COLUMN: The Left Becomes Vicious Because POLITICS IS THEIR RELIGION

[eagle1462010]

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Your an Obama drone............9000 targets hit in 18 months. In the Gulf War we hit 48000 targets in 6 weeks.

This is clearly not on the scale of the Gulf War. As you can probably tell by the lack of preparations for a land invasion.

Taking out ISIS in Syria only lacks the resolve to do so........and that would mean ground troops.......but it would end the problem and it could have been over a long time ago...............Obama ignores the military on these issues, and many are retiring early because they can't stomach serving under Obama anymore. Or they are retired off the record for privately disagreeing with the one.

And by resolve....you mean yet another war in the middle east?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by 'accurate' and 'complete' vetting is. I suspect I nailed it perfectly with my description of absolute, perfect and imaginary standards.

We have forces in the region and they can be deployed.........ISIS max strength has been estimated at 50k to the best sources........

What 'forces' specifically? You're getting really, really vague for a reason.

Proper vetting...........sure isn't put them in a camp for a year and go DONE...............like your side is saying.............You refuse to engage on holding them in place.........and refuse to ditch Obama's policy on removing Assad............and refuse to accept boots on the ground to end the damned problem..................

And what is 'proper' vetting? Like 'accurate vetting' and 'complete vetting', is this a term you will refuse to explain as well?

Once again, you get vague. Why?

I'd have to go to Centcom, but operational deployment including the Gator Navy is in the region always.........Airborne can be mobilized in days.................but that isn't the policy............Perhaps the 3000 advisors in Iraq are in the area...............

Anyway, it doesn't matter.....the forces could be mobilized quickly.........it's what the military does and is very good at............My last ship was Gator Navy.......we kept 5000 Marines in the group deployed to the region..........I'd wager one is there along with another on the way for relief as we speak.............

Again, stop dodging............why not hold them there in the region..........................

 

[Skylar]

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Your an Obama drone............9000 targets hit in 18 months. In the Gulf War we hit 48000 targets in 6 weeks.

This is clearly not on the scale of the Gulf War. As you can probably tell by the lack of preparations for a land invasion.

Taking out ISIS in Syria only lacks the resolve to do so........and that would mean ground troops.......but it would end the problem and it could have been over a long time ago...............Obama ignores the military on these issues, and many are retiring early because they can't stomach serving under Obama anymore. Or they are retired off the record for privately disagreeing with the one.

And by resolve....you mean yet another war in the middle east?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by 'accurate' and 'complete' vetting is. I suspect I nailed it perfectly with my description of absolute, perfect and imaginary standards.

We have forces in the region and they can be deployed.........ISIS max strength has been estimated at 50k to the best sources........

What 'forces' specifically? You're getting really, really vague for a reason.

Proper vetting...........sure isn't put them in a camp for a year and go DONE...............like your side is saying.............You refuse to engage on holding them in place.........and refuse to ditch Obama's policy on removing Assad............and refuse to accept boots on the ground to end the damned problem..................

And what is 'proper' vetting? Like 'accurate vetting' and 'complete vetting', is this a term you will refuse to explain as well?

Once again, you get vague. Why?

I'd have to go to Centcom, but operational deployment including the Gator Navy is in the region always.........Airborne can be mobilized in days.................but that isn't the policy............Perhaps the 3000 advisors in Iraq are in the area...............

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.

 

[Stephanie]

2aguy posted this:

Exactly, set up refugee camps in the middle east. They won't have to travel far, they are used to the area, and when it is time to go home they can get there faster......we can help pay for it, and it actually makes sense....

But...democrats won't let any possible vote go to waste, so they want these people to travel across the ocean, away from their homes so they can vote in democrat precincts in 2016.........

It's either that last part or they want to use them to create chaos in our lives along with their backed and funded OWS, BLMS, etc. they have been shipping in people that we don't even know how many it is. and it's not just Muslims, Honduras, was in on it and who know from where else Obama made some agreement with them. How else are all these minors getting to our boarders from Honduras? how are these Muslims able to get all these boats with life jackets supplied to go invade all these other countries, ours included. think about that.

and Here's the real kicker. it's being done and they are paying for it with OUR tax dollars. we are paying to have our own throats cut by these snake/Traitors in our own government. I don't see a any good ending FOR US out of all of this. but you cant' get that through the bleeding heart uppity snob liberals who see's themselves as saints. they will be part of the reason for our downfall. I know that's harsh but that's how I see it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ben Carson: 'There is currently no ability to vet' Syrian refugees

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, many have suggested that, given the lack of proper screening, accepting Syrian refugees would be akin to inviting in the enemy.

"There is currently no ability to vet these people. By letting refugees into our country without vetting we are putting America at risk," Republican candidate Ben Carson wrote in an official statement posted on Facebook on Nov. 16.

Is Carson right that we don’t vet the refugees? Well, it’s more that we can’t, Carson spokesperson Doug Watts told us.

"There is no foolproof and effective way of vetting these people," Watts said. "That’s his opinion, shared by millions of others, and confirmed by thousands of felonies occurring at the hands of both legal and illegal immigrants."

But Carson said we don’t vet refugees, and that isn’t correct. Carson has a point that the system isn’t foolproof, but the ability to screen refugees does exist.

How we vet refugees

Let’s begin with an overview of the refugee admissions process, which has been in place since 1980 and was retooled after 9/11.

continue reading......

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Kerry just shot off his mouth as one of the accomplishments of 2015 was peace in Syria, no need to bring refugees if there is peace there, right? Kerry is a god damn fool

 

[eagle1462010]

Your an Obama drone............9000 targets hit in 18 months. In the Gulf War we hit 48000 targets in 6 weeks.

This is clearly not on the scale of the Gulf War. As you can probably tell by the lack of preparations for a land invasion.

Taking out ISIS in Syria only lacks the resolve to do so........and that would mean ground troops.......but it would end the problem and it could have been over a long time ago...............Obama ignores the military on these issues, and many are retiring early because they can't stomach serving under Obama anymore. Or they are retired off the record for privately disagreeing with the one.

And by resolve....you mean yet another war in the middle east?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by 'accurate' and 'complete' vetting is. I suspect I nailed it perfectly with my description of absolute, perfect and imaginary standards.

We have forces in the region and they can be deployed.........ISIS max strength has been estimated at 50k to the best sources........

What 'forces' specifically? You're getting really, really vague for a reason.

Proper vetting...........sure isn't put them in a camp for a year and go DONE...............like your side is saying.............You refuse to engage on holding them in place.........and refuse to ditch Obama's policy on removing Assad............and refuse to accept boots on the ground to end the damned problem..................

And what is 'proper' vetting? Like 'accurate vetting' and 'complete vetting', is this a term you will refuse to explain as well?

Once again, you get vague. Why?

I'd have to go to Centcom, but operational deployment including the Gator Navy is in the region always.........Airborne can be mobilized in days.................but that isn't the policy............Perhaps the 3000 advisors in Iraq are in the area...............

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.

That would end it..........but not if we keep to the tune of Assad must go..................then the refugee camps would be in their own danged country............

but OUR CURRENT POLICY doesn't make this happen.............We are funding rebel groups.......taking our sweet time killing ISIS to hope ASSAD FALLS...................................dragging it out.......

As you refuse to engage in the bumblers policy there.

 

[Skylar]

This is clearly not on the scale of the Gulf War. As you can probably tell by the lack of preparations for a land invasion.

And by resolve....you mean yet another war in the middle east?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by 'accurate' and 'complete' vetting is. I suspect I nailed it perfectly with my description of absolute, perfect and imaginary standards.

We have forces in the region and they can be deployed.........ISIS max strength has been estimated at 50k to the best sources........

What 'forces' specifically? You're getting really, really vague for a reason.

Proper vetting...........sure isn't put them in a camp for a year and go DONE...............like your side is saying.............You refuse to engage on holding them in place.........and refuse to ditch Obama's policy on removing Assad............and refuse to accept boots on the ground to end the damned problem..................

And what is 'proper' vetting? Like 'accurate vetting' and 'complete vetting', is this a term you will refuse to explain as well?

Once again, you get vague. Why?

I'd have to go to Centcom, but operational deployment including the Gator Navy is in the region always.........Airborne can be mobilized in days.................but that isn't the policy............Perhaps the 3000 advisors in Iraq are in the area...............

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?

 

[eagle1462010]

We have forces in the region and they can be deployed.........ISIS max strength has been estimated at 50k to the best sources........

What 'forces' specifically? You're getting really, really vague for a reason.

Proper vetting...........sure isn't put them in a camp for a year and go DONE...............like your side is saying.............You refuse to engage on holding them in place.........and refuse to ditch Obama's policy on removing Assad............and refuse to accept boots on the ground to end the damned problem..................

And what is 'proper' vetting? Like 'accurate vetting' and 'complete vetting', is this a term you will refuse to explain as well?

Once again, you get vague. Why?

I'd have to go to Centcom, but operational deployment including the Gator Navy is in the region always.........Airborne can be mobilized in days.................but that isn't the policy............Perhaps the 3000 advisors in Iraq are in the area...............

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.............

Kill there asses, and hand it back over to Syria...............then let Russia deal with their proxy. OR end the KILL ASSAD POLICY and stop supporting the Rebels to overthrow that Gov't.........................and let them and their 150000 troops take the place with air support......................but that isn't our policy now is it...............................again you refuse to ditch Obama's weak assed foreign policy.

 

[Stephanie]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner. and again the only thing he did is prove the article right about liberals and their politics. it's a sad damn life in my book

I'm proud to be part of our ilk and not their ilk.

well now since it you put that way, I am too.

 

[Skylar]

What 'forces' specifically? You're getting really, really vague for a reason.


And what is 'proper' vetting? Like 'accurate vetting' and 'complete vetting', is this a term you will refuse to explain as well?

Once again, you get vague. Why?

I'd have to go to Centcom, but operational deployment including the Gator Navy is in the region always.........Airborne can be mobilized in days.................but that isn't the policy............Perhaps the 3000 advisors in Iraq are in the area...............

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.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'd have to go to Centcom, but operational deployment including the Gator Navy is in the region always.........Airborne can be mobilized in days.................but that isn't the policy............Perhaps the 3000 advisors in Iraq are in the area...............

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?

 

[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.

 

[Militants]

IS lose in Iraq and Syria. Maybe to Iraqi Kurdistan...only maybe...

 

[Skylar]

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....................

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.

 

[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.

 

[Stephanie]

Kerry just shot off his mouth as one of the accomplishments of 2015 was peace in Syria, no need to bring refugees if there is peace there, right? Kerry is a god damn fool

there was not one person, I think that was qualified for any of these positions they were appointed to by Obama. Even Hillary wasn't qualified to be a SOS. All this was, was him scratching the backs of all of his cronies from the Democrat party and even quite a few large money donors received positions, Ambassadors, if they donated enough money to the PARTY. it's been like how we haven't had another 9/11 under this bunch of nobodies running our government. I guess we still have plenty of time left under this Regimes reign of terror over us. and now they want more gun control over US not worrying over the terrorist.

 

[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....................

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........................

On the bright side they finally retook Ramadi................paid for in blood by our men including my nephew who got hit there.............He sat back and DID NOTHING until Northern Iraq fell.....................instead of shoring it back up to not allow the place to be taken.........an insult to our troops who died there............and a STATUE OF STUPIDITY in his name for it.............

His LEGACY is MIDDLE EAST DISASTER.............

Fall of Northern Iraq.
Spread of ISIS in Syia and to North Africa.
Libya in a Vacuum.....chaos everywhere.
Rebels joining ISIS armed by us.
Yemen........we got kicked out.
Yemen now ready to invade Saudi Arabia in the OTHER WAR going on there.....yeah that's right.........he said eveything is great there too.........and now a MILLION houdi's are potentially ready to invade Saudi Arabia...........

Perhaps you refuse to see that because you are an Obama apologist.......

And you still refuse to answer his policy on Assad.

 

[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............

He's got to go.............which would be directly in the face of RUSSIAN forces now operating in the area..primarily killing Obama's good guys............aka the Rebels who have been selling arms to ISIS and even forming Alliances to the same...........

He's got to go..........ensuring the collapse of Southern Syria and MILLIONS OF MORE REFUGEES with the fall........

He's got to go.........meaning Syrian Christians fighting along side Syrian forces would have to lose as well...........but they are being slaughtered anyway..................


What SHOULD be the PRIMARY STRATEGIC GOAL of the United States in the Middle East?

 

[Skylar]

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....................

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.

 

[eagle1462010]

BTW..........Once ISIS is taken care of..............LOL

How about stepping up the air campaign then and stop supporting the rebels who are in bed with them.

LOL