ISIS now a FULL BLOWN ARMY, thanks Obama

[paulitician]

Not much the Supreme Leader can do now. He funded & armed this Frankenstein. What's he gonna do now? Spend more money & lives defending the Iranian-backed Iraqi Government? Not a very good option. He should have listened to Putin and others when he was warned not to fund & arm these very questionable Rebel groups in Syria. Assad is the safer bet. Just another tragic interventionist blunder.

 

[paulitician]

ISIS Now 'a Full-Blown Army,' State Department Official Says

This is akin to when Clinton let Osama get away. Only 10000 times worse because now they have our own military equipment to use against us.

Once they consolidate their power in Iraq we all know that the west will become their next target. It's only a matter of time.

Thanks Obama for turning some terrorist thugs into a full blown Army through your own inaction.

He was warned not to fund these very questionable Rebel groups in Syria. This is the awful Blow Back on that. Pretty shocking he just demanded another $500 Million in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels. Talk about Double-Downing on insanity? Yikes.

Warned by whom? Since it was McCain that led the operation of arming the Syrian rebels...

McCain is not the President. And your guy just demanded another $500 Million in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels.

 

[bodecea]

Most Democrats voted against the Iraq war. The disaster of Iraq can be blamed on the American people's failure to recognize the danger of electing Republicans.

More deflection.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

The current Dumbass-in-Chief stated without caveat or qualification that Bush's Iraq Policies delivered a sovereign, stable Iraq.

All Obama had to do was sustain the stability.

He failed miserably...the recurring theme of his presidency.

[youtube]MKSb2ukQxvY[/youtube]​

He's a tool. Actually, 40% of House Democrats voted for it and a clear majority (29-21) of Senate Democrats voted for it. That "most Democrats voted against the Iraq war" is just a fabrication. And of the Democrats who voted against it, many of them just said they wanted to give the inspectors more time. And virtually all of them said there were WMDs.

You're right, that dog won't hunt.

How many Republicans voted against it?

 

[Avorysuds]

More deflection.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

The current Dumbass-in-Chief stated without caveat or qualification that Bush's Iraq Policies delivered a sovereign, stable Iraq.

All Obama had to do was sustain the stability.

He failed miserably...the recurring theme of his presidency.

[youtube]MKSb2ukQxvY[/youtube]​

He's a tool. Actually, 40% of House Democrats voted for it and a clear majority (29-21) of Senate Democrats voted for it. That "most Democrats voted against the Iraq war" is just a fabrication. And of the Democrats who voted against it, many of them just said they wanted to give the inspectors more time. And virtually all of them said there were WMDs.

You're right, that dog won't hunt.

How many Republicans voted against it?

I believe Ron Paul did... But the left calls him and isolationist and crazy.

 

[Moonglow]

He was warned not to fund these very questionable Rebel groups in Syria. This is the awful Blow Back on that. Pretty shocking he just demanded another $500 Million in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels. Talk about Double-Downing on insanity? Yikes.

Warned by whom? Since it was McCain that led the operation of arming the Syrian rebels...

McCain is not the President. And your guy just demanded another $500 Million in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels.

McCain is in the position of the senior senate member of the foreign relations committee and he was the one pushing for arming the rebels, he went over to the area to designate the good from the bad rebels...and that was who recommended the arming to Oblama. Obama does not have a centralized govt. to run all these activities alone..

 

[kaz]

More deflection.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

The current Dumbass-in-Chief stated without caveat or qualification that Bush's Iraq Policies delivered a sovereign, stable Iraq.

All Obama had to do was sustain the stability.

He failed miserably...the recurring theme of his presidency.

[youtube]MKSb2ukQxvY[/youtube]​

He's a tool. Actually, 40% of House Democrats voted for it and a clear majority (29-21) of Senate Democrats voted for it. That "most Democrats voted against the Iraq war" is just a fabrication. And of the Democrats who voted against it, many of them just said they wanted to give the inspectors more time. And virtually all of them said there were WMDs.

You're right, that dog won't hunt.

How many Republicans voted against it?

You're going to have to help me with your point first. The claim wasn't more Democrats voted against it than Republicans, the claim was most Democrats voted against it. Got any relevant point?

BTW, I'm for staying out of Iraq, I just am not going to go along with rewriting history to do it.

 

[natstew]

When Reagan armed the Muhjabim in Afghanistan in the early 1980s allowing them to evolve into Al Qeada, were you just as miffed? President Obama and President Bush (43) made the same mistakes as President Reagan. But political expedience means you will either ignore that or spin it in some incomprehensible way.

In the early 80's I was a teen. Besides, pointing at someone else's fuck ups is no excuse. Get a grip

In the early 1980s I was in my thirties and refusing to own the mistakes of your hero and deflecting the blame for ISIS just to make a political point is laughable.

Blame floats, like shit, on all who are responsible. If we had not made the utterly foolish mistake of invading Iraq, we would not have ISIS today. Who was it that decided to invade Iraq?

And all you can see to blame is Barack Obama.

And you fail to even consider the consequence of not invading Iraq, fool!
The sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam would have gotten nukes, Israel would not exist................................

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why is every problem that pops up in the world the responsibility of the United States? Let someone else deal with them. ISIS is not a threat to us.

[ame=http://youtu.be/fSEpkcHUlm0]Ostrich - Head in the sand - YouTube[/ame]

Let me see if I understand your video to the topic. An army that could have been beat by a simple drone strike is now a threat to the USA? Are you suggesting ISIS is further along than say North Korea with military power and capabilities? ISIS exists as it does today because of American funding in the first place...

Honest question.

The money alone makes them a MUCH BIGGER threat. And I didn't suggest they could be beat. I suggested we bomb all their newly aquired assets

 

[paulitician]

He's a tool. Actually, 40% of House Democrats voted for it and a clear majority (29-21) of Senate Democrats voted for it. That "most Democrats voted against the Iraq war" is just a fabrication. And of the Democrats who voted against it, many of them just said they wanted to give the inspectors more time. And virtually all of them said there were WMDs.

You're right, that dog won't hunt.

How many Republicans voted against it?

I believe Ron Paul did... But the left calls him and isolationist and crazy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4]Ron Paul House Floor Speech on Iraq (October 8, 2002) - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah, loony Communists/Progressives and Neocons just love throwing that 'Isolationist' label around. Bottom line is, Obama funded and armed very nasty Rebel groups in Syria. ISIS is just one of them. It was just another tragic interventionist blunder.

 

[Siete]

In the early 80's I was a teen. Besides, pointing at someone else's fuck ups is no excuse. Get a grip

In the early 1980s I was in my thirties and refusing to own the mistakes of your hero and deflecting the blame for ISIS just to make a political point is laughable.

Blame floats, like shit, on all who are responsible. If we had not made the utterly foolish mistake of invading Iraq, we would not have ISIS today. Who was it that decided to invade Iraq?

And all you can see to blame is Barack Obama.

And you fail to even consider the consequence of not invading Iraq, fool!
The sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam would have gotten nukes, Israel would not exist................................

and a cow jumped over the moon ....

 

[Moonglow]

And now for all those that think Oblama funded ISIS..

Those who say that Obama isn’t to blame for Iraq have missed an important point: ISIS is being funded by wealthy Sunni Muslims, primarily in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. While this funding has been going on a long time the amount of money and material being supplied to the ISIS and others has increased considerably since the Arab Spring.

Obama Fail: Why Are the Saudis Funding ISIS? | Opinion - Conservative

 

[paulitician]

Warned by whom? Since it was McCain that led the operation of arming the Syrian rebels...

McCain is not the President. And your guy just demanded another $500 Million in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels.

McCain is in the position of the senior senate member of the foreign relations committee and he was the one pushing for arming the rebels, he went over to the area to designate the good from the bad rebels...and that was who recommended the arming to Oblama. Obama does not have a centralized govt. to run all these activities alone..

Sorry to shatter your delusions, but your guy has agreed with McCain. He just demanded $500 Million more in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels. It is what it is.

 

[NLT]

More deflection.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

The current Dumbass-in-Chief stated without caveat or qualification that Bush's Iraq Policies delivered a sovereign, stable Iraq.

All Obama had to do was sustain the stability.

He failed miserably...the recurring theme of his presidency.

[youtube]MKSb2ukQxvY[/youtube]​

He's a tool. Actually, 40% of House Democrats voted for it and a clear majority (29-21) of Senate Democrats voted for it. That "most Democrats voted against the Iraq war" is just a fabrication. And of the Democrats who voted against it, many of them just said they wanted to give the inspectors more time. And virtually all of them said there were WMDs.

You're right, that dog won't hunt.

How many Republicans voted against it?

6 and your point is what?

Passage of the full resolution[edit]

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives[edit]



Party

Yeas

Nays

Not
Voting



Republican

215

6

2



Democratic

82

126

1



Independent

0

1

0



TOTALS

297

133

3

82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT) Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.


United States Senate[edit]



Party

Yeas

Nays



Republican

48

1



Democratic

29

21



Independent

0

1



TOTALS

77

23

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:

Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your point being bullshit bodey as usual.

 

[paulitician]

And now for all those that think Oblama funded ISIS..

Those who say that Obama isn’t to blame for Iraq have missed an important point: ISIS is being funded by wealthy Sunni Muslims, primarily in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. While this funding has been going on a long time the amount of money and material being supplied to the ISIS and others has increased considerably since the Arab Spring.

Obama Fail: Why Are the Saudis Funding ISIS? | Opinion - Conservative

Obama has also contributed heavily in supporting various Syrian Rebel groups. He still is.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ostrich - Head in the sand - YouTube

Let me see if I understand your video to the topic. An army that could have been beat by a simple drone strike is now a threat to the USA? Are you suggesting ISIS is further along than say North Korea with military power and capabilities? ISIS exists as it does today because of American funding in the first place...

Honest question.

The money alone makes them a MUCH BIGGER threat. And I didn't suggest they could be beat. I suggested we bomb all their newly aquired assets

Constitutionally how would you argue your case? Don't get me wrong, it would be great to just go around the world fucking up places you thought might possibly pose a thread to you someday in the future, according to some people at least... But what reason do we attack one group and not another, or should we be attacking everyone?

 

[paulitician]

He's a tool. Actually, 40% of House Democrats voted for it and a clear majority (29-21) of Senate Democrats voted for it. That "most Democrats voted against the Iraq war" is just a fabrication. And of the Democrats who voted against it, many of them just said they wanted to give the inspectors more time. And virtually all of them said there were WMDs.

You're right, that dog won't hunt.

How many Republicans voted against it?

I believe Ron Paul did... But the left calls him and isolationist and crazy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4]Ron Paul House Floor Speech on Iraq (October 8, 2002) - YouTube[/ame]

Boy, the Good Doctor sure did nail it. He's as right about aggressive interventionism today, as he was back then.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let me see if I understand your video to the topic. An army that could have been beat by a simple drone strike is now a threat to the USA? Are you suggesting ISIS is further along than say North Korea with military power and capabilities? ISIS exists as it does today because of American funding in the first place...

Honest question.

The money alone makes them a MUCH BIGGER threat. And I didn't suggest they could be beat. I suggested we bomb all their newly aquired assets

Constitutionally how would you argue your case? Don't get me wrong, it would be great to just go around the world fucking up places you thought might possibly pose a thread to you someday in the future, according to some people at least... But what reason do we attack one group and not another, or should we be attacking everyone?

Don't get you wrong? Lol whatever

Iraq asked for our bombs.

 

[tinydancer]

ISIS Now 'a Full-Blown Army,' State Department Official Says

This is akin to when Clinton let Osama get away. Only 10000 times worse because now they have our own military equipment to use against us.

Once they consolidate their power in Iraq we all know that the west will become their next target. It's only a matter of time.

Thanks Obama for turning some terrorist thugs into a full blown Army through your own inaction.

He was warned not to fund these very questionable Rebel groups in Syria. This is the awful Blow Back on that. Pretty shocking he just demanded another $500 Million in Tax Dollars for Syrian Rebels. Talk about Double-Downing on insanity? Yikes.

Warned by whom? Since it was McCain that led the operation of arming the Syrian rebels...

Bull mother trucking shit. Kerry was in like flint with Bob Menendez leading the charge in the Senate.

Let's get our freaking facts straight in this debacle shall we?

 

[BlindBoo]

This is just one of many results from the monumental strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

 

[tinydancer]

Just got back from picking Saskatoons and realized I hadn't backed up my assertion. Here are the facts Jack.

And what is hysterical is that one more freaking time the west is being freaking hypocrites.

While talking about aiding the fake Syrian rebels aka paid mercenaries and terrorists Washington has the balls to demand sanctions against anyone who sets out to help Assad.

Unfreaking real the level of hypocrisy that exists in America and the west. It's ok for us to back rebels but bad people back any other rebels like the easter Ukrainians. Russia bad. West is good.

I'm sick to death of this fucking game. I know I elected my government tor run my country not govern the planet. I'm just as pissed off at my Prime Minister Harper as I am at Obama.

US aims to arm Syrian rebels as Kerry seeks political support in Russia
Published time: May 07, 2013 10:39

With the introduction of a bill to directly arm the Syrian rebels, US politicians are pushing hard for an intervention in the Syrian conflict. US Secretary of State John Kerry is in Moscow for talks; brokering peace in Syria is high on his agenda.

The draft scheduled to be taken up in committee next week was introduced by Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Senator Robert Menendez. It seeks for the US to supply arms, military training and non-lethal aid to the opposition. The legislature also seeks to create a $250 million fund to aid the transition process in the country. The bill also aims to give Washington the power to impose sanctions on individuals involved in arms or oil transfers to Syria.

A loud opponent of President Assad, Menendez has been one of the greatest advocates for US involvement in Syria. Following the recent allegations of the use of chemical weapons Menendez said in a written statement, &#8220;The Assad regime has crossed a red line that forces us to consider all options,&#8221; The senator added &#8220;The greatest humanitarian crisis in the world is unfolding in and around Syria, and the U.S. must play a role in tipping the scales toward opposition groups and working to build a free Syria.&#8221;