If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Last week: US airstrikes in Iraq won't accomplish anything. Today: The Kurds retake two towns from ISIS with US air support   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 169
    More: Cool, Kurdish, Northern Iraq, religious conversion, Kirkuk, Bram Janssen in Irbil, french foreign minister, Basra, Iraqi Air Force  
•       •       •

5135 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2014 at 4:51 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-10 03:39:49 PM  
FTA: Kurdish peshmerga fighters were able to push the militants of the Islamic State group out of the villages of Makhmour and al-Gweir, some 45 kilometers from Irbil, Brig. Gen. Shirko Fatih said. The United States launched a fourth round of airstrikes Sunday against militant vehicles and mortars firing on Irbil as part of efforts to blunt the militants' advance and protect American personnel near the Kurdish capital.
 
2014-08-10 04:09:02 PM  
Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas. Which is why you have to actually time your strikes, and select targets at more than just random. If folks aren't in place yet, then airstrikes will cause material loss, and some loss of life, but not much else. You will note that Kurdish fighters WERE in place to retake towns.

Bombing willy-nilly does look cool to folks who just like asplosions, but ordinance has to be expended at the right place, at the right time. Otherwise, you're just blowing stuff up and that has limited efficacy alone. You want to terrorize the f*ck out of folks? You want to scare them? Then go ahead, but most folks in our military have specific goals in mind beyond just "keep their heads down and blow stuff up."
 
2014-08-10 04:26:19 PM  

hubiestubert: Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas.


And yet none of the airstrike detractors ever considered that airstrikes might be used on conjunction with non-US troop movements on the ground. If the Iraqi government can get their shiat together, we can do the same with their military on a grander scale. That the Kurds are making gains now does not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that so many of the critics never considered that this could happen. And yet, it has happened within days of the airstrikes beginning.
 
2014-08-10 04:28:15 PM  

hubiestubert: Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas. Which is why you have to actually time your strikes, and select targets at more than just random. If folks aren't in place yet, then airstrikes will cause material loss, and some loss of life, but not much else. You will note that Kurdish fighters WERE in place to retake towns.

Bombing willy-nilly does look cool to folks who just like asplosions, but ordinance has to be expended at the right place, at the right time. Otherwise, you're just blowing stuff up and that has limited efficacy alone. You want to terrorize the f*ck out of folks? You want to scare them? Then go ahead, but most folks in our military have specific goals in mind beyond just "keep their heads down and blow stuff up."


Not all ground-to-air operations are close air support, and not every conflict is fought only in terms of immediate tactical consideration.

For that matter, what the f*ck are you even trying to argue?
 
2014-08-10 04:41:50 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: hubiestubert: Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas.

And yet none of the airstrike detractors ever considered that airstrikes might be used on conjunction with non-US troop movements on the ground. If the Iraqi government can get their shiat together, we can do the same with their military on a grander scale. That the Kurds are making gains now does not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that so many of the critics never considered that this could happen. And yet, it has happened within days of the airstrikes beginning.


...and therein lies the flaw in a lot of folks' thinking. That if the US strikes, that we HAVE to be invested on the ground as well. The "Obama Doctrine" as it's shaped up, is to do as much damage, with as few casualties and risks to our own troops, while improving morale and teamwork with allied forces. The change in our strategy and operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq, when Obama came into office have stressed working with locals, working to support locals, and help them provide their own security, so that they are invested in the outcomes. Not that it's handed to them on a silver platter, but in conjunction with the US. That is a psychological point that is made. Not "WE DID THIS FOR YOU!" but "We did this together." And that is a subtle thing perhaps, but it's important to a lot of the folks in this part of the world. They're used to outside interference, they're used to being dictated to by the US and the resentment that builds, even if it is done to help them, animosity. To have Iraqis cheer for the US forces, that's an important step. It's important in that they see US forces act, and then they realize that they have to step up too. As a military doctrine, that's a nuanced approach that may have some long lasting effect, IF we can build upon it. There IS worry in the region, that if Obama is replaced with another NeoCon ideologue, that all the advances made will be for naught, and I don't blame folks for taking a "wait and see" approach to how this will shake out. But they do have, now, some experience of being able to be invested in the progress their own nation makes, and hopefully it can be built upon.
 
2014-08-10 04:43:12 PM  

Sid_6.7: hubiestubert: Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas. Which is why you have to actually time your strikes, and select targets at more than just random. If folks aren't in place yet, then airstrikes will cause material loss, and some loss of life, but not much else. You will note that Kurdish fighters WERE in place to retake towns.

Bombing willy-nilly does look cool to folks who just like asplosions, but ordinance has to be expended at the right place, at the right time. Otherwise, you're just blowing stuff up and that has limited efficacy alone. You want to terrorize the f*ck out of folks? You want to scare them? Then go ahead, but most folks in our military have specific goals in mind beyond just "keep their heads down and blow stuff up."

Not all ground-to-air operations are close air support, and not every conflict is fought only in terms of immediate tactical consideration.

For that matter, what the f*ck are you even trying to argue?


Take a look at the headline, and come back when you've sorted it out.
 
2014-08-10 04:49:24 PM  
We can't turn ISIS into swiss cheese without Kurds
 
2014-08-10 04:53:27 PM  

hubiestubert: Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas. Which is why you have to actually time your strikes, and select targets at more than just random. If folks aren't in place yet, then airstrikes will cause material loss, and some loss of life, but not much else. You will note that Kurdish fighters WERE in place to retake towns.

Bombing willy-nilly does look cool to folks who just like asplosions, but ordinance has to be expended at the right place, at the right time. Otherwise, you're just blowing stuff up and that has limited efficacy alone. You want to terrorize the f*ck out of folks? You want to scare them? Then go ahead, but most folks in our military have specific goals in mind beyond just "keep their heads down and blow stuff up."


Our bombs, their boots.
 
GBB
2014-08-10 04:54:22 PM  
Next up: we arm the next Bin Laden.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-10 04:54:33 PM  
That's because the airstrikes were designed to assist ground forces and not just bombing people.  I suspect they were coordinated with the Kurds in advance.
 
2014-08-10 04:57:23 PM  
 
2014-08-10 04:58:38 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We can't turn ISIS into swiss cheese without Kurds


no whey.
 
2014-08-10 05:01:32 PM  
Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.
 
2014-08-10 05:02:22 PM  

jaytkay: August 7, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Airstrikes In Iraq Are 'Essential' To Stop ISIS

August 10, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Obama's actions in Iraq are "shameful"


Wrong Peter King. You're confusing the neo-con one from New York that should never be taken seriously with the derpy one from Iowa that should never be taken seriously.
 
2014-08-10 05:03:12 PM  

jaytkay: August 7, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Airstrikes In Iraq Are 'Essential' To Stop ISIS

August 10, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Obama's actions in Iraq are "shameful"


Iowa? Both articles say NY.
 
2014-08-10 05:04:09 PM  
Is this cowboy diplomacy?
 
2014-08-10 05:05:18 PM  
You know what. Fark the rest of Iraq. If we're gonna have any involvement in that area (which I'm on the fence about leaning towards we shouldn't at all) it should just be with the Kurds. Help them form a new nation of Kurdistan and recognize them as an ally. The Kurds have been one of the only groups that has been on our side and tried to stay out of all the rest of that shiat for as long as they could. God knows they deserve some peace. They didn't get it with Saddam, they had a chance when we invaded but we didn't help they form a new nation then. Now once again they're fighting the rest of that region to just be left alone.
 
2014-08-10 05:05:30 PM  

GBB: Next up: we arm the next Bin Laden.


We already gave him more bullets than he could handle.
 
2014-08-10 05:06:47 PM  

stirfrybry: Is this cowboy diplomacy?


No, there's actually logic to this instead of the "blow shiat up just for the sake of blowing shiat up" approach we took in the past.
 
2014-08-10 05:07:32 PM  

taurusowner: You know what. Fark the rest of Iraq. If we're gonna have any involvement in that area (which I'm on the fence about leaning towards we shouldn't at all) it should just be with the Kurds. Help them form a new nation of Kurdistan and recognize them as an ally. The Kurds have been one of the only groups that has been on our side and tried to stay out of all the rest of that shiat for as long as they could. God knows they deserve some peace. They didn't get it with Saddam, they had a chance when we invaded but we didn't help they form a new nation then. Now once again they're fighting the rest of that region to just be left alone.


And we take all the oil rich regions, give it to the Kurds as well....
 
2014-08-10 05:07:34 PM  

Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.


I can't believe you want to risk American troops again.
 
2014-08-10 05:07:59 PM  
God bless the peshmerga. I'm not even sure if there is a God, but to say "good luck" just seems inadequate given how much they've helped the Yazidis and other refugees.
 
2014-08-10 05:08:05 PM  

RadiomanATL: jaytkay: August 7, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Airstrikes In Iraq Are 'Essential' To Stop ISIS

August 10, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Obama's actions in Iraq are "shameful"

Iowa? Both articles say NY.


The Iowa guy's name is Steve.  He's the bigger idiot.
 
2014-08-10 05:08:27 PM  
I dunno why anyone would be surprised. The Kurds are trying their best to make an actual, working state in their territory, and the Peshmerga actually cares about protecting that government. Take out some key ISIS positions, and the Kurds are in like ugly on an ape.
 
2014-08-10 05:10:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.

I can't believe you want to risk American troops again.


Ask him if he'd be willing to raise his taxes to support his grand humanitarian intervention.
 
2014-08-10 05:10:37 PM  

Abox: RadiomanATL: jaytkay: August 7, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Airstrikes In Iraq Are 'Essential' To Stop ISIS

August 10, 2014 - Peter King (R) Iowa - Obama's actions in Iraq are "shameful"

Iowa? Both articles say NY.

The Iowa guy's name is Steve.  He's the bigger idiot.


Not really. Peter is more articulate but he's just as clueless as Steve is.
 
2014-08-10 05:11:19 PM  

theorellior: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.

I can't believe you want to risk American troops again.

Ask him if he'd be willing to raise his taxes to support his grand humanitarian intervention.


Oh I think we know the answer to that
 
2014-08-10 05:11:55 PM  

theorellior: I dunno why anyone would be surprised. The Kurds are trying their best to make an actual, working state in their territory, and the Peshmerga actually cares about protecting that government. Take out some key ISIS positions, and the Kurds are in like ugly on an ape.


I'm not sure how far the Kurds want to extend. They'd be absorbing big chunks of Arab (Sunni) territory, and they don't really want to deal with that. Nor do they want to risk their lives to fight for the Iraqi regime (can't say that I blame them).
 
2014-08-10 05:12:21 PM  

Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.


Fair enough - but it can't all be on us. If the Iraqi army is going to throw down all the expensive toys we've given them and run every time these guys say "Boo!" to them, this is going to be an exercise in futility. The Kurds, at least, will fight - but they can't do this all by themselves either
No decent human being can not loathe these cocksuckers - but if the Iraqi people don't care enough to nut up and throw them out, all the help in the world will .accomplish nothing except maybe a better-armed enemy.
 
2014-08-10 05:14:25 PM  

SilentStrider: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We can't turn ISIS into swiss cheese without Kurds

no whey.


caseinate point.
/i'm so sorry, that's just terrible
 
2014-08-10 05:14:57 PM  
August 8, 2014 -- We will raise the flag of Islam over the White House -- ISIS

August 10, 2014 -- We will raise the flag of Islam over the tent a couple of kilometers outside of Mosul -- ISIS
 
2014-08-10 05:16:08 PM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.

Fair enough - but it can't all be on us. If the Iraqi army is going to throw down all the expensive toys we've given them and run every time these guys say "Boo!" to them, this is going to be an exercise in futility. The Kurds, at least, will fight - but they can't do this all by themselves either
No decent human being can not loathe these cocksuckers - but if the Iraqi people don't care enough to nut up and throw them out, all the help in the world will .accomplish nothing except maybe a better-armed enemy.


Liberals don't care enough. And this is the problem, this turn a blind eye thing never works out. Eventually, the problem hits us, and hits us hard. They will gladly spend trillions on government waste, bringing anyone who jumps across the border here into money (because it is their right!), but people being slaughtered doesn't bother them.

What we should be doing, is also telling the rest of the world, "step in, help us out, or go to hell". No more whining and being on the sidelines for Europe. They help us, or we abandon them as allies. They need us far more than we need them. UN has a heart attack if Israel defends themselves against terrorists, where the hell are they here?
 
2014-08-10 05:16:28 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We can't turn ISIS into swiss cheese without Kurds


Bravo!
 
2014-08-10 05:17:12 PM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.

Fair enough - but it can't all be on us. If the Iraqi army is going to throw down all the expensive toys we've given them and run every time these guys say "Boo!" to them, this is going to be an exercise in futility. The Kurds, at least, will fight - but they can't do this all by themselves either
No decent human being can not loathe these cocksuckers - but if the Iraqi people don't care enough to nut up and throw them out, all the help in the world will .accomplish nothing except maybe a better-armed enemy.


I agree. In personal situations and international relations, people ultimately have to solve their own problems. It doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't help others (and we should have done more for Iraq earlier), but they have to be able to stand on their own.

Otherwise they'll just fall apart the moment your back is turned.
 
2014-08-10 05:18:10 PM  

hubiestubert: Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas. Which is why you have to actually time your strikes, and select targets at more than just random. If folks aren't in place yet, then airstrikes will cause material loss, and some loss of life, but not much else. You will note that Kurdish fighters WERE in place to retake towns.

Bombing willy-nilly does look cool to folks who just like asplosions, but ordinance has to be expended at the right place, at the right time. Otherwise, you're just blowing stuff up and that has limited efficacy alone. You want to terrorize the f*ck out of folks? You want to scare them? Then go ahead, but most folks in our military have specific goals in mind beyond just "keep their heads down and blow stuff up."


There are boots on the ground, just not our boots.  I'm behind on the news, but I doubt we're just bombing random targets so we can blow shiat up.  That's what Islamic State is doing.  "Hey look, a religious shrine.  Let's check the Koran.  Nah, why bother?  It's not our flavor of Islam, let's blow it up."

There's intelligence that goes into these things and if we can destroy a cache of weapons or decimate (in the modern sense of the word - none of this 1 in 10 shiat) a convoy traveling to attack another city that indeed does do some good.
 
2014-08-10 05:18:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh I think we know the answer to that


Hurm you libtards run up NPR bills on the backs of our grandkids and we need to LIVE FREE OR DIE because I drive a big truck and LOUD PIPES SAVE LIVES i.e. a Trolly McTrollerson who pretends to be from Real America and suchlike and furthermore.
 
2014-08-10 05:18:34 PM  

hubiestubert: Airstrikes alone won't accomplish much other than damage. You have to have boots on the ground to take areas. Which is why you have to actually time your strikes, and select targets at more than just random. If folks aren't in place yet, then airstrikes will cause material loss, and some loss of life, but not much else. You will note that Kurdish fighters WERE in place to retake towns.

Bombing willy-nilly does look cool to folks who just like asplosions, but ordinance has to be expended at the right place, at the right time. Otherwise, you're just blowing stuff up and that has limited efficacy alone. You want to terrorize the f*ck out of folks? You want to scare them? Then go ahead, but most folks in our military have specific goals in mind beyond just "keep their heads down and blow stuff up."


All that and you couldn't spell ordnance right?
 
2014-08-10 05:19:36 PM  

Thunderpipes: What we should be doing, is also telling the rest of the world, "step in, help us out, or go to hell". No more whining and being on the sidelines for Europe. They help us, or we abandon them as allies. They need us far more than we need them. UN has a heart attack if Israel defends themselves against terrorists, where the hell are they here?


fark Yeah!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M
 
2014-08-10 05:19:44 PM  

optional: I'm not sure how far the Kurds want to extend.


Probably not much. They're not extending right now, just retaking previous positions. I think they'd be fine with recapturing Mosul and then bunkering up.
 
2014-08-10 05:20:02 PM  

Thunderpipes: I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.


So you are in favor of a U.S Military draft of all our children?  Ok.
 
2014-08-10 05:20:37 PM  

Thunderpipes: jso2897: Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.

Fair enough - but it can't all be on us. If the Iraqi army is going to throw down all the expensive toys we've given them and run every time these guys say "Boo!" to them, this is going to be an exercise in futility. The Kurds, at least, will fight - but they can't do this all by themselves either
No decent human being can not loathe these cocksuckers - but if the Iraqi people don't care enough to nut up and throw them out, all the help in the world will .accomplish nothing except maybe a better-armed enemy.

Liberals don't care enough. And this is the problem, this turn a blind eye thing never works out. Eventually, the problem hits us, and hits us hard. They will gladly spend trillions on government waste, bringing anyone who jumps across the border here into money (because it is their right!), but people being slaughtered doesn't bother them.

What we should be doing, is also telling the rest of the world, "step in, help us out, or go to hell". No more whining and being on the sidelines for Europe. They help us, or we abandon them as allies. They need us far more than we need them. UN has a heart attack if Israel defends themselves against terrorists, where the hell are they here?


I'd like to do that, but it'd cause problems. Europe gets most of its oil from the Middle East. If there's some big kerfluffle there and the oil stops flowing, it'll slam their economy (and Asia's). Their economic downturn would hit us (just as the oil prices would rise-as a fungible commodity, it won't matter that we get most of our supply from Canada/Latin America), and cause serious problems.

The sad truth is that oil is worth blood. Eventually a substitute will be found, but until then it has to continue. An end to oil doesn't mean you'll just have to downgrade your living standards. It means the deaths of millions.
 
2014-08-10 05:21:16 PM  
1.1 Trillion in costs in Iraq from 2003-2010.

Just think about it. We could have hired 1 million researchers and engineers for 10 years, at an average pay of 110k/yr to find a better energy source than oil.

Instead, the US throws a war to channel funds to the "defense" industries.

/I feel so proud to be a US Citizen.
//Wish more people would vote 3rd party
 
2014-08-10 05:22:04 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Wrong Peter King.


Right Peter King, I just typed "Iowa" like a dumbass.
 
2014-08-10 05:22:08 PM  

orclover: Thunderpipes: I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.

So you are in favor of a U.S Military draft of all our children?  Ok.


He's also down with a tax hike to fund this little adventure. Because, you know, deficits and intrest rates and debt ceilings and FISCAL RESPONSIBILTY and furthermore.
 
2014-08-10 05:22:09 PM  

theorellior: optional: I'm not sure how far the Kurds want to extend.

Probably not much. They're not extending right now, just retaking previous positions. I think they'd be fine with recapturing Mosul and then bunkering up.


Yeah. I can maybe see them being persuaded to go a bit farther in order to hurt ISIS, but they won't be willing to occupy and defend it over a long period of time (and again, I totally don't blame them). Iraq has to get its act together.
 
2014-08-10 05:23:24 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Not really. Peter is more articulate but he's just as clueless as Steve is.


I could be remembering it wrong but I think I've heard Peter say things I agreed with, while everything that comes out of Steve's mouth is retarded.  But then I'm not a liberal so I do sometimes agree with non-teabagger conservatism.
 
2014-08-10 05:23:53 PM  

Thunderpipes: jso2897: Thunderpipes: Good, but still not enough. These people are beheading kids, slitting the throats of women at will, crucifying people openly. You don't just take a couple towns and they go away.

Have to hunt down every single one of them and kill them.

And the whole point is, this is not some surprise. Never should have been allowed to get this bad. I doubt even Farkers would be so nonchalant if it was their kids getting their heads cut off. I cannot believe we allow this to exist in the world today.

Fair enough - but it can't all be on us. If the Iraqi army is going to throw down all the expensive toys we've given them and run every time these guys say "Boo!" to them, this is going to be an exercise in futility. The Kurds, at least, will fight - but they can't do this all by themselves either
No decent human being can not loathe these cocksuckers - but if the Iraqi people don't care enough to nut up and throw them out, all the help in the world will .accomplish nothing except maybe a better-armed enemy.

Liberals don't care enough. And this is the problem, this turn a blind eye thing never works out. Eventually, the problem hits us, and hits us hard. They will gladly spend trillions on government waste, bringing anyone who jumps across the border here into money (because it is their right!), but people being slaughtered doesn't bother them.

What we should be doing, is also telling the rest of the world, "step in, help us out, or go to hell". No more whining and being on the sidelines for Europe. They help us, or we abandon them as allies. They need us far more than we need them. UN has a heart attack if Israel defends themselves against terrorists, where the hell are they here?


I don't think that biatching and moaning about "liberals" is going to remedy the situation of the Iraqis being unwilling to fight for their own country. This business of fighting wars for people who can't be bothered to fight them for themselves is getting old, and doesn't really seem to work.
And yes - I would apply that to anybody, if it came down to it. We've spent more than a half century playing cop and nanny to a bunch of international welfare bums who seem disinclined to lift a finger for themselves, and the utter lack of progress is unsurprising.
I wish the world were a better place, but my primary concern is the welfare of my own country and my own countrymen. If your priorities lie elsewhere , we aren't going to be able to establish much common ground.
 
2014-08-10 05:24:31 PM  

Abox: Mrtraveler01: Not really. Peter is more articulate but he's just as clueless as Steve is.

I could be remembering it wrong but I think I've heard Peter say things I agreed with, while everything that comes out of Steve's mouth is retarded.  But then I'm not a liberal so I do sometimes agree with non-teabagger conservatism.


Occcasionally you do hear some smart things from Peter King. But anytime foreign policy comes up, he sounds like a clueless retard just like the rest of the neo-con Republicans.
 
2014-08-10 05:24:42 PM  

Abox: Mrtraveler01: Not really. Peter is more articulate but he's just as clueless as Steve is.

I could be remembering it wrong but I think I've heard Peter say things I agreed with, while everything that comes out of Steve's mouth is retarded.  But then I'm not a liberal so I do sometimes agree with non-teabagger conservatism.


Then you're a liberal, son.
 
2014-08-10 05:24:49 PM  
Iraq 3: This time we really mean it
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report