Obama Getting USA into ANOTHER war

[Ibanez]

LMAO at the ignorance displayed by others on this thread. :smh:

Definitely trolling. You can't possibly believe what you posted.

He does. Jon believes that his opinions are 100% factual and correct. They do not come from a place of hatred or partisanship.

[kalm]

There are plenty of Democrats I don't approve of - like Diane Feinstein.

What you are forgetting, or refuse to acknowledge is that the vote to authorize force was based on lies told by the Bush Admin - had they told the truth, a majority of Democrats would NOT have voted to authorize force.

. Are you shitting me? Deal with facts. THEY VOTED! God damn.

You can't excuse the Dems for voting but the idea to attack Iraq was driven by the Bush administration. It was the neo-cons idea and they still own it to a certain degree.

The current situation isn't a new war, it's an extension of one very long, drawn out war.

[Ivytalk]

Definitely trolling. You can't possibly believe what you posted.

He does. Jon believes that his opinions are 100% factual and correct. They do not come from a place of hatred or partisanship.

Dback definitely believes his own BS.

And why does he dislike Diane Feinstein? She was the one who solemnly led the presser in San Fran and told the world that Harvey Milk and George Moscone got offed.

[dbackjon]

He does. Jon believes that his opinions are 100% factual and correct. They do not come from a place of hatred or partisanship.

Dback definitely believes his own BS.

And why does he dislike Diane Feinstein? She was the one who solemnly led the presser in San Fran and told the world that Harvey Milk and George Moscone got offed.

She was, and is a two-bit hack who used the death of two great Americans to advance her political career. Her and her vulture husband are war-profiteers that make millions off the blood of American soldiers. She is slime, pure and simple.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

So much hate...........

[YoUDeeMan]

. Are you shitting me? Deal with facts. THEY VOTED! God damn.

You can't excuse the Dems for voting but the idea to attack Iraq was driven by the Bush administration. It was the neo-cons idea and they still own it to a certain degree.

The current situation isn't a new war, it's an extension of one very long, drawn out war.

Then lets' blame Mohammad. Or how about Alexander the Great...or, further back, the first guy who threw a rock in that area.

Stop the nonsense...if you are a foreign power, wars on foreign soil end when you want them to end. Just get out.

We could have stayed in Vietnam...but we got out. Amazing how the area settled down without us. Sure, there was bloodshed, but they worked it out amongst themselves.

The only reason why we are still in Iraq is that we still have monetary interests in Iraq. Cripes, we're still in Afghanistan years after we killed Obsama and routed AQ. Why is that?

In the meantime, Libya has become another shvthole due to Obama wanting someone gone, and Syria is a shvthole because Obama wanted someone gone. And yes, Ukraine is a shvthole because Obama and the West wanted someone gone. Ukraine, supposedly the land of the free, appointed billionaires as local politicians...and they went out and hired armed militia members...why is that?

Oh yeah, that right. Because of Bush.

sorry kalm, Obama is in this all on his own.

[houndawg]

The longer the war the higher the profits.

I love the nebulous generalizations from you guys on this kind of thing.


During Bush you guys were frothing at the mouth about how Bushitler McCheneyburton personally cooked the books and led his evil crusade into Iraq


Now it's all "ho hum, the longer the war the higher the profits yawn"


You come a long way, baby

It's called sarcasm...


All wars are fought for money.

[YoUDeeMan]

...who used the death of two great Americans...

Huh? If you are referring to Milk, he was a child molester.

But, you look the other way at that stuff for gay men, correct?

[kalm]

You can't excuse the Dems for voting but the idea to attack Iraq was driven by the Bush administration. It was the neo-cons idea and they still own it to a certain degree.

The current situation isn't a new war, it's an extension of one very long, drawn out war.

Then lets' blame Mohammad. Or how about Alexander the Great...or, further back, the first guy who threw a rock in that area.

Stop the nonsense...if you are a foreign power, wars on foreign soil end when you want them to end. Just get out.

We could have stayed in Vietnam...but we got out. Amazing how the area settled down without us. Sure, there was bloodshed, but they worked it out amongst themselves.

The only reason why we are still in Iraq is that we still have monetary interests in Iraq. Cripes, we're still in Afghanistan years after we killed Obsama and routed AQ. Why is that?

In the meantime, Libya has become another shvthole due to Obama wanting someone gone, and Syria is a shvthole because Obama wanted someone gone. And yes, Ukraine is a shvthole because Obama and the West wanted someone gone. Ukraine, supposedly the land of the free, appointed billionaires as local politicians...and they went out and hired armed militia members...why is that?

Oh yeah, that right. Because of Bush.

sorry kalm, Obama is in this all on his own.

You know I agree with much if this but are you saying it's Obama's fault that ISIS rose up because of action or inaction?

[CID1990]

Dback definitely believes his own BS.

And why does he dislike Diane Feinstein? She was the one who solemnly led the presser in San Fran and told the world that Harvey Milk and George Moscone got offed.

She was, and is a two-bit hack who used the death of two great Americans to advance her political career. Her and her vulture husband are war-profiteers that make millions off the blood of American soldiers. She is slime, pure and simple.

She is just 50% as slimy and opportunistic as the woman you are going to vote for in 2016 so spare us the righteous indignation

[Ibanez]

You can't excuse the Dems for voting but the idea to attack Iraq was driven by the Bush administration. It was the neo-cons idea and they still own it to a certain degree.

The current situation isn't a new war, it's an extension of one very long, drawn out war.

Then lets' blame Mohammad. Or how about Alexander the Great...or, further back, the first guy who threw a rock in that area.

Stop the nonsense...if you are a foreign power, wars on foreign soil end when you want them to end. Just get out.

We could have stayed in Vietnam...but we got out. Amazing how the area settled down without us. Sure, there was bloodshed, but they worked it out amongst themselves.

The only reason why we are still in Iraq is that we still have monetary interests in Iraq. Cripes, we're still in Afghanistan years after we killed Obsama and routed AQ. Why is that?

In the meantime, Libya has become another shvthole due to Obama wanting someone gone, and Syria is a shvthole because Obama wanted someone gone. And yes, Ukraine is a shvthole because Obama and the West wanted someone gone. Ukraine, supposedly the land of the free, appointed billionaires as local politicians...and they went out and hired armed militia members...why is that?

Oh yeah, that right. Because of Bush.

sorry kalm, Obama is in this all on his own.

Wrong. Here's a cheat sheet:

Something good happens, it's Obama's doing.

Something bad happens, it's due to Bush or some other Republican.


What a fucking joke. The man is in his second term and job can muster the courage to call out Obama for what he is; a weak, ineffective, empty suit.

I can't believe I voted for him in 2008.

[Chizzang]

The longer the war the higher the profits.

I love the nebulous generalizations from you guys on this kind of thing.


During Bush you guys were frothing at the mouth about how Bushitler McCheneyburton personally cooked the books and led his evil crusade into Iraq


Now it's all "ho hum, the longer the war the higher the profits yawn"


You come a long way, baby

The totally disheartening and saddest element of that is - I honestly believed that Obama would be different, I really did... I was 100% on board with the whole bullsh!t story he laid out there
I bit it hook line and sinker

I know Cluck and AZ are laughing at me hard
But seriously I got completely duped

4 years later I was voting for Jill Stein and eating major crow
and now I'm just angry


the sad story of the Seattle Hippie (laugh it up ass hats)

[travelinman67]

I love the nebulous generalizations from you guys on this kind of thing.


During Bush you guys were frothing at the mouth about how Bushitler McCheneyburton personally cooked the books and led his evil crusade into Iraq


Now it's all "ho hum, the longer the war the higher the profits yawn"


You come a long way, baby

The totally disheartening and saddest element of that is - I honestly believed that Obama would be different, I really did... I was 100% on board with the whole bullsh!t story he laid out there
I bit it hook line and sinker

I know Cluck and AZ are laughing at me hard
But seriously I got completely duped

4 years later I was voting for Jill Stein and eating major crow
and now I'm just angry


the sad story of the Seattle Hippie (laugh it up ass hats)

I sincerely believe he went in wanting to change the Washington paradigm, but wound up hiring all the Clintonistas who pulled out last admins operations manual, then went into auto-pilot.

Once I heard he raced over immediately after the election to the Bilderberg Group and kissed the ring, I knew America had been conned.

BTW...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rs-while-/

And no, I've not turned into a socialist. It's still about prosperity, sovereign strength and security, which ultimately results through industrial growth: Collapse industry, and everything else follows.

Earlier this evening, CA incumbent Gov. Moonbeam debated challenger Neil Kashkari. Kashkari observed the guv and legislature waived California Environment Quality Act CEQA requirements for the Sacramento Kings new arena, thus limiting challenging lawsuits and eliminating years of environmental studies. When Tesla asked for similar concessions for their new battery manufacturing facility, the State attempted to extort union guarantees from Tesla. Tesla declined and announced they're locating the facility in Nevada.
Kashkari challenged Moonbeam why if those regulatory chokeholds could be waived for the wealthy and politically connected, couldn't the CEQA laws be amended to streamline the process for ALL businesses?
Moonbeam stammered, then replied "Those laws were enacted by Reagan".

Blame the other side rather than fix the problem.

As with the EPA, the original chaptering laws, while well intentioned, have grown into the leviathon creature choking industry's ability to survive.

Adding regulatory restrictions upon a cadaver, serves no purpose.

[kalm]

The totally disheartening and saddest element of that is - I honestly believed that Obama would be different, I really did... I was 100% on board with the whole bullsh!t story he laid out there
I bit it hook line and sinker

I know Cluck and AZ are laughing at me hard
But seriously I got completely duped

4 years later I was voting for Jill Stein and eating major crow
and now I'm just angry


the sad story of the Seattle Hippie (laugh it up ass hats)

I sincerely believe he went in wanting to change the Washington paradigm, but wound up hiring all the Clintonistas who pulled out last admins operations manual, then went into auto-pilot.

Once I heard he raced over immediately after the election to the Bilderberg Group and kissed the ring, I knew America had been conned.

BTW...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rs-while-/

And no, I've not turned into a socialist. It's still about prosperity, sovereign strength and security, which ultimately results through industrial growth: Collapse industry, and everything else follows.

Earlier this evening, CA incumbent Gov. Moonbeam debated challenger Neil Kashkari. Kashkari observed the guv and legislature waived California Environment Quality Act CEQA requirements for the Sacramento Kings new arena, thus limiting challenging lawsuits and eliminating years of environmental studies. When Tesla asked for similar concessions for their new battery manufacturing facility, the State attempted to extort union guarantees from Tesla. Tesla declined and announced they're locating the facility in Nevada.
Kashkari challenged Moonbeam why if those regulatory chokeholds could be waived for the wealthy and politically connected, couldn't the CEQA laws be amended to streamline the process for ALL businesses?
Moonbeam stammered, then replied "Those laws were enacted by Reagan".

Blame the other side rather than fix the problem.

As with the EPA, the original chaptering laws, while well intentioned, have grown into the leviathon creature choking industry's ability to survive.

Adding regulatory restrictions upon a cadaver, serves no purpose.

[kalm]

I'm assuming The National Interest leans conservative...

Greatest Fiasco: The Invasion of Iraq, 2003. On the question of whether this was a discretionary initiative, there can be no longer any real debate. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have any serious connection to Islamist fundamentalists such as those who had attacked the American homeland on September 11, 2001. In other words, he was not the enemy. And, when his rule was upended and his country destroyed, it was inevitable that jihadist Islam would exploit the resulting chaos.

And it isn’t simply Iraq that has slipped into chaos and posed opportunity for the real enemy, which is Islamist radicals bent on attacking the West whenever and wherever possible. It seems clear that the so-called Arab Spring emerged in part from inspiration derived from events in Iraq, which nurtured confidence among many elements of Islam that change was possible. Unfortunately for many, the change that has unfolded hasn’t contributed to regional stability, let alone anything approaching the democracy envisioned by the architects of the Bush invasion. And so now we have ISIS on the march, established in significant expanses of territory in Syria and Iraq. Dealing with that problem—a problem of the real enemy—will now draw America further into the maw. The cost has been immense, and unfortunately it is just beginning.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/mis ... 160?page=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bluehenbillk]

I blame the Bushes. Would you rather have an old ass Saddam Hussein running Iraq or ISIS? Pretty easy answer....

Oh yea, would we still be worried about all those WMD's they're stockpiling?

[GannonFan]

I'm assuming The National Interest leans conservative...

Greatest Fiasco: The Invasion of Iraq, 2003. On the question of whether this was a discretionary initiative, there can be no longer any real debate. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have any serious connection to Islamist fundamentalists such as those who had attacked the American homeland on September 11, 2001. In other words, he was not the enemy. And, when his rule was upended and his country destroyed, it was inevitable that jihadist Islam would exploit the resulting chaos.

And it isn’t simply Iraq that has slipped into chaos and posed opportunity for the real enemy, which is Islamist radicals bent on attacking the West whenever and wherever possible. It seems clear that the so-called Arab Spring emerged in part from inspiration derived from events in Iraq, which nurtured confidence among many elements of Islam that change was possible. Unfortunately for many, the change that has unfolded hasn’t contributed to regional stability, let alone anything approaching the democracy envisioned by the architects of the Bush invasion. And so now we have ISIS on the march, established in significant expanses of territory in Syria and Iraq. Dealing with that problem—a problem of the real enemy—will now draw America further into the maw. The cost has been immense, and unfortunately it is just beginning.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/mis ... 160?page=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it is a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of thing. There were plenty of people publishing articles that it was our allowing despotic dictators like Sadaam Hussein to stay in power (and in some cases support him) that were directly related to terrorist groups like Al Queda to even come into existence. Those were the voices that blamed our own actions and inactions for 9/11 in the first place because we were seen as hypocritical - we talked about freedom and democracy for all but then we were perfectly happy with repressive governments and dictators in other parts of the world if they kept the oil flowing for us.

Then, Bush gets this idea that we should make the world free for democracy, which was certainly noble albeit naive and dangerous, especially to those called to fight, and now we get people publishing articles that because we overthrew rotten dictators and repressive regimes that we are the cause for the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS.

Frankly, I don't like this sentiment that's always out there that we should just pull back to our borders and let everyone else figure out how to exist. Isolationism doesn't work and never has, and it certainly won't work in a world as small as our's is. I'm fine with the ideal that Bush went in with, the idea that we should be a positive voice and actor for freedom in the world, but we need to find a way to do it that wasn't as foolhardy and tragic as they way he disastrously did it (and no, I don't believe he actually lied - he, like pretty much the rest of the world, felt there were WMD in Iraq - even those who were against the war in Iraq felt there were WMD's there, they just didn't want to fight for other reasons).

We're going to have to figure out how to exist in this world with people that are likely going to hate us no matter what we do. But I'd rather we pick the side that says we're going to be for freedom and liberty and then we do what we can to live up to those ideals. The past two administrations over the past 14 years have failed miserably to do both parts of that equation.

[Ibanez]

G Dubbs isn't blameless, he did get us into Iraq. But also put in measure to remove us from Iraq. Obama is the Commander in Chief. That means, regardless of what his predecessor did, if something occurs on his watch, he's responsible. End of Story. No "if's, and or buts" about it. Presidents never take the blame, only the credit.

[kalm]

G Dubbs isn't blameless, he did get us into Iraq. But also put in measure to remove us from Iraq. Obama is the Commander in Chief. That means, regardless of what his predecessor did, if something occurs on his watch, he's responsible. End of Story. No "if's, and or buts" about it. Presidents never take the blame, only the credit.

So Obama is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

[Ibanez]

I'm assuming The National Interest leans conservative...



http://nationalinterest.org/feature/mis ... 160?page=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it is a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of thing. There were plenty of people publishing articles that it was our allowing despotic dictators like Sadaam Hussein to stay in power (and in some cases support him) that were directly related to terrorist groups like Al Queda to even come into existence. Those were the voices that blamed our own actions and inactions for 9/11 in the first place because we were seen as hypocritical - we talked about freedom and democracy for all but then we were perfectly happy with repressive governments and dictators in other parts of the world if they kept the oil flowing for us.

Then, Bush gets this idea that we should make the world free for democracy, which was certainly noble albeit naive and dangerous, especially to those called to fight, and now we get people publishing articles that because we overthrew rotten dictators and repressive regimes that we are the cause for the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS.

Frankly, I don't like this sentiment that's always out there that we should just pull back to our borders and let everyone else figure out how to exist. Isolationism doesn't work and never has, and it certainly won't work in a world as small as our's is. I'm fine with the ideal that Bush went in with, the idea that we should be a positive voice and actor for freedom in the world, but we need to find a way to do it that wasn't as foolhardy and tragic as they way he disastrously did it (and no, I don't believe he actually lied - he, like pretty much the rest of the world, felt there were WMD in Iraq - even those who were against the war in Iraq felt there were WMD's there, they just didn't want to fight for other reasons).

We're going to have to figure out how to exist in this world with people that are likely going to hate us no matter what we do. But I'd rather we pick the side that says we're going to be for freedom and liberty and then we do what we can to live up to those ideals. The past two administrations over the past 14 years have failed miserably to do both parts of that equation.

Well said. I didn't like Bush, I didn't vote for him and I never understood why we were in Iraq but I agree. I don't think he lied. If he did, then the Left has to quit calling him dumb because he fooled all the right people. He did what he thought was right.

[ASUG8]

G Dubbs isn't blameless, he did get us into Iraq. But also put in measure to remove us from Iraq. Obama is the Commander in Chief. That means, regardless of what his predecessor did, if something occurs on his watch, he's responsible. End of Story. No "if's, and or buts" about it. Presidents never take the blame, only the credit.

So Obama is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

Nice try.
I'd argue that US intervention in Iraq stirred the hornet's nest, the withdrawal without a succession plan created a vacuum, and our continued drone and fighter strikes continue to fan the flames. Bush's fault? Obama's? Probably both.

Getting out of Iraq was a noble cause, but the Iraqis didn't have the ability to fend off anyone invading them and dropped their rifles faster than the French as soon as they had a conflict. That's why we're bombing our own vehicles and artillery batteries held by ISIS in Iraq currently.

We're simply not going to invade any ME country, spend a few trillion, and get out successfully. These tribal and religious factions have been fighting among each other for centuries, and some well timed air strikes won't do much but turn their ire to the West.

[Ibanez]

G Dubbs isn't blameless, he did get us into Iraq. But also put in measure to remove us from Iraq. Obama is the Commander in Chief. That means, regardless of what his predecessor did, if something occurs on his watch, he's responsible. End of Story. No "if's, and or buts" about it. Presidents never take the blame, only the credit.

So Obama is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

Sure he is. So is Bush. So is Ronald Reagan, the leaders of the USSR from 1979-1989, Clinton, etc... And those are just the heads of state.

However, what is assigning blame going to do for the future? Nothing. Deal with the problem. You're the POTUS. It's your problem to deal with. So, nut up and stop assigning blame to others. Handle it.

If Al Qeada thinks ISIL was too brutal, you have to wonder what sort of mad men are we dealing with. The people that brought down the twin towers don't want to associate with these fuckers. That's quite telling.

Spoiler: show

Please tell me you've read the history of ISIL.

[89Hen]

All wars are fought for money.

I feel bad for you to live with so much hate.

[89Hen]

If Al Qeada thinks ISIL was too brutal, you have to wonder what sort of mad men are we dealing with. The people that brought down the twin towers don't want to associate with these fuckers. That's quite telling.

They are the Oakland Raiders of terrorism (the old Oakland Raiders).

[kalm]

So Obama is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

Sure he is. So is Bush. So is Ronald Reagan, the leaders of the USSR from 1979-1989, Clinton, etc... And those are just the heads of state.

However, what is assigning blame going to do for the future? Nothing. Deal with the problem. You're the POTUS. It's your problem to deal with. So, nut up and stop assigning blame to others. Handle it.

If Al Qeada thinks ISIL was too brutal, you have to wonder what sort of mad men are we dealing with. The people that brought down the twin towers don't want to associate with these fuckers. That's quite telling.

Spoiler: show

Please tell me you've read the history of ISIL.

1) Would you have preferred that we stayed in Iraq then?

2) How would you like him to deal with the problem?

3) Is this the first time we've left an occupied country?