- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That my friend..... is just the rhetoric.
Having lived for 18 years outside the US, I beg to differ.
That my friend..... is just the rhetoric.
You know I would say you cant make this **** up, but someone obviously did and you are repeating it. From Time Magazine's reporting at the time:
Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com
A big fail your attempts to rewrite history.
Yes..
Let us continue to wage international decades long wars spanning my children's lifetime because a group of dudes with swords "be dissin' us"
well, that is an incredible job of avoiding the subject.
You asked for someone to show you that Terrorism is a threat to safety and I did.
What you think about Iraq in the 50's is irrelevant and, frankly, boring, I doubt you have a clue.
This President is in the habit of making a show of action and mouthing platitudes, but doing very little that counts. Many Americans are not taken in by his habitual lying.
The mixed force Kagan is describing is a somewhat smaller and more mobile version--with less emphasis on armor and more on armed helicopters--of the heavily armed force the U.S. has maintained at bases around South Korea, keeping the peace on the peninsula for for sixty years now. Like that force, it would also have a carrier or two on call as backup. It is what Mr. Obama should have left behind to stabilize Iraq, but--I believe for personal political gain--chose not to. All that did was create the pressing need to put a force like this back in, after the situation has deteriorated and made the job much harder and riskier.
Now the task is to recapture large, important areas that allied servicemen died to secure not many years ago. In Iraq, at least, it is Mr. Obama's fault that these savages were allowed to take over these cities and districts. His protestations about being bound by a status of forces agreement ring false. That is a flimsy cover story cooked up to hide his dereliction.
The L.A. Times just ran an article about plans to retake Mosul, maybe by this summer. I hope so. It's seemed to me for quite a while that because Mosul is Iraq's second-largest city, is near large oil fields, is at the farthest end of their supply lines, and is close enough to Irbil and Kurdish Iraq to make that a good base of operations, a successful campaign to retake it would badly tarnish the image of success the jihadists' appeal relies on so much. If some of them are forced to come out of the city and fight in the open, we may get to see how badly they want to fight when napalm is being dropped on them.
Having lived for 18 years outside the US, I beg to differ.
I don't care what goes on outside of the U.S.
Europe's proximity to the land of radical islam makes that area a greater threat to them.
We have a few advantages in that regard.
Yemen, Syria, Libya, much of North Africa, half of Iraq have all seen exponential growth in AQ and/or ISIS over the last few years. These threats will have to be dealt with again, the only debate is how big and powerful do we let the terrorists get before we do.
Time magazine?...........cmon now...
I don't care what goes on outside of the U.S.
Europe's proximity to the land of radical islam makes that area a greater threat to them.
We have a few advantages in that regard.
Time magazine?...........cmon now...
Nearly 40,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, all of whom will withdraw by Dec. 31, a deadline set in a 2008 security agreement between Baghdad and the administration of then-President George W. Bush.
But talks ran aground over Iraqi opposition to giving American troops legal immunity that would shield them from Iraqi prosecution. Legal protection for U.S. troops has always angered everyday Iraqis who saw it as simply a way for the Americans to run roughshod over the country. Many Iraqi lawmakers were hesitant to grant immunity for fear of a backlash from constituents.
"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told a news conference Saturday. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."
No, we do not. The course of action you advocate would increase US civilian casualties many times over.
This President is in the habit of making a show of action and mouthing platitudes, but doing very little that counts. Many Americans are not taken in by his habitual lying.
The mixed force Kagan is describing is a somewhat smaller and more mobile version--with less emphasis on armor and more on armed helicopters--of the heavily armed force the U.S. has maintained at bases around South Korea, keeping the peace on the peninsula for for sixty years now. Like that force, it would also have a carrier or two on call as backup. It is what Mr. Obama should have left behind to stabilize Iraq, but--I believe for personal political gain--chose not to. All that did was create the pressing need to put a force like this back in, after the situation has deteriorated and made the job much harder and riskier.
Now the task is to recapture large, important areas that allied servicemen died to secure not many years ago. In Iraq, at least, it is Mr. Obama's fault that these savages were allowed to take over these cities and districts. His protestations about being bound by a status of forces agreement ring false. That is a flimsy cover story cooked up to hide his dereliction.
The L.A. Times just ran an article about plans to retake Mosul, maybe by this summer. I hope so. It's seemed to me for quite a while that because Mosul is Iraq's second-largest city, is near large oil fields, is at the farthest end of their supply lines, and is close enough to Irbil and Kurdish Iraq to make that a good base of operations, a successful campaign to retake it would badly tarnish the image of success the jihadists' appeal relies on so much. If some of them are forced to come out of the city and fight in the open, we may get to see how badly they want to fight when napalm is being dropped on them.
This is why libertarianism, big and little L, is so perplexed by the reality of international diplomacy. When all the talks fail, libertarians can't seem to present a cogent response.
You have nothing to back up your claim that we would have civilian casualties at any greater level if we isolate ourselves from the middle east than if we continue to meddle and, via our meddling, continue to give cause to arms for more people to convert to radical islam.
And you can't seem to bring yourself to do anything other than discuss partisan politics.
Radical Islam arose from the decay and decline of Arab society and culture. It would exist, and its believers would hate us, even if the US had pursued entirely passive policies.
Radical Islam arose from the decay and decline of Arab society and culture. It would exist, and its believers would hate us, even if the US had pursued entirely passive policies.
Yes, and in a political forum discussing politics no less. Where do I ever get these ideas? :roll:
You know I would say you cant make this **** up, but someone obviously did and you are repeating it. From Time Magazine's reporting at the time:
Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com
A big fail your attempts to rewrite history.
But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it
Annnnnddd.....
You have nothing to back that claim up with either.
The whole "Dem Dere Mooslumz hate us fer R freedumbz" theory has failed to be proven.
The topic isn't Conservatism, Liberalism, or Libertarianism.
The topic is U.S. Action in the Middle East.
Because one person has a particular "Lean", does not mean their beliefs can be put into some kind of vacuum of which They believe in X, Y, Z across the board.
You can't debate this by debating someone's "Lean" rather than them.
Which means you don't accept the truth of his post.
And where was the great menace of that age? Reagan defeated the Evil Empire. The Effeminate One on the golf course cannot even say Evil Empire.There was no need to look 40 years into the future. Islamic terrorism was already a fact in the 1980s. Hell, the attack on the Beirut barracks - the deadliest attack on Americans at the time - happened in 1983. What Reagan didn't foresee was that these attacks would continue and maybe funding these people wasn't a good idea. Now we can reap his harvest.