Gaddaffi had done most of what Bush Jr and the USA asked of him. He dismantled nuclear ambitions, then gave us the plans for the centrifuges which led to the virus we sent to slow down Irans push for nuclear weapons.

We repaid him and Mubarek by letting them go down. For Gaddaffi he got a bayonet up his ass. Now no matter what no leader will ever play along with USA policy in that region again.

What makes it worst is Syria hitched itself to Mother Russia who has successfully bolstered them and saved Assad. So Russian influence is growing, and USA influence has been lost. All thanks to Obama.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 09:47 AM
How many U.S. soldiers died in Iraq vs. Libya? How much money has the U.S. spent in Iraq vs. Libya? You don't have to respond, just take a look and then realize that you're still just as wrong on this point as you were the last time we discussed it. You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em, Beavis.

Wouldda been much better if we just would've struck Saddam from the air and let the Iranians take over, AMIRITE?

We spent a **** ton in Japan and S Korea for decades too. Guess we should've just went out for a pack of smokes and let the chips fall where they may.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-29-2014, 10:07 AM
How many U.S. soldiers died in Iraq vs. Libya? How much money has the U.S. spent in Iraq vs. Libya? You don't have to respond, just take a look and then realize that you're still just as wrong on this point as you were the last time we discussed it. You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em, Beavis.

Yep.

Cletus isn't too keen on the whole arithmetic thing.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 10:09 AM
Yep.

Cletus isn't too keen on the whole arithmetic thing.

Is there like a new 3/5ths rule or something when it comes to comparing lower Arab blood against Sanctified American Blood, or how does that work?

TonyR
08-29-2014, 10:28 AM
Wouldda been much better if we just would've struck Saddam from the air and let the Iranians take over, AMIRITE?

We spent a **** ton in Japan and S Korea for decades too. Guess we should've just went out for a pack of smokes and let the chips fall where they may.

So, then, you're finally admitting you're wrong? If you want to call Libya a "mini Iraq" then fine, I suppose you can do that. But to try to compare the scope and depth of the two is just ludicrous.

TonyR
08-29-2014, 10:29 AM
Is there like a new 3/5ths rule or something when it comes to comparing lower Arab blood against Sanctified American Blood, or how does that work?

Your argument fails no matter which comparison you make. This is one of those hands where you fold, Beavis.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 10:34 AM
So, then, you're finally admitting you're wrong? If you want to call Libya a "mini Iraq" then fine, I suppose you can do that. But to try to compare the scope and depth of the two is just ludicrous.

So clearly, all those old references to Vietnam during the Iraq War were way out of line. Apparently the rest of the Progressive movement didn't get the memo.

"Iraq... not that big a deal, if you look at Vietnam!" LOL

TonyR
08-29-2014, 10:40 AM
I wasn't aware we were discussing Vietnam. But, I'm certainly not surprised at your attempts to once again muddy the waters.

broncocalijohn
08-29-2014, 10:44 AM
Trouble is, Cletus, no rational person would ever consider Bush the lesser of evils in any election scenario - unless Dim Son were running against Pol Pot or Hitler.

But then right-wingnuts like you and the Bush Youth are anything but rational.

As for your Iraq = Libya comparisons, all I can say is you must be really desperate to vindicate your hero re: Iraq to be reaching so hard here.

It's actually pretty funny to watch. Ha!

LABF, you would have more credibility if you would stop going to the extreme like what I bolded. Your description of Republicans is far from the truth (hillbillies, racist, etc). How nice that you can hold your nose to vote for Obama (I don't remember too many bad things that you said about Obama in the elections) but no Republican can do the same back in 2000 and in 2004. Bush easily got the nomination in 2000 but McCain got about 33% of the vote (including my vote). So is McCain in 2000 worth a vote because he wasn't at least Hitler or Pol Pot? This is where we consider you a joke. Should we say the same for democrats? Does it have to be that extreme?

Bush got 12 million more votes as a sitting president (I voted 3rd party which only got 1% for all candidates). This means more independents and democrats voted for Bush for his 2nd term. Many more people thought invading Iraq was the correct thing to do. I would say poll those same people now and it would change significantly.

BTW, if you would ever go check out "our" football team on that part of the Mane, you would have known many accounts got wiped out and they had to start all over again in September of 2013.

Johnykbr
08-29-2014, 10:55 AM
Your bull**** is very thin. It's not difficult for anyone to see you're just talking through your ass. The UN operation in Libya lasted a little over a week. You're trying to argue that's the same thing as the ten year full scale invasion of Iraq? Here's you - :clown:

The US alone bombed over 100 targets. The Libyan government (our ally a month before) was driving the Muslim Brotherhood & associates out until the US decided to get involved.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 10:59 AM
I wasn't aware we were discussing Vietnam. But, I'm certainly not surprised at your attempts to once again muddy the waters.

Not nearly that hard to follow

Iraq means Libya isn't a trainwreck. Therefore Vietnam means Iraq isn't a trainwreck. Because American money. And White Guy blood.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 11:03 AM
The US alone bombed over 100 targets. The Libyan government (our ally a month before) was driving the Muslim Brotherhood & associates out until the US decided to get involved.

Doesn't matter. These guys cry about ISIS and whine "Bush" while ignoring the fact that a year or so ago, Obama was point blank arguing we should arm and train Syrian "rebels." AKA, the guys who just beheaded James Foley and swore wrath on American shores.

Guess Who
08-29-2014, 11:11 AM
IBC put Iraqi deaths at around 30,000 3 years into the conflict.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/year-three/

Let's stick with Apples to Apples here as opposed to Labron's favored Apples to Nazis.

WHat does three years into the conflict matter?

This site has the most in depth Iraqi death count I have seen. Breaks them down in every possible way.

From 2003 to 2011 over 162,000 Iraqi civilians were killed.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 11:17 AM
WHat does three years into the conflict matter?

This site has the most in depth Iraqi death count I have seen. Breaks them down in every possible way.

From 2003 to 2011 over 162,000 Iraqi civilians were killed.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/

Because these kids are saying Libya's no big deal, less than 3 years in, and with no end to the violence in sight.

ant1999e
08-29-2014, 12:27 PM
[QUOTE=broncocalijohn;4169198
BTW, if you would ever go check out "our" football team on that part of the Mane, you would have known many accounts got wiped out and they had to start all over again in September of 2013.[/QUOTE]

He only comes here around election time.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2014, 01:21 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/29/why-obamas-we-dont-have-a-strategy-gaffe-stings/

Why Obama’s ‘we don’t have a strategy’ gaffe stings

As with all gaffes, the worst ones are the ones that confirm people's preexisting suspicions or fit into an easy narrative. That's why "47 percent" stung Mitt Romney so much, and it's why "don't have a strategy" hurts Obama today.

Polls have increasingly shown that Americans view Obama as a weak commander in chief without much direction or heft to his foreign policy. The latest is a Pew Research Center survey, released shortly before Obama's errant statement Thursday, that showed 54 percent of Americans say he's "not tough enough" when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

TonyR
08-29-2014, 06:02 PM
It is very easy to take cheap pot-shots at Obama. We must recall the alternatives would have been tragically worse. Even within his own party, as Hillary Clinton’s recent comments to Jeffrey Goldberg make clear, breezy certitudes around play-pretend muscularity are meant to showcase greater foreign policy gravitas, but actually too often indicate precisely the opposite. Indeed, we should commend Obama his caution, his rationality, his use of scalpels rather than hammers. By this I mean that a period of American retrenchment was well needed—almost inevitable—after the gross excesses of the post 9/11 Bush years. But Obama’s tragedy is that he has not accompanied a period of American retrenchment, even decline, with strategic panache (for instance, Nixon and Kissinger’s opening to China on the heels of the disastrous Vietnam War). He does not seem seized of the possibilities his office affords.
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2014/08/what_tom_friedmans_interview_r.html

Guess Who
08-29-2014, 07:47 PM
Because these kids are saying Libya's no big deal, less than 3 years in, and with no end to the violence in sight.

Oh, I missed that part of the argument..... Please continue.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-29-2014, 10:45 PM
LABF, you would have more credibility if...

L0L!

Stopped reading right there.

If you think I'm the one with the credibility problem, then this only highlights how delusional you are.

The people on this board who have the credibility problem are the same people who spent eight years cheerleading for Bush and his catastrophic Iraq misadventure - not the people who warned against going into Iraq from the outset.

Can't believe you need to have this spelled out for you.

broncocalijohn
08-29-2014, 10:52 PM
L0L!

Stopped reading right there.

If you think I'm the one with the credibility problem, then this only highlights how delusional you are.

The people on this board who have the credibility problem are the same people who spent eight years cheerleading for Bush and his catastrophic Iraq misadventure - not the people who warned against going into Iraq from the outset.

Can't believe you need to have this spelled out for you.

Doesnt take away you losing credibility. Your credibility isnt based on what others do. It is what you say and do.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-29-2014, 11:01 PM
Doesnt take away you losing credibility. Your credibility isnt based on what others do. It is what you say and do.

So who is more credible on Bush's Iraq fiasco?

The people who warned from the get-go that the invasion would be a disaster, or the people who spent eight years defending it?

Once again, I can't believe I'm having to break this down for you.

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 08:10 AM
The US alone bombed over 100 targets. The Libyan government (our ally a month before) was driving the Muslim Brotherhood & associates out until the US decided to get involved.

I think you mean, before the UN got involved. Judging by the rest of the countries in the region no, they weren't going to chase out the MB. Maybe just replace it with something worse. And I have to chuckle about Gaddafi being our good pal. Tell it to the folks in Lockerbie (or to Reagan when he was bombing Libya - oops, that doesn't count). In fact, the only thing your post does is "Blame it on Obama" which is pretty much the only thing the Right can come up with anymore.

Now, the latest outrage is "He has no strategy on Syria!!!" Get outraged!!!! It's the weekly outrage fed to the Rightbots by their leaders. And of course, unable to think for themselves, they start barking right on cue. What is the strategy the Right has come up with? Last I heard, at least from McCain and Graham, it was arm the rebels and bomb the **** out of everybody (which is pretty much their answer to everything). Of course, the Right never has to come up with anything, do they? After all, their only goal is to attack Obama, so they just sit there on the sidelines, waiting for him to do something, so they can launch their next propaganda assault. LOOK WHAT HE DID!!!

Oh! And there's the TAN SUIT! Bark! Bark! Bark!

Interesting how Beavis was able to completely derail this thread, isn't it?

jhat01
08-30-2014, 08:56 AM
I think you mean, before the UN got involved. Judging by the rest of the countries in the region, including Egypt, no, they weren't going to chase out the MB. And I have to chuckle about Gaddafi being our good pal. Tell it to the folks in Lockerbie (or to Reagan when he was bombing Libya - oops, that doesn't count). In fact, the only thing your post does is "Blame it on Obama" which is pretty much the only thing the Right can come up with anymore.

Now, the latest outrage is "He has no strategy on Syria!!!" Get outraged!!!! It's the weekly outrage fed to the Rightbots by their leaders. And of course, unable to think for themselves, they start barking right on cue. What is the strategy the Right has come up with? Last I heard, at least from McCain and Graham, it was arm the rebels and bomb the **** out of everybody (which is pretty much their answer to everything). Of course, the Right never has to come up with anything, do they? After all, their only goal is to attack Obama, so they just sit there on the sidelines, waiting for him to do something, so they can launch their next propaganda assault. LOOK WHAT HE DID!!!

Oh! And there's the TAN SUIT! Bark! Bark! Bark!

Interesting how Beavis was able to completely derail this thread, isn't it?

That tan suit was pretty bad.

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 09:11 AM
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2014/08/what_tom_friedmans_interview_r.html

Excellent piece. I found this really telling:

But it is what comes next in the interview which I found most fascinating: Friedman asks Obama if a deal with Putin is still possible? Obama responds thusly: “a deal should be possible but one of the things I have discovered during the course of my Presidency is just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it actually happens.” O.K., fair enough, but mightn’t we ask why not? Might it sometimes be because Obama has a second (if not third)-tier foreign policy team, incapable of executing serious foreign policy beyond airy posturing a la Susan Rice, Samantha Power etc., or the hyper-kinetic travels of John Kerry that while impressive regarding ‘road warrior’ cred, often amount to disjointed, haphazard efforts devoid of follow-through, disciplined vision and finally, true strategic backdrop?

Still, Obama himself is a not unimpressive personage, clearly an intelligent man. Why could he not like prior Presidents who have effectively engaged with foes (see for instance Richard Nixon with the PRC or Ronald Reagan with the Soviets, putting aside whatever else we make of these two former Presidents) be more directly and personally engaged? As of today's writing, Angela Merkel has had 33 phone calls with Putin since the Crimea crisis. Obama? Just five. The point is not that myriad phone calls are a prerequisite to effective statesmanship, of course. But too often Obama appears a study in passivity when it comes to convincingly helping spear-head ambitious foreign policy initiatives, as if he’s tuned out some and has become a bit fatigued of the Presidency and the concomitant world stage it commands.

Here's what pisses me off: The whole country now knows that we have a less than great president. In fact, he's probably on the lower tier (certainly not as low as Bush who's at the absolute bottom, but in the vicinity of other "do-nothing" presidents like Coolidge, or others, like Taft, who simply couldn't rise to the greatness of the office) and he is obviously struggling. A lot of that, no doubt, has to do with half of his own country treating him like a punching bag for six years. So what does the Right do about it? They double down on their attacks.

As this writer points out, this president is out of gas. In my lifetime, I have never seen a president this much under assault, even from the days leading up to his first inauguration. Let us all remember, the leadership of the Right announced they would destroy his presidency even before he took office, and they have certainly done their best. The worst pressures a president should face should not come from his own countrymen.

But now, the country faces a dire situation. Putin is driving into the Ukraine. The ME is coming apart. A new form of Islamic madness is being born. The Right needs to step up. Their leadership needs to come to WH and say, "What can we do for our country?" not continue their relentless stupid attacks on such petty bull**** as the president's ****ing tan suit.

Yes, Obama should fire his entire foreign policy team. And the Right's leadership should step up and offer him some help to replace them. Time to stop sniping from the sidelines and get into the arena or, if you can't do that, then at least shut the **** up.

jhat01
08-30-2014, 09:24 AM
Excellent piece. I found this really telling:

But it is what comes next in the interview which I found most fascinating: Friedman asks Obama if a deal with Putin is still possible? Obama responds thusly: “a deal should be possible but one of the things I have discovered during the course of my Presidency is just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it actually happens.” O.K., fair enough, but mightn’t we ask why not? Might it sometimes be because Obama has a second (if not third)-tier foreign policy team, incapable of executing serious foreign policy beyond airy posturing a la Susan Rice, Samantha Power etc., or the hyper-kinetic travels of John Kerry that while impressive regarding ‘road warrior’ cred, often amount to disjointed, haphazard efforts devoid of follow-through, disciplined vision and finally, true strategic backdrop?

Still, Obama himself is a not unimpressive personage, clearly an intelligent man. Why could he not like prior Presidents who have effectively engaged with foes (see for instance Richard Nixon with the PRC or Ronald Reagan with the Soviets, putting aside whatever else we make of these two former Presidents) be more directly and personally engaged? As of today's writing, Angela Merkel has had 33 phone calls with Putin since the Crimea crisis. Obama? Just five. The point is not that myriad phone calls are a prerequisite to effective statesmanship, of course. But too often Obama appears a study in passivity when it comes to convincingly helping spear-head ambitious foreign policy initiatives, as if he’s tuned out some and has become a bit fatigued of the Presidency and the concomitant world stage it commands.

Here's what pisses me off: The whole country now knows that we have a less than great president. In fact, he's probably on the lower tier (certainly not as low as Bush who's at the absolute bottom, but in the vicinity of other "do-nothing" presidents like Coolidge, or others, like Taft, who simply couldn't rise to the greatness of the office) and he is obviously struggling. A lot of that, no doubt, has to do with half of his own country treating him like a punching bag for six years. So what does the Right do about it? They double down on their attacks.

As this writer points out, this president is out of gas. In my lifetime, I have never seen a president this much under assault, even from the days leading up to his first inauguration. Let us all remember, the leadership of the Right announced they would destroy his presidency even before he took office, and they have certainly done their best. The worst pressures a president should face should not come from his own countrymen.

But now, the country faces a dire situation. Putin is driving into the Ukraine. The ME is coming apart. A new form of Islamic madness is being born. The Right needs to step up. Their leadership needs to come to WH and say, "What can we do for our country?" not continue their relentless stupid attacks on such petty bull**** as the president's ****ing tan suit.

Yes, Obama should fire his entire foreign policy team. And the Right's leadership should step up and offer him some help to replace them. Time to stop sniping from the sidelines and get into the arena or, if you can't do that, then at least shut the **** up.

That's a thoughtful post, but what makes you think that Obama would entertain the idea of scuttling his foreign policy team? He's surrounded himself with like minded yes men (and women). He's as much to blame as the retards in congress regarding hatred on both sides. Sometimes you have to rise above the BS, his intelligence is only matched by his arrogance IMO.

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 09:38 AM
That's a thoughtful post, but what makes you think that Obama would entertain the idea of scuttling his foreign policy team? He's surrounded himself with like minded yes men (and women). He's as much to blame as the retards in congress regarding hatred on both sides. Sometimes you have to rise above the BS, his intelligence is only matched by his arrogance IMO.

Yep. Somebody will have to reach beyond the blame game. At this point, Obama has no reason whatsoever to expect anything but attacks to come from the Right. Is his aloofness caused by arrogance, or self-defense?

broncocalijohn
08-30-2014, 10:00 AM
So who is more credible on Bush's Iraq fiasco?

The people who warned from the get-go that the invasion would be a disaster, or the people who spent eight years defending it?

Once again, I can't believe I'm having to break this down for you.

Not sure why you jump to this. Your credibility is how you word your responses not your opinion on a subject. You go to the extreme to describe someone you dont agree with. Go to the post where I quote you. Instead of being a big baby and say you stopped reading right there, see what I am actually referring to before going on some tangent. I am not speaking about the Iraq War. Hell, I agree with the position it was nothing but a bad excuse to attack Iraq. I had that opinion before the war started (of course you will never remember this if I told you every single day since you label people by stereotypes). You are one of these people that can never admit when you are wrong. I know these people as my Dad is one of them. At least for him, he stays on subject. Everything i needed to know about that was confirmed when last week you posted nothing good has been. Done by a republican since Harding. Hell, the apologist for the Democrats aka Peacepipe can probably find a few things to post and he is probably a member of every left wing fringe group out there.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
08-30-2014, 10:24 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10628454_10152675599762464_7538120455239485702_n.p ng

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-30-2014, 10:24 AM
Your credibility is how you word your responses not your opinion on a subject..

???

This is a joke, right?

You're not really this thick?

If it's not a joke, then I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary and look up the meaning of "credibility."

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 12:40 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10628454_10152675599762464_7538120455239485702_n.p ng

I would think it is basic class that if you are going to attack someone for a lack of strategy, you would have one yourself. What is the Republican strategy? More Bushism?

cutthemdown
08-30-2014, 01:06 PM
So Obama doesn't have a strategy, and the dem strategy is still to blame Bush. Got it!

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 01:54 PM
So Obama doesn't have a strategy, and the dem strategy is still to blame Bush. Got it!

Your side obviously has all the geniuses. What's the plan?

TonyR
08-30-2014, 01:59 PM
What is the strategy the Right has come up with? Last I heard, at least from McCain and Graham, it was arm the rebels and bomb the **** out of everybody (which is pretty much their answer to everything).

This may be a bit random, but for anyone watching the excellent TV series The Bridge this made me think of Cerisola's coment to Galvan in last week's episode, “You can’t kill your way out of this.” Advice that we all know Galvan won't take.

DenverBrit
08-30-2014, 02:19 PM
Your side obviously has all the geniuses. What's the plan?

They've got nothing but a large case of chest beating.

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 02:46 PM
They've got nothing but a large case of chest beating.

GOP foreign policy, in a nutshell:

http://thumbs.newschoolers.com/index.php?src=http://www.war-stories.com/aspprotect/images/a_b52-bombs-away-01.gif&size=400x1000

DenverBrit
08-30-2014, 03:28 PM
:D

Ya hoo!!

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/278/e/b/riding_the_bomb_by_thylacinicorn-d4bwtjw.gif

El Guapo
08-30-2014, 06:12 PM
Welp, it's either us or them; preemptive strikes are preferred. Send in the military and let them do their job this time instead of hamstringing them.

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 06:18 PM
Welp, it's either us or them; preemptive strikes are preferred. Send in the military and let them do their job this time instead of hamstringing them.

This time? Yeah, sure. How many troops would you recommend?

cutthemdown
08-30-2014, 07:06 PM
This time? Yeah, sure. How many troops would you recommend?

ISIS only has about 15 thousand soldiers.

First you bomb all the oil infrastructure they have taken over in Syria and Iraq. That removes the money they make from selling oil.

Then let them stew with no money. Go after anything they do to make money. This will reduce the payments to soldiers and cripple moral. At the same time of course use massive drones and sorties to hit them anywhere you can. That would probably do it right there. The only troops should be Iraqi and Kurds backed up by maybe a couple thousand crack US special forces or rangers. You know just to make sure the battles go well.

With air support though I doubt ISIS could win one battle or engagement against even 1000 us troops.

cutthemdown
08-30-2014, 07:07 PM
This would be a great chance for Obama to get Iraq to agree to let us leave like 20 thousand right in the country. It would be a lot like how we are in S Korea. It keeps **** from happening.

TailgateNut
08-30-2014, 07:20 PM
but don't fund the war.....like your buddy Bush....let the next president deal with the bill.

cutthemdown
08-30-2014, 07:22 PM
Maybe we can pay for the war with all the oil we can steal.

Signed Dick Cheney.

W*GS
08-30-2014, 07:27 PM
Thank the gods cut is nowhere near any real influence.

Wadda ****ing insane dork.

cutthemdown
08-30-2014, 07:37 PM
Thank the gods cut is nowhere near any real influence.

Wadda ****ing insane dork.

So you think cutting off ISIS oil supply and money is not a good idea. You're right i'm crazy. No money = no fighters willing to make the trip.

cutthemdown
08-30-2014, 07:39 PM
You watch the plan will end up being cut off the oil money, bomb their infrastructure, use drones to dog them all over, and a few crack troops to help out.

The only thing that won't is a occupying forces agreement with Iraq but that is only because Obama is an idiot.

Rohirrim
08-31-2014, 07:27 AM
ISIS only has about 15 thousand soldiers.

First you bomb all the oil infrastructure they have taken over in Syria and Iraq. That removes the money they make from selling oil.

Then let them stew with no money. Go after anything they do to make money. This will reduce the payments to soldiers and cripple moral. At the same time of course use massive drones and sorties to hit them anywhere you can. That would probably do it right there. The only troops should be Iraqi and Kurds backed up by maybe a couple thousand crack US special forces or rangers. You know just to make sure the battles go well.

With air support though I doubt ISIS could win one battle or engagement against even 1000 us troops.

But gee, we occupied the area for ten years with thousands of troops. Where did ISIS come from? Oh, I get it. The minute Obama pulled out the troops, ISIS sprang up from out of the sand. So, if only we would leave thousands of American troops in the region for, what, fifty or sixty years, we'd have it made. But, what about the fact that many of our so-called allies, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait are helping to fund and supply ISIS? What should we do about that? And what about the fact that if we take out ISIS, we make Assad stronger, which of course means making Iran's hand in the region stronger as well? How would you solve that? With bombs?

Rohirrim
08-31-2014, 09:15 AM
“These groups come out of war,” Cockburn explained, speaking of ISIS and the militias it has absorbed and trained. “It’s very difficult to think that a group like the Islamic State would have emerged from anything but a ferocious, cruel war. And that’s the one thing it’s good at. It’s sort of a religious, military machine.” Frustration with state disinterest and the circumstances of life is its chief fuel. “This would have great appeal to Sunni young men who have grown up in poverty, without a job, without hope. Suddenly there is an organization they can join. And it’s Islamic, yes, but it’s victorious. And that has tremendous appeal,” he said.

It’s not just the thrill of victory that encourages impressionable young men to become soldiers for ISIS. The group is providing administrative services to families, the elderly, women and children where the Syrian and Iraqi governments do not.

“What is the benefit of supporting them?” Cockburn asked. “Well, these guys, they try to make sure there’s distribution of bread. And in a place like Raqqa that is the capital of [ISIS in] Syria, they have a consumer protection unit. Shops that charge too much, they close them down. They make sure electricity and water are running. From their point of view, people don’t have to love them or even like them. They think, ‘Well … they’re better than the other opposition who kind of behave like bandits, you know, make no effort to administer anything.’ ” The opposite is true in places where the Syrian government is functional; locals are grateful for the services it provides and are afraid of opposing official power. “It’s sort of a balance of fear,” Cockburn noted.

“The same thing is true in Iraq,” he said. “That’s kind of human life. In history, it’s often written that the people of this area supported one side against another. It was often the case that people didn’t support either side but they thought that one was a little bit less dangerous or less corrupt at that moment in time than the opposition. People are often caught in a vise between two alternatives, neither of which they would have chosen if they’d been given a choice.”
------------------------

“The war is not over and the battle lines will move back and forward,” he concludes in the book. “Many players inside and outside the country are involved and Iraq and Syria have a way of delivering unexpected events and nasty surprises.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdigger_of_the_week_patrick_cockburn_20140830

barryr
08-31-2014, 10:02 AM
Obama, like everything else, would rather not do anything since that requires tough decisions that he is responsible for and if they don't work, his fragile ego can't handle it. So better to do nothing but make speeches, which is all he's ever done, is most comfortable and pass it on to the Pentagon even though this threat was seen over a year ago, but wasn't deemed important to worry about. The world has gotten even more dangerous and it does so when America is deemed weak since who else is going to do anything? Germany? France? Russia and China don't care as long as it doesn't interfere with what they are doing. Now whoever the new president will be will be inheriting a mess that usually results from a democrat being in charge of foreign affairs. Doing nothing or pretending all is good despite reality has never been an effective strategy, but right now, it may be too late to do anything, much less get other countries on board when they see a weak kneed president who'd just rather go play golf and vacation.

Bronco Yoda
08-31-2014, 11:04 AM
You watch the plan will end up being cut off the oil money, bomb their infrastructure, use drones to dog them all over, and a few crack troops to help out.

The only thing that won't is a occupying forces agreement with Iraq but that is only because Obama is an idiot.

eh..... We'll end up sending a few occupying forces in the end. Someone will be needed to guard the infrastructure to be built. The infrastructure that we'll be building and paying for.... because we bombed the infrastructure. You know, the infrastructure we replaced a few years ago...

Rohirrim
08-31-2014, 11:04 AM
http://www.picgifs.com/reaction-gifs/reaction-gifs/thanks-obama/picgifs-thanks-obama-3840964.gif

ant1999e
08-31-2014, 11:06 AM
So you dems are ok with the president not having a strategy for ISIS and admitting it to the world?

Rohirrim
08-31-2014, 11:17 AM
So you dems are ok with the president not having a strategy for ISIS and admitting it to the world?

I think the point is, the **** is now incredibly complex and NOBODY has a strategy for ISIS. I notice old Kissinger was spouting about the failure of the world order the other day and he didn't come up with a strategy. I haven't heard, in fact, any of the great foreign policy mouthpieces come up with a strategy. I've heard all kinds of potshots at Obama, who I admit is extremely weak when it comes to foreign policy, but there's one thing I've got to hand him, he didn't go off like some half drunk cowboy (like Bush) and just start blundering all over the place. Sometimes, **** happens and maybe it's best not to do anything. At least we seem to be able to do some good and stop some of these ISIS massacres with air strikes. I've posted on this thread all sorts of historical info on where ISIS came from. This is not a new phenomena. It's not just "What does the U.S. do about this?" It's "What does the Western World do about it?"

The Europeans took apart the ME after the Ottoman Empire fell. Then, they slapped this artificial map together and the **** has been flying ever since. The discovery of massive deposits of oil (and the world's reliance on the new oil economy) complicated things exponentially. The Sunnis and Shiites have been at each other throats for hundreds of years. At least in Iraq, Saddam kept a lid on the feud. Now he's gone. What's the solution? Who the **** knows? A new crusade?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-31-2014, 11:18 AM
So you dems are ok with the president not having a strategy for ISIS and admitting it to the world?

Maybe he should consult with the idiots who got us into Iraq in the first place.

After all, your heroes' strategy turned out so well...

Rohirrim
08-31-2014, 11:19 AM
Maybe he should consult with the idiots who got us into Iraq in the first place.

After all, your heroes' strategy turned out so well...

They didn't really have a strategy. They had an ideology. When that came apart, they had squat.

kappys
08-31-2014, 11:41 AM
What a mess.

An effective strategy requires some definition of victory that directs it. At this point I don't think anyone even has a clue as to what "victory" would mean in the ME

DenverBrit
08-31-2014, 11:44 AM
So you dems are ok with the president not having a strategy for ISIS and admitting it to the world?


Is do nothing better than do something stupid?

US foreign policy of the last 15 years has been 'let's do something stupid' and so far, mission accomplished.

We need more 'intelligence' and less 'stupid.'

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-31-2014, 11:44 AM
^

Those who opposed Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq warned that the blowback would come back to haunt us, but Bush's cheerleaders were too busy shaking their pom poms and shouting down those anti-war "traitors" to listen.

Rohirrim
08-31-2014, 12:05 PM
Is do nothing better than do something stupid?

US foreign policy of the last 15 years has been 'let's do something stupid' and so far, mission accomplished.

We need more 'intelligence' and less 'stupid.'

I think we need to tear down the Reagan mythology of an all-powerful America whose might can solve every problem. Maybe if we could come to some rational understanding of the failure of that ethos, we could stop blowing so much of our wealth on something that simply is incapable of fixing our every problem, and then we could start becoming rational adults creating a rational world? In other words, we can't bomb our way out of this one. This is one big Gordian knot of religion, economics, culture and politics, not to mention fanatacism, revenge, envy, anger, greed and avarice. The ME has become the petri dish in which modern society can see cultured all of its various irrationalities.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-31-2014, 12:18 PM
Can't help but remember how Dumbya said "we might not see an end to this (so-called "war on terror") in our lifetime," or words to that effect.

You know the folks who made Bush president had to be salivating when Smirk made that statement.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
08-31-2014, 02:09 PM
<iframe width="620" height="349" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/o4klZylZy7s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Lone Bolt
08-31-2014, 02:54 PM
<iframe width="620" height="349" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/o4klZylZy7s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I also saw the Hannity interview and for once I support SH. This cleric clown didn't answer a single question put to him. Every time it was deflect, dodge, deflect, dodge, deflect, dodge...

BroncoBeavis
08-31-2014, 03:36 PM
Is do nothing better than do something stupid?

US foreign policy of the last 15 years has been 'let's do something stupid' and so far, mission accomplished.

We need more 'intelligence' and less 'stupid.'

One thing that baffles me is how we wanted to sow resistance in Syria but want to leave Ukrainian resistance to actual invasion dying on the vine.

Pretty clear at this point there is no smart in smart power.

Rohirrim
08-31-2014, 09:10 PM
I also saw the Hannity interview and for once I support SH. This cleric clown didn't answer a single question put to him. Every time it was deflect, dodge, deflect, dodge, deflect, dodge...

I don't see any journalistic value in putting the guy on. Who is he? What part does he play? What is his value to the situation? What is the value of his opinion? Sounds like Fox picked out a radical Islamic cleric just to keep the outrage going, which is pretty much their modus operandi, especially that publicity hack Hannity.

TonyR
08-31-2014, 09:35 PM
The world has gotten even more dangerous...

It’s pure hyperbole to say that “the world” is on fire right now. For the vast majority of nations, there is no armed conflict, nor is there an extraordinary degree of disorder or violence. If we keep foreign threats to U.S. interests in perspective, we will find that U.S. interests are mostly not imperiled, and the U.S. itself is as secure as it has been in decades. The current freakout about how dangerous the world has become depends almost entirely on exaggeration of threats by politicians, alarmist coverage by the media, and a failure to appreciate how much less dangerous overall the world is today compared to previous decades.http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-2014-isnt-and-shouldnt-be-a-foreign-policy-election/

cutthemdown
09-01-2014, 09:39 AM
I don't see any journalistic value in putting the guy on. Who is he? What part does he play? What is his value to the situation? What is the value of his opinion? Sounds like Fox picked out a radical Islamic cleric just to keep the outrage going, which is pretty much their modus operandi, especially that publicity hack Hannity.

He's their version of Al Sharpton.

Bronco Yoda
09-01-2014, 01:01 PM
He's their version of Al Sharpton.

Should have said a poor man's version of Al Sharpton. :wiggle:

Rohirrim
09-01-2014, 01:30 PM
He's their version of Al Sharpton.

Fox puts Al Sharpton on for the same reason. It ain't journalism, folks.

ludo21
09-02-2014, 02:06 PM
Another journalist beheaded. ugh

Rohirrim
09-02-2014, 02:29 PM
Truly horrific. His mother was on TV last week begging for his release.

ludo21
09-02-2014, 03:09 PM
Truly horrific. His mother was on TV last week begging for his release.

I saw that she posted a video to isis as well. I cannot bear to watch it.

The Lone Bolt
09-02-2014, 03:32 PM
I don't see any journalistic value in putting the guy on. Who is he? What part does he play? What is his value to the situation? What is the value of his opinion? Sounds like Fox picked out a radical Islamic cleric just to keep the outrage going, which is pretty much their modus operandi, especially that publicity hack Hannity.

Allegedly he was invited because he is a major influence on ISIS.

But that's another issue. In regards to the interview, he clearly was evasive and dishonest.

The Lone Bolt
09-02-2014, 04:30 PM
Another journalist beheaded. ugh

His executioner said it was a "message to America." Well we got a message for those ISIS creeps too. It'll be delivered via air mail.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-02-2014, 07:47 PM
For a year O was told about ISIS. Then 3 mouths ago he calls the the "JV" team. LOL great job O!

cutthemdown
09-02-2014, 08:57 PM
Fox puts Al Sharpton on for the same reason. It ain't journalism, folks.

In fairness though it's not just Fox. At least fox puts the issues on front page online. Ones like MSNBC and even CNN now will literally just ignore things negative to liberals and not report on them at all.

That is worst then how fox spins things at the end to show who they support.

cutthemdown
09-02-2014, 08:59 PM
Allegedly he was invited because he is a major influence on ISIS.

But that's another issue. In regards to the interview, he clearly was evasive and dishonest.

They should send a hellfire missile right up that guys ****ing front door.

Mecklomaniac
09-03-2014, 12:56 AM
American Jihadi killed in Syria had previously worked for Delta at the Minneapolis airport.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/26432205/exclusive-isis-fighter-worked-at-minneapolis-airport#.VAaGakWP1ZY.twitter

Johnykbr
09-03-2014, 06:50 AM
American Jihadi killed in Syria had previously worked for Delta at the Minneapolis airport.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/26432205/exclusive-isis-fighter-worked-at-minneapolis-airport#.VAaGakWP1ZY.twitter

It seems kind of crazy that the Somali population in Minnesota is so radicalized.

nyuk nyuk
09-03-2014, 01:58 PM
^

Those who opposed Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq warned that the blowback would come back to haunt us, but Bush's cheerleaders were too busy shaking their pom poms and shouting down those anti-war "traitors" to listen.

It's not blowback, it's Islam. We should have left Saddam alone, without question. Obama is taking Bush's **** ups and multiplying them in Libya, Syria, and Egypt.

Don't make the mistake of thinking there would be no Muslim violence against outsiders if it weren't for outside meddling. That is a common myth of the modern Left.

There was no "blowback" when Muslims invaded and occupied Spain for hundreds of years. They did it because they could. Invasion has been a huge part of Islamic expansionism going back the entire 1400 year history of the invasion.

The Crusades were most certainly "blowback" to Islamic expansionism, yet these clowns - with support from Western lefties and libtards - call the Crusades imperialist violence.

nyuk nyuk
09-03-2014, 01:59 PM
It seems kind of crazy that the Somali population in Minnesota is so radicalized.

Not really. Somalia is a violent toilet and al Qaeda nest. It makes perfect sense.

We should not be allowing Muslims to immigrate to Western countries. History shows why, and it's only backed up by current events.

That religion is not compatible with Western civilization.

elsid13
09-03-2014, 02:44 PM
Not really. Somalia is a violent toilet and al Qaeda nest. It makes perfect sense.

We should not be allowing Muslims to immigrate to Western countries. History shows why, and it's only backed up by current events.

That religion is not compatible with Western civilization.

That is one of stupidest post I have ever seen on the board. That like saying we should throw every white guy in jail because the KKK does bad things.

B-Large
09-03-2014, 04:43 PM
My stance, again, pull out, let the place be a sewer, isolate them. Work on domestic energy production, protect our allies when actually attacked.

Displacing the Shah; backing Bin a Laden against the Russians; displacing Saddam; displacing Assad...

See the pattern? Get the **** out, stay out.

cutthemdown
09-03-2014, 05:57 PM
I like how Elizabath Warren said she would wipe ISIS out. Maybe that bitch wouldn't be too bad.

Guess Who
09-03-2014, 09:47 PM
My stance, again, pull out, let the place be a sewer, isolate them. Work on domestic energy production, protect our allies when actually attacked.

Displacing the Shah; backing Bin a Laden against the Russians; displacing Saddam; displacing Assad...

See the pattern? Get the **** out, stay out.

I think the U.S. should just keep a semi-permenant air campaign going on hitting them when they move in convoys and wait until Syria, Iraq or the Kurds are strong enough to beat them back.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-03-2014, 10:15 PM
I like how Elizabath Warren said she would wipe ISIS out. Maybe that b**** wouldn't be too bad.

Has there ever been a trust worthy Dem/Lib ever?

Rohirrim
09-04-2014, 06:26 AM
Has there ever been a trust worthy Dem/Lib ever?

Nope. Only Republicans are trustworthy.

http://www.bluecheddar.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nixon.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-04-2014, 07:23 AM
Nope. Only Republicans are trustworthy.

http://www.bluecheddar.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nixon.jpg

Heh! Ha!

Tricky Dick forced to resign - and then the next rethug POTUS, Red Ink Ron, leaves office with the distinction of having the most convicted felons in his administration of any president in U.S. history. And we all remember the conga line of criminals that came and went during Dumbya's eight-year watch.

nyuk nyuk
09-04-2014, 10:41 AM
I like how Elizabath Warren said she would wipe ISIS out. Maybe that b**** wouldn't be too bad.

Indian on war path.

Bronco Yoda
09-04-2014, 12:44 PM
Did anyone watch the HBO documentary (I think it's still on) Nixon "In his own words". It's like holy shiat did he really just say that... and that... and THAT! It's one thing to read about some of the stuff he'd say, but when you actually hear it... it's really something else. Everyone should watch it.

BroncoBeavis
09-04-2014, 01:04 PM
Did anyone watch the HBO documentary (I think it's still on) Nixon "In his own words". It's like holy shiat did he really just say that... and that... and THAT! It's one thing to read about some of the stuff he'd say, but when you actually hear it... it's really something else. Everyone should watch it.

That dirty bastard really was one of a kind.

Johnykbr
09-04-2014, 01:50 PM
I think the U.S. should just keep a semi-permenant air campaign going on hitting them when they move in convoys and wait until Syria, Iraq or the Kurds are strong enough to beat them back.

Agree with this but better weapons need to be given to the Kurds as well. And maybe a couple thousand more "advisors" there. Not any front line fighters but just enough people to let the Peshmerga know that home is in good hands when they go off to fight those psychos.

Johnykbr
09-04-2014, 01:57 PM
That dirty bastard really was one of a kind.

You had two scum of the earth types back to back with LBJ and Nixon followed by two sincere guys that wanted what was best for the country. No surprise that the two scumbags had more accomplishments than the nice guys.

It takes a special breed...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-04-2014, 03:31 PM
You had two scum of the earth types back to back with LBJ and Nixon followed by two sincere guys that wanted what was best for the country. No surprise that the two scumbags had more accomplishments than the nice guys.

It takes a special breed...

Two sincere guys?

L0L.

Hate to break it to you, but Saint Ron was every bit as crooked as Nixon - and his economic policies were far more damaging in the long term.

Johnykbr
09-04-2014, 07:19 PM
Two sincere guys?

L0L.

Hate to break it to you, but Saint Ron was every bit as crooked as Nixon - and his economic policies were far more damaging in the long term.

Count the number of presidents that were in office between Nixon and Reagan genius.

GMAFB

ant1999e
09-04-2014, 07:29 PM
Count the number of presidents that were in office between Nixon and Reagan genius.

GMAFB

I'm surprised he didn't bring up Bush.

nyuk nyuk
09-04-2014, 09:32 PM
I'm surprised he didn't bring up Bush.

He should have since everyone knows that everything is Bush's fault.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-05-2014, 12:14 AM
Count the number of presidents that were in office between Nixon and Reagan genius.

GMAFB

Trouble is, Einstein, you didn't specify which presidents you were talking about.

Therefore, it's wasn't unreasonable to assume you were talking about the usual right-wing hero.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-05-2014, 12:16 AM
He should have since everyone knows that everything is Bush's fault.

Yeah, what was I thinking, Bubble Boy?

Everybody knows GeeDubya was the greatest president of all time.

:mullet2:

Johnykbr
09-05-2014, 10:16 AM
Trouble is, Einstein, you didn't specify which presidents you were talking about.

Therefore, it's wasn't unreasonable to assume you were talking about the usual right-wing hero.

"Followed by" usually means the next two. I guess I will need to use smaller words and more pictures next time.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-05-2014, 10:26 AM
"Followed by" usually means the next two.

No - not necessarily.

It could mean anyone who comes after the person in question.

Maybe you should skip the pictures and invest in a decent dictionary instead.

broncocalijohn
09-05-2014, 11:08 AM
No - not necessarily.

It could mean anyone who comes after the person in question.

Maybe you should skip the pictures and invest in a decent dictionary instead.

I think most people know that "followed by" would be immediately thereafter. "Broncos won two Super bowls and then followed by with an ARC Championship loss to the Steelers." I think all would question that statement with a six year gap.

manchambo
09-05-2014, 11:34 AM
Heh! Ha!

Tricky Dick forced to resign - and then the next rethug POTUS, Red Ink Ron, leaves office with the distinction of having the most convicted felons in his administration of any president in U.S. history. And we all remember the conga line of criminals that came and went during Dumbya's eight-year watch.

So many gems in there. I liked when he said Kennedy had a lot smart kikes working for him. Or innumerable other bits of wisdom about jews. Or when he agreed to give Ted Kennedy protection because he thought the press would blame him if he got shot, then decided he could use a secret service guy to spy on him and decided to use a guy who apparently said he would literally kill someone for Nixon.

bronco militia
09-05-2014, 12:47 PM
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ISIS.jpg

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-05-2014, 05:46 PM
<iframe width="620" height="349" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nbLEDNIe6n0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Geee for being the dumb guy, he sure is right a lot. LOL

peacepipe
09-05-2014, 06:01 PM
<iframe width="620" height="349" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nbLEDNIe6n0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Geee for being the dumb guy, he sure is right a lot. LOL

Translation: I sure as he'll hope the next president can fix this **** up because I sure as hell can't.

manchambo
09-05-2014, 06:03 PM
<iframe width="620" height="349" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nbLEDNIe6n0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Geee for being the dumb guy, he sure is right a lot. LOL

Well he wasn't right about the reason he started the war in the first place. And I think you believe he wasn't right about the schedule he recommended the troops actually be withdrawn, which was the one Obama withdrew them on (actually ten months later). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

He was right, of course, that after turning the place into an utter ****show, it might continue to be one, especially after troops were withdrawn. But should he really get that much credit for it?

cutthemdown
09-05-2014, 06:10 PM
The problems with Iraq and Saddam had been festering since the Kuwait invasion. Bush SR should have done what he had to do. Go to Bagdad kill Saddam and all his inner circle. Saddam would have gotten rich had he stayed in power. Too much oil their etc. Who knows what he would be up to now.

People are crazy if they think cleaning up Isis and propping up Iraq for another decade is worst then Saddam after 10-15 yrs of rebuilding military. Hell you think Syria is bad. Saddam right now would already have cozied up to the new Putin and be under Russian protection from the UN.

The whole region so much better off without him and his crazy sons.

Bush made the big mistake of disbanding the army. Right then it was over with. He should have used all the money right then to give Iraqi army a pay raise. Instead he had to give it to them as leaders of terror cells to not attack civilians and troops.