Random Politics & Religion #00

We do want to hold him accountable, but for the things he's actually guilty of. To keep attacking him with things he's not guilty of weakens the arguments of those he's not.

Everyone pull up a chair, take a seat, and get ready to hear about these things he's actually guilty of from Jetackuu. I'm sure he has some good stuff, lets pay close attention so we can see how everyone else is doing it wrong.

Nah, they're content saying they're doing something when they have nothing to show for it. We might as well call them Congress.

Not true, some people actually approve of congress.

Your board is missing the Deflection square.

Ahh, I see. Your board is also missing the arrogance square, it should be next to the hypocrite square.

Oh, well I'm glad that we can just wave our hands in the air and say it's not the fault of our leaders because it was impossible. Heaven forbid we explain our position, make a proposal, and negotiate a compromise. That would be crazy. Political expediency is more important than common sense anyway.

The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.

Barack Obama announced at a White House press conference that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of December, a decision forced by the final collapse of lengthy talks between the US and the Iraqi government on the issue.

The Iraqi decision is a boost to Iran, which has close ties with many members of the Iraqi government and which had been battling against the establishment of permanent American bases.

Obama attempted to make the most of it by presenting the withdrawal as the fulfilment of one of his election promises.

"Today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," he told reporters.

But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.

Well, you make me laugh, Vic. I'll give you that. Twist my words any way you want to, it's not going to help your case. I implied that I didn't have the knowledge of what would be the best military strategy against ISIS, not that I didn't know what was going on over there. Maybe you should use your ISIS strategy in the forums and just not even try.

Another Altima account? Are they reproducing?

Not at all.

Not to even mention that you are entirely not understanding the board, which I do find kind of funny, but also rather sad.

I was pretty sure the current sock was another account, but hadn't placed my bets yet.

Hydra in action folks!

If your board had a blank spot for the nothing you just said I'd have a bingo sense Pleebo showed up.

You lost me now what does hydra and a sock account have to do with anything?

Another Altima account? Are they reproducing?

There were attempts to prolong soliders and bases in Iraq and Iraq said no.

Considering many news outlets ran it as a failure by Obama I'm not sure how people forgot about it.

Iraq did not want us anymore and unless you are saying we should have re-invaded the country I'm not sure what you think the American people (who also did not want us there anymore) should have done compared to the political and military leaders who tried to extend our involvement through various incentives.

Considering Vic is a veteran and probably has had more experiences in the ME than you, maybe.. possibly...perhaps he knows more about this topic then you? Specifically, military strategy in the ME.

Sometimes the best strategy is to wait. Throwing resources (personnel, money, and goods) into a bad situation just to "do something" is not a good long term strategy and will likely make the situation worse.

“Here’s the thing, Neil, ISIS is overwhelmingly a military problem. It is a military challenge to the West, not diplomatic or political. And nowhere in the President’s speech did he talk about offensive military options, only defensive military options to protect embassies, and to protect..and to use for humanitarian purposes. The bottom line is this: ISIS can’t be defeated unless we, or someone, kills them, that’s it. ISIS doesn’t care about anything else. They want to establish a caliphate over the bodies of the unbelievers and the way you get rid of them is to kill them, not to deal with them, Neil.”

On the board you should replace Reid with Clinton.

I figured it was, you know like bingo. Only you use common conversational political tactics as the numbers, which is why I said you are missing some. You know the ones you have just used. I'm especially impressed with your used of the deflection square.

You apparently don't get how the game is played, /sigh

Somebody learn the boy.

Again:

Calm down Clint Eastwood.

To mark a spot it has to be actually mentioned/referenced, not whatever you're insinuating. Short of obviously the Free Space.

Well, if he tried to keep us there longer (in spite of his promise to pull us out) and failed, it's very safe to say that it was a failure by Obama. You know, by definition. It's also weird for him to call it a success, especially if he knew a prolonged presence was needed.

I'd forgotten that he was a vet. That is a boon to his argument, but considering the fact that even military leaders can't seem to come to a consensus about what to do, it still isn't much of one. Waiting can be used as a viable strategy, but when the group in question is actively acquiring greater and greater quantities of land and weapons, it can of course be problematic to wait. For a different perspective:

- Retired Army Major General Bob Scales