The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I'm trying to remember the name of the poster who always hyperventilates whenever anyone else brings Bush The Lesser into a discussion. An old guy wearing a perpetual scowl and what remains of a 50-yerar-old Goldwater for President t-shirt.

Perhaps. At least the old dude makes an effort (not always successfully) to be consistent. Unlike others (who shall go nameless) who find no fault whatsoever with any Democrat anywhere, ever (unless he/she changes party) especially The One. Kepler, to the best of my knowledge, is the only member of the chorale to suggest He needs congressional approval here. The rest of you just genuflect every time he walks by. The old boy also occasionally wonders when the ladies of the chorale will start laying at least a little blame at the feet of the Community Organizer in Chief. It's been six years, girls.

BTW, that's not a scowl. It's gas.

[burd]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Not a syllable of criticism for a single Democrat. Including the cup wielding clown in the WH. Nicely done. I'm trying to guess your reaction if either Bush had failed to go to Congress for authorization for military action. Just a WAG, but I'm guessing you'd have been a teensy bit critical.

I'm trying to remember the name of the poster who always hyperventilates whenever anyone else brings Bush The Lesser into a discussion. An old guy wearing a perpetual scowl and what remains of a 50-yerar-old Goldwater for President t-shirt.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Not a syllable of criticism for a single Democrat. Including the cup wielding clown in the WH. Nicely done. I'm trying to guess your reaction if either Bush had failed to go to Congress for authorization for military action. Just a WAG, but I'm guessing you'd have been a teensy bit critical.

Obama didn't fail to go to Congress. He asked Congress to do it and they declined.

Bush took us to war when he knew better. Now Obama is doing the same. They're both idiots as far as I'm concerned.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I find it interesting that neither Lindsey, nor King, nor McCain thought it important for Obama to have authorization before bombing Syria.

And, I also find it interesting that the Bone Man and McConnell want their states to re-elect them to great positions of power while they spend their current time in office shirking their responsibility.

Congress is broken.

Not a syllable of criticism for a single Democrat. Including the cup wielding clown in the WH. Nicely done. I'm trying to guess your reaction if either Bush had failed to go to Congress for authorization for military action. Just a WAG, but I'm guessing you'd have been a teensy bit critical.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is supposed to be a generational conflict good for at least 15 years' of appropriations. We can't do anything right.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

From the Karma is a b-itch file

She can fly jets but they don't let her drive or walk unaccompanied by a man.

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

From the Karma is a b-itch file

#NoVirginsForYou

@BretBaier

Confirmed: 1st Female pilot for UAE was their team leader in the Syria strikes Monday night -Major Mariam Al Mansouri

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Looks like a Frenchman got beheaded. Meanwhile in Marseilles. ...

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The lesson for me (aside from some world leaders like Karzai need to be told to S T F U) is that you can't let a war become an occupation. Strike militarily, then leave. If trouble starts again, strike again. The two most successful recent wars, Bosnia and the Gulf War, were done in this manner. Yes in both cases we had to launch more military strikes (Kosovo in the Balkans and multiple strikes against Saddam pre-Bush II) but never was the US responsible for the wholesale security of either country.

So, same thing with ISIS. Bomb the p !ss out of them until they go away and let local troops deal with them. If they stick their heads up again later on, start bombing again. Its far better than restarting the ludicrous Iraq War complete with boots on the ground doing the fighting for the Iraqis.

The lesson for me is you leave the country in shambles OR you take it over. **** nation building and all it entails.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

"Personnel reshuffle" - that's cute.

So in other words, Mr. Xiaochuan is about to be vaporized.

Yeah, you don't want to get dropped from the People's Org Chart.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Speaking of our Future Overlords

"Personnel reshuffle" - that's cute.

So in other words, Mr. Xiaochuan is about to be vaporized.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Speaking of our Future Overlords

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Again you fit another segment of world history into your pet narrative. You're tenacity in pushing it is impressive.

Your, not you're.

Also, it's a different narrative. Well, OK, maybe a different verse.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Brits knew how to do these things. When you want to milk a country dry, you co-opt one native group and train them up as the middle management. You stay on top but aside from the occasional civilian massacre you do little more than sit and collect the taxes and extract resources. You justify it all by saying you're bringing the fuzzy-wuzzies civilization, or you're protecting them from the bad old Russian bear (German eagle, Yellow Peril, whatever). And you let the hate-pinched-faced old maids hand out Bibles. Every once in a while one of them will get strung up and then you can declare a revenge war against the "threat to Christianity and (sniff) motherhood" and gas a few thousand malcontents. Meanwhile, the trade lanes to India stay open and the money keeps pouring in.

We're getting there. Our model is different from the Brits primarily in who gets the goodies. The Brits poured a lot of it back into the Empire. We're putting it into private pockets. So far the rubes haven't noticed, but ours is an inherently more risky business model.

Again you fit another segment of world history into your pet narrative. You're tenacity in pushing it is impressive.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Read that and tell me these wars aren't a colossal waste of time and money.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09...ewell-address/

The Brits knew how to do these things. When you want to milk a country dry, you co-opt one native group and train them up as the middle management. You stay on top but aside from the occasional civilian massacre you do little more than sit and collect the taxes and extract resources. You justify it all by saying you're bringing the fuzzy-wuzzies civilization, or you're protecting them from the bad old Russian bear (German eagle, Yellow Peril, whatever). And you let the hate-pinched-faced old maids hand out Bibles. Every once in a while one of them will get strung up and then you can declare a revenge war against the "threat to Christianity and (sniff) motherhood" and gas a few thousand malcontents. Meanwhile, the trade lanes to India stay open and the money keeps pouring in.

We're getting there. Our model is different from the Brits primarily in who gets the goodies. The Brits poured a lot of it back into the Empire. We're putting it into private pockets. So far the rubes haven't noticed, but ours is an inherently more risky business model.