Republicans vow to fight ISIS with all the forces necessary

[JackLuis]

Marco Rubio: I will commit as much American military force as I need to inflict ‘humiliating defeats’ on ISIS

Marco needs to join the Army and show us how committed he is to this.

Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has vowed to use American forces to inflict “high-profile, humiliating defeats” on Islamic State jihadis, to show the world they are not invincible.

In an interview with the Guardian conducted while campaigning across Iowa this weekend, the Florida senator detailed a strategy to fight Isis that left no options off the table – including US ground troops to support a coalition led by Sunni nations.

In a wide ranging examination of US foreign policy, he also:

rejected Donald Trump’s controversial plan to target all Muslims in America as “not a serious proposal”
accused Republican rivals Ted Cruz and Rand Paul of taking steps that would weaken American defense and intelligence-gathering capabilities
signaled that he would not be able to work with Russia as a partner in attempting to resolve the chaos in Syria.

Rubio spoke during a swing through Iowa, one week after the terrorist attacks on Paris that killed 130 people and injured hundreds more. The aftermath of those attacks and the stated threat of similar in Brussels provided a greater sense of urgency to his pitch for a more hawkish foreign policy.

He talks big as long as his ass isn't in danger, except from those scary pundants.

 

[BotanyBoy]

He talks big as long as his ass isn't in danger, except from those scary pundants.

Name a politician who doesn't......


They all talk that good shit until shit gets real and hard questions get asked.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Politicians are just regular people. They are not special. Just like your neighbor next door might want something done and someone else to do it, politicians are the same.

I am always struck by the irony of how you guys all want something done, but here, on these boards where it's just opinion, you can't reach across the isle and compromise. Here it doesn't even matter. Conceding your point has no consequencss yet none of you can do it.

Jack-not picking on you, but if you blame them for being all talk, why don't you offer the first olive branch to someone here on the boards. Why do you expect others to do something you are not willing to?

 

[mark_j]

Politicians are just regular people. They are not special. Just like your neighbor next door might want something done and someone else to do it, politicians are the same.

I am always struck by the irony of how you guys all want something done, but here, on these boards where it's just opinion, you can't reach across the isle and compromise. Here it doesn't even matter. Conceding your point has no consequencss yet none of you can do it.

Jack-not picking on you, but if you blame them for being all talk, why don't you offer the first olive branch to someone here on the boards. Why do you expect others to do something you are not willing to?

Two words.... Partisan Hack

 

[JackLuis]

-
Jack-not picking on you, but if you blame them for being all talk, why don't you offer the first olive branch to someone here on the boards. Why do you expect others to do something you are not willing to?

Well I'm all for reasonable compromise, except when the pol's start talking about starting another fucking war. I have no tolerance for warmongering cowards. I saw enough wasted infantry in Nam.

I didn't fault 'W' for Afghanistan, until he wandered off to Iraq. If he had been hard on Bin Laden in Tora Bora, instead of 'outsourcing' to the unreliable indigenous forces he might have gotten Osama there. However the craven draft dodging bastard sends our troops into Iraq then sends the unqualified Bremmer to reshape Iraq and set up the field for ISIS to develop.

As for offering the olive branch to someone on the board, I'd offer one to you Princess at least you are halfway reasonable. Though your support of the Rethuglicans makes me doubt your reasoning some.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Politicians are just regular people. They are not special. Just like your neighbor next door might want something done and someone else to do it, politicians are the same.

I am always struck by the irony of how you guys all want something done, but here, on these boards where it's just opinion, you can't reach across the isle and compromise. Here it doesn't even matter. Conceding your point has no consequencss yet none of you can do it.

Jack-not picking on you, but if you blame them for being all talk, why don't you offer the first olive branch to someone here on the boards. Why do you expect others to do something you are not willing to?

Tried that with Hitler, compromising. Evil cannot be compromised with. It must be fought and defeated with all our energies. Those who espouse racist beliefs are evil. Fascists are evil.

You want to extend the hand of friendship to Nazis and Klan? Really think it will work? You really think idiots like Putz have any intention of moderating their hateful speech or ideas. Compromise is a two way street. They put away the white sheets and swastikas and my bricks go back in a pile to do something constructive.

Like build housing and Mosques for refugees. LOL

 

[sr71plt]

How wide is this isle we're reaching across? Like the one the Statue of Liberty is on or Greenland? It might make a difference.

 

[doctor_insanus]

Rubio is just another automaton off the Republican assembly line.

He'll send in the military, but how will he pay for it?

Grandma will be eating catfood while she waits to die from poverty and disease. Just the way Republican Jesus likes it.

 

[Hard_Rom]

IMO the Republicans are as averse to sending infantry in as anyone. All American governments are casualty averse. It was easier to take out Saddam's conventional army. Real easy targets and folded like a house of cards. After the "end of combat operations" the casualties started to add up. All the regional players have their own reasons to either support or render as secondary threats or objectives ISIS.

ISIS attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israelis like that. Palestinians are still only interested in Palestinian independence. Turkey fears Kurd separatists more. Kurds more interested in retaining or retaking Kurdish territory. Saudis support radical Sunni groups. Other Gulf states more interested in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Iran sees a divided Sunni world and will only strive hard for Shia Muslims in Iraq. Who only care that Baghdad doesn't fall. Assad can now use Russia against his civil war opponents.

Tiny Jordan since burning execution of it's pilot has the strongest reason to hate ISIS first.

Our airstrikes should degrade ISIS enough that other regional players can absorb them or take them without sacrificing main objectives. If ISIS was not such a murdering evil bunch of bastards, we would let the whole damn region fight it out to set new post-Colonial borders based on ethnicity.

ISIS in Africa is being actively, if incompetently, being fought by African nations to south of the Sahara Desert. This is closer to France's sphere of influence. Support the hell out of France in Africa as they seek revenge. And keep degrading airstrikes up on ISIS.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Well I'm all for reasonable compromise, except when the pol's start talking about starting another fucking war. I have no tolerance for warmongering cowards. I saw enough wasted infantry in Nam.

I didn't fault 'W' for Afghanistan, until he wandered off to Iraq. If he had been hard on Bin Laden in Tora Bora, instead of 'outsourcing' to the unreliable indigenous forces he might have gotten Osama there. However the craven draft dodging bastard sends our troops into Iraq then sends the unqualified Bremmer to reshape Iraq and set up the field for ISIS to develop.

As for offering the olive branch to someone on the board, I'd offer one to you Princess at least you are halfway reasonable. Though your support of the Rethuglicans makes me doubt your reasoning some.

I don't really count. I am too fair minded, lol. I believe we need to have both parties to keep things fair and not so skewed. Even though I don't agree with a lot of what liberals believe I recognize that we need people with those beliefs.

I'm talking about an olive branch to someone here who has beliefs as strong as yours but thinking of them immediately makes you retaliate. You don't give a second thought to their arguments, you just think they are wrong. Someone you attack personally and they do the same. Afterwards you can go back to hating .

The stalemate with politicians will never end until someone puts the good of our country first. They swallow their pride and say "I'm willing to really compromise, I'm willing to really listen to what you have to say and do what is best for America." They disregard popularity polls, re-election consequences and what their small group of constituents want. I have little faith that this will happen. From either side. Our system is set up for power, not for America. This is why it's broken and will stay broken. Courage to stand alone is hard.

I know you are probably not a fan of Bush, but he didn't run a popularity contest. I truly believe he respected the office of the Presidency and he made hard decisions that people hated, were even wrong but he believed in our country. He was a strong President. People hated where he stood...because they knew where he stood. That is admirable. People don't know where Obama stands, they just know it's not with America. Will you agree with any of this? (Baby steps)

I appreciate your offer also. I enjoy commenting in your threads too.

 

[Iceprincess12]

How wide is this isle we're reaching across? Like the one the Statue of Liberty is on or Greenland? It might make a difference.

Just the American isle. I don't believe in compromise with people wanting to kill us. I am speaking of our politicians and the garbage about "bringing people together" that they all spew. It's all a lie, they will never do it, but why do we expect them too when we can't even do it here? Where it means nothing, we can't compromise.

It might as well be as wide as the universe right? The distance it takes before someone can drop their pride, how do we measure that?

 

[Iceprincess12]

Two words.... Partisan Hack

Are you different? I don't know, I don't think I have seen you post anything.

 

[Nathan_Brazil]

Nope

I know you are probably not a fan of Bush, but he didn't run a popularity contest. I truly believe he respected the office of the Presidency and he made hard decisions that people hated, were even wrong but he believed in our country. He was a strong President. People hated where he stood...because they knew where he stood. That is admirable. People don't know where Obama stands, they just know it's not with America. Will you agree with any of this?

Nope.

But it brings to mind one of the classic liberal/conservative differences.

Conservatives send to really hate nuance. Liberals tend to hate binary.

 

[JackLuis]

I don't really count. -

-This is why it's broken and will stay broken. Courage to stand alone is hard.

I know you are probably not a fan of Bush, -

I appreciate your offer also. I enjoy commenting in your threads too.

You do count as you are willing to discuss issues and might be persuaded, if someone has a good argument.

I stand for our American principles, as in the Constitution, laws, and regulations passed by the Congress. Doing that is hard enough when half of our country is willing to ignore them because ...(add Derp here). Standing up for the Constitution and the principles behind it is hard because you have to allow other people the same freedom you expect.

You are right about my not being a fan of Bush. The first time I heard him speak I knew he was a lying sack of fascist crap, and he proved me right! Not to be too hard on him, he was just doing what his family has done for generations, Front for the Dark Lords of the Eastern Establishment. JEB! is now following in the family traditions.

Do participate in my threads, but don't expect me to be easy on you if you are spouting propaganda without thinking like Box, or spreading hate like NoirTrash.

 

[Aglaopheme]

IMO the Republicans are as averse to sending infantry in as anyone. All American governments are casualty averse. It was easier to take out Saddam's conventional army. Real easy targets and folded like a house of cards. After the "end of combat operations" the casualties started to add up. All the regional players have their own reasons to either support or render as secondary threats or objectives ISIS.

ISIS attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israelis like that. Palestinians are still only interested in Palestinian independence. Turkey fears Kurd separatists more. Kurds more interested in retaining or retaking Kurdish territory. Saudis support radical Sunni groups. Other Gulf states more interested in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Iran sees a divided Sunni world and will only strive hard for Shia Muslims in Iraq. Who only care that Baghdad doesn't fall. Assad can now use Russia against his civil war opponents.

Tiny Jordan since burning execution of it's pilot has the strongest reason to hate ISIS first.

Our airstrikes should degrade ISIS enough that other regional players can absorb them or take them without sacrificing main objectives. If ISIS was not such a murdering evil bunch of bastards, we would let the whole damn region fight it out to set new post-Colonial borders based on ethnicity.

ISIS in Africa is being actively, if incompetently, being fought by African nations to south of the Sahara Desert. This is closer to France's sphere of influence. Support the hell out of France in Africa as they seek revenge. And keep degrading airstrikes up on ISIS.

Several Republican candidates have said they would send in ground troops.

 

[phrodeau]

Several Republican candidates have said they would send in ground troops.

Campaign promise =/= actual intent.

 

[Iceprincess12]

You do count as you are willing to discuss issues and might be persuaded, if someone has a good argument.

I stand for our American principles, as in the Constitution, laws, and regulations passed by the Congress. Doing that is hard enough when half of our country is willing to ignore them because ...(add Derp here). Standing up for the Constitution and the principles behind it is hard because you have to allow other people the same freedom you expect.

You are right about my not being a fan of Bush. The first time I heard him speak I knew he was a lying sack of fascist crap, and he proved me right! Not to be too hard on him, he was just doing what his family has done for generations, Front for the Dark Lords of the Eastern Establishment. JEB! is now following in the family traditions.

Do participate in my threads, but don't expect me to be easy on you if you are spouting propaganda without thinking like Box, or spreading hate like NoirTrash.

I would never expect a pass and I try not to spread hate. I do troll though and am perfectly fine with you calling me on it . Jb likes to instigate, who is box?

I don't find any strength in Jeb and I didn't like Bush because he was a republican. I liked him because I knew where he stood and he stood for what he believed in. I liked Christie in the beginning but think he is rather weak, trump is a joke. I am not sure about Carson, can he lead? I don't know. Looking at it from the perspective of who would have gotten things done, Scott Walker and Sarah Palin would have both had the backbone to do it. I thought Rand Paul might have at one point but he seems to have lost his way. Hilary would want to win for the honor of being the first woman president. I don't see her being any more effective than Biden would be.

We don't have great choices for leaders, not on either side. We have politicians. I still vote but I just cross my fingers that they won't make things worse than they already are.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Campaign promise =/= actual intent.

Sure, they are faux hawks.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Several Republican candidates have said they would send in ground troops.

I have suggested a quickly deployable air brigade. A big step up from SF guys but far short of a large conventional force. I'm thinking on the scales of the Iraq conflicts and Afghanistan.

NATO has capability to put together a multinational air brigade. Cheaper for smaller countries. Smaller amount of inevitable casualties that can be divide amongst participants. No western nation likes casualties. We hold the individual and life to precious to waste.

It would technically be "boots on the ground" yet not big enough to cause a big ruckus back 'ome.
Might be best way to fight terrorists in an asymmetrical war. Meet them halfway. They might stand and fight if force small enough to tempt them too. Then kill then with lots and lots of modern weapons.

 

[sr71plt]

If you're still wondering whether Ben Carson could lead as president, you're already a lost cause. What in heaven's name qualifies a neurosurgeon who can't enunciate an actual plan on anything and admits to believing crazy things to be president of the United States?

It's possible that Biden could out-president Hillary Clinton, but he's not running, is he? He also doesn't think before saying something a tenth as well as Hillary Clinton does. I'd love for someone better than her to be put up by either/any party, but it just isn't happening. I was in the U.S. government for thirty years and there's just no getting around that, in making campaign promises, no one running can/does make promises that they have any ability to back up like Hillary Clinton does, from experience--not just from offices she held and exercised, but also because she wasn't making cookies those years Bill Clinton was in office--she was on the policy team. You don't hear her making wild-ass promises for good reason. (And she basically lost to Obama when they ran against each other because he made uninformed wild-assed promises that he didn't/couldn't back up and she refused to--with the result that dumb American voter went for the glitzy promises).

And on the Bushes. Bush Sr. did a better-than-average job as president. Bush Jr. had his heart in the right place, but his mind was controlled by Cheney and Rumsfeld, to the tune of disaster. (And I can believe all that from being in the intelligence community and on the inside for all those people.)

 

[Aglaopheme]

What glitzy, wild ass promises did Obama make?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Promise Kept 45%
Compromise25%
Promise Broken 22%
Stalled 1%
In the Works 7%
Not yet rated 0%

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

All things considered, that's a darn good track record for campaign promises made in both 2008 and 2012 combined.

That's pretty darn good for ANY President. Stellar even for Presidents that have not had to face the obstruction that Obama has.

 

[sr71plt]

What glitzy, wild ass promises did Obama make?

You must be joking.

He said he could unite us. Have you noticed how that worked out? Better yet, how easy has it been for him to do anything we wanted to do--after spinning out the "lets just get along" strategies long after he should have seen the writing on the wall? I'm not saying it's his fault necessary work hasn't been done--that's on the Republican-controlled Congress that didn't even come up with solutions of their own. I'm saying he promised what he knew he couldn't deliver--or would have known if he'd waited until he actually had the preparation to do the job. He knew what the opposition would be like--and if he didn't, he wasn't ready for the job yet.

The specific one that really steamed me, since it was in my expertise box, was in saying he'd go anywhere and talk to any foreign entity on anything. Hillary Clinton refused to say that. That don't work; he found that out; and he changed his tune--after he was elected and saw what the world inside the White House and international affairs was really like--something Hillary Clinton knew all too well, as she wasn't baking cookies the eight years she lived in the White House and, even on the domestic issues, she had the scars to show for how being the executive was really going to work in Washington through the health care wars she fought then.

If you didn't see that Obama was promising pie in the sky in the Dem primary that he didn't deliver and that Hillary Clinton wasn't, you weren't paying attention.

(Just like a lot of folks didn't pay attention that, at the time, he was saying he'd put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan--and he did--and what people were hearing was that he was going to withdraw troops from the region.)

 

[sr71plt]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

All things considered, that's a darn good track record for campaign promises made in both 2008 and 2012 combined.

That's pretty darn good for ANY President. Stellar even for Presidents that have not had to face the obstruction that Obama has.

I'll wait for the version that rates them on major/minor impact. I'm sure all of the dead and damaged soldiers from the extended Afghanistan involvement will be real impressed with meeting a housing goal in New Orleans.

And, as I've already noted, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan wasn't a campaign promise in the 2008 election--and if he told any set of voters that, he was talking out of both sides of his mouth--in the Dem primary in 2008 he was talking sending more ground troops in--but he was whispering it in certain venues.)

 

[Aglaopheme]

I'll wait for the version that rates them on major/minor impact. I'm sure all of the dead and damaged soldiers from the extended Afghanistan involvement will be real impressed with meeting a housing goal in New Orleans.

So you read through all 500 campaign promises?

I'm 100% not joking. There's NO way he knew the depths of the obstruction that he would face. I agree with you he may have tried for too long to work with the Republicans. He did so because he thought perhaps they might be reasonable. He has certainly changed his tactics though hasn't he?

I'm in no way basing Clinton. I think she'll make a fine President when she's elected. Is she the person I most politically align with? No. I will vote for the person that I do most politically match up with.