Obama authorizes limited airstrikes in Iraq

Good. ISIS needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later,. No room in the world for them and they would become an eventual threat to our country. We need to do more than limited strikes, but it's a start.   

The_Dude wrote:Good.  ISIS needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later,.  No room in the world for them and they would become an eventual threat to our country.  We need to do more than limited strikes, but it's a start.    

Why doesn't Iraq pay a bunch of mercs to come take care of this mess for them? They have a shit ton of money.

Snake Plissken wrote:Why doesn't Iraq pay a bunch of mercs to come take care of this mess for them? They have a shit ton of money.

The Iraqi government is full of inept assholes.Too busy fighting with themselves.

The_Dude wrote:Good.  ISIS needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later,.  No room in the world for them and they would become an eventual threat to our country.  We need to do more than limited strikes, but it's a start.    

Dude, what's your take on ISIS shooting rockets at Israel again?

Take this to the Swill Bin you raging piece of shit, OP.

Death Roe wrote:Take this to the Swill Bin you raging piece of shit, OP.

Hey we're talking here. Respect your elders.

example 2,487 that Obama is a center/right president and in the mold of bu$h...

either that or he's a socialist muslim who hates America.. as the mainstream media tells me.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:example 2,487 that Obama is a center/right president and in the mold of bu$h...

either that or he's a socialist muslim who hates America.. as the mainstream media tells me.

  

It would be nice if the Republicans would advance a coherent foreign policy. I am often confused about the expectations that the Republican party has for American foreign policy. I realize divisions are natural, but the division among Republicans over foreign policy appears to be quite significant.

Much of what we are seeing around the world are the likely consequences of disengagement. Many Republicans - mostly the libertarians that run as Republicans - have been calling for disengagement and a decreased role for the US in global politics. They should be happy. The other half of the Republican party wants increased engagement, which is the same approach that led to overreach during the Bush administration and began what some have billed as a decline of American power. Neither is an ideal approach, but Republicans are approaching this from both angles and it is the source of a lot of confusion among voters.  It's another example of the seriously fractured state of the Republican party.

you have to love it when terrorist organizations and the Tea Party (who it could be argued is a terrorist organization) are on the same page...

A) ISIS vows "we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House"
B) republicans and Tea Party Patriots think they already have.. by electing a muslim

 

Raising the flag of Allah in the White House

Too bad the Iraqi's are not Mexican criminals because Eric Holder would supply them guns.

Turtleneck wrote:It would be nice if the Republicans would advance a coherent foreign policy. I am often confused about the expectations that the Republican party has for American foreign policy. I realize divisions are natural, but the division among Republicans over foreign policy appears to be quite significant.

Much of what we are seeing around the world are the likely consequences of disengagement. Many Republicans - mostly the libertarians that run as Republicans - have been calling for disengagement and a decreased role for the US in global politics. They should be happy. The other half of the Republican party wants increased engagement, which is the same approach that led to overreach during the Bush administration and began what some have billed as a decline of American power. Neither is an ideal approach, but Republicans are approaching this from both angles and it is the source of a lot of confusion among voters.  It's another example of the seriously fractured state of the Republican party.

You serious, Clark? Obama has just got done writing the book on naive, arrogant, know nothing foreign policy. Exact clone of Jimmy Carter. During both presidencies, the world erupted because America had weak and inept leadership.

Seriously, Obama has been such a failure you have Hilary who has had to publicly criticize him and distance herself...just think about that for a second.

The lack of substance in your reply is telling. Nowhere did I claim that Obama's FP warranted praise, but simply said that Republicans are all over the map. More to the point, the "lead from behind" doctrine should be appreciated by those Republicans that want further US disengagement. However, for those Republicans that want a stronger role for the US in global affair, Obama FP is a disaster. Clearly you identify with the latter rather than the former. I am not criticizing your position, but suggesting that the Republican party is seriously divided on the issue of FP. Furthermore, any Republican advocating for disengagement has to accept the consequences of a "leaderless" world.