Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama wanted to leave and made that part of his speech, but once in office he has certain obligations he must deal with. Dealing with Maliki was part of the job he took on. Part of this dealing was dealing with the fact that Bush had signed Sofa and thus certain requirements where in there that in 2011 he had to negotiate about. He could have just flipped maliki off and not even bothered to deal with it, pull all the troops out, and wash his hands of it.not reallysure....you just go on thinking that
It's what you just said, nitwit
Sorry you're not literate, man. You were very clear. Just read the post. Or keep deflecting if you can't.
YAY context, the destroyer of laziness.
Laziness has nothing to do with it, its' about your flagrant, partisan double standard. When Obama said he wanted to stay, you gave him credit for wanting to leave. You can justify it all you want, it's a flagrant hypocrisy you would never accept from Republicans. Grow up.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
If you have a rationale plan to deal with irrational fanatics please share.During the 90s we were attacked by Al-Qaeda multiple times including the first wtc attack we sent no troops in and our response was minimal over time that led to the 9-11-2001 attacks after that our response was substantial and we have not been hit with an attack of that magnitude since. Groups like these will always try to attack us no matter if we have troops on the ground or not so the question is why would we want to make any easier for them to plan and organize another attack against us?Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.
Republicans like to keep making that lame argument, but you have to explain how it makes sense if we don't fight them they are coming here and if we do fight them they won't.
So you can't think of anything in the middle besides not responding and invading and nation building and fighting endless wars in the middle east? Wow, that's a big chasm. What if we blast the crap out of them like we did the Taliban for a sustained period of time. Then leave, which we didn't do? Just a thought.
This fails as a post hoc fallacy.During the 90s we were attacked by Al-Qaeda multiple times including the first wtc attack we sent no troops in and our response was minimal over time that led to the 9-11-2001 attacks after that our response was substantial and we have not been hit with an attack of that magnitude since. Groups like these will always try to attack us no matter if we have troops on the ground or not so the question is why would we want to make any easier for them to plan and organize another attack against us?Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.
Republicans like to keep making that lame argument, but you have to explain how it makes sense if we don't fight them they are coming here and if we do fight them they won't.
This is also ridiculous partisan idiocy. What country, exactly, were we supposed to 'attack' after the first WTC bombing.
Terrorists are criminals – they don't have countries or armies or fight wars in a conventional manner; we've known since Vietnam that we can't fight an indigenous insurgency with ground troops and conventional tactics.
In Afghanistan, for example, the Taliban are simply waiting for us to leave at which time they'll take control of the country again in short order.
ISIS has fooled many – both on the left and right – into thinking they're a 'conventional' force, when in fact they're not. A conventional attack on ISIS by the United States would do little to solve the problem, as its fighters would simply melt back into the general population and reconstitute as another terrorist entity once American forces leave the region.
Republicans aren't in charge, Skippy. Once again the flagrant liberal hypocrisy. Republicans and Democrats do the same thing, You blame only the Republicans. I addressed that in my OP post.
Two parties, one finger, you're pointing it towards the red and letting the blue off the hook. I blame both parties, which is why I said I blame both parties.
Obviously not.
Uhhh.... where do you see "Republicans", "Democrats", "reds" "blues" or any reference to "parties" at all in either of those posts?
Life in partisan obsessionland
Cue ad hom attacks following fake "open" question in five... four... threeeeeeee.....
Aside--- speaking of--- Einstein isn't the source of that quote, Opie.
LOL, so when you referred to Fox, that was in a non partisan way? You're a shill
I've been debunking hair-on-fire fake ISIS news all day with no reference at all to political parties. Because, this just in for the dense, it doesn't come from political parties -- it comes from sensationalist opportunists on a mission to sell (1) papers and (2) hate fuel for war. And there we arrive at the Fox Noises and Drudges and Pam Gellers and JihadWatches and this week's star of the game, "Catholic Online".
Thus my post was, is, and will continue to be how the proletariat continue to salivate on command for LCD media. Which is something I happen to know far better than political parties.
All of which is undoubtedly beyond the scope of your ability to understand, chained as it is so much to partisan hackery that you have to plug in "political parties" where none exist.
Are you saying then that Fox Noise is naught but a communications arm for the Republican Party? Because that's news to me.
Just another lameass Kaz thread -- pretend to pose an open question, then sit back and attack any responses that don't fit where you want them to go, all the while bellowing
---- and you want to use the word "shill"??
/thread
So that actually sounds good to you? In your head, when you read it back?
Doesn't sound "good", no. But it is the reality. Neither of the posts referred to any kind of political party and you weren't having that so you plugged it in. On your own.
I'm disappointed this is all you could come up with given several hours. It's hard to top "teenage limp-wristed faggot", but it's not impossible. C'mon, show yer stuff. Your audience demands it.
Obama wanted to leave and made that part of his speech, but once in office he has certain obligations he must deal with. Dealing with Maliki was part of the job he took on. Part of this dealing was dealing with the fact that Bush had signed Sofa and thus certain requirements where in there that in 2011 he had to negotiate about. He could have just flipped maliki off and not even bothered to deal with it, pull all the troops out, and wash his hands of it.not reallyIt's what you just said, nitwit
Sorry you're not literate, man. You were very clear. Just read the post. Or keep deflecting if you can't.
YAY context, the destroyer of laziness.
Laziness has nothing to do with it, its' about your flagrant, partisan double standard. When Obama said he wanted to stay, you gave him credit for wanting to leave. You can justify it all you want, it's a flagrant hypocrisy you would never accept from Republicans. Grow up.
sure buddy, and yet i also blame Obama for the iraqi chaos we have going on now. You have nothing but your own assumptions because you need to create something in order to be relevant in your own thread. My stance on Iraq has been very solid. Not my problem if you decide to look like a fool.
I did read it, but I'm afraid a report from Frontline doesn't actually tell us what was in Obama's mind as he was negotiating to keep troops in Iraq.um..it was already proven via the link i gave. I see you didnt read it, so therefore we can stop conversing now. Im wasting my time.You don't get to say something is reality when it can't be proved.treaty was just a term i used for an example. okie dokie, well this is what happened. If you dont feel like dealing with reality because you know better than thats your issue.I know that it would be politically convenient for the administration to take that line, but there was no treaty forcing Obama to try to keep troops in Iraq. He could've pulled them out at any time.then you are literally going against almost everyone in his Administration who wanted out. Everyone knew Obama wanted out, but like with all things, there is treaties(contracts per say) , and politics one has to do in order to get what they want.As there's no way to prove that he wasn't doing exactly what he wanted to do, I'm certainly going to believe what I like. Given the utter willingness he's shown in wanting to intervene militarily in other countries I see no reason to believe he wanted to get out of Iraq and was simply going through the motions.
See, that's what happens when you get stuck in a quagmire.People on the left want to praise Obama for pulling out of Iraq. As well as his response to ISIS.
People on the right want to criticize Obama for following Bush's withdrawal timeline, and blame ISIS on that withdrawal.
The only simple answer is that the average voter is a retarded partisan hack. The average voter shouldn't be allowed access to power tools, let alone influence in our nation's policy. The average voter should be given PCP, sharp objects, and be locked in a room by himself. The average voter... I ran out of stuff to say.
See, that's what happens when you get stuck in a quagmire.
It is not a matter of whose problem it is. Rather, what is important is whether it is in the interest of our national security to get deeper involved. The answer is that we must get involved to prevent another safe haven for anti- west terrorists. ISIS, or whatever the fuck you want to call them, has evidenced an intent to do us harm and they have some capability of doing so. Therefore, action is needed. Now.
I wasn't convinced we should be fighting ISIS. Then Vigilante posted another meme.
I wasn't convinced we should be fighting ISIS. Then Vigilante posted another meme.
Have you ever had an original thought in your head? Over 9000 posts in a few months, and least 8000 of them were copy/pasted. You are the the most worthless poster to ever grace these boards. I bet you sit behind your computer, chest covered in Dorito crumbs, waste basket full of cum stained tissues, saying to yourself, "Herrrrr! I got em dere!"
