A typically excellent Intercept article looking at the latest Orwellian phantoms being used to justify Western state sponsored terrorism committed upon sovereign Middle Eastern states.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...bombing-syria/
Printable View
A typically excellent Intercept article looking at the latest Orwellian phantoms being used to justify Western state sponsored terrorism committed upon sovereign Middle Eastern states.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...bombing-syria/
Well miles that's fine and I understand your dislike of that attitude BUT Kirkland was in the wrong on these issues, vocally backed Obama at every chance, and like it or not Obama has been wrong nearly 100% of the time on the issues that he campaigned on. Given Kirkland's dismissive attitude towards anyone disagreeing with him I figured he had best have a dose of cold hard reality....especially for playing the race card, that is so played out and such a typical chicken shit liberal thing to do so yes ON PURPOSE I used what you've referred to as the "Mortal Kombat finish" to hammer the point home because Kirkland earned it.....or maybe it just came from my pent up feelings of "white privilege" :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
So your point is noted, but alas I am not sorry in the least.
Barack Obama didn't have any control over withdrawing the troops. The troops were withdrawn on a timetable agreed and signed up to by George Bush. This has been explained to you several times before. I've placed this information on the tiny little shelf in your head that functions as your brain. But subsequent information placed on the shelf has pushed this information off the back of the shelf, several times, never to be seen again. I actually placed this information on your little shelf a couple of days ago and it's already gone off the back. I suggest you rest your shelf operating system. Create a little shelf space by removing some of the excess sports, porn and video game information which takes up most of your shelf space. Then perhaps facts and information will have a little more, you know, shelf life in your little head.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongBefore we (Barack Obama) withdrew troops there was no ISIS and now there IS ISIS and they are unsettling the region. No the region is LESS stable now and only a fuckwit like you would say it's more stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Silly? No silly is thinking a 100% air strike quasi-war will fix things.
Eric Holder isn't a criminal because he's black he's a criminal because he BROKE LAWS you fucking moron and that's why he's been held in Contempt of Congress....it's not because he's black you simp. I guess in your mind Alberto Gonzales was only attacked so much because he was Hispanic. So yeah take your faux outrage and go fuck yourself you dumb fucking cunt.
Before Obama there was Al Quaeda in Iraq which is what ISIS used to call themselves before a few name and leader changes. And before Bush invaded Iraq this group was a nonentity. After Bush invaded Iraq it became a magnet for jihadis who wanted to kill a member of the Great Satan Oil Protection Force. So rather than American troops in Iraq preventing jihadis causing trouble there, American troops in Iraq causes jihadis to flock there in massive numbers! QED.
Back when people were talking about the Arab Sprng overthrowing dictators and producing freedom you were claiming that the revolutions in the Middle East were all down to George Bush. Now that they turned out not to be so freedomy they're all Obama's fault!
An air war won't do anything to solve the problem and Obama knows that. A boots on the ground war will make things worse. Look how well invading Iraq worked out a decade ago, although I might as well be asking you and your tiny little shelf to remember the Mesolithic period. Obama doesn't want to be Bush mark two so he isn't going to invade.
And I'll leave the faux outrage to you.
I'm not saying everybody who criticises Obama is a racist knucledragger.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusWe run into that a lot in America. If we critique Obama or another minority politician we are not exercising our constitutional rights, we are racist. It was very bad at the beginning of his term. Actually, even if you made a choice not to vote for him you were a racist. It truly is insane. I must really hate white people as I've critiqued a lot of white politicians. I'm white, does that mean I hate myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingWhat progress did you make exactly? The region is more stable and secure now than it was in 2002?Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThey'll HAVE to send troops because Obama has destroyed any progress we made in the region. But hey that's what YOU want in a President...not me, I want a President who will wipe out our enemies, but hey let's futz around a bit it's only billions of dollars which could be best used elsewhere. You certainly pick some winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Oh and YOUR BOY Eric Holder is resigning as Attorney General as his Contempt of Congress case moves forward. If there's any justice in this world he'll be thrown in jail for the rest of his life
All this stuff about taking the gloves off and fighting a proper war and "wiping our enemies out" is just teenage boy wargame fantasies. It's just silly. Even the drooliest of the idiots on Fox News doesn't come out with such nonsense.
And just because having a black AG upset all the racist knuckledraggers in America doesn't mean that he's a criminal or that he's going to prison. Sorry to disappint you.
I wasn't surprised to see Holder step down. He really did walk a very fine line around a number of laws but all I've read about him kind of made me think he is a decent guy trying to do the right thing. I'm sure he'll write a nice thick book and live a comfortable life. He blew a number of calls but I'm not clamouring to lock him up.
Good boy, cover Obama's ass as best you can honey. Do it for Dear Leader
I'm no Obama fan. I think he's done a rubbish job as prez. I just think he's the least worst guy for the job from a possible list of shit candidates and he's choosing the least worst options in this situation from a possible list of shit options. On some issues, like financial system reform, he's picking in a range from really bad to absolute worst options.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
I'm not sure how interested you are but here's a recent documentary from 22th september about the war in Syria! They post this "crap" or nothing i really watch on a news site I'm on! So i just pass it on you those who interested!
This is 1 out of 5 youtube clips.
Ghosts of Aleppo (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSnyQYy5SE
Proving my point AGAIN...Mitt Romney recognized the danger Russia posed, he recognized the danger of pulling troops out of Iraq early (which IS what Obama did as evidenced by his own words: Obama said in Hollywood, Florida on Nov. 4, 2012. “I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I ended it.” He repeated the same words the next day in Madison, Wisconsin, and Columbus, Ohio.), and it comes as no surprise to ME, but maybe to you it might President Obama misses roughly 60% of his daily intelligence briefings....60%......he's not even there HALF THE TIME! Yet he's able to push blame off on "the intelligence community" for not knowing how big of a threat ISIS would be. Knowing that he skips out on 60% of those intelligence briefings are you more likely to believe Obama or the people who only focus on intelligence gathering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingI'm no Obama fan. I think he's done a rubbish job as prez. I just think he's the least worst guy for the job from a possible list of shit candidates and he's choosing the least worst options in this situation from a possible list of shit options. On some issues, like financial system reform, he's picking in a range from really bad to absolute worst options.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
President Obama was, is, and will continue to be out of his element as President of the United States of America. If it is racist to say as much go ahead and call me racist, I seriously don't give a rats rosey red rear about it. If it's racist to hate what Eric Holder did as Attorney General then sign my ass up for that too because if that is in general or specifically "How Black people run things" I want no part of it because those policies have failed and continue to fail America and this country is better than that although you are highly unlikely to believe that given your political stance.
I hate the politics in all these talks and I haven't got much politics in me, just simple right and wrong, which sadly have been overwhelmed by much politics ever since... I'd just say go get 'em headhunters whereever they are and whoever they may be. You gotta teach 'em sonafaguns that it ain't right chopping off people's innocent people's heads just trying to drive their point...
The pantomime in Washington is just there to fool the rubes that there's some kind of political debate or differing philosophies that give voters alternatives to vote for. In reality the ship of state sails majestically on its course whoever is on the bridge. If Obama had sent troops into Ukraine or armed them or whatever Ronmey would have said oooh too reckless, risking nuclear war for no strategic advantage. Russia isn't a "danger" to the United States. They're a regional power in Asia and eastern Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongProving my point AGAIN...Mitt Romney recognized the danger Russia posed, he recognized the danger of pulling troops out of Iraq early (which IS what Obama did as evidenced by his own words: Obama said in Hollywood, Florida on Nov. 4, 2012. “I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I ended it.” He repeated the same words the next day in Madison, Wisconsin, and Columbus, Ohio.), and it comes as no surprise to ME, but maybe to you it might President Obama misses roughly 60% of his daily intelligence briefings....60%......he's not even there HALF THE TIME! Yet he's able to push blame off on "the intelligence community" for not knowing how big of a threat ISIS would be. Knowing that he skips out on 60% of those intelligence briefings are you more likely to believe Obama or the people who only focus on intelligence gathering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingI'm no Obama fan. I think he's done a rubbish job as prez. I just think he's the least worst guy for the job from a possible list of shit candidates and he's choosing the least worst options in this situation from a possible list of shit options. On some issues, like financial system reform, he's picking in a range from really bad to absolute worst options.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
President Obama was, is, and will continue to be out of his element as President of the United States of America. If it is racist to say as much go ahead and call me racist, I seriously don't give a rats rosey red rear about it. If it's racist to hate what Eric Holder did as Attorney General then sign my ass up for that too because if that is in general or specifically "How Black people run things" I want no part of it because those policies have failed and continue to fail America and this country is better than that although you are highly unlikely to believe that given your political stance.
Caliming that he would have kept troops in Iraq is just to make himself sound different to Obama while he's trying to get elected. In reality, ;like I already explained to you, Bush had agreed a timetable to withdraw all American troops and refused to renegotiate it. That's the third time I've explained that to you in a week. You need to clear some shelf space and keep that fact on the shelf for at least a week at a time before it goes off the back again.
And Obama doesn't miss intelligence briefings. He just reads them instead of being briefed sixty percent of the time. Like probably every other prez.
#1 If President Obama is going to pat himself on the back for as he put it "ending the war in Iraq" then I'm sorry if it upsets you Kirkland he accepted ownership of withdrawing the troops.
#2 There was a Status of Forces Agreement that was put in place by George W. Bush and the time of the lapse of that agreement was 12/31/2011 (Obama started his first term 1/20/09 ) but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he believed a force of "perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops" would remain even after that as a residual force. (fyi Sec. Gates also served under Obama until July 1, 2011)
#3 "Obama doesn't miss intelligence briefings"...oh really? You have such an intimate knowledge of his schedule. "Like probably every other prez" ...again such great knowledge....no FACTS OR DATA to back up your accusations.
#4 If you're going to blame the "intelligence community" for mistakes then I'm guessing it's probably best to actually show up to a meeting more than half the time and see if he can't iron out the kinks in the intelligence community of which he knows so much he doesn't have to attend their briefings.
#5 President Obama had accurate intelligence on ISIS provided to him before the 2012 election and yet here we are. And it's probably likely that Obama doesn't attend those briefings so he can pass the blame when he fouls up and misses something important like ooooh I don't know being able to locate and save James Foley.
Oh and Kirkland you want some FACTS & DATA?
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov...n_02-11-14.pdf
Page 9 at the bottom reads and I quote: "Al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL): AQI/ISIL probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014, as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah, and the group's ability to concurrently maintain multiple safe havens in Syria."
.....but I mean President Obama DOES read those things right? I mean you of all people know that, you're 100% certain about it aren't you?
Theres two things that run through the coutries that have been bombed. Oil and are without a Rothschild bank. ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlI4YIZRjtA#t=56
...yyyyyyeah so there's that
You know after all is said and done I'm not sure what the rest of the world should do. To me these air strikes most likely kill more innocent people then anything else. In addition, we don't know which rebel group we are going to arm but we are going to arm someone is not a sound policy.
Doing nothing is not sound either is it?
Or how about just nuking the area in order to stop what is sure to be another 100 years of this perpetual war?
Some real shifting moral foundations on this one. Our sterilized version of barbarianism verses their primitive one.
The irony here is that this new threat are most likely part of the 500,000 Republican guard that the West allowed to melt back into society while they were at the gates of Bagdad. They would have been all Sunni's. Then we went and put in the puppet Shia government.
Damn maybe its based on micro economics to ensure our involvement in a place with that much oil.
Yes, but with President Obama in charge we won't hear ANYTHING about innocent civilians being collateral damage with these air strikes and neither will the left protest these "military actions" as having A) Not been voted on by Congress or B ) "Blood for oil"....the media whips up the outrage and they aren't going to put the crosshairs on Obama, he's too important to criticize.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Yeah pretty much. I'd like to see the United States and other Allies not give 1 thin dime to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or any other Middle Eastern nation which treats women and minorities (namely religious minorities) so poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
The West has 21st Century reasoning...the Islamofascists are behind the times in that aspect roughly 600 years or so. There's your big problem.
Wow Megyn is so gorgeous,smart too,love to see her with natural black hair. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
George Bush negotiated an agreement with the Iraqis that meant all US troops had to be out of the country by 2011. The Iraqis refused to renegotiate the agreement as they didn't want US troops to remain in Iraq. Obama had no choice in the matter because the Iraqi government refused to renegotiate the agreement they made with Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And even if troops had remained, what difference would it have made? They're not going to stop ISIS coming into Iraq and they're not going to be used to fight ISIS when they do come into Iraq.
And for this latest intelligence briefing nonsense:
Every day, the president receives a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), a highly secret intelligence document. The right-wing criticisms are citing a four-page report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI), which alleges that Obama has only attended a daily briefing on the PDB on 41.26 percent of the days from the start of his second term (January 20, 2013) through September 29, 2014. Conservatives are claiming that this shows that Obama has "missed" nearly 60 percent of his briefings and that is why he was not sufficiently aware of the spread of the Islamic State.
This is not the first time GAI's reports on this topic have been used to mislead. In 2012, Karl Rove's American Crossroads group cited GAI to make the same allegation about President Obama and his briefings in his first term. The right-wing media also picked up the attack.
But as the Washington Post reported then, Obama structured his White House operation so that he reads his PDB every day "but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day," so "it is specious to say he has 'skipped' a meeting that was not actually scheduled." The Post also revealed that Obama sometimes meets with intelligence briefers but that those meetings are not listed in his official schedule as a PDB, compromising the data set upon which GAI relies.
Thomas S. Blanton, director of George Washington University's National Security Archive, told the Post that there have been "lots of variation" in the patterns of how presidents have received their briefings, varying from an oral report for George W. Bush to a written memo for Richard Nixon and a one-on-one meeting between Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser.
Notably, a CIA history of the PDB notes that Ronald Reagan almost never received oral briefings on the PDB with CIA personnel and that "unlike Carter, Reagan almost never wrote comments or question on the PDB." The Post concluded that under the standards of the GAI report, "Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time."
This is the problem. We're supposed to be able to pick out groups of moderate jihadi nutjobs from the more extreme jihadi nutjobs and then train them so that they can overthrow the Assad regime. Then our strategy is to hope these moderate nutjobs then set up an inclusive liberal democracy that respects the rights of all the various religious sects in Syria. I can't see that happening somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I mean that strategy worked so well in Libya, which is now a peaceful, united and prosperous country after we picked a bunch of moderate groups to arm. Oh wait, every major city is controlled by a different armed faction apart from the capital city which is being fought over by two competing governments. It's funny how the Libya coverage in western media has dropped off recently.
so you're saying President Obama A) KNEW about the threat ISIS posed and B ) Did NOTHING about it....ummmm thanks for helping hammer my point home I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingGeorge Bush negotiated an agreement with the Iraqis that meant all US troops had to be out of the country by 2011. The Iraqis refused to renegotiate the agreement as they didn't want US troops to remain in Iraq. Obama had no choice in the matter because the Iraqi government refused to renegotiate the agreement they made with Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And even if troops had remained, what difference would it have made? They're not going to stop ISIS coming into Iraq and they're not going to be used to fight ISIS when they do come into Iraq.
And for this latest intelligence briefing nonsense:
Every day, the president receives a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), a highly secret intelligence document. The right-wing criticisms are citing a four-page report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI), which alleges that Obama has only attended a daily briefing on the PDB on 41.26 percent of the days from the start of his second term (January 20, 2013) through September 29, 2014. Conservatives are claiming that this shows that Obama has "missed" nearly 60 percent of his briefings and that is why he was not sufficiently aware of the spread of the Islamic State.
This is not the first time GAI's reports on this topic have been used to mislead. In 2012, Karl Rove's American Crossroads group cited GAI to make the same allegation about President Obama and his briefings in his first term. The right-wing media also picked up the attack.
But as the Washington Post reported then, Obama structured his White House operation so that he reads his PDB every day "but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day," so "it is specious to say he has 'skipped' a meeting that was not actually scheduled." The Post also revealed that Obama sometimes meets with intelligence briefers but that those meetings are not listed in his official schedule as a PDB, compromising the data set upon which GAI relies.
Thomas S. Blanton, director of George Washington University's National Security Archive, told the Post that there have been "lots of variation" in the patterns of how presidents have received their briefings, varying from an oral report for George W. Bush to a written memo for Richard Nixon and a one-on-one meeting between Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser.
Notably, a CIA history of the PDB notes that Ronald Reagan almost never received oral briefings on the PDB with CIA personnel and that "unlike Carter, Reagan almost never wrote comments or question on the PDB." The Post concluded that under the standards of the GAI report, "Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time."
What do you expect him to do?
What I expect him to do and what I WISH he would do are completely different things. He's done as I expected...he's been a HORRIBLE divisive President who has consistently lead from behind. He's reactive not proactive and in a time where we are facing threats of terrorism that's not one of the attributes you want a leader to have. He's NOT realistic, he has delivered on exactly 0 of what he's promised and what he ran on. America is NOT more well respected, America has NOT made more friends, America has not even recovered from the housing crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
We have no jobs, the economy sucks, the war on terror has taken two HUGE steps backward, and you're STILL defending this dope.....still. Not only that you want Hillary next! Ridiculous.
So other than a laudry list of issues that would have been the same no matter who was president all you can offer is that Obama should have been proactive. George W Bush was proactive in invading Iraq to protect America from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that proactiveness has led to the current situation. Perhaps being proactive isn't such a good idea.
Nevertheless, outline specific instances where Obama has failed to be proactive and state what he should have proactively done.
You keep spouting off about the WMD's (good little liberal you are) without realizing that that was one of a number of factors which lead to the invasion of Iraq. Certainly the invasion could have been avoided but for Saddam's refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access to his country. Now Kirkland, why would a leader refuse access to UN weapon inspectors? Sure Saddam could have thought it invasive, but with America having let's call it "an itchy trigger finger" after 9/11 and it being only a decade removed from demolishing Iraq's armed forces in the Persian Gulf War....why on Earth would a leader tempt fate that way? Would it make Saddam look better to his people? Would it help Saddam ease sanctions on his nation? After 9/11 even Muammar Gaddafi said "Irrespective of the conflict with America, it is a human duty to show sympathy with the American people and be with them at these horrifying and awesome events which are bound to awaken human conscience" ....so basically what did Saddam gain from refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
George W Bush was right to be proactive on Iraq, HOWEVER the strategy for holding that nation was all fucked up. The invasion was a piece of cake, the holding of the nation was irresponsibly done and we've paid the price for it.
Obama has not been proactive on sealing the borders of the United States.
Obama was not proactive on ISIS
Obama was not proactive on the 9/11 Benghazi attacks in fact we still have no idea where he was at the time of those attacks and he refuses to answer
Obama was not proactive on Fast & Furious which handed weapons to drug traffickers & coyotes
Obama was not proactive on the IRS scandal and again has been stubborn in his refusal to address that situation
Obama was not proactive regarding Russia's invasion of Crimea
Those are just a few situations off the top of my head and well of course you'll ask "Well what would you want him to do?" to which I will reply...
Close off the borders of the United States and militarize the border with Mexico.
If you know of a large well funded terrorist organization then take it out before it hatches a plan to attack our troops on the ground or our citizens at home.
Far too late now, but send in available military forces to save Amb. Stevens and those in danger in Benghazi.
DO NOT give narcotraficantes and coyotes more guns, how hard is that?
Hold the IRS accountable for wrongdoings if there were any which Congress could and should find out with the full help of the White House and Executive Branch...unless of course the Executive Branch and/or President ordered such things to happen in which case you resign in humiliation and beg for forgiveness from the American people.
Russia doesn't want war with the United States any more than we want war with them, that said, we could have allowed "cooler heads to prevail" had we moved a warship near Crimea in order to support the sovereign nation of Ukraine which until recently owned Crimea.
But hey, that's just my take on why Obama sucks as a President but hell your buddy Jimmy Carter even said Obama blew it with his nonaction on ISIS and that's Mr. Peanut saying that shit!!!
...and...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrap
headhunters...;D
Don't be ashamed buddy;), I'll say nuke 'em headhunters whereever the are!Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusI wasn't implying we should nuke the area. I was merely saying that would be the only way to win this war purely from the air pointing out ground troops will at some point be necessary. @Master , these guys said they will do anything they can to destroy the US. That is why this stuff, which we as a country are weary off, is happening. We would all prefer all to live and let live but when war is declared on you, I guess this is what happensQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
*******
So why do I keep ranting about 'em headhunters? Cuz that's about the only real fact here, the rest is all political propaganda which only muddles things and which are not necessarily true.. I hate politics cuz it makes people its puppet or slave, can't you folks see that.;D Well I can.;)
Turkey have not bombed IS and they are very near their border. Turkey have taken millions of refugees but do not worry about IS.
They aren't worried? It seems to me they are making a political decision to attempt to draw NATO into the fight. There are Kurds from Turkey fighting ISISQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Turkey hate the Kurds.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThey aren't worried? It seems to me they are making a political decision to attempt to draw NATO into the fight. There are Kurds from Turkey fighting ISISQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Alright MasterQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
This posts starts silly and gets sillier. Whenever you say "you do realise" I know I'm then going to read a whole load of wrong and you don't disappoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYou keep spouting off about the WMD's (good little liberal you are) without realizing that that was one of a number of factors which lead to the invasion of Iraq. Certainly the invasion could have been avoided but for Saddam's refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access to his country. Now Kirkland, why would a leader refuse access to UN weapon inspectors? Sure Saddam could have thought it invasive, but with America having let's call it "an itchy trigger finger" after 9/11 and it being only a decade removed from demolishing Iraq's armed forces in the Persian Gulf War....why on Earth would a leader tempt fate that way? Would it make Saddam look better to his people? Would it help Saddam ease sanctions on his nation? After 9/11 even Muammar Gaddafi said "Irrespective of the conflict with America, it is a human duty to show sympathy with the American people and be with them at these horrifying and awesome events which are bound to awaken human conscience" ....so basically what did Saddam gain from refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
George W Bush was right to be proactive on Iraq, HOWEVER the strategy for holding that nation was all fucked up. The invasion was a piece of cake, the holding of the nation was irresponsibly done and we've paid the price for it.
Obama has not been proactive on sealing the borders of the United States.
Obama was not proactive on ISIS
Obama was not proactive on the 9/11 Benghazi attacks in fact we still have no idea where he was at the time of those attacks and he refuses to answer
Obama was not proactive on Fast & Furious which handed weapons to drug traffickers & coyotes
Obama was not proactive on the IRS scandal and again has been stubborn in his refusal to address that situation
Obama was not proactive regarding Russia's invasion of Crimea
Those are just a few situations off the top of my head and well of course you'll ask "Well what would you want him to do?" to which I will reply...
Close off the borders of the United States and militarize the border with Mexico.
If you know of a large well funded terrorist organization then take it out before it hatches a plan to attack our troops on the ground or our citizens at home.
Far too late now, but send in available military forces to save Amb. Stevens and those in danger in Benghazi.
DO NOT give narcotraficantes and coyotes more guns, how hard is that?
Hold the IRS accountable for wrongdoings if there were any which Congress could and should find out with the full help of the White House and Executive Branch...unless of course the Executive Branch and/or President ordered such things to happen in which case you resign in humiliation and beg for forgiveness from the American people.
Russia doesn't want war with the United States any more than we want war with them, that said, we could have allowed "cooler heads to prevail" had we moved a warship near Crimea in order to support the sovereign nation of Ukraine which until recently owned Crimea.
But hey, that's just my take on why Obama sucks as a President but hell your buddy Jimmy Carter even said Obama blew it with his nonaction on ISIS and that's Mr. Peanut saying that shit!!!
Long story short.
Saddam let the inspectors in. They had a bunch of secret sites info from the CIA to check out. They checked them out and found nothing. BUsh said, ah, that's because the WMD are now in double secret sites and we can't tell the inspectors where they are. Seriously.
Saddam invited the CIA into Iraq to expose the double secret sites to the world.
Saddam Extends Invite to CIA | Fox News
Bush declined his offer.
The inspectors said never mind, give us a few more weeks and we can confirm no new WMD.
Bush said no, the threat from Daddam and his WMD is so great that I have to act now.
War looms as Bush issues final warning By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post
WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.
Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately.
"It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power," he said. "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."
Bush presented grim images of the danger of terrorist strikes on U.S. soil that could kill hundreds of thousands.
"We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities," he said. He spoke darkly of acting "before the day of horror can come."
Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."
"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations," he said. "And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html
You seem to be saying that you would have invaded Syria when Isis started growing in size. How would you do that?
Listen to YOUR Democrats espouse the ousting of Saddam Hussein...listen close sweetheart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
You say George W Bush is/was stupid....stupid yet smart enough to fool 100% of your Democrat buddies? Doesn't speak well to your choice of leader does it?
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...ade/sect2.html
Hmmm, I see November 5, 1998: Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
Who was President in 1998 again?
That's what I thought, so shut your commie fucking face and go back in your hole you despicable waste of oxygen.
Why is it that all these countrys, that are attacked have two things in common. Mineral wealth and no Rothschild bank. Could someone explain.
Because Alex Jones?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrap
is it his fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongBecause Alex Jones?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrap
Nope but it's good for his brand of radioQuote:
Originally Posted by Scrapis it his fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongBecause Alex Jones?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrap
You can't discount everything he says.
If you put on a blindfold and throw a hundred darts at a board, one of them might hit the bullseye. It's not a validation of that method though. Better to look before taking aim.