obama could win 2016 for dems by declaring total war on ISIS
 

take a few months to build up an invasion force, unleash hell early next fall, mission accomplished by election day. would be a cakewalk for the dem nominee, especially if it was Joe Biden. even if USA was attacked, public would rally around strong leader.

but obama is big throbbing pussy. even dems know public will go rightwing when they feel insecure, thats why they all voted for iraq. any attack on USA will hand election to repubs.

mark prince start practicing to say president trump. :)

Harsh :1orglaugh:thumbsup

Mark Prince is Canadian and he has a Prime Minister. He just goes off about US politics all the time cause like most of us, he has no idea who the Prime Minister is, what he (or she?) looks like or what they do since nobody cares.

Ask Osam Bin Laden if he's a pussy.

I guess there's a fine line between being a pussy and using your brain to make decisions.

If the republican response is to be terrified of terrorism they obviously are not leadership material.

Unleash hell next fall, that's about right. The french and the Russians will leave a dust bowl for us to attack!@

if having strict limits on rules of engagement in air campaign, forbidding ground troops, is the way a "brain" wages a war which the intended strategy is to win a war against ISIS...i mean WTF are we doing if we are at war? fighting to stalemate? hows does the 500 billion dollar US military arrive at a stalemate with a bunch of religious wackos with Kalashnikovs?

but obama is more concerned that women serve in infantry. after all obama is never going to use soldiers so why not.

i guess you & i have totally different idea of brains. :)

they are properly terrified that obama is doing clinton redux, you know when clinton was taking BJs from intern in oval office while Osama was killing americans on USS cole & embassies in africa.

at least this time there will be no intern BJs. thank goodness.

You mean like when Bush was taking more vacations than any other president in history and ignoring warnings that Osama was planning attacks on the US. Not only that but being specifically warned by Clinton of the terror threat as he entered office.

Of course as usual you dumb right wing war mongers, yell and scream on the internet, then cower in your homes watching Fox News clinging to the gun under your pillow scared of your own shadows.

Lets not forget it was Republicans who wanted to arm the Islamist in sysria who later allowed those arms to be taken by ISIS. It was also Republican leadership who allowed Bin Laden to escape to Pakistan then cried about Obama sending troops to kill him. It was also Republican leadership who lied to the world about WMDs and created the entire mess we have now..

It was also Republican leadership which enjoyed 6 years of complete control under Bush, but still failed to secure the boarders and fix immigration which of course is suddenly a issue once they lose the following election..

Yea.. Republican president.. 2016.. Not a fucking chance in hell but keep deluding yourselves.

Takes a big man to point and say, "engage". God forbid he fell out of his chair, or sustained a catastrophic staple wound. Maybe bleed to death from a paper cut? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Obama is a pussy, and it looks like both sides of the aisle are starting to parrot the same sentiment.

Comparing Bush with Obama is like comparing whether you like corn better if it comes out of shit or vomit. They were both tragic mistakes that the U.S. will be paying for years down the road. Obama didn't put us on this course, the Bush family did, but instead of grabbing the wheel and putting us on a better course, he closed his eyes and motored ahead.

I sure hope he reads GFY

you have good points about bush, he def was lazy about the threat in summer 01 & there is no excuse for it. & yes i would say rummy let osama go so we could have political wind for iraq.

you can certainly make cases that both parties screw things up in their own special way. Today the president is a democrat & he is the decider. unlike bush, who had hair trigger for fake threat, obama has constipation over a real one. both ways, USA is not being served well.

actually repubs have been calling for ground war since 2011, at this point it looks like that was the right call. obama set a red line & flaked out. bibi comes into his own town & tears him to shreds, obama does nothing. GIANT PUSSY.

you can be as partisan as you want crockett...but you know im right...if obama does not take off the diapers, its gonna be a right wing circus in DC come january 2017.

:)

Might be harder than they think to take out.

They've been growing silently for years.

Obama ran on bringing our troops home. That's what he promised to do and he's tried to do it. Deploying troops back to the country he just took them out of is likely pretty low on his list of things to do.

You have to admit he's in a rough spot when it comes to that. Hell even Trump himself has said let Russia and MI boys do it instead of sending ours..

There is no winning these type of wars as we clearly see in both Iraq & Afghan, so what exactly do you think sending troops in will achieve?

We currently spend more than 15 billion a year on antiterrorism so I would say "yes" our current leadership is concerned with terrorism. Wouldn't you?

really? what is the status of al qaeda today? we have put nonstop pressure on them for 14 years. we dont even talk about al qaeda anymore.

so did our sending troops to afghanistan accomplish none of this? :)

intelligent people know that terrorism will not be eliminated, no different than racism will be eliminated (someone tell that to BLM!) but we can maximize our security by making terrorists constantly worry about their own security. AKA, keep going after them with everything we got. Obama took the foot off the gas, now ISIS is growing not shrinking, not worrying about obamas limited use of bombs, & they can kill people outside syria, & lately been doing so.

it takes time for a terror organization to grow to the point it attacks targets globally. with persistent offense by US army, we can keep those cells limited to their own turf. in that way, al qaeda could never attack the USA homeland ever again. this is an important point while obama gave ISIS the time & security needed to grow, exactly like clinton did in 90s. ISIS is 100% on obama not bush, sorry.

i think our troops can stop the threat. the question is, will USA allow them to run away again like they did in tora bora & in anbar province??? maybe this time, circle them in a ring & bring in the cattle cars. at worst, it buys the US a decade to prepare for the next threat that arises, & gets blamed on todays president for doing something about ISIS.

:)

First of all, before we do anything, we need to separate politics from military force. The two do not and can not ever go together. The President of the United States (or any country) should not be waging war hoping to improve ratings for himself or his party. That's just plain immoral.

I really think Obama is going to stay the course here. He does not want boots on the ground. The United States has been on the ground in the Middle East since 2001, and he wants us to be done with this.

At the same time, we need to remember that we cannot use a military solution to solve a terrorist problem. Military forces are used to fight other military forces, but terrorism is a criminal act. Our military (including forces from Europe) fought and won in both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, terrorism still exists. If we were to nuke both all of Iraq and all of Syria today, ISIS would still exist. ISIS is not a government or a country in one location; It's in dozens of countries. Sending in troops to Syria or Iraq will not solve the problem of fighting terrorism. It would help, but terrorism will always exist in some form.

With all of that said... I say we need to go in and kick ass and STAY there. I believe in what I call "disproportionate force". You do "x" to us, and will occupy your land and dominate your society for the next one hundred years. This sends a very clear and strong message that says if you so much as attack us once we will own your ass for very long time.

Society has become too "gentle" with waging war. We try to do as little damage as possible. At the close of World War II there was no attempt by Nazi Germany or Japan to continue fighting even passively after surrendering. They accepted defeat. The reason why was because we carpet bombed the hell out of them, destroying entire cities in a single day, killing hundreds of thousands of people - daily. Nazi Germany and Japan was physically exhausted. With Afghanistan and Iraq we used precision bombing and instead of destroying entire cities we did as little damage as possible. The end result is instead of them being exhausted and disgusted with waging war, they are upset at their government. Instead of saying "War is absolutely horrible and we need to do everything in our power to prevent this from ever happening again" they say "I am unhappy because I am unable to get a job and feed my family so I will resist by committing acts of terror such as planting IEDs".

Until the entire majority of the Middle Eastern people accept that radical religion needs to be stamped this will continue.

trump is talking out of both sides of his asshole regarding ISIS. he told o reilly that he would circle them, bomb them off the earth, & take their oil.

either 1) you cant take trump seriously or 2) he is going to be a much bigger nutter than bush ever was.

i personally go with option 1 cause its questionable if trump is republican at all. his tax policy, economic policy, campaign finance policy, democrat democrat democrat. he says he is prolife now. whatever. he outright says he holds back his true positions in the name of making deals. Should be fun to have a POTUS-elect where nobody has a clue what he really stands for. voting for trump will be like the game show lets-make-a-deal!

rochard. i think the millions of refugees fleeing toward europe is a testament that more arabs than not think terror must go. however these innocents are poor, powerless & unarmed. IMO if europe is going to decide to reject good people & send them back to a bad place, at least give them an AR-15 & a ham sandwich to take the fight to the bad guys.

Would you really expect a Republican to understand the nuances and intricacies of dealing with global terrorism? They can only grasp concepts such as "me scared. Me shoot gun".

jeb bush would be the best guy to handle the nuances. isnt that ironic!

i would support a democrat that is not a pussy. but jim webb bowed out. besides, nobody in democrats has any courage anymore, they are all sucking up to a movement that is offended by halloween costumes.

Did you read that nonsense rochard wrote? His view is your conclusion re: republicans- me shoot gun.

Ftr, a hawkish BO would lead to a hawkish Republican being voted in to finish the job.

We don't talk about al Queda just like we don't talk about the Talib an but both still exists. Yes we did a lot to dismantle al Queda as I mentioned in another post but they do still exist.

It's just we now have a bigger bogeyman than them to talk about. ISIS is now in many countries so where and how do we hit them all?

One thing which does irritate me is they are selling oil. Why has their infastructure not been taken out? They can't pump oil if their power plants no longer work.

Why is their oil flow g through Turkey and who is buying it?

You would think so.... But not really.

My grandmother was teenager in Poland during WWII, and she lost everything. I mean EVERYTHING. She lost her mother, father, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, every one. She was the only survivor from her family - dozens and dozens of people.

Until the Syrian people experience that... Nothing will change.

The people of the Middle East do not have the willpower to do anything. They are running away from the problem instead of fixing it. This is why terrorism exists - they cannot fight us head on, so they hide with the civilian population. They are cowards.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. We must always keep politics out of this.

Our government and elected leaders cannot make decisions on going to war (or not going to war) based on party lines or what one party wants to do. At the same time, we need to be united about this - In the event we decide to go to war we need to stand behind our government 100%.

A stepped-up campaign has been promised and in progress before the french shootings.
But nobody is going to put 50,000 new targets on the ground for ISIS.

Who would hold the territory once won anyway.
If your going to keep troops on the ground to hold it AGAIN, they will be targets.

Nobody would argue our ability to take them out. But at what cost to keep them out ?

There will never be peace in the middle east till those that have the benefit of the peace have a investment in the war.
It's the best deterrent I've ever seen.
If you don't have that, expect more of the same.

funny cause biden is sitting in a spot where the president could direct biden to take care of this & then biden runs for president on the premise of finishing off ISIS.

but its pointless to speculate that a radical peacenik is going to go to war. if ISIS attacks the homeland, the election is a done deal, cause obama will look horrible & his administration will look as bad as bush in 2008. the pope could run as democrat, & lose.

If the US is attacked, Obama will order in the troops, everyone will rally around him, and he'll look like a hero.

I see a lot of irony in people's comments right now. People are saying "The President of France is doing what Obama is unwilling to do - take the fight to the enemy". France is bombing Syria, which is what the United States has being for the past two years. Obama bombs Syria for two years and they call him a weak leader, France bombs Syria and they are a leader.

People don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Most of the people talking about Syria prob didn't even know what it was till France

Please Rochtard you make my head hurt.
If Obama was bombing ISIS for 2 years what was he bombing, out houses? How could there still be an ISIS headquarters left for France to bomb?

I think army be of sabotaging orders Obama's.
target is: "Obama is weak, vote Republican" :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

There is no such thing as 'ISIS' or 'ISL' it's a funded condition of NATO to bring you into serfdom.
Go ahead and buy into it. Just don't ask to be on my team :2 cents:

LOL! Why? He won't be my problem, he'll be yours! Nya nya nyaahhhh..


Not true. I just find that American Politics has more interesting characters than Canadian politics does.



http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/u...1s5bb8ko1_.gif


Correct me if I'm wrong, but George Bush himself said that he "gave up" looking for Bin Laden.



Anyway... it looks like the shit has really hit the fan. Now that France and Russia are hitting them hard, maybe all this shit will end sooner.

Want to know a scary thought? France declared the attacks in Paris to be an act of war. I'm willing to bet the idea of using a Nuke has been uttered a few times....

Obama did run on "bringing our troops home". And he did. We removed nearly all of our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. He did what he promised.

However, now a new threat has come up and needs to be dealt with. We need to send the troops back in to deal with this new problem.

More rochard nonsense. Obama broke his promise to end the war in Afghanistan.
American troops will continue to remain in Afghanistan through the end of Barack Obama's presidency, prolonging a 14-year conflict that Obama pledged to wrap up by 2014.

Obama announced on Oct. 15 a new White House plan that lays out a "modest but meaningful extension of our presence" in the country, the second time the administration has stalled withdrawal this year alone.

The Obameter: End the war in Afghanistan in 2014 | PolitiFact

Cause and effect. The reason ISIS exists is because he ran on, and kept the promise to bring the troops home. Even if that wasn't the right decision.

I hate quoting Bush on anything, I think he's just about as worthless as Obama. But he sure as hell nailed it when he said pulling out of Iraq early was a yuge mistake. Everything he said in 2007 is coming to fruition.

How'd you hear about it?

nevermind.
 

i had no idea obama ran the military this bad...

basically, americans are going to die soon, & libs wont be able to blame bush now. how many more things does obama have to do before liberals finally realize it was their guy that got them killed?

so lets dicuss how many americans in NY & DC will die because of obama.

terrorists will fill the vacuum of power.
Afghanistan - 90% size opium market is the world.
imagine how much is money?
they fall into the hands of the Taliban again + the whole oil state syria in the hands of isis.
It will have a network of terrorist states :1orglaugh

I'm pretty sure the republicans are going to lose it all by themselves and don't need outside help.