COLUMN: The Left Becomes Vicious Because POLITICS IS THEIR RELIGION

[eagle1462010]

Unless you haven't noticed we are at war with Radical Islam and ISIS is part of that fight..............That is where they are and thus that is where the fight is at..................And if it takes that scale then so be it.................better than allowing the beast to continue to grow.........and it is, as are the problem associated with it.............

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

And by 'hauling ass', you mean honoring our agreements that Bush made with the Iraqis?

Yet *another* land war in Asia is not what we need right now.

Standard propaganda from the Liberal Brigade.........The Party of excuses............the real deal is that Iraq didn't trust Obama and looked for different venues of support....aka Iran.............spreading their influence in the region.

The agreement wasn't set in stone...........could have been negotiated......but their was never an attempt..........Obama ran on getting out and RUN OUT HE DID................and the region collapsed........................

And how was the agreement not 'set in stone'? What you actually mean is that we should have ignored it and broken our word. Essentially occupying Iraq against the will of a democratically elected government that *we* claim to support. All to continue an eternal war that we didn't need to start, and per your logic was built on lies.

As you can't fight a war for democracy and freedom....while ignoring the very same democracy and freedom.

Um, no. Much like your new land war in Asia idea, that's an awful idea. As if the 4500 dead, 32,000 maimed or wounded, 1 million Iraqis dead and 1.7 trillion dollars the last time we tried it didn't tell us that already.

New agreements can be made including going around SOFA agreements.

 

[eagle1462010]

Unless you haven't noticed we are at war with Radical Islam and ISIS is part of that fight..............That is where they are and thus that is where the fight is at..................And if it takes that scale then so be it.................better than allowing the beast to continue to grow.........and it is, as are the problem associated with it.............

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

And by 'hauling ass', you mean honoring our agreements that Bush made with the Iraqis?

Yet *another* land war in Asia is not what we need right now.

Standard propaganda from the Liberal Brigade.........The Party of excuses............the real deal is that Iraq didn't trust Obama and looked for different venues of support....aka Iran.............spreading their influence in the region.

The agreement wasn't set in stone...........could have been negotiated......but their was never an attempt..........Obama ran on getting out and RUN OUT HE DID................and the region collapsed........................

And how was the agreement not 'set in stone'? What you actually mean is that we should have ignored it and broken our word. Essentially occupying Iraq against the will of a democratically elected government that *we* claim to support. All to continue an eternal war that we didn't need to start, and per your logic was built on lies.

As you can't fight a war for democracy and freedom....while ignoring the very same democracy and freedom.

Um, no. Much like your new land war in Asia idea, that's an awful idea. As if the 4500 dead, 32,000 maimed or wounded, 1 million Iraqis dead and 1.7 trillion dollars the last time we tried it didn't tell us that already.

BTW...........Most of the Iraqi casualties were from the Sunni versus the Shia Civil War there.............NOT direct Coalition attacks there.

 

[Skylar]

Repeat question.......Which has been repeated time and time again. Do you support the policy of Obama to overthrow Assad? Secondly, do you support the continued support of the Rebel groups who are dragging out the War?

Speak into the microphone Skylar.

Assad very likely used forbidden chemical weapons against his own people as well as torturing thousands. If the Geneva Conventions are to mean anything, he's got to go.

Though *when* he's got to go is debatable. I'd be willing to wait until after ISIS is taken care of.

Finally................He's got to go...................meaning so does his army of 150,000 troops there still fighting both the Rebels and ISIS............

The army can stay. He has to go.

Again, if the Geneva conventions are to mean anything, we have to enforce them. Supporting the leader that just used those weapons has historically not a great track record. As Reagan and Bush demonstrated whenn Saddam gassed his own people.

We're not engaging in a land war in Syria to take out Assad either. Do you ever have any solution that doesn't involve bombing people?

 

[bodecea]

The gator navy is amphibious ships for land invasions.

Just say what you want is another land war in the middle east rather than talking all around it.

I didn't talk around it............Damn your dumb.........I said boots on the ground and end the danged thing.........which means a ground war you IDIOT.............which part of that was I trying to suppress.........................NEVER DID DUMB ASS.

So you're calling for yet another land war in the middle east. And given your repeated reference to Desert Storm, it seems you want it on that scale.

Now why do you think yet another land war in the middle east could be....problematic? Is it the expense? Is it the loss of US military lives? Is it that the fringe conservatives go-to is *always* war?

Unless you haven't noticed we are at war with Radical Islam and ISIS is part of that fight..............That is where they are and thus that is where the fight is at..................And if it takes that scale then so be it.................better than allowing the beast to continue to grow.........and it is, as are the problem associated with it.............

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

You still refuse to engage on Assad and the policy of Syria under Obama...................Why are you BEING VAGUE ON THAT?

Why is it that your ONLY solution is more war?

 

[Skylar]

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

And by 'hauling ass', you mean honoring our agreements that Bush made with the Iraqis?

Yet *another* land war in Asia is not what we need right now.

Standard propaganda from the Liberal Brigade.........The Party of excuses............the real deal is that Iraq didn't trust Obama and looked for different venues of support....aka Iran.............spreading their influence in the region.

The agreement wasn't set in stone...........could have been negotiated......but their was never an attempt..........Obama ran on getting out and RUN OUT HE DID................and the region collapsed........................

And how was the agreement not 'set in stone'? What you actually mean is that we should have ignored it and broken our word. Essentially occupying Iraq against the will of a democratically elected government that *we* claim to support. All to continue an eternal war that we didn't need to start, and per your logic was built on lies.

As you can't fight a war for democracy and freedom....while ignoring the very same democracy and freedom.

Um, no. Much like your new land war in Asia idea, that's an awful idea. As if the 4500 dead, 32,000 maimed or wounded, 1 million Iraqis dead and 1.7 trillion dollars the last time we tried it didn't tell us that already.

New agreements can be made including going around SOFA agreements.

The Iraqis didn't want a new SOFA.

And by 'going around', mean ignoring it and occupying Iraq in violation of own word and agreement. All to continuing a war that had *already* become one of the longest in US history, cost us 4500 US military lives, 32,000 wounded or maimed, 1 million civilian causalities and 1.7 trillion dollars.

And you insist we should violate our own word, violate our own law, all to have *more* of the same?

Um, no. That's fantastically stupid. Your ideas so far are just awful.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's easy to understand why some folks try to make the feeble argument that political ideology can be conflated with faith. One cannot compromise faith. Politics, when practiced normally and honorably, is all about compromise. No one side should ever get their way all the rime. So, artful, statesmanlike compromise is sought.

But to extremists, politics cannot be compromised. They insist that their way is the only legitimate way to govern, regardless of the outcome. Extremists carry this mindset to every aspect of life. Much like faith,where compromise results in a refusal of God and their core beliefs, their minds are closed, welded shut to any notion of compromise.

How pathetic their lives must be.

 

[eagle1462010]

Repeat question.......Which has been repeated time and time again. Do you support the policy of Obama to overthrow Assad? Secondly, do you support the continued support of the Rebel groups who are dragging out the War?

Speak into the microphone Skylar.

Assad very likely used forbidden chemical weapons against his own people as well as torturing thousands. If the Geneva Conventions are to mean anything, he's got to go.

Though *when* he's got to go is debatable. I'd be willing to wait until after ISIS is taken care of.

Finally................He's got to go...................meaning so does his army of 150,000 troops there still fighting both the Rebels and ISIS............

The army can stay. He has to go.

Again, if the Geneva conventions are to mean anything, we have to enforce them. Supporting the leader that just used those weapons has historically not a great track record. As Reagan and Bush demonstrated whenn Saddam gassed his own people.

We're not engaging in a land war in Syria to take out Assad either. Do you ever have any solution that doesn't involve bombing people?

Tell that to Obama who has been bombing them for 18 months but refused to take out economic targets........Tell that to the French, the British, Jordan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others............who are bombing them...........

Oh........and Assad would just up and leave and his troops would go YIPPIE at that....................Your as dumb as Obama.

 

[Skylar]

Repeat question.......Which has been repeated time and time again. Do you support the policy of Obama to overthrow Assad? Secondly, do you support the continued support of the Rebel groups who are dragging out the War?

Speak into the microphone Skylar.

Assad very likely used forbidden chemical weapons against his own people as well as torturing thousands. If the Geneva Conventions are to mean anything, he's got to go.

Though *when* he's got to go is debatable. I'd be willing to wait until after ISIS is taken care of.

Finally................He's got to go...................meaning so does his army of 150,000 troops there still fighting both the Rebels and ISIS............

The army can stay. He has to go.

Again, if the Geneva conventions are to mean anything, we have to enforce them. Supporting the leader that just used those weapons has historically not a great track record. As Reagan and Bush demonstrated whenn Saddam gassed his own people.

We're not engaging in a land war in Syria to take out Assad either. Do you ever have any solution that doesn't involve bombing people?

Tell that to Obama who has been bombing them for 18 months but refused to take out economic targets........Tell that to the French, the British, Jordan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others............who are bombing them...........

Oh........and Assad would just up and leave and his troops would go YIPPIE at that....................Your as dumb as Obama.

That's not a land war in asia. That's not an invasion of Syria and Iraq that you're calling for.

Try again.

 

[eagle1462010]

I didn't talk around it............Damn your dumb.........I said boots on the ground and end the danged thing.........which means a ground war you IDIOT.............which part of that was I trying to suppress.........................NEVER DID DUMB ASS.

So you're calling for yet another land war in the middle east. And given your repeated reference to Desert Storm, it seems you want it on that scale.

Now why do you think yet another land war in the middle east could be....problematic? Is it the expense? Is it the loss of US military lives? Is it that the fringe conservatives go-to is *always* war?

Unless you haven't noticed we are at war with Radical Islam and ISIS is part of that fight..............That is where they are and thus that is where the fight is at..................And if it takes that scale then so be it.................better than allowing the beast to continue to grow.........and it is, as are the problem associated with it.............

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

You still refuse to engage on Assad and the policy of Syria under Obama...................Why are you BEING VAGUE ON THAT?

Why is it that your ONLY solution is more war?

You elected the current Idiot.....................therefore it is your fault as it is his that this was allowed to get to this point...................

He has allowed it to grow and now it requires more action to deal with his Stupidity....................

YOUR ILK OWNS THIS MESS...........CLEAN IT THE FUCK UP BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE pretty please.

 

[eagle1462010]

Repeat question.......Which has been repeated time and time again. Do you support the policy of Obama to overthrow Assad? Secondly, do you support the continued support of the Rebel groups who are dragging out the War?

Speak into the microphone Skylar.

Assad very likely used forbidden chemical weapons against his own people as well as torturing thousands. If the Geneva Conventions are to mean anything, he's got to go.

Though *when* he's got to go is debatable. I'd be willing to wait until after ISIS is taken care of.

Finally................He's got to go...................meaning so does his army of 150,000 troops there still fighting both the Rebels and ISIS............

The army can stay. He has to go.

Again, if the Geneva conventions are to mean anything, we have to enforce them. Supporting the leader that just used those weapons has historically not a great track record. As Reagan and Bush demonstrated whenn Saddam gassed his own people.

We're not engaging in a land war in Syria to take out Assad either. Do you ever have any solution that doesn't involve bombing people?

Tell that to Obama who has been bombing them for 18 months but refused to take out economic targets........Tell that to the French, the British, Jordan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others............who are bombing them...........

Oh........and Assad would just up and leave and his troops would go YIPPIE at that....................Your as dumb as Obama.

That's not a land war in asia. That's not an invasion of Syria and Iraq that you're calling for.

Try again.

LOL

How the hell did you come up with asia...................Try Again.

 

[Skylar]

It's easy to understand why some folks try to make the feeble argument that political ideology can be conflated with faith. One cannot compromise faith. Politics, when practiced normally and honorably, is all about compromise. No one side should ever get their way all the rime. So, artful, statesmanlike compromise is sought.

But to extremists, politics cannot be compromised. They insist that their way is the only legitimate way to govern, regardless of the outcome. Extremists carry this mindset to every aspect of life. Much like faith,where compromise results in a refusal of God and their core beliefs, their minds are closed, welded shut to any notion of compromise.

How pathetic their lives must be.

Even other conservatives have recognized that the unwillingness to comprimise is derived first and most strongly from republicans. Republicans have gone down a pretty religious sounding path politically. With their rhetoric being about 'purity' in abiding the 'conservative ideal'. With the RINOs not being 'pure enough'. Its the same argument that occurs in internal religious conflicts.

I'd go as far as to say that there's a strong neo-confederate vibe among republicans. Where they want the federal government to collapse, they want us to default on our debt, they want congress to be unable to act.

 

[Nosmo King]

So you're calling for yet another land war in the middle east. And given your repeated reference to Desert Storm, it seems you want it on that scale.

Now why do you think yet another land war in the middle east could be....problematic? Is it the expense? Is it the loss of US military lives? Is it that the fringe conservatives go-to is *always* war?

Unless you haven't noticed we are at war with Radical Islam and ISIS is part of that fight..............That is where they are and thus that is where the fight is at..................And if it takes that scale then so be it.................better than allowing the beast to continue to grow.........and it is, as are the problem associated with it.............

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

You still refuse to engage on Assad and the policy of Syria under Obama...................Why are you BEING VAGUE ON THAT?

Why is it that your ONLY solution is more war?

You elected the current Idiot.....................therefore it is your fault as it is his that this was allowed to get to this point...................

He has allowed it to grow and now it requires more action to deal with his Stupidity....................

YOUR ILK OWNS THIS MESS...........CLEAN IT THE FUCK UP BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE pretty please.

Could this post have been written in 2008? The logic and sentiments are too similar.

 

[Skylar]

Assad very likely used forbidden chemical weapons against his own people as well as torturing thousands. If the Geneva Conventions are to mean anything, he's got to go.

Though *when* he's got to go is debatable. I'd be willing to wait until after ISIS is taken care of.

Finally................He's got to go...................meaning so does his army of 150,000 troops there still fighting both the Rebels and ISIS............

The army can stay. He has to go.

Again, if the Geneva conventions are to mean anything, we have to enforce them. Supporting the leader that just used those weapons has historically not a great track record. As Reagan and Bush demonstrated whenn Saddam gassed his own people.

We're not engaging in a land war in Syria to take out Assad either. Do you ever have any solution that doesn't involve bombing people?

Tell that to Obama who has been bombing them for 18 months but refused to take out economic targets........Tell that to the French, the British, Jordan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others............who are bombing them...........

Oh........and Assad would just up and leave and his troops would go YIPPIE at that....................Your as dumb as Obama.

That's not a land war in asia. That's not an invasion of Syria and Iraq that you're calling for.

Try again.

LOL

How the hell did you come up with asia...................Try Again.

Because the middle east is in Asia. And its yet another land war you're calling for. One without apparent end once we start it if your demands regarding Iraq are any indication.

Eternal occupation, huh? No thanks.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's easy to understand why some folks try to make the feeble argument that political ideology can be conflated with faith. One cannot compromise faith. Politics, when practiced normally and honorably, is all about compromise. No one side should ever get their way all the rime. So, artful, statesmanlike compromise is sought.

But to extremists, politics cannot be compromised. They insist that their way is the only legitimate way to govern, regardless of the outcome. Extremists carry this mindset to every aspect of life. Much like faith,where compromise results in a refusal of God and their core beliefs, their minds are closed, welded shut to any notion of compromise.

How pathetic their lives must be.

Even other conservatives have recognized that the unwillingness to comprimise is derived first and most strongly from republicans. Republicans have gone down a pretty religious sounding path politically. With their rhetoric being about 'purity' in abiding the 'conservative ideal'. With the RINOs not being 'pure enough'. Its the same argument that occurs in internal religious conflicts.

I'd go as far as to say that there's a strong neo-confederate vibe among republicans. Where they want the federal government to collapse, they want us to default on our debt, they want congress to be unable to act.

It's a classic political purge. Power hungry extremists will eat their own and rid their party of the'unworthy' with a zeal that is frightening and deadly to their own cause.

 

[eagle1462010]

Unless you haven't noticed we are at war with Radical Islam and ISIS is part of that fight..............That is where they are and thus that is where the fight is at..................And if it takes that scale then so be it.................better than allowing the beast to continue to grow.........and it is, as are the problem associated with it.............

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

You still refuse to engage on Assad and the policy of Syria under Obama...................Why are you BEING VAGUE ON THAT?

Why is it that your ONLY solution is more war?

You elected the current Idiot.....................therefore it is your fault as it is his that this was allowed to get to this point...................

He has allowed it to grow and now it requires more action to deal with his Stupidity....................

YOUR ILK OWNS THIS MESS...........CLEAN IT THE FUCK UP BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE pretty please.

Could this post have been written in 2008? The logic and sentiments are too similar.

In 2006 the Dems said the War was LOST.
The Surge....and it worked and violence was going down............Northern Iraq was contained..................

Violence down.
Iraq more stable.

Obama took over.........

That is how he accepted it in 2008.

 

[eagle1462010]

Finally................He's got to go...................meaning so does his army of 150,000 troops there still fighting both the Rebels and ISIS............

The army can stay. He has to go.

Again, if the Geneva conventions are to mean anything, we have to enforce them. Supporting the leader that just used those weapons has historically not a great track record. As Reagan and Bush demonstrated whenn Saddam gassed his own people.

We're not engaging in a land war in Syria to take out Assad either. Do you ever have any solution that doesn't involve bombing people?

Tell that to Obama who has been bombing them for 18 months but refused to take out economic targets........Tell that to the French, the British, Jordan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others............who are bombing them...........

Oh........and Assad would just up and leave and his troops would go YIPPIE at that....................Your as dumb as Obama.

That's not a land war in asia. That's not an invasion of Syria and Iraq that you're calling for.

Try again.

LOL

How the hell did you come up with asia...................Try Again.

Because the middle east is in Asia. And its yet another land war you're calling for. One without apparent end once we start it if your demands regarding Iraq are any indication.

Eternal occupation, huh? No thanks.

Asia is a large continent..............so that means you put it in your quote to be deceitful.....................either way............Another LIBERAL CNC in the WH..........No thanks.......................This one has screwed it up bad enough............Perhaps he can go into another country like Libya and screw that one up too before he leaves.............It is what he's good at.

 

[Skylar]

With our *last* land invasion of the same general region resulting in ISIS, 4500 or our own dead and another 32,000 wounded. Many with missing limbs and crippling injuries. Plus another million or so Iraqi's dead. And came with a 1.7 trillion dollar price tag.

And your demand is that before allowing *any* Syrian Refugees into the country we need to have another land war in just about the same place.

No thank you.

Had Obama not hauled ass in Iraq and left a force of 23,000 and INTEL capabilities there to prevent the take over of Northern Iraq then perhaps ISIS wouldn't be in control of areas in Iraq Now........................Now play the song and dance BUT BUSH..............Obama didn't act until he had no choice due to humanitarian concerns in Northern Iraq as the Kurds were threatened there.........Yardis as well, who were being slaughtered there....................

You still refuse to engage on Assad and the policy of Syria under Obama...................Why are you BEING VAGUE ON THAT?

Why is it that your ONLY solution is more war?

You elected the current Idiot.....................therefore it is your fault as it is his that this was allowed to get to this point...................

He has allowed it to grow and now it requires more action to deal with his Stupidity....................

YOUR ILK OWNS THIS MESS...........CLEAN IT THE FUCK UP BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE pretty please.

Could this post have been written in 2008? The logic and sentiments are too similar.

In 2006 the Dems said the War was LOST.
The Surge....and it worked and violence was going down............Northern Iraq was contained..................

Violence down.
Iraq more stable.

Obama took over.........

That is how he accepted it in 2008.

With your 'solution' being eternal occupation of Iraq, never ending war, and discarding any SOFA that we don't like. Even if it violates our word, our own law, and the will of the very people we supposedly 'liberated'.

Either the Iraq war was about 'freedom and democracy' as your ilk insisted it was, or it wasn't. But you can't claim freedom and democracy......while occupying the territory in defiance of the will of the people that live there and their democratically elected government.

Which is exactly what you insisted we should have done.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

The army can stay. He has to go.

Again, if the Geneva conventions are to mean anything, we have to enforce them. Supporting the leader that just used those weapons has historically not a great track record. As Reagan and Bush demonstrated whenn Saddam gassed his own people.

We're not engaging in a land war in Syria to take out Assad either. Do you ever have any solution that doesn't involve bombing people?

Tell that to Obama who has been bombing them for 18 months but refused to take out economic targets........Tell that to the French, the British, Jordan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others............who are bombing them...........

Oh........and Assad would just up and leave and his troops would go YIPPIE at that....................Your as dumb as Obama.

That's not a land war in asia. That's not an invasion of Syria and Iraq that you're calling for.

Try again.

LOL

How the hell did you come up with asia...................Try Again.

Because the middle east is in Asia. And its yet another land war you're calling for. One without apparent end once we start it if your demands regarding Iraq are any indication.

Eternal occupation, huh? No thanks.

Asia is a large continent..............so that means you put it in your quote to be deceitful.....................either way............Another LIBERAL CNC in the WH..........No thanks.......................This one has screwed it up bad enough............Perhaps he can go into another country like Libya and screw that one up too before he leaves.............It is what he's good at.

And by 'deceitful', you mean wholly accurate?

 

[eagle1462010]

Tag off...........have other things to do today.................someone else deal with this ILK.

 

[Skylar]

Tag off...........have other things to do today.................someone else deal with this ILK.

Yeah, if I were stuck with your argument, I'd probably 'tap out' too. As eternal occupation of a nation that doesn't want us there, all while paying for the privilege with our blood and treasure is monumentally stupid.