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.
The problem with these liberals is they pretend to be so smart and sophisticated, but never learn anything from history. We sat around being isolationist, and then Pearl Harbor happened, and Germany & Italy declared war on us. We crushed them--and should've learned never to sit on the sidelines when something like that happens again. Instead, we ignored the growing Muslim terrorist threat and got 9/11--very similar to Pearl Harbor in many ways. Then, we reacted with the War on Terror. If we sit by doing nothing while ISIS grows, it's almost certain another terrorist attack will happen either to us or one of our allies. We cannot sit back this time--those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It's time we don't take that chance--let's squash this threat before it can cause anymore death and destruction!
The problem with these liberals is they pretend to be so smart and sophisticated, but never learn anything from history. We sat around being isolationist, and then Pearl Harbor happened, and Germany & Italy declared war on us. We crushed them--and should've learned never to sit on the sidelines when something like that happens again. Instead, we ignored the growing Muslim terrorist threat and got 9/11--very similar to Pearl Harbor in many ways. Then, we reacted with the War on Terror. If we sit by doing nothing while ISIS grows, it's almost certain another terrorist attack will happen either to us or one of our allies. We cannot sit back this time--those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It's time we don't take that chance--let's squash this threat before it can cause anymore death and destruction!
A few months ago the leaders of both parties were arguing to arm Isis in their fight against Syria. Some here were upset with Obama for in the end not doing that. Though I imagine we did get arms to them.
I never agreed with arming the Syrian rebels. We should've let Assad crush them, and then taken him out, provided we had another good leader in his place to replace him. Not like the messy crap we did in Iraq 12 years ago--killing Saddam was good, but we didn't have a reliable leader to take his position. That was our main mistake.
I never agreed with arming the Syrian rebels. We should've let Assad crush them, and then taken him out, provided we had another good leader in his place to replace him.
Like we did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Shouldn't we have learned the lesson that we can not successfully do this? What makes you think Syria would have been different? What makes you think the people of any country is going to accept a leader we appoint? Would we? If not, why should others be different?
Quote:
Not like the messy crap we did in Iraq 12 years ago--killing Saddam was good, but we didn't have a reliable leader to take his position. That was our main mistake.
It's impossible. The people of no country is going to accept the U.S. appointing a leader for them.
We don't need to literally put down a leader, but select a handful of people that are supported by the people, and help them organize an election.
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.
