- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
What unit did you serve in and which combat theater were you deployed.
It's what chickenhawks do.
This is a marathon, not a sprint. If you are looking for immediate effects, you won't find them.
I do slightly agree with you that we could be much more aggressive in containing this issue, but what can you do when the administration refuses to call the problem a problem.
I can see that there's no reason I can speak that will persuade you against sending in troops en masse. I however, still think that is a terrible idea.
Is it your understanding that all Muslims are "Islamists"? That's rather unfair.And here we come to the crux of the matter. This is about Islam for you, not about ISIL.
In fact I was asking you what your plan might be to solve the problem of Islamists. Do you have a solution?.I'm not interested in your fascist opinions about muslims and it'll never pass constitutional muster so forget it, you will never get your wish to discriminate against innocent people based solely on their religion alone.
In fact that might be an Islamists dream but it's certainly not mine.Your dreams of a fascist Canada will never be realized.
What unit did you serve in and which combat theater were you deployed.
It also comes down to a matter of clear policy. There is none.
First Iraq is over, out of the minds of Americans enough they think it is won, and there have been sufficient posts making that claim. First, Obama was tough on terror, "I killed bin Laden" and his "heroism" in sleeping while Seal Team Six waited.
Then we have an immediate and pressing threat to US National Security that Obama is running around balthering about "red lines", his new SS waxing eloquent about "teeny attacks" all of which simply faded from the headlines in America, but left some simmering still in the land where bullets and bandages were making fortunes...
Then we had not a "teensy attack" but a vaguely described bombing campaign amid alerting the enemy to specifics like "no boots on the ground" giving them sufficient time to dig in. Then we have a lackluster effort where the enemy owns the airwaves enabling them to recruit worldwide as a force that is standing up to the great satan and winning. At the same time, terrorism is spreading throughout the ME and Obama sends no message, allowing his handling of Benghazi to stand as a "success" in the minds of Americans and the terrorists who did it at the same time.
Now we have a commitment to go to congress and do......does anyone know?
This is a marathon, not a sprint. If you are looking for immediate effects, you won't find them.
I do slightly agree with you that we could be much more aggressive in containing this issue, but what can you do when the administration refuses to call the problem a problem.
I can see that there's no reason I can speak that will persuade you against sending in troops en masse. I however, still think that is a terrible idea.
Dubya's lies are well documented. Someone could write a book about them. Oh wait, they already have.
I did not say or even suggest they are close to getting nukes. I was just wondering if you had a point in mind where you thought ISIS was enough of a threat to justify US intervention with ground troops.
But who knows. Iran is very close to getting nukes. Pakistan has nukes. It's not hard to imagine ISIS at some point getting their hands on nukes(not developing them).
The similarity is that we have let what started out as a small problem grow into a much bigger threat. In Germany, Most of Europe was too timid to take on the Nazi issue early on and the US stood back and said let them handle it...it's in their own back yard. Today the same thing is happening in regards to ISIS. Most of the middle eastern nations are too cow towed to respond seriously. And the US is again saying: "Let's just contain them." The problem is not going away until ISIS is destroyed as a viable military or terrorist organization.
As ISIS continues to gain ground and slaughter innocents.
Even in a marathon, running is required.
A leader would go before the American people and make his case. This means Obama wont.
What unit did you serve in and which combat theater were you deployed.
Specifically name one such lie.
Should be easy for him to do, right?
ah....
Let's see....
Lincoln? Yeah, he kind of held the nation together in a "turbulent time" with speeches like at Gettysburg..
FDR? Seems he did these radio broadcasts...
And then, Jimmy Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis.......! I got the impression America was less than united at that time..
enter Reagan, the great communicator....
And who can ever forget the doltish fumbler George W. Bush in his address to a joint session of congress after 911.....As his approval numbers neared 90% or some crazy number I got the distinct impression he had made his case and congress and the nation were more than lukewarm about "chasing them if they run, killing them if hey hide" and "dead or alive" suggestions as a means of combating evil.
So in review, I'd say you're on to something here!
The only commitments Obama is concerned with are protecting Islam and his healthcare bill.
Thats what Americans want, its not what we have.
That's not my point Thrilla.
I'm saying that people are trying to justify intervening in Iraq... AGAIN on very flimsy ground.
There's alot of wrong in this world and it's not our job to put it all right.
It'd be very nice if we could... but we can't and the current strategy has contained the situation and ISIS is losing ground... why choose now to get involved and spend more blood and treasure trying to stop evil in a place that's rife with it.
Some of the militias the Iraqi government is using to push back against ISIS is committing atrocities themselves... so who do we support that doesn't commit evil.
I'm not the war monger.
Will the "she" you are talking about again regale us with stories about taking sniper fire in Bosnia? Or her daughter happening to be jogging around the world trade center towers when the jets hit them on 9/11/01? Or will she get mental health counseling?
You ruin your credibility calling veterans chickenhawks, having never served a single day in the service.
Thats what Americans want, its not what we have.
Easy as changing my bedpan.
Im sorry you need a bedpan.
Now you know my limit. They would have to be pretty darn close to getting their hands on something like that for huge troop interventions to be necessary.
Containment isn't fast or sexy, but it's the smart move here. I would rather have ISIS with territory and fixed locations that we can monitor and hit as necessary, than an ISIS that scatters to the wind only to set up shop somewhere else.
ISIS is going to slaughter innocents whether we are involved more or not. And ISIS is not gaining much territory these days, they've expended to the borders of countries and people willing to fight them. If we can contain them and enable the locals and neighboring countries to do just that, we will see this group defeated.
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?