Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Should we enter another elective war in the Middle East?

+6
Wordslinger
Hospital Bob
ZVUGKTUBM
knothead
Markle
boards of FL
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Should we enter another elective war in the Middle East?

Should we enter another elective war in the Middle East? - Page 3 I_vote_lcap0%Should we enter another elective war in the Middle East? - Page 3 I_vote_rcap 0% [ 0 ]
Should we enter another elective war in the Middle East? - Page 3 I_vote_lcap100%Should we enter another elective war in the Middle East? - Page 3 I_vote_rcap 100% [ 13 ]
Total Votes : 13


Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

boards of FL

boards of FL

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Well look at that.  Our forum members unanimously agree republicans should be kept far away from foreign policy decisions.

And hillary... if one set of standards and facts are used.



Any level of military engagement in the middle east under Clinton will be considerately less than any level of military engagement in the middle east under any of the electable republican candidates.

You do agree with that statement, don't you?

No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.



Which electable republican candidates have presented a middle east policy that is less hawkish than Clinton's?

Here is a summary of Clinton's plan for reference.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/19/hillary-clinton-detail-plan-combatting-radical-jihadism/76038990/





So...got nothing?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Yes... you've got nothing but a campaign promise. She has a record whether you choose to ignore it or not.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Yes... you've got nothing but a campaign promise. She has a record whether you choose to ignore it or not.


I see.  

So when you said this...


PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

...you were essentially just talking out of your ass there?  There is nothing in the real world that you can point to that would support that statement?  Even when I helped you out and gave you the platform that Clinton is running on, it is still beyond your scope to be able to simply find a platform being offered by any of the electable republican candidates and then draw distinction by way of hawkishness?

Uh oh...it's happening again.

Let me ask you this, PkrBum, if you can't support your bullshit statement, can you at least identify for me the specific republican candidates you were referring to when you said this?

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

I mean, how hard could that be?  All you have to do is say the names of the republicans that you had in mind when you made that statement. Can you do that, PkrBum?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

boards of FL wrote:Let me ask you this, PkrBum, if you can't support your bullshit statement, can you at least identify for me the specific republican candidates you were referring to when you said this?

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

I mean, how hard could that be?  All you have to do is say the names of the republicans that you had in mind when you made that statement.  Can you do that, PkrBum?



So...did you not know who you had in mind when you made that statement?  Can you not simply state - specifically - the republican candidates who you feel are less hawkish than Clinton?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Which ones are calling for massive troops? Those aren't the ones.

Which ones are talking limited engagement like obama? Not them either... though they are on par with hilary.

Which ones are talking of focusing on iran and disengagement from syria? Those might be preferable to hillary.

Which ones say that it's not our problem or a measured withdrawal? Arguably just one but it's still early.

Why are you spamming the politics section with bs gotcha polls? Pick up a new tactic at the kos or mediamatters?

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Well look at that.  Our forum members unanimously agree republicans should be kept far away from foreign policy decisions.

And hillary... if one set of standards and facts are used.



Any level of military engagement in the middle east under Clinton will be considerately less than any level of military engagement in the middle east under any of the electable republican candidates.

You do agree with that statement, don't you?

As you know, semi-retired President Obama took credit for the peace in Iraq. He pulled out all our troops, against the advice of his own advisers creating a vacuum for ISIS to step in.

President Obama and Secretary of State HILLARY CLINTON demanded that Syrian's President Bashar al-Assad MUST GO. Is that not exactly the same as was done by the rest of the world with Saddam Hussein?

Hillary Clinton OWNS Syria.

We now have a total disaster, teetering on the brink of WW-III. Yet all the pathetic Progressives can do is leap back more than a decade saying BUT IF!

Progressives, join 2015. You have no solutions for the SNAFU you have created.

You do agree with that statement, don't you?

Guest


Guest

Hell... we aren't even considering north africa yet... but I bet the next potus will have to. Thanks obama and hillary.

Guest


Guest

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/12/now-is-the-time-to-flush-out-boko-haram-un/

A UN top aid official in Cameroon, Najat Rochdi, on Tuesday said Boko Haram Islamist militant group was expanding and the time to stop them was now. Rochdi, who is Resident Coordinator of UN aids activities in the country, said in Yaoundé that the terrorists’ strategy was to demonstrate its power with daily suicide bombings, using young girls. “Its offensive is bankrupting Cameroon’s economy and destroying a fragile society, especially influencing the young. “Boko Haram is giving them a sense, because they are convincing them that it is a sacrifice for the better. “So we have to show them that they don’t have to die to have a better life,” she said.

She said that there was a chance to stop and uproot their activities in Cameroon, because the group’s recruits were driven by poverty and marginalisation. “If it was Jihadism, we all know it’s very difficult to compete with God. “But, because it’s just about having a voice and empowerment and economic opportunities and believing in a future, that’s something we know how to do,” Rochdi said. She recalled that Boko Haram declared allegiance to the Islamic State in March and stepped up its bombing, tripling Cameroon’s number of displaced people to 158,000.

Rochdi said the group now straddled the borders of Nigeria, Chad, Niger and Cameroon with number estimated at 40,000 and ambitions to set up an oil-rich Islamic state around Lake Chad. “We used to have pockets of Boko Haram, it’s definitely expanding. “It looks like they are trying to break through inside the country and also towards the borders in the east, the borders with Central African Republic,’’ she said. She said the impact of the sect’s activity on farming and markets had more than doubled the number of food-insecure people to 2.2 million and that more than 15 per cent of children were acutely malnourished.

Rochdi said that UN was trying to counter Boko Haram by re-establishing markets and the jobs that went with them as well as getting children back to school. She said that the danger was that Boko Haram could grow and link up with other Islamist groups, potentially triggering a worse refugee crisis in Europe than the one seen this year.

Guest


Guest

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T51CM20151116

GENEVA (Reuters) - Islamic State militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations,the United Nations said on Monday in a further illustration of the North African state's descent into anarchy.

All sides in Libya's multiple armed conflicts are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes,including abductions,torture and the killing of civilians,according to a U.N. report.

Islamic State (IS) has gained control over swathes of territory,"committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance",the joint report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya said.

The U.N. had documented IS executions in their stronghold city of Sirte,in central Libya along the Mediterranean coast,and in Derna to the east,from which they were later ousted by local militias. Victims included Egyptian Copts,Ethiopians,Eritreans and a South Sudanese,the report said.

Some were accused of "treason",others of same-sexrelations,but none were given due legal process,according to the report,which covered the year through October.

Libyan armed groups pledging allegiance to IS-controlled areas of central Libya including Sirte,Harawa and Nofliya,and have claimed responsibility for attacks,including on oil fields,checkpoints and petrol stations,the report said.

Four years after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi,Libya is locked in a conflict between two rival governments - an official one in the east and a self-declared one controlling the capital Tripoli - and the many armed factions that back them.

All parties to the conflicts were violating international human rights law by committing indiscriminate attacks that harmed civilians,including summary executions,arbitrary imprisonment and use of torture,the U.N. report said.

Perpetrators,including political leaders and commanders of armed groups, are liable to prosecution by the International Criminal Court,it said,and the Hague-based ICC was already investigating the situation.

"Many migrants,asylum seekers and refugees become victims of brutal violence,coercion and abuse perpetrated by smugglers along smuggling routes,as well as in so-called ‘connection houses’,where they await departure to Europe," the report said.

The report also said warring factions had used imprecise weaponry in densely-populated residential areas,often resulting in indiscriminate attacks causing civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure including hospitals.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Which ones are calling for massive troops? Those aren't the ones.

Which ones are talking limited engagement like obama? Not them either... though they are on par with hilary.

Which ones are talking of focusing on iran and disengagement from syria? Those might be preferable to hillary.

Which ones say that it's not our problem or a measured withdrawal? Arguably just one but it's still early.

Why are you spamming the politics section with bs gotcha polls? Pick up a new tactic at the kos or mediamatters?



Good god.  Communication isn't your strong suit, is it?  Can you honestly not simply state the names of the republicans that you had in mind when you said this?

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

I mean seriously.  How hard is that?  Let's assume that I were you and I had Rubio in mind when I made that comment.  Guess what my response would be?  Rubio.  It wouldn't be a series of idiotic rhetorical questions.  It would simply be Rubio.


Imagine PkrBum is signing up for a new insurance policy.  This is how I imagine it would go:

Insurance rep: OK, so first I'll need your name.

PkrBum:  What do you think my name is?

Insurance rep: I don't know.  That is kinda why I asked.

PkrBum: Well..what is the 16th letter of the alphabet?  Huh?  And what is the 11th letter?  Huh?  And what is the 18th letter?  Can you tell me that?  Huh?  And the second letter, what is that?  Huh?  And what is the 21st letter and then the 13th letter, huh?  And when you put all of those together, what does that say?  Huh?  Huh?!?!?1 Huh?!?!



PkrBum, the count is two strikes and no balls for you.  Here comes the final pitch.  It is a slow floating softball practically hovering over home plate.  I'm not asking you to explain your political philosophy here.  I'm not asking you anything necessarily complicated.  I'm simply asking you to recall the names of the republicans that you had in mind when you said this:

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

Are you really that dense that you don't even know which republican candidates you were referring to there?  I've said before that you're not that bright because you can't coherently communicate your own political beliefs.  But if you can't even state the name of the republican candidates that you had in mind when you made that comment, if you can't simply respond with "insert name", "insert name' and "insert name"....well...you're breaking ground in an entirely new territory of incompetence here.

Should we enter another elective war in the Middle East? - Page 3 Bonbon-dbfbe36b2ab7e3e46f8bdbc19fcc3ada


Last chance for PkrBum.  You said that there are several republican candidates who are less hawkish than Clinton.

Who are they?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Rick Perry - who I think everyone will agree is an idiot - could at least come up with three of the five government agencies that he would shut down before conceding "Oops".

PkrBum can't even come up with one!


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

What leads you to believe that what hillary promises has any relation to what she will do?

You either like being lied to by your dear leaders... or you're a drooling idiot... likely both.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:What leads you to believe that what hillary promises has any relation to what she will do?

You either like being lied to by your dear leaders... or you're a drooling idiot... likely both.

You're probably a bad sport at tennis, too. Hillary Clinton has not called for more war. The GOP candidates, on the other hand, appear to all be hawks.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/08/likely-presidential-candidates.html

How Likely are the GOP Presidential Candidates Top 10 to drag us into War?

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –
Fox Cable News announced its pick for the 10 Republican presidential candidates it will allow in its Thursday debate. These are candidates who are getting at least 3% support in a basket of opinion polls, including one commissioned by Fox itself. CNN will follow a similar procedure for the debate it will televise in September.
Now that we know the roster of the big ten, I thought we should review them on one key issue, of how likely they are to drag us into another war. And what is amazing is that sending US troops back into the Middle East and going to war there is virtually a plank in the GOP platform. After the disaster in Iraq, they are actually running on war and against diplomacy for the most part!
I think this saber rattling in part has to do with the advent of truly big money in US politics and the end of campaign finance limitations. Since the Republican Party is in general the representative of the 50% of the economy dominated by big corporations, and since arms manufacturers are among those big companies, the GOP has become increasingly the party of war and belligerence. If you actually drop those bombs, you have to order more, which is good for some businesses. In fact, one candidate who did not make the cut and is a notorious warmonger, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), is apparently mainly backed by military-industrial complex money. It is no surprise that he is perhaps the most aggressive candidate in his statements on foreign policy, though he has a lot of competition.

Here is how they stand on this key issue of war and peace, life and death:

Donald Trump (with a polling average of 23.4 percent):

“America’s primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped–by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists. Better now than later!”
I take “by any means necessary” to be enthusiasm for war on Iran, since their civilian nuclear enrichment program cannot be shut down by any other means.
Trump has also urged a US bombing campaign against Iraqi oil refineries as a way of defeating Daesh (ISIL, ISIS). Since Iraq will need those refineries to rebuild after Daesh is defeated, bombing them wouldn’t be optimal. But there you have it.

former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (12.0 percent):

Rejects diplomacy with Iran, wants to send more US troops to embed with the Iraqi army in Iraq.
So, two wars?

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (10.2 percent),
Walker said “that not only would he undo any deal with Iran on his first day as president; he would do so even if our European allies wanted the deal to continue.”
So, brinkmanship and unilateral action.
Mr. Walker also said in February that that if he could take on union protesters of Wisconsin, he can take on ISIL. He seems to confuse exercizing first amendment rights with being a target.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (6.6 percent):
Huckabee characterized the Iran deal as marching the Jews to the Nazi ovens. I presume that means he would risk war with Iran.
In an interview on Fox, “Huckabee was quick to return to those comparisons, saying, “I don’t want to standby and watch it happen again. I do not want to stand by and see Jews get targeted, because if they come after them they will eventually come after all of us. We’ve seen this before.”
Mediaite also notes, “Huckabee proposed a “third option” that involves taking the Russians, Iranians and Saudi Arabians “out of the energy business” but making the U.S. energy independent.” Short of going to war on them, it is hard for me to imagine how he would do that.

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (5.8 percent):
Rejects the idea of war crimes. He said: “If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war,” he said. “Other than that, we have to win. Our life depends on it.”
He also says that the Iran deal endangers all Americans and that he would reduce personnel cutbacks in the US military.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (5.4 percent):
Says nuclear deal will “lead to war” and cause the death of “millions of Americans” by undoing the sanctions regime on Iran.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (5.4 percent):
Says “war with Iran is an option.”

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (4.8 percent):
Has renounced containment as a policy toward Iran and now says the country is too dangerous for that policy to succeed.
But the bigger and more powerful Soviet Union was contained. And is the alternative war?

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (3.4 percent):
Says President Obama, having drawn a red line on Syria, should have “finished the job.”
War in Syria, then.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (3.2 percent).
Would not immediate rip up Obama’s Iran deal.
But would send US troops to fight ISIL.
So, war on ISIL, then.

**************

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

You have no idea what Hillary will do.

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:You have no idea what Hillary will do.

Of course, no one can predict with 100% accuracy what another individual will do when confronted with unique circumstances.

However, thinking people will look at an individual's past behavior, public statements, and proposed policy prescriptions and ascertain the most probable outcome.

Using that measure, Hillary would appear to be slightly more hawkish than Obama, but much less hawkish than any of the viable GOP candidates.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:What leads you to believe that what hillary promises has any relation to what she will do?

You either like being lied to by your dear leaders... or you're a drooling idiot... likely both.



I'm not entirely convinced that what Clinton promises is what she will do.  The same applies to the republican candidates as well.  

With that said, who are the electable republican candidates that are are less hawkish than Clinton?

This is why you come off as a dumbass, PkrBum.   I mean, just watch this video.  Rick Perry comes off as a dumbass, doesn't he?  




Well, as bad as he comes off in that video, you're even worse.  Imagine if he said "I'd cut five government agencies on day one!" and then couldn't even name one.  That is precisely what you're doing here.   And what I find the most amazing here is that Perry was at least smart enough to realize that he just fucked up.  "Oops".   You - on the other hand - are so dumb that you don't even grasp exactly how dumb you are.


Last and final chance for PkrBum.  This is a litmus test for stupid.  Pay attention now.  This is an extremely complicated question that is going to tax every last one of your brain cells.  OK.  Here goes.

When you said this...

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

...who are the "several of the pub candidates" that you were referring to?  

If you can't recall that information, you're a dumbass.

If you can't simply say "Well, perhaps I mispoke..." you're a dumbass.

If your next response is more rhetorical questions, you're a dumbass.

If you can't come up with an answer now - even assuming you have since forgotten what you were talking about - you're a dumbass.

If you simply cannot respond to that question with a straightforward answer, you're a dumbass.


OK. Let's see if PkrBum is a dumbass.

(drumroll)


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

I answer as many questions of yours that you answer of mine... which is very few, highly selective and usually in the form of a rhetorical question. Funny how that works huh? I'm sure it's very irritating to have it done back to you. Tough shit.

You really need to work on your immaturity, general attitude, and that laughable delusion of grandeur... manchild.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:What leads you to believe that what hillary promises has any relation to what she will do?

You either like being lied to by your dear leaders... or you're a drooling idiot... likely both.

I'm not entirely convinced that what Clinton promises is what she will do.  The same applies to the republican candidates as well.  

With that said, who are the electable republican candidates that are are less hawkish than Clinton?

This is why you come off as a dumbass, PkrBum.   I mean, just watch this video.  Rick Perry comes off as a dumbass, doesn't he?  



Well, as bad as he comes off in that video, you're even worse.  Imagine if he said "I'd cut five government agencies on day one!" and then couldn't even name one.  That is precisely what you're doing here.   And what I find the most amazing here is that Perry was at least smart enough to realize that he just fucked up.  "Oops".   You - on the other hand - are so dumb that you don't even grasp exactly how dumb you are.

Last and final chance for PkrBum.  This is a litmus test for stupid.  Pay attention now.  This is an extremely complicated question that is going to tax every last one of your brain cells.  OK.  Here goes.

When you said this...

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

...who are the "several of the pub candidates" that you were referring to?  

If you can't recall that information, you're a dumbass.

If you can't simply say "Well, perhaps I mispoke..." you're a dumbass.

If your next response is more rhetorical questions, you're a dumbass.

If you can't come up with an answer now - even assuming you have since forgotten what you were talking about - you're a dumbass.

If you simply cannot respond to that question with a straightforward answer, you're a dumbass.

OK.  Let's see if PkrBum is a dumbass.  

(drumroll)





Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:What leads you to believe that what hillary promises has any relation to what she will do?

You either like being lied to by your dear leaders... or you're a drooling idiot... likely both.

I'm not entirely convinced that what Clinton promises is what she will do.  The same applies to the republican candidates as well.  

With that said, who are the electable republican candidates that are are less hawkish than Clinton?

This is why you come off as a dumbass, PkrBum.   I mean, just watch this video.  Rick Perry comes off as a dumbass, doesn't he?  



Well, as bad as he comes off in that video, you're even worse.  Imagine if he said "I'd cut five government agencies on day one!" and then couldn't even name one.  That is precisely what you're doing here.   And what I find the most amazing here is that Perry was at least smart enough to realize that he just fucked up.  "Oops".   You - on the other hand - are so dumb that you don't even grasp exactly how dumb you are.

Last and final chance for PkrBum.  This is a litmus test for stupid.  Pay attention now.  This is an extremely complicated question that is going to tax every last one of your brain cells.  OK.  Here goes.

When you said this...

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

...who are the "several of the pub candidates" that you were referring to?  

If you can't recall that information, you're a dumbass.

If you can't simply say "Well, perhaps I mispoke..." you're a dumbass.

If your next response is more rhetorical questions, you're a dumbass.

If you can't come up with an answer now - even assuming you have since forgotten what you were talking about - you're a dumbass.

If you simply cannot respond to that question with a straightforward answer, you're a dumbass.

OK.  Let's see if PkrBum is a dumbass.  

(drumroll)






More from Semi-Sane Markle, King of the Cheap Shots. The thread is about whether we should enter another ground war in the Mid East. And the current poll of this forum is the same now as it was on the day it began: 100% say "NO!"

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:I answer as many questions of yours that you answer of mine... which is very few, highly selective and usually in the form of a rhetorical question. Funny how that works huh? I'm sure it's very irritating to have it done back to you. Tough shit.

You really need to work on your immaturity, general attitude, and that laughable delusion of grandeur... manchild.



And there it is. PkrBum is a dumbass.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum