Posted by Guest (Post 1146303)

With all due respect, I asked you to start a post on the five areas you would like discussed. Did you? Have you ever criticized any of the Republican wiseass cracks made on this board? You just accept them as fact. Whether you want to hear it or not you are driving down a lovely one way street. My post number 20 was an attempt to bring Republicans back to reality. You consider that a bad thing.

Obama's policies are criticized no matter what they are. You have turned a blind eye to that, but have no problem calling Democratic/Independent posters that response to unfounded things that Obama would do. Not did, but would do!

When I defend Obama and his policies, you call my posts tiring. There are only two of us Democratic/Independent on this board that I can see. There may be more. Your post that 100% or maybe 98% are not a defense of Obama, but an attack on posters is a down right lie. I guess you just off your royal white charger, and jumped in the gutter with a hellva of other posters on this board. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms.

Did I just attack you? You damn right I did. Maybe I just tried to support your statement about the 100% or 98%. I think that would require about another 1,000 posts like this to get somewhere near the 98%. Ignore the entire post, and underline one line in it, and attack that line. That seems to be the name of the game here.

Once upon a time before the internet, we were told if you were angry write a letter and get your anger off your chest, but don't mail the letter. Too bad we can't get back to the good old days, and that includes me. I have tried several times, but have failed big time.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146214)

Bush responded to what America was screaming for, vengeance. Terrorists brought their war to us, and we responded. Congress, including Hilary and Kerry voted for the invasion. And yes, Bush did respond immediately by shutting down all air travel and secured the borders. Maybe some do not remember 9/11 but I remember exactly what I was doing at the time it happened.
Bush did get us into a war, and Obama being the pacifist he is, only wanted to chicken out of it and leave it unfinished. Being a weak "lead from behind" administrator, has emboldened terrorists to think they can bully the world. But, once we have a leader in the White House, terrorists will suddenly realize that not all Americans are as weak as a small minority of cowardly politicians.
If we had a Bush-like leader in the White House, I doubt there would have been an attack on France. Just my opinion. Terrorists are dedicated cowards. They will bully unarmed citizens and blow themselves up, but they are still cowards. They won't fight on an equal basis. And they know that America is leaderless right now and unable to organize and lead the world against them. That will change in a year, when we elect a stronger (Republican) president.

Our military trains to fight a war, not rebuild countries. We have warriors not peace corps volunteers in our military. Unleash them and allow them to do what they are experts at and the middle East will either toe the line or die. This is not the time for a weak leader. Another reason we don't want to elect Sanders, Hilary or Ran Paul.

And remember that in war there will be collateral damage; citizens killed. It's not something that we want to do, but sometimes necessary to achieve a resolution to the conflict. We dropped two big ones on Japan and won the war. Better to have collateral damage overseas than to have twin towers here.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146327)

What the terrorist do know, is the American public is tired of war. I am sorry "W" signed an agreement with Maliki, president of Iraq, for our troops to leave that country. Obama lived up to that agreement. The problem in that part of the world is not what either of our presidents did, or didn't do. The problem in that part of the world is the Muslims themselves. They, except the Kurds, will not address their own problem. The Muslims countries in that part of the world have 5 million soldiers under arms, and none of them a lifting a finger. Why, because ISIS is leaving them alone. bleep that!

Maybe now with the attacks on Paris, NATO will get off its dead ass ,and do something. I am with you. There should be a ground attack of over 100,000 troops not all ours, and wipe out ISIS from Syria, and Iraq. They can't be wiped off the face if the earth, but you can make them pretty much nonexistent. Split Iraq into three separate countries with the religious belief in each of these being the majority of the people there.

The Middle East is a no win situation. If you sit on the bench, you will not get blamed for the loss. I pity the next president. He/she is being handed a complete mess.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146303)

With all due respect, I asked you to start a post on the five areas you would like discussed. Did you? Have you ever criticized any of the Republican wiseass cracks made on this board? You just accept them as fact. Whether you want to hear it or not you are driving down a lovely one way street. My post number 20 was an attempt to bring Republicans back to reality. You consider that a bad thing.

Obama's policies are criticized no matter what they are. You have turned a blind eye to that, but have no problem calling Democratic/Independent posters that response to unfounded things that Obama would do. Not did, but would do!

When I defend Obama and his policies, you call my posts tiring. There are only two of us Democratic/Independent on this board that I can see. There may be more. Your post that 100% or maybe 98% are not a defense of Obama, but an attack on posters is a down right lie. I guess you just off your royal white charger, and jumped in the gutter with a hellva of other posters on this board. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms.

Did I just attack you? You damn right I did. Maybe I just tried to support your statement about the 100% or 98%. I think that would require about another 1,000 posts like this to get somewhere near the 98%. Ignore the entire post, and underline one line in it, and attack that line. That seems to be the name of the game here.

Once upon a time before the internet, we were told if you were angry write a letter and get your anger off your chest, but don't mail the letter. Too bad we can't get back to the good old days, and that includes me. I have tried several times, but have failed big time.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146392)

I don't believe that the Middle East is a "no win" situation. There are several strategies, most of which are not very popular.
1. Become energy self-sufficient, and quit doing business with them. Then put a moratorium on visas from the Middle East.
2. Bomb them into submission, using nukes if needed. Make them return to their nomad wandering.
3. Threaten a trade embargo on all Middle Eastern countries until they police themselves. Then, sit back and allow them to use WHATEVER means they prefer to bring this to an end. It would be bloody and nasty, but we would stay out of it.
4. Become isolationists and block all business, traffic, visas and visits from the Middle East. Break off all business ties with the Middle East, period. Not good on the economy, but effective.
5. Send massive amounts of troops over to occupy their countries and police the terrorist into extinction. Chance of losing a lot of our military members.
6. Target any city known to sympathize with the enemy and mass bomb it. We could warn all countries of our campaign so that any innocents would be able to leave, if possible.

Some of the above were similar or related. Some could be used together to achieve the goal. War is sickening, but someone has to do it in order to maintain some semblance of peace in the world. Terrorists should not be treated the same as enemy soldiers in respect to conventions. They should receive a quick trial and execution.

To achieve peace, someone may have to fight for it. Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's the truth.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146392)

I don't believe that the Middle East is a "no win" situation. There are several strategies, most of which are not very popular.
1. Become energy self-sufficient, and quit doing business with them. Then put a moratorium on visas from the Middle East.
2. Bomb them into submission, using nukes if needed. Make them return to their nomad wandering.
3. Threaten a trade embargo on all Middle Eastern countries until they police themselves. Then, sit back and allow them to use WHATEVER means they prefer to bring this to an end. It would be bloody and nasty, but we would stay out of it.
4. Become isolationists and block all business, traffic, visas and visits from the Middle East. Break off all business ties with the Middle East, period. Not good on the economy, but effective.
5. Send massive amounts of troops over to occupy their countries and police the terrorist into extinction. Chance of losing a lot of our military members.
6. Target any city known to sympathize with the enemy and mass bomb it. We could warn all countries of our campaign so that any innocents would be able to leave, if possible.

Some of the above were similar or related. Some could be used together to achieve the goal. War is sickening, but someone has to do it in order to maintain some semblance of peace in the world. Terrorists should not be treated the same as enemy soldiers in respect to conventions. They should receive a quick trial and execution.

To achieve peace, someone may have to fight for it. Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's the truth.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146412)

I like this post in that it provides different scenarios to resolve a problem. Even if you don't agree with them at least they have been put out there in an interesting and concise way. So much better than the tedious blaming game.

BTW, 1 & 6 in conjunction are intriguing.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146398)

I'll pray for you. You are obviously having a bad day.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146392)

I don't believe that the Middle East is a "no win" situation. There are several strategies, most of which are not very popular.
1. Become energy self-sufficient, and quit doing business with them. Then put a moratorium on visas from the Middle East.
2. Bomb them into submission, using nukes if needed. Make them return to their nomad wandering.
3. Threaten a trade embargo on all Middle Eastern countries until they police themselves. Then, sit back and allow them to use WHATEVER means they prefer to bring this to an end. It would be bloody and nasty, but we would stay out of it.
4. Become isolationists and block all business, traffic, visas and visits from the Middle East. Break off all business ties with the Middle East, period. Not good on the economy, but effective.
5. Send massive amounts of troops over to occupy their countries and police the terrorist into extinction. Chance of losing a lot of our military members.
6. Target any city known to sympathize with the enemy and mass bomb it. We could warn all countries of our campaign so that any innocents would be able to leave, if possible.

Some of the above were similar or related. Some could be used together to achieve the goal. War is sickening, but someone has to do it in order to maintain some semblance of peace in the world. Terrorists should not be treated the same as enemy soldiers in respect to conventions. They should receive a quick trial and execution.

To achieve peace, someone may have to fight for it. Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's the truth.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146638)

The policies that you are putting forward are too extreme. You are declaring war on hundreds of billions of people. The US oil companies won't let you walk away from so called friendly Arab nations. they have too much invested there. Congress will certainly listen to them.

Being energy independent makes all the sense in the world, but we have to go one step further. We have to be the major supplier of oil/gas to Europe, and maybe Japan. we are getting that much energy from the Middle East. By not buying oil from them will not hurt them. They have plenty of other customers. China is one of them,. We sent a lot of our production to China, because of their cheap labor. We are our worse enemy.

There is no way in hell that we can't destroy ISIS in Syria, and Iraq. Are we talking about 30/40 thousand lunatics in a confined area. The people in this area don't seem to be doing anything about them, but cutting and running. That is not a bad thing. Maybe now our NATO, and Arab allies may now get off their asses, and put together a large force of troops together and attack ISIS. Do what we did in the IRAQ wars. Bomb the hell out of them from the ground and sky for a long period of time, and then send the ground troops in. So worrying about collateral damage.

However, you can't stop small groups of terrorists from attacking us, or other countries. These people are just no damn good. You are not going to stop terrorism.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146678)

Of course it's in the planning here as Mr do nothing President says Isis is contained a few hrs before yet another mass killing. We Are at war folks. The only one who doesn't know is Obama. Sometimes I think he hates America and he sits and watches as we all get attacked and killed. He is not doing his job of protecting us.

Posted by Guest (Post 1146682)

He is actually faking it while running interference for muslims....especially radical islamists!