The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[joecct]

Lindsey Graham would like you all to know that ISIS is coming to the US. You've been warned.

She already did.
http://www.spiritualitea.com/isis/isis01.jpg

 

[FreshFish]

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

Apparently some people have never learned that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

 

[Rover]

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

Apparently some people have never learned that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Or "there's no point fighting a war for people that don't want to defend their own country". Thought we learned that in Vietnam but apparently some righties needed a refresher in Iraq.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Or "there's no point fighting a war for people that don't want to defend their own country". Thought we learned that in Vietnam but apparently some righties needed a refresher in Iraq.

Peter King wants you to know they're coming here next.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

Peter King wants you to know they're coming here next.

Odd that the only two Peter Kings that I can name are both idiots.

 

[Rover]

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

You know, I can live with helping the Kurds out with airstrikes because 1) they've been by far the most stable and friendly partners we have over there, and 2) they actually seem willing to fight for their territory, unlike the Iraqi army which ran and left their US supplied weapons for ISIS to have.

However, for Bush era toad Malaki - screw him. Nothing should be done for that idiot.

PS - Can somebody tell me how John McCain continues to get booked talk shows regarding Iraq? Doesn't any host have the balls to point out to his face he's been wrong on just about every assumption he's made over that place, often with tragic results? Liberal media bias my @ ss.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

You know, I can live with helping the Kurds out with airstrikes because 1) they've been by far the most stable and friendly partners we have over there, and 2) they actually seem willing to fight for their territory, unlike the Iraqi army which ran and left their US supplied weapons for ISIS to have.

However, for Bush era toad Malaki - screw him. Nothing should be done for that idiot.

PS - Can somebody tell me how John McCain continues to get booked talk shows regarding Iraq? Doesn't any host have the balls to point out to his face he's been wrong on just about every assumption he's made over that place, often with tragic results? Liberal media bias my @ ss.

John McCain would like you to know that we don't have enough troops committed anywhere.

 

[St. Clown]

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

You know, I can live with helping the Kurds out with airstrikes because 1) they've been by far the most stable and friendly partners we have over there, and 2) they actually seem willing to fight for their territory, unlike the Iraqi army which ran and left their US supplied weapons for ISIS to have.

However, for Bush era toad Malaki - screw him. Nothing should be done for that idiot.

PS - Can somebody tell me how John McCain continues to get booked talk shows regarding Iraq? Doesn't any host have the balls to point out to his face he's been wrong on just about every assumption he's made over that place, often with tragic results? Liberal media bias my @ ss.

They book him for that very reason.

My problem with arming the Kurds is the uproar we're going to face from Turkey, a NATO ally. It's not small thing to upset a long-time NATO ally.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

"If he does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL, whatever you guys want to call it, they are coming here," Mr. (Lindsey) Graham said on "Fox News Sunday." "This is just not about Baghdad. This is just not about Syria. And if we do get attacked, then he will have committed a blunder for the ages."

Reminds me of this GW Quote.

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

 

[Priceless]

They book him for that very reason.

My problem with arming the Kurds is the uproar we're going to face from Turkey, a NATO ally. It's not small thing to upset a long-time NATO ally.

I thought I read somewhere that Turkey was OK with it either because the Kurds would carve out a section of Iraq, not Turkey, or because having the Kurds as neighbors is much more palatable than ISIS or some other terrorist organization. No, I don't have any sources, I think I read it somewhere - maybe here. I'm kinda preoccupied at the moment.

 

[St. Clown]

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

I thought I read somewhere that Turkey was OK with it either because the Kurds would carve out a section of Iraq, not Turkey, or because having the Kurds as neighbors is much more palatable than ISIS or some other terrorist organization. No, I don't have any sources, I think I read it somewhere - maybe here. I'm kinda preoccupied at the moment.

If that's the case, then I'd be inclined to arming the Kurds in Iraq so that they could defend themselves from ISIS.

 

[Kepler]

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

Just because McCain wants us to bomb somebody doesn't mean it's wrong. A broken clock and all that.

ISIS is one of those cases where even though the Usual Suspects are working overtime to demonize them, they actually do appear to be demons. If we can stop a genocide by bombing them, we should do it. It has to be us because nobody else can project that kind of power in that region (thanks to us). It doesn't have much blowback since everybody, probably even the Iraqi Sunnis, are terrified of them. And we can do it without being seen as favoring Maliki, whose own party is trying to get rid of him.

Neocon Fantasyland is entered both by reflexively approving or rejecting their reactionary bloodlust. The way to be truly free of them and the Bushies and put them in the country's rearvew mirror is to simply stop engaging with them. They aren't serious theoreticians, they're just trolls.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Just because McCain wants us to bomb somebody doesn't mean it's wrong. A broken clock and all that.

ISIS is one of those cases where even though the Usual Suspects are working overtime to demonize them, they actually do appear to be demons. If we can stop a genocide by bombing them, we should do it. It has to be us because nobody else can project that kind of power in that region (thanks to us). It doesn't have much blowback since everybody, probably even the Iraqi Sunnis, are terrified of them. And we can do it without being seen as favoring Maliki, whose own party is trying to get rid of him.

The Neocons fantasyland is activated both by approving or rejecting their reactionary bloodlust. The way to be truly free of them and the Bushies and put them in the country's rearvew mirror, is to simply ignore them.

The Liberally Biased Leftist Communist Red Star Media has epic failed on that. Lindsey, Peter King, and John McCain got all the air time they could ever want this weekend.

 

[Kepler]

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

The Liberally Biased Leftist Communist Red Star Media has epic failed on that. Lindsey, Peter King, and John McCain got all the air time they could ever want this weekend.

They always will. The media love them, they provoke controversy. The Republicans are Jerry Springer. That's always going to be popular -- everybody rubber necks at the tire fire -- but the adults have work to do and can't be bothered with it.

 

[burd]

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

Apparently some people have never learned that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Where was that ounce when GWB decided to invade in '03? Just say "no?"

 

[Rover]

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

They always will. The media love them, they provoke controversy. The Republicans are Jerry Springer. That's always going to be popular -- everybody rubber necks at the tire fire -- but the adults have work to do and can't be bothered with it.

They aren't popular at all which is what makes this so darn funny! Awhile back Republicans realized something ahead of everyone else, which was that the lamestream media could easily be intimidated into giving "both sides of the story equal weight" in the name of "fairness". So, various conservative flunkies could make the same brainless arguments but be given a free platform with no pushback from a usually aging host (think Bob Schieffer) who's probably personal friends with most of them on the DC cocktail circuit.

Works great, right? Those dastardly Republicans! Problem is, the viewing public started seeing stuff like John McCain and Lindsey Graham make the same "we should still be fighting the Iraq war for the Iraqis even though their own troops ran away from a fight" with zero questioning from the various hosts and decided these shows were too stupid to spend time watching. Now CNN and Meet the Press and all that are flabbergasted that their ratings are in the toilet. It might have something to do with the quality of their guests and inability to question even the most ludicrous statements out of fear of being labeled as "biased".

 

[Priceless]

They aren't popular at all which is what makes this so darn funny! Awhile back Republicans realized something ahead of everyone else, which was that the lamestream media could easily be intimidated into giving "both sides of the story equal weight" in the name of "fairness". So, various conservative flunkies could make the same brainless arguments but be given a free platform with no pushback from a usually aging host (think Bob Schieffer) who's probably personal friends with most of them on the DC cocktail circuit.

Works great, right? Those dastardly Republicans! Problem is, the viewing public started seeing stuff like John McCain and Lindsey Graham make the same "we should still be fighting the Iraq war for the Iraqis even though their own troops ran away from a fight" with zero questioning from the various hosts and decided these shows were too stupid to spend time watching. Now CNN and Meet the Press and all that are flabbergasted that their ratings are in the toilet. It might have something to do with the quality of their guests and inability to question even the most ludicrous statements out of fear of being labeled as "biased".

I read this morning that NBC isn't pleased with David Gregory landing the jewel of its news division in the toilet and are replacing him with Chuck Todd.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

I read this morning that NBC isn't pleased with David Gregory landing the jewel of its news division in the toilet and are replacing him with Chuck Todd.

They'll never be able to replace Russert.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

I read this morning that NBC isn't pleased with David Gregory landing the jewel of its news division in the toilet and are replacing him with Chuck Todd.

Do they think Todd is going to actually improve things?

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

They'll never be able to replace Russert.

Yeah, it's a ****ty deal for whomever gets hired. They'll never be able to meet the standard he set. That's the "problem" when you have such success on a show like that.