Since you are not American you would most definitely not know what a CHIEF does for his people. Being from generations of monarch. We had a voting system that was accomplished and survived peacefully 350 tribes only a few were pillagers.
Despite my hatred of Hillary, I see little hear other than a poor policy decision to try and get involved in the Middle East.
The dems are going to be made to understand that elections have consequences.
Oh so you mean 4th by expenditure.
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I see they range between 4th and 7th.
But spending alone does not make a powerful military.
So 100% for Obama, and 100% for Hillary, amirite?
The GOP is in a stronger place than it has been in perhaps over 100 years, and by the end of Obama's term people are going to be even more tired of the spin and blame than they are today. Beyond that history shows its exceedingly difficult to win 3 consecutive elections.
I expect the GOP primary to be lively, with lots of contenders because the winner will likely be potus. All of this, while Clintons true colors come out.
FDR was a democrat as well, and until his economic war, and other provocations, Japan was no threat to us either. I wonder who would pretend that democrats haven't deceived Americans into supporting wars of choice before.
Freedom of expression is what will keep the GOP out of the White House.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
I think it a wise man who knows when to withdraw from an impossible to defend position.
I think it a fool who tries to maintain and defend an indefensible position.
From what I recall, from all those years back, was that this Marine barracks was not a well defended installation, and could not reasonable be made so. Wise to withdraw in that case I would think.
The Public is not going to give the Republicans both Houses and the White House. Besides FoxNews will screw it up for the Republicans just like they did in the last two elections.
Of course you're going to defend Reagan on that, just like you've defended Bush's notion that Saddam Hussein could be removed, a puppet government installed, a military trained to defend themselves and leave a shinning example of democracy, right there in the middle of the ME, haha.....hahahaha.
Ok.. The country was still destabilized before the US even got involved...
No. I never said that Democrats arent war hawks. I simply said you look at just about every US intervention in the past 20 years and you will see Republicans love it.
:lamo
Nope. From my post you quoted: "I was against Obama bombing Libya in the first place. But this is a clear hack show. On one end you have Republicans to get involved in Ukraine, get involved in Syria, etc. but when it came to Libya (in which many in the GOP vocally supported) they are suddenly against it. What happened? Did the GOP randomly become the anti-hawk, anti-interventionist party? Or were they just the party that is against anything Obama does? I think this clearly shows the hypocrisy and the hack show this has become."
Not to derail the thread, but your non-sequitur on Japan is fiction and ignores Japan's creation of their Sphere of Influence.
Hilary had her hands tied!!!! Really can see the truth if you read what is not said in that article.
The weakness of this president's response also has a lot to do with making them look like winners. An average of seven airstrikes a day is not going to accomplish much--and this lack of seriousness by President Limpwrist makes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar even less willing to stick their necks out. They were only making a few pinprick air attacks here and there to begin with, and even then only against ISIS, and not the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria that they side with.
Jordan is only doing as much as it is the past few days because of the disclosure of the gruesome murder of its pilot. But its situation is too precarious to allow it to lead the charge for very long. A good part of Jordan's population sympathizes with the jihadists, and the influx of refugees has made it harder for King Abdullah to govern. Worse, thousands of Jordanians have gone into Syria to fight with the jihadists, and some of them are sure to return to operate inside Jordan.
The U.S. cannot lead this fight from behind, and this sorry excuse for a president is endangering our national security by trying. A half-hearted effort that lets these people continue to have a safe haven is asking for another attack on U.S. soil, possibly even worse than 9/11.
You mean to say that if I wasn't bitching about it at DP, I wasn't bitching about it! What an argument. As to Hillary, I would never have voted for her, and seriously hope she doesn't even run. I have said on numerous occasions here, no more Clintons and no more Bush's. If Americans put either of them back in the WH, I may have to reconsider the aim of my criticisms.
No, there's no 'of course' in there. I call them as I see them.
Trying to lay the blame solely on Bush for Iraq, ignoring all the votes and support in congress to proceed on that course, is only looking at the 1/2 of the ledger that supports your perspective. Not to worry though. That happens to everyone on occasion.
For Pete's sake! Do you actually pay attention to my posts that you quote? What makes you think that I would contribute to the installation of another Bush or Clinton in the WH?????
Wait a minute, which part of that didn't you like? That we might end our PD program, or that we didn't?
FDR was a democrat as well, and until his economic war, and other provocations, Japan was no threat to us either. I wonder who would pretend that democrats haven't deceived Americans into supporting wars of choice before.
You mean because American voters are predictable enough that every eight years they pass the WH to the opposite party?
Im saying theres no way to demonstrate your claims to the forum. All we can do is take you at your word.
Now do you think dems will vote for her despite the fact that she lied to get us into a war?
I see, so your arguing that SA can't take care of the Islamic State? I'll argue that they don't want to.
Yes, most likely Americans will pitch the WH back to the republicans. And eight years latter it will be pitched back to the democrats out of the same desperation. Only maybe will Americans realise that NEITHER party is delivering the goods and form a new, powerful third party and make the ass and the elephant set one out, OMG, how that would get their attention. But its a matter of whether or not Americans stop paying attention just long enough to look up and vote in November, or whether they actually begin to pay attention all along, and start putting America ahead of their party. But I have very small hope in that. If I had to bet America will continue to place a party in the WH only to become disgusted in the end and then put the other party back in, only to become disgusted in the end, and then................in reciprocating fashion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?