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.
Maybe that is a good thing. Whatever is concocted in secret has a better chance of staying secret, so as not to alert the enemy. Remember not too long ago everyone was making fun of Obama for telling the world when our troops would leave Iraq? Now you complain because he's not sharing information!
The British government can do that because they don't have a Bill of Rights, like we do.
What would Reagan or Bush do? I really wish Bush was still in office to deal with the mess he made.
Obama isn't doing anything to himself. He's the President and is making the best decisions he can, whether he shares them with the world or not.
Bush had Iraq under control by the end of his second term." War is hell" Gen. Sherman of the Union Army 1864 said it and is true today. But Bush took corrective action and had the region as settle as you can. Afghan we had the Taliban on the run.
Obama did not leave a stay behind force and did not reach agreement with the Iraq Gov. on status of forces agreement. So there we go again.
Obama would of been spoken if he and his administration would of said" We have options on the time and we are putting key elements in as we speak" That would of sent a message to ISSA and the American People that our President is engaged with the crisis.
Its a matter of language in the public forum if any President is perceived Weak or Strong.
Most of my conservative friends on Facebook and the like just figure we should go to war with ISIS and not really explain why or what that would actually entail. They just see "bad guys with towels on their heads" and figure we need to use unfettered force, even if that means a full out regional war. There is no nuance or strategy to this right wing punditry being put out there right now.
That comment alone is absurd because there is no such thing. Sure there are right wing talking heads, but the news hour on Fox is moderate and balanced. It is just so different from the regular liberal news that is seems conservative. I see (D's) being interviewed just as much as (R's) on Fox's news, and the hardball questions go to both.
However the big three of NBC, CBS, & ABC are clearly slanted with news stories framed from liberal perspectives. CNN is also left wing, and does MSNBC even have a real news hour? I think they only have talking heads that are left wing kooks.
It is funny how much of what is happening in the Middle East is directly related to Obama and his policies of helping to topple Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya yet the Obama koolaid drinkers still praise him. Mind you these are the same ones that vilified Bush for taking out Saddam Hussein of Iraq(also a mistake).
These tyrants need to be contained and declawed to the extent they pose an outside threat, but they keep the Islamic lunatics in check, thereby making all of us safer.
Our President may be learning that just because you quit or don't fight doesn't mean the war is over. We are not the ones that declared war. Jihadist Muslims want to kill you, they don't care if it's over there or here. They are coming to get you if they are not all killed.
That comment alone is absurd because there is no such thing. Sure there are right wing talking heads, but the n
It is funny how much of what is happening in the Middle East is directly related to Obama and his policies of helping to topple Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya yet the Obama koolaid drinkers still praise him. Mind you these are the same ones that vilified Bush for taking out Saddam Hussein of Iraq(also a mistake).
What the hell does the current topic of ISIS have to do with Libya or Egypt?
Lets change some of the wording and see what we come up with.
1) To carry on a war affair, especially an warlike affair, with a country one cannot or does not intend to win.
2) To engage in many war affairs, especially with frivolous or casual attitude.
Uh, ok nice try, but that isn't what philander means. The OP already took it in good spirits so I don't think you really need to weigh in with something like this.
Uh, ok nice try, but that isn't what philander means. The OP already took it in good spirits so I don't think you really need to weigh in with something like this.
When I read the OP post the one thing that stood out was the word philander. So I begin, out of curiosity, to imagine how it might apply in context with his point. I had no idea that by doing so I would attract the thought police, who assumes to know what I should weigh in on, or not. It was just a fun little experiment of my expression. Not even my opinion really. I am happy to see you have an opinion and the right to express it.
It is somewhat troubling to me that in your second sentence three words standout as well. " I don't think " followed by your opinion of what I need to do or not do. Perhaps if you could better live my life for me, I could better express your opinion more effectively. In good spirit and intent perhaps we all "need to think" before we express our ideas. One thing is certain to me and that is the word " philander " is less important than the meaning of it.
What the hell does the current topic of ISIS have to do with Libya or Egypt?
Hmm, I guess from your point of view very little. However from many peoples point of view, ISIS is very much related to Obama's/Hillary's/Kerry's failed Middle East tactics/policies. The latest diplomatic blunder was Obama's Qatari plan to have Hamas and Israel broker a deal.
I guess after Obama negotiated with terrorists to have 5 senior Taliban scum sent to Qatar for a army deserter (Bergdahl), he thought Qatar was some type of a neutral country.
Let's not forget ISIS is not a brand new group as they have been out there for years, morphing/growing with nothing done to eliminate them as a threat.
When Obama claimed he had al-Qaeda on the run, they were suppose to be a neutered group, with ISIS as the "JV team". But ISIS is a perfect example of how it metastasized into a more radical wing. Sure we could split hairs over how closely affiliated they are/were, but the reality remains that everything Obama has done over there has been a failure, from Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Wasn't he the one who claimed that talking to any & everyone over there was going to help solve the Middle East problem
His weakness is obvious to our enemies, and his indecision, ineptitude, and false ultimatums has further emboldened the Islamic nut cases.
As to the OP's claim that people are talking of turning the Middle East to glass, that has been going on for many years since 9/11. The fact some talking heads have again started the drumbeats of war does not mean people are suggesting nukes, except maybe to wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities.
The bottom line is that nukes would be absurd and no rational person is suggesting it.
Most of my conservative friends on Facebook and the like just figure we should go to war with ISIS and not really explain why or what that would actually entail. They just see "bad guys with towels on their heads" and figure we need to use unfettered force, even if that means a full out regional war. There is no nuance or strategy to this right wing punditry being put out there right now.
Sadly, the lack of forethought, planning, or even intelligence is pretty common with that demographic.
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.
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.
