Posted on 06/17/2014 10:46:42 PM PDT by TBP
If Glenn doesn’t think Iraq under the control of ISIS is a threat to the Western World, then it couldn’t possibly be.
...or could it?
Who funded and armed and probably trained this group coming out of Eastern Syria?
Any guesses?
The Bombastic Kenya Bushman should know...
They’re not destroying each other, though. That’s the fantasy of the liberals. Factions have always warred with each other in that part of the world, but they eventually united. They will never say “Great Satan who?”
That said, the liberals in charge of this country will certainly leave our military and civilians hung out to dry in order to induce a majority to “bring them home”. Which is what the jihadists want.
Is an Iraq under Iranian control any less of a threat?
Glenn raises a good question: What difference will more lives, more dollars, more bombs, more arms, legs, eyes make?
The longer the Iranians and the ISIS clowns fight each other and the more damage they do, the better for us.
Just make sure neither the Israelis nor the Kurds get swept up in the regional holocaust.
I quit listening to GB. He’s a flake and wannabe cult leader.
The last straw were blatant lies in his comments about Bundy-BLM. I half expected there would be a new program after the commercials and he would be off the air.
The Obama regime. It was called "Operation Zero Footprint".
Glenn's own network, The Blaze TV, reported on this on its program For the Record (with our old friend Laurie Dhue.) So did lefty Seymour Hersh (in some detail) in the London Review of Books.
I used to feel the same way. I used to believe that we all loved our country and that while we disagreed on certain issues both sides had the same hope they just found it expressed in different ways through different things. Sadly I have had to abandoned this belief. I find our Left are far more interested in what the world or more specifically the UN thinks of us - I find their cultural cringe revolting. Sadly though I find our Right wing quite extreme fiscally and while quite a few here may find that palatable - it is one thing to proclaim it and another to live with it! Here I think ideology sometimes trumps what is best for the country. True middle ground, based on what is best for our country, seems to be shrinking and maybe no longer really exists.
A fake? He’s about as genuine as anyone on the air.
If Iran goes in to fight in Iraq, do you think they leave?
It’s one thing to have massive number of Iran’s military on the border. It’s another to have them carrying out a military campaign in country, and positioned to pounce.
How would we like it, if Iraq turned into Iran(2)?
Not unless they're forced out. Which is why it's good to let the ISIS-Iran war drag out for a LONG time. Enemy killing enemy. That's never a bad thing.
That’s good. I wasn’t trying to dump on Glen particularly.
I don’t think letting Iraq drift is in our best interest.
We may not like being involved, but focusing the terrorist attention on Iraq, is better than focusing them on New York.
The neocons are going berserk. McCain is acting like a spoiled child. I saw Kristol calmly explain that a Presidential speech would lead to wide acceptance of military action. Except ... Obama wanted military action in Syria last year and 85% of Americans said, “He** No!”. These weird warmongers are not operating in a “reality based” universe (neocon phrase from the Bush years). But, they are sure they can frighten enough people to reach their dream of perpetual war / empire.
And Libya before that. (But he did it anyway.)
Going?
Okay, I agree. Not unless they are forced out.
Just what we need over there, another nation whose government answers to an Ayatolah, and hates the U.S.
That’s what we’d wind up with.
Say what you want about the lackluster leadership in Iraq, it wasn’t blustering about attacking the United States every fifteen minutes.
It wasn’t seeking nukes to use against the West.
Obama does not want to fight them whether on their soil—or ours.
And if ISIS wins, we get another government that answers to a different murderous mullah and hates the U.S. Either way, we lose.
So why should we be involved in a situation in which we lose either way? The only way to “win” is to make sure their fight drags out for a long time.
If Iran gets too strong, new terrorists will swarm in to support ISIS.
Please define “quite extreme fiscally”.
No, because whomever comes out on top will renew focus on the Great Satan. They will not destroy each other for our benefit.
It makes no difference to you if a terrorist group that has promised to attack the United States ends up with a base of operation over a large region of the middle east?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.