Featured What to do

So which of the current GOP candidates fills that bill with you? The only one that I see that is not a frothing warmonger is Rand Paul.

 

Luring people off topic is no trick. There are several here that do it well.

All it really means is you have nothing meaningful to contribute on the topic at hand, so you try to get to where you can feel validated on some other issue.

If that's what is important to you...

 

I will vote for anyone that is not named Bush, Christie, Kasich, or Trump. I am rooting for Cruz or Rubio. I like Rand Paul but he is too much of an isolationist for my taste. As I think it was Cruz who said if you think defending the US is expensive try not defending her. And we are seeing the cost of not defending the US rise everyday.

 

Oh, wow. I'm 'luring people' now. This is a new smear coming from you. I'm now a 'lurer''.

 

I'm convinced that is exactly what the U.S. needs right now, to take a back seat in world affairs and concentrate on things at home. The world won't go to hell in a hand basket if we were to do that for 4-8 years, and this country would benefit immensely from it. We desperately need to get our own house in order.

 

Um the world has gone to hell in a hand basket since we have taken a back seat. The US has most definitely not benefited from ignoring the rest of the world for the last 6 years. My studies of history tells me that Europe is on the brink of another World War and the US would get pulled into it so we might as well be ready. Obama like I said is leaving a huge mess for his successor.

 

This mess is not Obama's fault. And I don't know what you think 'his successor' is going to do to straighten out world affairs, but whatever it is that you're imagining, it will cost immense sums of money that we simply don't have. We borrow 'our' money from China and Japan and then blow it to the whims of the right wingnut warmongers or the leftist socialists, depending on who's in charge of the purse strings at the time or what sort of deal the two make between themselves.

 

Yes , it is.

"When US troops withdrew and the Iraqi government abandoned the... fighters, the Islamic State was the only surviving option for those who felt betrayed and wanted to change sides again,"

Obama was responsible for the precipitous withdrawal leading to the creation of ISIS.

He was warned by our military leaders and just about anyone that knew anything about the situation in Iraq what would happen. He ignored all advice. Then he doubled down by supplying ISIS with weapons and training.

The ISIS mess is his and his alone.

 

Feel free to defend Obama all you want but I will always believe he is the worst president we have ever had. What he has done to this country is tragic and if we had an opposition party worth its salt he would have been impeached and put in jail for what he had done to this country.

And I don't envy his successor since they will have to deal with his mess and a severely divided country.

 

I'm in no way defending this Marxist. I'm a realist. It doesn't matter, right or left, if this nation as we know it is to survive we absolutely must bring this under control:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

You're hilarious.

Why did Rumsfeld resign?

 

Not going well for you so you change the topic again.Laugh

According to your own source:

"When US troops withdrew and the Iraqi government abandoned the Awakening fighters, the Islamic State was the only surviving option for those who felt betrayed and wanted to change sides again,"


http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...edly-of-consequences-of-withdrawal-from-iraq/

Top government officials and military brass repeatedly warned of the consequences of sticking to a timetable on full Iraq War troop withdrawal, but President Obama proceeded with the plan in 2011 anyway.
SNIP

The consequences: the rise of the terrorist group ISIL and the full destabilization of the country in the years since. In January, these violent extremists overran Ramadi and Fallujah and have seized large swaths of land in Iraq and Syria.

Obama pawned responsibility off to CIA Director James Clapper and others for underestimating the threat in a recent 60 Minutes interview, but intelligence officials have warned Obama about ISIL for months.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leon-panetta-criticizes-obama-for-iraq-withdrawal/

Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal

In a new book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

"It was clear to me--and many others--that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together," Panetta writes in the book, an excerpt of which was published on Time.com this week.
SNIP
"My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in Iraq's interest but also in ours," Panetta writes. "I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq's military."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...enerals-pleas-to-keep-american-forc/?page=all


President Obama ignored general’s pleas to keep American military forces in Iraq


The last American commander in Iraq recommended to the Obama administration that 23,000 U.S. troops remain to cement the victory, but no deal was ever reached with Baghdad, and all combat forces went home.

That stalemate has come back to haunt the country as al Qaeda-linked extremists, who had been defeated by 2011, have returned to Iraq in a terrorist campaign to capture huge swaths of territory in northern and western areas.



Obama owns the ISIS debacle. Entirely and alone.

 

“Clearly what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough,” Rumsfeld wrote in his Nov. 6 memo, seeking consideration of “an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases” from 55 to 10 to 15 by April 2007 and to five by July 2007.

Another idea was to commit U.S. forces only to provinces and cities that request the assistance. “Unless they [the local Iraqi governments] cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province,” Rumsfeld wrote.

Rumsfeld also suggested that U.S. generals “withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions – cities, patrolling, etc. – and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.”

And in an implicit criticism of Bush’s lofty rhetoric about transforming Iraq and the Middle East, Rumsfeld said the administration should “recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) – go minimalist.” [NYT, Dec. 3, 2006]"

The reality of the failure of the whole regime change scheme had become painfully apparent.

That's why Rumsfeld resigned.

Obama inherited the mess, he did not create it. As much as 'you people' hate to admit it, Obama was elected to get us out of that mess, and he did it. Rant your right wingnut madness all you want, but those are the facts.

 

So what. Bush, fortunately rejected Rumsfields advice and then authorized the highly successful surge that turned the war around. Rumsfield had nothing to do with the precipitous withdrawal which, according to your own source, created ISIS. He was ancient history by the time Obama ignored all his advisors and played politics, turning victory into an unholy mess.

Obama owns it.

Switch subjects again. It's a sign of desperation.

 

Another sign of desperation is going back and rating 3 of my posts as dumb. But you didn't go back far enough, kiddo. Do 'em all. It'll make you feel a little taller, I'm sure.Roflmao

Done here. You've completely lost it.

 

What a crock of right wingnut dung. Neocons Dubya & Cheney et al own it. The majority of the electorate sees it, so get over it.

 

It is not double speak. I answered the hypothetical in the op. If we want to get rid of them that is what is needed. However, that does not mean that I do not see that there are other things that should hold us back. The debt should be our highest priority.

 

C4K- Question for you. If I recall correctly, you are in either Ireland or England. I had heard from a relative (closer to the situation there than I) that there was a growing concern by the citizenry about the inability of individuals to defend themselves because of the restrictive gun laws. Is this what you are hearing?