Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS) - Page 17




 
--
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
 
November 26th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
The formation of ISIS happened independently from the invasion of Iraq .

And, after 9/11 there was no fear-mongering crap : Bush did his duty as president by invading Iraq.

The mistake was caused by the Liberals (mostly Democrats,but also Pepublicans ) who as usualy were very eager to transform victory in defeat by imposing on the ME democracy made in US, while every one knows that there is no place for such thing in the ME (and also other places).
I hate to break it to you, be the rationalization to go to Iraq has been debunked several times over now. It has about has about as much justification as the Japanese occupation of Manchuria

Do you know who was in Power in the USA in 2003

White House..Conservative Republicans
House of Representatives...Conservative Republicans
Senate...Conservative Republicans
Supreme Court...Conservative Republicans
Majority of the Governorships...Conservative Republicans

And you blame Iraq on the Liberals...
November 26th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
The formation of ISIS happened independently from the invasion of Iraq .

And, after 9/11 there was no fear-mongering crap : Bush did his duty as president by invading Iraq.

The mistake was caused by the Liberals (mostly Democrats,but also Pepublicans ) who as usualy were very eager to transform victory in defeat by imposing on the ME democracy made in US, while every one knows that there is no place for such thing in the ME (and also other places).
This is the first time I have ever heard somebody calling president Bush a liberal.
November 26th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Something Belgium did in a proper way is how the government increased the threat level. Instead of using colors or numbers, the Belgian government pinpointed some areas and could avoid increasing the threat level for the entire country. When a country using colors or numbers to describe the threat level, the risk for making the job more difficult for the security agencies and causes fear among the public.
--
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
November 26th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Sounds more like an excuse to avoid hearing a divergent point.
You are so prejudiced against the USA it isn’t funny, preferring instead to companion terrorists states like Iran. I provided a list of accurate facts about the US that no country can surpass.

You simple have the naivety to say (insert your country here) as though any nation can meet these criteria. Has your native land provided a home for millions upon millions? Who has been #1 in providing foreign aid in times of hunger and disaster worldwide? Who has saved Europe 2ce over? Oh I know you will claim that Stalin could have done it all on his own. BS, without our aid and resources Europe would have been speaking German. The same could be said for S. Korea as far as N Korea is concerned.

Yes the US doesn’t have a perfect historical track record, neither does Britain or France but we still stand up for democracy. And one can’t just fill in the (blank) with any other country. Believe me it not that I won’t listen to a divergent point. It’s that I am a veteran that loves his country.
November 26th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I hate to break it to you, be the rationalization to go to Iraq has been debunked several times over now. It has about has about as much justification as the Japanese occupation of Manchuria

Do you know who was in Power in the USA in 2003

White House..Conservative Republicans
House of Representatives...Conservative Republicans
Senate...Conservative Republicans
Supreme Court...Conservative Republicans
Majority of the Governorships...Conservative Republicans

And you blame Iraq on the Liberals...

And it was a good thing : Iraq/Saddam deserved what he got .


Besides the mistake was not made in 2003 when the war starte, it was made later when it was decided to remain in Iraq to transform the Iraqi in America loving democrats .

Besides: not all republicans in Congress were conservatives.

Besides: having a majority in Congress does not mean that one can fight against the wish of the Democrats : unanimity was needed.
November 26th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I hate to break it to you, be the rationalization to go to Iraq has been debunked several times over now. It has about has about as much justification as the Japanese occupation of Manchuria

Do you know who was in Power in the USA in 2003

White House..Conservative Republicans
House of Representatives...Conservative Republicans
Senate...Conservative Republicans
Supreme Court...Conservative Republicans
Majority of the Governorships...Conservative Republicans

And you blame Iraq on the Liberals...
To label Bush as a conservative republican is also very questionable : Sanders would say such a thing, but for Sanders,even Hillary is conservative .
November 27th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
You are so prejudiced against the USA it isn’t funny, preferring instead to companion terrorists states like Iran. I provided a list of accurate facts about the US that no country can surpass.

You simple have the naivety to say (insert your country here) as though any nation can meet these criteria. Has your native land provided a home for millions upon millions? Who has been #1 in providing foreign aid in times of hunger and disaster worldwide? Who has saved Europe 2ce over? Oh I know you will claim that Stalin could have done it all on his own. BS, without our aid and resources Europe would have been speaking German. The same could be said for S. Korea as far as N Korea is concerned.

Yes the US doesn’t have a perfect historical track record, neither does Britain or France but we still stand up for democracy. And one can’t just fill in the (blank) with any other country. Believe me it not that I won’t listen to a divergent point. It’s that I am a veteran that loves his country.
And you are so blinded by the idea that you are right that you can not entertain the idea that you aren't.

The arrogance of your answer is the best response I have to say yes I am right, as you well know there is enough evidence to say you were on the winning side in WW2 but in reality your input only shortened the war which is vastly different to being the reason it was won.

So yes I will say that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britians refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win after that the only argument is whether they could have achieved a stalemate or how long until they were defeated.

But here is the thing it is difficult to carry on this argument because as much as I don't want it to be I am sure it will be misinterpreted as a slap in the face of American service personnel and I do not want that as I have the utmost respect for anyone that put their lives on the line but please stop insulting the rest of the world by pretending that without you the Europe would be speaking German as it is clear that without the US France would be speaking Russian and Italy, English.

But we have moved well off topic here so if you want this argument do us both a favour and move it to the WW2 section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
This is not correct : there is no one in Belgium who considers his "nation " as a "great nation ": there is NO Belgian nation .
You are correct I was responding to JOC's comments not yours as out side of Great Britain there is no other country that would do that and since it is the name of the country it cant really be considered arrogant to call it that.
November 27th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
And you are so blinded by the idea that you are right that you can not entertain the idea that you aren't.

The arrogance of your answer is the best response I have to say yes I am right, as you well know there is enough evidence to say you were on the winning side in WW2 but in reality your input only shortened the war which is vastly different to being the reason it was won.

So yes I will say that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britians refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win after that the only argument is whether they could have achieved a stalemate or how long until they were defeated.

But here is the thing it is difficult to carry on this argument because as much as I don't want it to be I am sure it will be misinterpreted as a slap in the face of American service personnel and I do not want that as I have the utmost respect for anyone that put their lives on the line but please stop insulting the rest of the world by pretending that without you the Europe would be speaking German as it is clear that without the US France would be speaking Russian and Italy, English.

But we have moved well off topic here so if you want this argument do us both a favour and move it to the WW2 section.
I provide a statement about how I view the USA, itís attributes and history, you call it arrogant. I expected as much.

You stated (that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britainís refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win). For simplicityís sake, I say Germany lost the war the day Hitler declared war on the United Sates, if such an actual point actually exist. Enough weíve argued this time and again.

Back to ISIS and the ME. BTW I noticed that Russia is again bombing the US supplied Syrian rebels who are opposed to ISIS. It seems they bomb anyone opposed to Assad.
November 27th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
I provide a statement about how I view the USA, it’s attributes and history, you call it arrogant. I expected as much.

You stated (that a combination of Soviet man power and industry combined with Britain’s refusal to surrender to Germany was the point at which the Germans could not win). For simplicity’s sake, I say Germany lost the war the day Hitler declared war on the United Sates, if such an actual point actually exist. Enough we’ve argued this time and again.


Which proves my arrogance comment in that you still insist the world revolves around the USA, here is a clue Germany could not Invade Britain, it could not break the Russian will to fight nor could it capture Moscow and was eventually defeated at Stalingrad all without the input of the USA in terms of combat forces and with extremely limited material aid.

There is no doubt that Britain and the Commonwealth could not have retaken Europe without American manpower however by the time the Allies set foot in France Germany was all but finished in Russia.

Quote:
Back to ISIS and the ME. BTW I noticed that Russia is again bombing the US supplied Syrian rebels who are opposed to ISIS. It seems they bomb anyone opposed to Assad.
Of course they are Assad is a Russian ally what did you expect them to do, I would suggest that the reason the USA is putting almost no effort into defeating ISIS is that they are fighting Assad who isn't a US ally and I suspect it is more important to America that Assad is defeated than ISIS.

If you have not figured it out by now let me be blunt both you and the Russians are playing the same games, however the Russians seem to be playing it better at the moment.
November 27th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB

Which proves my arrogance comment in that you still insist the world revolves around the USA, here is a clue Germany could not Invade Britain, it could not break the Russian will to fight nor could it capture Moscow and was eventually defeated at Stalingrad all without the input of the USA in terms of combat forces and with extremely limited material aid.

There is no doubt that Britain and the Commonwealth could not have retaken Europe without American manpower however by the time the Allies set foot in France Germany was all but finished in Russia.

Of course they are Assad is a Russian ally what did you expect them to do, I would suggest that the reason the USA is putting almost no effort into defeating ISIS is that they are fighting Assad who isn't a US ally and I suspect it is more important to America that Assad is defeated than ISIS.

If you have not figured it out by now let me be blunt both you and the Russians are playing the same games, however the Russians seem to be playing it better at the moment.
You insist on bantering on about WW2 after claiming otherwise?

You don't have it right. The Obama administration refuses to play with anything but kit gloves, plain and simple. The game is not the same for the US and Russians. We do minimal bombing only to ISIS using mainly carrier based fighters, whereas Russia bombs all foes of Assad ISIS including the American backed rebels using their heavy backfire bombers stationed in Russian territory.

You spend a lot of time on the forum for being on holiday?
 


Similar Topics
Syrian Kurds battle Islamic State in northeast
U.S. fears Islamic State is making serious inroads in Libya
Islamic State says it's holding 'Israeli spy' in Syria
Iranian Phantom jet strikes the Islamic State in Iraq - IHS Jane's 360
Islamic State says executes second Lebanese soldier