Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'
Options
Comments
-
First off realistically speaking, all the money the US spent on iraqi infrastructure was spent on american companies working in iraq or companies with connection to american owners. In other words, a legal way of giving government money away to certain people. This money than gets returned in forms of kick backs and donations during elections.
Then lets look at the unexpected attacks on 9-11. That did 2 things, first it opened doors for the US to go into the middle east and strong arm all the oil, making sure the oil trade remains dollar based when arab countries wanted to move it to euro based trading.
2nd it created a new enemy for america to have americans preoccupied with. Osama bin laden was gonna somehow come to the US and murder our children, so we allowed the government to have an astronical and historically high budget for national defense. That led to army contracts and people getting paid big time.
Now that osama is dead, and al qeada lost steam and supporters over the last few years, isis comes out and the leader of isis is the new enemy. The news reported multiple times that this man was way more radical then osama was. I was like wtf? Few years ago osama was the most evil man to live since ? , attacked us on our land, and now our media is saying this dude is even more radical than him? Wtf?
But yea, US aint losing ? .
I agree, ISIS is now America and the media's number one enemy of the decade. But that's really scary though because it may motivate Al-Qaeda to do something even more revolutionary....that's not something America and people who don't want Shariah law need at the moment -
listen this is a no win situation for America then that's all the more reason we should not show weakness. Iraq does not need a democratic government it needs a military governor.
-
Black_Samson wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »wow... yall ? this thread up.
what do you think should be done to fix the problem??? should we just leave them alone or find some way to crush them?? you were in the military so your opinion should matter the most
Glass parking lot.
There's an easier way. America should change its foreign policy and listen more to the concerns of the Arab street. It wasn't always like this, before oil and Israel, America had decent relations with the Middle East... -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »wow... yall ? this thread up.
what do you think should be done to fix the problem??? should we just leave them alone or find some way to crush them?? you were in the military so your opinion should matter the most
Glass parking lot.
There's an easier way. America should change its foreign policy and listen more to the concerns of the Arab street. It wasn't always like this, before oil and Israel, America had decent relations with the Middle East...
I don't have any faith in the arab street, the only thing we need to listen to them do is cry in agony until they knock off the ? . but seriously the arab street wants the destruction of Israel and the creation of a caliphate that is the long term goal of groups like isis, we cannot allow that. I think that maybe because many of you in this thread are not religious you think you can reason with these people, you are wrong. Unless we destroy these people utterly they will continue. listen to the arab street lol. ? there concerns until they stop this ? .
and America has never had decent relations with the middle east the first time America used force overseas it was to rescue captured American sailors that were going to be sold into slavery. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »wow... yall ? this thread up.
what do you think should be done to fix the problem??? should we just leave them alone or find some way to crush them?? you were in the military so your opinion should matter the most
Glass parking lot.
There's an easier way. America should change its foreign policy and listen more to the concerns of the Arab street. It wasn't always like this, before oil and Israel, America had decent relations with the Middle East...
I don't have any faith in the arab street, the only thing we need to listen to them do is cry in agony until they knock off the ? . but seriously the arab street wants the destruction of Israel and the creation of a caliphate that is the long term goal of groups like isis, we cannot allow that. I think that maybe because many of you in this thread are not religious you think you can reason with these people, you are wrong. Unless we destroy these people utterly they will continue. listen to the arab street lol. ? there concerns until they stop this ? .
and America has never had decent relations with the middle east the first time America used force overseas it was to rescue captured American sailors that were going to be sold into slavery.
I understand many in the Arab world hate Israel but Israel constantly is stealing land and water from the Palestinians and others in the region. It's destroying the homes of many Palestinians there, leaving many homeless and building homes in the same areas for Jewish settlers, do you realize how bad that's making Israel and America look? We need to let Israel twist in the wind, defending everything Israel does has created tons upon tons of enemies for America there.
And as far as decent relations with the Arabs, it can be done. Sweden is much closer to the Arab world and they have little problems with them, same with Norway and many other places. I understand what the Arab pirates did back in the 1700s but Europeans and Americans were acting ? up too, all over the world. There's always going to be radicalism in some parts of the Muslim world, true, but it can be contained by not pouring fuel on the fire, something America loves to do. Before oil and Israel, for the most part, Arabs didn't give Americans much problems. America has done a lot to create the extreme hatred it gets from that region, from toppling democratically elected govts (like what America did in Iraq back in the 1950s) to supporting oppressive governments all over the region that are hated by their people.
Should we send another bunch of troops to Iraq to take on ISIS? If so, be prepared to spend another 1.7 trillion dollars and see another 4500 American troops dead, maybe more. Also be prepared to create more terrorists and propaganda for ISIS. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »wow... yall ? this thread up.
what do you think should be done to fix the problem??? should we just leave them alone or find some way to crush them?? you were in the military so your opinion should matter the most
Glass parking lot.
There's an easier way. America should change its foreign policy and listen more to the concerns of the Arab street. It wasn't always like this, before oil and Israel, America had decent relations with the Middle East...
I don't have any faith in the arab street, the only thing we need to listen to them do is cry in agony until they knock off the ? . but seriously the arab street wants the destruction of Israel and the creation of a caliphate that is the long term goal of groups like isis, we cannot allow that. I think that maybe because many of you in this thread are not religious you think you can reason with these people, you are wrong. Unless we destroy these people utterly they will continue. listen to the arab street lol. ? there concerns until they stop this ? .
and America has never had decent relations with the middle east the first time America used force overseas it was to rescue captured American sailors that were going to be sold into slavery.
I understand many in the Arab world hate Israel but Israel constantly is stealing land and water from the Palestinians and others in the region. It's destroying the homes of many Palestinians there, leaving many homeless and building homes in the same areas for Jewish settlers, do you realize how bad that's making Israel and America look? We need to let Israel twist in the wind, defending everything Israel does has created tons upon tons of enemies for America there.
And as far as decent relations with the Arabs, it can be done. Sweden is much closer to the Arab world and they have little problems with them, same with Norway and many other places. I understand what the Arab pirates did back in the 1700s but Europeans and Americans were acting ? up too, all over the world. There's always going to be radicalism in some parts of the Muslim world, true, but it can be contained by not pouring fuel on the fire, something America loves to do. Before oil and Israel, for the most part, Arabs didn't give Americans much problems. America has done a lot to create the extreme hatred it gets from that region, from toppling democratically elected govts to supporting oppressive governments all over the region that are hated by their people.
We need to pull israel in and keep her in check not throw her to the arabs, and quite frankly that would be for the arabs own good because it we pull out of middle eastern affairs 100% israel will destroy the arabs. The united states of america is not sweden and can never be , we are a super power sweden and norway can act the way they do because they don't have our responsibility. The only way to put out a religious fire is with blood. There is no backing out no pussying out of this ? . We are going to have to fight these people either today or tomorrow
ARABS did not give america any problems before israel because they were under colonial rule and before that they were part of the ottoman empire which was an islamic empire. -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »wow... yall ? this thread up.
what do you think should be done to fix the problem??? should we just leave them alone or find some way to crush them?? you were in the military so your opinion should matter the most
Glass parking lot.
There's an easier way. America should change its foreign policy and listen more to the concerns of the Arab street. It wasn't always like this, before oil and Israel, America had decent relations with the Middle East...
I don't have any faith in the arab street, the only thing we need to listen to them do is cry in agony until they knock off the ? . but seriously the arab street wants the destruction of Israel and the creation of a caliphate that is the long term goal of groups like isis, we cannot allow that. I think that maybe because many of you in this thread are not religious you think you can reason with these people, you are wrong. Unless we destroy these people utterly they will continue. listen to the arab street lol. ? there concerns until they stop this ? .
and America has never had decent relations with the middle east the first time America used force overseas it was to rescue captured American sailors that were going to be sold into slavery.
I understand many in the Arab world hate Israel but Israel constantly is stealing land and water from the Palestinians and others in the region. It's destroying the homes of many Palestinians there, leaving many homeless and building homes in the same areas for Jewish settlers, do you realize how bad that's making Israel and America look? We need to let Israel twist in the wind, defending everything Israel does has created tons upon tons of enemies for America there.
And as far as decent relations with the Arabs, it can be done. Sweden is much closer to the Arab world and they have little problems with them, same with Norway and many other places. I understand what the Arab pirates did back in the 1700s but Europeans and Americans were acting ? up too, all over the world. There's always going to be radicalism in some parts of the Muslim world, true, but it can be contained by not pouring fuel on the fire, something America loves to do. Before oil and Israel, for the most part, Arabs didn't give Americans much problems. America has done a lot to create the extreme hatred it gets from that region, from toppling democratically elected govts to supporting oppressive governments all over the region that are hated by their people.
We need to pull israel in and keep her in check not throw her to the arabs, and quite frankly that would be for the arabs own good because it we pull out of middle eastern affairs 100% israel will destroy the arabs. The united states of america is not sweden and can never be , we are a super power sweden and norway can act the way they do because they don't have our responsibility. The only way to put out a religious fire is with blood. There is no backing out no pussying out of this ? . We are going to have to fight these people either today or tomorrow
ARABS did not give america any problems before israel because they were under colonial rule and before that they were part of the ottoman empire which was an islamic empire.
Israel can't destroy all the Arabs though, they couldn't even beat Lebanon or Hezbolla in 2006. Israel can't even destroy Hamas and they're like a couple of miles from Israel. Israel is surrounded by enemies and they can't destroy them, only contain them. That should be America's policy, containment.
America also can't take on ISIS without going further bankrupt, remember, Osama Bin Laden's goal was to bankrupt America by keeping America on attack and paranoia mode. And so far Osama Bin Laden's goal is working almost to perfection.....are you willing to spend another 1.7 trillion dollars to fight ISIS?
ISIS is so powerful now they killed the JUDGE who sentenced Saddam Hussein to DEATH....this isn't a group we're fighting, it's a full on terrorist state/army. Let them have their caliphate, if they plot attacks here, then we hammer then to full effect. Till then, let the Iraqis go bankrupt fighting ISIS. Otherwise, what's your military plan against ISIS?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/report-judge-who-sentenced-saddam-hussein-to-death-captured-executed-by-isis/ -
Black_Samson wrote: »well. yall gotta understand i have a certain bias towards these people..
they were launching ? at us before we even crossed the damn border... ? them and all that they stand for.
glass parking lot.
I hate radical Islamists with a passion but they aren't powerful without local support. By killing people all over the Middle East for oil, minerals, and to protect the apartheid state known as Israel, we're only going to play wack a mole with those people. Playing wack a mole is a waste of time because it only creates more enemies long term. America has zero moral authority there, that's why we're not respected in the Middle East.
Sending hydrogen bombs to Iraq won't solve the problem. We will bomb our allies by accident and create massive civilian casualties LOL. It would only increase ISIS' power and financial backing from the rich Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They have billionaire princes funding ISIS according to British intelligence. But I understand your anger.... -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »wow... yall ? this thread up.
what do you think should be done to fix the problem??? should we just leave them alone or find some way to crush them?? you were in the military so your opinion should matter the most
Glass parking lot.
There's an easier way. America should change its foreign policy and listen more to the concerns of the Arab street. It wasn't always like this, before oil and Israel, America had decent relations with the Middle East...
I don't have any faith in the arab street, the only thing we need to listen to them do is cry in agony until they knock off the ? . but seriously the arab street wants the destruction of Israel and the creation of a caliphate that is the long term goal of groups like isis, we cannot allow that. I think that maybe because many of you in this thread are not religious you think you can reason with these people, you are wrong. Unless we destroy these people utterly they will continue. listen to the arab street lol. ? there concerns until they stop this ? .
and America has never had decent relations with the middle east the first time America used force overseas it was to rescue captured American sailors that were going to be sold into slavery.
I understand many in the Arab world hate Israel but Israel constantly is stealing land and water from the Palestinians and others in the region. It's destroying the homes of many Palestinians there, leaving many homeless and building homes in the same areas for Jewish settlers, do you realize how bad that's making Israel and America look? We need to let Israel twist in the wind, defending everything Israel does has created tons upon tons of enemies for America there.
And as far as decent relations with the Arabs, it can be done. Sweden is much closer to the Arab world and they have little problems with them, same with Norway and many other places. I understand what the Arab pirates did back in the 1700s but Europeans and Americans were acting ? up too, all over the world. There's always going to be radicalism in some parts of the Muslim world, true, but it can be contained by not pouring fuel on the fire, something America loves to do. Before oil and Israel, for the most part, Arabs didn't give Americans much problems. America has done a lot to create the extreme hatred it gets from that region, from toppling democratically elected govts to supporting oppressive governments all over the region that are hated by their people.
We need to pull israel in and keep her in check not throw her to the arabs, and quite frankly that would be for the arabs own good because it we pull out of middle eastern affairs 100% israel will destroy the arabs. The united states of america is not sweden and can never be , we are a super power sweden and norway can act the way they do because they don't have our responsibility. The only way to put out a religious fire is with blood. There is no backing out no pussying out of this ? . We are going to have to fight these people either today or tomorrow
ARABS did not give america any problems before israel because they were under colonial rule and before that they were part of the ottoman empire which was an islamic empire.
Israel can't destroy all the Arabs though, they couldn't even beat Lebanon or Hezbolla in 2006. Israel can't even destroy Hamas and they're like a couple of miles from Israel. Israel is surrounded by enemies and they can't destroy them, only contain them. That should be America's policy, containment.
America also can't take on ISIS without going further bankrupt, remember, Osama Bin Laden's goal was to bankrupt America by keeping America on attack and paranoia mode. And so far Osama Bin Laden's goal is working almost to perfection.....are you willing to spend another 1.7 trillion dollars to fight ISIS?
ISIS is so powerful now they killed the JUDGE who sentenced Saddam Hussein to DEATH....this isn't a group we're fighting, it's a full on terrorist state/army. Let them have their caliphate, if they plot attacks here, then we hammer then to full effect. Till then, let the Iraqis go bankrupt fighting ISIS. Otherwise, what's your military plan against ISIS?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/report-judge-who-sentenced-saddam-hussein-to-death-captured-executed-by-isis/
DOG are you ? serious??? israel has wmds You THINK they won't use them if it looks like a war is not going their way?? you think they would risk being scattered all over the earth again?? Israel has not destroyed hamas yet because the world holds them back. International pressure is the only thing stopping israel from taking gaza and the west bank as it is now they are are slowly chipping away them.
america will not go bankrupt by destroying isis, They have 400 million we spend that in an hour and are still the worlds richest nation. america should retake certain important areas of iraq and support the iraq army and the kurds with air power everywhere else. Let them get a caliphate?? ? are you crazy and would mean war all over the middle east. You sound like neville chamberlain right now. we have to fight them now or later lets do it now before they get stronger. -
so topically, did people realize that this was more hype than ? WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
this is not REALLY what happened there; to include "why is this phrased like other countries were not involved" and "you can't be given what you make yourself"The US gave Saddam chemical weapons in the 80s to use against Iran, so they knew he has those.
i think you're misremembering a Bob Guccione moviepissedoffnobody wrote: »Rome's leaders got so ? insanely hyped on their own ? , one of their emperors married a horse and ? it. -
Worth reading if you're interested:Gilgamesh tomb believed found
Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 April, 2003, 07:57 GMT 08:57 UK
Archaeologists in Iraq believe they may have found the lost tomb of King Gilgamesh - the subject of the oldest "book" in history.
The Epic Of Gilgamesh - written by a Middle Eastern scholar 2,500 years before the birth of Christ - commemorated the life of the ruler of the city of Uruk, from which Iraq gets its name.
Now, a German-led expedition has discovered what is thought to be the entire city of Uruk - including, where the Euphrates once flowed, the last resting place of its famous King.
"I don't want to say definitely it was the grave of King Gilgamesh, but it looks very similar to that described in the epic," Jorg Fassbinder, of the Bavarian department of Historical Monuments in Munich, told the BBC World Service's Science in Action programme.
Magnetic
In the book - actually a set of inscribed clay tablets - Gilgamesh was described as having been buried under the Euphrates, in a tomb apparently constructed when the waters of the ancient river parted following his death.
"We found just outside the city an area in the middle of the former Euphrates river the remains of such a building which could be interpreted as a burial," Mr Fassbinder said.
He said the amazing discovery of the ancient city under the Iraqi desert had been made possible by modern technology.
Gilgamesh was believed to be two-thirds ? , one-third human
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2982891.stm
Gilgamesh as illustrated in The Chaldean Account of Genesis (1876)
Gilgamesh (/ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/; Gilgameš, often given the epithet of the King, also known as Bilgamesh in the Sumerian texts)[1] was the fifth king of Uruk, modern day Iraq (Early Dynastic II, first dynasty of Uruk), placing his reign ca. 2500 BC.
Gilgamesh is a demigod of superhuman strength who built the city walls of Uruk to defend his people from external threats, and travelled to meet the sage Utnapishtim, who had survived the Great Deluge.
He is usually described as two-thirds ? and one third man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GilgameshFour Angels at the Euphrates
13 Then the sixth angel sounded: And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before ? ,
14 saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates."
15 So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to ? a third of mankind.
http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/revelation/Revelation9/
http://biblehub.com/revelation/9-14.htmINTACT GENETIC MATERIAL EXTRACTED FROM AN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN MUMMY
By HAROLD M. SCHMECK Jr.
Published: April 16, 1985
HUMAN genetic material, largely undamaged after 2,400 years, has been extracted from an Egyptian mummy and has been grown in the laboratory. The achievement is the most dramatic of a series of recent accomplishments using molecular biology to study links between modern and ancient life.
Details of the recovery of DNA from the mummy will be published Thursday in the scientific journal Nature. The achievement by Dr. Svante Paabo of University of Uppsala in Sweden, is believed to be the first in which DNA, the genetic material in all forms of life, has been resurrected and duplicated from an ancient human or from any other specimen of such antiquity.
The ability to reproduce DNA from such an ancient source is expected to be a powerful new aid to archeology and to the study of evolution.
In an interview by telephone, Dr. Paabo said the new findings show it is feasible to study DNA from ancient sources. In the future, the Swedish scientist hopes to find genetic material from viruses in mummy tissues. If successful, this would be a great aid to the study of the evolution of viruses over thousands of years in the human population.
Scientists of University of California at Berkeley recently detected DNA in a sample of muscle from a mammoth that died 40,000 years ago. Last year the same group extracted and reproduced DNA from an African mammal called a quagga that became extinct a century ago. It was a relative of the zebra and the horse. Reproduction of fragments of its genetic material represented the first time such a biochemical resurrection had ever been achieved with the DNA of any extinct animal.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/16/science/intact-genetic-material-extracted-from-an-ancient-egyptian-mummy.htmlScience Bring Extinct Frog Back From Grave
San Francisco : CA : USA | Mar 26, 2013 at 12:23 PM PDT
By Barry Eitel send a private message
The Extinct Gastric-Brooding Frog (Image credit: Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts)
We may be one step closer to Jurassic Park. Or, at least, maybe a step closer to seeing woolly mammoths at the zoo. Regardless, scientists have resurrected a recently-extinct (and really bizarre) Australian frog species through cloning in the lab.
Australian scientists at the University of Newcastle implanted a dead cell nucleus into the egg of a related frog species to create the clone. The results have yet to be published.
The frog in question is the gastric-brooding frog (Rheobatrachus silus), a former native of the rainforests surrounding Queensland, Australia. Deforestation and other habitat destruction wiped out the species and the frog was declared officially extinct in 1983.
Scientists have kept a dead frog in a freezer since the 1970s and used this tissue to create the clone. The researchers are calling the procedure the Lazarus Project.
"We are watching Lazarus arise from the dead, step by exciting step," claims University of New South Wales in Sydney professor Mike Archer, the leader of the Lazarus Project team. "We've reactivated dead cells into living ones and revived the extinct frog's genome in the process. Now we have fresh cryo-preserved cells of the extinct frog to use in future cloning experiments.”
The cloning is the first success in bringing back extinct species.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14301011-science-bring-extinct-frog-back-from-graveLazarus of Bethany, also known as Saint Lazarus or Lazarus of the Four Days, is the subject of a prominent miracle attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John, in which Jesus restores him to life four days after his death. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions offer varying accounts of the later events of his life.
In the context of the Gospel of John, the narrative of the Raising of Lazarus forms "the climactic sign... Each of Jesus' seven signs illustrates some particular aspect of his divine authority, but this one exemplifies his power over the last and most irresistible enemy of humanity—death. For this reason it is given a prominent place in the gospel."[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany -
ISIS is a whole nother animal to me, no amount of social or political issues being fixed could make them go away. They are evil.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »wow... yall ? this thread up.
what do you think should be done to fix the problem??? should we just leave them alone or find some way to crush them?? you were in the military so your opinion should matter the most
Glass parking lot.
There's an easier way. America should change its foreign policy and listen more to the concerns of the Arab street. It wasn't always like this, before oil and Israel, America had decent relations with the Middle East...
I don't have any faith in the arab street, the only thing we need to listen to them do is cry in agony until they knock off the ? . but seriously the arab street wants the destruction of Israel and the creation of a caliphate that is the long term goal of groups like isis, we cannot allow that. I think that maybe because many of you in this thread are not religious you think you can reason with these people, you are wrong. Unless we destroy these people utterly they will continue. listen to the arab street lol. ? there concerns until they stop this ? .
and America has never had decent relations with the middle east the first time America used force overseas it was to rescue captured American sailors that were going to be sold into slavery.
I understand many in the Arab world hate Israel but Israel constantly is stealing land and water from the Palestinians and others in the region. It's destroying the homes of many Palestinians there, leaving many homeless and building homes in the same areas for Jewish settlers, do you realize how bad that's making Israel and America look? We need to let Israel twist in the wind, defending everything Israel does has created tons upon tons of enemies for America there.
And as far as decent relations with the Arabs, it can be done. Sweden is much closer to the Arab world and they have little problems with them, same with Norway and many other places. I understand what the Arab pirates did back in the 1700s but Europeans and Americans were acting ? up too, all over the world. There's always going to be radicalism in some parts of the Muslim world, true, but it can be contained by not pouring fuel on the fire, something America loves to do. Before oil and Israel, for the most part, Arabs didn't give Americans much problems. America has done a lot to create the extreme hatred it gets from that region, from toppling democratically elected govts to supporting oppressive governments all over the region that are hated by their people.
We need to pull israel in and keep her in check not throw her to the arabs, and quite frankly that would be for the arabs own good because it we pull out of middle eastern affairs 100% israel will destroy the arabs. The united states of america is not sweden and can never be , we are a super power sweden and norway can act the way they do because they don't have our responsibility. The only way to put out a religious fire is with blood. There is no backing out no pussying out of this ? . We are going to have to fight these people either today or tomorrow
ARABS did not give america any problems before israel because they were under colonial rule and before that they were part of the ottoman empire which was an islamic empire.
Israel can't destroy all the Arabs though, they couldn't even beat Lebanon or Hezbolla in 2006. Israel can't even destroy Hamas and they're like a couple of miles from Israel. Israel is surrounded by enemies and they can't destroy them, only contain them. That should be America's policy, containment.
America also can't take on ISIS without going further bankrupt, remember, Osama Bin Laden's goal was to bankrupt America by keeping America on attack and paranoia mode. And so far Osama Bin Laden's goal is working almost to perfection.....are you willing to spend another 1.7 trillion dollars to fight ISIS?
ISIS is so powerful now they killed the JUDGE who sentenced Saddam Hussein to DEATH....this isn't a group we're fighting, it's a full on terrorist state/army. Let them have their caliphate, if they plot attacks here, then we hammer then to full effect. Till then, let the Iraqis go bankrupt fighting ISIS. Otherwise, what's your military plan against ISIS?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/report-judge-who-sentenced-saddam-hussein-to-death-captured-executed-by-isis/
DOG are you ? serious??? israel has wmds You THINK they won't use them if it looks like a war is not going their way?? you think they would risk being scattered all over the earth again?? Israel has not destroyed hamas yet because the world holds them back. International pressure is the only thing stopping israel from taking gaza and the west bank as it is now they are are slowly chipping away them.
america will not go bankrupt by destroying isis, They have 400 million we spend that in an hour and are still the worlds richest nation. america should retake certain important areas of iraq and support the iraq army and the kurds with air power everywhere else. Let them get a caliphate?? ? are you crazy and would mean war all over the middle east. You sound like neville chamberlain right now. we have to fight them now or later lets do it now before they get stronger.
Israel using nukes against the Arabs means nuclear activity going Israel's way too, I don't think the Israelis are that crazy. I take that back, yes they are that crazy. Israel commits much evil in the Middle East, so I will not doubt anything with them.
As far as ISIS, America would go bankrupt fighting them because as I have said and as military experts are already telling Obama, bombing ISIS now is dangerous because it means bombing their MANY allies in Iraq now, which include Syrian and Iraqi tribes. This is bigger then the 400 million they stole, they have people from Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia funding them, billionaires. America can't even beat back the rag tag Taliban in Afghanistan, and ISIS has better weapons. All the money and aid America has poured into Syria to give to the "good guy" militants of Syria? News flash, ISIS has kicked those "good guys'" ? all up and down Syria. ISIS and their allies have those weapons and guns now, this will be tough. Why else do you think Obama is so hesitant to attack ISIS now? This isn't a problem guns and ammo will solve, tough political negotiations will. For America to retake certain parts of Iraq requires thousands of boots on the ground, 74% of Americans do not support your plan at all. People aren't ready to lose another 4500 Americans and see another 10K wounded. Fighting ISIS also means heavy fighting in Syria, you want us to fight THREE wars now? It won't work, even Obama is admitting this. Hell, generals on the ground are admitting ISIS headquarters are in Syria, our hands are tied man. Time for negotiations, America is BROKE. -
@kingblaze84
Most american??? most americans are idiots they don't have a say that's why we have an elite, and america is not going bankrupt our economy has been doing better actually, israel has more than nuclear weapons. We fight the physical war against isis in iraq and isolate the war in syria to one nation. then we assassinate their backers in qatar and saudi arabia. Simple.
Like I KEEP telling you we either fight them now or fight them later because if we leave them alone a future generation will have to. If america backs down from isis this will be a world wide signal to our enemies that we are flabby and sick when the truth of the matter is we are not. PEOPLE are tired of war which i understand but the alternative could be worse, obama has turned out to be a weak president and he needs to be gone. WE ARE GOING TO REGRET HIS DECISIONS IN THE COMING YEARS. MARK MY WORDS.
-
@kingblaze84
Most american??? most americans are idiots they don't have a say that's why we have an elite, and america is not going bankrupt our economy has been doing better actually, israel has more than nuclear weapons. We fight the physical war against isis in iraq and isolate the war in syria to one nation. then we assassinate their backers in qatar and saudi arabia. Simple.
Like I KEEP telling you we either fight them now or fight them later because if we leave them alone a future generation will have to. If america backs down from isis this will be a world wide signal to our enemies that we are flabby and sick when the truth of the matter is we are not. PEOPLE are tired of war which i understand but the alternative could be worse, obama has turned out to be a weak president and he needs to be gone. WE ARE GOING TO REGRET HIS DECISIONS IN THE COMING YEARS. MARK MY WORDS.
Isolating the war in Syria to one nation will be impossible without massive amounts of American troops, how many troops do you think America should put on the ground in Iraq? How many in Syria? Also be aware that sending so many troops to Iraq again risks angering Iran, so that would leave us as enemies of ISIS, most Sunni tribes in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Syria, and many Sunnis in Syria. Also be aware your strategy would have America fighting Iranian troops or its powerful allies in Iraq as well. That's 5 groups of enemies your strategy would have us fighting against. That's fine, but I wana know how many troops you want America to commit to this.
Meanwhile, we're still in Afghanistan too lol......not sure your idea is realistic but Im willing to hear it out. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »@kingblaze84
Most american??? most americans are idiots they don't have a say that's why we have an elite, and america is not going bankrupt our economy has been doing better actually, israel has more than nuclear weapons. We fight the physical war against isis in iraq and isolate the war in syria to one nation. then we assassinate their backers in qatar and saudi arabia. Simple.
Like I KEEP telling you we either fight them now or fight them later because if we leave them alone a future generation will have to. If america backs down from isis this will be a world wide signal to our enemies that we are flabby and sick when the truth of the matter is we are not. PEOPLE are tired of war which i understand but the alternative could be worse, obama has turned out to be a weak president and he needs to be gone. WE ARE GOING TO REGRET HIS DECISIONS IN THE COMING YEARS. MARK MY WORDS.
Isolating the war in Syria to one nation will be impossible without massive amounts of American troops, how many troops do you think America should put on the ground in Iraq? How many in Syria? Also be aware that sending so many troops to Iraq again risks angering Iran, so that would leave us as enemies of ISIS, most Sunni tribes in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Syria, and many Sunnis in Syria. Also be aware your strategy would have America fighting Iranian troops or its powerful allies in Iraq as well. That's 5 groups of enemies your strategy would have us fighting against. That's fine, but I wana know how many troops you want America to commit to this.
Meanwhile, we're still in Afghanistan too lol......not sure your idea is realistic but Im willing to hear it out.kingblaze84 wrote: »@kingblaze84
Most american??? most americans are idiots they don't have a say that's why we have an elite, and america is not going bankrupt our economy has been doing better actually, israel has more than nuclear weapons. We fight the physical war against isis in iraq and isolate the war in syria to one nation. then we assassinate their backers in qatar and saudi arabia. Simple.
Like I KEEP telling you we either fight them now or fight them later because if we leave them alone a future generation will have to. If america backs down from isis this will be a world wide signal to our enemies that we are flabby and sick when the truth of the matter is we are not. PEOPLE are tired of war which i understand but the alternative could be worse, obama has turned out to be a weak president and he needs to be gone. WE ARE GOING TO REGRET HIS DECISIONS IN THE COMING YEARS. MARK MY WORDS.
Isolating the war in Syria to one nation will be impossible without massive amounts of American troops, how many troops do you think America should put on the ground in Iraq? How many in Syria? Also be aware that sending so many troops to Iraq again risks angering Iran, so that would leave us as enemies of ISIS, most Sunni tribes in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Syria, and many Sunnis in Syria. Also be aware your strategy would have America fighting Iranian troops or its powerful allies in Iraq as well. That's 5 groups of enemies your strategy would have us fighting against. That's fine, but I wana know how many troops you want America to commit to this.
Meanwhile, we're still in Afghanistan too lol......not sure your idea is realistic but Im willing to hear it out.
we don't need to send in millions of troops to defeat Isis. you are underestimating the American military. Iran can be angry all they want. we won't be fighting Iran, we would actually be fighting against the people Iran wants to fight.
Isis in iraq will flee into Syria let Assad deal with them.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »@kingblaze84
Most american??? most americans are idiots they don't have a say that's why we have an elite, and america is not going bankrupt our economy has been doing better actually, israel has more than nuclear weapons. We fight the physical war against isis in iraq and isolate the war in syria to one nation. then we assassinate their backers in qatar and saudi arabia. Simple.
Like I KEEP telling you we either fight them now or fight them later because if we leave them alone a future generation will have to. If america backs down from isis this will be a world wide signal to our enemies that we are flabby and sick when the truth of the matter is we are not. PEOPLE are tired of war which i understand but the alternative could be worse, obama has turned out to be a weak president and he needs to be gone. WE ARE GOING TO REGRET HIS DECISIONS IN THE COMING YEARS. MARK MY WORDS.
Isolating the war in Syria to one nation will be impossible without massive amounts of American troops, how many troops do you think America should put on the ground in Iraq? How many in Syria? Also be aware that sending so many troops to Iraq again risks angering Iran, so that would leave us as enemies of ISIS, most Sunni tribes in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Syria, and many Sunnis in Syria. Also be aware your strategy would have America fighting Iranian troops or its powerful allies in Iraq as well. That's 5 groups of enemies your strategy would have us fighting against. That's fine, but I wana know how many troops you want America to commit to this.
Meanwhile, we're still in Afghanistan too lol......not sure your idea is realistic but Im willing to hear it out.kingblaze84 wrote: »@kingblaze84
Most american??? most americans are idiots they don't have a say that's why we have an elite, and america is not going bankrupt our economy has been doing better actually, israel has more than nuclear weapons. We fight the physical war against isis in iraq and isolate the war in syria to one nation. then we assassinate their backers in qatar and saudi arabia. Simple.
Like I KEEP telling you we either fight them now or fight them later because if we leave them alone a future generation will have to. If america backs down from isis this will be a world wide signal to our enemies that we are flabby and sick when the truth of the matter is we are not. PEOPLE are tired of war which i understand but the alternative could be worse, obama has turned out to be a weak president and he needs to be gone. WE ARE GOING TO REGRET HIS DECISIONS IN THE COMING YEARS. MARK MY WORDS.
Isolating the war in Syria to one nation will be impossible without massive amounts of American troops, how many troops do you think America should put on the ground in Iraq? How many in Syria? Also be aware that sending so many troops to Iraq again risks angering Iran, so that would leave us as enemies of ISIS, most Sunni tribes in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Syria, and many Sunnis in Syria. Also be aware your strategy would have America fighting Iranian troops or its powerful allies in Iraq as well. That's 5 groups of enemies your strategy would have us fighting against. That's fine, but I wana know how many troops you want America to commit to this.
Meanwhile, we're still in Afghanistan too lol......not sure your idea is realistic but Im willing to hear it out.
we don't need to send in millions of troops to defeat Isis. you are underestimating the American military. Iran can be angry all they want. we won't be fighting Iran, we would actually be fighting against the people Iran wants to fight.
Isis in iraq will flee into Syria let Assad deal with them.
You're right, I am underestimating America's military lol. I have ZERO confidence in America's military solving ANY problems in the Middle East. ZERO.
America's military is strong but it can't even beat the Taliban. The Taliban have control over most of Afghanistan, once America leaves Afghanistan completely, the Taliban will take control of the country all over again. As far as Iraq, once we took those troops out, look what happened. America's military SUCKS at fighting against guerilla warfare. It's why we lost so horribly in Vietnam, and apparrently Iraq. We're still losing in Afghanistan by far, we been there 12 years with ZERO progress being made there, ZERO. America's military isn't as mighty as you think it is, otherwise, why haven't we beaten the rag tag Taliban yet? John Kerry has also said this is a problem America's military can't fix, it's a civil war btw Shia and Sunni elements who hate Iraq's close relations with America. America's military can't fight wars in the Middle East for ? , it's why America is so hesitant to go in Iraq again. -
the reason why America keeps losing guerilla wars is because we approach them like peacekeepers when we should approach them as conquers. we tried to teach these people democracy. which was a mistake.
-
@zombie
We tried approaching as conquerors. We killed one million Iraqi civilians and thousands of Saddam's troops. It got us nowhere long term. As Sun Tzu said, a conqueror can only truly win if he has moral authority over his enemies. America doesn't have that. I say let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out and we either work with the winner or fight them, without using troops in any capacity (for now). Too early to get in there now in my opinion. If you're that terrified of ISIS, we should just protect the homeland better. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »@zombie
We tried approaching as conquerors. We killed one million Iraqi civilians and thousands of Saddam's troops. It got us nowhere long term. As Sun Tzu said, a conqueror can only truly win if he has moral authority over his enemies. America doesn't have that. I say let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out and we either work with the winner or fight them, without using troops in any capacity (for now). Too early to get in there now in my opinion. If you're that terrified of ISIS, we should just protect the homeland better.
I don't see how you can join forces after abandoning a group that asked for help. It would be easier to fight them while Iraq's army still has forces. Other then that, it would be difficult to not have troops on the ground with no opposition forces available. -
the problems of the middle east can only be solved by force. until the ideology of fundamentalist islam is totally deskingblaze84 wrote: »@zombie
We tried approaching as conquerors. We killed one million Iraqi civilians and thousands of Saddam's troops. It got us nowhere long term. As Sun Tzu said, a conqueror can only truly win if he has moral authority over his enemies. America doesn't have that. I say let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out and we either work with the winner or fight them, without using troops in any capacity (for now). Too early to get in there now in my opinion. If you're that terrified of ISIS, we should just protect the homeland better.
no we did not approach Iraq as conquers we tried to help them set up a democratic government when what they needed was a military governor. I think you're delusional if you think after such failure we would be able to work with either side. the only way this ends good for America is to ? more. and Sun Tzu never knew the threat of islam
-
people keep talking that America can't beat Taliban bull. the real enemy in Afghanistan is the terrain not the Taliban
-
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@zombie
We tried approaching as conquerors. We killed one million Iraqi civilians and thousands of Saddam's troops. It got us nowhere long term. As Sun Tzu said, a conqueror can only truly win if he has moral authority over his enemies. America doesn't have that. I say let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out and we either work with the winner or fight them, without using troops in any capacity (for now). Too early to get in there now in my opinion. If you're that terrified of ISIS, we should just protect the homeland better.
I don't see how you can join forces after abandoning a group that asked for help. It would be easier to fight them while Iraq's army still has forces. Other then that, it would be difficult to not have troops on the ground with no opposition forces available.
Iraq has forces? LMAO no they don't, they have a bunch of wack ass, scared, ? made soldiers that aren't even willing to fight for their own homeland. I'm not willing to send American forces to fight a war for ? made Iraqis who can't even fight on their own land against ISIS. If this means America has to boost up homeland security, fine I can live with that. But fighting another war that will lose and fail because the American public is tired of fighting will go nowhere. John Kerry and Obama are on record as saying a military solution to this problem is IMPOSSIBLE. Rattling the hornet's nest will only spread the propaganda and recruitment for ISIS, that's how badly America is hated in Iraq now. -
the problems of the middle east can only be solved by force. until the ideology of fundamentalist islam is totally deskingblaze84 wrote: »@zombie
We tried approaching as conquerors. We killed one million Iraqi civilians and thousands of Saddam's troops. It got us nowhere long term. As Sun Tzu said, a conqueror can only truly win if he has moral authority over his enemies. America doesn't have that. I say let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out and we either work with the winner or fight them, without using troops in any capacity (for now). Too early to get in there now in my opinion. If you're that terrified of ISIS, we should just protect the homeland better.
no we did not approach Iraq as conquers we tried to help them set up a democratic government when what they needed was a military governor. I think you're delusional if you think after such failure we would be able to work with either side. the only way this ends good for America is to ? more. and Sun Tzu never knew the threat of islam
Killing and bombing more won't solve the problem according to military advice Obama and John Kerry are listening to, it's beyond drones and soldiers. Realistically, the American public will NOT accept more troops to Iraq. It's not going to happen, not anytime soon. Even a Republican president would have an extremely difficult time sending American troops there, there is no will to fight battles for cowardly Iraqi soldiers. If cowardly Iraqi soldiers can't fight battles for us after 1.7 trillion wasted dollars, then ? them. We gotta build up homeland security and hope we can stop any terror attacks from coming our way. It's cheaper then another war.
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
