|
Title: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 27, 2014, 04:27:17 PM And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil...
and then you read the obama administrations take on isis.... George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx Quote This Week with George Stephanopoulos isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger....August 24, 2014 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting? BILL KRISTOL: I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it. STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric. PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: Lethn on August 27, 2014, 04:31:15 PM Who was the one that started Iraq in the first place? Oh wait I know!
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/01/gall.bush.lincoln.gi.jpg Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: zolace on August 27, 2014, 04:32:14 PM The ABC’s of not fighting terrorism
Terrorism thrives because many leaders make excuses for not fighting it, rather than making policies for defeating it. Here are some of the most malignant excuses: Excuse No. 1: The terror problem is exaggerated. “Osama bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is on the run,” President Obama said a few months before calling the terror group that now controls much of Iraq and Syria a “JV” outfit — junior varsity. http://nypost.com/2014/08/25/the-abcs-of-not-fighting-terrorism/ Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: sana8410 on August 27, 2014, 04:35:48 PM And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil... Lets ask you righties a question. Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria. You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad. So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad. You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against.and then you read the obama administrations take on isis.... George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx Quote This Week with George Stephanopoulos isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger....August 24, 2014 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting? BILL KRISTOL: I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it. STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric. PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 27, 2014, 04:39:56 PM And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil... Lets ask you righties a question. Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria. You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad. So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad. You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against.and then you read the obama administrations take on isis.... George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx Quote This Week with George Stephanopoulos isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger....August 24, 2014 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting? BILL KRISTOL: I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it. STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric. PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: sana8410 on August 27, 2014, 04:43:28 PM Simple fact is that the countries over in the middleeast don't want to do anything about ISIS and until they and Europe get behind a movement to rid the middle east of ISIS then all we can do is kill a few of them then wait till they regroup and we do it all over again. Do you really think that this would solve the problem.
Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: zolace on August 27, 2014, 04:46:39 PM more useful idiots:
The see no evil left in the US Matthew Clark: Leftist university professor Michael Boyle of La Salle University took to the pages of the New York Times to condemn all of us who refer to ISIS as “evil” or a “cancer.” And unsurprisingly, the New York Times happily printed the drivel, under the headline: “The Problem With ‘Evil.’” The professor claims that such terminology is a “disturbing return of the moralistic language once used to describe Al Qaeda,” and using such language is a “moral hazard.” Instead he refers to ISIS as “a successful insurgent group that wants a seat at that table.” With complete moral clarity, I can say he’s wrong. To reject value judgments – that a jihadist army that beheads journalists and is waging genocide against Christians is evil – is to ignore reality. He states that we are turning this into a religious war by use of such terminology, that it somehow advances their cause by helping portray jihadists “as engaged in a war against the Christian West.” But they are. No one accused ISIS of genocide before they started indiscriminately slaughtering Christians after first demanding they “convert or die.” To bury our heads in the sand and ignore the aim of our enemy is to ignore reality. How can you defeat an enemy if you refuse to recognize its aims, if you ignore and snobbishly deny its atrocities? ISIS doesn’t want a “seat at th[e] table.” It wants to dominate the table. ISIS, by its own words and actions, is establishing a radical Islamic Caliphate. It wants Christians and Jews eradicated. It beheads children. It sells women as sex slaves. If that’s not “evil,” then there is no evil. ... ISIL would cut of Boyle's head along with the heads of the rest of his family if they could and he does not think that is evil? That group does not want to negotiate with anyone at any table. It wants the whole world to accept the weird religious views of the group or be pushed into a mass grave or have their heads severed from their body. The willful blindness of the see no evil left is sometimes stunning. http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/?v=0 Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 27, 2014, 04:47:51 PM Simple fact is that the countries over in the middleeast don't want to do anything about ISIS and until they and Europe get behind a movement to rid the middle east of ISIS then all we can do is kill a few of them then wait till they regroup and we do it all over again. Do you really think that this would solve the problem. and as I said.. the liberals and the media not taking isis terroirsts seriously...and your attitude infects the leftists in the media and in the administration... even if isis does attack this country in some way... and thats what they are promising to do... the libeals and the media will brush away critisizm and blame everyone for the attack other than the murderous terrorists.... you are the perfect example of what I posted..... Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: zolace on August 27, 2014, 04:50:32 PM Simple fact is that the countries over in the middleeast don't want to do anything about ISIS and until they and Europe get behind a movement to rid the middle east of ISIS then all we can do is kill a few of them then wait till they regroup and we do it all over again. Do you really think that this would solve the problem. Oh, I see, you think life in Syria would be better if isis were running the country because even they are better than asad. Got it. For a while there I was beginning to think the left wasn't worried about isis because they are more afraid of the terrorist tea party here in America cause you just know they're out there plotting and planning on taking over America just like isis is doing in iraq and you lefties are sure you would be the first to be slaughtered and your bodyless heads displayed on youtube. Cause harry reid told you so.Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 27, 2014, 04:54:03 PM Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French? There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world.
Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: zolace on August 27, 2014, 05:06:50 PM Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French? There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world. First lets ignore that we went into iraq to stop terrorists and then obama left the country without the ability to protect themselves. Then lets ignore that our allies are under attack. Then lets ignore that isis now has the man power and the money to attack Americans inside the US. then lets forget that whoever becomes controlled by isis becomes our enemy. Then lets forget that obama aided the muslim brotherhood in Egypt which failed miserably. then lets forget that iraq asked for US aid a year ago to stop isis while in the early formation stages. Then lets forget that obama helped invade Libya and then left that country a hotbed mess for terrorists to take over. And lets forget that if we had aided the Syrian rebels in their civil war before terrorists did we wouldn't be in any of this mess right now. Obviously you have no problem sitting back and watching the slaughter of innocent humans much like many Americans did before Japan invited us into world war II. In other words you don't understand foreign policy, the need for the US to have allies and why we need to stop terrorists before they come here.Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: sana8410 on August 27, 2014, 05:17:18 PM I have a few questions for anyone who sees Isis as a direct threat to the US:
1. Their declared primary purpose is religious, extending religious bloodshed in the ME to six centuries. Does anyone think any US action could change that reality as a basis for war there? (If so, explain Iraq/Afghanistan). 2. Other than the actions either taken by this administration or being considered (arming the Kurds, bombing and droning Isis in Iraq and perhaps Syria, and restoring creditability to the Iraqi government) what would you suggest? Boots on the ground? Nukes? 3. It is not news that ME terrorists want to kill westerners and, if given the opportunity will do so today. Does anyone think an Isis terrorists any different from any other terrorist? How so? And if they are no different, then are we not doing pretty good at preventing their success? If they are different then how come they have no succeeded at a US attack ever? 4. Isis is unlike al qaeda in more important respect; they occupy land. That means if they succeed in a US attack they can be found and killed much more easily than those who hid in the mountains of Pakistan. Wanna harm the US....we will come visiting you from the air with punishments you will not avoid. So why should we seek yet another "preemptive" war? Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: zolace on August 27, 2014, 05:18:56 PM Obama reminds me of the guy who always shows up to the party when everyone else is getting ready to leave, his responses always late and always tepid at best. Instead of a few periodic potshots at these creatures from ISIS, Obama should have been engaging them in earnest right from the get-go and we might not have this national security crises in Iraq we have today.
Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 27, 2014, 05:19:22 PM Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French? There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world. First lets ignore that we went into iraq to stop terrorists and then obama left the country without the ability to protect themselves. Then lets ignore that our allies are under attack. Then lets ignore that isis now has the man power and the money to attack Americans inside the US. then lets forget that whoever becomes controlled by isis becomes our enemy. Then lets forget that obama aided the muslim brotherhood in Egypt which failed miserably. then lets forget that iraq asked for US aid a year ago to stop isis while in the early formation stages. Then lets forget that obama helped invade Libya and then left that country a hotbed mess for terrorists to take over. And lets forget that if we had aided the Syrian rebels in their civil war before terrorists did we wouldn't be in any of this mess right now. Obviously you have no problem sitting back and watching the slaughter of innocent humans much like many Americans did before Japan invited us into world war II. In other words you don't understand foreign policy, the need for the US to have allies and why we need to stop terrorists before they come here.Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: 5 Guys Burgers on August 27, 2014, 05:20:49 PM Who was the one that started Iraq in the first place? Oh wait I know! http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/01/gall.bush.lincoln.gi.jpg If you researched anything about Iraq, you would know that a lot was brewing there and if we had not taken action their whole country would have fallen a lot sooner and would have had no protection and no standing army. As it stands right now they do have a standing army but Obama deserted them. All they need is 3,000+ advisors and tech and radar and spy capabilities and their own army can do what needs to be done. When all us troops pulled out a lot of chaos ensued as what should be done and when and where the enemy is. When the US left the iraqi army(once again abandoned by a democrat) was disorganized. take away a major structual foundation to an army and it doesnt function. i know you want to be a lil beach and talk ur hard stuff tho. l2read i guess? Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: sana8410 on August 27, 2014, 05:22:02 PM Finally, an opinion:
In the US we have a powerful political factor that has a constant taste for war, and it is neverending. If we are at peace for a week folks like McCain are seeking wars out for us. While that helps the defense industry, it does not help Americans. We won nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. But in each case we spent our wealth and American blood. How many of these wars must we fight before we turn on those who endlessly demand more blood for no purpose? Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: zolace on August 27, 2014, 05:30:24 PM Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French? There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world. First lets ignore that we went into iraq to stop terrorists and then obama left the country without the ability to protect themselves. Then lets ignore that our allies are under attack. Then lets ignore that isis now has the man power and the money to attack Americans inside the US. then lets forget that whoever becomes controlled by isis becomes our enemy. Then lets forget that obama aided the muslim brotherhood in Egypt which failed miserably. then lets forget that iraq asked for US aid a year ago to stop isis while in the early formation stages. Then lets forget that obama helped invade Libya and then left that country a hotbed mess for terrorists to take over. And lets forget that if we had aided the Syrian rebels in their civil war before terrorists did we wouldn't be in any of this mess right now. Obviously you have no problem sitting back and watching the slaughter of innocent humans much like many Americans did before Japan invited us into world war II. In other words you don't understand foreign policy, the need for the US to have allies and why we need to stop terrorists before they come here.I think in this case, Obama really does exemplify American foreign policy in our period of wannabe isolationists. We always do the right thing...after we've explored every other option. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: Lethn on August 27, 2014, 05:45:33 PM Who was the one that started Iraq in the first place? Oh wait I know! http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/01/gall.bush.lincoln.gi.jpg If you researched anything about Iraq, you would know that a lot was brewing there and if we had not taken action their whole country would have fallen a lot sooner and would have had no protection and no standing army. As it stands right now they do have a standing army but Obama deserted them. All they need is 3,000+ advisors and tech and radar and spy capabilities and their own army can do what needs to be done. When all us troops pulled out a lot of chaos ensued as what should be done and when and where the enemy is. When the US left the iraqi army(once again abandoned by a democrat) was disorganized. take away a major structual foundation to an army and it doesnt function. i know you want to be a lil beach and talk ur hard stuff tho. l2read i guess? Yeah, there were also supposed to be nuclear weapons weren't there? Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: Mike Christ on August 27, 2014, 06:25:35 PM Why would they label IS as evil? They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner.
Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: shogdite on August 27, 2014, 07:46:02 PM If you researched anything about Iraq, you would know that a lot was brewing there and if we had not taken action their whole country would have fallen a lot sooner and would have had no protection and no standing army. As it stands right now they do have a standing army but Obama deserted them. All they need is 3,000+ advisors and tech and radar and spy capabilities and their own army can do what needs to be done. When all us troops pulled out a lot of chaos ensued as what should be done and when and where the enemy is. When the US left the iraqi army(once again abandoned by a democrat) was disorganized. take away a major structual foundation to an army and it doesnt function. i know you want to be a lil beach and talk ur hard stuff tho. l2read i guess? It was Bush who was in charge when the entire Iraq army was disbanded, probably one of the most retarded decisions made by a modern US president. If Saddam was still in power, ISIS probably wouldn't exist. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: Lethn on August 28, 2014, 03:00:07 AM Why would they label IS as evil? They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner. Because they're different from us! And being different means you're evil! :P Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: wassupman on August 28, 2014, 04:44:12 PM So then, the guy that was the lead of terrorists and thought to be in Iraq is not noticed or understood. How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what? Bush was in office for ten years??? NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Better ask the countries that were there. Obviously 9/11 and those results is not rememered or carred about?
Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 28, 2014, 04:51:50 PM So then, the guy that was the lead of terrorists and thought to be in Iraq is not noticed or understood. How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what? Bush was in office for ten years??? NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Better ask the countries that were there. Obviously 9/11 and those results is not rememered or carred about? Not entirely sure what you are asking here (there's those language skills of yours), but let's just talk about those terrorist camps in Iraq prior to our invasion. They were actually there because WE were protecting them. Surprised by that? Well, it's essentially true. We set up these no fly zones and strictly enforced them against the Iraqi government. The thing is, we didn't prepare for the side effect of the Iraqi government (under Saddam Hussein) not being able to mobilize against those terrorist groups - who hated him as much as they did us. Saddam Hussein was NOT supporting Al Qaeda, as was claimed by the Bush administration in the run-up to the invasion. They hated him, and he hated them. And this was debunked before we invaded. So no, we did not invade Iraq to stop terrorism. And in the 20-20 vision of hind sight (and as many of us who opposed the invasion in the first place predicted) we have created a breeding ground for terrorism.Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 28, 2014, 04:58:13 PM Quote How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what? I'm not sure what the numbers were when Bush left office, but I'm sure it's information available if we were to look for it. The thing is, the number is irrelevant to the point. The fact is, the agreement for our withdrawal was negotiated under President Bush. It was not COMPLETED until Obama was in office, but it was still negotiated under Bush. As the deadline approached, the Iraqis expressed that they were not ready to take over security in their country (after all that time, they well should have been, but they became entirely too dependent on our forces to do it for them). President Obama tried to negotiate an extension, but the Iraqis were unwilling to allow us to stay under the same terms they'd agreed to before - with an immunity for our personnel from prosecution under Iraqi civil authority. So, with that refusal, the Obama administration continued with the withdrawal. Responsibility for Iraq not being able to defend itself falls exclusively with Iraq - first, because after all that time, they should have been able to put together an Army that wouldn't drop their guns and run the moment someone says "BOO!" in their general direction, and second because they COULD have had us staying on to help them if they hadn't insisted on being able to arrest and jail American servicemen.Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 28, 2014, 05:04:12 PM Quote Bush was in office for ten years??? Easy one. This comes under the heading of your weak language skills. Bush was in office for 8 years. The invasion of Iraq was in 2003, and the withdrawal was completed in December of 2011, as per the terms of the withdrawal agreement negotiated between the Iraqi and Bush governments - also around 8 years. 8 years is, as I said, "the better part of 10 years". Do you need further help in understanding this language?Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 28, 2014, 05:29:00 PM Quote NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Not really, no. This was "the coalition of the willing" which was mostly the US and Great Britain. NATO as an organization was NOT involved in the decision to invade, and some members of NATO did not participate - in fact, refused to participate. NATO itself had a training mission of 150 advisors involved, but had no part in authorizing, planning or carrying out the mission.Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 28, 2014, 05:30:25 PM Quote Better ask the countries that were there. As I stated above (you can look this up), the multi-national force involved in the invasion of Iraq was NOT under the auspices of NATO.Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: umair127 on August 28, 2014, 05:37:20 PM Quote Obviously 9/11 and those results is not rememered or carred about? Apparently, you need a reminder - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Qaeda, and we invaded Afghanistan to go after them, not Iraq.I know that the time and effort I took to answer this was a waste, because I'm talking to a guy with the IQ of your average door knob, and I expect nothing but another indecipherable jumble of words in response, but hey - no one can say I didn't answer your questions. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: wenben on August 28, 2014, 05:53:54 PM Why would they label IS as evil? They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner. Because they're different from us! And being different means you're evil! :P That has been to motto for the foreign policy for US for the last 40+ years. Being a communist in the old day mean we will attack you even if you are 10 millions miles away. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: Snail2 on August 28, 2014, 09:07:27 PM Lets ask you righties a question. Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria. You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad. So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad. You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against. You leftists and other PC maniacs do not understand that these guys will not stop when they reached the Syrian borders. In addition they don't have to go to the States for doing some harm, because of they are already there. These blokes are capable (or they will be capable shortly) to redraw the maps of the Middle-east, but today maybe not to late to hunt them down. You guys just doing the same what Baldwin and Chamberlain did in the thirties. Title: Re: Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously Post by: wasserman99 on August 29, 2014, 07:40:43 PM Lets ask you righties a question. Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria. You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad. So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad. You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against. You leftists and other PC maniacs do not understand that these guys will not stop when they reached the Syrian borders. In addition they don't have to go to the States for doing some harm, because of they are already there. These blokes are capable (or they will be capable shortly) to redraw the maps of the Middle-east, but today maybe not to late to hunt them down. You guys just doing the same what Baldwin and Chamberlain did in the thirties. |
