- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
At this point it doesnt matter what he does. He will be critizised anyways.
In his possition I would send in troops. because if ISIS gets to the Jizidis there will be a genozide with thousands of slaughterd civilians.
One of the latest reports I read says that ISIS overun a town of Jizidis, where they slaughterd the entire population except for the 300-400 women, who they took as slaves.
ISIS simply must be stoped.
Agreed-this is the biggest threat to humanity since the USSR and Nazi Germany.
Why is it that all of these polls intentionally cast out those that do not lean in either direction? I'm not left-wing, and I'm not right-wing. A bit of an off-topic rant, but it annoys me. :2razz:
In regards to the topic at hand, no. He ran a whole political campaign against the very action he is now doing. The American people elected him as President with the understanding that he was going to do certain things, and he hasn't. He is continuing the Bush era foreign policy and frankly, as someone who actually did support Obama in 2008, I'm quite disgusted.
Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.
Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?
So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?
So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?
The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?
North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.
All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?
No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous and nothing more then Neocon-style nonsense.
And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...
even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East
'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'
Ronald Reagan was no hawk
Reagan was not perfect by any means, but in regards to the Middle East he hit the nail on the head. These people have been fighting since the beginning of time. Peace in the Middle East is actually a biblical sign of the end-times. Who, in their right mind, would suggest we get involved in centuries upon centuries of brutal conflict?
Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.
Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?
So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?
So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?
The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?
North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.
All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?
No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous.
And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...
even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East
'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'
Ronald Reagan was no hawk
Why is it that all of these polls intentionally cast out those that do not lean in either direction? I'm not left-wing, and I'm not right-wing. A bit of an off-topic rant, but it annoys me. :2razz:
In regards to the topic at hand, no. He ran a whole political campaign against the very action he is now doing. The American people elected him as President with the understanding that he was going to do certain things, and he hasn't. He is continuing the Bush era foreign policy and frankly, as someone who actually did support Obama in 2008, I'm quite disgusted.
Its not specifically ISIS thats the threat-its the threat from Islamists across the globe-and the impact they have on Western and other free nations. A 7th century ideology vs the modern wests ideology. The threats from this throwback to the dark ages on upcoming nations in Africa and Asia.
If anything, I'd modify my statement not just from Soviets, but communists in general.
you are a unique case and should understand me not needing to name every possible political ideology.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I refer you once again to Reagan;s statements from his memoirs that I posted above.
He realized that staying neutral was the best course of action...and he was right.
Why is it so hard to put "I am neither" as a choice?
If 9/11 or children being beheaded for being Christian Reagan would have been in there striking like the hand of god. Unlike the modern left, morality and doing what was right was not just something thrown around in election season.
I dont cater to the fringe for a general poll. If you dont lean right/left what exactly are you? Nevermind lets not distract from the thread-im done with this discussion.
You have no idea what he would do. Neither do I.
But his memoirs strongly suggest he would NOT have invaded Iraq.
Attack Afghanistan to get bin Laden...sure. But not get involved in a quagmire...especially after bin Laden was killed.
You disagree? I suggest you consult a Ouija board and ask him...because there is zero chance you are changing my mind.
Good day.
Right, because centrism is totally fringe. :roll:
You can put "I'm not an American" as an option on a primarily American occupied forum, but you can't add one more option for people who refuse to be categorized in an intentionally simplistic political chart? Libertarians, centrists, independents, and "others" happen to make up the majority of this forum. Most people don't identify completely with the left/right paradigm.
Even centrists lean. :roll:
And I thought you were saying you weren't centrist either
Heres your homework, lets see how "centrist" you are.
The whole point of centrism is that you don't lean.
The whole point of centrism is that you don't lean.
When did I say that? I'm definitely pretty centrist. I even straddle the fence on economics.
I took the quiz. I got "left-pragmatist" while trending very close to the center. I don't like that quiz though, I felt like alot of the questions were unnecessary and even one-sided at times.
Political Survey: Results
I think we should arm and train the Kurds and support them with airstrikes as we're doing. We spend money all around the world every year to help local governments fight terrorists using arms, training, and airstrikes, and the forces we help are often far more incompetent and corrupt then the Kurds. So why not help the Kurds in this way? The only reason that I can think of for why we'd help someone like the Nigerian government, but not the Kurds is the politics of American intervention in Iraq. Look, we might not be able to destroy Isis. The Shiites politicians might have damaged their cause beyond repair. The Gulf states might prefer jihadists to Iranian interests. The region may be screwed indefinitely. Yet, helping the Kurds is something simple we can do easily that gives the region a chance. After lavishing all that equipment on the Shiites only to see them abandon it and run, why not give some weapons to someone that actually wants to fight? And on top of that, we kind of owe the Kurds, and this might help prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.
These are the Kurds of Iraq-why help them but not the sunni's or shiites? Why are we being sectarian, if thats the issue?
We aren't talking about the invasion of Iraq (over and done with) we are talking about what to do NOW, in light of recent developments.
The war on terror was NEVER about getting one man-and to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan worse than when we got there, with a newly forming terrorist state simply boggles the mind.
We are there to destroy our enemies and plant fear in their hearts, and to let them no that there is no timeline for this-as long as they bring it-death will be the response. We got quite good at fighting low intensity counter insurgency operations since 9/11-we need to keep it up and as importantly SUPPORT OUR ALLIES, instead of leaving them to the terrorist wolves-these thugs hate EVERYONE including fellow muslims and other nations who have nothing to do with them-its a pandemic.
This is what we should do-expose them to large amounts of kinetic energy and send em back to allah in style.
With much of Iraq now besieged by an Al Qaeda splinter group called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Shibib is in no hurry to pick up his weapons again. To do so, he said, would be to defend a corrupt government that has cast aside or jailed his former fighters and systematically oppressed his fellow Sunnis.
“If ISIS were to show up here, I would step aside and point them in the direction of the Green Zone,” Shibib said, referring to the former U.S.-run enclave in central Baghdad that is now the seat of the Iraqi government. “If they have any quarrel, they can take it up with them.”
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?