Was the right, right all along about ISIS?

They aren't terrorists guys. The MANY headless bodies found along the path of ISIS is just a coincidence.


I don't give a shit if Buddha himself lives there. We CAN NOT ALLOW OUR MILITARY ASSETS to fall into the hands of terrorists. Period

Imagine that instead of a lone suicide bomber blowing up a few people they now will have the capability to drive TANKS directly through any location, blowing it to hell as they go. OUR tanks could be used against our allies in the region.

Blow them up

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.

The right had no idea what the hell they wanted or were talking about. They did exactly as I predicted months ago; waiting to take whatever side would benefit them most politically.

Nonsense.

Do a little research. MONTHS if not near a year ago I created multiple threads about the need to deal with ISIS.

Your revisionist history is not accurate


A little research tells me that Grampa M started referring to ISIS about the time everybody else did in June this year. Not a year before that.
 
....the CIA has been warning Obama for years about the threat of terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya, Mali, Algeria, Yemen, etc.

Therefore much more critical and pertinent to the invasion of IS terrorists into Sunni areas of Iraq, you must concede that Obama was fundamentally correct and absolutely fitting to have been warning Maliki "for years" that Maliki had to change his Shiite-headed ways toward Iraq's Sunnis or IS terrorists (AQ) could gain a foothold in Iraq as they did after 'Stupid Bush the Younger' decided to kick UN inspectors out of peacefully inspected Iraq and start killing Iraqis left and right for no good reason.

Obama is better than Bush for not allowing the Shiite Iraqis under an exclusionist government such as Maliki's to be led to believe that US troops would come back into Iraq to once again do the fighting against AQ for them. And not have the USAF be the Shiite (pro-Iran) Air Force bombing Sunni areas again to try to hit AQI targets.

Maliki failed to respond to Obama's good advice and Iraq has suffered for it.

Nice try but once again you are showing your ignorance about an intelligence matter in Iraq.
 
Obama golfs with no plan to fight ISIS.

What better image could the leader of the most powerful military nation on earth that has a public grown sick and tired of our precious American troops going in on the ground doing the front line fighting against the human excrement that exist and often are nurtured in that part of the world, than to be seen photographed golfing as IS is terrorizing their part of the world?

Think about the message that sends to Sunni Arab leaders who are much softer on Sunni terrorists than the 'golfing' President has been thus far.

Think about it and tell me we as Americans should not be demanding that Sunni leaders and armies and air forces in that region must step up in this war against IS terrorists or fuck you all - you get what you deserve.

We will be golfing until you step up and be part if the plan.
 
Ooops. :) Another big fat lie. I've been refuting all you libs' lies on this specific subject for weeks on multiple threads.
Really? Your posts contain no links, poseur.

What..... you think I'm here to hold your hand and you're not even a liberal I respect? I was on multiple threads and have posted more about SOFA than anyone. If you didn't see them across multiple threads, that's your problem. Besides, you were on at least one of those threads. Go back and check the Iraq threads.

But all you do is post your opinion, which isn't worth shit.

She became a nobody before she was ever a somebody.
 
ASSWIPE....you have not proven anything I've said is wrong.

Tell us how Obama's policy didn't create this fucking mess in Syria and Iraq, we won't even go over Libya right now that is heating up and will hit the news in the next few weeks once it gets leaked out.....

Just say you don't know and you are a fake. You will look like less of a moron.
 
Even CAVE DWELLERS KNOW what propaganda, and a feckless media and governments in the West still haven't learned!

123a1xv.jpg
 
Ooops. :) Another big fat lie. I've been refuting all you libs' lies on this specific subject for weeks on multiple threads.
Really? Your posts contain no links, poseur.

What..... you think I'm here to hold your hand and you're not even a liberal I respect? I was on multiple threads and have posted more about SOFA than anyone. If you didn't see them across multiple threads, that's your problem. Besides, you were on at least one of those threads. Go back and check the Iraq threads.

But all you do is post your opinion, which isn't worth shit.

She became a nobody before she was ever a somebody.

Awww, you suffer from low esteem, don't ya candykorny. Hell YOU can't even refrain from paying attention to me. Poor puppy was projecting her own insecurities.....
 
Maliki promised he wouldn't let what's happening happen and now they want the USA back.

You are looking at it from the perspective of someone trying to avert a war.

Bush/Cheney wanted the war - they just had to find an excuse to sell.

You are right, This would be a pretty firm Bush lie then:

"I was a dissenting voice. I didn’t want to use force. I mean force is the last option for a President."

LAUER: Not everybody thought you should go to war, though. There were dissenters.

BUSH: Of course there were.

LAUER: You know, there were questions at the Pentagon. Colin Powell had questions. Brent Scowcroft, your father’s former National Security Advisor, and dear friend, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, I’m paraphrasing here, saying, “It’s not a good idea to go to war in Iraq.” So there were dissenting voices.


BUSH: I was a dissenting voice. I didn’t want to use force. I mean force is the last option for a President. And I think it’s clear in the book that I gave diplomacy every chance to work. And I will also tell you the world’s better off without somehow in power. And so are 25 million Iraqis.[...]


President Bush On Iraq War I Was A Dissenting Voice. I Didn t Want To Use Force ThinkProgress
He had already amassed a list of anti-Saddam statements before 9/11. He was no dissenting voice.
 
Ooops. :) Another big fat lie. I've been refuting all you libs' lies on this specific subject for weeks on multiple threads.
Really? Your posts contain no links, poseur.

What..... you think I'm here to hold your hand and you're not even a liberal I respect? I was on multiple threads and have posted more about SOFA than anyone. If you didn't see them across multiple threads, that's your problem. Besides, you were on at least one of those threads. Go back and check the Iraq threads.

But all you do is post your opinion, which isn't worth shit.

She became a nobody before she was ever a somebody.
I don't even know who the fuck she is. Prolly an Oddball sock. :lol:
 
He had already amassed a list of anti-Saddam statements before 9/11. He was no dissenting voice.

He was not a dissenting voice on the decision to go to war. So he lied in his memoir about that for sure.

I would not say that making anti-Saddam statements means that anyone making such statements, including Bush, should not still be able to hold a dissenting opinion on going to war in March 2003.

Saddam was an evil no good worthless son of a bitch dictator / but with UN inspectors working in Iraq in March 2003, it was the decision to kick inspectors out and then to bomb and invade and kill people in Iraq that was the greater evil and ignorant action to take.
 
It is, ISIS is a threat to the West.

It is not difficult for most to agree that ISIS is a threat to all civilized people no matter the sphere or alignment they are in.

That being the case why would I be correct to agree that stopping ISIS and destroying them is solely are responsibility?

Do you think Saudi Arabia has primary responsibility for stopping ISIS before the potentially become strong enough to threaten the monarchy there for their alliances and trade deals and outward interactions with non-Islamic culture that is the culture of the West?

Saudi Arabia, Turkey? Egypt? Major players with Muslim soldiers. Why is it not their responsibility?
 
It is not difficult for most to agree that ISIS is a threat to all civilized people no matter the sphere or alignment they are in.

That being the case why would I be correct to agree that stopping ISIS and destroying them is solely are responsibility?

Do you think Saudi Arabia has primary responsibility for stopping ISIS before the potentially become strong enough to threaten the monarchy there for their alliances and trade deals and outward interactions with non-Islamic culture that is the culture of the West?

Saudi Arabia, Turkey? Egypt? Major players with Muslim soldiers. Why is it not their responsibility?
They don't stand up against ISIS.
 
I asked a very fundamental question:

"Saudi Arabia, Turkey? Egypt? Major players with Muslim soldiers. Why is it not their responsibility?"

And I got a thoughtless knee jerk response:


They don't stand up against ISIS.

I know it is knee jerk because Turkey is a NATO nation. They would be booted out if their army was not able to stand up to ISIS.

On Egypt and Saudi Arabia do you have any respectable source for an analysis that their armies could not stand up to ISIS? And if so why does that excuse them from participating in the fight on the ground if it is so necessary?

And do you believe that US troops will have to go in and fight this war for them?

And would that be proper and is it expected of us to do so?

And is that expectation what all the right wing un-American clamoring and whining about Obama all about?
 
I asked a very fundamental question:

"Saudi Arabia, Turkey? Egypt? Major players with Muslim soldiers. Why is it not their responsibility?"

And I got a thoughtless knee jerk response:




I know it is knee jerk because Turkey is a NATO nation. They would be booted out if their army was not able to stand up to ISIS.

On Egypt and Saudi Arabia do you have any respectable source for an analysis that their armies could not stand up to ISIS? And if so why does that excuse them from participating in the fight on the ground if it is so necessary?

And do you believe that US troops will have to go in and fight this war for them?

And would that be proper and is it expected of us to do so?

And is that expectation what all the right wing un-American clamoring and whining about Obama all about?
It is not a knee-jerk reaction, look at the news, the Arab governments are not doing anything about the ISIS problem, except the Kurds (whose force is not strong and big enough to defeat ISIS) and the Syrian army (who recently lost an airport and are losing more territory to ISIS). Then there is Turkey. They can join the fight, but they don't like the Kurds, which is another problem. The US and UK don't want to cooperate with Assad.
So, the best way to solve the ISIS problem is by sending US troops.
 

Forum List

Back
Top