will blame Obama for this!  

Now let's see Putin, this tough guy,thug invades Turkey

-- Modified on 11/24/2015 4:54:48 PM

How often in the past few years have Russian jets been intercepted near U.S., Canadian, Japanese, Northern Europe airspace. Russia loves playing this cat and mouse game near various borders. Obviously the Turks don't buy into escorting the intruding jet(s) out of one's airspace. One thing we know is that Turks don't like Russians, and Russians don't like Turks. And it goes back to the Ottoman Empire days.  

Right now we have a clusterfuck over the Syrian skies. There is more traffic over Syria than the 405 Freeway. Just wait until a U.S. jet gets accidentally shot down. Will that be Obama's fault?  

Russia, Turkey, Iran, France, Saudi Arabia, EVERYBODY has a vested interest in Syria. It's a 2 bit shit hole of a country, but it has history. Obama's negotiating and leverage skills are non-existent. Russia and Iran want Assad to stay. Turkey, every Sunni on Planet Earth, and I guess Obama want Assad to go. So Obama needs to strike a deal that gets Assad exiled to Russia, where he will live in a nice dacha, but at the same time, negotiate a deal that allows the Alawite elites to remain without being slaughtered, and team up with the Rebels to go after Daesh. Yes Daesh, and definitely not ISIL as Obama calls them, or ISIS. I think Obama is the only one using the acronym ISIL. Is he afraid to include the word Syria in the acronym?

So yes, Obama is at least indirectly at fault, because he doesn't have a DAMN strategy. If you know what it is, please tell me.  
 

If I asked you to tell us what that “strategy” is, you couldn’t do it.  Not only do you have no idea, you cannot propose a strategy that would work at any cost. You will notice that even the blustering Republican candidates have no real ideas.

        The complexity of the Syrian mess is almost beyond comprehension. Even Lindsay Grahams and John McCain’s “boots on the ground” would no longer work -even if we were willing to accept the cost of casualties and …sign another war – because this would put us in direct conflict with Russia. Chaos theory is the only possible approach to figuring out what to do for a system this complex.

        Further, we actually need two strategies. First, defeat all the bad guys. Second, create a new state to handle the resulting vacuum. No one knows how to do the second part.  

       Syria and Iraq are gone – they will never be reconstituted. There will be a vast section of the middle east to be shared by Kurds, Sunnis and Shitttes. Please don’t tell me we should establish a democratic government.  

       Sometimes you have to recognize that there is no strategy that will work and just stay out. That is what Mr. Obama is doing

-- Modified on 11/25/2015 2:25:40 PM

There have been very few American injuries and casualties, and we have spent a relatively small amount in the bombing raids and advisory roles. Better yet we have actually maneuvered  Iran, Hezbollah, and now Russia into fighting ISIS.  

       Compare this strategy to Mr. Bush’s blundering invasion of Afghanistan, which cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of millions of dollars. Did that “strategy” even make a dent in Islamic terrorism? Do you think that the “democratic government” we installed is going to last long once we finally pull out? Just a matter of time before we have another power vacuum.

       The sad reality is that terrorism can never be eradicated and that the use of military force to try  cost us more in lives and treasure than doing nothing with the same result. But an even sadder reality is that statistically you are far more likely to be killed or injured by an American citizen with a gun than a terrorist

END OF MESSAGE

The "Truth" is not relivent to the Republican voter!  

The bigger the lie, the more popular the candidate!

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

What is your definition of " "Christians" "  

I know more black Christians, than I do white Christians. I say this because when you say "Christians" I assume you are referencing white people.

Most of the white people I know, don't really like black people and they are agnostic, I don't know why they don't like black people? Do the black Christians, like white people? IDK.

I personally tend to like people I know, over the people I don't know. I might be bigoted toward people I don't know... That's my poll.  

Which side tells the truth?  

Clinton, is a bigger proponent of democracy in the ME than any current Republican primary candidate. When I say that, I mean Clinton wants to westernize the ME. That's fairly bigoted IMO.  

Do you support HRC, position on the ME?

Does Carson host Ku Klux Klan rallies? I don't think he would draw many supporters?  

That could be any "Christian", as I don't know of anyone who follows all of Jesus's teaching 100, or even 99% of the time. I think that a Jehovah's Witness, might be more in line to do so. Even though I'm sure many don't.

Aren't you a bit hypocritical holding someone to belief in which you don't subscribe?

 
Thanks for your answer, as I thought you referring to the word "Christian"
(pronounced with a southern accent) as white you described.  

Most of these people do happen to  be white, so you can see my confusion there. Feel free to address any discrepancies found in my response

I can't think of the word I should use. Basically you are trying to hold someone to their belief, a belief in which you don't believe. How does that work, with out giving that belief any credit. Get what I'm saying?  

They are hypocritical if they do this. It's like if I'm having a drink at a bar, and in walks a self proclaimed muslim, and he orders a drink, and I say hey wait a minute you're a muslim you aren't supposed to drink. What would that make me since I'm not a muslim? I mean I think I would be right in my assertion especially if wasn't drinking, but what sense would it make for me to hold him to his belief? a belief I don't believe in.

No I'm not  drinking, but I did try to type this response into the login box.

You are allowed to say what ever you want. I wouldn't waste my breath telling a boy scout, he shouldn't be killing old women. Isn't that one of Moses's commandments?

1. He is the "leader of the free world". Or at least that's what the job was when he got there.
2. He mocked Romney and Palin for correctly predicting the threat Putin posed.
3. He dismissed ISIS as the "JV team".

His "lead from behind" strategy doesn't seem to be working. Any other predictions to add to your 0% success rate?

They were exactly right. What they did not predict was how much the Jihadist (emboldened by the American Left) would make Iraq their central battleground. Things like that happen when a President's own country tries to make him the bad guy for political gain.

And when Obama took office, Iraq was stable and there was NO ISIS. Not one trace. Obama is solely to blame for the existence of ISIS and no matter how much you delude yourself you cannot make the case otherwise.

And again, He was right, dummy. Both weeks that it took. You think Saddam was the leader of the Jihadists we fought after him? You are scary stupid No, everything you type is infinitely dumber. The vast majority of who we were fighting were streaming in from other countries. Next time do your homework. Oh really, you mean the guy who's neck depends on us refused to give our troops legal protection. You will literally believe any lie Obama can imagine. Right, Saddam's army became ISIS...

-- Modified on 12/2/2015 9:43:26 PM