Argus Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I agree - you are failing. A sure sign of when people have run out of intelligent things to add is when they start to poke fun at my handle. Thanks for calling that out for us. Maybe if you ever said anything of substance I could address that instead... Edited October 9, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 Apparently the Kobani evening news has a report on it. The reason ISIS was able to penetrate in amongst the buildings there is that no one was actively bombing in Syria, other than to hit their headquarters and oil supplies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 What is the alternative for the local Sunni population? Its rather easy for civil authorities, combined with the general populace, to "support" ISIS when their families are under threat........ You seem adamant that there is no support from the local Sunni's for their fellow Sunni ISIS. I respectfully ask why you believe that as a fact. I cannot find any impartial resource that shares your view. Please direct me some sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 You seem adamant that there is no support from the local Sunni's for their fellow Sunni ISIS. I respectfully ask why you believe that as a fact. I cannot find any impartial resource that shares your view. Please direct me some sources. I don't doubt a portion of the Sunni population is supportive of ISIS, this is evident by the increase of ISIS alone......Some people love a winner, but the real ultimate test of local support will be when there is no longer power, fuel, food and water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 You've gotta wonder why Harper is so eager to rush to airstrikes in a campaign that is failing to achieve its aims. I guess he's our very own northern dubya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Because it's the only think that people will tolerate at this point...it does something, even if it doesn't do everything we need it to. What we need is US and coalition boots on the ground. Nothing else will solve this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 You've gotta wonder why Harper is so eager to rush to airstrikes in a campaign that is failing to achieve its aims. I guess he's our very own northern dubya. More countries have faced airstrikes and drone strikes under Obama's reign than under Bush's, FYI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 More countries have faced airstrikes and drone strikes under Obama's reign than under Bush's, FYI. Good point....reality is an inconvenient truth for those who still have BDS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 More countries have faced airstrikes and drone strikes under Obama's reign than under Bush's, FYI. Completely irrelevant. Bush's strikes killed far more civilian bystanders. I know most people here don't fuss over colored people in poor countries getting killed but the suddenly orphaned kids do. Bush created the massive clusterf*ck that Obama inherited. But anyway, who cares? I'm no fan of Obama either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Because it's the only think that people will tolerate at this point...it does something, even if it doesn't do everything we need it to. What we need is US and coalition boots on the ground. Nothing else will solve this. It certainly does do something. It ruins badly needed infrastructure, destroys homes, and kills and maims the local population. People might be less likely to say "we have to do something" if the bombs were landing in their backyards. Meh. Collateral damage, right? Not your problem. Just wave those pompoms. Edited October 10, 2014 by ReeferMadness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Because it's the only think that people will tolerate at this point...it does something, even if it doesn't do everything we need it to. What we need is US and coalition boots on the ground. Nothing else will solve this. Oh, I think the Turks could solve this pretty well on their own if they chose to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 The cheering after the vote was very distasteful and an insult to our armed forces who are being put into danger by this government. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/08/its-war-stop-treating-it-like-a-game/ On Tuesday night, far too many MPs displayed a tin ear for the gravity of the matter at hand. A vote on war is not politics as usual — not in the eyes of an increasingly disengaged and cynical citizenry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Again you're not really understanding what the cheering was for. It wasn't about the war itself, it was about leadership and success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Again you're not really understanding what the cheering was for. It wasn't about the war itself, it was about leadership and success. They happened to cheer "Harper's leadership" right after the vote to send our military to Iraq? Geez.... That's quite a coincidence! Whatever it was for, it was I'll timed and rather disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Again you're not really understanding what the cheering was for. It wasn't about the war itself, it was about leadership and success. so then... you're saying it was total partisanship... no sober second thought for the (per Simple) "clear and present danger" Canadian forces are being placed into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 They happened to cheer "Harper's leadership" right after the vote to send our military to Iraq? Geez.... That's quite a coincidence! Whatever it was for, it was I'll timed and rather disgusting. It was about leadership on his issue - about the governments willingness to stand with our allies and try to do something about this situation. Sending people off to war is a necessary endeavour and the government did what many see as necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 It was about leadership on his issue - about the governments willingness to stand with our allies and try to do something about this situation. Sending people off to war is a necessary endeavour and the government did what many see as necessary. And they hooted and hollered about it like the "won" something... It's disgusting behaviour by the usual suspects who cheered on Colandra as he babbled on incoherently about Israel. HUZZAH!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 A New Year's resolution for Mr. Baird - stop telling us to 'listen' in every second sentence. And if Harper could cut down on 'look', that would be a nice bonus. Listening to Baird and Kenney back to back today on CBC, I couldn't help noticing that Jason gets through a lot more content per minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Again you're not really understanding what the cheering was for. It wasn't about the war itself, it was about leadership and success. The leadership failed to provide the correct evidence to support the invasion. Most of the 'proof' they had turned out to be fabricated and outright lies. There can be no success because of that. Not something to really cheer for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.