e Martin O'Malle claims that climate change created ISIS

[Nebe]

Sure does. Bin laden was on the pay roll
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sure does. Bin laden was on the pay roll
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Problem with the Internet - you can't see when the Tinfoil Hat is on, or the Sarc Hat

I realize this interview is on Fox news, which as the people in government of one prominent Sanctuary City will tell you is not a real news source, but here is outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Ordierno. I really recommend you take the couple minutes and lok at the video.

Takeaway: ISIS could likely have been prevented with more engagement from US

Easy Read between the lines: Obama is either not getting info/opinion from his senior military leadership (doubtful) or willfully choosing against that advice.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ave-prevented/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Problem with the Internet - you can't see when the Tinfoil Hat is on, or the Sarc Hat

I realize this interview is on Fox news, which as the people in government of one prominent Sanctuary City will tell you is not a real news source, but here is outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Ordierno. I really recommend you take the couple minutes and lok at the video.

Takeaway: ISIS could likely have been prevented with more engagement from US

Easy Read between the lines: Obama is either not getting info/opinion from his senior military leadership (doubtful) or willfully choosing against that advice.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ave-prevented/

"which as the people in government of one prominent Sanctuary City will tell you is not a real news source"

No, any news source that's not uber liberal, isn't real, you see.

"ISIS could likely have been prevented with more engagement from US" Well, we know this for a fact, because thanks to the Surge, they were decimated. More accurately, their predecessor, Al Queda in Iraq, was decimated.

"willfully choosing against that advice." He had to be aware of what so many were saying. He chose to ignore them. Now, it's possible that if he left behind a peacekeeping force, they all would have been killed, and you could argue that would be worse than the ISIS threat.

Here is what cannot be debated. On the day of his inauguration, Obama inherited a stable, pewceful Iraq. That peace and stability came at a horrific price to our country. Under his watch, those gains have largely evaporated.

And Nebe, one last time, can you please explain why it's not Obama's responsibility to spray round up on ISIS? He has had a lot of time to engage them if he wanted, and he has another 17 months. Why don't you include that on Obama's "to do" list? Why does his to do list sem to be limited to golf, fund raising, and attacking reporters who have th enerve to ask a tough but fair question?

The guy is so weak. He caves in to Iran without demanding the release of the Americans held hostage. How about the fact that Iran pays people to kill Americans, did Obama ask them to stop doing that as partof this deal, or not?

Now we are opening up Cuban embassies. There is a convicted American female cop killer who fled to Cuba, been there for a long time. When the Cubans came to Obama with their hat in their hand, begging to restore relations, why couldn't he have said "sure, I will restore relations, as soon as that cop-killing bitch is back in American custody".

He is SO WEAK. Like Carter, and Neville Chamberlain, he thinks appeasement will make all our problems go away. When does that ever work?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Takeaway: ISIS could likely have been prevented with more engagement from US

Easy Read between the lines: Obama is either not getting info/opinion from his senior military leadership (doubtful) or willfully choosing against that advice.

It's easy to say if we had a residual force everything would be peachy, but it wouldn't have fixed the underlying issues stemming from de-bathification and ongoing repression of the Sunni minority. Worse perhaps it would give the impression that we were endorsing it. It also would have likely sucked the US right back into a ground war...which ISIS would simply love.

I don't think Obama is deaf, it's just a very complex situation.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think Obama is deaf, it's just a very complex situation.

Don't worry, Trump will fix it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's easy to say if we had a residual force everything would be peachy, but it wouldn't have fixed the underlying issues stemming from de-bathification and ongoing repression of the Sunni minority. Worse perhaps it would give the impression that we were endorsing it. It also would have likely sucked the US right back into a ground war...which ISIS would simply love.

I don't think Obama is deaf, it's just a very complex situation.

"It's easy to say if we had a residual force everything would be peachy,"

Yes it is easy to say that. You know why? Because we have empirical evidence we can look at, to see what the impact of the Surge was. It was a spectacular success, because sometimes force works.

That's the thing about liberalism. Liberals get these ideas in their heads, and some of them sound great (for example, let's eliminate poverty by giving money to poor people; or, instead of fighting our enemies, let's make nice and they will put down their arms). I can see why anyone would think they are good ideas, in theory. But how much evidence does it take exactly, to show you people that if something fails miserably, it's time to admit it was a bad idea, and try something else? Liberals never, ever, ever do that. Spence, please tell me, how many failed experiments does it take, to convince a liberal that an idea just doesn't work?

Obama's not deaf, he's a racist, close-minded, vindictive azzhole who spent too much time in a faculty room.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes it is easy to say that. You know why? Because we have empirical evidence we can look at, to see what the impact of the Surge was. It was a spectacular success, because sometimes force works.

The Surge worked to a large degree because we initially paid the Sunnis to stop fighting. Certainly the increased US troops were a factor but there's a lot more to it to that. To assert that this was evidence of scale is foolish.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sure does. Bin laden was on the pay roll
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then using your logic, as detbuch said, the Chinese are ultimately responsible for white cops killing unarmed blacks, because they invented gunpowder.

When you decide if someone is responsible for something or not, the abiity to foresee the consequences is part of it.

For example, when the CIA helped the Afghan rebels fight the Soviets, I don't know that anyone was warning the president that if the Soviets were driven out, the rebels might pose a greater threat than the Soviets. i don;t think that was foreseable.

When Bush invaded Iraq, there absolutely were concerns that removing Hussein could make way for a more dangerous threat to emerge. Bush went ahead anyway, so he deserves some culpability for the rise of ISIS.

And when Obama announced he wa sgoing to oversee a complete withdrawal, all kinds of people warned that we needed to leave behind a sufficient force to keep the peace, but Obama was confident that because everyone adores him, it would all be OK. The facts show who was right and who was wrong.