04-23-2015 05:51 PM
247 ... 78910
tools
  1. SteveISU's Avatar
    Obama took the risk of damaging already shifty relations with Pakistan by running a secret mission within their borders without their knowledge or consent. Bush started the chase but Obama didn't shy away from it. He took the reigns.

    It'll be easier to discuss this if you explain exactly which lines you think Obama has drawn that people are crossing. It sounds like you're making a general judgement about Obama's foreign policy based off Panetta's gripe.

    The same lines numerous people who have worked for him have talked about. Panetta doesn't have a grip, he's a democrat with decades of experience who sees the word of the US losing it's value with this president. This is his own party ripping into him.


    BTW...nice tortoise, Sulcata?
    10-13-2014 09:45 AM
  2. Maladroit23's Avatar
    The same lines numerous people who have worked for him have talked about. Panetta doesn't have a grip, he's a democrat with decades of experience who sees the word of the US losing it's value with this president. This is his own party ripping into him.


    BTW...nice tortoise, Sulcata?
    I don't know what kind of tortoise my little friend is. He wandered in from the street so I adopted him. No one has come looking for him. His shell is bent out of shape so he must have been malnourished. He lives in the backyard.
    10-13-2014 12:59 PM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    The same lines numerous people who have worked for him have talked about. Panetta doesn't have a grip, he's a democrat with decades of experience who sees the word of the US losing it's value with this president. This is his own party ripping into him.


    BTW...nice tortoise, Sulcata?
    I don't know what kind of tortoise my little friend is. He wandered in from the street so I adopted him. No one has come looking for him. His shell is bent out of shape so he must have been malnourished. He lives in the backyard.
    haha, I read your reply and wondered wth is he talking about with the tortoise. I thought for a second that you were talking about Mitch McConnell or using the slowness of a lost tortoise to demonstrate foreign policy of the U.S.

    Back on topic though, so now we should act on EVERY major incident in the world? How long before we invade China for their economy's assault on the environment? I personally see our world's pollution of this planet as a bigger threat than ISIS. I wonder how much more engaged the right wing would be with our pollution of this planet if it were ISIS or some other terrorist group doing it and not major campaign contributors.
    Maladroit23 likes this.
    10-14-2014 07:21 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    One battalion (800 soldiers), just one, not two, of any U.S. infantry unit could wipe ISIS off the map.
    This is why Leon Panetta says we need people on the ground. He and you may disagree on the number of soldiers, but at least you two share the same sentiment.
    10-15-2014 12:05 PM
  5. Maladroit23's Avatar
    This is why Leon Panetta says we need people on the ground. He and you may disagree on the number of soldiers, but at least you two share the same sentiment.
    haha, I read your reply and wondered wth is he talking about with the tortoise. I thought for a second that you were talking about Mitch McConnell or using the slowness of a lost tortoise to demonstrate foreign policy of the U.S.

    Back on topic though, so now we should act on EVERY major incident in the world? How long before we invade China for their economy's assault on the environment? I personally see our world's pollution of this planet as a bigger threat than ISIS. I wonder how much more engaged the right wing would be with our pollution of this planet if it were ISIS or some other terrorist group doing it and not major campaign contributors.
    I personally don't think we should act on every incident. But besides that, we can't afford to even if we wanted to.
    10-15-2014 12:49 PM
  6. Maladroit23's Avatar
    This is why Leon Panetta says we need people on the ground. He and you may disagree on the number of soldiers, but at least you two share the same sentiment.
    Come on guys.You really think ISIS can just be wiped out? It would be another decade-long war that just scrapes the surface for another radical group to set up shop on. We made the bed when we invaded Iraq, now ISIS gets to sleep in it, and we have to live with it because we're too tired and poor to go back in for round 2. You like all these cliche metaphors I'm pulling out a hat?
    10-15-2014 12:52 PM
  7. palandri's Avatar
    This is why Leon Panetta says we need people on the ground. He and you may disagree on the number of soldiers, but at least you two share the same sentiment.
    I didn't say we should send in ground troops, or go it alone.
    10-15-2014 01:03 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    I didn't say we should send in ground troops, or go it alone.
    You said one battalion of any US infantry unit could wipe ISIS off the map. How else would a battalion fight ISIS besides attacking from the ground?
    10-15-2014 01:15 PM
  9. palandri's Avatar
    Come on guys.You really think ISIS can just be wiped out? It would be another decade-long war that just scrapes the surface for another radical group to set up shop on. We made the bed when we invaded Iraq, now ISIS gets to sleep in it, and we have to live it because we're too tired and poor to go back in for round 2. You like all these cliche metaphors I'm pulling out a hat?
    The military wing of ISIS could easily be wiped out with the proper military maneuvers of ground troops. I saw part of an ISIS training video yesterday. They were kicking each other in the stomach; that would probably help in the event of a neanderthal war where groups charge each other with clubs..

    Now do I think we should send troops in or go it alone against ISIS, the answer is No.

    I think you're correct that another radical religious group will setup shop to replace ISIS. Religion, religious beliefs, have caused a lot of conflicts throughout history and will continue to until science trumps religion.
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-15-2014 01:50 PM
  10. palandri's Avatar
    You said one battalion of any US infantry unit could wipe ISIS off the map. How else would a battalion fight ISIS besides attacking from the ground?
    That doesn't mean I think we should send ground troops in.
    10-15-2014 01:55 PM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    That doesn't mean I think we should send ground troops in.
    The important part is that you believe that US infantry can defeat ISIS.
    10-15-2014 02:08 PM
  12. Maladroit23's Avatar
    The military wing of ISIS could easily be wiped out with the proper military maneuvers of ground troops. I saw part of an ISIS training video yesterday. They were kicking each other in the stomach; that would probably help in the event of a neanderthal war where groups charge each other with clubs..

    Now do I think we should send troops in or go it alone against ISIS, the answer is No.

    I think you're correct that another radical religious group will setup shop to replace ISIS. Religion, religious beliefs, have caused a lot of conflicts throughout history and will continue to until science trumps religion.
    Ok I see your stance clearly now.

    You're pretty spot on. Except that you should consider how much ISIS has evolved over the course of the Syrian conflict. They used to be clumsy infantry. Now they're supposedly a force to be reckoned with. I guess I'm saying don't underestimate their capabilities, resources, and ability to re-spawn as it were, since they've become a beacon for attracting new Jihad. If it were really that easy we'd have done it already right?
    10-15-2014 02:26 PM
  13. A895's Avatar
    Ok I see your stance clearly now.

    You're pretty spot on. Except that you should consider how much ISIS has evolved over the course of the Syrian conflict. They used to be clumsy infantry. Now they're supposedly a force to be reckoned with. I guess I'm saying don't underestimate their capabilities, resources, and ability to re-spawn as it were, since they've become a beacon for attracting new Jihad. If it were really that easy we'd have done it already right?
    Doubtful, we are slow to do anything.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    10-15-2014 03:32 PM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    The military wing of ISIS could easily be wiped out with the proper military maneuvers of ground troops. I saw part of an ISIS training video yesterday. They were kicking each other in the stomach; that would probably help in the event of a neanderthal war where groups charge each other with clubs..

    Now do I think we should send troops in or go it alone against ISIS, the answer is No.

    I think you're correct that another radical religious group will setup shop to replace ISIS. Religion, religious beliefs, have caused a lot of conflicts throughout history and will continue to until science trumps religion.
    I was just about to comment that the only way to beat an idea (which is what these radical islamists are all about) is with a superior idea. Malala Yousafzai has the right idea, enlightenment. When I look at how the extremist muslims and the extremist christians think each side should be converted or killed (Duck Dynasty quack and his quote), it only reinforces my belief that the only way we're going to see peace is when all human life on earth has come to the realization, on their own that a religious belief that condones killing of other people that pose no immediate threat is not worthy of being followed. Once we abandon these archaic and outdated beliefs (all religions) then we will take an enormous step in the advancement of mankind.
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-15-2014 06:52 PM
  15. Maladroit23's Avatar
    Doubtful, we are slow to do anything.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    But we're not even in the process of doing it. Obama has plainly stated we're not going in. I think if we could, we would.
    10-15-2014 07:50 PM
  16. A895's Avatar
    But we're not even in the process of doing it. Obama has plainly stated we're not going in. I think if we could, we would.
    I think, that they think it would be a bad idea. Boots on the ground isn't the best idea at a time like this. Hence the drone strikes. Hands off enough not to cause mass unrest domestically, and hands on enough to say we are doing something.
    10-16-2014 12:21 AM
  17. Maladroit23's Avatar
    I think, that they think it would be a bad idea. Boots on the ground isn't the best idea at a time like this. Hence the drone strikes. Hands off enough not to cause mass unrest domestically, and hands on enough to say we are doing something.
    Yeah that seems like the "strategy" right now. If the Obama administration can keep that up until the next election, they can drop the ball into the next president's hands and then when the US pulls out completely and ISIS really becomes a state, it'll look like the new administration's fault.
    10-16-2014 12:46 PM
  18. A895's Avatar
    Yeah that seems like the "strategy" right now. If the Obama administration can keep that up until the next election, they can drop the ball into the next presidents hands and then when the US pulls out completely and ISIS really becomes a state, it'll look like that new administration's fault.
    Sounds about right.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    10-16-2014 05:39 PM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    CNN - NATO commander: Russian troops, tanks, artillery move into Ukraine (article link here)

    Excerpts:

    Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian troops -- all heading into Ukraine.

    That's what American Gen. Phillip Breedlove, the commander of NATO forces in Europe, said Wednesday that his government has seen over the past few days -- Moscow's latest such alleged incursion into the nation, parts of which remain in turmoil after months of violence.

    ...

    "Whether they are [nuclear-equipped] or not, we don't know," Breedlove, the top U.S. general in Europe, said Tuesday. "But they do have the kind of equipment there that could support that mission if required."

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has alluded to his country's nuclear arsenal, amid criticism of Russia's actions. In late August, state-run TASS reported that he told a youth forum, "I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words."
    11-12-2014 05:08 PM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    I'm hearing that the Ruble is really taking a hit with all the U.S./European sanctions and that the low cost of crude oil also isn't helping Russia. And to think all those people screaming that sanctions weren't going be enough. I bet if the trend continues, Putin would like to re-think his strategy in Ukraine.
    12-17-2014 08:04 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'm hearing that the Ruble is really taking a hit with all the U.S./European sanctions and that the low cost of crude oil also isn't helping Russia. And to think all those people screaming that sanctions weren't going be enough. I bet if the trend continues, Putin would like to re-think his strategy in Ukraine.
    I'm thinking the oil prices have more to do with it than sanctions. Aren't they the largest single oil exporter in the world or something like that? I'm also hoping this doesn't start backfiring against us to. The Arab nations can pretty much stick a straw in the ground and suck oil out. They can afford to sell it much cheaper than our heavily regulated and expensive extraction processes, so they could win in the long run if they are in a price war with the U.S.
    12-17-2014 08:11 PM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    I'm thinking the oil prices have more to do with it than sanctions. Aren't they the largest single oil exporter in the world or something like that? I'm also hoping this doesn't start backfiring against us to. The Arab nations can pretty much stick a straw in the ground and suck oil out. They can afford to sell it much cheaper than our heavily regulated and expensive extraction processes, so they could win in the long run if they are in a price war with the U.S.
    But how many times in the past have you heard about OPEC cutting production because the price had gone too low? For some reason they're perfectly ok with the prices going as low as they've gone. I wouldn't doubt if this has something to do with Russia's aggression. One of the reasons that I really hate hearing some people (mostly mouth breathers) talk about how the U.S. needs to go it alone, seal off our borders and become isolationists is when we go it alone and we have a quagmire on our hands like was mostly the case in Iraq (sure we had some nations that claimed to be with us, but we bore the grunt of the costs of that mess). When you actively create coalitions with other countries and build a solid relationship with those countries, it's easier to collectively deal with rogue nations and tyrants. We can have our individuality as a country and still be a citizen of the world.
    12-17-2014 08:17 PM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    But how many times in the past have you heard about OPEC cutting production because the price had gone too low? For some reason they're perfectly ok with the prices going as low as they've gone. I wouldn't doubt if this has something to do with Russia's aggression.
    I can't speak to the Arab countries feelings on Russia. As for being ok with low prices, think about what I said above. It's plausible that they don't like our oil boom and want to maintain more control over the world market. So they ramp up production, creating a glut in the market and that forces prices way down. If they are in a price war with us (and I could be wrong, oil speculation is extremely difficult but it's a subject being talked about), all they need to do is keep the oil prices low enough that our wells can't remain profitable and start shutting down. At that point, OPEC regains most of the control o over oil again and raises the prices as supply goes down. Step 4: Profit. Meanwhile, our economy starts to suffer from what amounts to a bust.
    12-17-2014 08:49 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    I'm hearing that the Ruble is really taking a hit with all the U.S./European sanctions and that the low cost of crude oil also isn't helping Russia. And to think all those people screaming that sanctions weren't going be enough. I bet if the trend continues, Putin would like to re-think his strategy in Ukraine.
    Russia wants warm-water ports in Ukraine to access the sea during the winter. The price of oil and sanctions don't change this fact.
    12-17-2014 10:07 PM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    Russia wants warm-water ports in Ukraine to access the sea during the winter. The price of oil and sanctions don't change this fact.
    But the sanctions are in direct response to their aggression in Ukraine. It's like having a pet that you're trying to train. The pet wants to relieve him/herself whenever they feel the need. You don't want them to do that so you take steps to dissuade them from relieving themselves wherever. What Russia wants and what Russia gets are two different things, especially if they think using military might is how it's done in this day and age.
    12-17-2014 10:36 PM
247 ... 78910

Similar Threads

  1. Problem with hornyworm.apk and pop-up ads on my android?
    By ryan mcgovern in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 08:22 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-07-2014, 03:23 PM
  3. JUMP, the G3 and the Nexus line
    By LeoRex in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 11:16 PM
  4. Problem with hornyworm.apk and pop-up ads on my android?
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 10:12 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 07:57 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD