Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bush predicted rise of ISIS and warned us not to prematurely pull out of Iraq (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 17 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  15  16  17   
Author Topic: Bush predicted rise of ISIS and warned us not to prematurely pull out of Iraq
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me ask you a simple question. With regard to India and Pakistan, what do you think would have happened if that war got serious and one side thought they had the potential to actually lose? The world got very lucky that didn't happen and that it was largely a border dispute with no side entertaining serious possibilities of defeat, or for that matter victory, since they didn't employ overwhelming force to achieve it.

If Obama can get away with not calling what we're doing with ISIS a war as I'm sure you've seen has caused a hubub in the media, then we can reclassify the Kashmir and Kargil disputes as something else as well.

And how did the world respond in 1999? Exactly. I'd hardly call that limited skirmish a war.

As for cost? After 14 years of deficit spending like no other, we are suddenly concerned about dollar cost when faced with a major terror attack that could disrupt our society and economy in massive ways? Even if we were, just balance it against the estimated effects of losing LA or NYC and then tell me which is bigger.

[ September 13, 2014, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for cost? After 14 years of deficit spending like no other, we are suddenly concerned about dollar cost when faced with a major terror attack that could disrupt our society and economy in massive ways? Even if we were, just balance it against the estimated effects of losing LA or NYC and then tell me which is bigger.
This is a really stupid argument. First, the last decade of war spending was disastrous to our economy. Then consider that you are advocating perhaps $$T more to defend against a threat that you've read or heard *might* happen, but hasn't even been argued *is* real.

Put a $$ number on it. HOW MUCH WOULD YOU SPEND TO PREVENT ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK ON US SOIL?

Put human cost number on it. HOW MANY SOLDIERS WOULD YOU DEPLOY TO INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES' SOVEREIGNTY TO PREVENT GROUPS FROM FORMING OR GAINING ACCESS TO THE MEANS TO ATTACK ON US SOIL?

Tell us which countries you would invade?

Are you willing to risk starting WWIII in order to prevent a terrorist attack on US soil?

Those are simple questions. Your military expertise took you to Iraq twice and you served in law enforcement here in the US, so you've got more tactical experience than pretty much everyone else here. You've already told us what to do, now tell us how.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how much we should be spending to prevent life-ending meteors from striking.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you don't believe homeland security when they say they have Intel which suggests ISIS is going to try and launch major attacks inside America? Why don't you trust the Obama administration?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
then we can reclassify the Kashmir and Kargil disputes as something else as well.
Redefine anything you want if you aspire for political office, but don't expect us to take you seriously as an honest debater afterwards.

quote:
Why don't you trust the Obama administration?
Because their lips are moving. Why are *you* trusting them?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I wonder how much we should be spending to prevent life-ending meteors from striking.

Or how much we should spend to prevent global warming.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, next time you address g4 and Seneca, why don't you say rafi and Seneca, rather than quoting me and saying my name. If you yell my name in the middle of the night, your partner's bound to be annoyed; if you address your ornery comments to G4 in my name, it's going to annoy me.

Must you always get so creepy?
Creepy? You're the one who didn't have the decency or dignity to simply admit you errex when confused me with Seneca. You acted like it's a normal thing to do. It's not. It's creepy. If you don't want to talk tonne Kate, then stop yelling out my name.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How the hell was I supposed to think you were talking to Seneca, when you quote.me, say my name anc contrast to Seneca in third person.
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Baalim, you are bloody minded, Kate.

For the tenth time, I am calling for the us to precision bomb the ARTILLERY, and Isis positions and supply lines ONLY to the extent that this can be done without collateral damage.


I've also said we should arm the Kurds.
Since Mosul is a Kurdish city, I'd presume that the men and women of the Kurdish peshmerga would avoid wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Please stop projecting your sadistic fantasies on me. Dresden involved intentional targeting of unarmed civilians for slaughter. I've only at skating attacking my sis where it is exposed and not anywhere near civilians

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, Isis does not have hundreds of thousands of members. And am not sure that any of its members are female.

Most current Isis groupies came in because of Isis' string of rapid victories. A few humiliations and most will fall away. Especially if we don't give them us boots on the ground. Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women.

What are you going to do about Mosul? An ancient city of about 2 million people and currently a ISIL stronghold, should we just, as Seneca suggests, "nuke it into glass"? Dresden, perhaps?


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

you sometimes include sexual language or inneundos in your posts, more frequently when responding to kmboots, - that is what is 'creepy'.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So you don't believe homeland security when they say they have Intel which suggests ISIS is going to try and launch major attacks inside America? Why don't you trust the Obama administration?

Yet another evasive answer. Obama said there is no specific information about an attack. Bush screamed "Al Qaeda is coming! Al Qaeda is coming!" over and over again and lied about them actually having the means to attack us, and lied repeatedly about Iraq having the means to attack us AND the intention to do so.

How does what you think you heard from the DHS stack up? And by the way they didn't say that the will attack us, only that they have heard that they might. Is that "warning" worth all the things you said we *must* do that I asked you about? And as Aris asked, why do you trust the Obama all of a sudden after your constant attacks accusing them of deception or incompetance in everything they say or do.

Answer the questions. Quit throwing out scare warnings with nothing to back it up.

[ September 13, 2014, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's no need to use that offensive rhetoric. I've stated over and over how the Congress and Obama have demonstrated they don't have the will to win this war, and maybe the public doesn't either, though I'd like to think otherwise given the diversity of political belief out there.

These Islamo-Nazis are at war with us. Make no mistake about that. They want to destroy our way of life and nothing we do will change that.

Nothing we do will change that. Our very existence is an insult to them.

How comes no one here believes them when they talk about how sinful American society is? How it needs to be wiped out? It's as if many liberals seem to just ignore this and focus on middle eastern politics rather than this stark gauntlet that isn't going away. This is why I brought up Bill Maher, because, I think bit by bit, small parts of the liberal establishment are starting to realize that Islamist movements aren't going to dissipate on their own or calm down on their own.

As for funding, that's the weakest excuse of all. Our existence is threatened, probably more than it was during WW2 when we faced an enemy that still believed in conventional warfare. This war is different. There are no rules. There are no "war crimes" that our enemy refuses to execute. Everything is on the table from their perspective. The major reason our existence is threatened? Because we are threatening it ourselves from within. It is the worst combination of losing our freedoms in the name of security and surveillance, yet not actually going after the enemy to eliminate them out of sympathy for the enemy and the people around them! It is the worst possible scenario and will only get worse due to this huge contradiction.

It is surely worth at least twice what we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent our cities from being hit with WMDs, though it wouldn't cost that much. And unlike idiotic jokes about meteors or climate change, terrorism is very real and imminent threat, and unlike those other things, terrorism is something that is immediate and human controlled. We may not be able to stop a large space rock from crashing on us but we can most definitely stop some Islamo-nazi from setting off a dirty bomb inside Los Angeles.

What do we need to do specifically? Things that cost a lot less than a full-on occupation.

We need to demonstrate that we are a country that doesn't tolerate people threatening to wipe it from the earth.

We need to eliminate ISIS.

We have the technology to do this largely with airstrikes that are very targeted with limited civilian casualties. Yes there will be SOME civilian casualties but that's inevitable. And better that than millions more dead by not completing the task.

Yes, there will be SOME boots on the ground. Most of these will be special ops teams and limited strike forces.

Yes, this won't be over very soon, but it will be over. It will be a lot like whack-a-mole for a while because things will pop up after ISIS. We are dealing with an uncivil society and we should expect the kinds of evil groups they will keep spawning for a while.

That's where our HUMINT comes in. We are a diverse nation, surely we can recruit all walks of peoples to join the CIA and infiltrate these groups. We used to have a huge advantage about this during the Cold War but we've fallen off and become complacent and relied too much on technology and electronic surveillance in the modern era.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but if we do it right it won't cost as much as Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The only way we'd have to spend that kind of money is by ignoring threats like this and incurring more 9-11s. It is much cheaper to deal with threats before they hit us.

As for trusting the Obama administration, I must admit, I don't trust them much, but there's a difference between lying about some domestic scandal they don't want to be caught about and lying about a threat to our existence. I'm not sure we can afford to ignore the latter, especially when its corroborated by our allies and foreign media and foreign intelligence as well.

[ September 14, 2014, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What do we need to do specifically? Things that cost a lot less than a full-on occupation.

We need to demonstrate that we are a country that doesn't tolerate people threatening to wipe it from the earth.

That was both non-specific and completely weaselly. I only use what seems to your sensitive ears "offensive rhetoric" because you continue to pontificate about what *must* be done, but won't step up to the plate to explain how it *could* be done.

Your ideas are extreme and utterly impractical. You pretty much demonstrate it by omission every time you try to explain them. By screaming for blood and not stepping up to say how much of other people's blood you're willing to spill, you just sound like a garden variety demagogue.
quote:
That's where our HUMINT comes in. We are a diverse nation, surely we can recruit all walks of peoples to join the CIA and infiltrate these groups. We used to have a huge advantage about this during the Cold War but we've fallen off and become complacent and relied too much on technology and electronic surveillance in the modern era.
Yes, of course, it's simple.

[ September 14, 2014, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How comes no one here believes them when they talk about how sinful American society is? How it needs to be wiped out?
I believe them. I just don't think their opinion matters.

quote:
We need to demonstrate that we are a country that doesn't tolerate people threatening to wipe it from the earth.
Why?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Pete,

you sometimes include sexual language or innuendos in your posts, more frequently when responding to kmboots, - that is what is 'creepy'.

I use personal language like "get off my leg" to anyone that repeatedly and perniciously misrepresents me. I've asked Kate numerous times, more politely to stop pretending that I hold Seneca's positions. I don't use any language with Kate that I don't use with Al when he perniciously does the exact same thing: quote me, and then respond to me as if I held G4 or Seneca's position.

Accidents and misattributions happen, but Kate takes it further by acting like it's perfectly OK for her to quote me by name, speak to me as "you" but really be addressing Seneca. If she'd had the decency to acknowledge that she'd done me a wrong, or even pretend like she'd try to distinguish me from Seneca in the future, I wouldn't escalate to make the point.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete (to Kmbboots):
quote:
Please stop projecting your sadistic fantasies on me.
That comment all by itself is creepy, since nobody but you imagines she was doing any such thing.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, Isis does not have hundreds of thousands of members. And am not sure that any of its members are female.

Most current Isis groupies came in because of Isis' string of rapid victories. A few humiliations and most will fall away. Especially if we don't give them us boots on the ground. Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What are you going to do about Mosul? An ancient city of about 2 million people and currently a ISIL stronghold, should we just, as Seneca suggests, "nuke it into glass"? Dresden, perhaps?

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Baalim, you are bloody minded, Kate.

For the tenth time, I am calling for the us to precision bomb the ARTILLERY, and Isis positions and supply lines ONLY to the extent that this can be done without collateral damage.


I've also said we should arm the Kurds.
Since Mosul is a Kurdish city, I'd presume that the men and women of the Kurdish peshmerga would avoid wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Please stop projecting your sadistic fantasies on me. Dresden involved intentional targeting of unarmed civilians for slaughter. I've only at skating attacking [ISIS] where it is exposed and not anywhere near civilians

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, please note that you are not the only person on this forum. I am addressing Seneca's posts and Rafi's more than yours.

You addressed ME by name, not Seneca or Rafi, and NOTHING you said had anything to do with my post:

Again, here's what you said in its entiretly after your quote from me:

quote:
What are you going to do about Mosul? An ancient city of about 2 million people and currently a ISIL stronghold, should we just, as Seneca suggests, "nuke it into glass"? Dresden, perhaps?
Just what there are you pretending had anything to do with the quote from me?

What you and Al have done, continually quoting me and then acting as if I hold Seneca's position, is systematic harassment. I was content to just respond with a silly jab, but if you're going to start crying that I'm the one harassing you, then we can do this the long boring way. Unless you're willing to back down and stop playing the quote game, but j'en doubt.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Pete (to Kmbboots):
quote:
Please stop projecting your sadistic fantasies on me.
That comment all by itself is creepy, since nobody but you imagines she was doing any such thing.
If you are right, Al, then people were actually convinced that her fantasy about Mosul getting glassed over was MY plan rather than her dishonorable straw man, that makes what she said and did all the more defamatory. You play the same game with me too, so I'm not surprised that you'd come out blazing when you can cover your typical dirty misrepresentation tactics while hiding behind a woman's honor.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What you and Al have done, continually quoting me and then acting as if I hold Seneca's position, is systematic harassment.
I haven't quoted you, have I? If so, point to it and where I have twisted your positions.
quote:
If you are right, Al, then people were actually convinced that her fantasy about Mosul getting glassed over was MY plan rather than her dishonorable straw man, that makes what she said and did all the more defamatory.
If (and I say if) she misattributed something to you, you could correct her rather than accuse her of having sadistic fantasies involving you.
quote:
You play the same game with me too, so I'm not surprised that you'd come out blazing when you can cover your typical dirty misrepresentation tactics while hiding behind a woman's honor.
I don't even know she's a woman. I've considered taking a feminine-seeming avatar here just to see how I might be treated differently. But it's not clear to me how I'm hiding behind her. I don't know if you recall that Aris pointed out how you were doing something similar to me in a recent thread. That's what got my attention here.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I haven't quoted you, have I? If so, point to it and where I have twisted your positions. "

You have, and I've pointed it out when you did it.


"If (and I say if) she misattributed"

If you aren't even willing to look at what she said, then why should your input be taken seriously?

" If (and I say if) she misattribute something to you, you could correct her."

I did, and she said that she was talking to Seneca and g4. This is always the excuse she uses when she does something like this:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at
Kate, Isis does not have hundreds of thousands of members. And am not sure that any of its members are female.

Most current Isis groupies came in because of Isis' string of rapid victories. A few humiliations and most will fall away. Especially if we don't give them us boots on the ground. Show them a few clips of Isis yahoos getting stomped by Kurdish peshmerga women.


[KATE'S REPLY]: What are you going to do about Mosul? An ancient city of about 2 million people and currently a ISIL stronghold, should we just, as Seneca suggests, "nuke it into glass"? Dresden, perhaps?

So who does it sound like she's talking to when she says "you," if not me?

When I objected, she acted as if it was my problem. So I put my objection more emphatically, with that blurb about the inappropriateness of blurting out someone's name when you're dealing with another person.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I don't know if you recall that Aris pointed out how you were doing something similar to me in a recent thread."

Yes, I remember that Aris made angry noises at me because he was sick of me making angry noises at you when you systematically misrepresented my position. I recognize that my objections annoy innocent bystanders such as LR and Aris who are here for the discussion, but I am quite confident that if you'd done to Aris what you did to me, that Aris would have let you have it more emphatically than I did.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I use personal language like "get off my leg" to anyone that repeatedly and perniciously misrepresents me.
You could always stop. It is creepy. No one here likes it, and everyone wishes you would stop doing it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, i'd rather have you and LR and Aris annoyed with me than believing that I believe the crap that All and Kate regularly attribute to me.

They could always stop misrepresenting me.

Besides, tom, with your habit of hostile unsolicited psychoanalysis, it seems fastidious of you gripe about my saying "get off my leg"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm worried that it's my fault you adopted that one. I think I told you in an email that I found it "effective", by which I meant effectively insulting. I think it was after the first time you used that phrase on this forum, when you were trying to get me to stay out of something, and since then you use it all the time. I'm sorry if it was my response that encouraged you to adopt it.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Besides, tom, with your habit of hostile unsolicited psychoanalysis, it seems fastidious of you gripe about my saying "get off my leg"
I'm a fastidious person.
Besides, seriously, I guarantee there is no one on this forum that will say that they find my unsolicited psychoanalysis creepier than your quasi-sexual sniping. At some point, Pete, if someone irritates you enough, you will accuse them of wanting to have sex with you.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're no one to talk about queer sexual sniping, Tom, not after your creepy and intrusive remarks that I have "daddy issues.". Talk about creepy. "Would you like some candy, little boy? Want a ride in my car"

I asked you repeatedly to stop it, but like Kate, you justified yourself.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm worried that it's my fault you adopted that one. I think I told you in an email that I found it "effective", by which I meant effectively insulting. I think it was after the first time you used that phrase on this forum, when you were trying to get me to stay out of something, and since then you use it all the time. I'm sorry if it was my response that encouraged you to adopt it.

I'm sorry you put that on yourself. I used the phrase much more frequently before you commented. It's the Utah/idaho less vulgar version of "stop jerking me off."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Besides, tom, with your habit of hostile unsolicited psychoanalysis, it seems fastidious of you gripe about my saying "get off my leg"
I'm a fastidious person.
Besides, seriously, I guarantee there is no one on this forum that will say that they find my unsolicited psychoanalysis creepier than your quasi-sexual sniping.

Noel's the only person on this board besides me that you play those psychoanalytic games with, and I'll be he finds them more offensive than my "Get off my leg" response to motive reading and false imputation.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have you accused noel of wanting to sex you up yet? Give it a shot.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just said what you said was creepy. I don't attribute sexual to anyone an actual desire to sex another up here. You know, when a dog stops humping your leg's it's not sexy or romantic; it's a crude power gesture. Like your leering jabs about "daddy issues.".
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone: Please keep your remarks focused on the topic under discussion, not each other.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is for any of you who believe that bombing more people is a solution or that any escalation against ISIS/ISIL is going to fix the problem.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/26188-the-pleasant-fiction-of-no-boots-on-the-ground

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
This is for any of you who believe that bombing more people is a solution or that any escalation against ISIS/ISIL is going to fix the problem.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/26188-the-pleasant-fiction-of-no-boots-on-the-ground

What spineless, cowardly and absurd tripe from typically liberal truth-out.org

The op - ed's suggestions on what to do are a joke and read like a list of all failed foreign policy strategies from the last 50 years.

1. Stop the airstrikes. This will make people like the US right? Hilarious.

2. Completely withdraw everything from the area and super commit to never invading. Wow. I wonder how the families of those 3 executed feel about this. The author should change their name to Neville Chamberlain.

3. Engage Iran diplomatically to help...
Never mind the fact that Iran wants nukes so it can destroy Israel and eventually attack the Great Satan, the United States.

4. Punt to the UN. Sure because this has worked so well right?

5. "Push" the UN. Just a way of trying to make step 4 sound like two steps and equally stupid because, again, it goes nowhere.

6. Increase US money to UN to give to "refugees." Yeah, because this made the Palestinians soon grateful to the US right?

I haven't seen something so willfully ignorant of history in a long time.

The author should rename the strategy, "how to ensure we get another 9-11 in a decade or less."

[ September 15, 2014, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Tom Tomorrow has been following this thread. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The idiot who penned that IS in denial unless he thinks the Foley and Sotloff beheading were faked and that ISIS hasn't seized tons of advanced weaponry we left behind in Iraq.

Funny how he throws in climate change at the end in a weal attempt to reiterate the fake 97% talking point that was debunked when it was pointed out that the Australian cook and his grad students lied about the abstracts of those 10k papers they reviewed. So much misinformation and BS there.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Our bombing so far, and arming the Kurds, without putting boots on the ground, has already done good and turned the tide. If you think anything in the article you linked to responds to anything that I nor other "no boots" advocates have made, then iterate.

The Kurds got into this situation because the us prevented them from buying the weapons they needed, and then gave the Shiites heavy artillery which they turned over to ISIS. We owe it to the Kurds and the world and our own consciences to take out our misplaced artillery.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kmbboots,

"Apart from France, our usual European allies are choosing to sit this one out to one degree or another, and most of the Arab nations - which, it should be noted, have the most vested interest in seeing these marauders eliminated - are offering only token support. Iran, a country with a very capable standing army, security force and air force, has been shown the door."

This is not an argument against the use of American air power, or an "escalation" (boots on the ground).

It is a personal condemnation of our feckless Commander-in-Chief who has consistently evidenced an ideology that identifies America as a source of, not a solution to, international conflict. Why should any political leader risk their own survival by hitching their wagon to the Obama train?

Unfortunately for us, this president is all we have. The U.S. will have to go this one alone at a time when we are the least equipped, or prepared to do so. Like Barry says; "Elections have consequences.".

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But we are not a solution. Of not a source of the problems, we are at least an accelerant. A de stabilizing force. We have only ever managed to make matters worse.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But we are not a solution. Of not a source of the problems, we are at least an accelerant. A de stabilizing force. We have only ever managed to make matters worse."...

Barry could have not said it better himself.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank goodness we have the democrats to tell us how ineffective we are and how we can't defeat our enemies.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, resident military geniuses Noel and Seneca, tell us about our glorious successes in the Mideast over the past 20 years. And tell us how much more it would have cost to prevent our present straits and how much more to get out of them now.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 17 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  15  16  17   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1