Airstrikes in Iraq

[Joyful HoneyBee]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/08/obama_us_here_to_help_iraq_as_airstrikes_begin_123 613.html

[NightTrain]

How about that.

Obama finally woke up and did something useful - but it may be too little, too late.

And publicly announcing that there would be no American ground forces was silly. Now the terrorists need only fear our warplanes, rather than the full complement of our military strength. He should have kept that little tidbit to himself.

Still, having U.S. aircraft overhead will surely bolster the Iraqis and give them courage... seems like they're greatly lacking in that commodity these days. We may have pummeled them too hard and broken their will to fight.

[Gaffer]

He always does too little too late. We should be putting boots on the ground in Kurdistan and helping them out. The Iraqi's can fight or run as they chose. We can then take all that equipment back and give it to the Kurds.

Things are getting real bad over there so there must be a fund raiser calling his name.

[aboutime]

How about that.

Obama finally woke up and did something useful - but it may be too little, too late.

And publicly announcing that there would be no American ground forces was silly. Now the terrorists need only fear our warplanes, rather than the full complement of our military strength. He should have kept that little tidbit to himself.

Still, having U.S. aircraft overhead will surely bolster the Iraqis and give them courage... seems like they're greatly lacking in that commodity these days. We may have pummeled the EIGHTEEN months too late. Bet those pilots on the G.H.W.Bush are feeling like our pilots did in Vietnam. Being limited to precision strikes that just happen to miss the IDIOTS of ISIS.
m too hard and broken their will to fight.

Obama is eighteen months too late. Our pilots are probably remembering the VIETNAM era, being told to only Bomb specific sites, while the ISIS monkeys laugh.
As for bolstering the Iraqis. Most of their military...THAT WE TRAINED...threw down their weapons, and ran for the hills months ago.

Obama is still WUSSING it out, trying to keep his followers happy, and worried about POLES here at home before the Mid-terms.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress DROPPED THE BALL when he/they announced the CUT AND RUN from Iraq, leaving NOBODY behind to fill the vacuum that ISIS is now filling.
(a quote from Aboutime)

[Gaffer]

History is trying to repeat itself. 1975. And the ones responsible are the democrats. AGAIN.

[gabosaurus]

And publicly announcing that there would be no American ground forces was silly. Now the terrorists need only fear our warplanes, rather than the full complement of our military strength. He should have kept that little tidbit to himself.

I don't think the terrorists fear anything. They want to draw ground forces back into the war. They want escalation. I think the ISIS heads want a mass slaughter, which could draw sympathy from other like-minded terrorist factions.



Still, having U.S. aircraft overhead will surely bolster the Iraqis and give them courage... seems like they're greatly lacking in that commodity these days. We may have pummeled them too hard and broken their will to fight.

I doubt anything short of another full scale occupation will give the Iraqis courage. They are cowards who don't want to defend themselves. They are too busy trying to turn any situation into personal gain. This is why there are refugees on the top of a mountain. Iraq is a worthless strip of desert that even their own people don't care about.

[Drummond]

I doubt anything short of another full scale occupation will give the Iraqis courage. They are cowards who don't want to defend themselves. They are too busy trying to turn any situation into personal gain. This is why there are refugees on the top of a mountain. Iraq is a worthless strip of desert that even their own people don't care about.

Your empathic humanity is a wonder to behold, Gabby ....:eek:


I don't think the terrorists fear anything. They want to draw ground forces back into the war. They want escalation. I think the ISIS heads want a mass slaughter, which could draw sympathy from other like-minded terrorist factions.

Whether or not there's any truth to any of this ... I think they want outright domination of the areas and peoples in their sights, MORE. I don't happen to think that ISIS's reason for being is to aggravate people, they just want a mixture of power-grabbing and satisfaction of bloodlust.

Such is scum.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Honest question: how much aide and comfort do we give to our enemies when our congress critters are openly undermining the President by openly stating how weak he is on foreign policy?

[Kathianne]

Honest question: how much aide and comfort do we give to our enemies when our congress critters are openly undermining the President by openly stating how weak he is on foreign policy?
They aren't coming close to how weak he is. Seriously, even the Democrats are having issues with his idiocy.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

They aren't coming close to how weak he is. Seriously, even the Democrats are having issues with his idiocy.
Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?

[aboutime]

Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?


It is NEVER a problem as long as the Truth is being stated. The truth about Obama us indisputable. And nobody alive can change the truth.

[Kathianne]

Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?

They are the opposition party and from what I have read, have done a much better job of backing him outside our borders than was given to Bush. Mind you, I don't think we should use the worst case to define how opposition should act, but seriously just read the blame game and you'll see why it may be the game in town.

[gabosaurus]

Honest question: how much aide and comfort do we give to our enemies when our congress critters are openly undermining the President by openly stating how weak he is on foreign policy?

This is an intriguing question. When Congress and demonstrators spoke out during the Bush years, they were unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The same conduct during the Obama years is now not only acceptable, but deemed patriotic.

[Gaffer]

Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?

He's being openly criticized by a lot more than just republicans. Check his poll numbers. If he wants to stop ISIS all he has to do is get supplies, arms and ammo to the Kurds. They are ready and will to fight. The boots on the ground are already there, they just need good weapons which they have been denied for the last ten years.

BO has no standing on the world stage. He's the guy behind the curtain. He won't even commit to serious air strikes. He just likes to hear himself talk tough.

He's busy gutting the military so he really doesn't have time for all this foreign policy bullshit. Martha's Vineyard is calling.

[SassyLady]

Honest question: how much aide and comfort do we give to our enemies when our congress critters are openly undermining the President by openly stating how weak he is on foreign policy?

It's hard to put a figure on something like "aid and comfort" .... but I do believe that Obama has a long way to go before he ever reaches the level of undermining that happened to Bush.

I do not believe our enemies listen to our congress critters regarding Obama's foreign policy. I believe our enemies acted to fill the void that was created by Obama's foreign policy ... I also truly believe they could give a crap about our politics.

If you want to know what is undermining his foreign policy ... how about the fact that he released the leader of ISIL in 2009.


Friday, August 08, 2014
Too vicious for even Al Qaeda, he's emerged as one of the world's most bloodthirsty terrorists.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a soccer-playing, religion Ph.D., is the leader of the Islamic State. The jihadist group, known by its former name, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS is responsible for seizing cities across northern Iraq this summer, shooting and beheading countless Iraqis along the way. Baghdadi, rarely seen, stepped into the world spotlight just over a month ago via a 21-minute video of a rambling sermon.

Baghdadi has been on the U.S. radar for almost a decade - and was even in U.S. custody for a time. In 2011, the U.S. posted a $10 million bounty for help capturing him.

*In 2005, Baghdadi was arrested by U.S. forces and placed in an American-run detention facility in Iraq. The military did not consider him particularly dangerous, and it let him go when the camp closed in 2009.

http://abc7chicago.com/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-dangerous-leader-of-isis/248741/

[SassyLady]

Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?

Perhaps some truth to this, however, I don't think they are doing more damage than his actual policies are doing. He's undermining himself because he IS weak.

See my post above for more detail of why I think he's more responsible through his actions than anything Congress can say.

He released the ISIL leader in 2009 and he released other terrorists a couple of months ago. That's really being tough on terrorists .......

Obama comes from a place of "no victor, no vanquished", which says a great deal about his foreign policy. In a perfect world this might happen .... but when your enemies want total slaughter and extermination, it's naive to think this "no victor, no vanquished" idea is considered a strong foreign policy.

[jimnyc]

Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?

In theory, yes. But what's the alternative? Asking politicians to shut up while the other side does as they please? I know it sucks, but the alternative is much much worse.

Out of curiosity, what were your thoughts when GWB was accosted for years and years by liberals and democrats while we were involved in 2 wars? Not only did they undermine the same, but they accused him of war crimes on a national scale. I think that's a tad worse than stating he is weak.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

This is an intriguing question. When Congress and demonstrators spoke out during the Bush years, they were unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The same conduct during the Obama years is now not only acceptable, but deemed patriotic.

Really, Gabby??? It appears to me that anyone who speaks out against BO and his lawless minions gets tagged as "racist".

[Joyful HoneyBee]

He's being openly criticized by a lot more than just republicans. Check his poll numbers. If he wants to stop ISIS all he has to do is get supplies, arms and ammo to the Kurds. They are ready and will to fight. The boots on the ground are already there, they just need good weapons which they have been denied for the last ten years.

BO has no standing on the world stage. He's the guy behind the curtain. He won't even commit to serious air strikes. He just likes to hear himself talk tough.

He's busy gutting the military so he really doesn't have time for all this foreign policy bullshit. Martha's Vineyard is calling.


It really is quite revolting that each new crisis in the world is another excuse for a vacation, or a golf outing. There's nothing wrong with people being appalled over BO's blatant disregard for presidential protocol. If he had been doing his job properly a lot of bloodshed could potentially been averted.

While the Iraqi army tucked tail, there were these forces trying to stand up to the opposition. Where was their support? Where is their support now?
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-07/meet-female-colonel-leading-kurdish-forces-battle-against-isis

[Kathianne]

The whole 'targeted air strikes' is a political ploy in the never ending failure of the Obama administration. Won't work and if he doesn't listen soon, there will be many more serious problems ahead:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/feinstein-warns-of-risk-of-isil-attack-on-america-says-must-be-confronted/?dcz=


Feinstein Warns of Risk of ISIL Attack on America, Says Must Be Confronted

By Niels Lesniewski (http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/author/nielslesniewskicqrollcall-com/)


Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein warned Friday of the risk that the insurgent group ISIL could be preparing fighters to attack American and European targets.

“It has become clear that ISIL is recruiting fighters in Western countries, training them to fight its battles in the Middle East and possibly returning them to European and American cities to attack us in our backyard,” the California Democrat said in a statement backing military action authorized by President Barack Obama. “We simply cannot allow this to happen.”

Feinstein called for a broader military campaign against ISIL, not just the targeted missions authorized by the president.

“It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future. Inaction is no longer an option. I support actions by the administration to coordinate efforts with Iraq and other allies to use our military strength and targeting expertise to the fullest extent possible,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., warned of a similar possibility in an opinion piece for Time.com (http://time.com/3093021/marco-rubio-obama-isis-iraq/).

“America’s security interests extend well beyond the fate of Iraq’s religious minorities. Because ISIS, with thousands of foreign fighters, many of them from the West, will not rest once it has taken Erbil or Baghdad. Its expansionist ideology will lead it to attack U.S. allies in the region and eventually Europe and the United States,” wrote Rubio, a member of the Intelligence panel.

Feinstein also said that if allowed to advance, the Islamic State may make a march toward the capital city of Baghdad.


...
You might want to read the rest of the article, Harry Reid gives another example of why he's an ass.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719749/Black-white-flag-similar-ones-used-jihadis-hoisted-outside-east-London-housing-estate.html


Nun tears down black and white flag similar to ones used by jihadis from housing estate gates and brands those who hoisted it 'naive young hotheads'

A nun has torn down a black and white flag similar to one championed by Muslim extremists from the gates of a London housing estate and branded those who hoisted it up as 'naive young hotheads'.


The emblem was hung alongside the Palestinian flag in Poplar, Tower Hamlets, three days ago as part of a 'end the siege in Gaza' campaign.


Sister Christine Frost, 77, a nun who works at a nearby church, said she asked some friends to help take the flag down early this morning using a stepladder out of fear it could be seen as 'aggressive' or 'insensitive'.


Anti-extremist campaigners said the raising of the black flag was a 'provocative' act and undermined legitimate anger about the crisis in Palestine.


Defence Secretary Michael Fallon called it 'extremely inappropriate'.


But the Roman Catholic nun, who has worked helping the elderly in the area for the last 40 years, denied the flag was put up to show support for radical jihadists.


Speaking yards from the gate today outside St Matthias Church, she insisted there was not any anti-Semitic sentiment on the estate and said the 'issue has been taken out of proportion.'


'There's no way they would have thought it was to do with ISIS,' she said.


'I couldn't believe it had been up for two weeks. I believe it means 'There is no other God but Allah.


'The problem is that it has been adopted by ISIS.


...

[Kathianne]

Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?

Check out what Diane Feinstein had to say, being reported in Roll Call and other news.

I don't think anyone would confuse USA Today for a Republican news organization:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/08/isis-editorial/13782773/


ISIS must be defeated: Our View

Re-engagement in Iraq is not just a humanitarian effort, but an urgent matter of American self-interest.


Since the rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State began, first in Syria and then in Iraq, President Obama has tried almost desperately to stay out of war, and he still seemed of that mindset Thursday night as he announced limited airstrikes on advancing ISIS forces.

But it seems obvious now that the president's policy has failed – undone by years of misplaced confidence in Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, the stunning speed of the ISIS advance and the unavoidably slow pace of belated diplomatic efforts to replace Maliki's failed sectarian regime with a unity government.

It is time for a recalibration – not just to protect the thousands of fleeing refugees huddled in the mountains outside Mosul, or the American contingent in the threatened Kurdish city of Irbil, but to reverse ISIS' military momentum.

Unless that happens, Obama's effort to forge a new government in Baghdad and turn Iraq's Sunni masses against their barbaric Islamist minority, as happened in the Iraq war, will simply run out of time.

On the political front, at least, the news from Iraq looks increasingly promising. The departure of Maliki, an iffy proposition just weeks ago, now appears inevitable. Once he's gone, the ISIS threat should serve as a powerful incentive for Iraq's ever-feuding factions to agree on a successor and rebuild the Iraqi Army, which Maliki stuffed with cronies.

ISIS, obviously, will not wait for all that, which is why both Obama and war-weary Americans need to shed their reluctance to re-engage. Doing so is not just a humanitarian gesture for Iraq; it is an urgent matter of American self-interest.

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may be a regional threat now, but, like Osama bin Laden before him, his wider ambitions are unequivocal. Al-Baghdadi's advance in Iraq has brought him American weapons and Iraqi oil to finance further growth. The movement's success has attracted both allies in other countries and recruits from the West, including Americans, an asset that bin Laden lacked.

Nor will there be any compromise. ISIS is a primitive force bent on holy war to purge the world of nonbelievers.

Weeks ago, it pillaged the ancient Christian community in Mosul (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/03/iraq-mosul-islamic-state-fear/13344551/), and it is engaged in a campaign of genocide against other minority sects that have populated the region for centuries. The thousands of refugees being aided by a U.S. airdrop fled an ISIS threat to convert or be killed (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/29/kirsten-powers-iraqi-christians-nightmare/13329557/). In one town, ISIS murdered the men, and gave their wives to its soldiers to do with as they wished. Now ISIS is threatening the Kurds, the proven U.S. allies in northern Iraq who've been seeking more American aid.

ISIS is not the kind of movement that can endure. It is surrounded by hostile nations, and its brutality will eventually alienate other Sunni Muslims, who – with critical American help – crushed its predecessor, al-Qaeda in Iraq.

But neither will ISIS collapse on its own. It must be defeated.

Obama should commit fully to that goal, supplementing his diplomatic effort to strengthen the Iraqi government with a military campaign to weaken ISIS, much as he committed to the destruction of al-Qaeda.

The risks are substantial, particularly of once again getting entangled in the region's eternal religious conflicts. But with the rise of ISIS, the risk of doing nothing is even greater.

[Caliban]

I applaud Obama for doing this, but I have no confidence in his staying power and determination. In a dangerous situation like this, HOW I long for the days of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condie and Dubya!! They did the right thing as they saw it, they did NOT tailor their decisions to up their poll numbers and popularity among those whose intellectual life consists of 'The View' and John Stewart.

[Caliban]

How absolutely right on Gutfeld was last night!

You have to pour scorn on the term 'war-weary'. Who really gives a flying fuck if you're 'war-weary'!?!?! Suck it up, sunshine! There's LOTSA war to come, because ISIS and other similar fanatics aren't anywhere CLOSE to being 'war-weary'. That means you don't get to make the call if you want to stop fighting and get back to peace, sorry! Every western country is engaged in war to the death right now, and it WILL continue for decades to come, and there WILL be major hits on the US and elsewhere, and many, many more Americans and others will die than have died in 911. Before this is all over, 911 will be considered a relatively minor incident killing few people.

They're gunning for us, they hate us, and they are already here.

'War-weary'?!?! Give me a fucking break!

[Kathianne]

I applaud Obama for doing this, but I have no confidence in his staying power and determination. In a dangerous situation like this, HOW I long for the days of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condie and Dubya!! They did they RIGHT think as they saw it, they did NOT tailor their decisions to up their poll numbers and popularity among those whose intellectual life consists of 'The View' and John Stewart.

What he's doing is playing for photo ops, he's accomplishing nothing. He's killing a bee at a time, leaving the hive alone. Won't work and he knows it.

http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-08-08/sustained-military-campaign-needed-in-iraq-saab

See the video interview with a Middle East expert.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/07/obama-authorizes-air-strikes-humanitarian-effort-in-iraq/


..."We are not launching a sustained U.S. campaign against ISIL here because our belief is the best way to deal with the threat of ISIL is for the Iraqis to do so,” an administration official said...

[Drummond]

All of this just boils down to Obama being stuck with the consequences of his decision to pull out of Iraq (and in a ludicrously detailed way, doing all possible to tell the enemy what they needed to know to best-weather the run-up to final withdrawal, to say nothing of afterwards ...).

Obama probably figured that ordering airstrikes was enough to prove how, ahem, 'strong' and 'responsible' he was being. But done in such a way as to also underscore his continuing affirmation of the so-called 'correctness' of troop withdrawal (.. so a certain amount of Leftie arrogance, defying reality, is still discernible ..).

[Caliban]

An interview of Lt. Col. Peters on Fox right now on ISIS just made my blood run cold.

[Drummond]

Do you think Republicans might be undermining Obama and his standing on the world stage by openly criticizing him and consistently calling him weak on foreign policy? Do you not see this as a potential problem?

Answering this ... the implication seems to be that Obama's domestic political opposition is required to be as quiet as possible in the face of Obama's weaknesses.

Should Obama be spared political criticism altogether ? How far do you take this ? Seems to me that there's potential in this, if taken far enough, for a sense of political protocol being established which makes Obama far more unaccountable for his failures than he should be.

This is very nice for those of a Left wing persuasion .. and considerably 'less than nice' for anyone else.

Foreign enemies might be advantaged by people such as Republicans speaking out. But then, the Republicans did not create the problem. Obama has.

Accountability for Obama's failures, and all that follows from it, rests with Obama. That the Left might want to deflect criticism, or stop it altogether, merely speaks volumes about their lack of willingness to face realities - and consequences arising.

[gabosaurus]

All of this just boils down to Obama being stuck with the consequences of his decision to pull out of Iraq (and in a ludicrously detailed way, doing all possible to tell the enemy what they needed to know to best-weather the run-up to final withdrawal, to say nothing of afterwards ...).


Obama's primary mistake in Iraq was staying there too long. He should have stuck with his original promise to have ALL American forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of his first term.
It should be up to the Iraqis to decide if they want their miserable stretch of desert or not. If so, they need to defend it. Perhaps they want to be ruled by a militant faction.
There was zero reason to invade Iraq in the first place and there is zero reason to remain there.

[Drummond]

Obama's primary mistake in Iraq was staying there too long. He should have stuck with his original promise to have ALL American forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of his first term.
It should be up to the Iraqis to decide if they want their miserable stretch of desert or not. If so, they need to defend it. Perhaps they want to be ruled by a militant faction.
There was zero reason to invade Iraq in the first place and there is zero reason to remain there.




The thinking ... in so far as the way it was 'sold' to us ... was that American forces needed to stay in Iraq for as long as it took to get local forces up to speed in the effort of successfully fending off, curbing, fully keeping in check, any terrorist forces that might want to assert themselves in any major way against democratic Iraq.

You say 'Obama's primary mistake in Iraq was staying there too long'. So, America forces should've taken LESS time, put in a LESSER effort, into preparing their replacements ??

Even given the time and effort actually expended .. MORE than you'd advocate, clearly .. you think it was anywhere like enough ? Why, is Iraq fully stable, under no threat by any form of enemy ???

Leftieism never did address reality .. only its propagandist preferences. We see an example of this here.

You say there was zero reason to have ever invaded Iraq. I see .. so, does that mean that Saddam never started wars ? Never had terrorist links ? Never, ever, had WMD's ?? Never defied the UN ?? Never acted in a way, or ever did anything, that had a chance of threatening world security ??

As for there being 'zero reason to remain there' ... you mean, America has no reason for concern that Iraq might become a new launching-area for terrorism, terrorism ever aimed at the US, or anywhere else in the world ?

Was Afghanistan 'harmless' on 11th September 2001 ??

Sorry, Gabby. Retreating to cloud-cuckooland Leftie propaganda just won't do. There is a REAL world out there, with REAL things happening in it. They're either faced, or if not, then your adversaries increasingly gain from the resulting irresponsible neglect.

[aboutime]

The thinking ... in so far as the way it was 'sold' to us ... was that American forces needed to stay in Iraq for as long as it took to get local forces up to speed in the effort of successfully fending off, curbing, fully keeping in check, any terrorist forces that might want to assert themselves in any major way against democratic Iraq.

You say 'Obama's primary mistake in Iraq was staying there too long'. So, America forces should've taken LESS time, put in a LESSER effort, into preparing their replacements ??

Even given the time and effort actually expended .. MORE than you'd advocate, clearly .. you think it was anywhere like enough ? Why, is Iraq fully stable, under no threat by any form of enemy ???

Leftieism never did address reality .. only its propagandist preferences. We see an example of this here.

You say there was zero reason to have ever invaded Iraq. I see .. so, does that mean that Saddam never started wars ? Never had terrorist links ? Never, ever, had WMD's ?? Never defied the UN ?? Never acted in a way, or ever did anything, that had a chance of threatening world security ??

As for there being 'zero reason to remain there' ... you mean, America has no reason for concern that Iraq might become a new launching-area for terrorism, terrorism ever aimed at the US, or anywhere else in the world ?

Was Afghanistan 'harmless' on 11th September 2001 ??

Sorry, Gabby. Retreating to cloud-cuckooland Leftie propaganda just won't do. There is a REAL world out there, with REAL things happening in it. They're either faced, or if not, then your adversaries increasingly gain from the resulting irresponsible neglect.



Sir Drummond. We should all bear in mind, and remember WHY Obama has been FIRING so many High Ranking Officers lately.

He knows he can depend upon The SELF-PROCLAIMED, HIGHLY INTELLIGENT LIBERAL, NON-THINKERS like Gabby to close the Final Curtain on our Military.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Sir Drummond. We should all bear in mind, and remember WHY Obama has been FIRING so many High Ranking Officers lately.

He knows he can depend upon The SELF-PROCLAIMED, HIGHLY INTELLIGENT LIBERAL, NON-THINKERS like Gabby to close the Final Curtain on our Military.

Those were my exact thoughts pertaining to this thread. We've lost the meat in our military leadership with all the firings over the past few years; and, having "yes men" at the top is awfully sketchy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama's primary mistake in Iraq was staying there too long. He should have stuck with his original promise to have ALL American forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of his first term.
It should be up to the Iraqis to decide if they want their miserable stretch of desert or not. If so, they need to defend it. Perhaps they want to be ruled by a militant faction.
There was zero reason to invade Iraq in the first place and there is zero reason to remain there.




BAMPUNK pulled out far too soon and did so knowing this would be the results. He will bring to naught all our sacrifices made in Iraq and A-stan. And not by accident or mistake but rather by following an agenda designed to do just that. --Tyr

[aboutime]

BAMPUNK pulled out far too soon and did so knowing this would be the results. He will bring to naught all our sacrifices made in Iraq and A-stan. And not by accident or mistake but rather by following an agenda designed to do just that. --Tyr


Tyr. Now I am convinced. If gabbty was a member of Obama's administration. She would be identified as The Modern version of Neville Chamberlain, and be as successful with Foreign affairs for Obama as Chamberlain turned out to be for the British people.

So, gabby, with Obama make the perfect set of WUSSIES that have no courage, and worship Harry Reid by celebrating September 11th, 2001, because it is Politically Effective Democrat Stupidity at work.http://icansayit.com/images/cutandrun2.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. Now I am convinced. If gabbty was a member of Obama's administration. She would be identified as The Modern version of Neville Chamberlain, and be as successful with Foreign affairs for Obama as Chamberlain turned out to be for the British people.

So, gabby, with Obama make the perfect set of WUSSIES that have no courage, and worship Harry Reid by celebrating September 11th, 2001, because it is Politically Effective Democrat Stupidity at work.http://icansayit.com/images/cutandrun2.jpg

What can one say when the Pied Piper plays their tune?????
Stupidity on display doesn't even cover it !!!!--Tyr

[fj1200]

Honest question: how much aide and comfort do we give to our enemies when our congress critters are openly undermining the President by openly stating how weak he is on foreign policy?

Not when they're advocating for him to be stronger than he is.


This is an intriguing question. When Congress and demonstrators spoke out during the Bush years, they were unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The same conduct during the Obama years is now not only acceptable, but deemed patriotic.

There's a difference when Democrats yelled "we've lost, get out" in the middle of the war and Republicans advocating support for allies.