Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 185
  1. #76
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,763
    Rand Paul acts like he's a real expert on the Cons ution. How loosely his interpretation becomes when the majority of Americans support military action.

    It's like Afghanistan in 2001.... some 91%, IIRC, supported the invasion. No one cared it was a war that couldn't be won without extreme bloodshed. No one cared it was fame for being unconquerable in the first place. All that mattered was KILL KILL KILL. Only decades+ later do we contemplate on our reaction. Half heartlessly as well. I mean, me personally, I don't fear being bombed in the street. I don't even fear nukes - considering south TX's strategic importance, if there's any anti-nuclear defenses, we're high priority. What's the point? When does it end? When do we get our trillions of dollars back?

  2. #77
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Arabs Give Tepid Support to U.S. Fight Against ISIS

    Many Arab governments grumbled quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence. Now, the United States is back and getting a less than enthusiastic welcome, with leading allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all finding ways on Thursday to avoid specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.

    As the prospect of the first American strikes inside Syria crackled through the region, the mixed reactions underscored the challenges of a new military intervention in the Middle East, where 13 years of chaos, from Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring revolts, have deepened political and sectarian divisions and increased mistrust of the United States on all sides.

    “As a student of terrorism for the last 30 years, I am afraid of that formula of ‘supporting the American effort,’ ” said Diaa Rashwan, a scholar at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-funded policy organization in Cairo. “It is very dangerous.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

    Sounds like US won't build another Coalition of The Billing



  3. #78
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    W's strategy in Iraq was to take out a dictator and establish a peaceful democracy and ally against terrorism "in the heart of the middle east". Which we now know was a really stupid idea.
    You Lie, oh True Believer of Repug LIES.

    Invading Iraq-for-oil was ALWAYS A STUPID IDEA.

  4. #79
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,219
    sure plenty of people, esp the intelligent ones, were against the Iraq war. Obama distinguished himself by voting against it.

    But Iraq anti-war demonstrations weren't even in the universities, and certainly not among adults, many of whom were in the streets 45 years ago against the VN war.
    We were not pulling kids out of universities. There was real people involvement in VN. Lots of people dying. Compare the numbers of deaths. These new wars are sanitized. The real death toll is not in the US. Yet there was still a view of "what the are we doing"

    This so called war with Isis will not be the same. The argument will be even more about $ compared to progress. Deaths will occur elsewhere. It's nice to see Snake referring to this as a war as he is concerned for the long term death toll of others outside of the US.

    The long term strategy here is not clear to me. Do we really expect fair and decent people to rise to the top and take charge? We just seem to leave holes filled by successive bouts of brutality. The rest of the world seems more willing as well. I can see bombing to assist 20,000 people from being slaughtered. I can see bombing to prevent groups from destroying big infrastructure projects (dams). Other than these emergency situations, I don't really get it. So as Obamas spokesperson, you explain it.

  5. #80
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,219
    And maybe the past, how we got here, that can stop. The blame game is endless.
    Start today and tell me what we expect out of this? Other than preventing large losses of life in immediate fashion. (Selected strikes like the mountain and dams) And I would like more news on the food, medicine, and shelter assistance. This always seems to be uninteresting, but does happen on a large scale. Where is Winehole...

  6. #81
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    The great wounded Vietnam veteran declares:

    Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS

    (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN in an interview that the administration's strategy includes "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war."

    "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN's Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."

    Kerry made a distinction between ISIS and terror groups operating in Somalia and Yemen.

    "ISIL is an animal unto itself," he said. "And it is significantly such a threat because of the foreign fighters that are attracted to it -- which you don't see in Somalia or ... Yemen." Most importantly, Kerry said, ISIL has attracted a "significant coalition" that is determined to go and destroy it.

    (more)

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/...st-visit-isis/

    How does blaming Bush make Obama right? Everyone is getting worked up, , Obama hasn't done anything he says he is going to in six years in foreign policy, so why get in a lather. He just needs his poll numbers to come back up and he will be happy. And he will declare victory again and take credit for winning a second time.

  7. #82
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Meh, not really.
    I beg to differ. The sheer anti-Obama hysteria far exceeds the volume and nature of that leveled at Bush.

    I think you were merely more attuned to the anti-Bush stuff, because you were gamely trying to defend the stupidest he did, and it seemed greater.

  8. #83
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    lol we are beginning a new multi-year military campaign that involves going back into Iraq and now getting involved in Syria's civil war and Obama fanboy says...

    My how things have changed.
    Two whole sentences. Don't wear yourself out there, buddy.

    The first invasion of Iraq was pretty clearly unnecessary to our overall security.

    In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

    We are now experiencing some of the knock-on effects of Republican ignorance about the rest of the world on several levels.

    I put very little stock in most criticisms of Obama's policy on this matter at this point because they are so obviously partisan-driven. No matter what the president does, the GOP will find something to criticise, and the actual merits will not really be much of a consideration in the formation of the talking points that the mindless FOX drones will breathlessly parrot as if they were some sort of topical expert after being told what to think in a forwarded email.

    We have begun a long process for a very complicated problem. I will wait for some time to pass before trying to pass judgment.

    A better question is:

    Should we have gotten out of Iraq to begin with?

    What a freaking tar-baby that ended up being.

  9. #84
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681

    W's strategy in Iraq was to take out a dictator and establish a peaceful democracy and ally against terrorism "in the heart of the middle east". Which we now know was a really stupid idea.

    O's strategy is to enter into a long term military campaign in Iraq and Syria with no end game in hopes of retaining a few senate seats. Time will tell if this is a stupid idea but I'm guessing that it is...just a guess though.


    You NOW know know it was a stupid idea. I was saying as much before we went in. It was patently obvious that the no-nothings in the Bush administration had no clue what they were doing.

    If you think that O's strategy is based on regaining senate seats, that is ing stupid. I call bull .

    Guess all you want, your only basis for claiming that is your own moronic rank partisanship, unless you are somehow party to the inner deliberations of Obama's staff.

    ISIS is a direct and real threat, and if you are too ignorant to see that, then you need to get off your lazy ass and do some reading. There is more than enough information out there and judgment by competent experts to support that.

    "Obama is doing this to win seats in an election, durr."

    Really?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-12-2014 at 12:06 PM.

  10. #85
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,004
    In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

    We are now experiencing some of the knock-on effects of Republican ignorance about the rest of the world on several levels.
    But as President Obama prepares to send the United States on what could be a yearslong military campaign against the militant group, American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.

    Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a “farce,” with “members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.”

    It’s hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systems — all on the basis of no corroborated information,” said Mr. Benjamin, who is now a scholar at Dartmouth College.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/wo...-act.html?_r=1

  11. #86
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,004
    “As formidable as ISIL is as a group, it is not invincible,” Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last week, using an alternate name for the group. “ISIL is not Al Qaeda pre-9/11” with cells operating in Europe, Southeast Asia and the United States. Mr. Olsen’s assessment stood in contrast to more pointed descriptions by other American officials like Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said that ISIS poses an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”

    Lol RG

  12. #87
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    snakeboy only knows dem v rep. it's his MO. He has no capacity to think rationally when it comes to Obama in particular.
    Republicans are calling for President Barack Obama to present a detailed strategy to Congress on how the U.S. plans to defeat Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria ahead of his primetime address to the nation Wednesday.

    “It's time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/cong...rategy-n199146

    The stupidest part of this, is that the GOP, you know the ones Obama is hoping to "win a few seats" against, wanted Obama to do this.

    So not only does he think the President is doing this purely for cynical reasons, he think the Republicans are too stupid to realize how many seats Obama stands to gain from it.

    That is how blindingly stupid that assertion or "guess" is.

  13. #88
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    RG fully supports Obama's plan...shocking

    Be afraid everyone...RandomGuy says the terrorists are gonna getcha.

  14. #89
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    ISIS, at the present time, represents no immediate threat to the US, and that is correct.

    What will happen, if left to their own devices is something far more akin to the Taliban, and a continued magnet to every muslim looney that feels their irrational religious beliefs are "under attack". No small number of them are Westerners.

    We have no indications in open sources that they are thinking about attacking the US, but to think that, if left alone, they wouldn't, is horribly naive.

    The quoted sources are right to point out that they lack the capability TODAY to do something, but that gives little indication as to what will happen six months or six years from now.

    This is a well financed and much larger group than initially thought.

    Further, in assessing them as a threat is that we have almost no human assets within that area, so our ability to accurately ferret out intent and so forth will be limited.

  15. #90
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    “As formidable as ISIL is as a group, it is not invincible,” Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last week, using an alternate name for the group. “ISIL is not Al Qaeda pre-9/11” with cells operating in Europe, Southeast Asia and the United States. Mr. Olsen’s assessment stood in contrast to more pointed descriptions by other American officials like Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said that ISIS poses an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”

    Lol RG
    Again, it is a correct assessment. No "immediate" threat. Hagel was utilizing a bit of hyperbole, and they rightfully called him on it.

    I know what it is, and isn't, and have a far more nuanced view.

    It is a threat.

    Do you think it isn't?

  16. #91
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,004
    ISIS, at the present time, represents no immediate threat to the US, and that is correct.
    Wait, I thought ISIS was a threat -- one greater than AQ ever was?

    What will happen, if left to their own devices is something far more akin to the Taliban, and a continued magnet to every muslim looney that feels their irrational religious beliefs are "under attack". No small number of them are Westerners.
    I dunno what will happen if they're left to their own devices. But I do know that it will be a much, much better scenario than if we get involved in a third war.

    We have no indications in open sources that they are thinking about attacking the US, but to think that, if left alone, they wouldn't, is horribly naive.
    Why? Because they've said so? You believe them?

    The quoted sources are right to point out that they lack the capability TODAY to do something, but that gives little indication as to what will happen six months or six years from now.
    6 months to a year? You're kidding me. These are guys with ak-47s and busted toyota trucks. What indication do you have that they'll be at our shores in Spring 2015?

    This is a well financed and much larger group than initially thought.

    Further, in assessing them as a threat is that we have almost no human assets within that area, so our ability to accurately ferret out intent and so forth will be limited.
    Except that getting involved, again, for the third time is exactly what gives rise to these groups in the first place. It doesn't work -- it never has and never will.

    Would ISIS exist if we ever invaded Iraq?

  17. #92
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,004
    Again, it is a correct assessment. No "immediate" threat. Hagel was utilizing a bit of hyperbole, and they rightfully called him on it.

    I know what it is, and isn't, and have a far more nuanced view.

    It is a threat.

    Do you think it isn't?
    Please educate us on your far more nuanced view.

  18. #93
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    RG fully supports Obama's plan...shocking

    Be afraid everyone...RandomGuy says the terrorists are gonna getcha.
    I will wait for some time to pass before trying to pass judgment.
    It is a threat that needs to be addressed, and the Republicans have said as much.

    Are the Republicans wrong?

    If so, how?

    It might take more than two sentences to outline.

  19. #94
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,004
    In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.
    “As formidable as ISIL is as a group, it is not invincible,” Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last week, using an alternate name for the group. “ISIL is not Al Qaeda pre-9/11” with cells operating in Europe, Southeast Asia and the United States. Mr. Olsen’s assessment stood in contrast to more pointed descriptions by other American officials like Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said that ISIS poses an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”
    Not just Hagel's hyperbole now is it?

  20. #95
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Please educate us on your far more nuanced view.
    Lunch hour is up, but hold me to it, I will be happy to fill in the blanks, as I should. Will have to wait until weekend, or possibly later tonight.

    I noticed you didn't answer my question.

    Do you think ISIS is not a threat?

  21. #96
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,004
    Lunch hour is up, but hold me to it, I will be happy to fill in the blanks, as I should. Will have to wait until weekend, or possibly later tonight.

    I noticed you didn't answer my question.

    Do you think ISIS is not a threat?
    I'd have thought it was obvious that I don't think they threaten the US. Hence all the articles about ISIS not being a threat to the US.

  22. #97
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    It is a threat that needs to be addressed, and the Republicans have said as much.

    Are the Republicans wrong?

    If so, how?

    It might take more than two sentences to outline.
    meh

  23. #98
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I beg to differ. The sheer anti-Obama hysteria far exceeds the volume and nature of that leveled at Bush.

    I suppose you have some data to back this up.

  24. #99
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Not just Hagel's hyperbole now is it?
    Re-posting the same quote won't get you where you need to go, counselor.

  25. #100
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I put very little stock in most criticisms of Obama's policy on this matter at this point because they are so obviously partisan-driven.
    What about policy criticisms from the left? I guess those have merit, huh?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •