Iraq Cities Fall To Al Qaeda-inspired militants: NeoCons want Obamaphone like policy?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
1

1still_waters

Guest
#1
#1
Al qaeda-inspired militants have seized control of two northern cities in Iraq, as they threaten to take over the capitol city of Baghdad.

Those against Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq will immediately blame this on Obama. Those making such arguments are calling for the international version of an Obama-phone, or Obama-money. Why do I say this?

On Wednesday, militants also took Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, as soldiers and security forces abandoned their posts and yielded ground once controlled by U.S. forces.
Click to expand...
On Tuesday, the militants seized control of much of Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, sending an estimated half a million people fleeing from their homes. As in Tikrit, the Sunni militants were able to move in after police and military forces melted away following relatively brief clashes.
The Iraqi military also abandoned some posts in the ethnically mixed flashpoint city of Kirkuk that are now being held by the Kurdish security forces known as peshmerga, Brig. Halogard Hikmat, a senior peshmerga official told the Associated Press.
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda-inspired militant group vows march on Baghdad after seizing northern cities | Fox News

These people won't stand up and fight for their own freedom against some rag-tag militants.. Why in the world would we advocate sending in our military to do it for them, especially when they won't stand on their own?


"While many Iraqis are responsible for this strategic disaster, the administration cannot escape its share of the blame. When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever," said McCain, of Arizona, and Graham, of South Carolina, in a statement.
Click to expand...
McCain and Graham slam Obama for Iraq violence – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

These calls to redistribute our military might to stand for people who won't stand for themselves has got to stop. It's time for liberals at home to quit calling for redistribution of wealth to the able bodied who don't want to work. It's time for neo-cons to quit calling for redistribution of our military might for people who don't want to stand and fight for their own freedom. This Obama-phone like foreign policy has got to stop.
 
Last edited:
S

Sirk

Guest
#2
#2
One word........oil......and keeping it pegged to the dollar.

1still_waters said:
Al qaeda-inspired militants have seized control of two northern cities in Iraq, as they threaten to take over the capitol city of Baghdad.

Those against Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq will immediately blame this on Obama. Those making such arguments are calling for the international version of an Obama-phone, or Obama-money. Why do I say this?





These people won't stand up and fight for their own freedom against some rag-tag militants.. Why in the world would we advocate sending in our military to do it for them, especially when they won't stand on their own?

Al Qaeda-inspired militant group vows march on Baghdad after seizing northern cities | Fox News

These calls to redistribute our military might to stand for people who won't stand for themselves has got to stop. It's time for liberals at home to quit calling for redistribution of wealth to the able bodied who don't want to work. It's time for neo-cons to quit calling for redistribution of our military might for people who don't want to stand and fight for their own freedom. This Obama-phone like foreign policy has got to stop.
Click to expand...
 
D

didymos

Guest
#3
#3
So I guess G.W.Busch was right after all... :rolleyes:

 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#6
#6
didymos said:
So I guess G.W.Busch was right after all... :rolleyes:

Click to expand...
Ok you got me started.
Imagine this scenario.
It's 2002. Obama is president.
It's just sixth months after Bin-laden murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood.

Obama gets on TV and in the open says this of a man who murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood sixth months ago.


"I just don't spend that much time on him."

The Republican outrage would be through the roof, and I reckon even Chris Matthews would rant a wee-tad-bit. Every Republican blogger would be playing the video "Have You Forgotten?" in a blog post. Rush Limbaugh would be ranting about how a statement like that from a president sends a message of weakness to the terrorists.

George W. Bush said that, and three years later they campaigned for the guy and elected him to a second term.
Whenever I hear a Republican spouting off about how a certain donkey party is weak on terror, I shake my head.

[video=youtube;4PGmnz5Ow-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o[/video]
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#7
#7
They're just two sides of the same coin. Its why now matter what party is in control, we continue speeding on towards the demise of our country.

1still_waters said:
Ok you got me started.
Imagine this scenario.
It's 2002. Obama is president.
It's just sixth months after Bin-laden murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood.

Obama gets on TV and in the open says this of a man who murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood sixth months ago.


"I just don't spend that much time on him."

The Republican outrage would be through the roof, and I reckon even Chris Matthews would rant a wee-tad-bit. Every Republican blogger would be playing the video "Have You Forgotten?" in a blog post. Rush Limbaugh would be ranting about how a statement like that from a president sends a message of weakness to the terrorists.

George W. Bush said that, and three years later they campaigned for the guy and elected him to a second term.
Whenever I hear a Republican spouting off about how a certain donkey party is weak on terror, I shake my head.

[video=youtube;4PGmnz5Ow-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o[/video]
Click to expand...
 
PennEd

PennEd

Senior Member
#8
Apr 22, 2013
12,923
8,655
113
#8
1still_waters said:
Ok you got me started.
Imagine this scenario.
It's 2002. Obama is president.
It's just sixth months after Bin-laden murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood.

Obama gets on TV and in the open says this of a man who murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood sixth months ago.


"I just don't spend that much time on him."

The Republican outrage would be through the roof, and I reckon even Chris Matthews would rant a wee-tad-bit. Every Republican blogger would be playing the video "Have You Forgotten?" in a blog post. Rush Limbaugh would be ranting about how a statement like that from a president sends a message of weakness to the terrorists.

George W. Bush said that, and three years later they campaigned for the guy and elected him to a second term.
Whenever I hear a Republican spouting off about how a certain donkey party is weak on terror, I shake my head.

[video=youtube;4PGmnz5Ow-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o[/video]
Click to expand...
I had huge problems with Bush,on a lot of different issues, but now that youv'e brought this up several times i feel compelled to comment. That quote is an absolute non-starter. I can't find a single thing wrong with it. The facts are Bush DID spend consderable time and resources on getting Bin Laden and the war on terror in general. At the time of that statement Bin Laden was eating up the ATT he was getting about how important he was. If Bush said something like feckless obama would have said like "We are expending all our time and resources to find Bin Laden, and won't rest til we do" then osama would've gotten more renown and powerful when 10 yrs went by and we still didn't get him.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#10
#10
PennEd said:
I had huge problems with Bush,on a lot of different issues, but now that youv'e brought this up several times i feel compelled to comment. That quote is an absolute non-starter. I can't find a single thing wrong with it. The facts are Bush DID spend consderable time and resources on getting Bin Laden and the war on terror in general. At the time of that statement Bin Laden was eating up the ATT he was getting about how important he was. If Bush said something like feckless obama would have said like "We are expending all our time and resources to find Bin Laden, and won't rest til we do" then osama would've gotten more renown and powerful when 10 yrs went by and we still didn't get him.
Click to expand...
He spent more time and resources pursuing a guy who didn't murder 3000 Americans.
The fact is, he said this about a man who murdered 3000 Americans. He said it on world wide TV six months after the event.
Sorry, but you just don't say anything remotely close to this six months after 3000 Americans are murdered.

Anyone trying to minimize or justify this statement, in my opinion, may have some internal tendencies toward bias that need examining.

If Bush said something like feckless obama would have said like "
Click to expand...
Like it or not, the feckless Obama issued the decision that resulted in some justice toward Osama. Something a man who said the below just six months after 911, couldn't do in his eight years in office. But thank goodness we captured a guy who didn't murder 3000 Americans.

"I just don't spend that much time on him."
Click to expand...
 
D

didymos

Guest
#11
#11
Don't get me wrong here, the reason why I posted the caricature is this: G.W. Bush ('Republicans') started this whole mess in the first place. There was no evidence to connect Saddam Hussain to Al Quaeda, no evidence of WMD in Iraq. Although he should have concentrated on Al Quaeda, G.W. went to war with Iraq, presumably as a vendetta for the murder attempt on his father's life, ordered by Saddam Hussain. In doing so he destabilzed the whole region, and in this anarchy groups like ISIS could emerge. So yeah, ultimately Bush WAS right when he established a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda, but it was a link he created himself.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#12
#12
didymos said:
Don't get me wrong here, the reason why I posted the caricature is this: G.W. Bush ('Republicans') started this whole mess in the first place. There was no evidence to connect Saddam Hussain to Al Quaeda, no evidence of WMD in Iraq. Although he should have concentrated on Al Quaeda, G.W. went to war with Iraq, presumably as a vendetta for the murder attempt on his father's life, ordered by Saddam Hussain. In doing so he destabilzed the whole region, and in this anarchy groups like ISIS could emerge. So yeah, ultimately Bush WAS right when he established a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda, but it was a link he created himself.
Click to expand...
Yup purely an elective war.
Now because of Bush we could have an even worse monster running Iraq.
Saddam was an evil lil dust bunny, but removing him created a huge vacuum for some real dirtbags to fill.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#13
#13
This looks like an attempt to keep the current regime from looking like the inept administration that it is.

1still_waters said:
Yup purely an elective war.
Now because of Bush we could have an even worse monster running Iraq.
Saddam was an evil lil dust bunny, but removing him created a huge vacuum for some real dirtbags to fill.
Click to expand...
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#14
#14
1

1still_waters

Guest
#15
#15
Sirk said:
This looks like an attempt to keep the current regime from looking like the inept administration that it is.
Click to expand...
Obama's domestic policy still looks bad/inept regardless of my few rantings on this corner of the Internet.

Don't give me that much credit or clout. :p
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#16
#16
His entire policy looks erratic, sophomoric anti american and dangerous from my corner of the internet.

1still_waters said:
Obama's domestic policy still looks bad regardless of my few rantings on this corner of the Internet.
Click to expand...
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#17
#17
Truth is...when I look at these endless wars and foreign policy boondoggles...I see the military hardware makers and the bankers who make available the funds, laughing all the way to the bank.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#18
#18
Sirk said:
His entire policy looks erratic, sophomoric anti american and dangerous from my corner of the internet.
Click to expand...
Overall I'm content with his foreign policy.

He quit redistributing our military-wealth to a nation that won't standup and fight against rag-tag militants.

He issued the order that resulted in some justice toward a guy who murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood.

He hasn't gotten us into any major unneeded conflicts. Yes neo-cons will say he's weak, but the same neo-cons won't grab a gun to go back up all the tough talk they claim they want from Obama. If you want tough talk and action from Obama, please be prepared to risk your life backing up the tough talk you desire. (I say that to anyone in general.)
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#19
#19
He is gutting out military and the world is going to pay a heavy price because the vacuum will get filled... and it won't be filled with heart and soul of the what makes America great, which is its generous spirit. Now I'm not saying we should police the world but I do agree with the philosophy of peace thru strength....albeit a benevolent strength not fostered by greed and lies.
1still_waters said:
Overall I'm content with his foreign policy.

He quit redistributing our military-wealth to a nation that won't standup and fight against rag-tag militants.

He issued the order that resulted in some justice toward a guy who murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood.

He hasn't gotten us into any major unneeded conflicts. Yes neo-cons will say he's weak, but the same neo-cons won't grab a gun to go back up all the tough talk they claim they want from Obama. If you want tough talk and action from Obama, please be prepared to risk your life backing up the tough talk you desire. (I say that to anyone in general.)
Click to expand...
 
D

didymos

Guest
#20
#20
1still_waters said:
Yup purely an elective war.
Now because of Bush we could have an even worse monster running Iraq.
Saddam was an evil lil dust bunny, but removing him created a huge vacuum for some real dirtbags to fill.
Click to expand...
... and Obama is supposed to clean up the mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.