Obama Really Doesn't Want To Destroy Isil/Isis

Obama told the nation and the world he would destroy Isil/Isis. He said he would do it without American "boots on the ground." His generals and the former Secretary of Defense says he cannot do it without American boots on the ground. After hearing this from his generals he went down to Central Command today and reiterated his soon to fail promise not to use American boots on the ground. What are we to believe about the perseverance of our President to carry out his promise to America and the world? I don't believe him.

The whole world knows Barry is a Muslim prison bitch. Its said he wears an old union suit with the fanny flap when he travels to the Middle East, Detroit, or Minnesota.
 
Actually he's just a stupid liar who likes to shoot his mouth off to the enemy about what he isn't going to do. He should just shut the fuck up about what he isn't going to do, so that it isn't jammed up his ass when he's forced by events to do so.

You seem quite angry this morning.
 
Your fellow conservative buddies have failed miserably to explain the clear and present danger presented by ISIS that requires American boots on the ground.

Perhaps you could assist them?

I do not believe we are currently at a point where ground troops are REQUIRED against ISIS because all saber rattling aside, this President and this Congress and God knows my fellow Americans have decided at this point that ISIS doesn't require being defeated in any sense of the word.

Many people in this country apparently believe that war as a last result means waiting until the "clear and present danger" is so dire that we literally run an extremely high possibility of losing the very war we waited to fight. It is a policy we pursued in the years leading up to World War II. It is a policy I do not believe in.

I believe the bromide "never get involved in a land war in Asia" should be amended to read, "never get involved in a land war anywhere if all you plan to do is fuck around with a strategy of containment." But containment is what Americans believe in today, not only in peace time negotiations but in military rules of engagement even when we command "combat" forces to place themselves in harms way.

It's just our luck that the only thing fundamentalist Shiites and fundamentalist Sunnis apparently agree on as they seek to erase their respective populations from the face of the Earth is that American infidels should be part of the body count.

I don't give a shit as to how or why these people found it necessary through their religious doctrine to swear themselves to our destruction, and I am cognizant of and very happy for the fact that the vast majority of Muslims do not share that fanaticism.

But I hate to see a President make promises he cannot or has no intention of keeping if circumstances should demand it, and I hate to see a country impose that fiction upon him and/or buy into it at the expense of losing all sense of reality.

Among the many hazards it creates is that it blurs the definition of what truly constitutes an enemy and how that enemy should be dealt with.

I hate it when that happens.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Obama can explain it. Or Kerry?

Yes. My fellow Americans, at the end of the day my opinions really aren't very left wing. When the drums of war are beat I put on my dance shoes.

This is another sickness Americans as a whole have.

Actually he's just a stupid liar who likes to shoot his mouth off to the enemy about what he isn't going to do. He should just shut the fuck up about what he isn't going to do, so that it isn't jammed up his ass when he's forced by events to do so.

Or maybe his fellow Americans shouldn't be traitors and if he changes his mind at some point down the road, especially to what you wanted to do in the first fucking place, you should praise him for learning. The problem here is you and yours.

The question the American people haven't been asked. The set-up question:

Set-up question.
1. Should America defeat Isis?

Question:
2. Should the President order American ground troops into the battle if they are required in order to defeat Isis?

Americans have been asked this but our patriotism causes us to give the double answer.

1. Should America defeat Isis?

Most would say yes.

2. Should the President order American ground troops into the battle if they are required in order to defeat Isis?

Most would say no.

These two answers are contradictory according to the generals. PArt of that of course is that the military budget is partially built around actively being at war. So even if every single study showed that not only could the Iraqi army could handle this with American Air support and some phone calls about what our drones had said the generals would still say only American boots can handle it. Because that's their fucking pay checks.

The question is what reason do we have to believe that defeating ISIS won't just open the door for the group that they thought was to radical to hang out with gaining a following and us heading right back into the same retarded scenario?
 
Ahahahaha, geography and WWII history isn't your strong point is it?

Enough to know that U.S. participation in the Pacific Theater was mostly naval combat, air combat, "island hopping" and island landings, with relatively little ground combat on the Asian mainland.
 
The question the American people haven't been asked.

Set-up question.
1. Should America defeat Isis?

Question:
2. Should the President order American ground troops into the battle if they are required in order to defeat Isis?

Still waiting on you to explain the clear and present danger to the United States presented by Isis.

I seriously doubt you're man enough to answer my question.
 
Still waiting on you to explain the clear and present danger to the United States presented by Isis.

I seriously doubt you're man enough to answer my question.

We don't wanna listen to you howl when ISIS nuts you.
 
You ever hear of Malaysia? General Joseph Stilwell? Merrill's Marauders? China, Burma, India, theater? 7th Infantry Division? III Corps? Battles in Battle of Northern Burma and Western Yunnan?

Are you telling us that the war in the Pacific was primarily a land war? Hmmmm?
 
Still looking for the bottom line....

How does another 10-50 year long military occupation of the middle East benefit anyone (other than GOP contractors of course but we won't talk about that) back here in America?

What do we get for the money/lives dolled out?

Hmmm?

That's the only question Mr.Conservatism and the rest of his "Let's do moar fail!!" should have to answer because I bet his bitch ass can't do it without pinning himself into a "Well if that's the case then wtf is all this other spending for??:confused: Situation so he will just avoid it at all cost along with the rest of the Halliburton dick sucks.
 
BobbingForKnobsDownSouth isn't aware that Isis is recruiting in the US, that they have declared war against the US, have executed Americans while making their declarations, are planning asymmetrical warfare in the United States and the rest of civilization. I know it's hard for him to accept the threats to civilization while renting a room in the uncivilized ghettos of Houston Texas but the threats are real nonetheless.:rolleyes:

And all of these injustices you've enumerated above constitute a clear and present danger to the United States of America?

I don't think so.

I recognize that perpetual war gives armchair generals such as yourself a serious chubby, but the simple fact is that a bellicose group of grandstanding jihadists do not present a danger to the United States.
 
You miss the whole point. Obama is talking in circles. He isn't leveling with the American people. He's saying he can defeat Isis with air strikes without any American troops on the ground...which is a lie. Americans are simply reacting to and believing his dishonesty. They haven't been told that American troops are required if we want to defeat Isis.

Obama knows he's lying to the American people. He only cares about his base. If those two videos weren't made public, Obama would have done nothing and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is the outrage of the American people and the world that is dragging Obama kicking and screaming
onto the stage of intervention. It is Obama who doesn't want to do what his generals say he has to do in order to achieve what he himself promised.

I agree Obama is talking in circles. He's not the man who takes charge and leads. When have I ever denied that he's a bitch?

He's not lying, he's talking in circles. And no he doesn't give a shit about his base. If he did we'd have a lot different president run. He cares about America and desperately wants to unite us and still doesn't realize that nothing he can ever do will make you respect him. Obama seems to want to go to war but knows politically if he doesn't go down kicking and screaming he'll reveal himself, once again, as a thrice damned centrist.
 
BobbingForKnobsDownSouth isn't aware that Isis is recruiting in the US, that they have declared war against the US, have executed Americans while making their declarations, are planning asymmetrical warfare in the United States and the rest of civilization. I know it's hard for him to accept the threats to civilization while renting a room in the uncivilized ghettos of Houston Texas but the threats are real nonetheless.:rolleyes:

Yeah, this morning we learned that they presented no clear and present danger to Australia...

;)
 
Back
Top