Azalin Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Not to mention, yesterday, she justified her comments by saying George W. and Colin Powell took the same approach. Who knew that Barack Obama has the exact same FP as W. I know - I haven't seen backtracking like that since Michael Jackson moonwalked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Opposing them without any actual opposition is dumb? How do you oppose them then? I'd love to hear about your "fourth path". Can you please provide a detailed history of modern, expansive, aggressive, militarist organizations are put down without use of military force? Here's an example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/12/21/covert-action-in-colombia/ Are you saying we need troops on the ground to fight this group? I think American troops will just creat more terrorist It wasn't just Bush's war though. I listened to a montage of clips yesterday of Pelosi, Hillary, Harry Reid and Biden, all the liberal(socialist) icons not only endorsing the war on Iraq, but also saying that there were definitely WMD's. And if Bush and your liberal pals created more terrorists,your current leftist wet dream Barry is arming them. Funny world isn't it? You should feel betrayed. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/17/isis-war-cia-arming-rebels-syria http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Bush was the commander and chef that led us to war. It was Bush's war I know - I haven't seen backtracking like that since Michael Jackson moonwalked. Thanks for chatting with LA, you two idiots should play with each other more and stop pestering non-retarded posters Why won't it be easy to point out why he's different from his brother? Many brothers are different. My brother is only 2 years older than me and we are extremely different. My views on many things political are a 180 from my brother and father (keeping the Bush clan scenario). But yeah we know you have a hard time understanding that people can actually think for themselves. Now explain how they are the same. You brought it up, back up your claim. Come on boy, you can do it. You are right, they will probably be different.Jen will probably stick to Obama's pragmatic approach and not make the same mistakes as his brother. But Hillary will still love it if Jeb has to squirm through that debate *Jeb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Thanks for chatting with LA, you two idiots should play with each other more and stop pestering non-retarded posters One of these days, you'll have a reply with at least a modicum of substance, if still lacking in intellect. Until that time, if you're going to attempt drive-by insults, consider coming up with a good one for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 One of these days, you'll have a reply with at least a modicum of substance, if still lacking in intellect. Until that time, if you're going to attempt drive-by insults, consider coming up with a good one for a change. Here's a ball, go chase the ball, that's a good dolt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Bush was the commander and chef that led us to war. It was Bush's war Great googly moogly. So in conclusion: when Bush was commander in chief, he was responsible for everything no matter who sided with him, but when Obama is commander in chief, everything he does is Bush's fault. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Here's an example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/12/21/covert-action-in-colombia/ Are you saying we need troops on the ground to fight this group? I think American troops will just creat more terrorist That's not a very good example. You're comparing a small separatist group of marxist-agrarians, with an expansive worldwide caliphate which has already conquered massive parts of both Iraq and Syria as well as parts of Libya, recruits globally, and has been successful in spreading associated insurgency cells across the globe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 You are right, they will probably be different.Jen will probably stick to Obama's pragmatic approach and not make the same mistakes as his brother. But Hillary will still love it if Jeb has to squirm through that debate *Jeb No I imagine the only one squirming will be Hillary if she's dumb enough to bring it up and Jeb says "what does my brother have to do with this?" She'll have just as hard a time explaining why it was brought up as you've had here. And yes the only two Foreign Affairs approaches are the ones we've seen by the past two Presidents. You live in a tiny world don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 That's not a very good example. You're comparing a small separatist group of marxist-agrarians, with an expansive worldwide caliphate which has already conquered massive parts of both Iraq and Syria as well as parts of Libya, recruits globally, and has been successful in spreading associated insurgency cells across the globe? Ok, and describing what you just did, how in the world will a conventional army solve that problem? The example I show is a good one of taking out key leaders and disrupting organization, logistics and structure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Great googly moogly. So in conclusion: when Bush was commander in chief, he was responsible for everything no matter who sided with him, but when Obama is commander in chief, everything he does is Bush's fault. Got it. No, no, no. He was Commander in Chef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 No I imagine the only one squirming will be Hillary if she's dumb enough to bring it up and Jeb says "what does my brother have to do with this?" She'll have just as hard a time explaining why it was brought up as you've had here. And yes the only two Foreign Affairs approaches are the ones we've seen by the past two Presidents. You live in a tiny world don't you. Oh come, most voters will want to know. If you are stupid enough to think the American public won't be thinking the same thing you are even more addle minded than I thought No, W's record won't be brought up if Jeb runs for president. Wow! That's stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Oh come, most voters will want to know. If you are stupid enough to think the American public won't be thinking the same thing you are even more addle minded than I thought No, W's record won't be brought up if Jeb runs for president. Wow! That's stupid! You're right because politicians never say whatever they want people to hear to get elected. I've never watched a debate and really don't read or listen to the reports after. See have a brain and do my own research and am not spoon-fed information. Will Bill's record be brought up if Hillary runs? Should it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Will Bill's record be brought up if Hillary runs? Should it? I would assume yes it will. By both sides. But when you compare Bush W. vs. Bill Clinton, who do you think most people will choose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Will Bill's record be brought up if Hillary runs? Should it? They may, but honestly, Hillary's own track record as SoS is so bad, there's not need to bring up Bill unless we need someone to fill in for Creepy Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I would assume yes it will. By both sides. But when you compare Bush W. vs. Bill Clinton, who do you think most people will choose? So the next election will be based on Bill Clinton v. George Bush. You my friend are an idiot. Tom's not be around lately so I figured I'd throw that out there on his behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Ok, and describing what you just did, how in the world will a conventional army solve that problem? The example I show is a good one of taking out key leaders and disrupting organization, logistics and structure Because ISIS is a conquering army more than a terrorist organization at this point. They hold massive swaths of territory; and their leadership, short of the Caliph, is fluid, and has been since the group's infancy in 1999. Taking out the leadership piecemeal accomplishes nothing. It disrupts nothing. This group is standing along the edge of initiating a predicatable genocide, and have already begun those steps. They have taken great pains to strip all lands they have conquered of their historic, cultural, and religious roots; stripping those who capitulate of their past, and killing those who will not. A conventional modern war will solve the problem by taking back the conquered lands, and restoring them to governments tolerable to our existence, and grateful for our assitance in doing so, lest they be run off into the sea themselves, as the preliminary goal of ISIS is the retaking and "purifying" of what they consider to be Islamic lands, forging an army they seek to use to conquer the rest of the world. The only way to defeat a movment like ISIS is to crush it with force. Edited February 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 So the next election will be based on Bill Clinton v. George Bush. You my friend are an idiot. Tom's not be around lately so I figured I'd throw that out there on his behalf. Oh great, now you are a simple Tom Troll. Most elections are based, in part, on the past. You don't even listen to the debates or read about them, or much else, I take it, so you wouldn't know. Because ISIS is a conquering army more than a terrorist organization at this point. They hold massive swaths of territory; and their leadership, short of the Caliph, is fluid, and has been since the group's infancy in 1999. Taking out the leadership piecemeal accomplishes nothing. It disrupts nothing. This group is standing along the edge of initiating a predicatable genocide, and have already begun those steps. They have taken great pains to strip all lands they have conquered of their historic, cultural, and religious roots; stripping those who capitulate of their past, and killing those who will not. A conventional modern war will solve the problem by taking back the conquered lands, and restoring them to governments tolerable to our existence, and grateful for our assitence in doing so, lest they be run off into the sea themselves, as the preliminary goal of ISIS is the retaking and "purifying" of what they consider to be Islamic lands, forging an army they seek to use to conquer the rest of the world. The only way to defeat a movment like ISIS is to crush it with force. They are barley holding on in Libya Some conquering army! Who's to supply this global conquerer with weapons and material? And what will an army do but sit there and be target practice for wanna be jihadists? So you are calling for a Big Government solution to this>? You are calling for the army to be sent again into the Middle East? Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Here's a ball, go chase the ball, that's a good dolt! Come on, at least say something funny. If you can't even do that, then you're officially worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 They are barley holding on in Libya Because Egypt began limited air strikes two days ago? Also, you'll have to speak to Chef Jim about the best uses for barley. This is from CNN, printed yesterday: "ISIS is under pressure in parts of Iraq and battling a variety of adversaries in Syria, but it's metastasizing at warp speed elsewhere, most dangerously in Egypt and Libya... ...the atrocity took place in Sirte, a long way from ISIS' first stronghold around Derna in the east of the country. ISIS' presence in Sirte, a town of 50,000, has been growing." Looks like they're doing just fine in Libya, and also making strides in other countries in Northern Africa. Some conquering army! Indeed. Who's to supply this global conquerer with weapons and material? Many bad actors, not to mention everything that's been left behind in the wake of failed states in the area. And what will an army do but sit there and be target practice for wanna be jihadists? That largely depends on the specified rules of engagement. So you are calling for a Big Government solution to this>? Acts of war are one of the few things that governments do well. Further, military action, called into play with a proper declarartion of war, is one of the few legitimate roles of limited government. You are calling for the army to be sent again into the Middle East? Correct? I haven't called for anything, though despite my general tendancy towards non-intervention as a general policy, there are some occurances which dictate deviating from that stance. I believe the situation in the Middle East, East Asia, and Northern Africa is rapidly deteriorating into a situation where we must act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Most elections are based, in part, on the past. You don't even listen to the debates or read about them, or much else, I take it, so you wouldn't know. No elections are based on the future you dolt. It's what they are going to do, not so much what they've done. It's trying to figure out which candidate is going to actually follow through on what they say they're going and therein lies the rub. They all lie right. Didn't a wise dumbass here say that once. Because Egypt began limited air strikes two days ago? Also, you'll have to speak to Chef Jim about the best uses for barley. Oxtail soup with barley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You know what's funny? Back in 2002, when gator was still in his diapers sucking on whatever was put in his mouth, we had debates about the merits of invading Iraq. One theory espoused by a respected member, with deep knowledge and insight, was that it was a preemptive strike to stem the drive by the Islamists to establish a caliphate in the Gulf. Ergo, the invasion of Iraq wasn't as much about Iraq, as it was to establish a beachhead against the coming Islamist movement. At the time, the theory was a bit outlandish, especially with the talk dominated by UN sanctions and WMDs, because no one thought that a nation of gators could see past the next TV season, let alone ten years down the line. But when you look at it through the eyes of strategic thinkers who o look far in advance, and saw the tide of Arabic youth who were growing less tolerant of the ruling castes and which organizations were reaching them, it wasn't hard to imagine how this bad scenario would play itself out. So to say that it's the US invasion that started the Islamist wave is the predictable reaction of ignorant linear thinkers. All this insight from a poster who wasn't afraid to stick his neck out. Too bad his ghost can't return to smack the morons who are still stuck in the fetal position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts