• #21
    Well, first we'll need a real leader and a real Commander in Chief...then a strong collation with our allies Israel.

    I don't think "The Obama" is capable or cares. His actions overall almost says he stands with them.
  • #43
    Then tell our military commanders to destroy ISIS then stay out of the way. Let the military do it's job without interference.
  • #67

    The worst thing we've ever done is involved the politician into the battle field on ground level...Vietnam was the prime example of that.
  • R Load more replies

  • #58
    Are you living in tv land or what? Isis cant even send one boat or bomber to our home land let alone fight a legitimate war against us. This article is propaganda. Isis is weak. America could crush them with ease if we chose.
  • #60
    Really? ISIS couldn't defeat our girl scouts. Why do you people try to turn a mountain out of a molehill every second of every day. OK, ISIS is the most dangerous thing ever so I suppose you are signing up right now for the military so you can go fight this ultimate evil hell bent on destroying America and has the military capability to do so.
  • #81

    Yes, right now we could end them in a heartbeat. They said the same thing, however, about Nazi Germany before WWII. That talk stopped when the war started.
  • #98
    @gammler Are they going to burn the white house to the ground? No, are they able to take over destabilized Iraq and Syria? sure. Should our soldiers go fight them? You first! If you want to fight them then put on a uniform and strap on a M4 and go to town. Not one more American toe for that region, no matter how bad the military industrial complex pushes for it on the propaganda networks that misinform you on a daily basis.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    Of course we all want ISIS taken care of one way or another. But it should be via a coalition with legitimate gov'ts from around the region and underwritten by the wealthy trading partners America has been protecting or enabling while competing with us -- including China. China and the other wealthy globalists in the world have been getting a free ride while the US and NATO keep getting bogged down in the Mideast everywhere.
    We should demand troops from Mideast countries get involved too, under our supervision. Period.
    Globalists must pay to play, not get free protection from the Pentagon police dept.
  • #47
    Great analysis. Let someone else take the lead on this, and there are several world players with the resources and a much bigger dog in the fight. Saudi Arabia has the world's 4th biggest military and the cash to buy all the armament they require. Shi'a Iran has no desire for a Sunni mega-state next door, nor does moderate Turkey. Egypt, leader of the Arab world, has a substantial military. Israel, well qualified to act but having the good sense to stay home and STFU, knowing its involvement would only exacerbate. This is essentially a Muslim/Arab problem, so let them put down the rabid mutt in their yard.
  • #51
    I guess you missed the memo were trillions in debt with china. We fight wars for them not with them. They gotta get some type of return for there investments. We are the military branch of the new world order. China is the manufacturing branch. Great Britain the financial branch.
  • #212
    @fayban My omission, my bad. Of course China has an interest in this, but perhaps less than taking the lead. Supplying support troops, weaponry and cash.....all welcome and a good investment for the Chinese in protecting their markets and oil supply. I still insist that regional Arab/Muslim countries get the ball rolling. It's their problem more than anybody's.
  • #69
    These demons of hate and cruelty need to be stamped out. Most of the world should be united in this endeavor. What's the hold-up? Let's crush this unambiguous evil!
  • #324
    The "hold-up" is that they have not attacked us on our soil. IF they do, we crush them mercilessly. Until that time, who are we to impose our will on another nation(s) yet AGAIN?
  • #516
    @russgus2000 They are not a nation, they are an ideology. Radicalized Islam. You could wipe out every person in Syria and there would still be millions of them all over the world.
  • #532
    These religious extremists rose up against Assad, then they took advantage of the corruption and discontent in parts of Iraq to steamroll through part of that country. I don't have a problem deposing this caliphate in the making... lets just wait until they have managed to resolve a few regional problems (Get rid of Assad and scare the Iraqi government into a less corrupt more inclusive democracy) for us. Heck, if we played our cards right ISIL might even convince the Kurds they want to work with the rest of Iraq.

    What we don't need to do is jump in and give them the street cred across the middle east they so desperately want... except as a last resort, that they might actually be able to create national government under the guise of a new caliphate after Assad (the tyrant that most in the region consider the greater threat) is gone.
  • #566
    @MarkColwell you got the upvote because I partially agree with you. My solution would be to segregate that region from the rest of the world until they evolve enough to co-exist with the rest of us. NOT to invade sovereign countries simply to get at someone threatening us who can do minimal damage.
    They use terrorists attacks because they view us as a strong nation comprised of weak people. With they way we scurry to kill others who've done nothing to us to get to those who have, they may not be far off.
  • #584
    @russgus2000 - Evolution is not guaranteed, and, if it does occur, it can take many thousands of years.

    Anyway, I voted up both you and @MarkColwell because you both make good points even though I disagree.
  • #8
    Hey, David, I would just like to remind you that just a few months back you wanted to send money and guns to these lunatics, along with McCain who was meeting with them and wanting to fund and arm them........Good to see you have come to your senses.......
  • #16
    @bluelite1234 I think US dollars are one of the reasons they are considered well funded now, Benghazi was a gun smuggling deal, and I am sure we have more than a few treasonous traitors right now in DC
  • #27
    US funding goes back to 79 and before when the intelligence community decided to create the evil we are dealing with today in Afghanistan to fight the Russians.
  • #125
    @Hillofbeans Well, I'm sure we'd all find out a little bit more about what Benghazi was. I mean with such upstanding leaders in congress determined to get to the bottom of it all. I'm sure they'll ask David Petreaus all kinds of tough questions. Wait scratch that. I'm sure they'll ask some democrat all kinds of tough questions that have nothing to do with anything but gaining a few political points in DC.
    Funny how Petreaus is still flying under the radar even with the press.
  • R Load more replies

  • #46
    While as a country we are tired of war. I don't think this will go away if we ignore it and I believe it will only get worse. While we have endure 6 deployments and are worn out I would much rather it be fought by my generation then leave it for my children.
  • #326
    We keep doing the same thing to them we've been doing since the 1950s.
    They keep doing the same thing to US because of it.
    Your solution is to keep doing the same thing.
    What was that Einstein said about the definition of insanity? ;)
  • #386
    @russgus2000 do you honestly think they attack based on our involvement rather then their interpretation of the Quran? The people who they have butchered what did they do other then not be Muslim enough? What is Muslim enough and by whose standards should be accept? They don't place the same value on life as we do- they place more value in death.
  • #439
    @Ogetagrip those in power quite often use religion to solidify their position and control those under them. Our government's been trying to do it to us (with more success than I'm comfortable with) since the 1950s.
    If we got the hell out of Dodge and quit trying to play god over there, they could be contained and would have no reason to kill anyone other than themselves which is exactly what they were doing before we butted in.
  • #488
    @russgus2000 we weren't over there when 9/11 happened and normally I would agree with let them fight amongst themselves to eradicate the problem. But I don't think that it will end there. Most conflicts in the world involve extreme Islamists. But how you equate them with out Govt is mind boggling. I'm agnostic so I guess I am missing something. Our govt was founded on the principle of Freedom of religion not from it.
  • #563
    @Ogetagrip firs, we've been "over there" since the 1950s in one form or another. So yeah, we were there.
    Second, we were founded on freedom not only of but from religion. That's been undermined by the change of the national motto, the printing of it on our money, the change to the Pledge, and the recent rulings from the SCOTUS that don't even pretend to use the constitution for validating their decisions to allow prayer in public meetings. All this leaves the door wide open for the most popular religion to call the shots. The problem with this is that everyone simply assumes it will always be Christianity when history shows us that's hardly the case.
    As for most of the conflicts involving extreme Muslim groups, I would add to that statement. Most of the conflicts that are reported...
  • #38
    When I think of the concept of bombing ISIS in Iraq but not bombing ISIS in Syria it takes me back to Vietnam where we bombed the hell out of South Vietnam and parts of North Vietnam but were not allowed to bomb other parts of that country. That didn't turn out very well as memory serves me and I though we had learned our lesson. I guess Obama has a short memory.
  • #235
    Ever hear of Laos? We bombed it more than we did Germany and Japan and it did nothing to change the outcome of the war in Vietnam and they are still dying from those bombs. Those are the lessons of history that should be remembered and never repeated, unfortunately we have become a nation of the blinded and ignorant. SMH!!!
  • #244
    My lesson from Vietnam was a simple one for the US military. Don't allow the politicians to run the war and advise them wisely so that if we do go to war we go to war and no area of enemy territory should be safe from our attack. War is not meant to be nice it is meant to be hell on earth.
  • #330
    @hankf68 how is that a change of subject? You want us to invade a sovereign nation and kill it's inhabitants because of the actions of a group in that country. That would be the same thing as China attacking all of America because they were having problems with the KKK.
    IF we invade another country and go to war it should ONLY be for the reason that WE have been invaded. Here. ON our soil. Period.
    The "preemptive strike" is the weapon of cowards and bullies.
  • R Load more replies

  • #221
    @Food4thoughts Of course not. What could be done is to ban people from that part of the world from entering the country or anywhere in the West. It may seem extreme, but it would keep them from from bringing their jihad to our front door.
  • #238
    @Food4thoughts Maybe not a bad idea if you pay attention to what islam is already doing and the potential problems in other western nations. With a stroke of a pen, every western country politician could ban the moon cult.

    Islam sucks period. Worst religion and immigrant group ever.
  • R Load more replies

  • #55
    First we need to have a little sit down with all the Arab countries that want our protection but not deal with the terrorist component of there religion. We need someone with balls to stand up and tell them just how it is.......regardless if it's Obama that grows a set or someone else.
  • #86
    This is going to sound a little radical....but...this is a GOLDEN opportunity to side with Iran, and take out Saudi Arabia....who has by far, caused more trouble in the region than anyone.

    It would kill two birds with one stone..........wipe out our outragiously foolish agreements we made with the Saudis that have brought us cheap oil at the expense of everything else.........and allow us to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran.

    Just musing outside of the box....way, way outside.
  • #352
    You are disputing our insanely foolish agreements with the Saudi rulers AREN'T the core issue now, and has been the core issue for decades? Pretending the most despicable Islamist society in the region are our friends, just so we can land planes there, is smart? Even when it enrages every subjugated Muslim under the thumb of those Royal Family fakirs wearing turbans and dresses in Saudi Arabia? Iran is BY FAR the more advanced State....with actual citizens that are allowed to voice their opinions and act like human beings.
    Making deals with the Saudis was the height of stupidity........and it still is our worst problem in the region.
    Maybe you though billions of Muslims hate America just because they don;t like the colors on our flag. Get real.
  • #364
    @Unfit2serve Please justify your statement that Iran is a more advanced State vs Saudi in quantitative values such as per capita wealth, health care, education and infrastructure of the nation please.
  • #373
    Health Care?
    You mean Iran's world-class programs:
    -FREE voluntary birth control to all of-age women who want it
    -FREE voluntary sterilization for any Iranian who wants it
    -100 Free College Education for all of-age women who want it

    The average educational level of the typical Iranian far exceeds the poverty-class Saudi commoner.

    I don't have infrastructure data at hand....but I will research.
    As far as individual personal freedoms, acceptance of woman as equals in society.........Saudi Arabia can't even get out of Kindergarten compared to Iran's far superior secular advancements.
  • R Load more replies

  • #112
    Obama wants to change the way America is viewed around the world, he beljeves we are viewed as a bully, and there may be some truth to that.
    But, as the article points out, other countries are waiting for America to lead.
    "That's why many Americans were shocked and dismayed when President Barack Obama recently announced to the world, "We don't have a strategy yet" to address ISIS.

    ISIS us not new, we have been watching them for some time, and yes we should have a plan and be acting on it at this very second, this is more important than some damn election or which party wins it.

    As the article points out, "When it comes to American foreign policy, the current non-strategy of "leading from behind" has failed again."
    Edmund Burke once remarked, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

    -and we are doing nothing, and people are dying.
    ISIS leaves it's victims with two choices: either join them or die
    CLEARLY people are waiting on America to defend them.

    As the article points out, " it is nonsensical for the Obama administration to procrastinate militarily until that time arrives.

    The president's unfortunate rhetorical blunder about no U.S. strategy is problematic on multiple levels.
  • #334
    The peace of mind of the rest of the world is NOT our responsibility. And I'm tired of people thinking it is.
    Let someone else deal with it. IF they attack us HERE, we'll show them the true meaning of terror. Unless they do, I'm not willing to spill ANY blood over it, American or otherwise.
    Does that mean I agree with them? Not no but hell no. I'm just not a bully and I'm tired of a government that thinks we should be and the small, cowardly minds that support them.
  • #348
    @russgus2000 you wait for them to have the stroke to attack us here on our soil, and you have waited to long. By waiting for that you destine your country to fight a battle that ends, for example, with the words, " America pushes ISIS back off of American soil, while losing 2million civillian lives", for example.

    You do not wait on terrorist, that is absolutely the wrong move.
  • #359
    We have the ability to stop them at the border.
    We have the ability to know what they are planning here.
    We have the ability to snuff them out before they do any damage HERE.
    If we don't use it...9/11.
    And yeah, we do have it. It's used on a daily basis. This is simply the propaganda being used by the military industrial machine for the useful idiot bobbleheads to be afraid of.
  • #569
    @russgus2000 You cannot prevent bombs or bullets from ISIS/l on American soil. If they want to deploy their forces there, they will do so. As was said about stopping Russian missiles, you can knock down 99%, but all it takes is one major success for them and the American public will scream "why weren't they elimitated when they were small, and still over there"
    The peace of the rest of the world is not your responsibility except for the fact that you have fucked up much of the rest of the world. Iraq had no WMD to threaten you with, even though you helped Sadam into power. Israel wouldn't have nukes if America hadn't given them toe info. Israel wouldn't still be at war with Hamas if you hadn't vetoed every call for action against Israel. Borders would be back to pre-60s, and there would be peace if not tranquility. Much of the world's gripes against America stem from their foreign policy of propping up un-democratic regimes in return for oil or just to keep Russia out.
  • R Load more replies

  • #225
    The President said it himself, we have no plan. I am fed up with war as run by politically correct weenies anyway. When you send a man into battle, tell him to win at all costs and come home safe, or don't put him in harms way.
  • #57
    I never thought being 'vindicated' would feel so sad. I was against boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq even before we'd sent over our men and women there. My own family excoriated me, reminding me that I had only been a sergeant in the Army and my opinion was 'above my pay-grade'; that I was 'out of my depth'- and the irony is that this was coming from folks in my family who had NEVER served a day in the US military! Our involvement there has destroyed human beings on both sides of the conflict; condemned others to less-than-full lives due to physical damage to their bodies and/or minds; materially-changed thousands of US families due to the loss of a loved one or loved ones, or their serious injury.

    Just as tragic, the EQUIPMENT we left in Iraq for use by the new Iraqi national government is now in the hands of ISIS to use against anyone who is not on their psychopathic homicidal Jihad. With that equipment and the thousands of fellow homicidal psychos who've joined their ranks, they've captured over half a billion dollars in cash, and are amassing more through various means including extortion, and ransom for hostages.

    Our involvement in the Middle East has left the region EVEN MORE VOLATILE than it was before we intervened through boots on the ground. We seem incapable of studying history and forming rational foreign policy based on what has happened in the past and how it has affected our present and our future. And again we're hearing cries for 'boots on the ground'!

    My family was right about one thing- I WAS and AM a very low-level 'cog' in the machinery- but I sure can spot faulty thinking and policy when I see it. Lets try 'reaching and touching' ISIS from the air; barring entry to the USA to ANYONE who has left any European, African country, wherever to go 'visit' Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan during this period of conflict; toughening up our borders. It does little good to send our young men and women overseas to become live targets for psychos whom one can't often tell apart from our so-called allies, while we have a HUGE revolving door at our southwestern 'gate' for some of those same psychos to pour through. Let's work with Canada and Mexico as well to enable them to stop and interdict, any way necessary any 'tourist' with hostile intent so that they aren't able to obtain documentation or make contacts in those countries to make it easier to slither into the USA.
  • #187
    There is only one way to deal with ISIS and groups like them and that is elimination 100%. As long as one of them lives they will continue.
  • #337
    Another cheerleader for genocide in the name of democracy.
    rah friggin rah.
    I really am tired of the cowards who are willing to kill as many people anywhere else as possible just in case they might actually have to do some fighting themselves.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #160
    Follow the money. Isis is being funded by Sunni Wuhabbist in Qatar, Kuwait, UEA, Yemen and Saudi Arabia in other words the heart of the wealthy Arab world. At this point why aren't we pressing our so-called "Allies" for the truth and the money trail. The fact is they LIKE Isis, they want Isis to kill off the Shias and do the dirty work. While they may claim Isis isn't "exactly" their form of's close enough. I think this Caliphate is being established not for the members of Isis, but for the wealthy Salafist Arabs, who are using Isis like Hitler used Stormtroopers, once established the real power will take over and call it something else besides Isis and kill off the Isis leadership taking the winnings for themselves.
  • #65
    if we wouldnt have killed millions of people in the area and turned Iraq into a living hell there would be no Isis. its called blowback, folks.
  • #426
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    There's no "blow back" about a self-proclaimed Islamic State beheading an American citizen and trying to take over the entire Middle East, and then the West, via a caliphate to impose sharia law on people or kill them if they disagree. This radical Islamist philosophy goes back for hundreds or more years as the Middle East was ruled and/or conquered by various world powers over the centuries.
    Former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crooker -- who served is Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan says of ISIS, "I don't think we have an alternative to swift, decisive military action to degrade ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. Give them no safe place to plan further attacks."
    According to the Washington Post: "Islamic State advances swallowed up a large swath of the Middle East and threaten a global upheaval far beyond the shock of al Qaeda's 2001 attacks."
  • #435
    @DB-Grinberg you proceed from the false presumption that the Bush Doctrine of taking preemptive military action against potential adversaries without a traditional cassus belli is settled doctrine. I reject that doctrine precisely because it indirectly created the vacuum that gave rise to ISIL.
  • #496
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @PauldenZangpo * Actually, I proceed from the correct statement that the USA has a moral obligation to protect Americans from terrorism whether on the homeland or abroad. Moreover, contrary to your misstatement, the power vacuum filled by ISIS in Syria is due to what NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent Richard Engel reported: "U.S. policy has been to ignore Syria with empty threats and empty promises." Our lack of involvement in Syria -- even when Assad crossed the President's "red line" -- is what led ISIS establishing their Islamic State based in Syria. Now the world is trying to play catch up when we should have already taken care of business in Syria years ago -- as I wrote on the site one year ago.

    So far, there have been at least two American citizens reported beheaded by ISIS. Sounds like an act of war to me.
    Politix reports:
    A new video by the Islamic State terrorist organization shows the beheading of another US journalist, Steven Sotloff.

    Sotloff is shown kneeling, saying he is "paying the price" for the American intervention in Iraq, USA TODAY reports.

    It follows the recent beheading of journalist James Foley in recent weeks by a terrorist group that controls parts of Iraq and Syria.

    Sotloff wrote freeelance stories for a number of publications, including Time and Foreign Policy.

    "Our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Sotloff and Mr. Sotloff's family," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, adding that authorities had not yet determined the authenticity of the video.

  • R Load more replies

  • #499
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @Clara007 @Unfit2Serve @PauldenZangpo @CVX:

    Since you all and a few others don't want to listen to retired Gen. Zinni --who once commanded all U.S. troops in the Middle East -- then how about listening to the folks below about why ISIS is a national security threat at home and abroad. Again, don't take my word for it:

    Ryan Crooker, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Syria, says:”I don’t think we have an alternative to swift, decisive military action to degrade ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. Give them no safe place to plan further attacks…We are delusional to think ISIS won’t try to attack us. They have the same agenda as al Qaeda…This is a vital mission for American security and we need to do it. We needed to do it yesterday.”(Sources: CNN & NBC News)

    British Prime Minister David Cameron says:“What we are facing now with ISIL is a greater threat to our security than we have seen before.” He said the Islamic State is “effectively a state run by terrorists.”(Source: Washington Post)

    Secretary of State John Kerry,“And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”(Source: Washington Post)

    Sen. Diane Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says of ISIS,“I’ve seen nothing that compares to its viciousness.” She added, ISIS is “extraordinarily dangerous and will kill with abandon…We need to prevent the caliphate from expanding.”(Source: NBC News, Meet the Press)

    Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, calls ISIS “a very real threat” regarding terrorist attacks on the homeland.“We seem to be in this malaise of not being concerned – I’m very concerned.”(Source: Fox News Sunday)

    Congressman Peter King says,“I believe strongly that ISIS does plan on attacking us.”(Source: Fox News Sunday)

    Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent who has reported from the Middle East for many years, says:“ISIS is a terrorist army 20,000 strong. U.S. policy has been to ignore Syria with empty threats and empty promises”– resulting in ISIS establishing a terrorist state based in Syria.

    Sen. John McCain, decorated war hero,“We are facing the largest, most powerful, wealthiest terrorist organization in history. They must be defeated, not contained. ISIS is a direct threat to America, maybe one of the biggest we’ve ever faced.”(Source: CBS News, Face the Nation”.

    Eugene Robinson, liberal Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for Washington Post and MSNBC analyst, says,“This is war…as much as we scoff at the notion of the Islamic as an actual state,[ISIS] it is managing to hold and administer huge swaths of territory and has found sources of continuing revenue…I’d like to know why it makes sense to conduct airstrikes against Islamic State fighters on one side of a border that no longer exists [Iraq] but makes no sense to do so on the other side [Syria where ISIS is based].”
  • #500
    I listened to similarly accomplished and accredited individuals when it came to Operation Iraqi Freedom. I will not abdicate my judgement yet again, for if there is one thing I hold true-there are no gurus.
  • #501
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @Clara007 @Unfit2Serve @PauldenZangpo @CVX

    ...And just in case you missed what retired general Anthony Zinni said, former chief of Centcom in the Middle East, I will repeat it here:
    Zinni says of our non-response to ISIS building a terrorist state based in Syria: "We shouldn't be so cautious. We should blunt them before recruiting really grows and before they gain more territory. You can't give sanctuary to an enemy, we will have to go to Syria...I wish we were not so paranoid about boots on the ground. There has to be special ops forces."
    He went on to say it would only take two U.S. army brigades push ISIS out of Iraq and back into Syria. He said this will results in less time, fewer casualties and less cost over the long run. He said we don't have time for deliberations."
  • #503
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @PauldenZangpo * I respect your opinion and you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you like. Even though we disagree I think it's important that all views and voices are heard in an open discussion forum such as this one. Therefore, I thank you for your valuable contributions to this discussion, which are appreciated. Ditto that for @Clara007 and @Unfit2Serve and @CVX as well as everyone who commented.
    Thank you.
    Respectfully, DBG
  • #506
    @DB-Grinberg what General Zinni doesn't address is the what after. The necessary occupation force to stabilize yet again liberated Iraq. Ad infinitum. And not the SOFA forces of post war Germany or Japan, but daily combat operations, logistic patrols, security forces for high value targets. Something I cannot abide by. Present me a model whereby special forces embed with tribal militias-read Muqtada al-Sadr & Mahdi Army-and I might consider it. But the national state of Iraq, the national military of Iraq is a failed and hopeless model.
  • R Load more replies

  • #313
    Terrorism ... yeah ... that's convenient since the U.S. helps create and funds most of these groups! Keeps the war machine well oiled ... tax dollars flowing into the pockets of certain war mongers/profiteers/companies ... and rids America of a certain type of stupidity which I'm fine with. If there isn't any idiots left to support these false wars ... things are bound to change because there's no way in hell people will ever accept the "Draft" again without tearing this country apart first =)

    You can play the political blame game all you want ... just proves one thing ... you don't have a clue as to what is going on.

    Remember this if anything .... wars are always about three things ...
    1 - Money
    2 - Power
    3 - Resources

    In this case, it's about #1 ... were already stealing their resources and we have our political puppets in place to keep this conflict going indefinitely ... so that leaves the obvious huh?

    Fret not though ... our military was told long ago that they're redeploying back to Iraq in Feb. 2015 ... since it's a mid-term the media likes to play as if the American people have a so-say in the decision ... rotflmao
  • #312
    Oppose ISIS and its interests? Sure.

    Ground troops back in Iraq? Abso-freaking-lutely not. One decade of war in Iraq is enough. Hell, it shouldn't have even gone on that long.
  • #280
    We act swiftly and decisively against ISIS now -- or we pay a tremendous price for inaction later. There is no choice.
    Every day that Obama spends playing golf, going to fund raisers and giving meaningless speeches, ISIS gets stronger and becomes more convinced that America is a paper tiger -- and that they are free to rape and pillage.
  • R Load more comments...