- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,386
- Reaction score
- 49,410
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
ISIS is the new name for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until we deposed Saddam and attempted to democratize Iraq.
`
I could be anyone not associated with the left. Hard to tell. The articles I read don't specify.
Thought so.
Thought so.
Almost everyone, Democrat or Republican.......
When does anyone but the military do the fighting? And since when do they decide when to go to war?
You are right about one thing-lefty talk is quite cheap. Dont you have a UN resolution to push?
Oh please. I said the "right wing" because that's the way news gets reported. It didn't qualify it by stating "some", "many", "a few", one thousand, etc. What I did not say was "ALL" the right wing. Now, one of your libertarian friends here made this statement;
That qualifies the statement to mean over 75% (+/-) which is blatantly misleading as no proof was offered.
Get used to the fact that in using English in the vernacular, it is perfectly acceptable to be vague when the exact amount of anything, is unknown.
So you don't have an answer? Why should we keep fighting their wars for them? Bush spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi's and for what? The Saudi's have the largest army in the ME and ISIS is after them but you want to send our men instead. When will we learn?
So you don't have an answer? Why should we keep fighting their wars for them? Bush spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi's and for what? The Saudi's have the largest army in the ME and ISIS is after them but you want to send our men instead. When will we learn?
If I recall, even after the deposing of Saddam, Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't a factor. The main combatants against the coalition forces were the Baath party. ISIS came to rise only after the power vacuum when the Status of Forces agreement between the US and Iraq wasn't achieved and the retreat of the incompetent and politically appointed leaders of the Iraqi security forces.
Had the Status of Forces agreement been achieved, and US forces left in Iraq, likely that the Iraqi based ISIS wouldn't have taken as much land or forces as they ended up taking.
ISIS had its start in Syria, how would us staying in Iraq prevented that? We were told that Bush left a stable Iraq under Maliki are you saying he lied?
`I think it was fair to ask you to name a few members of the "right" that you are referring to. Surely you could do that easily since it was you that made the claim."Vague" is putting it mildly when discussing your claims.
`
Perhaps you should have asked me for proof instead as playing with semantics.
Must be really heroic for you to offer up other peoples sons and daughters in some pathetic attempt at showing off your Conservative Bravado.
Its our war too.
Obama appears to think so.
If I recall, even after the deposing of Saddam, Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't a factor. The main combatants against the coalition forces were the Baath party. ISIS came to rise only after the power vacuum when the Status of Forces agreement between the US and Iraq wasn't achieved and the retreat of the incompetent and politically appointed leaders of the Iraqi security forces.
Had the Status of Forces agreement been achieved, and US forces left in Iraq, likely that the Iraqi based ISIS wouldn't have taken as much land or forces as they ended up taking.
And Al Qaeda in Iraq's predecessor was Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which was formed in 1999.
If I remember correctly, Clinton was president then.
And we weren't attacked by Iraq when Clinton was POTUS. Of course we weren't attacked or even provoked by Iraq when Bush was POTUS either, yet he decided to go to war against Iraq.
If Bush didn't attack Iraq a dozen years ago, do you think we would have any business in Iraq today?
Ah I forget when it was the current stock of Republicans set the terms for Obama's war.
It was Obama who said "no boots on the ground". So instead of making this about Republicans again, let's maybe focus on the guy who has the power and has been sending Americans to their death for seven years....
And that would be your Barrack Hussein Obama, the same man who allowed the assassination of a sitting US diplomat to pass without ado of any kind and the stupid **** who has admitted he knew ISIS was on the rise BEFORE he decided to get those political pawns hew calls troops home for his re-coronation.
As much as you hate to admit it, Republicans are better at war than Democrats.....at least they know when to hold and when to fold. Obama cashes in then has to ante up all over again...
His only strategy is blame Republicans and get his info on terrorism "just like you do" from TV.
Yeah, seven years later this is still a Republican mess and Obama is, as usual faultless because of his skin color.
ISIS had its start in Syria, how would us staying in Iraq prevented that? We were told that Bush left a stable Iraq under Maliki are you saying he lied?
Democrats appear fine with letting it get much larger.
So you don't have an answer? Why should we keep fighting their wars for them? Bush spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi's and for what? The Saudi's have the largest army in the ME and ISIS is after them but you want to send our men instead. When will we learn?
I am not eager-I recognize that evil will not be appeased and it will make it worse to do so.
You fight until the war is won, not until liberals cry thats uncle.
You got one thing right. Republicans are better at getting us into endless wars that make our country less safe.
`
Perhaps you should have asked me for proof instead as playing with semantics.
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?