How Do We Combat This?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

It's always a "straw man" with you. You don't advocate occupation but, you cite WWII as an example of it's success. You have no practical solution. Once again we are back to your basic theme, barry sux. That there is some deep thinkin. You have wasted your time and mine.

Correction, you tried to base an argument against my position using something I have NEVER advocated...that my dear confused friend is a straw man. I posted my remarks that clearly explained how i see the current situation and my belief that there are currently NO GOOD OPTIONS. You seem hellbent on trying to induce me to contradict myself or you simply may not read my posts. Either that or you cant see beyond you own heart felt biases.

BTW, you framed your question with the words "permanently occupy the region". I not for permanent policy decision on anything.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

It's always a "straw man" with you. You don't advocate occupation but, you cite WWII as an example of it's success. You have no practical solution. Once again we are back to your basic theme, barry sux. That there is some deep thinkin. You have wasted your time and mine.

Correction, you tried to base an argument against my position using something I have NEVER advocated...that my dear confused friend is a straw man. I posted my remarks that clearly explained how i see the current situation and my belief that there are currently NO GOOD OPTIONS. You seem hellbent on trying to induce me to contradict myself or you simply may not read my posts. Either that or you cant see beyond you own heart felt biases.

Oh no. I understand you perfectly. The entire breadth and depth of your thinking is, barry sux, libtards is dum, they aint no good option no more. That's fine.

I was trying to induce you into a meaningful discussion. I appreciate you reiterating your thoughts. I wasted your time and, I apologize.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

It's always a "straw man" with you. You don't advocate occupation but, you cite WWII as an example of it's success. You have no practical solution. Once again we are back to your basic theme, barry sux. That there is some deep thinkin. You have wasted your time and mine.

Correction, you tried to base an argument against my position using something I have NEVER advocated...that my dear confused friend is a straw man. I posted my remarks that clearly explained how i see the current situation and my belief that there are currently NO GOOD OPTIONS. You seem hellbent on trying to induce me to contradict myself or you simply may not read my posts. Either that or you cant see beyond you own heart felt biases.

Oh no. I understand you perfectly. The entire breadth and depth of your thinking is, barry sux, libtards is dum, they aint no good option no more. That's fine.

I was trying to induce you into a meaningful discussion. I appreciate you reiterating your thoughts. I wasted your time and, I apologize.

Im not going to call that what it is because that seems to hit a nerve with you but its really sad thats all you got. I posted my thoughts on the topic and they didn't seem to be enough for you. I hate that for you. There is nothing to meaningfully discuss with specific regard to current possible good options in Iraq...there are none

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

It's always a "straw man" with you. You don't advocate occupation but, you cite WWII as an example of it's success. You have no practical solution. Once again we are back to your basic theme, barry sux. That there is some deep thinkin. You have wasted your time and mine.

Correction, you tried to base an argument against my position using something I have NEVER advocated...that my dear confused friend is a straw man. I posted my remarks that clearly explained how i see the current situation and my belief that there are currently NO GOOD OPTIONS. You seem hellbent on trying to induce me to contradict myself or you simply may not read my posts. Either that or you cant see beyond you own heart felt biases.

Oh no. I understand you perfectly. The entire breadth and depth of your thinking is, barry sux, libtards is dum, they aint no good option no more. That's fine.

I was trying to induce you into a meaningful discussion. I appreciate you reiterating your thoughts. I wasted your time and, I apologize.

Im not going to call that what it is because that seems to hit a nerve with you but its really sad thats all you got. I posted my thoughts on the topic and they didn't seem to be enough for you. I hate that for you. There is nothing to meaningfully discuss with specific regard to current possible good options in Iraq...there are none

That's,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what I just said. Thank you.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

It's always a "straw man" with you. You don't advocate occupation but, you cite WWII as an example of it's success. You have no practical solution. Once again we are back to your basic theme, barry sux. That there is some deep thinkin. You have wasted your time and mine.

Correction, you tried to base an argument against my position using something I have NEVER advocated...that my dear confused friend is a straw man. I posted my remarks that clearly explained how i see the current situation and my belief that there are currently NO GOOD OPTIONS. You seem hellbent on trying to induce me to contradict myself or you simply may not read my posts. Either that or you cant see beyond you own heart felt biases.

Oh no. I understand you perfectly. The entire breadth and depth of your thinking is, barry sux, libtards is dum, they aint no good option no more. That's fine.

I was trying to induce you into a meaningful discussion. I appreciate you reiterating your thoughts. I wasted your time and, I apologize.

Im not going to call that what it is because that seems to hit a nerve with you but its really sad thats all you got. I posted my thoughts on the topic and they didn't seem to be enough for you. I hate that for you. There is nothing to meaningfully discuss with specific regard to current possible good options in Iraq...there are none

That's,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what I just said. Thank you.

are you always so easily angered? You seem to get really pissy whenever i dont respond the way you "think" I should. Dont you "think" you should know better by now? My bets is, generally speaking, I really need to know how you feel about anything, Im betting odds are better than even i disagree with you.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

It's always a "straw man" with you. You don't advocate occupation but, you cite WWII as an example of it's success. You have no practical solution. Once again we are back to your basic theme, barry sux. That there is some deep thinkin. You have wasted your time and mine.

Correction, you tried to base an argument against my position using something I have NEVER advocated...that my dear confused friend is a straw man. I posted my remarks that clearly explained how i see the current situation and my belief that there are currently NO GOOD OPTIONS. You seem hellbent on trying to induce me to contradict myself or you simply may not read my posts. Either that or you cant see beyond you own heart felt biases.

Oh no. I understand you perfectly. The entire breadth and depth of your thinking is, barry sux, libtards is dum, they aint no good option no more. That's fine.

I was trying to induce you into a meaningful discussion. I appreciate you reiterating your thoughts. I wasted your time and, I apologize.

Im not going to call that what it is because that seems to hit a nerve with you but its really sad thats all you got. I posted my thoughts on the topic and they didn't seem to be enough for you. I hate that for you. There is nothing to meaningfully discuss with specific regard to current possible good options in Iraq...there are none

That's,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what I just said. Thank you.

are you always so easily angered? You seem to get really pissy whenever i dont respond the way you "think" I should. Dont you "think" you should know better by now? My bets is, generally speaking, I really need to know how you feel about anything, Im betting odds are better than even i disagree with you.

Sorry. I'll try to work on my anger issues?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Sorry. I'll try to work on my anger issues?"

Well, I dont know if you have anger issues with anyone other than me but if you were honest you'd admit you do seem to get rather nasty in your exchanges with me. is that your natural personality? It is also somewhat of a mystery, to me, why you persistently launch into these satirical tirades, for lack of a better description, and attribute them to being representative of my views and then you call me "odd" Nice work there, no, really.

[homersapien 12,172]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Sorry. I'll try to work on my anger issues?"

Well, I dont know if you have anger issues with anyone other than me but if you were honest you'd admit you do seem to get rather nasty in your exchanges with me. is that your natural personality? It is also somewhat of a mystery, to me, why you persistently launch into these satirical tirades, for lack of a better description, and attribute them to being representative of my views and then you call me "odd" Nice work there, no, really.

Okay. I see what you are talking about. I will work on it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

[homersapien 12,172]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

(And I apologize for "reframing your BS")

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

Are they there or not? My point is a withdrawal from Iraq should have been predicated on negotiated status of forces to maintain the peace. My reference to the troops being in Europe was to illustrate a precedent for that strategy. Get it? Got it? Good.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

(And I apologize for "reframing your BS")

Hey libtard. Leeve Blue alone. He done told you that barry done messed up with that there unlaterell discision to withdrew them troops and now their aint no good descision.

[homersapien 12,172]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

Are they there or not? My point is a withdrawal from Iraq should have been predicated on negotiated status of forces to maintain the peace. My reference to the troops being in Europe was to illustrate a precedent for that strategy. Get it? Got it? Good.

So, you were making a comparison: Had we done what we did in Europe, Iraq would be just fine. Well, at least for 70 yrs. Then all bets are off.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

(And I apologize for "reframing your BS")

Hey libtard. Leeve Blue alone. He done told you that barry done messed up with that there unlaterell discision to withdrew them troops and now their aint no good descision.

SO am I to believe that you and homer are the final arbiters of what needs to be done in Iraq but neither of you have suggested ANY specific ideas. However, if anyone sees our exit there as poorly managed and premature they're just beneath you on just about every level imaginable. Did I get that about right?

[homersapien 12,172]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

(And I apologize for "reframing your BS")

Hey libtard. Leeve Blue alone. He done told you that barry done messed up with that there unlaterell discision to withdrew them troops and now their aint no good descision.

SO am I to believe that you and homer are the final arbiters of what needs to be done in Iraq but neither of you have suggested ANY specific ideas. However, if anyone sees our exit there as poorly managed and premature they're just beneath you on just about every level imaginable. Did I get that about right?

No. Not even close.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

(And I apologize for "reframing your BS")

Hey libtard. Leeve Blue alone. He done told you that barry done messed up with that there unlaterell discision to withdrew them troops and now their aint no good descision.

SO am I to believe that you and homer are the final arbiters of what needs to be done in Iraq but neither of you have suggested ANY specific ideas. However, if anyone sees our exit there as poorly managed and premature they're just beneath you on just about every level imaginable. Did I get that about right?

No. Not even close.

Sure seems to be a perfect analysis to me. Why dont you enlighten me as to exactly what you were trying to accomplish with your condescension.

[homersapien 12,172]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

(And I apologize for "reframing your BS")

Hey libtard. Leeve Blue alone. He done told you that barry done messed up with that there unlaterell discision to withdrew them troops and now their aint no good descision.

SO am I to believe that you and homer are the final arbiters of what needs to be done in Iraq but neither of you have suggested ANY specific ideas. However, if anyone sees our exit there as poorly managed and premature they're just beneath you on just about every level imaginable. Did I get that about right?

No. Not even close.

Sure seems to be a perfect analysis to me. Why dont you enlighten me as to exactly what you were trying to accomplish with your condescension.

Given the choice between condescension and sinking to your level, I'll take condescension every time.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

(And I apologize for "reframing your BS")

Hey libtard. Leeve Blue alone. He done told you that barry done messed up with that there unlaterell discision to withdrew them troops and now their aint no good descision.

SO am I to believe that you and homer are the final arbiters of what needs to be done in Iraq but neither of you have suggested ANY specific ideas. However, if anyone sees our exit there as poorly managed and premature they're just beneath you on just about every level imaginable. Did I get that about right?

No. Not even close.

Sure seems to be a perfect analysis to me. Why dont you enlighten me as to exactly what you were trying to accomplish with your condescension.

Given the choice between condescension and sinking to your level, I'll take condescension every time.

Touche' but you're making yourself look like a cartoon character because you seem to be really emotionally invested in your disdain. Anyway, your opinion of me seems tame compared to mine of you so I'll just leave it at that. My level, huh? Good one!

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

Are they there or not? My point is a withdrawal from Iraq should have been predicated on negotiated status of forces to maintain the peace. My reference to the troops being in Europe was to illustrate a precedent for that strategy. Get it? Got it? Good.

So, you were making a comparison: Had we done what we did in Europe, Iraq would be just fine. Well, at least for 70 yrs. Then all bets are off.

Is mis-interpreting my posts something that excites you? I was referring to a precedent. One would generally think a thoughtful leader would consider the sacrifice of lives and treasure before simply pulling out unilaterally. Apparently, he was more concerned about his political legacy and being the president that got us out of Iraq than he was going about doing it the best way. Are you arguing that the U S exit from Iraq was perfectly managed in a way to preserve the peace the surge had established there? Do you even care about that peace?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

What views? That we should simply pull out. That we should do nothing. That we should not concern ourselves with terrorists regimes. My agreement with with ICHY and Strychnine's statements?

Where did I say that?

You are making assumptions. To clarify, I don't think we should insert troops into any ME country that hasn't asked us to come, nor should we necessarily pull out if they want us to remain. Otherwise, I don't oppose providing help as long as it makes sense.

And I certainly don't think we should ignore terrorist regimes.

You misunderstood. I don't believe you did, but if you go back and read recent threads on the ME you will clearly see Itch and Strychnine support this approach. I am not advocating one approach over another, I simply asked why do military strategist disagree?

[japantiger 4,104]

It's not like Japan or Germany asked us to house troops their originally. It was in our best interest and we had the means and asserted unilateral power. Not sure why we would not have done the same in Iraq. Who cares what Maliki thinks...we have troops all over the middle east...why not out them in Iraq and use it for staging like we have Okinawa for decades. For better or worse we have global commits that benefit us and our allies. Can't be an isolationist virgin guys...that genie is out of the bottle.

I write this sitting on a plane in Qatar wondering when the "5" will get on a plane here headed to Saudi or Iraq or Afghanistan or another place where getting back in the fight against the great Satan will be possible. Lots of flights out of here each day to all these exciting vacation destinations...nah, that just couldn't happen now could it...i mean O wishes it wouldn't so it won't, right? What could go wrong?

[channonc 466]

I'm totally confident that if we just step away from the middle east, let them blow up the oil wells and refineries, then they'll eventually come around and realize that they're all just hurting themselves.

Yep.

So, let me see if I understand you. The problem is no longer their violence. Now the problem is oil and gas? Is that correct? What is your proposed solution?

It's not an either or issue. The matter is made more dire because of the oil and gas, but regardless, these religious nut jobs will push to eliminate Israel ( I know, who care about them anyway ? ) and then... just stop ? You honestly think they wouldn't push forward, as we're seeing in Africa, where violence is spreading in the name of Allah, where NO oil and gas deposits are in play ? And what of S.E. Asia ? Islam isn't exactly living up to the religion of peace slogan there either.

I think you need to use a wider angle lens when looking at the problem.

I disagree. History is a pretty "wide angle lens", wouldn't you say? The sectarian violence has little to do with us. We have tried manipulation. We have tried diplomacy. We have tried military intervention.

If you allow them to focus on their real problem, we will be an after-thought. How will they spread when they are busy killing one another? You hawks fail to realize that some bombs, create more terrorists than they kill. The only thing that seems to unite them is their hatred for us when we intervene in their internal problems.

Let's try doing nothing for a little while. You cannot argue with the price. It's free! Do you truly believe the answer is putting more of our money and young people's lives into that sink hole. Have we learned nothing? Why beat your head against the wall? Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish. We need to be prepared for the next big threat. We don't need to be distracted by this nonsense any longer. I know you hate Obama and, I will admit that there isn't much to like but, he is right about playing Whack-A-Mole.

GWB had us on the right track before he allowed Cheney and Rummy to go play army. Intelligence and stealth are are our best weapons against terrorist threats. We would be wise to utilize the CIA and, stop expending our military resources.

Very well said.

Continuing to meddle in the ME fits the definition of insanity.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

Being under the weather, I viewed a good deal more cable and network news today. As you can imagine, the ME was a primary topic. Military expert after military expert were paraded across the screen and each disagree with your views. Why?

Because that's how they make a living?

[homersapien 12,172]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

Yeah, and all it would take is a couple hundred thousand US troops and 70 years (or more).

Wow, you boys have gotten BIG on using ridiculously reframed BS in your attempts to ridicule. Never said any of that about the ME but carry on Ive come to expect you taking literary license with my posts. Not a big deal but definitely says more about you than it does me.

You brought up the troops in Europe more than once. If your point wasn't to make a comparison, what was it?

Are they there or not? My point is a withdrawal from Iraq should have been predicated on negotiated status of forces to maintain the peace. My reference to the troops being in Europe was to illustrate a precedent for that strategy. Get it? Got it? Good.

So, you were making a comparison: Had we done what we did in Europe, Iraq would be just fine. Well, at least for 70 yrs. Then all bets are off.

Is mis-interpreting my posts something that excites you? I was referring to a precedent.

Now sure how that's misinterpreting your post.

In fact, I don't see any difference between "referring to a precedent to illustrate the strategy (we should have taken in Iraq) and simply "making a comparison".

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.