calfoxwc Posted October 28, 2014 Report Share Posted October 28, 2014 You heard it here, first. You can here it here, secondly: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-white-house-did-little-to-stop--the-rise-of-isis---says-frontline-documentary-133053988.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 28, 2014 Report Share Posted October 28, 2014 Can it really be true? cal, citing a PBS news program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2014 No bigot in me, dammit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 If we're not going to stop isis and we just intend to fuck around with them we ought to just stay out of it and let the cards fall where they may. I vote destroy them utterly and completely but if we're just going to half ass it, why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 This political half-assing it has gotten a LOT of our soldiers killed in battle, like Vietnam. Bomb Haighong sp? harbor? Nah. Political consequences. And in Afghanistan? Our soldiers deaths have skyrocketed because of Obamao's political interference with restrictive rules of engagement. Because, he favors and sides with Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Nixon sided with commies then if we are using your analogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Okay, I have no idea at all of what you mean there. Must have been a invisible ufo that just sped like a lightbeam over my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 If we're not going to stop isis and we just intend to fuck around with them we ought to just stay out of it and let the cards fall where they may. I vote destroy them utterly and completely but if we're just going to half ass it, why bother? I have a feeling they are waiting till after the mid-term elections to go full out, espcially if the kurds\iraqis\free syriain forces don't seem to be gaining more ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Okay, I have no idea at all of what you mean there. Must have been a invisible ufo that just sped like a lightbeam over my head. You were referencing the half measures used in Vietnam to what is going on in Afghanistan. You then segwayed into saying Obama favors and sides with Muslims. If that is the analogy you are going with then you could say Nixon favored and sided with the NVA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Don't take that as a "gotcha" moment or anything stupid like that. Just pointing out that the two issues are unrelated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Ah. I see it now. You do have a bit of a point - except Nixon never said the NV ..song... was the most beautiful song. Obamao did, however. Nixon never said push come to shove, he'd side with Muslims. Obamao did. Nixon never turned his back on Israel. Obamao certainly has. But, as this article explains, there are similarities to the withdrawal from nv, and Iraq. And differences. After the TET offensive, many folks were convinced sv could never win. Vietnam was an idealogical clusterfook from the gitgo. Iraq and Afghanistan were not. But all the gains we made there, were thrown out the window by Obamao's naivete and left wing/marxist garbage'. Egad. I just thunk a thought. I wonder why Jane "Traitor" Fonda hasn't gone over to Iraq, and worn a suicide vest, laughing all the way. Never mind. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBT.GrMlFUj5sAqDJXNyoA?qid=20101117085910AAcOqlt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 We could have won in Vietnam. Not so much in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a total difference in where the motivations are. Extremist Islamic factions were there well before the U.S. showed up in the Middle East and will be there until the end of time. Communism in Vietnam was a relatively new problem when we showed up when compared to Islam in the Middle East. We would have to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least another hundred years if the goal is some grand cultural change. No one wants to be policeman for another country for that long, investing the kind of money we would have to in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I agree with you, but we left Vietnam in shambles, and we owned Iraq as far as driving the sick sob's out of power. Obamao deserted it, like Nixon deserted Vietnam. LBJ tied our military's "hands behind their backs", and so has Obamao. I had a link about that, but I forgot to put it in the post. We didn't have to go into Vietnam. JFK had about what, 6500 advisors there? Then LBJ went all stupid and sent way, way over a hundred thousand over there. I didn't agree with staying in Iraq after the war ended. Those people aren't going to change, those terrorist dirtbags. Obamao may as well put on a skirt and a blouse, and change his name to Jane Obamafonda. LOL. I think I'll keep that for future reference.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Segue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Segue Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Nixon sided with commies then if we are using your analogy? Nixon was impeached.. I like where you are going with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Nixon was impeached.. I like where you are going with this Obama won't be impeached. He will leave office and some new stooge will take the fall guy seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 But he should be. If only the reps can really take the senate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Obama won't be impeached. He will leave office and some new stooge will take the fall guy seat. But, but, but,, he was the ONE!! The guy that won a Nobel peace prize for........ He had a fucking super majority for 2 yrs and all we got out of it was the worst pc of legislation that has ever been rammed down the throat of a civilized society in the history of man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Exaggerating a little? Haha I don't like it but there have been worse laws passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Let's be fair Axe. There is now a Nobel category entitled "jack shit." WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohican Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 Why should we stop ISIL anywhere, outside of US military bases on foreign soil and in the US itself? We are slow learners at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 Well, for the same reason we eventually had to join wwii and stop the nazis. Ignoring "small" threats, just lets them grow into huge threats. But then, stopping the huge threat is so much loss of life of our own soldiers. We already should have blasted isil while they were in a big convoy, coming up that main road from syria into iraq. Now, it's a giant clusterfook. Clinton ignored al quaida in afghanistan, sending only some missiles into the desert. Then, we were hit with 9/11, after they planned it for at least 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 Hell, other Muslim countries should be the ones going in and policing their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 True, on both posts. But they won't. At least we should have had the Brits, etc, going after isil when I said they should have. BTW, I was watching a report on the corrupt, cowardly "president" - they knew where the hostages were, but would not make a decision on rescuing them til about two to three months later, and then they had been moved. This obamao regime doesn't care about anything but keeping their power. And doing nothing is to them, politically expedient. I mean, they had both houses of Congress and the presidency, and they did jack nothing good for two years. So, there ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit. Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in. Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in. Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone. I was speaking in a broader sense of how things normally are. We feel as if we have to police every bad situation when we could stand to sit some out. It should be resolved by others sometimes. To be honest, I should not have mentioned the Brits because they are usually along for the ride on every adventure the U.S. goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 and a lot of that is due to the fact our English bretherin are still using their own currency. says I. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 I was speaking in a broader sense of how things normally are. We feel as if we have to police every bad situation when we could stand to sit some out. It should be resolved by others sometimes. To be honest, I should not have mentioned the Brits because they are usually along for the ride on every adventure the U.S. goes on. Yeah, I kinda got riled up at that! But you can sense that Obama doesn't want another "10 years of soldiers in the middle east" situation, and so is looking to get other countries involved - while still doing a 'fair share' of course - to take on ISIL. Like I said, nobody likes them, nobody backs them, and they're pissing off a lot of people. People from across Europe are being sucked in - apparently France has the highest number who have gone to fight. Australia's 'ginger muslim' has made a lot of people angry as well. This isn't like Iraq, with claims of WMDs that turned out to be 'optimistic' and we went through with the war anyway, or however you spin that. There's a definitive 'bad guy' that the world has no interest in appeasing or accommodating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.