Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are right, War has a technical definition defined by US Code and law.
However, lets not play coy either, you no what i mean when i saw war. And you also know my post is true. Blaming the president because the military doesnt have a plan is moronic.
Where did I ever blame the President ?
The military would never admit to the press that they didn't have a plan.
They would go with "no comment".
But Obama is the one that told the world we have no plan.
And he is the Commander in Chief, is he not ?
I can't believe O wants to give arms to the opposition. That's the biggest failure waiting to happen. They take the weapons and become a new rebel faction and fight against us.
Such a foolish proposition.
Im not sure if you just woke up but just last year many republicans were saying we must arm Isis against Assad. This is what happens when you play both sides of the fence, and this is US foreign policy
Im not sure if you just woke up but just last year many republicans were saying we must arm Isis against Assad. This is what happens when you play both sides of the fence, and this is US foreign policy
Seems to me that just about everything we do in the ME is a cluster ****, this won't be any different.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Where did I ever blame the President ?
The military would never admit to the press that they didn't have a plan.
They would go with "no comment".
But Obama is the one that told the world we have no plan.
And he is the Commander in Chief, is he not ?
I didnt say you blamed the President, but you chose to respond to my comment.
You can either agree or disagree, but arguing the definition of war, was arbitrary.
Wait, Obama said he had no strategy to fight ISIS like last week. Now he has a strategy?
And why is this administration so scared to use the words Radical Islam? Because that is what this terror group is - Radical Islamists who want to topple governments and set up a theocratic dictatorship throughout the Middle East.
Radical Islamists
Get Bin Ladin and Al Queda is still around. Bolo Harem kidnaps 300 women and is ignored. Kill ISIS in Iraq or Syria and they will spring up elsewhere.
They take on these names like so many toys out of the CrackerJack boxes of yore. You cannot fight a war against ideology and fanaticism; you merely "feed the beast".
When or if they see they're losing a battle they'll simply beat feet to a friendly country to settle down and plan another strategy, pick another name and start cutting off heads all over again.
Let Iraq stew in a soup of ISIS making them dance to a whole new era of radical islam; it might teach them something worthwhile. Let Syria resolve it's rebellion itself, either way.
Creation of Nato and the U.N. was not intended to supplant self reliance with dependence on others.
You keep stoking these fires then commence to running around like Smokey the Bear after. A terrible waste of resources and manpower not to mention taxpayer's money.
Force them to shoulder their burdens or suffer the consequences of forever being called upon to intercede in tribal strife.
Is their million man army going to cross the pacific or are they close to having a blue water navy to actually challenge the US?
Seriously now. Want a war with China too.
This should be laughable, if it wasn't so sad, that
folks actually contemplate these type of scenarios.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.