Republican Senators Call for Large-Scale US-Led Ground War against ISIS

Salinsky wrote:Keep resisting the MIC lackeys, Mr. President.

For those of you who insist there is no difference between the Republican's and Obama's approaches, here it is in stark contrast.

Obama Says "We, The Muslim Community" At G20 Summit from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.

boards of FL wrote:Do you want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then by all means, vote republican in 2016.

Do you not want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then vote for the democratic candidate in 2016.

Either the republican or democratic nominee is going to get elected.  That much is certain.

Vote for the democratic candidate in 2016 lest you want more blood on your hands.

Markle wrote:Stated ZVUGKTUBM
Republican Senators Call for Large-Scale US-Led Ground War against ISIS

Not surprising at all, here we see where ZVUGKTUBM can post a direct quote...and not understand what is being quoted.

Senator Graham said, and I highlighted for ZVUGKTUBM, US LED ground war against ISIS.  

Semi-retired President Obama's policies, supported by ZVUGKTUBM, Wordslinger, 2seaoat and others have caused this chaos.  You do NOT win cities and ground from the air.  

This does not mean 100,000 US troops but it certainly will mean 10,000-20,000 US troops and others.

We need a THOUSAND sorties per day, not the six or seven authorized by President Obama and without the rules of engagement he has enforced on our military.

Stated proudly here, my dear Progressive good friends repeat that they much prefer these attacks on our soil as opposed to fighting them in their own countries.

Shameful!

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Do you want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then by all means, vote republican in 2016.

Do you not want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then vote for the democratic candidate in 2016.

Either the republican or democratic nominee is going to get elected.  That much is certain.

Vote for the democratic candidate in 2016 lest you want more blood on your hands.

Thank you for your endorsement of this for America either later this year or next.



Repeated here is what BoardofFL and my other Progressive friends want for America.

boards of FL wrote:Do you want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq? Well then by all means, vote republican in 2016.

Do you not want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq? Well then vote for the democratic candidate in 2016.

Either the republican or democratic nominee is going to get elected. That much is certain.

Vote for the democratic candidate in 2016 lest you want more blood on your hands.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Sad  our troops will be killed by weapons supplied by the CIA.



ISIS is a creation of the UNITED STATES.....

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Do you want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then by all means, vote republican in 2016.

Do you not want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then vote for the democratic candidate in 2016.

Either the republican or democratic nominee is going to get elected.  That much is certain.

Vote for the democratic candidate in 2016 lest you want more blood on your hands.

You apparently think that hillary fits what you ascribe to democrats... lol. Gawd y'all are easy. Yea team..!!

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:Stated ZVUGKTUBM
Republican Senators Call for Large-Scale US-Led Ground War against ISIS

Not surprising at all, here we see where ZVUGKTUBM can post a direct quote...and not understand what is being quoted.

Senator Graham said, and I highlighted for ZVUGKTUBM, US LED ground war against ISIS.  

Semi-retired President Obama's policies, supported by ZVUGKTUBM, Wordslinger, 2seaoat and others have caused this chaos.  You do NOT win cities and ground from the air.  

This does not mean 100,000 US troops but it certainly will mean 10,000-20,000 US troops and others.

We need a THOUSAND sorties per day, not the six or seven authorized by President Obama and without the rules of engagement he has enforced on our military.

Stated proudly here, my dear Progressive good friends repeat that they much prefer these attacks on our soil as opposed to fighting them in their own countries.

Shameful!

Sorry, but we have tried the republican strategy in the middle east.  It resulted in one of - if not the - worst foreign policy quagmires in US history.

The best we can do at this point is correct the issue of house district gerrymandering and then keep republicans as far away from foreign policy decisions as possible.  The sooner we do that, the better off the world will be.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Do you want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then by all means, vote republican in 2016.

Do you not want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then vote for the democratic candidate in 2016.

Either the republican or democratic nominee is going to get elected.  That much is certain.

Vote for the democratic candidate in 2016 lest you want more blood on your hands.

Thank you for your endorsement of this for America either later this year or next.



Repeated here is what BoardofFL and my other Progressive friends want for America.

That's not what I want for America.  That is what you're saying I want for America.  People who have cogent arguments to make generally don't need to put words in their opponents mouths - and that is precisely what your'e doing here, so...

Here you are, Ole' Man Markle.   Your rocking chair is over by the window.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Do you want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then by all means, vote republican in 2016.

Do you not want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then vote for the democratic candidate in 2016.

Either the republican or democratic nominee is going to get elected.  That much is certain.

Vote for the democratic candidate in 2016 lest you want more blood on your hands.

Thank you for your endorsement of this for America either later this year or next.


Repeated here is what BoardofFL and my other Progressive friends want for America.

That's not what I want for America.  That is what you're saying I want for America.  People who have cogent arguments to make generally don't need to put words in their opponents mouths - and that is precisely what your'e doing here, so...

Here you are, Ole' Man Markle.   Your rocking chair is over by the window.

Why do you have to keep making fun of age.  I'm an old geezer and I'm on your side.  So is Bernie Sanders and he's old enough to be my great grandfather.  So stop it.  lol

Markle wrote:This does not mean 100,000 US troops but it certainly will mean 10,000-20,000 US troops and others.

PkrBum wrote:
I'm sorry... you don't fit into a politically specific demographic under which you are protected from bigotry.

Perhaps bofer could offer you something within a eugenics program? It's really quite selfish to spend your retirement.

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote:
I'm sorry... you don't fit into a politically specific demographic under which you are protected from bigotry.

Perhaps bofer could offer you something within a eugenics program? It's really quite selfish to spend your retirement.

That's the problem.  I'm not smart enough to spend away my retirement,  I'm stupid enough to want to save it.
I should adopt bds' and Paul Krugman's philosophy and not only spend all the money I have,  but spend even more money that I don't have and get it from borrowing.  Because that leads to economic good health.  Just look at all the millions who bought houses they couldn't afford.  That's now the politically correct version of "wisdom".  lol

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Do you want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then by all means, vote republican in 2016.

Do you not want another full scale occupation comparable to the quagmire that was Iraq?  Well then vote for the democratic candidate in 2016.

Either the republican or democratic nominee is going to get elected.  That much is certain.

Vote for the democratic candidate in 2016 lest you want more blood on your hands.

You apparently think that hillary fits what you ascribe to democrats... lol. Gawd y'all are easy. Yea team..!!

I have probably explained this a million times here, though I'll try this again.  

We have two options.  Either a democrat or a republican is going to enter the whitehouse in 2016.  This is a given.  If we were to create a scale showing the degree of military adventurism in the middle east that we could expect from democratic and republican presidents, it would look like this.


Less war                                                            More war

<--democrats---------------------------------------republicans-->


Now, we can debate over where Sanders, Clinton, Rubio, Carson, Cruz would fall along this line, though I can't imagine anyone would dispute the fact that republicans are considerably more committed to military adventurism than democrats.  I mean, would any of you honestly say otherwise?  

Note that I'm not saying that democrats are guaranteed to evacuate the middle east entirely.  Far from it.  I'm merely saying that whatever the democrats do, that would be considerably less than what any electable republican would do.  Emphasis placed on electable so that I don't have to respond to someone chirping "But Paul is a republican!"  Yes.  But he is not an electable republican.  

Bush got elected and we ended up with the quagmire in Iraq.  I think it is fairly safe to assume that had Gore been elected, we wouldn't have ended up in that quagmire.  The same will be the case for 2016.  If a republican gets elected, we will almost certainly end up in yet another quagmire.  On the other hand, if a democrat gets elected, we will still be somewhat involved in the middle east.  There will be air support.  We will hear republicans dishonestly overselling our level of engagement there. Etc. etc.  But it will not be even remotely a mess to the degree that we would see with another republican foreign policy quagmire.

[...]

This position is demonstrably idiotic, and people who take this position are essentially idiots.  Flat out.  There really is no nice way of putting it.

PkrBum wrote:

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote:
I'm sorry... you don't fit into a politically specific demographic under which you are protected from bigotry.

Perhaps bofer could offer you something within a eugenics program? It's really quite selfish to spend your retirement.

That's the problem.  I'm not smart enough to spend away my retirement,  I'm stupid enough to want to save it.
I should adopt bds' and Paul Krugman's philosophy and not only spend all the money I have,  but spend even more money that I don't have and get it from borrowing.  Because that leads to economic good health.  Just look at all the millions who bought houses they couldn't afford.  That's now the politically correct version of "wisdom".  lol

Lol... I like it. It sure sound easier and more fun than carefully planning and working toward a sustainable goal.

Can you imagine explaining this option to an early american settler or a family heading west in a covered wagon?

Lmao... they would think you an idiot... and they would be right. Natural selection is now politically incorrect.

Who's denying science and nature?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

I think most of today's settlers resemble the Donner party....

Markle wrote:

Less war                                                            More war

<--democrats-----------------------------------------------republicans-->

Massive increase in Terrorist attacks - - - - - Few Terrorist Attacks

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:This does not mean 100,000 US troops but it certainly will mean 10,000-20,000 US troops and others.

Yes.... We have heard this story before. Back in 2003, the Neocons were really soft-selling the American people on how easy Dumbya's short-sighted invasion of Iraq would be, and how Iraq would finance its own reconstruction, etc., with more lies uttered on top of other misrepresentations. You need stop speaking with a forked tongue.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
and how Iraq would finance its own reconstruction