Why Is Isis Our Problem Again?

[kaz]

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.

So when Obama tries to stay, you give him credit for wanting to leave. LOL. Democrats, can't make that shit up.

sure....you just go on thinking that

It's what you just said, nitwit

not really

Sorry you're not literate, man. You were very clear. Just read the post. Or keep deflecting if you can't.

 

[kaz]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Republicans like to keep making that lame argument, but you have to explain how it makes sense if we don't fight them they are coming here and if we do fight them they won't.

 

[Plasmaball]

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

So when Obama tries to stay, you give him credit for wanting to leave. LOL. Democrats, can't make that shit up.

sure....you just go on thinking that

It's what you just said, nitwit

not really

Sorry you're not literate, man. You were very clear. Just read the post. Or keep deflecting if you can't.

Obama wanted to leave and made that part of his speech, but once in office he has certain obligations he must deal with. Dealing with Maliki was part of the job he took on. Part of this dealing was dealing with the fact that Bush had signed Sofa and thus certain requirements where in there that in 2011 he had to negotiate about. He could have just flipped maliki off and not even bothered to deal with it, pull all the troops out, and wash his hands of it.


YAY context, the destroyer of laziness.

 

[Rocko]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Agreed, which is why I feel we're doing the wrong thing by kicking the can down the road. We're going to have to deal with them down the road, and more than likely it will be a tougher task to do so.

 

[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.

So you're saying Obama is taking directions from the media on war? That's even worse. If you're against war you have to hold him accountable, no?

Where did I mention O'bama??

Check the first subject of the first sentence I typed in this thread. See also the thread title.

Obama's not taking directions from the media ---- WE ARE.

Yeah well the OP isn't directed at public opinion, it's referring to government.

Is it?
What does "our problem" mean in your dictionary?

 

[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 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.

Yes it sells.....plus with motive behind it. Call it two for one.
I can always tell when a poster is morally bankrupt....

Explain.

 

[Rocko]

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.

So you're saying Obama is taking directions from the media on war? That's even worse. If you're against war you have to hold him accountable, no?

Where did I mention O'bama??

Check the first subject of the first sentence I typed in this thread. See also the thread title.

Obama's not taking directions from the media ---- WE ARE.

Yeah well the OP isn't directed at public opinion, it's referring to government.

Is it?
What does "our problem" mean in your dictionary?

Maybe if you actually bothered reading the OP you'd agree.

 

[Pogo]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Agreed, which is why I feel we're doing the wrong thing by kicking the can down the road. We're going to have to deal with them down the road, and more than likely it will be a tougher task to do so.

-- So you're gonna take his premise (the bit that begins with "I suspect") and just run it down the field without questioning if the premise is even valid?

Hey that's always a good plan. Look how well it worked out in Iraq.

 

[blackhawk]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Republicans like to keep making that lame argument, but you have to explain how it makes sense if we don't fight them they are coming here and if we do fight them they won't.

During the 90s we were attacked by Al-Qaeda multiple times including the first wtc attack we sent no troops in and our response was minimal over time that led to the 9-11-2001 attacks after that our response was substantial and we have not been hit with an attack of that magnitude since. Groups like these will always try to attack us no matter if we have troops on the ground or not so the question is why would we want to make any easier for them to plan and organize another attack against us?

 

[kaz]

So when Obama tries to stay, you give him credit for wanting to leave. LOL. Democrats, can't make that shit up.

sure....you just go on thinking that

It's what you just said, nitwit

not really

Sorry you're not literate, man. You were very clear. Just read the post. Or keep deflecting if you can't.

Obama wanted to leave and made that part of his speech, but once in office he has certain obligations he must deal with. Dealing with Maliki was part of the job he took on. Part of this dealing was dealing with the fact that Bush had signed Sofa and thus certain requirements where in there that in 2011 he had to negotiate about. He could have just flipped maliki off and not even bothered to deal with it, pull all the troops out, and wash his hands of it.


YAY context, the destroyer of laziness.

Laziness has nothing to do with it, its' about your flagrant, partisan double standard. When Obama said he wanted to stay, you gave him credit for wanting to leave. You can justify it all you want, it's a flagrant hypocrisy you would never accept from Republicans. Grow up.

 

[kaz]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Republicans like to keep making that lame argument, but you have to explain how it makes sense if we don't fight them they are coming here and if we do fight them they won't.

During the 90s we were attacked by Al-Qaeda multiple times including the first wtc attack we sent no troops in and our response was minimal over time that led to the 9-11-2001 attacks after that our response was substantial and we have not been hit with an attack of that magnitude since. Groups like these will always try to attack us no matter if we have troops on the ground or not so the question is why would we want to make any easier for them to plan and organize another attack against us?

So you can't think of anything in the middle besides not responding and invading and nation building and fighting endless wars in the middle east? Wow, that's a big chasm. What if we blast the crap out of them like we did the Taliban for a sustained period of time. Then leave, which we didn't do? Just a thought.

 

[kaz]

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

So that actually sounds good to you? In your head, when you read it back?

 

[blackhawk]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Agreed, which is why I feel we're doing the wrong thing by kicking the can down the road. We're going to have to deal with them down the road, and more than likely it will be a tougher task to do so.

-- So you're gonna take his premise (the bit that begins with "I suspect") and just run it down the field without questioning if the premise is even valid?

Hey that's always a good plan. Look how well it worked out in Iraq.

So you prefer the lets wait till something happens approach that got three thousand people killed on 9-11 2001 yeah that was a good plan to. So when you have an ISIS spokesman say god willing our flag will fly above the White House we should not take that as a sign that if they can attack us they will?

 

[blackhawk]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Republicans like to keep making that lame argument, but you have to explain how it makes sense if we don't fight them they are coming here and if we do fight them they won't.

During the 90s we were attacked by Al-Qaeda multiple times including the first wtc attack we sent no troops in and our response was minimal over time that led to the 9-11-2001 attacks after that our response was substantial and we have not been hit with an attack of that magnitude since. Groups like these will always try to attack us no matter if we have troops on the ground or not so the question is why would we want to make any easier for them to plan and organize another attack against us?

So you can't think of anything in the middle besides not responding and invading and nation building and fighting endless wars in the middle east? Wow, that's a big chasm. What if we blast the crap out of them like we did the Taliban for a sustained period of time. Then leave, which we didn't do? Just a thought.

If you have a rationale plan to deal with irrational fanatics please share.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Republicans like to keep making that lame argument, but you have to explain how it makes sense if we don't fight them they are coming here and if we do fight them they won't.

During the 90s we were attacked by Al-Qaeda multiple times including the first wtc attack we sent no troops in and our response was minimal over time that led to the 9-11-2001 attacks after that our response was substantial and we have not been hit with an attack of that magnitude since. Groups like these will always try to attack us no matter if we have troops on the ground or not so the question is why would we want to make any easier for them to plan and organize another attack against us?

This fails as a post hoc fallacy.


This is also ridiculous partisan idiocy. What country, exactly, were we supposed to 'attack' after the first WTC bombing.


Terrorists are criminals – they don't have countries or armies or fight wars in a conventional manner; we've known since Vietnam that we can't fight an indigenous insurgency with ground troops and conventional tactics.


In Afghanistan, for example, the Taliban are simply waiting for us to leave at which time they'll take control of the country again in short order.


ISIS has fooled many – both on the left and right – into thinking they're a 'conventional' force, when in fact they're not. A conventional attack on ISIS by the United States would do little to solve the problem, as its fighters would simply melt back into the general population and reconstitute as another terrorist entity once American forces leave the region.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We have to deal with ISIS because Dear Leader dropped the ball in Syria after making threatening words to Assad he never intended to back up. Now we have two American heads to bury and and army of ISIS warriors on our southern border just itching to cut off some more right here in our homeland.

Except that Assad is actually opposed to ISIS.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

then you are literally going against almost everyone in his Administration who wanted out. Everyone knew Obama wanted out, but like with all things, there is treaties(contracts per say) , and politics one has to do in order to get what they want.

I know that it would be politically convenient for the administration to take that line, but there was no treaty forcing Obama to try to keep troops in Iraq. He could've pulled them out at any time.

treaty was just a term i used for an example. okie dokie, well this is what happened. If you dont feel like dealing with reality because you know better than thats your issue.

You don't get to say something is reality when it can't be proved.

 

[Pogo]

Because these nut bags end up bringing their fight to our doorstep OBL and what we call the original Al-Qaeda did it given time I suspect ISIS will try and do the same. With radical Islam it's not if your going to end up fighting them it's just when and where.

Agreed, which is why I feel we're doing the wrong thing by kicking the can down the road. We're going to have to deal with them down the road, and more than likely it will be a tougher task to do so.

-- So you're gonna take his premise (the bit that begins with "I suspect") and just run it down the field without questioning if the premise is even valid?

Hey that's always a good plan. Look how well it worked out in Iraq.

So you prefer the lets wait till something happens approach that got three thousand people killed on 9-11 2001 yeah that was a good plan to. So when you have an ISIS spokesman say god willing our flag will fly above the White House we should not take that as a sign that if they can attack us they will?

Whoa! What??
Words? I had no idea they were actually using words.
Damn, this is serious.

Do we have words at the Pentagon? I'm not even sure.
Yeah when terrorists start using words, it's only a short step to hyperbole.
I bet they're working on a rhetoric device. Better nuke 'em before they get access to synonyms.

 

[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

So that actually sounds good to you? In your head, when you read it back?

Doesn't sound "good", no. But it is the reality. Neither of the posts referred to any kind of political party and you weren't having that so you plugged it in. On your own.

I'm disappointed this is all you could come up with given several hours. It's hard to top "teenage limp-wristed faggot", but it's not impossible. C'mon, show yer stuff. Your audience demands it.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

then you are literally going against almost everyone in his Administration who wanted out. Everyone knew Obama wanted out, but like with all things, there is treaties(contracts per say) , and politics one has to do in order to get what they want.

I know that it would be politically convenient for the administration to take that line, but there was no treaty forcing Obama to try to keep troops in Iraq. He could've pulled them out at any time.

treaty was just a term i used for an example. okie dokie, well this is what happened. If you dont feel like dealing with reality because you know better than thats your issue.

You don't get to say something is reality when it can't be proved.

um..it was already proven via the link i gave. I see you didnt read it, so therefore we can stop conversing now. Im wasting my time.