Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

[Pogo]

Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

Because we're gullible, and when the media Fox Noises and hair-on-fire websites speak, we salivate on command.

Ruff.

Republicans aren't in charge, Skippy. Once again the flagrant liberal hypocrisy. Republicans and Democrats do the same thing, You blame only the Republicans. I addressed that in my OP post.

My In-Depth Analysis:

1. Oil

2. Oil

3. Oil

4. Oil

Two parties, one finger, you're pointing it towards the red and letting the blue off the hook. I blame both parties, which is why I said I blame both parties.

Obviously not.

Uhhh.... where do you see "Republicans", "Democrats", "reds" "blues" or any reference to "parties" at all in either of those posts?

Life in partisan obsessionland

Cue ad hom attacks following fake "open" question in five... four... threeeeeeee.....


Aside--- speaking of --- Einstein isn't the source of that quote, Opie.

LOL, so when you referred to Fox, that was in a non partisan way? You're a shill

I've been debunking hair-on-fire fake ISIS news all day with no reference at all to political parties. Because, this just in for the dense, it doesn't come from political parties -- it comes from sensationalist opportunists on a mission to sell (1) papers and (2) hate fuel for war. And there we arrive at the Fox Noises and Drudges and Pam Gellers and JihadWatches and this week's star of the game, "Catholic Online".

Thus my post was, is, and will continue to be how the proletariat continue to salivate on command for LCD media. Which is something I happen to know far better than political parties.

All of which is undoubtedly beyond the scope of your ability to understand, chained as it is so much to partisan hackery that you have to plug in "political parties" where none exist.

Are you saying then that Fox Noise is naught but a communications arm for the Republican Party? Because that's news to me.


Just another lameass Kaz thread -- pretend to pose an open question, then sit back and attack any responses that don't fit where you want them to go, all the while bellowing


---- and you want to use the word "shill"??

/thread

 

[Two Thumbs]

So after years of war in Iraq only to have the government on the verge of failing and nation building in Afghanistan where the government's days are numbered again, I have a few questions:

1) What ever changes in the middle east? Different day, same problem.

2) Why are we propping up despotic governments?

3) Why is that shit hole called the Middle East our problem? - Europe and Japan get most of the middle east oil and we are having an energy boom here. Let's mind our own business and develop our own energy.

4) How are Democrats different than Republicans again? - After all the flying fur, they are behind an invasion yet again just like Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya and their support of Republicans in Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq. I hear a lot of cackling about staying out of other people's business. I see no egg. Just like when Republicans talk about spending cuts. Republicans and Democrats are like male and female stink bugs. You may be able to tell each other apart, but you look the same to everyone else.

Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I have a different idea for the middle east. Let's stay out of it..

1) Sand dunes

2) we like to pick the despot to be in charge vs some real asshat

3) Leftist wouldn't allow us to remain neutral, so now we are stuck.

4) Dems want Fed contrl of our lives now, Reps want it later.

 

[Conan]

Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

Because we're gullible, and when the media Fox Noises and hair-on-fire websites speak, we salivate on command.

Ruff.

I guess you haven't been watching CNN lately.

 

[Conan]

Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

Because we're gullible, and when the media Fox Noises and hair-on-fire websites speak, we salivate on command.

Ruff.

Republicans aren't in charge, Skippy. Once again the flagrant liberal hypocrisy. Republicans and Democrats do the same thing, You blame only the Republicans. I addressed that in my OP post.

My In-Depth Analysis:

1. Oil

2. Oil

3. Oil

4. Oil

Two parties, one finger, you're pointing it towards the red and letting the blue off the hook. I blame both parties, which is why I said I blame both parties.

Obviously not.

Uhhh.... where do you see "Republicans", "Democrats", "reds" "blues" or any reference to "parties" at all in either of those posts?

Life in partisan obsessionland

Cue ad hom attacks following fake "open" question in five... four... threeeeeeee.....


Aside--- speaking of --- Einstein isn't the source of that quote, Opie.

LOL, so when you referred to Fox, that was in a non partisan way? You're a shill

Yeah, CNN been covering it around the clock lately. But again it deflects the sheep from other Obama failures.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well it was this administration's goal to stay involved in Iraq, and to get involved in Syria, and the Islamic State is a convenient excuse for this administration to achieve both of those goals. That they pose no actual threat to the U.S. and that bombing them will only serve to make matters worse is irrelevant.

no it really wasnt Obamas Goal to stay in Iraq.

Except that he tried to extend the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Bush timetable, but was unable to come to an agreement with the Iraqi government thus forcing him to pull out. So yes, I'd say it was his goal to stay in Iraq.

if you consider half assing it wanting to keep troops there sure. He half assed it because he didnt want to be there.

No response to what I said, and no specifics of what you mean. Just talking points.

 

[Pogo]

Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

Because we're gullible, and when the media Fox Noises and hair-on-fire websites speak, we salivate on command.

Ruff.

I guess you haven't been watching CNN lately.

I don't have a TV, so that would be affirmative. But yes CNN's been at the heart of it.

Not for the inane partisan reasons you imagine in Political ParanoiaBubbleland ------ but for entirely down-to-earth reality reasons --- because it $ELL$.

Funny you should mention both CNN and bridges for sale --- I did that earlier today here.

But if you actually think an international megalopoly like Time Warner runs on massaging a political party you don't like rather than the almighty dollar, I may have another bridge in the back closet to show you.

 

[deltex1]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

It's not.


[Foreign policy, the only thing libertarians are correct about...]

 

[Conan]

I don't have a TV, so that would be affirmative. But yes CNN's been at the heart of it.

Not for the inane partisan reasons you think in the Bubble ------ but because it $ELL$.

Yeah OK buddy....I have bridge to sell

 

[Conan]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.

So Obama is going to manege this war personally?

 

[deltex1]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.

So Obama is going to manege this war personally?

Valerie will.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have a TV, so that would be affirmative. But yes CNN's been at the heart of it.

Not for the inane partisan reasons you think in the Bubble ------ but because it $ELL$.

Yeah OK buddy....I have bridge to sell

If you think corporate megalopolic "news" doesn't function as a function of profit over all else -- I'm not surprised you're buying bridges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since the hard core far right reactionaries want to create their own fascist controlled state here, would they be low enough to facilitate ISIS/ISIL folks to come here, strike, provoke a crisis, and try to take over?

 

[Camp]

So after years of war in Iraq only to have the government on the verge of failing and nation building in Afghanistan where the government's days are numbered again, I have a few questions:

1) What ever changes in the middle east? Different day, same problem.

2) Why are we propping up despotic governments?

3) Why is that shit hole called the Middle East our problem? - Europe and Japan get most of the middle east oil and we are having an energy boom here. Let's mind our own business and develop our own energy.

4) How are Democrats different than Republicans again? - After all the flying fur, they are behind an invasion yet again just like Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya and their support of Republicans in Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq. I hear a lot of cackling about staying out of other people's business. I see no egg. Just like when Republicans talk about spending cuts. Republicans and Democrats are like male and female stink bugs. You may be able to tell each other apart, but you look the same to everyone else.

Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I have a different idea for the middle east. Let's stay out of it..

but but but the big bad Muslims will come and get us !!!!


LMAO

Not hard for ISIS to come here, all they need to do is get a student visa.

Why would American citizens need a visa?

 

[Plasmaball]

Well it was this administration's goal to stay involved in Iraq, and to get involved in Syria, and the Islamic State is a convenient excuse for this administration to achieve both of those goals. That they pose no actual threat to the U.S. and that bombing them will only serve to make matters worse is irrelevant.

no it really wasnt Obamas Goal to stay in Iraq.

Except that he tried to extend the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Bush timetable, but was unable to come to an agreement with the Iraqi government thus forcing him to pull out. So yes, I'd say it was his goal to stay in Iraq.

if you consider half assing it wanting to keep troops there sure. He half assed it because he didnt want to be there.

No response to what I said, and no specifics of what you mean. Just talking points.

How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should ve Left There Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

im not typing it all out again. Facts are fun. He half assed it because he wanted out.

 

[Ibentoken]

If I was in the military I would be thinking coup.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well it was this administration's goal to stay involved in Iraq, and to get involved in Syria, and the Islamic State is a convenient excuse for this administration to achieve both of those goals. That they pose no actual threat to the U.S. and that bombing them will only serve to make matters worse is irrelevant.

no it really wasnt Obamas Goal to stay in Iraq.

Except that he tried to extend the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Bush timetable, but was unable to come to an agreement with the Iraqi government thus forcing him to pull out. So yes, I'd say it was his goal to stay in Iraq.

if you consider half assing it wanting to keep troops there sure. He half assed it because he didnt want to be there.

No response to what I said, and no specifics of what you mean. Just talking points.

How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should ve Left There Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

im not typing it all out again. Facts are fun. He half assed it because he wanted out.

Looks to me like he tried to keep troops in Iraq, just like I said. If he didn't want to then it would have made far more sense for him, politically, to keep his campaign promise rather than trying to go against it in a "half-assed" manner, as you put it. Looks to me like people are just reading into it what they want to see.

Regardless, the rise of ISIS is not due to the U.S. leaving Iraq, but is due to the fact that the U.S. was involved in Iraq in the first place. That's the real issue.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

Because we're gullible, and when the media Fox Noises and hair-on-fire websites speak, we salivate on command.

Ruff.

Republicans aren't in charge, Skippy. Once again the flagrant liberal hypocrisy. Republicans and Democrats do the same thing, You blame only the Republicans. I addressed that in my OP post.

As long as they obstruct, filibuster, gerrymander, steal votes and lie about the president, yeah, they're in charge.

 

[Plasmaball]

no it really wasnt Obamas Goal to stay in Iraq.

Except that he tried to extend the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Bush timetable, but was unable to come to an agreement with the Iraqi government thus forcing him to pull out. So yes, I'd say it was his goal to stay in Iraq.

if you consider half assing it wanting to keep troops there sure. He half assed it because he didnt want to be there.

No response to what I said, and no specifics of what you mean. Just talking points.

How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should ve Left There Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

im not typing it all out again. Facts are fun. He half assed it because he wanted out.

Looks to me like he tried to keep troops in Iraq, just like I said. If he didn't want to then it would have made far more sense for him, politically, to keep his campaign promise rather than trying to go against it in a "half-assed" manner, as you put it. Looks to me like people are just reading into it what they want to see.

Regardless, the rise of ISIS is not due to the U.S. leaving Iraq, but is due to the fact that the U.S. was involved in Iraq in the first place. That's the real issue.

sigh....he wanted out and that meeting was more him going through the motions of what he needed to do. Shrug believe what you like.

I dont disagree with the second part

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that he tried to extend the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Bush timetable, but was unable to come to an agreement with the Iraqi government thus forcing him to pull out. So yes, I'd say it was his goal to stay in Iraq.

if you consider half assing it wanting to keep troops there sure. He half assed it because he didnt want to be there.

No response to what I said, and no specifics of what you mean. Just talking points.

How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should ve Left There Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

im not typing it all out again. Facts are fun. He half assed it because he wanted out.

Looks to me like he tried to keep troops in Iraq, just like I said. If he didn't want to then it would have made far more sense for him, politically, to keep his campaign promise rather than trying to go against it in a "half-assed" manner, as you put it. Looks to me like people are just reading into it what they want to see.

Regardless, the rise of ISIS is not due to the U.S. leaving Iraq, but is due to the fact that the U.S. was involved in Iraq in the first place. That's the real issue.

sigh....he wanted out and that meeting was more him going through the motions of what he needed to do. Shrug believe what you like.

I dont disagree with the second part

As there's no way to prove that he wasn't doing exactly what he wanted to do, I'm certainly going to believe what I like. Given the utter willingness he's shown in wanting to intervene militarily in other countries I see no reason to believe he wanted to get out of Iraq and was simply going through the motions.