Obama is giving a speech tonight on his strategy to defeat ISIS ... is it wise to just tell the world, including ISIS, what said strategy is?
Political talk. The republicans salivate every time another beheading happens so Obama's gotta counter to keep the sheep corralled in his pen versus getting all scared and running towards the wolves(corporations/republicans).
He created much of the pressure himself after his stupid statement last week saying we had no ISIS strategy.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Obama is giving a speech tonight on his strategy to defeat ISIS ... is it wise to just tell the world, including ISIS, what said strategy is?
Political talk. The republicans salivate every time another beheading happens so Obama's gotta counter to keep the sheep corralled in his pen versus getting all scared and running towards the wolves(corporations/republicans).
He created much of the pressure himself after his stupid statement last week saying we had no ISIS strategy.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Plan A - Drone Strikes and give a bunch of weapons to the next group of guys that Clinton or Mitt will be fighting in five years
Plan B - Who cares? I'll be golfing in Malibu when that happens.
That being said, ISIS is now a state. They are not an insurgency that hides in the shadows. They have an army. They hold ground and cities and govern them. They want to play big-boy war now, which is what the US is very, very, very, very good at.
Plan A - Drone Strikes and give a bunch of weapons to the next group of guys that Clinton or Mitt will be fighting in five years
Plan B - Who cares? I'll be golfing in Malibu when that happens.
That being said, ISIS is now a state. They are not an insurgency that hides in the shadows. They have an army. They hold ground and cities and govern them. They want to play big-boy war now, which is what the US is very, very, very, very good at.
Wait, what? The US is "very very very very good" at big boy war? Since when? We invaded Iraq in 91 and again in 03. Now we're gonna gO AGAIN. We can't even win that war but we're very X4 good at big boy war?
Plan A - Drone Strikes and give a bunch of weapons to the next group of guys that Clinton or Mitt will be fighting in five years
Plan B - Who cares? I'll be golfing in Malibu when that happens.
That being said, ISIS is now a state. They are not an insurgency that hides in the shadows. They have an army. They hold ground and cities and govern them. They want to play big-boy war now, which is what the US is very, very, very, very good at.
Wait, what? The US is "very very very very good" at big boy war? Since when? We invaded Iraq in 91 and again in 03. Now we're gonna gO AGAIN. We can't even win that war but we're very X4 good at big boy war?
Iraq's infrastructure, governing base, and military were dismantled and defeated in a relatively short period of time. That is what I'm referring to. ISIS has a capital city. We would make short work of it. The crazies would have to run off and hide in the shadows again.
Here's a concept.How about we go after the illegal oil sales to other governments from ISIS.Tell the govs buying the "blood" oil that they are on the wrong side of this and that will have conciquences.This will cut off a majority of the $$$ the work with.
Here's a concept.How about we go after the illegal oil sales to other governments from ISIS.Tell the govs buying the "blood" oil that they are on the wrong side of this and that will have conciquences.This will cut off a majority of the $$$ the work with.
Right.
And how about we let other countries in region to handle this.
Oh all because of the control of oil/$$$$$
Cnn harping on poll that Americans are again afraid of terrorists. Well wonder why CNN. FOX. ETC.
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking..... The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle. So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission. After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention? Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.
I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.
It's all propaganda. Fkn news is blowing this shit up to enrage the masses.
And it's working. Sky is falling. Sky is falling. Arab countries need to take care of this. It's not our job to fix the world.
To blame Obama is nuts. The hate was created long ago.
Not blaming Obama for the inherrent hate. Point is - when the cat's away the mice will play (if you'll forgive the childish euphimism. I just don't know a simpler way to describe it to you).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Here's a concept.How about we go after the illegal oil sales to other governments from ISIS.Tell the govs buying the "blood" oil that they are on the wrong side of this and that will have conciquences.This will cut off a majority of the $$$ the work with.
What about the blood oil we took? U know, the oil that went from $19.90 a barrel to $160 a barrel when we went in in 03. Went from paying $1.19/gallon to fucken $3/gallon. That's blood oil on all of washingtons hands.
Obama is giving a speech tonight on his strategy to defeat ISIS ... is it wise to just tell the world, including ISIS, what said strategy is?
It ended up being yet another campaign speech. Not sure why he had to carry on about how great everything is after he laid out his strategy. Ok. We get it - no soldiers on the ground (other than the ones you are sending there, of course.), our economy is wonderful, we're wonderful, the soldiers are wonderful, apple pie is wonderful. Hey - look over there, I'm doing something I said I'd never do b/c reality is different than the liberal text books my professors taught from, but don't look at me, look over there, yes there not here.
Not criticizing the strategy. It is what it is. But, that's all we needed. We know we're great.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking..... The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle. So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission. After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention? Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.
I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.
It's all propaganda. Fkn news is blowing this shit up to enrage the masses.
And it's working. Sky is falling. Sky is falling. Arab countries need to take care of this. It's not our job to fix the world.
To blame Obama is nuts. The hate was created long ago.
Not blaming Obama for the inherrent hate. Point is - when the cat's away the mice will play (if you'll forgive the childish euphimism. I just don't know a simpler way to describe it to you).
No need to be condescending, doesn't further your position. Offer solutions
So what do you propose? Keep us troops in Iraq? Sacrifice some American lives and my money for Middle East culture war?
Obama is giving a speech tonight on his strategy to defeat ISIS ... is it wise to just tell the world, including ISIS, what said strategy is?
It ended up being yet another campaign speech. Not sure why he had to carry on about how great everything is after he laid out his strategy. Ok. We get it - no soldiers on the ground (other than the ones you are sending there, of course.), our economy is wonderful, we're wonderful, the soldiers are wonderful, apple pie is wonderful. Hey - look over there, I'm doing something I said I'd never do b/c reality is different than the liberal text books my professors taught from, but don't look at me, look over there, yes there not here.
Not criticizing the strategy. It is what it is. But, that's all we needed. We know we're great.
Yes politics, same ole same ole.
Doesn't matter who's pres will always be the same, that's the job.
So, I've got a question. What do you think when you hear someone say "they (IS) are barbarians, and the Middle East at large has proven they do not have everything under control, so how can we justify doing nothing?"
A friend mentioned how American interventionism was critical in the defeat of the Nazis and how we couldn't have stood by and allowed them to gain further power (to be honest, I would be lying if I said I'm familiar on the political/militaristic scenarios of WWII), and used that notion to legitimize intervention in this scenario. To me, I don't think they're parallel scenarios, but I had no evidence to back that statement up. What says you, fine folks of the PJ Boards?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
So, I've got a question. What do you think when you hear someone say "they (IS) are barbarians, and the Middle East at large has proven they do not have everything under control, so how can we justify doing nothing?"
A friend mentioned how American interventionism was critical in the defeat of the Nazis and how we couldn't have stood by and allowed them to gain further power (to be honest, I would be lying if I said I'm familiar on the political/militaristic scenarios of WWII), and used that notion to legitimize intervention in this scenario. To me, I don't think they're parallel scenarios, but I had no evidence to back that statement up. What says you, fine folks of the PJ Boards?
How many countries are there in the world that have military capabilities to combat ISIS? Why the US? Why not Saudi Arabia or Jordan or China or Japan? Fuck China benefits directly from our protecting oil supply. And some want to sacrifice our soldiers and tax money for them? Fk that.
And no amount of military might will change attitudes about religion and their inter fighting. Those fkers will continue to kill each other till we drop playboys, pot and rock n roll by the pallets. Oh and Cheetos. If there was ever a region that needs to get stoned this is it. All this pent up sexual frustration.
And we just need to say it. There are no gods. There is no heaven. Enjoy your life. Pussy footing around this subject is nuts.
And for those that want the US to send troops, join the army and volunteer to sacrifice yourself or your loved ones.
It's sad how a few videos and rhetoric has again successfully put Americans again in the war mongering state. Chill people it's not like it's Russia invading a sovereign nation.
And of course the timing is impeccable, with today's date people will be all riled up and emotional and lend their undying devotion to whatever fool notion they take away from their Rubetubes
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking..... The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle. So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission. After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention? Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.
I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.
As to your condescending comment above went back and read this. "I am not supporting one way or the other ............ ". So you won't say what we should do but criticize those that don't want to intervene yet have no opinion as what we should do??? Same crap as what I hear from fox and my republican friends.
I had a facebook "friend" going on and on about how stupid Obama was for referring to ISIL as ISIL. Since that somehow legitimizes their claim that they are a state.
Of course every republican that I see commenting on ISIL refers to them as ISIS or ISIL so I'm not sure what the difference is but that's been the norm ever since President Blackenstein entered office.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
We have messed with Iraq enough, we should really step back and let the people of the mid-east deal with it's (own) problems, they don't need more U.S intervention. 'Good' Motives or not.
and we should also not act like we care about the refugees and innocents, not after we have destroyed generations of babies with the chemicals we dropped and the dictators and war lords we back(ed).
Iraq is about protection of our interests, So lets just call it what it is, NOT This 'we rescued the poor people on the mountain' excuse.
I get ISIS is dangerous, NOT because of the innocents they kill, but because they pose a threat to our ultimate goal, which is control, dominance. Hegemony.
So...Let's deal with ISIS, cause they are bad...Then lets deal with ourselves, let's stop OUR support for ALL the corrupt leaders and governments we back, lets stop the sending of arms to dictators...tyrants...
Lets not back African War Lords, lets remove ourselves from these lands, lets bring all our troops home, lets spend money on us, here, people are dying here, on our streets.
Here's a concept.How about we go after the illegal oil sales to other governments from ISIS.Tell the govs buying the "blood" oil that they are on the wrong side of this and that will have conciquences.This will cut off a majority of the $$$ the work with.
Because that would lead to our allies being implicated, and probably show more ties between the west and the IS. Check out the link I posted on page four....the Kurds are selling Iraqi oil to Israel illegally too. How much oil do you think has been stolen from Iraq since 2003?? (Without even addressing the blood money bb mentioned).
Still trying to wrap my head around who, what, where they will be bombing in Syria. So will we continue to call the FSA good guys, despite the defections that helped form the IS, and the fact that they sold the IS info that lead to Solof's beheading? Are we bombing the IS there and still hoping the good rebels overthrow Assad? Is this all an excuse to keep Syria in a state of chaos? Took long enough for them to find a way to justify strikes inside Syria. Crazy that they bitched their chemic weapon false flag so badly that they couldn't justify it....yet managed to push their agenda via events in another country.
So, I've got a question. What do you think when you hear someone say "they (IS) are barbarians, and the Middle East at large has proven they do not have everything under control, so how can we justify doing nothing?"
A friend mentioned how American interventionism was critical in the defeat of the Nazis and how we couldn't have stood by and allowed them to gain further power (to be honest, I would be lying if I said I'm familiar on the political/militaristic scenarios of WWII), and used that notion to legitimize intervention in this scenario. To me, I don't think they're parallel scenarios, but I had no evidence to back that statement up. What says you, fine folks of the PJ Boards?
Did your friend also mention that some of our people/groups/industries helped give rise to the Third Reich?
and before that, we can get into Eugenics, something Hitler learned much from us, (U.S.A.)
"We do not stand alone": Nazi poster from 1936 introducing compulsory sterilization legislation. The United States flag is prominently displayed as one of the eugenic states of the world.(Wikipedia)
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Who's falling for this trash?
heavy.com/news/2014/09/obama-isis-speech-transcript-video-september-10-2014/
Plan B - Who cares? I'll be golfing in Malibu when that happens.
That being said, ISIS is now a state. They are not an insurgency that hides in the shadows. They have an army. They hold ground and cities and govern them. They want to play big-boy war now, which is what the US is very, very, very, very good at.
And how about we let other countries in region to handle this.
Oh all because of the control of oil/$$$$$
Cnn harping on poll that Americans are again afraid of terrorists. Well wonder why CNN. FOX. ETC.
Not criticizing the strategy. It is what it is. But, that's all we needed. We know we're great.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
So what do you propose? Keep us troops in Iraq? Sacrifice some American lives and my money for Middle East culture war?
Doesn't matter who's pres will always be the same, that's the job.
A friend mentioned how American interventionism was critical in the defeat of the Nazis and how we couldn't have stood by and allowed them to gain further power (to be honest, I would be lying if I said I'm familiar on the political/militaristic scenarios of WWII), and used that notion to legitimize intervention in this scenario. To me, I don't think they're parallel scenarios, but I had no evidence to back that statement up. What says you, fine folks of the PJ Boards?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
And no amount of military might will change attitudes about religion and their inter fighting. Those fkers will continue to kill each other till we drop playboys, pot and rock n roll by the pallets. Oh and Cheetos. If there was ever a region that needs to get stoned this is it. All this pent up sexual frustration.
And we just need to say it. There are no gods. There is no heaven. Enjoy your life. Pussy footing around this subject is nuts.
And for those that want the US to send troops, join the army and volunteer to sacrifice yourself or your loved ones.
It's sad how a few videos and rhetoric has again successfully put Americans again in the war mongering state. Chill people it's not like it's Russia invading a sovereign nation.
It's pretty telling and a little out dated.
Edit-idk why it just doesn't post the pic directly?
Of course every republican that I see commenting on ISIL refers to them as ISIS or ISIL so I'm not sure what the difference is but that's been the norm ever since President Blackenstein entered office.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
We have messed with Iraq enough, we should really step back and let the people of the mid-east deal with it's (own) problems, they don't need more U.S intervention. 'Good' Motives or not.
and we should also not act like we care about the refugees and innocents, not after we have destroyed generations of babies with the chemicals we dropped and the dictators and war lords we back(ed).
Iraq is about protection of our interests, So lets just call it what it is, NOT This 'we rescued the poor people on the mountain' excuse.
I get ISIS is dangerous, NOT because of the innocents they kill, but because they pose a threat to our ultimate goal, which is control, dominance. Hegemony.
So...Let's deal with ISIS, cause they are bad...Then lets deal with ourselves, let's stop OUR support for ALL the corrupt leaders and governments we back, lets stop the sending of arms to dictators...tyrants...
Lets not back African War Lords, lets remove ourselves from these lands, lets bring all our troops home, lets spend money on us, here, people are dying here, on our streets.
If we truly care about, peace, justice, truth.
(This is what I think he/we(The U.S.A) should do)
For entertainment here are videos staring our last 4 presidents. "At this point, bombing Iraq is practically a American presidential tradition." Hurrah.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/11/watch-each-of-the-last-four-presidents-a
Check out the link I posted on page four....the Kurds are selling Iraqi oil to Israel illegally too. How much oil do you think has been stolen from Iraq since 2003?? (Without even addressing the blood money bb mentioned).
Still trying to wrap my head around who, what, where they will be bombing in Syria. So will we continue to call the FSA good guys, despite the defections that helped form the IS, and the fact that they sold the IS info that lead to Solof's beheading? Are we bombing the IS there and still hoping the good rebels overthrow Assad? Is this all an excuse to keep Syria in a state of chaos? Took long enough for them to find a way to justify strikes inside Syria. Crazy that they bitched their chemic weapon false flag so badly that they couldn't justify it....yet managed to push their agenda via events in another country.
and before that, we can get into Eugenics, something Hitler learned much from us, (U.S.A.)
"We do not stand alone": Nazi poster from 1936 introducing compulsory sterilization legislation. The United States flag is prominently displayed as one of the eugenic states of the world.(Wikipedia)