Chef Jim Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Oh, c'mon now. Everyone knows Tom isn't a douche bag. No, he's not a conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 No, he's not a conservative. And he's not a he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 What say you, is it time to aggressively go after these ISIS schits? Is it better to annihilate them over there before they accomplish setting up their caliphate? Will Obama have the balls to do anything other than a half measure? http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2014/09/03/islamic-terrorists-strike-again-does-obama-have-a-strategy-yet/?subscriber=1 This group is on a killing spree, and its victims are Christians and anyone who will not follow their teachings. And they are focused on America. The Independent reports on statements made by House and Senate leaders who are urging Obama to act. The leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees ... shared a dire warning against Isis, which now has control of vast swathes of Syria and Iraq, has killed civilians from that region and beheaded American journalist James Foley. "This is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the upper house intelligence panel. "And they'll kill with abandon." In a separate TV interview, Mike Rogers, leader of the House Intelligence Committee warned that leaders of Isis are looking for a spectacular attack that would help them raise money and recruit more fighters. "Isis would like to have a Western-style attack to continue this notion that they are the leading jihadist group in the world," said Republican Mr Rogers. This is what happens when we turn a blind eye to the most serious threat facing the world today. Obama can disengage all he wants. He can be PC and not call it Islamic terrorism when it is. He can turn a blind eye. But it doesn't matter. They DO have an ideology, and they will keep coming after us. So, Mr. Obama... do you have a strategy yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 What say you, is it time to aggressively go after these ISIS schits? Is it better to annihilate them over there before they accomplish setting up their caliphate? Will Obama have the balls to do anything other than a half measure? http://www.gopusa.co...t/?subscriber=1 This group is on a killing spree, and its victims are Christians and anyone who will not follow their teachings. And they are focused on America. The Independent reports on statements made by House and Senate leaders who are urging Obama to act. The leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees ... shared a dire warning against Isis, which now has control of vast swathes of Syria and Iraq, has killed civilians from that region and beheaded American journalist James Foley. "This is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the upper house intelligence panel. "And they'll kill with abandon." In a separate TV interview, Mike Rogers, leader of the House Intelligence Committee warned that leaders of Isis are looking for a spectacular attack that would help them raise money and recruit more fighters. "Isis would like to have a Western-style attack to continue this notion that they are the leading jihadist group in the world," said Republican Mr Rogers. This is what happens when we turn a blind eye to the most serious threat facing the world today. Obama can disengage all he wants. He can be PC and not call it Islamic terrorism when it is. He can turn a blind eye. But it doesn't matter. They DO have an ideology, and they will keep coming after us. So, Mr. Obama... do you have a strategy yet? We're watching a commander in chief who is not prepared for that job, nor does he want that job. This is nothing more than a giant distraction from his passion for government provided social and economic justice for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Nice quote by Cameron “To confront the threat of Islamist extremism, we need a tough, intelligent, patient and comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source. We must use all the resources at our disposal, our aid, our diplomacy and our military.” I wonder when they are going after Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the CIA. McCain too yucking it up w/ ISIS ..... ISIS TERRORISTS POST A SELFIE WITH JOHN MCCAIN http://www.blacklist.../38/38/Y/M.html Edited September 3, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nothing says “leadership” like pre-emptively passing the buck: Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller Follow On @CNN, WH Deputy NSA Tony Blinken says "it will probably go beyond this Administration to get to the point of defeat" of ISIL. 6:19 PM - 3 Sep 2014 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Legit ISIS questions to the foreign policy enthusiasts out there: Where does Russia play into this scenario considering their continued support and armament of Assad and (to a lesser degree) Iran? Is it at all possible a mutual enemy could be the remedy to improving relations between the US and Russia, or is it more likely that Russia will continue to push their own agenda regardless of what transpires in the middle east? What happens if it's Russia, and not the US that moved on ISIS (direct military intervention that is)? Wouldn't that force the US to act as well for fear of losing regional influence to Moscow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Legit ISIS questions to the foreign policy enthusiasts out there: Where does Russia play into this scenario considering their continued support and armament of Assad and (to a lesser degree) Iran? Is it at all possible a mutual enemy could be the remedy to improving relations between the US and Russia, or is it more likely that Russia will continue to push their own agenda regardless of what transpires in the middle east? What happens if it's Russia, and not the US that moved on ISIS (direct military intervention that is)? Wouldn't that force the US to act as well for fear of losing regional influence to Moscow? Vlad rues the fall of his old empire and is doing everything he can to restore it. A lot of ills in Mideast are remnants of the Cold War, and he only knows one playbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) Vlad rues the fall of his old empire and is doing everything he can to restore it. A lot of ills in Mideast are remnants of the Cold War, and he only knows one playbook. I agree with that overall assessment which is why the ISIS situation is perhaps a target of opportunity for Russia. They have as much to gain as we do with stopping ISIS, their allies are just as aligned against them as ours. Due to the lack of a coherent western response to the crisis, couldn't Russia do what we seem unwilling to do? They don't have the same capabilities militarily as we do, but they are more than capable of repeating what happened in '79 (not in scope) when they marched into Afghanistan only this time they'd be seen as coming to the rescue and could, in theory, win more friends in the region and overtake our influence there? If his long term plans are to diminish western influence, especially in regions so close territorially to the motherland, wouldn't the middle east and it's resources be a key piece of the final puzzle? I'm completely speculating for the sake of discussion, it's just not a scenario I've heard mentioned much. Edited September 4, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I agree with that overall assessment which is why the ISIS situation is perhaps a target of opportunity for Russia. They have as much to gain as we do with stopping ISIS, their allies are just as aligned against them as ours. Due to the lack of a coherent western response to the crisis, couldn't Russia do what we seem unwilling to do? They don't have the same capabilities militarily as we do, but they are more than capable of repeating what happened in '79 (not in scope) when they marched into Afghanistan only this time they'd be seen as coming to the rescue and could, in theory, win more friends in the region and overtake our influence there? If his long term plans are to diminish western influence, especially in regions so close territorially to the motherland, wouldn't the middle east and it's resources be a key piece of the final puzzle? I'm completely speculating for the sake of discussion, it's just not a scenario I've heard mentioned much. That entire scenario seems plausible and a way for Putin to stick it to us. He could either go it alone and increase his sphere of influence. Or Russia could in theory lead with Obama hopping on the train at the caboose. Which would be embarrassing and undermine our Ukraine objections. I really dont see a "lose" scenario for Russia in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 That entire scenario seems plausible and a way for Putin to stick it to us. He could either go it alone and increase his sphere of influence. Or Russia could in theory lead with Obama hopping on the train at the caboose. Which would be embarrassing and undermine our Ukraine objections. I really dont see a "lose" scenario for Russia in that. My opinion: There is a lot of crap in play here and Greggy's questions are on the surface level which is fine, but not complete. There are a lot of moving parts involved and it will not be simple or inexpensive for Russia, the US or even a coalition of the two to stem the ISIS tide much less reverse it. There is a lot of blame to go around here including conservatives and liberals in the US and many other countries. I think if Russia is looking to outmaneuver the US or vice versa it will probably be too costly to have a return on the investment. Actions have reactions. To me the question is: How long does the world wait? I worry that it will be too long and or even that it has already been too long. I don't really know if these worries are well founded. I don't claim to know the answers and when I ask the Googlebot the lights flash and the bells ring and I end up having to reboot him. That doesn't happen a lot. I do know this: For the President of the United States to state as a goal that he wants to get ISIS to the point where they are "manageable" may be one of the stupidest utterances in history. Thinking it is bad enough. Saying it makes him look weaker than if he had laid down and curled up in a ball. As far as I know, Putin has been silent on the matter. Although I don't know the right answer, I know silence at least leaves the enemy wondering. Telling the world that you want to gradually get to the point where you make your enemy manageable probably leaves them laughing and excited. Sometimes I have wondered if intelligence reports that Obama has have led him to some good decisions that we'll never know about. Same goes for all presidents. I'm not naive enough to think that the reported news is all that goes into an equation. I do know that PUBLICLY stating you want to make your enemy MANAGEABLE after two of your citizens were just BEHEADED IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is a BAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDD way to go. P.S. Have you ever noticed that the Prez calls them ISIL when everyone else calls them ISIS? There is a political reason for this that I saw somewhere and to me this is not the time to worry about symantecs and naming conventions to gain political advantage or diminish political disadvantage. The fact that they seemed so intent on this is also worrisome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Congratulations to our President. He's clearly lobbying for a post-presidential job in management. He wants to manage ISIL and help it grow and achieve its goals of peacefully creating a nirvana on earth for beheaders and goat !@#$ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I agree with that overall assessment which is why the ISIS situation is perhaps a target of opportunity for Russia. They have as much to gain as we do with stopping ISIS, their allies are just as aligned against them as ours. Due to the lack of a coherent western response to the crisis, couldn't Russia do what we seem unwilling to do? They don't have the same capabilities militarily as we do, but they are more than capable of repeating what happened in '79 (not in scope) when they marched into Afghanistan only this time they'd be seen as coming to the rescue and could, in theory, win more friends in the region and overtake our influence there? If his long term plans are to diminish western influence, especially in regions so close territorially to the motherland, wouldn't the middle east and it's resources be a key piece of the final puzzle? I'm completely speculating for the sake of discussion, it's just not a scenario I've heard mentioned much. It's a possibility, but they're stretched as it is in the near abroad. They may send some "advisors" but I don't think they have the capacity to take ISIS on head to head. But good to see UAE finally getting religion of cobbling up a local force to confront ISIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Congratulations to our President. He's clearly lobbying for a post-presidential job in management. He wants to manage ISIL and help it grow and achieve its goals of peacefully creating a nirvana on earth for beheaders and goat !@#$ers. This isn't even partisan any more. You have to be a knob-gobbler of the highest order to see this man in action and not be concerned about his lack of even the most rudimentary leadership and management skills. How does a US President stand in front of people and say he has no strategy to fight people beheading Americans, then follow up with a speech that simultaneously says his plan is first to destroy them, then try and stop them and THEN to maybe just turn them in a "manageable problem?" Impossible to imagine, but I'd actually prefer Biden running things at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Interesting stuff, thanks for all that, gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The solution to ISIS is easy, estrogen in their water supply- they're not afraid of death but lactating man-boobs will scare the hell out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The solution to ISIS is easy, estrogen in their water supply- they're not afraid of death but lactating man-boobs will scare the hell out of them. Simpler solution. Just send you over shirtless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The solution to ISIS is easy, estrogen in their water supply- they're not afraid of death but lactating man-boobs will scare the hell out of them. I'm sure Bob can provide a link to a study that shows pot cures extremism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Google hashish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The solution to ISIS is easy, estrogen in their water supply- they're not afraid of death but lactating man-boobs will scare the hell out of them. Another idea is to take over their airwaves and give them nothing but 24-hour Michael Sam coverage in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts