Yeah and then there's the huge chunk of Iraqi people who don't want to be ruled by ISIS, Assad, Iran or the US. It's amazing how often those people have been ignored in this thread. Not that those people have a chance in hell of getting anything they deserve. But it's just amazing how the media and non-Iraqi public ignores that segment of the population.
Odd that out of the thousands of words I've written in this thread, that is the only one you can see. Thin skin, eh? Much easier to focus on my namecalling than to actually argue any points, or bother to click on any of the links I've presented. Changing the subject does sometimes work, of course.
you're not worth quoting or responding to when you engage in what you think is a serious conversation with others. take a breather. "What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”- Emerson
You're not worth responding to. Yet here I am. Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the substance of the thread, BTW.
Hah, why would you name call to begin with if you are discussing controversial points on the internet with people who will agree and disagree with you? Completely takes away from the conversation and leads to people not taking your points seriously.
So, it looks like Obama has lost David Brooks. I guess the crease of POTUS's pants just doesn't do it for him anymore. The Big Burn http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/opinion/david-brooks-the-sunni-shiite-conflict-explodes-in-iraq.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 Money Quote: We now have two administrations in a row that committed their worst foreign policy blunders in Iraq. By withdrawing too quickly from Iraq, by failing to build on the surge, the Obama administration has made some similar mistakes made during the early administration of George W. Bush, except in reverse. The dangers of American underreach have been lavishly and horrifically displayed.
Obama's weakness in Syria, Benghazi, and the rest of the Middle East gave these clowns the opening they needed. His policy is without question to blame.
People call me names all day long. Am I not allowed to reciprocate? Why yes, yes I am. Hearing libtards whine about me calling them libtards when I make no bones about them calling me all sorts of names doesn't move me, it just tells me that they'd rather not address the actual substance of my posts. Notice how the last few posts have completely avoided the topic at hand?
So, I'll repeat my last real question to the libta... er... wise gentlefolk of the board: What are we going to do about it now? Guess what? Bush isn't in control now, Obama is, and Obama has a choice to make. Does he act to try and stop this, or does he wash his hands of it and watch as the dominoes fall? Tell me your plan. Tell me what you want Obama to do.
It seems the moaning and complaining about a "liberal circle jerk" were made out of jealousy. I'd ask a mod to remove the photos. You made your point. The internet never forgets. Taking your cue for creating and defining mandates out of thin air: For posting on clutchfans, one must be typemcorrectly. No wait. He campaigned on pulling out, and there were complaints that he didn't pull out sooner. That was one of the major promises he gave to get elected, and he was called out on it for not delivering fast enough. He even got **** for claiming victory on the pullout of volunteer forces while keeping a hefty presence of military contractors there. You played the card of accepting responsibility in the here and now in order to evade the point that the Iraq War was a mistake to begin with. Similarly, the majority of the American electorate wanted these wars to end yesterday. It's not entirely Obama's fault since any Prez candidate remotely Not War would've won it in a landslide post Bush. That guy would still be under your crosshairs sooner or later because he would've pulled out just the same. And guess what? Even if the SoF agreement was make and implemented just like you said it would be, the terrorists would still be waiting for an opening because it's much cheaper for them to poke and prod while we burn millions of dollars day by day just by being there. You'll have to deal with that political defeat, and it's much bigger fight than just these here boards. This was a majorly unpopular war that was the defining cause for salting the earth for the RNC... And the more you bring up Iranians...are they the only players in the Mideast? I highly doubt anyone can predict what can remotely happen in the next 5-10 years. Typical paranoid overreaction that we're not a player anymore or some fundie Caliphate will sweep over the land. If I were to bet, it'd be more of the same around the region. Despite springs, revolutions and winters, it's still the same ****ing mess. Think about that for a minute...
On a somewhat related note... U.S. Aircraft Could Strike Iraq Within 24 Hours if so Ordered President Obama has so far turned down Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki’s request for U.S. air strikes against the Islamic extremists taking over his country. But if Obama changes his mind, U.S. jets could be flying over Iraq in less than a day. U.S. air bases, housing dozens of American fighters and bombers, are well within striking distance of Iraq. High-flying spy drones like the Global Hawk can just as easily fly over Iraq as Afghanistan or any other conflict zone in the region. The aircraft carrier U.S.S. George H.W. Bush is a few days’ sail away, in the North Arabian Sea. And it boasts dozens more fighters on board. Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/u-aircraft-could-strike-iraq-tomorrow-094500568--politics.html The part to pay attention to is where the carrier is. Also understand that if any airstrikes are carried out we will have to put people on the ground to call them in. ISIS's targets don't lend themselves to GPS-guided JDAMs, we will have to use other means that will require eyes on target.
It's also remotely plausible that this might be somewhat relevant: US seeing signs Iran engaged in Iraq strife, official says A senior U.S. defense official said Friday U.S. officials were seeing signs that Iranian fighters were engaged in Iraq, a development the source described as "concerning." But it was not immediately clear how many troops were involved. The defense official told Fox News the United States had been watching the swift gains made by the Sunni group known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) for months, adding "this didn't just happen." "This is bad," the official said, adding that "there is not much we can do (militarily). We are way behind the curve." Full Story (*warning to libtards: Faux News Alert*): http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/13/us-seeing-signs-iran-engaged-in-iraq-strife-official-says/
I thought you wanted attention homie. The interwebs will be overrun by libtard jihadis if you don't respond and tuck your tail behind even more news clippings.
So, I'll repeat my last real question to the libta... er... wise gentlefolk of the board: What are we going to do about it now? Guess what? Bush isn't in control now, Obama is, and Obama has a choice to make. Does he act to try and stop this, or does he wash his hands of it and watch as the dominoes fall? Tell me your plan. Tell me what you want Obama to do. (I am going to keep asking this until someone answers it, BTW)
