Obamao did little to stop isil rise in Iraq
-
Well, for the same reason we eventually had to join wwii and stop the nazis.
Ignoring "small" threats, just lets them grow into huge threats.
But then, stopping the huge threat is so much loss of life of our own soldiers.
We already should have blasted isil while they were in a big convoy, coming up
that main road from syria into iraq. Now, it's a giant clusterfook.
Clinton ignored al quaida in afghanistan, sending only some missiles into the desert.
Then, we were hit with 9/11, after they planned it for at least 3 years.
-
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
-
Hell, other Muslim countries should be the ones going in and policing their own.
-
True, on both posts.
But they won't. At least we should have had the Brits, etc, going after isil when I said they should have.
BTW, I was watching a report on the corrupt, cowardly "president" - they knew where the hostages
were, but would not make a decision on rescuing them til about two to three months later, and then
they had been moved.
This obamao regime doesn't care about anything but keeping their power. And doing nothing is
to them, politically expedient.
I mean, they had both houses of Congress and the presidency, and they did jack nothing good for two years.
So, there ya go.
-
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.
Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.
-
We shouldn't be fitting the bill anytime something bad happens. Germany, France, UK, etc. could just as easily take care of it. If they can't be bothered then that is on them. They are the one's that can be reached by land by these cowardly pieces of shit.
Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.
Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.
Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.
Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.
I was speaking in a broader sense of how things normally are. We feel as if we have to police every bad situation when we could stand to sit some out. It should be resolved by others sometimes.
To be honest, I should not have mentioned the Brits because they are usually along for the ride on every adventure the U.S. goes on.
-
and a lot of that is due to the fact our English bretherin are still using their own currency.
says I.
WSS
-
Go take a look at the coalition of countries against ISIL. And while you're there, compare to Al-Qaeda which was basically just the brits and americans. There are a lot more countries involved against ISIL - USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark in the 'core' group of countries. Even the Iranians and Syrians are starting to be drawn in.
Nobody likes ISIL, they're not government backed, so there's no vested interest from anyone.
I was speaking in a broader sense of how things normally are. We feel as if we have to police every bad situation when we could stand to sit some out. It should be resolved by others sometimes.
To be honest, I should not have mentioned the Brits because they are usually along for the ride on every adventure the U.S. goes on.
I was speaking in a broader sense of how things normally are. We feel as if we have to police every bad situation when we could stand to sit some out. It should be resolved by others sometimes.
To be honest, I should not have mentioned the Brits because they are usually along for the ride on every adventure the U.S. goes on.
Yeah, I kinda got riled up at that!
But you can sense that Obama doesn't want another "10 years of soldiers in the middle east" situation, and so is looking to get other countries involved - while still doing a 'fair share' of course - to take on ISIL. Like I said, nobody likes them, nobody backs them, and they're pissing off a lot of people. People from across Europe are being sucked in - apparently France has the highest number who have gone to fight. Australia's 'ginger muslim' has made a lot of people angry as well.
This isn't like Iraq, with claims of WMDs that turned out to be 'optimistic' and we went through with the war anyway, or however you spin that. There's a definitive 'bad guy' that the world has no interest in appeasing or accommodating.
-
Well, for the same reason we eventually had to join wwii and stop the nazis.
Ignoring "small" threats, just lets them grow into huge threats.
But then, stopping the huge threat is so much loss of life of our own soldiers.
We already should have blasted isil while they were in a big convoy, coming up
that main road from syria into iraq. Now, it's a giant clusterfook.
Clinton ignored al quaida in afghanistan, sending only some missiles into the desert.
Then, we were hit with 9/11, after they planned it for at least 3 years.
Well, for the same reason we eventually had to join wwii and stop the nazis.
Ignoring "small" threats, just lets them grow into huge threats.
But then, stopping the huge threat is so much loss of life of our own soldiers.
We already should have blasted isil while they were in a big convoy, coming up
that main road from syria into iraq. Now, it's a giant clusterfook.
Clinton ignored al quaida in afghanistan, sending only some missiles into the desert.
Then, we were hit with 9/11, after they planned it for at least 3 years.
Really? What is the cost of lives and money since the full time occupation of Iraq under Bush II and full time occupation of Afghanistan under Obama?
And has this dampened down anything? Little if any.
What would we have to do if we were really serious about stopping these groups?
-
Well, for the same reason we eventually had to join wwii and stop the nazis.
Ignoring "small" threats, just lets them grow into huge threats.
But then, stopping the huge threat is so much loss of life of our own soldiers.
We already should have blasted isil while they were in a big convoy, coming up
that main road from syria into iraq. Now, it's a giant clusterfook.
Clinton ignored al quaida in afghanistan, sending only some missiles into the desert.
Then, we were hit with 9/11, after they planned it for at least 3 years.
Really? What is the cost of lives and money since the full time occupation of Iraq under Bush II and full time occupation of Afghanistan under Obama?
And has this dampened down anything? Little if any.
What would we have to do if we were really serious about stopping these groups?
-
I didn't lead enough there. If we accept the premise that in order to keep us safe from radical Islam, and if radicals Islam is a threat then how do we stop them? A land war in Asia for 12 years hasn't been the ticket, has it?
What is Al Quaida and ISIS/ISIL/UNCLE? Religious groups?
Do they currently have a nation? No?
Do they get tax from Industry or Income? (No, except for some gains from dimmitude?)
So where does these groups get their money? How do they pay for their arms, bombs, and slick You Tube video productions?
Do many of the Uber Wealthy Saudis and Uber Wealthy from other Arab states like UAE support these people?
So if you were serious about dealing with Al Quaida/Isis/Isil then wouldn't you take steps to cut off the money?
And if you don't, doesn't that ensure that the situation drags on?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login