To which...
...nothing.
Not belittling Canada, not really. I'm just wondering why you're so quick to call for U.S. military intervention using combat forces to deal with a terrorist threat you firmly believe needs to be dealt with, yet your country has never sent a single soldier to Iraq and likely won't do so now to deal with ISIS. But you expect an American President to do so and have the balls to condemn him when he doesn't.
DITTO!
I see the issue rather clearly, however. Unless it's a NATO-led initiative, Canada seems very content with remaining in a support role while it's southern neighbor leads from the front.
Blame Canada, indeed...for being passive. But digress...
There are reasons why Pres. Obama bent to the pressure to send U.S. combat troops back into Iraq. This article from HuffingtonPost.com outlines some of them.
Im not a fan of Rand and I dont agree with his views but he is actually doing it the proper way- he is seeking Congressional authorization before launching an attack- unlike Dubya or Obama, he is actually following the Constitution.
Funny movie. But I don't see your point. If we are to define every politician who wants to take out the terrorists as a 'neocon' then the term has lost all meaning.
The right wing echo chamber strikes again :lamo . . . strike fear into the hearts of the locals :roll:
If you don't want to deal with comments from non-Americans, don't post threads on topics that affect people other than Americans and/or join a site that doesn't allow non-American members.
Otherwise, I'll comment whenever I like on whatever I like and you can suck your thumb and whine all you want.
You have every right to post in any forum you want, and I hope you continue to do so.
Having been told repeatedly by various effete Europeans that Americans (who are clumsy oafs politically because they are American) have no business commenting on European affairs, I tend to bristle whenever somebody tries to pull the same stunt with somebody else.
Im not a fan of Rand and I dont agree with his views but he is actually doing it the proper way- he is seeking Congressional authorization before launching an attack- unlike Dubya or Obama, he is actually following the Constitution.
That's what happened after a while. Any measure of hawkishness, irrespective of context, became defined as "neocon." Under that logic, Barry Goldwater, for his fiery rhetoric would have been the champion of neoconservatism.
Not to mention this is a rather ignorant interpritation of what a "Neo-con" is.
It's well known on this site that I am extremely anti globe trotting. However, Rand Paul is correct on this one. Do some research on these guy, look up their origins. They aren't a group of upstarts like Al Qaeda. Their roots go back to the 1800's. They have deep ties to the Saudis, however, they are seen as following a more stringent version of Wahhabism. These guys aren't your typical joke like these other dirt bag groups that pop up in the ME. Not trying to talk down to you. It just sounds like you aren't fully read in on who these guys are.
ISIS will be destroyed, but Rand Paul will never see the inside of the White House, except as a visitor.
Don't take my word for this, wait and see.
The Rand Paul only visiting the White house is accurate.I think the "ISIS will be destroyed" part too, is a wait and see.
You know, for once in my life I would like to experience a thread involving Islamists where people can actually focus on what they believe in, what they represent, how they are a danger to western culture, and do so without a bunch of inane finger pointing, stupid framing according to whether a lefty should say this and a righty should say that, which president is somehow responsible and just agree that they are bad news.
The Islamists win when we are so divided by our idiotic partisan crap that we would rather fight against each other than fight against them. They truly represent that boot that would stamp on a human face forever that Orwell warned about and it is high time people started taking the threat seriously and stop all this divisive crap that fails to address the threat.
It's not aboutt Republicans and democrats. It's not about lefties and righties. It's not about neocons and isolationists and paleo this or rino/dino that. It's about people who hate our very culture and wish to destroy it. Can't we just focus on that for a change?
You're absolutely right, it will take time even if the USA and its allies commit a lot of forces.
First we have to find them, then we have to terminate them with extreme prejudice.
Well I do not agree that ISIS is a threat to USA at this point. It has great neighbors to worry about far before it could reach Europe, much less USA. This Decepticonic "destroy all ISIS" speech seems to invite a macho attitude associated more with men rather than women like Clinton (proposed for president in 2016). This I think just works against her.
Not to mention this is a rather ignorant interpritation of what a "Neo-con" is. One can not define a "Neocon" simply on their desire to combat ISIS. The reasons for such a combat, their intentions for after the battle, their goals in such a conflict, etc are all necessary factors to know in order to truly and realistically attempt to label someone as such based singularly on their treatment of ISIS and even then that's a bit questionable.
You know, for once in my life I would like to experience a thread involving Islamists where people can actually focus on what they believe in, what they represent, how they are a danger to western culture, and do so without a bunch of inane finger pointing, stupid framing according to whether a lefty should say this and a righty should say that, which president is somehow responsible and just agree that they are bad news.
The Islamists win when we are so divided by our idiotic partisan crap that we would rather fight against each other than fight against them. They truly represent that boot that would stamp on a human face forever that Orwell warned about and it is high time people started taking the threat seriously and stop all this divisive crap that fails to address the threat.
It's not aboutt Republicans and democrats. It's not about lefties and righties. It's not about neocons and isolationists and paleo this or rino/dino that. It's about people who hate our very culture and wish to destroy it. Can't we just focus on that for a change?
As far as I'm concerned, people in other countries are welcome to hate American culture to their hearts' content.
The only action I expect from America is to prevent them from doing any damage in U.S. territory. Most other Americans who say they want more are simply using IS to hide some other agenda.
Thank you for proving my point :thumbs:New ISIS threat: America's electric grid; blackout could kill 9 of 10 | WashingtonExaminer.com!The right wing echo chamber strikes again :lamo . . . strike fear into the hearts of the locals :roll:
I totally agree with you that this issue does not define Paul as a neo-con. It does however further weaken SOME of his traditional support, who are already weary with his evolving position. But, perhaps he believes he'll make it up, and then some, elsewhere.
I suppose if they weren't thinking of it, they are now. And they even have its vulnerabilities mapped out for them. Lets see what else we can do to invite an attack that will round up the gullible in support of round three in the ME. Let the fear mongering begin, and the people will be rattling like aspen leaves in a summer wind.