" Beyond anything we've ever seen."

"JV" and another round of golf, or back to Washington for a National Securities
meeting? What say you?

It amazes me how he can disregard the extreme criticizing he has been receiving from both sides of the aisle!

It amazes me how he can disregard the extreme criticizing he has been receiving from both sides of the aisle!

It amazes me how hes still in office and or still alive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It amazes me how hes still in office .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

U can not impeach him...he has the senate on his side.

why would the enemy want him out of the way?....he is doing a great job of weakening and destroying the country....he wants the military to pre world war 2 levels

the marjority of the country got what they wanted, "Change" and change he did....he held true to his promise...what a great guy....:)

U can not impeach him...he has the senate on his side.

why would the enemy want him out of the way?....he is doing a great job of weakening and destroying the country....he wants the military to pre world war 2 levels

the marjority of the country got what they wanted, "Change" and change he did....he held true to his promise...what a great guy....:)

I am assuming that was riddled with sarcasm?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nostradamus predicted we would be taken down by an insider

I am assuming that was riddled with sarcasm?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


YESSIR....:)

He was voted for and succeeded twice. And like the previous administration (Bush), many comment that had things waited a little he would not have won reelection.

On a side note, I am somewhat glad Bush won his second go around rather than Kerry. Look how he is doing as SecState.

It amazes me how hes still in office and or still alive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One huge reason is the insurance policy he selected as Vice President. Father Time has not been kind to Joe Biden's brain. Not sure he would do much worse, but he would give it a good try for sure.

:smash: *Joe Biden -n- Father Time* :smash:

nostradamus predicted we would be taken down by an insider

If we go down he would not be far from the truth. We have these sleeper cells well entrenched in our country that can peck away at us whenever they want.
Some members of the cells in Europe have US passports and can move around pretty much the way they want.
Our Southern border is basically open to anyone. This is a well heeled determined group wanting to take over any country that doesn't believe the way they do. This is no joke.

I'm sure they were shaking in there boots after O gave his speech and went back on the links. ;)

isis and the mexican border is a scary scenario

isis and the mexican border is a scary scenario

NAH!....when they come over the border and realise the welfare benefits they will throw down their weapons and forget about the 72 virgins.....:) :)

" Beyond anything we've ever seen."

"JV" and another round of golf, or back to Washington for a National Securities
meeting? What say you?

Giving them a warning, is baiting the hook if I have ever seen it done before its been done now.

might gain access to whats stored in Syria

basically Sadami 's treasure trove of chemical weaponry

thats the problem that boots on the ground nor explosions can cure

we have to whack hard them at every opportunity before it's gets any later in the game. these sobs' are the beigest threat to humanity and it's snowballing. fork politics and bring out the big sticks. oh I wish we had competent leadership in place.

we have to whack hard them at every opportunity before it's gets any later in the game. these sobs' are the beigest threat to humanity and it's snowballing.

If they were bombed at the time they were crossing the border from Syria,
it would have weakened them and given us time to destroy the armament they captured that was left behind.
This has become the problem it is because there was no strategy planned to handle the inevitable. Someone was asleep at the switch or the same old same old wait and see and hope it goes away, or both.
No Leadership here, and now we are in a bind.
Where are all the Libs on this now?

Islamic State is an Al Qaeda splinter group. The Nusra Front and ISIS were once a single organization, but the groups split over ideological and tactical differences, with ISIS going its own way and Nusra remaining loyal to Al Qaeda’s central command. One of the issues that divided them was the acceptable level of brutality. Since the split, Al Qaeda has criticized the unrestrained attacks by the Sunni militants of ISIS against Shiite Muslims, as well as their attacks on Christian villages.
In sum, the worst of the worst.......

wtf? what's he smoking?...some of barrys good stuff?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/25/joint-chiefs-chairman-says-isis-not-direct-threat-to-west-wont-recommend-syria/

typical American strategy...wait till Americans R killed on the homeland before reaction

kill them now.

wtf? what's he smoking?...some of barrys good stuff?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/25/joint-chiefs-chairman-says-isis-not-direct-threat-to-west-wont-recommend-syria/

Yes, let's wait until they take over more territory and cities where they can use more human shields and we need ground house to house fighting. Or maybe wait till they get their hands on existing chemical weapons, kill the 20 American hostages and shoot up our malls, shoot up our military bases, and cause havoc
in our cities or just wait for an apoptaliptic ending.

At the very least we need to bring in NATO, with Turkey, Jordan and the Kurds doing the major fighting to cut off the head of the snake now, supported with heavy air strikes, special ops and another carrier group in the area.
We have had 2 years to make a strategic plan. Last week Dempsey said we would need to bomb Syria to defeat them. Now he has down played it.
What is the plan?

wtf? what's he smoking?...some of barrys good stuff?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/25/joint-chiefs-chairman-says-isis-not-direct-threat-to-west-wont-recommend-syria/

Translation. THE MOMENT they take over oil fields.... KABLAM!!!!!! :fin:

Translation. THE MOMENT they take over oil fields.... KABLAM!!!!!! :fin:


I've read where black market oil is a major contributor to their cause bringing in anywhere from $2-5 million dollars a day. If we had started drilling and fracking in the prohibited areas 5 years ago we would be close to energy independence and it wouldn't be an issue.
Their issue here is no different then it always was, kill people who have a different believe than they do.

I'm all for wiping them off the planet..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CBS news tonight reported that they have dozens of American sympathizers who have joined their ranks.... Only a matter of time before they come back with their missions....... One could only hope that we (Congress) change the rules of engagement and allow US forces to target any combatant who has effectively renounced their American loyalties by fighting under the flag of Islam State.

[QUOTE=justplugit;1050101]I've read where black market oil is a major contributor to their cause bringing in anywhere from $2-5 million dollars a day.


ummmh...maybe we should disable that capability????? duh..

Yes ,and while we're at it, go back to calling it what it really is, a War on Global Terror rather than an Overseas Contingency Operation and bringing back the culprits to the US for trial.

CBS news tonight reported that they have dozens of American sympathizers who have joined their ranks.... Only a matter of time before they come back with their missions....... One could only hope that we (Congress) change the rules of engagement and allow US forces to target any combatant who has effectively renounced their American loyalties by fighting under the flag of Islam State.


AGREED!!!.....:)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/world/meast/syria-american-killed/index.html

Second American jihadi kia.... Are there dozens, hundreds? Interesting how the State Department notified the family....who had no idea????

WWIII

I've read where black market oil is a major contributor to their cause bringing in anywhere from $2-5 million dollars a day..


i would think it was CHINA or North Korea buying that oil

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/world/meast/syria-american-killed/index.html

Second American jihadi kia.... Are there dozens, hundreds? Interesting how the State Department notified the family....who had no idea????

The news said 1 other was killed in the same fight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There in lies the problem. Seems like nobody knows. The administration
has known about isisi for two years but had no strategy to deal with them
and according to Obama still has none.
How is it possible that someone has been asleep at the switch for 2 years ?
Same old kick the can down the road and HOPE nothing happens, but then
again the President did campaign on HOPE.

How is it possible that someone has been asleep at the switch for 2 years ?
I think that's just the knee jerk in you talking :hihi:

-spence

of course then again he might just be SCOTTISH

from the BLACK watch Clan

known to walk softly but carry a big stick

pffffffffffff.....T mmmng mng cough sputter

I think that's just the knee jerk in you talking :hihi:

-spence

Spence, that's all you got. :huh: :)

what was really chilling today was hearing about the laptop of death

what was really chilling today was hearing about the laptop of death
Or it could be somewhat media hype. Certainly ISIS is serious but it's an issue to be dealt with, the world isn't ending.

Right now I'd be much more concerned with ebola spreading from west Africa than ISIS trying to weaponize biological contagions.

-spence

Or it could be somewhat media hype. Certainly ISIS is serious but it's an issue to be dealt with, the world isn't ending.

Right now I'd be much more concerned with ebola spreading from west Africa than ISIS trying to weaponize biological contagions.

-spence

More Democratic smoke being blown up our collective ass.... "Look, look over here... this is a more serious problem we're focusing on in the public interest"

....

More Democratic smoke being blown up our collective ass.... "Look, look over here... this is a more serious problem we're focusing on in the public interest"
You guys been drinking from the same well?

Or it could be somewhat media hype. Certainly ISIS is serious but it's an issue to be dealt with, the world isn't ending.

Right now I'd be much more concerned with ebola spreading from west Africa than ISIS trying to weaponize biological contagions.

-spence

That's not what the secretary of defense said .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More Democratic smoke being blown up our collective ass.... "Look, look over here... this is a more serious problem we're focusing on in the public interest"

Bingo NF, and now let's get back to the links and fund raising.
Now that's a plan.
This guy is in way over his head, at our expense.

Bingo NF, and now let's get back to the links and fund raising.
Now that's a plan.
This guy is in way over his head, at our expense.

He doesn't care. Some people use drugs to escape reality , he uses golf and fund raisers . He can feel relevant there. Sad and dangerous times for America
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, that's all you got. :huh: :)
I think it's pretty silly to think the Administration has been ignoring the issue for 2 years. We've been trying to get the Iraqi government to take some responsibility in the matter. How are we supposed to take the blame for military acting French?

This stuff has been brewing for so long but you can't resist the opportunity to blame blame blame rather than think about what we can and should do. It's a very complex situation with no easy options.

The positive side to things being this dangerous is that the other Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped create.

What about the summer suit? No outrage about the suit?

-spence

He missed his opportunity by not getting a coalition into Syria early, IMO. ISIS/ISIL became a force from within the rebel void of power. The US could have had an ally had they supported the early rebellion against Assad.

This stuff has been brewing for so long but you can't resist the opportunity to blame blame blame rather than think about what we can and should do. It's a very complex situation with no easy options.



-spence

Can and should do, and no easy options?
Too late, there should have been strategies on the table
for contingencies as the troops were withdrawn.
The biggest blunder was not anticipating isis would come across the border. They should have been hit hard as they crossed, BEFORE they became entrenched.
But that would have taken an out front leader with forward planning rather than leading from behind and hoping it goes away.
Day late and a dollar short.

Bingo NF, and now let's get back to the links and fund raising.
Now that's a plan.
This guy is in way over his head, at our expense.

Was pissy when the Ospreys flew over my house last night. 5 Million dollars to generate 500K

The world IS falling apart and no small thanks to this fustercluck of an administration. No, it is not all Obama's fault, but part of it - the LEADERSHIP, is his responsibility. The lack of good Advisers and/or listening to good advice IS his responsbility.

Lets see the issues:

ME Peace
ISIL
UKRAINE
IRAN Nukes (not that we have heard much - is that effective policy? Or just not enough room above the fold?)
Iraq Collapsing
Race relations
Afghansitan Collapsing
Russia expansionism/ re-imperialism
China expansionism
Immigration (The only nation than can enforce borders but does not enforce?)
Ebola


Yes - things are being deftly managed. /sarc

Looks like he is becoming unhinged. I am really getting concerned that this guy is loosing it.


I think it's pretty silly to think the Administration has been ignoring the issue for 2 years. We've been trying to get the Iraqi government to take some responsibility in the matter. How are we supposed to take the blame for military acting French?

This stuff has been brewing for so long but you can't resist the opportunity to blame blame blame rather than think about what we can and should do. It's a very complex situation with no easy options.

The positive side to things being this dangerous is that the other Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped create.

What about the summer suit? No outrage about the suit?

-spence

No, suit is a minor . I'm afraid the Administration has been screwing things up the last 2 years. Too much Hope & Ideology, not enough Realism


He missed his opportunity by not getting a coalition into Syria early, IMO. ISIS/ISIL became a force from within the rebel void of power. The US could have had an ally had they supported the early rebellion against Assad.

No, the opportunity was missed when a Status Of Forces Agreement was not established/pursued with Iraq to leave a force of sufficient personnel in place to bolster the Iraqi Army to keep ISIL in Syria. The ability to lean on Maliki to NOT further peees on the dissatisfied.

Seatbelt light is on folks, expect much turbulence ahead. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

You guys are armchair quarterbacking...

What would you be willing to give up for US troops to stay in Iraq? Bush had to give up some legal protections just to keep us there until 2011. What about contractors?

How do you build a coalition against Syria with steadfast Russian opposition? If the terrorist threat isn't imminent how do you get Arab support?

Don't we have to test Iraq and see if they can stand on their own? Isn't this nearly the same welfare dependency argument Conservatives are glued to at home?

Wouldn't a President Romney or McCain likely be saddled with the exact same constraints as Obama?

I think they would be.

-spence

You guys are armchair quarterbacking...

What would you be willing to give up for US troops to stay in Iraq? Bush had to give up some legal protections just to keep us there until 2011. What about contractors?

How do you build a coalition against Syria with steadfast Russian opposition? If the terrorist threat isn't imminent how do you get Arab support?

Don't we have to test Iraq and see if they can stand on their own? Isn't this nearly the same welfare dependency argument Conservatives are glued to at home?

Wouldn't a President Romney or McCain likely be saddled with the exact same constraints as Obama?

I think they would be.

-spence

You're right .... What time do we tee off ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's pretty silly to think the Administration has been ignoring the issue for 2 years. We've been trying to get the Iraqi government to take some responsibility in the matter. How are we supposed to take the blame for military acting French?

The Iraqi government has taken responsibility . . . just not in a way that anyone else would approve. Oh, wait . . . the way they chose is pretty much the same way as most governments (administrations) choose. It has done what it thinks is the best way to stay in power and strengthen their ideological and religious position along with that of their political allies and cronies . . . rather than what is good for ALL of the people under their rule. And it has conveniently disregarded those good notions in their charter of government in order to achieve the ascendance of its ideology.

Surely, Obama was able to foresee and understand that when he chose to remove all troops from Iraq. Surely, he would have understood that the Iraqi government would choose to act in the very way that he has chosen to act in his administration. What kind of "responsibility" did he think the Iraqi government would take? A better one than his own?

And our military understood and told Obama that it was too soon to withdraw all troops. It warned him that there was a definite possibility that the Iraqi military would act French.

This stuff has been brewing for so long but you can't resist the opportunity to blame blame blame rather than think about what we can and should do. It's a very complex situation with no easy options.

Easy options? Is that what Presidents and Commanders in Chief are for? To deal with easy options? If so, who needs them? Life ain't easy, brother. Us common citizen grunts have to constantly deal with the not so easy. On the other hand, it would be so much more convenient, and the choices, as few as would even be needed, if we all would just get along and do what our government incessantly legislates that we must do. The complexity would disappear and we would achieve the progressive dream of the societal utopian bee hive.

The positive side to things being this dangerous is that the other Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped create.

-spence

Finally? They have been aware of the monsters for a long time. Why do you think they usually resort to tyrannical regimes? To mollify the "good" Muslims? It has always been "this dangerous." And the only way to suppress the monsters has been the way of all tyrannies--force, coercion, suppression, pandering. It has been the "easy" option. Individual freedom and responsibility has not been inherent in their cultural and societal identities. A free people would have long ago revolted and taken "Responsibility" for self governance.

Oh, wait. That is a tired old train, as you would put it. They're beyond that nonsense. They are so much more ahead in their historical perspective than those who are stuck in some ancient time warp and its illusions of individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They understand the need to meld into the collective and be herded by more intelligent experts and masterminds.

Surely, Obama would have understood this and not expected the Iraqi government to take some kind of responsibility other than that which they did. Wouldn't he have done the same? Hasn't he taken that responsibility to fundamentally transform America? Hasn't that transformation progressively been molded toward governance by a central power rather than local and individual responsibilities?

You guys are armchair quarterbacking...

So . . . are you saying that's a bad thing? You do it a lot. Even in this thread and in this post to which I'm replying.

What would you be willing to give up for US troops to stay in Iraq? Bush had to give up some legal protections just to keep us there until 2011. What about contractors?

If you believe that the Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped to create, wouldn't that make it an "easier" option for them to give us a wider latitude in helping them fight those monsters?

How do you build a coalition against Syria with steadfast Russian opposition? If the terrorist threat isn't imminent how do you get Arab support?

Perhaps the Arab's do not entirely desire a coalition with non-Arabs against terrorist threats, except those traditional coalitions such as being left to their own devices (tyranny, etc.) and a little economic and military support. But without ideological or utopian requests to become democracies, or to tolerate others, etc. Perhaps Arab rulers don't want to support that which lessens their power. Is that so hard for utopian masterminds to understand?

Don't we have to test Iraq and see if they can stand on their own? Isn't this nearly the same welfare dependency argument Conservatives are glued to at home?

Oh wait . . . so you agree with the "welfare dependency argument"? And you're glued to it like the Conservatives? Or do you just see it as a bunch of hooie, and are more inclined toward the progressive notion that one cannot stand on his own? That he can't build it on his own? This is confusing--you believe that Iraq can stand on its own, but on the other hand, maybe not? Which is it?

And no, it isn't nearly the same welfare dependency argument. The Federal government's constitutional duty, as conservatives see it, is to allow individuals or their local governments who represent their wishes to be independent, and to actually build things on their own, and to self govern. Its constitutional duty is to protect them from foreign threats, not to make foreign governments dependent on us. The Federal government's primary responsibility in Iraq is to do that which protects our homeland and its people from the foreign threats that are brewing there. If that takes seeing to it that the Iraqi government is able to fight our enemies, with whatever help it needs from us, that is what it should do, or if that government is not able, then to handle the matter ourselves with whatever might and power necessary.

And if it takes a more powerful military to do so, it should focus on that, not on micromanaging our personal lives.

Wouldn't a President Romney or McCain likely be saddled with the exact same constraints as Obama?

I think they would be.

-spence

There you go doing that armchair quarterbacking thing.

It is a bit mind-twisting how when Obama does or doesn't do something you think that those who oppose him would do or don't do the same thing. Did that apply to the things that Bush did or didn't do? So when Obama blames Bush for the problems he has "inherited," does that mean he's just blowing smoke up our butts because he would have been "likely saddled with the exact same constraints" as Bush?

Direct hits, Detbuch.

Maybe the answer is for O to make another apology tour for all our transgressions. Then the extreme islamists will feel sorry for us, being we confessed for all the terrible things we have done as a country, mostly under Bush,give up their believe to kill all infidels, lay down their arms and peace will reign forever.

Oh that's right, that's how we became perceived as a second rate power and
our enemies began to rise up again.

I think they may have done some of the same things, though maybe better, and would have done different things.

I don't think there would be as high a sense of panic, as high a lack of strategy. And even if there were a lack of strategy. THEY WOULDN'T SAY IT like that. That is amateur hour.

Announcing to our enemies we would leave AFG in 2014. Amateur hour. Hey guys, take all the potshots you can us while you wait us out - we're leaving on '14 and you can't do nothing about it. Amateur hour.

I think they WOULD have listened to their military advisers more and better. Obama's military advisers have been cowed into speaking the party line and to putting things like transgender troops to the top of the heap in importance* or spending significant millions or training and resource budgets to foster green technology (should come from other guv funding). This is not what the military is supposed to do yet under Obama it is.

Russia, China, Iran, Islamic non state actors / groups are the counterweights on the US and EU. All of those perceive the US and EU to be weak and indecisive. Most likely correctly. They will use the opportunity, NOW and in the next year, to leverage our incompetence and lack of spine and grab whatever gains they can.


* Off topic - I am mixed on having GLB serving only because it is taking from the primary missions of the military. So we are playing social engineering with our military rather than focusing on the basics: which is to defend the US, build coalitions, mutual defense, and commonality with partner nations, and when necessary break a lot of the other guy's sh1t. Transgender - a bridge too far.

Amateur hour is correct. Much of administration is filled with unproven personnel and headed up by someone who was no more than a sophomore senator when first elected. Past administrations would attract and pursue the captains of industry, who had actual experience to fill cabinets and senior level leadership positions. This group didn't even consult with a single US health insurance company before they hired a Canadian firm (why???) to build the Obamacare software program. Oh, and that Canadian firm had no experience in building software on such a scale....

[QUOTE=JohnR;1050526]
I think they WOULD have listened to their military advisers more and better. Obama's military advisers have been cowed into speaking the party line and to putting things like transgender troops to the top of the heap in importance* or spending significant millions or training and resource budgets to foster green technology (should come from other guv funding). This is not what the military is supposed to do yet under Obama it is.

Russia, China, Iran, Islamic non state actors / groups are the counterweights on the US and EU. All of those perceive the US and EU to be weak and indecisive. Most likely correctly. They will use the opportunity, NOW and in the next year, to leverage our incompetence and lack of spine and grab whatever gains they can.


Bingo....we have Bingo!

[QUOTE=JohnR;1050526] So we are playing social engineering with our military rather than focusing on the basics: which is to defend the US, build coalitions, mutual defense, and commonality with partner nations, and when necessary break a lot of the other guy's sh1t. QUOTE]

This, all at the same time reducing our military spending to pre 9/11 levels.

This, all at the same time reducing our military spending to pre 9/11 levels.

That is another thread altogether. There is really bad decision making going on by the defense contractors, the Pentagon, and Congress on both sides of the aisle.

That is another thread altogether. There is really bad decision making going on by the defense contractors, the Pentagon, and Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Geez JR, can't I even hijack my own thread. :huh: :D

Geez JR, can't I even hijack my own thread. :huh: :D


:rotf2:

that is....unless it's your Birthday

i'll betcha he put allot of Pennies on the railroad tracks :uhuh:

" Beyond anything we've ever seen."

"JV" and another round of golf, or back to Washington for a National Securities
meeting? What say you?

"What say you?"

What say I?...Hmmm...

I remember Obama's comments concerning the Iraq Surge, which he opposed and derided, refused to admit is was succeeding, and when he could deny it no longer, he said something like "it exceeded everybody's expectations". Actually, it did precisely what the military expected it would do, but Obama's original expectations, since they were based on ideology instead of military logic, coul dnot have been more wqrong.

I remember the jillion dollar stimulus package, which Obama said would keep unemployment below 8% and woudl fund all these shovel ready jobs. When the dust settled, unemployment went much higher than 8%, and Obama LAUGHINGLY said that those jobs weren't as shovel-ready as he originally thought. Once again, his predictions could not have been more wrong.

And here, he dismisses ISIS as a "JV" squad.

Obviously, no one is perfect, and of course I am biased because I absolutely despise everything about Obama. But these were major, major issues, and not only was he not right, it would almost be impossible for him to have been more wrong.

This is, predictably, what you get when you elect a guy who has absolutely no track record of accomplishing anything significant. Community organizer in Chicago? i'm not sure what that means exactly, but whatever it was he did in Chicago, it doesn't appear to have been all that effective at improving conditions there.

There are lots of ideas that sound absolutely fantastic in an Ivy League faculty room, but which fail miserably in the real world. Being educated is a fine thing, but it needs to be combined with SOME real-world experience.

The giuy can't get one right, not even by accident. Everything he touches, turns to vomit.

It amazes me how he can disregard the extreme criticizing he has been receiving from both sides of the aisle!

He doesn't disregard it when it comes from the right. When it comes from the right, he accuses it of being hate-based and racist. I'd be happier if he ignored me, than if he called me a hate-mongering racist. "Republicans in the House, you've got to stop hating al the time". That's the guy who I'm supposed to believe is interested in representing me?

I think it's pretty silly to think the Administration has been ignoring the issue for 2 years. We've been trying to get the Iraqi government to take some responsibility in the matter. How are we supposed to take the blame for military acting French?

This stuff has been brewing for so long but you can't resist the opportunity to blame blame blame rather than think about what we can and should do. It's a very complex situation with no easy options.

The positive side to things being this dangerous is that the other Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped create.

What about the summer suit? No outrage about the suit?

-spence
Spence, the point is, Obama dismissed ISIS as a non-threat when he referred to them as "the JV". Obama also mocked Romney for stating that Russia was a threat to be taken seriously (the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back. Haw haw haw!! tell that to the Ukranians...

It's almost comical how incompetent the guy is, how deep he is in over his head. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, realized when it was time to put his ideoilogy aside and listen to Newt Gingrich when Gingrich was clearly correct. Obama cannot, or will not, do that. Amazing.

Also, I recall that Obama sent Eric Holder and some other brass from the Attorney General's office to Ferguson. Has Eric Holder been sent to Mexico to find out what the hell is going on with the Marine that's been jailed there for months? What about the Pakistani doctor, who risked his neck to help us catch Bin Laden, and we sit by while Pakistan throws this guy in jail for treason?

Spence, is this how we treat those who risk everything, literally risk everything, to help us?

I don't get it. I just don't get it. I guess you have to have a Harvard degree to understand why that's actually brilliant foreign policy.

I thought Obama's charm, as opposed to Bush's brutality, was supposed to make countries like us more? I'm sure that jailed marine and the Pakistani doctor, take great comfort in knowing that Obama is so skilled at ensuring that other countries become productive allies of ours.

Go ahead Spence, tell me where I'm wrong, and why these are actually brilliant moves by your man-crush.

Clearly ,as Biden put it " one of Our proudest achievements "
These people are so busy baffling people with bull #^&#^&#^&#^& they can't concentrate on the truth anymore .
We all know that person that lies so often they make #^&#^&#^&#^& up to cover for there lies and refuse to aknowledge the truth . Apparently that type of behavior can make you President some day .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Closer to home, where was the out cry from Holder and Obama when just about a week ago in Dorchester, Dawn Jaffier was shot dead while marching. Here is a girl loved by her community. She loved working with kids.

I guess she did not count because it was black on black

I know someone who works for ob on a daily basis- says he's become more arrogant than before, if that's possible. still can't believe we (not me) elected this clown- twice. show those corksuckers isis we love them by sending them some hallmark cruise missles. gotta kill it before it grows and comes here.

Where was Obama, Holder and the FBI when the Austrialan baseball player in Oaklahoma was murdered by 3 black youths who said they had nothing better to do? It was difinitly racial. One even tweeted how he hated whites.

Matter of fact, Y was there no white protest on the streets?

I just read a headline and story..... "Obama wants to make ISIS a "manageable problem"" OK. There you go. He has his strategy......WTF

I just read a headline and story..... "Obama wants to make ISIS a "manageable problem"" OK. There you go. He has his strategy......WTF

It's his " never take a position " policy. It is a disgrace that a man with no spine ,is the leader of such a great nation.
Now we find out that he has been warned , in daily briefings , of the threat ISIS has posed, for over a year now .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A response is what Isis wants. These videos are baiting tactics to bring us into Iraq and Syria. Doing this would only empower them more. That said, Obama sure looks like a lame duck these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A response is what Isis wants. These videos are baiting tactics to bring us into Iraq and Syria. Doing this would only empower them more. That said, Obama sure looks like a lame duck these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty arrogant and stupid move on their part if that is their hope.
If we have a get a leader who will let the US take off the gloves and use the firepower that we have they will be annihilated in short order.
I would start with a couple 500 pounders drifting down onto our evacuted embassies .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And when 10 or 30 innocent civilians die from those bombs, what happens next.

This is a delicate situation that requires delicate action. Pouring gasoline on a fire comes to mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And when 10 or 30 innocent civilians die from those bombs, what happens next.

This is a delicate situation that requires delicate action. Pouring gasoline on a fire comes to mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

War is ugly . We didn't ask to be in it . Your thinking ends up getting more people killed in the long run.
I don't know if you've been watching the news, but they're killing thousands of innocent people .
The United States armed forces are extremely good at doing two things. Killing the enemy and destroying their infrastructure . If you don't let them do that then we will not succeed. We have several wars in recent history to prove that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they don't have all the toys we have
fly's on the wall

And when 10 or 30 innocent civilians die from those bombs, what happens next.

This is a delicate situation that requires delicate action. Pouring gasoline on a fire comes to mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That scenario is ugly, and it's what Israel faces every single day. But you have to protect yuorselves and do what's right.

It's ugly. But one thing history has taught us is this...when you decide to go in in a situation like this, you go in all the way or you don't go at all. Half-measures will never work. Obama is doing airstrikes, and I give him credit for that. But if ISIS is the threat they seem to be, it's time to send in the cavalry and kill as many as we possibly can, avoiding civilian casualties when possible, living with the consequences when it's not possible.

It's awful, but it's necessary. There is more to being President that golfing and fund-raising and hob-nobbing with the swells on Martha's Vineyard. Maybe we shouldn't have chosen someone who constantly voted "present" as a state senator, because he din't have the courage to take a position and act on it.

Sounds like we need a "glass-lined" parking lot in that region.
Since we're dealing with uncivilized animals that live their pathetic lives via the internet, maybe we can show them exactly what a "long distance" reply really looks and feels like?
Sure, an ICBM isn't as fast as the web, but it will make much more of an "impact" when it arrives, and we can send them just as easily as an email.

every single piece of equipment we gave to the IRAQ
military should have had a tracking element built into
the metal (non removable) so selecting them later as targets
if STOLEN would be as easy as pie.

Great idea Rav, a GPS in every piece of heavy armament.

I think we should send a message to isis with a few B2's loaded with 1000 lb bombs on 9/11/.

so let me get this right, we know where the isis headquarters is in Raqqa Syria and it still stands ?????? neither borders nor walls should be able to shield those sob's.

so let me get this right, we know where the isis headquarters is in Raqqa Syria and it still stands ?????? neither borders nor walls should be able to shield those sob's.

You mean you don't want to "talk" with them, to try and reach some peaceful solution? Apparently our leaders seem to want to.

I say send them back to the dark ages, and let those that survive discover fire and the wheel all over again!!!

Every decision Obama makes is based on what's best for him politically.
Having known and been briefed on isis for over a year he waits until our citizen is beheaded before acknowledging they are a threat ,hoping nothing would happen before the November elections, imho.

God forbid he upset the left by being out in front of this building a coalition
over the last year to deal with them. Well he's got a crisis on his hands now and let's see how Holder's belief "never let a crisis go to waste " will serve him this time.

What happened, all the Libs decided at one time that a Fishing site
is no place to have a Political Forum ? :huh: :)

they just need a little lead flying around their neighborhood is all
-dave

mission creep-> mission creep.... thats the bottom line....now
give it time...

heck if we can spend a trillion on a war on drugs
than we haven't even got started yet .... over there...

gas should be cheap

Every decision Obama makes is based on what's best for him politically.
Having known and been briefed on isis for over a year he waits until our citizen is beheaded before acknowledging they are a threat ,hoping nothing would happen before the November elections, imho.

God forbid he upset the left by being out in front of this building a coalition
over the last year to deal with them. Well he's got a crisis on his hands now and let's see how Holder's belief "never let a crisis go to waste " will serve him this time.

He's doing the same thing on Immigration, hold out until after the mid-terms.

So now that he's in flying missions with meat in the cockpit. What happens if one of them has to bail out over ISIS held land, no boots on the ground to rescue? This will get worse, the only way to fight these people are to kill them and every foreign national fighting with them

mission creep-> mission creep.... thats the bottom line....now
give it time...



Yes, at least until after the Election in November, and maybe even after
the one in 2016.

And our military understood and told Obama that it was too soon to withdraw all troops. It warned him that there was a definite possibility that the Iraqi military would act French.
You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't.

People need to look at the constraints in the decision and not just fall back on what's now a talking point.

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

They have been aware of the monsters for a long time. Why do you think they usually resort to tyrannical regimes? To mollify the "good" Muslims? It has always been "this dangerous." And the only way to suppress the monsters has been the way of all tyrannies--force, coercion, suppression, pandering. It has been the "easy" option. Individual freedom and responsibility has not been inherent in their cultural and societal identities. A free people would have long ago revolted and taken "Responsibility" for self governance.
Yes, I'm sure the Iraqi Muslims who openly thanked Jim were just repressed savages.

Didn't the first Islamic Caliphate bring about great advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine while their western counterparts were sacking neighboring villages and fending off Vikings?

The dictatorships associated with the Middle East today are as much a product of Western conquest and geopolitics as they are self determination. It's a lens that's convenient to drop...

So now that he's in flying missions with meat in the cockpit. What happens if one of them has to bail out over ISIS held land, no boots on the ground to rescue? This will get worse, the only way to fight these people are to kill them and every foreign national fighting with them
I'm sure there would be boots on the ground for a rescue mission. A big variable is what kind of anti-aircraft equipment they've been able to acquire.

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't

Really !!
Anybody with a Facebook page has seen Obama's own words taking credit for removing the troops as he had promised.
Or are they being taken out of context ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really !!
Anybody with a Facebook page has seen Obama's own words taking credit for removing the troops as he had promised.
Or are they being taken out of context ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses :hihi:

Wow, France is already in the fight...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/france-airstrikes-islamic-state-iraq-111133.html?hp=r10

Ahhh yes, nothing like a facebook meme to enlighten the masses :hihi:

At the end he sounds like you

http://youtu.be/7DpBwmN66As
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SHARIA law is absolute HELL and has no place in America

so when we capture them on USA soil they should be simply SHOT
same as any foreign soldier attacking was

i don't think tax payers should have to pay for any trials

I'm sure there would be boots on the ground for a rescue mission.

Spence, you mean like in Benghazi? :(

Spence, you mean like in Benghazi? :(
Very different situations and you know that. But hey, any opportunity to say the word right?

At the end he sounds like you

http://youtu.be/7DpBwmN66As
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think I see the problem Buck. You're forming your opinions from Internet memes and misleading YouTube posts.

Your video conveniently cuts Obama's words short...he went on to say...

Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

I think I see the problem Buck. You're forming your opinions from Internet memes and misleading YouTube posts.

Your video conveniently cuts Obama's words short...he went on to say...

Funny thing is that most people remember when he was campaigning for a second term and as he did all his fundraiser speaches up until recently. The words in the video his .
You conveniently found one instance ( maybe) that he may have used other words after his bragging .
What he said yesterday has no bearing on what he says tomorrow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny thing is that most people remember when he was campaigning for a second term and as he did all his fundraiser speaches up until recently. The words in the video his .
You conveniently found one instance ( maybe) that he may have used other words after his bragging .
What he said yesterday has no bearing on what he says tomorrow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes, he campaigned on a promise to end the war. That means removal of active combat troops which we did aside from the Marines at the embassy.

The Administration did want a force to run counter-terrorism activities and continue to train the Iraqi military which fell apart. That was reported back in 2011...it's not one instance.

Perhaps you're confusion on what Obama says tomorrow is that you don't really know what he said yesterday?

Very different situations and you know that. But hey, any opportunity to say the word right?

No, if my memory serves me right there were special forces boots on the ground in Benghazi and the Embassy had asked for more but refused by Billary before the 9/11 attack. According to O's latest strategy there will not be boots on the ground against isis.

Yes, he campaigned on a promise to end the war. That means removal of active combat troops which we did aside from the Marines at the embassy.

The Administration did want a force to run counter-terrorism activities and continue to train the Iraqi military which fell apart. That was reported back in 2011...it's not one instance.

Perhaps you're confusion on what Obama says tomorrow is that you don't really know what he said yesterday?

No, not true Spence and you know it. He claims credit for removing all troops from Iraq and he bragged about it . He also brags about a much improved economy, a much improved health care system, a much improved perspective of how the world sees us.
He has a lower credibility rating and approval rating than any president since Jimmy Carter. Actually I believe he's lower than Jimmy Carter.
Most Americans excluding yourself see him for who he is and what he has done .
Spin the crap all you want . You're wrong in every case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, if my memory serves me right there were special forces boots on the ground in Benghazi and the Embassy had asked for more but refused by Billary before the 9/11 attack. According to O's latest strategy there will not be boots on the ground against isis.
I don't believe there were any traditional special ops there, they were security staff assigned to State resources. There were former special ops in the CIA there but again...that's different.

It's also a very different scenario from providing rescue support to live bombing missions.

No, not true Spence and you know it. He claims credit for removing all troops from Iraq and he bragged about it . He also brags about a much improved economy, a much improved health care system, a much improved perspective of how the world sees us.
He has a lower credibility rating and approval rating than any president since Jimmy Carter. Actually I believe he's lower than Jimmy Carter.
Most Americans excluding yourself see him for who he is and what he has done .
Spin the crap all you want . You're wrong in every case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He took credit for ending the war which he did. Sorry if that's considered "bragging" but it's what politicians do.

It must be hard when you have a massive propaganda machine trying to destroy you to think you can actually believe you can take credit for something the majority of Americans actually wanted.

Shame on him...

He took credit for ending the war which he did. Sorry if that's considered "bragging" but it's what politicians do.



Big difference between ending a war through vicyory and leaving a war.

Big difference between ending a war through vicyory and leaving a war.

It is impossible to achieve victory in a war that is non conventional. The last clean victory we had was WW2 IMHO. Topple the goverment and it's leader and you win doesn't cut it anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't.

"By Obama's own words" is not a convincing reason to base any assumptions on. He has gone back and forth, contradicted, lied, about so much that his words are, at best, meaningless. Publicly (for mass political consumption and influence on outcomes of elections) he campaigned on complete withdrawal of forces. Behind closed doors, or for select public, private, or political groups, he dithered about some forces, or no forces, or maybe this or that.

At this point, as Hillary might say, what difference does it make. Except for some who want to make his position, whatever that is or was, right, it is obvious that American military presence was necessary to protect the so-called democracy and sovereignty or the newly formed Iraq. There was no truly broad democratic basis for how the country was ruled. Religious and ethnic factions would oppose democratic rights for opposing factions or groups. And there certainly was no guaranty of individual liberties--oh, that's right, those are no longer possible in the progressive 21st century view. Centralized power is necessary rather than frictional democratic or individualistic "rights."

People need to look at the constraints in the decision and not just fall back on what's now a talking point.

And yet you must keep falling back on Obama's and his administration's talking points. The "constraints," in the decision, foremost, should have considered the security of the United States. It is that security, I presume, which constrains us to repel ISIS. That would have been easier with a security force in place rather than having to start all over again.

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

Except in movies, there is no magic fix in war. The fix is victory. The annihilation of the enemy. Finishing and securing the victories that had been accomplished would have prevented us going back to a "large scale confrontation" and allowed us to continue the war against jihadism on a stronger footing. Peculiar as it may seem, rather than dissuading others from joining you, being victorious and powerful actually attracts others to partner with you.

Yes, I'm sure the Iraqi Muslims who openly thanked Jim were just repressed savages.

The monsters I referred to (and assumed you were also referring to) were the "militant" Islamists (the true believers or "good Muslims" who followed the actual commands of Mohammed and his scriptures, of the Koran and the hadiths). They have been present since the beginning of Islam, and rulers who wished to include a wider range of citizens had to depress that original edict to do jihad of the sword to those who do not convert.

Didn't the first Islamic Caliphate bring about great advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine while their western counterparts were sacking neighboring villages and fending off Vikings?

You're mixing things up here. When Islamic rule was "enlightened," it was at the expense of orthodox Islam. Again, the rulers had to oppose that orthodoxy. To suppress it. That has always been so when "wise" rulers or tyrants needed or wanted to include a broader scope of culture, whether social, economic, or religious in their society. The "great advances" under Islamic rule to which you refer were in conjunction and association with nascent Western ideas. And the Western counterparts to whom you refer who were sacking and fending were not a part of the new and expanding Western philosophies.

The dictatorships associated with the Middle East today are as much a product of Western conquest and geopolitics as they are self determination. It's a lens that's convenient to drop...

That is a "talking point" of anti-western commentators--apologists for some new world order which requires the hegemony of progressive utopianism. If the "conquests" were Western in philosophical terms, the middle East would have been transformed and the present day conflicts would not exist. The "conquests" had various motivations whose primary interests were not to westernize, but to exploit. Exploitation, war, conquest, and such things, predate westernism and will continue, possibly, to outdate it, as primordial human "instincts" of sorts.

And, certainly, some of those "conquests" and "geopolitics" were in response to Middle Eastern and Islamic conquests and geopolitics. The crusades were a response to Islamic conquests. Much of the wars with Islamic countries during the past 7 centuries or more have been in response to Islamic "conquests" and invasions of Europe.

It depends on the "lens" through which you look. And which lens you wish to drop. The enlightened Muslims are not the original Muslims. The current "radical" Islamists actually are the original Muslims. And they will, as did the original ones, conquer you by war, deception, or whatever means necessary to instill some original notion of a "caliphate."

And they will not negotiate or compromise. Destroy and defeat them or let them have their way. If we withdraw militarily from the Middle East, they will have their way. If that is what we wish, or if we don't care, then at least arm our military to the teeth and see to it that our homeland is secure.

#8 is in the future.

It is impossible to achieve victory in a war that is non conventional. The last clean victory we had was WW2 IMHO. Topple the goverment and it's leader and you win doesn't cut it anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree, and that is why Bush announced this was a "war on terror" and would have to be fought differently than a conventional war. Therefore the emphasis on intelligence and emphasis on special forces.
However, now we have a Commander in Chief that has downplayed the threat , won't call it a war on terror, would rather negotiate with savages if he could, doesn't have a strategy that our military would approve of and announces to the terrorists what he will and will not do. Sounds like a plan for victory. :( Every plan he has is based on politics.

Agree, and that is why Bush announced this was a "war on terror" and would have to be fought differently than a conventional war

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......

Well . . . sort of. The "ground war" was ultimately not the same as the old "conventional war" that Nebe was referring to. Not sure (as Spence would say) that there is some static unchanging way of war. Apparently, we can't even say something as simple as "war is war." It seems, according to some administrations, that war is not necessarily war.

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......

Yes, and at the same time building intelligence , special forces and Home Land Security.
He left office with Iraq being in pretty good shape until Obama came in only
giving 1/2 the troops needed to close it down announcing when we would withdraw as isis sat on the side line building a "JV TEAM".
Now he announces to isis what he will do and NOT do. What a Commander in Chief. :hs:

"Commander of Grief" as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
Agree, and that is why Bush announced this was a "war on terror" and would have to be fought differently than a conventional war

And then got involved in a ground war (Iraq) unrelated to that......



that's funny...Iraq topped a very short list of countries consider State Sponsors of TERRORISM beginning in 1979...

they were subsequently removed from that list : Following the invasion, US sanctions applicable to state sponsors of terrorism against Iraq were suspended on 7 May 2003 and President Bush announced the removal of Iraq from the list on 25 September 2004.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism

but "unrelated" to the "War on Terror" :)

If only O had seen reality and continued what Bush started to prepare
for "the war on terror " after having lost 6 valuable years of serious preparation we may have been totally prepared, or maybe not even having to face the more serious problems we have now.

"By Obama's own words" is not a convincing reason to base any assumptions on.
I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...

And yet you must keep falling back on Obama's and his administration's talking points. The "constraints," in the decision, foremost, should have considered the security of the United States. It is that security, I presume, which constrains us to repel ISIS. That would have been easier with a security force in place rather than having to start all over again.

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

Except in movies, there is no magic fix in war. The fix is victory. The annihilation of the enemy. Finishing and securing the victories that had been accomplished would have prevented us going back to a "large scale confrontation" and allowed us to continue the war against jihadism on a stronger footing. Peculiar as it may seem, rather than dissuading others from joining you, being victorious and powerful actually attracts others to partner with you.
That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.

The monsters I referred to (and assumed you were also referring to) were the "militant" Islamists (the true believers or "good Muslims" who followed the actual commands of Mohammed and his scriptures, of the Koran and the hadiths). They have been present since the beginning of Islam, and rulers who wished to include a wider range of citizens had to depress that original edict to do jihad of the sword to those who do not convert.
I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda. Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.

You're mixing things up here. When Islamic rule was "enlightened," it was at the expense of orthodox Islam. Again, the rulers had to oppose that orthodoxy. To suppress it. That has always been so when "wise" rulers or tyrants needed or wanted to include a broader scope of culture, whether social, economic, or religious in their society. The "great advances" under Islamic rule to which you refer were in conjunction and association with nascent Western ideas. And the Western counterparts to whom you refer who were sacking and fending were not a part of the new and expanding Western philosophies.That is a "talking point" of anti-western commentators--apologists for some new world order which requires the hegemony of progressive utopianism. If the "conquests" were Western in philosophical terms, the middle East would have been transformed and the present day conflicts would not exist. The "conquests" had various motivations whose primary interests were not to westernize, but to exploit. Exploitation, war, conquest, and such things, predate westernism and will continue, possibly, to outdate it, as primordial human "instincts" of sorts.
That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?

And, certainly, some of those "conquests" and "geopolitics" were in response to Middle Eastern and Islamic conquests and geopolitics. The crusades were a response to Islamic conquests. Much of the wars with Islamic countries during the past 7 centuries or more have been in response to Islamic "conquests" and invasions of Europe.
Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Crusades-Impact-Todays/dp/0385721404/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412018420&sr=1-1&keywords=armstrong+the+crusades

It depends on the "lens" through which you look. And which lens you wish to drop. The enlightened Muslims are not the original Muslims. The current "radical" Islamists actually are the original Muslims. And they will, as did the original ones, conquer you by war, deception, or whatever means necessary to instill some original notion of a "caliphate."

And they will not negotiate or compromise. Destroy and defeat them or let them have their way. If we withdraw militarily from the Middle East, they will have their way. If that is what we wish, or if we don't care, then at least arm our military to the teeth and see to it that our homeland is secure.

Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.

Other interesting books I've read on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Muslim-Bad-America-Terror-ebook/dp/B000FCK5V2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412018912&sr=1-1&keywords=good+muslim+bad+muslim

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Islam-Muslims-Reform-Faith-ebook/dp/B003E74A02/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412018978&sr=1-2&keywords=irshad

The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.

I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...

I was commenting on the general unreliability of "Obama's own words." Even in the instance of your "most recent source" he is weaseling about him wanting to leave residual forces but Maliki not wanting it. If he REALLY wanted to leave behind adequate troops to maintain the new government, he could have worked it out. Maliki would have accepted the forces but didn't want to agree with providing the legal immunity that the status of forces agreement required. Maliki was probably CYAing to satisfy sectors of his population. That could have been worked out in several ways (e.g.--bribery, intimidation, behind doors agreement to be implemented later, or simply agreeing to Maliki's demands and disregarding them if need be, etc. etc.). That's called realpolitik, which progressives would surely understand and subscribe to, as they normally do.

That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.

"Victory"--final and complete defeat of the enemy.

"Finish"--completing, in this case, the victory, the final and complete defeat of the enemy.

"War against jihadism"--in this case, engaging in the war against us by those who desire a victory over us supported by notions of "jihad of the sword" mentioned in the Quran and hadiths.

I realize that these cannot be recognized as "absolute terms" by you since you do not believe in absolutes. But they are absolutely acceptable to me and my mundane use of words to communicate ideas in the functional way language was invented to do.

I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda.

There are verses which originalists and fundamentalists "interpret" to do so. Of course, later apologists would dispute such interpretation and claim they only refer to specific instances not general commands.

e.g. verse 9:5 Sahih International:
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

and verse 9:29 Sahih International:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

But it is not only the Quran which informs Muslims on their faith, but also the Hadiths. The Quran was supposedly the word of Allah which in turn was expressed by Muhammad. The Hadiths were edicts, words and accounts of Muhammad.

e.g. Sahih Muslim Book 19 Hadith Number 4294:

Chapter : Appointment of the leaders of expeditions by the Imam and his advice to them on etiquettes of war and related matters.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated. When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.

Uh . . . what with the Adrian Peterson's and Ray Rice's, et al. peculiar examples of Western family jihad, go for it.

That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?

I was responding to your "Western conquest" producing dictators. "Western" in that context is merely a geographic notation not a philosophical or political one. As I said, the "conquests" were not intended to "westernize" but to exploit. If the intention was to westernize and the conquests were successful, then, yes, everything in terms of current crusades and jihads would be relatively "hunky dory." Actually, the Iraq war, in my opinion, was more about westernization than WMDs or exploitation. Had it been "victoriously finished" we would have a "hunky dory" relationship. And it was about toppling a dictator not producing one.

And talk about a "gem"--your comment that the first Caliphate was bringing about great advances while western counterparts were sacking neighbors and fending off Vikings was such a "gem." How do you think early Islam spread so fast and vast if not by conquest (including sacking and fending). And, BTW, the western counterparts had preceded the Caliphates by several centuries in bringing about great advances, as well did the Middle Easterners who preceded the Muslims. And much of the "great advances" the Muslims were "bringing about" were informed by those of their western counterparts. And what is the most gleaming gem is the aftermath--what great advances are the Islamists bringing today?

Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:

So what? Amazing how you don't like nor wish to discuss "old" stuff such as the Constitution (not anywhere near as old as the Crusades) but you want to dredge up "old news" like the crusades.

Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.

OMG . . . talk about "wishful thinking, gross oversimplification," and the necessity to "define in clear and absolute terms," your above comment is all of that.

Other interesting books I've read on the subject:

The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.

Yeah, that does sound unique. I'm sure that the Canadian lesbian has a unique perception of Islam. And probably a new and unique version of jihad to add to all the different types of jihad already described by more prosaic imams and such.

great thing about this president is that given time he's usually proven wrong and incompetent on pretty much everything he does or states...which then proves Spence wrong about pretty much everything despite the Canadian Lesbian expertise etc...

you know it's bad when Chris Matthews is tired of the lies and incompetence....this was very reassuring "We have a very good health system that takes universal precautions on all patients, with the gloves.":rotf2:

"CHRIS MATTHEWS: I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Everybody's being told, don't worry unless they have the infectious symptoms, you can see them, that you don't have to worry about catching them. Yet, this guy picked up the disease apparently from somebody who did not have the infectious symptoms.

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: Again, don't hypothesize because we just don't know. We have no idea what he did or didn't do and how he got it. I'm sure that's going to be vital information to try to understand the transmission, but the idea that there's going to be a widespread outbreak here, I think is just, again, it's a bit of fear mongering. We have a single case. This is not a big, widespread --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, yeah, but I'm just going back to the president's statement, doctor, and that is that the president said it would be unlikely if we had a case in this country. Unlikely to even have one case. You want to see the tape again?

EMANUEL: He said there wouldn't be an Ebola outbreak.

MATTHEWS: No, and in the second part of his sentence he said in the unlikely case someone brings it here. In the unlikely case someone brings it here. Well, they've done it. We're living in the world of the unlikely already. That's all I'm saying. I'm not fear mongering. I'm stating the facts and I wonder if everybody else is.


EMANUEL: The reason we can be assured here that this isn't going to be a major outbreak is we have a CDC that can do very good contact tracing. We have a very good health system that takes universal precautions on all patients, with the gloves. And you're not regularly in contact with people's bodily fluids the way it is much more common in Liberia. I think those things distinguish it. And I don't think we should get into a panic because we were reassured it would never be in the United States.

MATTHEWS: No, the president said it was unlikely two weeks ago. Well, it's not the unlikely, it has happened. It's here."

cue president pass the buck to blame someone for not warning him......

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/obama-s-pass-the-buck-presidency-20140929

What ,Chris Matthews has moved off the O line a bit?
Slowly but surely the Libs are seeing the light.
Even Beckel has been softening his line. :hihi: