Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etcUS inflicted regime change in Iraq and Libya, for starters.Did you have some ALLEGED "mistakes" in mind ?
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Mission Accomplished?
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What idiocy. You are actually trying to get away with saying that just because Keane get paid for his military advice, that this somehow makes a liar out of him. ? NO. YOU are the liar.How much money is General Jack making from the mass murder of Muslims?General Jack Keane. No offense, but rather than your version, I'll go with the Generals.
"Keane has appeared on Fox News at least nine times over the last two months to promote the idea that the best way to stop IS is through military action—in particular, through air strikes deep into IS-held territory.
"In one of the only congressional hearings about IS over the summer, Keane was there to testify and call for more American military engagement. On Wednesday evening, Keane declared President Obama’s speech on defeating IS insufficient, arguing that a bolder strategy is necessary. 'I truly believe we need to put special operation forces in there,' he told host Megyn Kelly.
"Left unsaid during his media appearances (and left unmentioned on his congressional witness disclosure form) are Keane’s other gigs: as special adviser to Academi, the contractor formerly known as Blackwater; as a board member to tank and aircraft manufacturer General Dynamics; a 'venture partner' to SCP Partners, an investment firm that partners with defense contractors, including XVionics, an 'operations management decision support system' company used in Air Force drone training; and as president of his own consulting firm, GSI LLC.
"To portray Keane as simply a think tank leader and a former military official, as the media have done, obscures a fairly lucrative career in the contracting world. For the General Dynamics role alone, Keane has been paid a six-figure salary in cash and stock options since he joined the firm in 2004; last year, General Dynamics paid him $258,006.
"Keane did not immediately return a call requesting comment for this article."
Because he's getting rich from killing civilians, and ignorant crackers like you $wallow every load, don't you?
Who s Paying the Pro-War Pundits The Nation
You calling someone a liar is about the equivalent of al-Baghdadi calling the Pope, impolite.Since you have now lied twice in a row, whatever you do on the Board for the remainder of your time here has become my business.I was answering the post from Gracie, and I answered it correctly. Mind your own businessIWe just sacrificed 460,000 American lives fighting a war to stop it, that 's all. And that includes a lot of lives lost on D-Day, and 19,000 US troops lost IN ONE MONTH, in the Battle of the Bulge, in Germany. Didn't get that A in your history class ?We didn't do a damn thing about the millions murdered in Germany either, did we?
We lost about 130,000 dead in Europe, about 350,000 altogether in WWII. The British lost more than American in both I and II.
And none of this has anything to do with ISIS or Iraq.
I answered your correctly, so you can fuck off.
^^^ Stupidest post of the day.NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etcUS inflicted regime change in Iraq and Libya, for starters.Did you have some ALLEGED "mistakes" in mind ?
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Mission Accomplished?
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You TRIED to correct me. YOU FAILED. I was right it was 460,000, not what you said.Since you have now lied twice in a row, whatever you do on the Board for the remainder of your time here has become my business.I was answering the post from Gracie, and I answered it correctly. Mind your own businessIWe just sacrificed 460,000 American lives fighting a war to stop it, that 's all. And that includes a lot of lives lost on D-Day, and 19,000 US troops lost IN ONE MONTH, in the Battle of the Bulge, in Germany. Didn't get that A in your history class ?We didn't do a damn thing about the millions murdered in Germany either, did we?
We lost about 130,000 dead in Europe, about 350,000 altogether in WWII. The British lost more than American in both I and II.
And none of this has anything to do with ISIS or Iraq.
I answered your correctly, so you can fuck off.
You calling someone a liar is a laughing stock.Protectionist and his buddies think they can get away with lies, yet they don't understand why the country does not support their cockeyed proposals.
And with YOU saying that, that makes it the SMARTEST post of the day.^^^ Stupidest post of the day.NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etcUS inflicted regime change in Iraq and Libya, for starters.Did you have some ALLEGED "mistakes" in mind ?
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Mission Accomplished?
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
And with YOU saying that, that makes it the SMARTEST post of the day.^^^ Stupidest post of the day.NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etcUS inflicted regime change in Iraq and Libya, for starters.Did you have some ALLEGED "mistakes" in mind ?
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Mission Accomplished?
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In years, Ike. Unless you can't remember the year you first heard the word "jihad." How many Muslims in Iraq and Syria were engaged in mass murder between 1945-2003?Are you going to pretend you don't know the meaning of the word, Mohammed ? How much ? How would you like your answer ? In pounds or tons ?
Where you planning to get the money for all that war, Ike, tax the military/industrial complex? How about the Bush and Clinton families? Why don't you get a real job and stop polluting cyberspace?NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etc
And with YOU saying that, that makes it the SMARTEST post of the day.^^^ Stupidest post of the day.NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etcUS inflicted regime change in Iraq and Libya, for starters.Did you have some ALLEGED "mistakes" in mind ?
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Mission Accomplished?
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Silly one, we are not going to have a world war with Islam.
Do you you think I am a reporter for al Jazeera ? How the hell would I know how many there were ? I'll take a guess though. I'd say thousands. We could start with the Arab Israeli War of 1948, when Syrians and an expeditionary force from Iraq traveled to Palestine and attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel with one third of them having fled, or having been expelled, from their previous countries of residence in the Middle East.In years, Ike. Unless you can't remember the year you first heard the word "jihad." How many Muslims in Iraq and Syria were engaged in mass murder between 1945-2003?Are you going to pretend you don't know the meaning of the word, Mohammed ? How much ? How would you like your answer ? In pounds or tons ?
Clinton disagrees with you. He openly blamed himself for his non-intervention, and made no secret that this was his # 1 regret of his presidency. You stand corrected - BY BILL CLINTON.RWANDA!
It was Canada's turn to take the lead in saving the world! The General in charge was Canadian, Canada should of done something. Of course never mind that the Canadian General carried a pistol, and under his command he had rifles and machine guns, and lets not forget the Canadian General could of stopped the Belgium planes full of Belgium troops from pulling out of the mess the Belgium were in charge of before the UN stepped in.
Machine Guns and troops against machetes? It does not take a genius to figure out who would of won.
Waiting for help he was?
Not everything is our fault, certainly not RWANDA! As much as the Clinton's are guilty of, this is not one.
Canadian General, its Canada's turn.
Belgium created the problem, cut and run, I would of blown up there planes and said you stay and fight.
Machetes, so scary.
I bet the General was a drunk.
The ISIS war might MAKE money, rather than cost it. Notice what ISIS has been doing ? Have their conquering cost them money ? No. They've been getting richer through it. And if the US would go over there in force and kick their asses, like we should be doing, all that hot ISIS wealth becomes ours. What happened Mohammed ? I thought you Muslims were smart.Where you planning to get the money for all that war, Ike, tax the military/industrial complex? How about the Bush and Clinton families? Why don't you get a real job and stop polluting cyberspace?NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etc
Clinton is a politician, does not matter what he said, Crocodile tears. Yes, its great to compare Obama to another failure, but Rwanda never was our failure. So what, Clinton cries a tear, says he wished he could of done something, acts as if he had no idea what was happening, but its all a show. A great leader taking the blame, ha, ha. Attention getting at best. The result is you have no understanding of what happened and who had the ability to stop the Genocide.Clinton disagrees with you. He openly blamed himself for his non-intervention, and made no secret that this was his # 1 regret of his presidency. You stand corrected - BY BILL CLINTON.RWANDA!
It was Canada's turn to take the lead in saving the world! The General in charge was Canadian, Canada should of done something. Of course never mind that the Canadian General carried a pistol, and under his command he had rifles and machine guns, and lets not forget the Canadian General could of stopped the Belgium planes full of Belgium troops from pulling out of the mess the Belgium were in charge of before the UN stepped in.
Machine Guns and troops against machetes? It does not take a genius to figure out who would of won.
Waiting for help he was?
Not everything is our fault, certainly not RWANDA! As much as the Clinton's are guilty of, this is not one.
Canadian General, its Canada's turn.
Belgium created the problem, cut and run, I would of blown up there planes and said you stay and fight.
Machetes, so scary.
I bet the General was a drunk.
Belgians did much to create the enmity between Hutu and Tutsi through their policies of indirect rule. As mentioned above, Hutus and Tutsis lived together as neighbors before the colonial period. However, Belgian rule solidified the racial divide [that was already firmly planted in the Rwandan mindset]. The Belgians [also] gave political power to the Tutsis. Due to the eugenics movement in Europe and the United States, the colonial government became concerned with the differences between Hutu and Tutsi. Scientists arrived to measure skull - and thus, they believed brain - size. Tutsi's skulls were bigger, they were taller, and their skin was lighter. As a result of this, Europeans came to believe that Tutsis had caucasian ancestry, and were thus 'superior' to Hutus. Each citizen was issued a racial identification card, which defined one as legally Hutu or Tutsi. The Belgians gave the majority of political control to the Tutsis. [As a result of all of this,] Tutsis began to believe the myth of their superior racial status, and exploited their power over the Hutu majority. Current academic thought is that the European emphasis on racial division led to many of the difficulties between Hutu and Tutsi in the latter part of the 20th century", such as the Rwandan genocide. (History of Rwanda)
Clinton disagrees with you. He openly blamed himself for his non-intervention, and made no secret that this was his # 1 regret of his presidency. You stand corrected - BY BILL CLINTON.
How do the number of refugees from Iraq and Syria today compare with the numbers between 1991 and 2003? What role did US aggression play in how those numbers differ?Confine the question to a more concise time period and I might acknowledge.
No, we are not, despite what you neo-cons so desperately hope for.And with YOU saying that, that makes it the SMARTEST post of the day.^^^ Stupidest post of the day.NO. The mission is NOT accomplished. This is exactly what the US military should be doing now, except it shouldn't be 7 countries. It probably should be about 47 countries, including Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Iran, Phillipines, Indonesia, Chechnya, etcUS inflicted regime change in Iraq and Libya, for starters.
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Mission Accomplished?
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Silly one, we are not going to have a world war with Islam.
Silly one. We already are in one. Hadn't you noticed ?
Does Anyone Not Know We re in World War III US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
