89Hen wrote:They are the Oakland Raiders of terrorism (the old Oakland Raiders).Ibanez wrote: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.
1) If we're discussing preference, then I would have preferred to have not invaded Iraq. However, it's damned if you do/damned if you don't. We were there and we had an obligation to rebuild what we tore down.kalm wrote:1) Would you have preferred that we stayed in Iraq then?Ibanez wrote:
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
2) How would you like him to deal with the problem?
3) Is this the first time we've left an occupied country?
We also left Lebannon, Somalia, and quit supporting Aghanistan.Ibanez wrote:1) If we're discussing preference, then I would have preferred to have not invaded Iraq. However, it's damned if you do/damned if you don't. We were there and we had an obligation to rebuild what we tore down.kalm wrote:
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?
2) I don't know. You are fighting an ideology and not just an aggressive group or nation. Anything we do is going to work against us. If we fight,we strengthen their resolve and they continue to grow and recruit. If we don't, we're weak and they will most likely attack us and/or an ally. If it came down to a pitched battle, I say we take off the gloves and obliterate them. But that isn't going to happen. If we want to eradicate them, we have to remove the gloves and attack with extreme prejudice. We know where they are. We have them on surveillance. The thing is that not only do we destroy them, but we have to rebuild what they destroyed to gain trust and confidence. We have to empower the region to rise up against people and groups like that. It's not easy. I don't envy anyone that has make a decision on this problem.
3) We've left Vietnam. Korea (kinda of). But, Communism is nothing like this. National movements are nothing like Religious movements. Religious movements are far more dangerous.
Responsible for what in North Korea? I get what you and dback are saying but eventually, you have to accept that Bush hasn't been in power since 2009. It's 2014. It time for Obama to look at his policies (or lack thereof) and take responsibility. His fault or not, it's his watch.kalm wrote:We also left Lebannon, Somalia, and quit supporting Aghanistan.Ibanez wrote:
1) If we're discussing preference, then I would have preferred to have not invaded Iraq. However, it's damned if you do/damned if you don't. We were there and we had an obligation to rebuild what we tore down.
2) I don't know. You are fighting an ideology and not just an aggressive group or nation. Anything we do is going to work against us. If we fight,we strengthen their resolve and they continue to grow and recruit. If we don't, we're weak and they will most likely attack us and/or an ally. If it came down to a pitched battle, I say we take off the gloves and obliterate them. But that isn't going to happen. If we want to eradicate them, we have to remove the gloves and attack with extreme prejudice. We know where they are. We have them on surveillance. The thing is that not only do we destroy them, but we have to rebuild what they destroyed to gain trust and confidence. We have to empower the region to rise up against people and groups like that. It's not easy. I don't envy anyone that has make a decision on this problem.
3) We've left Vietnam. Korea (kinda of). But, Communism is nothing like this. National movements are nothing like Religious movements. Religious movements are far more dangerous.
Is Obama responsible for North Korea?
Waiting for JSO...I mean, dback...to defend his, "great" child molester.Cluck U wrote:Huh? If you are referring to Milk, he was a child molester.dbackjon wrote:...who used the death of two great Americans...
But, you look the other way at that stuff for gay men, correct?
They were in love. Give Harv a break. Nothing says I love you better than plugging a kid in the ass.Cluck U wrote:Waiting for JSO...I mean, dback...to defend his, "great" child molester.Cluck U wrote:
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?
Every 34-year old should be able to fvck a 16-year old in the azz, right?
I not surprised that Socrates isn't your kind of guy.89Hen wrote:I feel bad for you to live with so much hate.houndawg wrote:All wars are fought for money.
We left Kosovo too, which like Somalia and Lebannon doesn't have much in the way of natural resources that we need. We may have quit supporting Afghanistan but I don't see us pulling out and leaving all those rare earth elements on the table for the Chinese to add to their near monopoly.kalm wrote:We also left Lebannon, Somalia, and quit supporting Aghanistan.Ibanez wrote:
1) If we're discussing preference, then I would have preferred to have not invaded Iraq. However, it's damned if you do/damned if you don't. We were there and we had an obligation to rebuild what we tore down.
2) I don't know. You are fighting an ideology and not just an aggressive group or nation. Anything we do is going to work against us. If we fight,we strengthen their resolve and they continue to grow and recruit. If we don't, we're weak and they will most likely attack us and/or an ally. If it came down to a pitched battle, I say we take off the gloves and obliterate them. But that isn't going to happen. If we want to eradicate them, we have to remove the gloves and attack with extreme prejudice. We know where they are. We have them on surveillance. The thing is that not only do we destroy them, but we have to rebuild what they destroyed to gain trust and confidence. We have to empower the region to rise up against people and groups like that. It's not easy. I don't envy anyone that has make a decision on this problem.
3) We've left Vietnam. Korea (kinda of). But, Communism is nothing like this. National movements are nothing like Religious movements. Religious movements are far more dangerous.
Is Obama responsible for North Korea?
What inaction?kalm wrote:
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?
Is this still 2014?kalm wrote:
We also left Lebannon, Somalia, and quit supporting Aghanistan.
Obama is responsible for everything regarding foreign policy - now. He is the President and he's the last say on everything the US does in terms of foreign policy - now. How the pieces were lined up on the table when he took over in 2009 is all well and good, and like others have said in this thread, every single President that came before him helped to move those pieces around, and every move has had a good and a bad side to it, but he has the responsibility, and has fully had it since taking the Oath in 2009, to form and shape US foreign policy. He, like his predecessor's, only get to do so for a short time, but he's about 6 years into an 8 year turn at the helm and the policies are whatever he wants them to be. He's only got two more years or so before the next guy (or gal) comes into office and they start blaming him for the condition of the world he left.kalm wrote:We also left Lebannon, Somalia, and quit supporting Aghanistan.Ibanez wrote:
1) If we're discussing preference, then I would have preferred to have not invaded Iraq. However, it's damned if you do/damned if you don't. We were there and we had an obligation to rebuild what we tore down.
2) I don't know. You are fighting an ideology and not just an aggressive group or nation. Anything we do is going to work against us. If we fight,we strengthen their resolve and they continue to grow and recruit. If we don't, we're weak and they will most likely attack us and/or an ally. If it came down to a pitched battle, I say we take off the gloves and obliterate them. But that isn't going to happen. If we want to eradicate them, we have to remove the gloves and attack with extreme prejudice. We know where they are. We have them on surveillance. The thing is that not only do we destroy them, but we have to rebuild what they destroyed to gain trust and confidence. We have to empower the region to rise up against people and groups like that. It's not easy. I don't envy anyone that has make a decision on this problem.
3) We've left Vietnam. Korea (kinda of). But, Communism is nothing like this. National movements are nothing like Religious movements. Religious movements are far more dangerous.
Is Obama responsible for North Korea?
I thought Obama hit the reset button. Or was that only with the Ruskies?andy7171 wrote:The buck stopped back there.
Wie können Sie es wagen unsere glorreiche Führer , Barack Obama zu verleumden. Er wird uns in den Jahrhunderten des Wohlstands führen . Amerika wird wieder stark sein. Amerika jetzt ! Amerika IMMER!andy7171 wrote:Putin is walking all over our dear leader. Fucking ammetuer.
ASUG8 wrote:
I think he could use these
I'm still not 100% on the intel that says it was the Assad regime that used the chem weapons.Ibanez wrote:ASUG8 wrote:
Fvcking brilliant. Irradiate our oil fields. Lots of money to be made that way...FCS PATRIOTS wrote:It's time to drop the big one again and make the Middle East the newest occupant at the bottom of the ocean floor. SERIOUSLY. All the **** in the world starts and ends there. Damn these desert people. Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Just drop one after another on them until NOTHING is left.
So you're behind the Prez if he decides to take on Russia militarily in their back yard?ASUG8 wrote:I don't envy the spot he's in, but he sold the majority of Americans that he was the man for the job on two occasions. This is where the rubber meets the road, and if you can't make the tough calls then get out of the way.
89Hen wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwQqNdkyZZo[/youtube]
Poor Cleets and Kalm were duped.
