Notfooledby Brennan?????

[deltex1]

I'm going to the pool...

 

[Jarhead]

America invented Al Qaeda, provided them with weapons and motivation, used them as a boogyman to scare our own citizens into accepting a police state and to support 2 wars. We have been fighting them for years and based our entire defense policy on them. Enough, if you want to be scared of them go right ahead we have been sold too many lies out of fear of a few thousand primitive dickheads.

It appears you want Brennan's job...you're qualified. I forwarded your analysis to the 200000 dead in Syria.

Maybe you want your relatives and friends fighting in a middle eastern hellhole but I'd rather keep them home no matter what the hell people there are doing. It's heartbreaking, if I felt anything positive would occur I would be more inclined to approve of more than just airdrops and bombing. We have sent too many young people to die there already and have nothing to show for it.

So when you say "we must help all those in need" as it pertains to the kids on the border....

What you mean is "we must help those in need as long as it is not an inconvenience to us"

Do me a favor....write the fucking liberal rule book and publish it so we know the guidelines of "being human"

You seem to change the goalposts regularly

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Someone send the moron the memo that the caliphate is established.

The caliphate is established.? Who is the Caliph of this 'established' caliphate? What constitutes 'established' in your mind.

They could not hold the Mosul Dam. They could not take the Bhaji refinery. They control ghost towns and cannot provide for the normal functions of human activity and commerce,

 

[deltex1]

Someone send the moron the memo that the caliphate is established.

The caliphate is established.? Who is the Caliph of this 'established' caliphate? What constitutes 'established' in your mind.

They could not hold the Mosul Dam. They could not take the Bhaji refinery. They control ghost towns and cannot provide for the normal functions of human activity and commerce,

Sounds like the wife us feeding you information, Foo. I sorta agree with you for a change....but then what is your explanation for the SecDefs remarks today about ISIS being a huge threat...and extremely well funded?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. I sorta agree with you for a change....but then what is your explanation for the SecDefs remarks today about ISIS being a huge threat...and extremely well funded?

If you agree with me then you should realize that my attempts to straighten out tinydancer's thinking is in no way saying that the IS terrorist rampage is not a threat. It is a threat. They are a very significant threat. It's just sickening to hear a foreigner blame what the terrorists are doing on our President. That is absurd. Petraeus said it well.

So while you are getting so agreeable why don't you agree with Petraeus and me that No one knows whether US forces kept there would have given us an influence. If no one knows as Petraeus says then foreigners ought to stop running around being obsessed that it would have made a difference.

Petraeus was recently asked, "Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?"

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.

So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.

As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On August 13 2014 at 10:24 AM Deltex wrote, "...I propose the threat of a devastating missile/air attack if Muslim nations to not control their radicals...or if they actively support same. A one time demonstration ought to be enough." http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/notfooledby-brennan.370668/page-2#post-9618556

How devastating would that be? Do you mean like hitting the Saudi Monarchy?

 

[deltex1]

. I sorta agree with you for a change....but then what is your explanation for the SecDefs remarks today about ISIS being a huge threat...and extremely well funded?

If you agree with me then you should realize that my attempts to straighten out tinydancer's thinking is in no way saying that the IS terrorist rampage is not a threat. It is a threat. They are a very significant threat. It's just sickening to hear a foreigner blame what the terrorists are doing on our President. That is absurd. Petraeus said it well.

So while you are getting so agreeable why don't you agree with Petraeus and me that No one knows whether US forces kept there would have given us an influence. If no one knows as Petraeus says then foreigners ought to stop running around being obsessed that it would have made a difference.

Petraeus was recently asked, "Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?"

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.

So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.

As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

Are you trying to tell me that after all we did for Iraq we had no influence in what mission our troops would have? We had no say? Obabble could
not force his will on Maliki after our total control over that country? Obabble wanted out...so he made no demands he withdrew and claimed he ended the war.

You did not answer the question...is ISIS a threat or not. You insinuated they could not hold the damn etc...but they are a force to be reckoned with....which is it?

 

[deltex1]

On August 13 2014 at 10:24 AM Deltex wrote, "...I propose the threat of a devastating missile/air attack if Muslim nations to not control their radicals...or if they actively support same. A one time demonstration ought to be enough." http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/notfooledby-brennan.370668/page-2#post-9618556

How devastating would that be? Do you mean like hitting the Saudi Monarchy?

Who is financing ISIS, Foo? Who is financing the jihad? Tell them to stop. They don't , we nuke...who ever it is.

 

[AntiParty]

America invented Al Qaeda, provided them with weapons and motivation, used them as a boogyman to scare our own citizens into accepting a police state and to support 2 wars. We have been fighting them for years and based our entire defense policy on them. Enough, if you want to be scared of them go right ahead we have been sold too many lies out of fear of a few thousand primitive dickheads.

HOLY CRAP someone here has a brain is using it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks man!!!!!!!!!

I use to beat my chest and bark Freedom too. Today, I use my brain because I realized I was part of the team taking freedom away.

 

[AntiParty]

On August 13 2014 at 10:24 AM Deltex wrote, "...I propose the threat of a devastating missile/air attack if Muslim nations to not control their radicals...or if they actively support same. A one time demonstration ought to be enough." http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/notfooledby-brennan.370668/page-2#post-9618556

How devastating would that be? Do you mean like hitting the Saudi Monarchy?

Who is financing ISIS, Foo? Who is financing the jihad? Tell them to stop. They don't , we nuke...who ever it is.

You need to study foreign policy more.

We Americans tend to fund both sides. It's the easiest way to go to war and topple a country without actually going to war with them. We directly sell our used tanks to Countries that pose a possible threat in the future even though our old tanks have the most advanced tech in the world.

We provided guns to both sides in Libya and Syria and our gun running station was Benghazi. Every Country knows this except our ignorant bias media. Why did Libya and Syrian rebels all have brand new American Military weapons and ammo?

Time to start thinking for yourselves kids. Fox News makes you a Corporate puppet.

Halliburton, a head of the Federal Reserve, is a Construction Corporation that re-builds Countries we demolish. Lockheed Martin is a Military Weapons Contractor that is a top donor to all politicians.

Just learn to follow the money.

 

[AntiParty]

. I sorta agree with you for a change....but then what is your explanation for the SecDefs remarks today about ISIS being a huge threat...and extremely well funded?

If you agree with me then you should realize that my attempts to straighten out tinydancer's thinking is in no way saying that the IS terrorist rampage is not a threat. It is a threat. They are a very significant threat. It's just sickening to hear a foreigner blame what the terrorists are doing on our President. That is absurd. Petraeus said it well.

So while you are getting so agreeable why don't you agree with Petraeus and me that No one knows whether US forces kept there would have given us an influence. If no one knows as Petraeus says then foreigners ought to stop running around being obsessed that it would have made a difference.

Petraeus was recently asked, "Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?"

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.

So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.

As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

Are you trying to tell me that after all we did for Iraq we had no influence in what mission our troops would have? We had no say? Obabble could
not force his will on Maliki after our total control over that country? Obabble wanted out...so he made no demands he withdrew and claimed he ended the war.

You did not answer the question...is ISIS a threat or not. You insinuated they could not hold the damn etc...but they are a force to be reckoned with....which is it?

"after all we did for Iraq"

We had no reason to be in Iraq and everyone knows it. There were no WMD's.

But VP Cheney's Corporation Halliburton is still profiting from that war and rebuilding it. Halliburton is one of the top Corporations controlling the Federal Reserve.

It's time for you small brains to learn about THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX........It's no where new news....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Who is financing ISIS, Foo? Who is financing the jihad? Tell them to stop. They don't , we nuke...who ever it is.

Today we'd be nuking Paris in your ignorance based world. They paid ransoms to get their nationals back.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are you trying to tell me that after all we did for Iraq we had no influence in what mission our troops would have? We had no say? Obabble could
not force his will on Maliki after our total control over that country? Obabble wanted out...so he made no demands he withdrew and claimed he ended the war.

Don't you mean "after all we did "to" Iraq" If you were to frame our past decade there you'd be able to answer your own phony questions about Obama. No.... the days of 'forcing will' on a sovereign nation ended when Bush agreed and signed the SOFA that all troops would be gone by a date certain. As Petraeus tells you:

Petraeus was recently asked, "Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?"

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.

So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.

As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/

You did not answer the question...is ISIS a threat or not. You insinuated they could not hold the damn etc...but they are a force to be reckoned with....which is it?

I already answered that IS terrorist are a significant threat however they do not rise to the level of threat that we need to go about nuking anyone.

If you agree with me then you should realize that my attempts to straighten out tinydancer's thinking is in no way saying that the IS terrorist rampage is not a threat. It is a threat. They are a very significant threat.

What, don't you read what you are replying to?

 

[deltex1]

On August 13 2014 at 10:24 AM Deltex wrote, "...I propose the threat of a devastating missile/air attack if Muslim nations to not control their radicals...or if they actively support same. A one time demonstration ought to be enough." http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/notfooledby-brennan.370668/page-2#post-9618556

How devastating would that be? Do you mean like hitting the Saudi Monarchy?

Who is financing ISIS, Foo? Who is financing the jihad? Tell them to stop. They don't , we nuke...who ever it is.

Who is financing ISIS, Foo? Who is financing the jihad? Tell them to stop. They don't , we nuke...who ever it is.

Today we'd be nuking Paris in your ignorance based world. They paid ransoms to get their nationals back.

By that logic we would nuke Obabble for giving ISIS their prime leaders back in exchange for the deserter Berghdahl. Good deflection though.

 

[deltex1]

Are you trying to tell me that after all we did for Iraq we had no influence in what mission our troops would have? We had no say? Obabble could
not force his will on Maliki after our total control over that country? Obabble wanted out...so he made no demands he withdrew and claimed he ended the war.

Don't you mean "after all we did "to" Iraq" If you were to frame our past decade there you'd be able to answer your own phony questions about Obama. No.... the days of 'forcing will' on a sovereign nation ended when Bush agreed and signed the SOFA that all troops would be gone by a date certain. As Petraeus tells you:

Petraeus was recently asked, "Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?"

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.

So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.

As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/

You did not answer the question...is ISIS a threat or not. You insinuated they could not hold the damn etc...but they are a force to be reckoned with....which is it?

I already answered that IS terrorist are a significant threat however they do not rise to the level of threat that we need to go about nuking anyone.

If you agree with me then you should realize that my attempts to straighten out tinydancer's thinking is in no way saying that the IS terrorist rampage is not a threat. It is a threat. They are a very significant threat.

What, don't you read what you are replying to?

Focus on this paragraph Foo...this is what Petraeus wanted...this is what Bush wanted....this is what we normally do...this is what your neophyte leader did not have the balls to do:


"As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond"

Your horse is dead, Foo...quit beating her.

 

[deltex1]

I said>>>>>>>>>>↑
You did not answer the question...is ISIS a threat or not. You insinuated they could not hold the damn etc...but they are a force to be reckoned with....which is it?

Foo said>>>>>>>>>

I already answered that IS terrorist are a significant threat however they do not rise to the level of threat that we need to go about nuking anyone.
↑

If you agree with me then you should realize that my attempts to straighten out tinydancer's thinking is in no way saying that the IS terrorist rampage is not a threat. It is a threat. They are a very significant threat.
What, don't you read what you are replying to?
Deltex says>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They are so significant they can't hold territory against the Kurds? I am hearing the last thing ISIS leaders wanted was the Foley beheading...they know now they will die.​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Focus on this paragraph Foo...this is what Petraeus wanted...this is what Bush wanted....this is what we normally do...this is what your neophyte leader did not have the balls to do:


"As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond"

You make no sense. You have complained about Bush's poor execution of the military mission in Iraq in the past. Now you think Bush suddenly had balls or something.

And when will you learn to comprehend language in context. I can always tell when you are dumbfounded. It when you start riding that dead horse of yours.


If if if ..... Petraeus said If.

"would have loved it even more if I knew".

Maliki led Bush around by the nose, I'm glad Obama is not so weak.and stupid as your Lil Dubya,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am hearing the last thing ISIS leaders wanted was the Foley beheading...they know now they will die.

They know that because they know who got OBL. It was the President to be who said this:

* In July 2008, Obama explained;

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

*

In addition to pledging to unilaterally launch strikes against Bin Laden and other high-value targets in Pakistan, Obama promised he would ramp up the U.S. effort in the under-resourced effort across the border in Afghanistan. In July 2008, Obama explained:

McCain Romney And Bush Wouldn t Shouldn t Couldn t Get Bin Laden In Pakistan Crooks and Liars

 

[deltex1]

I am hearing the last thing ISIS leaders wanted was the Foley beheading...they know now they will die.

They know that because they know who got OBL. It was the President to be who said this:

* In July 2008, Obama explained;

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

*

In addition to pledging to unilaterally launch strikes against Bin Laden and other high-value targets in Pakistan, Obama promised he would ramp up the U.S. effort in the under-resourced effort across the border in Afghanistan. In July 2008, Obama explained:

McCain Romney And Bush Wouldn t Shouldn t Couldn t Get Bin Laden In Pakistan Crooks and Liars

Valarie finally gave him the green light.

 

[deltex1]

Focus on this paragraph Foo...this is what Petraeus wanted...this is what Bush wanted....this is what we normally do...this is what your neophyte leader did not have the balls to do:


"As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond"

You make no sense. You have complained about Bush's poor execution of the military mission in Iraq in the past. Now you think Bush suddenly had balls or something.

And when will you learn to comprehend language in context. I can always tell when you are dumbfounded. It when you start riding that dead horse of yours.


If if if ..... Petraeus said If.

"would have loved it even more if I knew".

Maliki led Bush around by the nose, I'm glad Obama is not so weak.and stupid as your Lil Dubya,

IF my CINC had a pair of balls...that's what he meant by "if".