ok OG. i guess we disagree. don't let me put words in your mouth but my interpretation is you believe we can kill the philosophy. by bombing and killing. that we can exterminate them in a "final solution". LOL ok....i know you don't believe that. i admit, i believe the solution is serious long term nation building. i don't like the solution but i see no other way.
please feel free to offer something else, i try to keep an open mind.
i will say that i think daesh understands "nation building" better than we do. they understand its not all about killing. they are trying to provide police and governance and schools and health care. sure it is their idea of all of that but we would provide our version also. its a battle of philosophies, it's harder to change. killing isn't the solution in the long term, only in the short term.
After this weekend clearly the equation has changed on what to do there and so should the US strategy. I think a disfunctional syria with assad without isis strongholds is better than what currently exists.
but will it stop the long term problem? you can't kill the philosophy that way. i think attacks like last friday would continue. sure it might degrade it to some degree, but not stop it.
but will it stop the long term problem? you can't kill the philosophy that way. i think attacks like last friday would continue. sure it might degrade it to some degree, but not stop it.
_________________________________________________________________________
Okay.
Then should the world retreat and let those who are obligated to kill all non-believers free to kill?
If not, what would you suggest the free world actually do?
1st mule, i don't think the world is retreating. i do think that there are differences in how to solve this, just as you asked me. people do not all agree on the solution. that is understandable.
2nd, i posted above what i think the correct direction is. i don't like the answer i give, but i think that it is the solution. long term occupation and a true desire for "nation building". sometimes that also doesn't work ie..the shah or iran. its a tricky thing that i do not personally have the education to completely work out.
i do know that we can not kill our way to peace.
1st mule, i don't think the world is retreating. i do think that there are differences in how to solve this, just as you asked me. people do not all agree on the solution. that is understandable.
2nd, i posted above what i think the correct direction is. i don't like the answer i give, but i think that it is the solution. long term occupation and a true desire for "nation building". sometimes that also doesn't work ie..the shah or iran. its a tricky thing that i do not personally have the education to completely work out.
i do know that we can not kill our way to peace.
Nor can you kill an ideology. If we were to kill every member of ISIS, another group would take their place. This problem will never be solved until the Arab countries fight ISIS. sadly, I don't see that happening.
If the small country of Israel can't eliminate terrorist within its borders despite its tight security and small size, you can forget about eliminating terror groups on a world wide scale. Ain't going to happen. All we would end up doing is bankrupting ourselves. Yes, terrorist attacks will happen in the future including in the US. Does this concern me? Well, no more than the threat of some armed wacko shooting up a restaurant that I'm sitting in. Sorry, but I refuse to be afraid of terrorists. I'm going to keep living my life the way I want to live my life and if I die a violent death whether from an Islamic terrorist or from some homegrown pycho gun nut, the that's the way it is. Fearful knee-jerk reactions is exactly what the terrorists are trying to provoke. Starting WW3 over it isn't going to solve the problem.
France was attacked. That alone gives The NATO member nations full and legal authority to invoke NATO Article 5 meaning when one member nation is attacked all member nations will engage.
This would require leadership which usually comes from The United States, Britain and France.
Britain and France are on board and ready to lead. One country is missing because doing so is neither in Obama’s political interest, on his social justice agenda or in his “world view”.
The French President has declared war against ISIS. The British Prime Minister has said he wants that declaration and in accordance with his nations laws is going to Britain’s Parliament for a declaration of war.
The U.S. President will not utter the war and flew off to The Philippines.
And so thousands more innocent people will die.
Mule still hasn't answered the question on whether he was willing to have his taxes raised to whatever level is needed to pay for the war. If you are a fiscal conservative then surely you don't think we can pay for more wars on the credit card.
Mule still hasn't answered the question on whether he was willing to have his taxes raised to whatever level is needed to pay for the war. If you are a fiscal conservative then surely you don't think we can pay for more wars on the credit card.
i think we all, conservative or liberal, understand where the money will come from. either debt or higher taxes.
Mule still hasn't answered the question on whether he was willing to have his taxes raised to whatever level is needed to pay for the war. If you are a fiscal conservative then surely you don't think we can pay for more wars on the credit card.
_________________________________________________________________________
The debt doesn't matter to Obama. He has added more to the national debt than all previous President combined.
lol come on mule, you know that is deflection. it is not a question of who is in power.
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
you lost me with that post, lol. anyhow, keep thinking about how you would pay for it other than debt or higher taxes. maybe you have a 3rd way. i'd love to hear it. time for bed. have a great evening.
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
________________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you knew.
Anyone else know?
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
________________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you knew.
Anyone else know?
The Navy personnel on the ship had the banner put up. The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request. In his speech, Bush said that we had won a great victory and combat operations were over.
Now that your question has been answered, what is your plan for defeating ISIS?
[Edited on 11/17/2015 by jkeller]
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
________________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you knew.
Anyone else know?
What is important is your interest in context here as it proves you use two different sets of rules. You have taken every opportunity to use this tragedy to bash liberals and President Obama.
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
________________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you knew.
Anyone else know?
The Navy personnel on the ship had the banner put up. The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request. In his speech, Bush said that we had won a great victory and combat operations were over.
Now that your question has been answered, what is your plan for defeating ISIS?
[Edited on 11/17/2015 by jkeller]
_______________________________________________________________________
“The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request”
Wrong dumba$$.
That banner has been hoisted on Navy ships returning home from successful missions for over 30 years. President Bush’s people had nothing to do with it. It is a standard Navy tradition that became protocol.
I have already posted my plan. Try to keep up.
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
________________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you knew.
Anyone else know?The Navy personnel on the ship had the banner put up. The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request. In his speech, Bush said that we had won a great victory and combat operations were over.
Now that your question has been answered, what is your plan for defeating ISIS?
[Edited on 11/17/2015 by jkeller]
_______________________________________________________________________
“The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request”
Wrong dumba$$.
That banner has been hoisted on Navy ships returning home from successful missions for over 30 years. President Bush’s people had nothing to do with it. It is a standard Navy tradition that became protocol.
I have already posted my plan. Try to keep up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mission-accomplished-whodunit/
After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.
As criticism of the event and banner mounted, and as soldiers continued to die in battle while in Iraq, the White House claimed the banner wasn’t there for the presidential address. Instead, administration and navy sources said, the banner was made by the White House but done so for the soldiers of the Lincoln, who were returning to port at the end of their mission.
And even Bush admitted that he made a mistake.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/10-years-later-mission-accomplished
In 2009, at his final press conference, Bush admitted it was a mistake to hang the banner saying “Mission accomplished.”
“It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message,” said Bush. “Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.”
And you posted no plan. You never do anyrthing but rip people.
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
________________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you knew.
Anyone else know?The Navy personnel on the ship had the banner put up. The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request. In his speech, Bush said that we had won a great victory and combat operations were over.
Now that your question has been answered, what is your plan for defeating ISIS?
[Edited on 11/17/2015 by jkeller]
_______________________________________________________________________
“The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request”
Wrong dumba$$.
That banner has been hoisted on Navy ships returning home from successful missions for over 30 years. President Bush’s people had nothing to do with it. It is a standard Navy tradition that became protocol.
I have already posted my plan. Try to keep up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mission-accomplished-whodunit/
After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.
As criticism of the event and banner mounted, and as soldiers continued to die in battle while in Iraq, the White House claimed the banner wasn’t there for the presidential address. Instead, administration and navy sources said, the banner was made by the White House but done so for the soldiers of the Lincoln, who were returning to port at the end of their mission.
And even Bush admitted that he made a mistake.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/10-years-later-mission-accomplished
In 2009, at his final press conference, Bush admitted it was a mistake to hang the banner saying “Mission accomplished.”
“It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message,” said Bush. “Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.”
And you posted no plan. You never do anyrthing but rip people.
_____________________________________________________________________
You cite nothing but liberal sites that attack President Bush and misrepresent his actual words. All of it is crap, ask any Navy Officer.
And I did post my plan. You are obviously too stupid to see it.
I do love it when the liberals use this image to mock President Bush. I bet that not one liberal can state on who’s order that banner was hoisted and why.
You distort every comment President Obama makes and now you want to test liberals on this Bush flub.
________________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you knew.
Anyone else know?The Navy personnel on the ship had the banner put up. The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request. In his speech, Bush said that we had won a great victory and combat operations were over.
Now that your question has been answered, what is your plan for defeating ISIS?
[Edited on 11/17/2015 by jkeller]
_______________________________________________________________________
“The banner was provided by Bush's people in the white House at the Navy's request”
Wrong dumba$$.
That banner has been hoisted on Navy ships returning home from successful missions for over 30 years. President Bush’s people had nothing to do with it. It is a standard Navy tradition that became protocol.
I have already posted my plan. Try to keep up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mission-accomplished-whodunit/
After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.
As criticism of the event and banner mounted, and as soldiers continued to die in battle while in Iraq, the White House claimed the banner wasn’t there for the presidential address. Instead, administration and navy sources said, the banner was made by the White House but done so for the soldiers of the Lincoln, who were returning to port at the end of their mission.
And even Bush admitted that he made a mistake.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/10-years-later-mission-accomplishedIn 2009, at his final press conference, Bush admitted it was a mistake to hang the banner saying “Mission accomplished.”
“It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message,” said Bush. “Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.”
And you posted no plan. You never do anyrthing but rip people.
_____________________________________________________________________
You cite nothing but liberal sites that attack President Bush and misrepresent his actual words. All of it is crap, ask any Navy Officer.
And I did post my plan. You are obviously too stupid to see it.
Once again mule attacks the source. Once again mule lies about what he posted. SSDD.
Mule still hasn't answered the question on whether he was willing to have his taxes raised to whatever level is needed to pay for the war. If you are a fiscal conservative then surely you don't think we can pay for more wars on the credit card.
_________________________________________________________________________
The debt doesn't matter to Obama. He has added more to the national debt than all previous President combined.
Apparently it doesn't matter to you either if you refuse to answer the question. So we can stop hearing you complain about debt now.
Your cute little graphic doesn’t mention the fact that France did join President Bush’s coalition to fight against terrorism and actively participated.
Unlike Obama’s phantom coalition.
Obama gets the blame because of his complete foreign policy failure.
Your cute little graphic doesn’t mention the fact that France did join President Bush’s coalition to fight against terrorism and actively participated.
France opposed the Iraq invasion (the primary reason why there was no UN resolution about the invasion even brought to a vote was because France would have vetoed it) and the graphic is an accurate representation of the reactions of the individuals noted.
[Edited on 11/17/2015 by gondicar]
France never participated in the Iraq War. Ten years on French politicians and public sentiment reflected that they still don't regret getting involved.
Their intentions were clear from the get-go.
"...Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.
Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections..."
-Taken from remarks by Dominique de Villepin, French Minister of Foreign Affairs at the UN Security Council, February 13, 2003
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/French_address_on_Iraq_at_the_UN_Security_Council
It's becoming quite clear that a lot of things posted around here recently don't even deserve the dignity of an answer, but outright lies do deserve calling out from time to time.
It's becoming quite clear that a lot of things posted around here recently don't even deserve the dignity of an answer, but outright lies do deserve calling out from time to time.
+1
I'm trying, but when there are so many it is difficult to choose which one to respond to and which to ignore.
