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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Then decided to address it with "Bubba". This speaks for itself.
I said NOTHING about "Bubba", might be time for your eye exam, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
The response is fallacious. Because of Obama's actions the USA is threatened by ISIS. Trump now has to deal with it and unlike Obama, won't fight a never ending war to end it.
Glad you brought up "fallacious" because the bolded most certainly is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
And as I said earlier, you prove yet again that Talk is Cheap. You say that you are against the entrenched two party system yet here you are arguing against Trump who has decided to do it differently. This also speaks for itself.
WHAT is he doing differently besides acting like a spoiled 6 year old?
And once again you fallaciously infer I support the two-party system when I've said any number of times I would've voted for your little hero had he run as an (I) with a good shot at destroying that system. Time to stop your LIES about what I support.
ISIS is an acronym for a country like the USA is an acronym for a country. And that country is poorly equipped compared to when we went to fight Saddam during the 1st Gulf War. If the USA can't defeat a ragtag country then it has zero business squaring off with first rate military powers like Russia and China.
Al Qaida was not and is not a country. It is an an NGO.
Okay, let me explain it like this. An NGO is the KKK. The state of Mississippi is not an an NGO.
ISIS would be the equivalent of Mississippi and any Al Qaida in it would be the equivalent of Al Qaida.
How to destroy ISIS is pretty simple. As General Mattie himself has said--the same thing I have been saying--you anihilation them. A war of anihilation vs a war of attrition.
War of attrition is what we have been fighting against Assad and what we fought against Saddam in the 1st Gulf War. In mathematics it might be looked at something like this: 100 - 40 = 60 (war of attrition) and 100 - 100 = 0 (war of anihilation).
In a war of attrition are trying to get your opponent to tap out, to come to the table to cede to your demands, for a political win.
In war of annihilation you are hoping no one survives. You end the roach infestation by killing all the roaches. No more roaches to have sex and create more babies to infest your house.
To clarify things, you are proposing to annihilate ISIS. To do that you'd have to kill every Muslim man, woman and child in this world, plus destroy every shred of their "civilization". Otherwise, another ISIS can pop up in Malaysia, etc. Do you concur?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogburn
Maybe they should but irrespective of what they would do I would kill ISIS.
WHY would you do it? At what cost in American blood and taxpayer $$$? Why not lleave the killing to those most threatened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogburn
Assad' forces have been fighting ISIS forces but the United States under Obama and Hillary have undermined that by attacking the forces of Assad and helping ISIS gain arms.
Fighting ISIS or fighting the forces of those who oppose him under the guise of fighting ISIS?
Fighting ISIS or fighting the forces of those who oppose him under the guise of fighting ISIS?
Both. His main fight has been with anti-Assad forces because those forces held the border area between Assad and the ISIS, thus creating a buffer. Now that the buffer has shrank, Assad forces are in more direct contact with ISIS.
Again, there is a reality world and a fantasy world.
This is American politics we are talking about. A quick war is better than a long one. What you two said are all good, but it will never happen.
Is that so? Didn't Cheney and W say the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets greeting our troops with flowers. Fourteen years and no revelry yet. Quick and war = oxymoron.
ISIS will never be defeated. They are stateless and regardless of how much territory they may relinquish temporarily, they will re-emerged again and again. Now that is reality.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Both. His main fight has been with anti-Assad forces because those forces held the border area between Assad and the ISIS, thus creating a buffer. Now that the buffer has shrank, Assad forces are in more direct contact with ISIS.
Then let them have at it. Why should it be our fight when other countries in the region with their own militaries face a bigger threat?
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.
