Before today is completely over......

AZ Jim

AZ Jim

R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
Location
SURPRISE, ARIZONA
I want to post a short list of those who are more than happy to send troops to die in the middle east. You'll recognize most if not all of the names.
Ted Nugent
Bill O'Reilly
Bill Krystol
Sean Hannity
Glen Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Dick Cheney
Mitch McConnell
Keven McCarthy
Mitt Romney

Some of these people were not in position to make official statements supporting sending troops but are supporters of those who are and have touted themselves as true Red White and Blue patriots.

How many of them served in the Armed Forces?

Yep!!!! Not a single solitary one of them.
 

Last edited:
Since they are so patriotic, let's enact a special law that allows them to be the first to go!
 

Veterans and the military in general have become another minority group once the draft was eliminated...
 
Saw a montage last evening of the Republican presidential hopefuls, all talking about how they would bomb the hell out of ISIS and Iran, and send in troops.. tens of thousands of them.. It was Rubio, Trump, Graham, Jindal, and a few others that I am forgetting... anyway.. Lots of bravado.. but not one single plan or comment on what we would do AFTER we bombed the hell out of them.. and that friends is the bigger problem.
 
We would destroy ISIS and leave with the nation-building left to the resident population with some economic aid...
 
Oh sure.... and all the tribal discourse would magically go away.. and our "aid" wouldn't be waylaid by some other extremist Sunni group, quick to take the place of ISIS.. unwilling to live with the indignity of a Shia government... and yada yada yada yada yada... ad infinatum.

MORE American lives spent is never going to undo the damage GW Bush has done to destabilize the region. It cannot be fixed by our continued meddling
 
Sorry, but more and more legitimate voices are saying that ISIS must be stopped even if it means boots on the ground, even Obama said that if ISIS tries to get a nuke that he would send in the troops...
 
No, no, I am saying that it just isn't hawkish politicians but a lot of ME analysts, former and present military, CIA types, professors, etc., that are now becoming alarmed...
 
Then.... ISIS will be replaced by something just as bad... if not worse.. There is no fixing the mess that was made. Not unless we commit to spending all our resourses in policing the ME... while all our infrastructure, schools, utilities and transit goes straight to hell..
 
Not necessarily, ISIS is a threat to the world but the Sunnis and the Shiites are only threats to each other with the exception of Iran...
 
ISIS is LOVES sabre rattling and shock value.... They talk big about world takeover, but their primary goal is to wipe out Shiites.. ALL the beheadings and burnings are to cause the Shia to run like scared babies... as evidenced by their latest conquest of Ramadi. Their tactics work. Iran is Shia.... and Iran is after ISIS.. is that a bad thing?

You have to remember... THERE IS NO IRAQ.. not any longer.. it's open territory for the Shia, the Sunnis and perhaps the Kurds to fight over. Iraq was a figment of the United Kingdom's imagination in 1919... It's gone... Bush and company saw to that... although I don't think that's what they believe would happen.. How short sighted and stupid..
 
Saw an excellent program on BBC about ISIS. This is not just a bunch of fanatics running around. They do have structure and governmental agencies and the Shiites are only one group on their hit list. To put it bluntly, they have greater ambitions and we had better take a closer look...
 
Ralphy1 said:
Saw an excellent program on BBC about ISIS. This is not just a bunch of fanatics running around. They do have structure and governmental agencies and the Shiites are only one group on their hit list. To put it bluntly, they have greater ambitions and we had better take a closer look...
Click to expand...

So did Genghis Kahn.
 
I just heard that the armored vehicles that we supplied and were left behind by the fleeing Iraqui soldiers are now being turned into massive moving suicide bombs that could take out a city block. There is an old expression in chess, never underestimate your opponent...
 
Ralphy1 said:
I just heard that the armored vehicles that we supplied and were left behind by the fleeing Iraqui soldiers are now being turned into massive moving suicide bombs that could take out a city block. There is an old expression in chess, never underestimate your opponent...
Click to expand...

Yeah... so lets send lots more over there.... give them to the Iraqi army when we are done losing more American lives... and let them abandon them to ISIS or it's replacement again.. Really good plan
 
That big push to get out of Iraq is the biggest problem made a few years back. Being there to help Iraq design their own new government was a good move. Then leaving was the big mistake.

We should have done as the allies did after the end of WWII in Europe and Japan. We stayed on for some unspecified years and helped keep radicals from taking over countries in Europe. Look how long we stayed in Berlin itself. Pretty much stifled the communist efforts to take over Germany after WWII ended. Good thing too as much of Europe is living without there wars every 20 years or so. Still having some problems in the area of Russia, but not likely communist any more, just territorial as many seem to support.

Those radicals in the Arab countries see no boundaries to what they intend to do. Wild religious folks see what they intend to do as better for the world than anything else imaginable. Those outside the religious mobs will always need to protect themselves at all times. To that religious mob they see things as simple as can be. Be one of us entirely, or be dead.
 
Why was it the West's business to impose those boundaries in the first place? Those were imposed on the tribes... they were not designed by the tribes. It's would be like a foreign entity coming to the States and reconfiguring where New York ends and where Connecticut begins.. Or giving Arizona part of California. What has blurred though, is what is religious and what is political.. This is how a Theocracy functions, and they are simply fighting over who has the power over the other. We need to stay out of it.. We have mucked it up enough. Sadam Hussein was a despot to be sure. BUT he was a Sunni, and kept a pretty tight reign on the infighting. He is gone and all hell is breaking lose.. If ISIS is stamped out... another group will take it's place.... and It's not going to be a democracy no matter how much we wish it, or how many times we go over there to be the policeman.
 
QuickSilver said:
Why was it the West's business to impose those boundaries in the first place? Those were imposed on the tribes... they were not designed by the tribes. It's would be like a foreign entity coming to the States and reconfiguring where New York ends and where Connecticut begins.. Or giving Arizona part of California. What has blurred though, is what is religious and what is political.. This is how a Theocracy functions, and they are simply fighting over who has the power over the other. We need to stay out of it.. We have mucked it up enough. Sadam Hussein was a despot to be sure. BUT he was a Sunni, and kept a pretty tight reign on the infighting. He is gone and all hell is breaking lose.. If ISIS is stamped out... another group will take it's place.... and It's not going to be a democracy no matter how much we wish it, or how many times we go over there to be the policeman.
Click to expand...

Years back it was some sort of set up from the English government of those days. What was recently done in Iraq was the desires of the people themselves. They had months of time allowed to describe the country they wanted. They then had months of time setting it up and having elections to establish the new design. To me, the big problem was in not staying around long enough to make sure the government actually got developed as the people had chosen and elected. Unfortunately we ran and the elected government did not give themselves time to allow the new government to develop and the religious from Iran came in and took over the government, not allowing it to develop as it should. The forces that had help take over Iraq and make it possible for them to develop and elect a new style of government should have stayed in place long enough to see it all mature, as we did in Europe and Japan after WWII.

What we have now is not the results planned for Iraq after Saddam. A self described, not religious run, government of elected people. So close to being a real free and non religious driven country. But instead we left and allowed a neighboring country, Iran, take over and now the entire area of Iraq is in total mess and disrepair.
 
BobF said:
Years back it was some sort of set up from the English government of those days. What was recently done in Iraq was the desires of the people themselves. They had months of time allowed to describe the country they wanted. They then had months of time setting it up and having elections to establish the new design. To me, the big problem was in not staying around long enough to make sure the government actually got developed as the people had chosen and elected. Unfortunately we ran and the elected government did not give themselves time to allow the new government to develop and the religious from Iran came in and took over the government, not allowing it to develop as it should. The forces that had help take over Iraq and make it possible for them to develop and elect a new style of government should have stayed in place long enough to see it all mature, as we did in Europe and Japan after WWII.

What we have now is not the results planned for Iraq after Saddam. A self described, not religious run, government of elected people. So close to being a real free and non religious driven country. But instead we left and allowed a neighboring country, Iran, take over and now the entire area of Iraq is in total mess and disrepair.
Click to expand...

Not at all what happened Bob. What happened was that Maliki set up the new Iraqi government and all but shut out the Sunnis making it primarily a Shiite run government.. THEN Maliki refused to grant immunity to our troops which would have allowed the US to stay longer.. We had no choice but to follow George Bushes negotiated timeline for troop withdrawal. It was Maliki's decision we leave... not President Obama's.

ISIS is Sunni... like Sadam Hussein. They came into power because they felt the need for revenge against the overthrown dictator, and because they were shut out of the Maliki regime.. This is the primary reason ISIS started. In additional most of the middle class Sunni's who felt excluded suddenly preferred the Militants.. ie ISIS to the Shiite dominated Maliki government.

Iran happens to be Shiite. They hate ISIS because they are taking control of territory Iran considers Shiite. This is why Iran is moving in to Iraq... they don't consider it Iraq.. they want to take control of territory that ISIS is claiming to be Sunni. In fact they are fighting with the Shiite government against ISIS.. they have not taken over the government.

We may have been able to keep the peace by staying in Iraq, however, no matter how long we stayed, this ancient battle between the Sunnis and the Shiites would have erupted as soon as we left. ISIS simply filled the void left by the death of Sadam Hussein.
 
My only point is being lost in the noise of what if's. Why do the chickenhawks in the Republican "mouth squad" all avoid military service?
 
AZ Jim said:
My only point is being lost in the noise of what if's. Why do the chickenhawks in the Republican "mouth squad" all avoid military service?
Click to expand...

Well, it's really easy to thump your chest and rattle your sword when you don't have to shed your blood, or the blood of your family. Also, they are killing two birds with one stone.. They are appealing to a faction of their base that feels fighting and killing makes one a patriotic American, and reasoning and negotiating makes one weak. The other and more powerful faction is the Military Industrial complex, whose barons always make billions from a well funded war. They also tend to contribute generously to campaign coffers.
 
QuickSilver said:
Well, it's really easy to thump your chest and rattle your sword when you don't have to shed your blood, or the blood of your family. Also, they are killing two birds with one stone.. They are appealing to a faction of their base that feels fighting and killing makes one a patriotic American, and reasoning and negotiating makes one weak. The other and more powerful faction is the Military Industrial complex, whose barons always make billions from a well funded war. They also tend to contribute generously to campaign coffers.
Click to expand...

Yet, these very germs call themselves "Patriot".
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top