What's new

Iraq Collapsing

because all threads have the ability to morph into new things... its the nature of free speech...  
 
Instead of trying to build an unwieldy trap, why not just take away the bait. Seems simpler and much more cost effective.

I guess that's why Congress won't do it. It would adversely affect their sponsors.
 
700UW said:
Call me crazy, but what does Illegal immigrants and this issue have to do with ISIS and Iraq?
The thread was originally about Iraq. Suddenly some bone-brain decided that the immigration issue is more important, and a left turn at Albuquerque we took.

Why do you ask? Are you new here or are you just trying to make it sound like I'M off topic?
 
700UW said:
yeah that must be it 🙄 at this point  I.m just glad you can see the light at the end of the tunnel of the pos being in there.
 
MCI transplant said:
 but Obama has had six years to provide leadership and turn that around.
 
The president pulled the troops out under an agreement signed by the previous administration.  Was he supposed to keep them there so they could provide targets to nut jobs wanting to collect on the promise of 72 virgins?  The person who really had the opportunity to provide true leadership was Maliki.  As know now he choose instead to gut the Iraqi Army of competent leadership and appoint political hacks.  Add to that the alienation of the Sunni's and the die was cast.
 
snapthis said:
Are you willing to put your 777 on the line or would you prefer to stay in the hangar?
 
I'm not the one wanting to volunteer other people to die.
 
MCI transplant said:
, but Obama has had six years to provide leadership and turn that around.But has done nothing but shrink our Armed Forces down to levels of where it is was before WWII.------ 
 
I don't recall the US military prior to WWII having no equal on the battlefield along with the ability to nuke every major city in the world.
 
MCI transplant said:
. Make it monitory to serve at least two years straight out of High School, or collage! Second, I would support a Constitutional Amendment requiring any future President to have served in the military!
 
According to the 2010 census there are 30 million people in the 18-24 demographic.  That's the age most people graduate from high school and college.  Even if you take into account not all 30 million would be serving at the same time it would still mean a military that is exponentially larger than the one we have now.
 
Guess it's a good thing they didn't have that amendment when this country was formed.  John Adams, one of the founding fathers, would not have been eligible.  The requirements have already been laid out by the people who wrote the Constitution.  History has shown that military service does not mean one will be an effective president.
 
10462520_10152502520644255_3343705937296332365_n.jpg
 
700UW said:
Just curious here,
 
Who was it that supported the "Surge"?
Which President ordered drone attacks on innocent civilians in Pakistan?
Which President  ordered the death of US Citizens without benefit of due process?
Which President pushed through the Patriot Act re authorization? The NDAA? Growing the NSA?
 
Give up? Boyo Boyo I sure do because I can't find his name on the image.
 
Was it Nixon? Carter? Bush (either one)? or was it someone else? Maybe some guy named Obama? You know I think it was.
 
SparrowHawk said:
Just curious here,
 
Who was it that supported the "Surge"?
Which President ordered drone attacks on innocent civilians in Pakistan?
Which President  ordered the death of US Citizens without benefit of due process?
Which President pushed through the Patriot Act re authorization? The NDAA? Growing the NSA?
 
Give up? Boyo Boyo I sure do because I can't find his name on the image.
 
Was it Nixon? Carter? Bush (either one)? or was it someone else? Maybe some guy named Obama? You know I think it was.
 
Obama did not support the surge.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top