- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 28,824
- Reaction score
- 20,497
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Ah.....I see, so really no expertise and just a wide paint brush. Okay.....I'm cool with it.
Moderator's Warning: |
You need a wide paint brush when dealing with runaway conservative views. It's like turning on the light in a basement. The roaches scurry quickly and must be dealt with over a large area.
I would think that conservatives would be in favor of these air strikes. After all didn't they complain when Obama brought the troops home, saying that we should continue to fight. Now that he is fighting, you bitch that we are engaged. I guess you are upset that American troops aren't used to invade.
How many soldiers must die to satisfy your right-wing lust for war?
How small was this small prescence and how did it compare with what the military recommended?Obama WAS keeping a small presence in Iraq to keep the peace but it exploded anyway.
No, he was not. In fact Obama acted against the advice of the Bush Administration.Dubya's doctrine was to support a corrupt government under Maliki which made ISIS possible, I may dislike Obama but he was strictly following Dubya's policy on this.
False again. When Obama pulled the ttroops from Iraq he said the country was 'stable' and Biden called it their 'greatest achievement'.So Dubya is as much to blame for getting the US into this mess as Obama has.
You have no idea what might have happened.If Saddam Hussein had stayed in power this wouldnt have happened.
Bush introduced democracy to Iraq and the country was 'stable'. Even Obama admitted that. The problems began when Obama, against all advice, pulled the troops.All Dubya did was replace a brutal dictator who tortured his own people with a group of sadistic terrorists who are exporting their war internationally- Bush Jr. has done more to help terrorists than any previous president and Obama is just as bad.
So you think we should have just sat on the sidelines letting a cancer fester?
On this issue at hand, rather than the partisan bickering going on in this thread, I wish the US and its allies in this endeavour great success, particularly for the good people in the various countries who are having their lives and livelihoods destroyed, as witnessed by the 130,000 or so who have fled across the Syrian/Turkey border the past few days seeking safe haven from IS.
I saw a picture in the newspaper over the weekend of a young Syrian boy at the funeral of his father and it would break your heart to see the anguish and pain on that poor young soul's face. This world is truly messed up.
Mornin CJ. :2wave: Hopefully we hurt them enough to stop them from moving on the Kurds. But its going to be their move next. Sunday they came out and threatened to go after US and French Civilians. That Sunday.....their Supporters in Algeria took a French Citizen. In direct response to what ISIS had put out.
Then they came out and told their Supporters to go after US Military. To find their homes and kill them there. I put them up in the Concerning ISIS thread in Military.
Being somewhat conservative myself, I have no cockroaches in my basement. Just sayin'.
Good morning MMC - that's similar to the video that's been making the rounds here that included Canadians in the IS threat to simply kill any citizen of the coalition in any manner possible. It's a fear tactic, plain and simple - and an act of desperation, for the most part.
Bush/Cheney policy = Chaos in the Region.
A simple equation even conservatives can understand, if they think real hard.
Here's something to can listen to very hard, and watch very hard. Obama in 2011: ‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’
Watch Joe Biden Call Iraq "One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" | The Daily Caller
They end up worse when wars are fought politically rather than militarily.Well given our record for intervention...yes. Things seem to end up worse when we involve ourselves.
It is quite disturbing how eager many in this thread are to put their countries sons and daughters into harms way to score cheap political points against Obama.
Maybe we do need to put boots on the ground, i don't know, i'd prefer and wait to see how the regional allies push back in conjunction with American air power.
Virtually nobody wants to go back into Iraq again, a very vocal minority are calling for this for politics, nothing more.
And especially when the enemy is goading you into committing troops, that's a sign you might want to step back.
And screw the consequences? SOFA agreements are just paperwork and there are over 80 of them ongoing today. It was a weak excuse for Obama in order to place the blame elsewhere when he left Iraq exposed.When Iraq denied our troops amnesty, thus forcing them to abide by their barbaric and archaic laws and punishments, I would have pulled them out too.
Screw Iraq.
They end up worse when wars are fought politically rather than militarily.
"Say What"....Did you get all confused? Was it real hard to figure out I was responding to another's post and the what he had brought up? Now that must be real hard for you to figure out while sitting there and reading.....huh? Damn and here I thought you Socialists could read. :roll:
Obama was not stupid to say that because it was true. Iraq was stable and a democracy was in place. Where Obama was stupid was not following the advice of the military and previous administration in thinking Iraq would stay that way once the troops had left. Biden was stupid by trying to claim credit for a stable Iraq.And they were stupid to say that, just as it's stupid for conservatives to say that bush left behind a peaceful Iraq, he didn't, nobody did and nobody will until a whole lotta bodies have been piled on.
They will only do good if there is a do-over, gaining back what had previously been won, but this time having troops remain in place, just as has been done in South Korea and other military bases throughout the world.The question is how many American, Canadian, British and Australian bodies do we really want as part of that pile, since they won't do any good.
Sure we will. The world is not a nice place and the middle east is all screwed up with shifting alliances depending on the time of day. I think if you want ISIS to be defeated, Assad has to be a major player. I think we must decide which one we want defeated and which one we want left standing. I would choose Assad, no comparison between the two. In my mind you can't do away with both and if one could, what becomes of Syria, who ends up ruling that nation? Will Syria become another Libya, total chaos and turmoil and a breeding ground for terrorism? Will it become an Islamic Republic with a goal of exporting their religion and killing all who will not convert? IS there really moderate secular Islamist that can be trusted in the Rebels that are trying to overthrow Assad?
The questions keep coming.
Cheap political points? By pulling the troops from a stable Iraq thousands more lives will be lost, billions more spent, and you are concerned about Barrack Obama getting some criticism for this decision??It is quite disturbing how eager many in this thread are to put their countries sons and daughters into harms way to score cheap political points against Obama.
Here's something to can listen to very hard, and watch very hard. Obama in 2011: ‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’
Watch Joe Biden Call Iraq "One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" | The Daily Caller
It only takes the mention of Obama to set off patho-conservatives and their rants about Benghazi. You posted a whole bloody page of rightwing talking points. Conservatives and their obsessions.
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?