Damn... Now i have to put on my foil hat and agree with u.

---

I use the heavy duty tinfoil from Costco. 

---

Damn... Now i have to put on my foil hat and agree with u.

Don't blame me when your $3.49 investment in that roll of tinfoil amounts to a total loss.

---

Everyone focuses on the tinfoil, but the secret is in the bent coat hanger used for the frame.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Everyone focuses on the tinfoil, but the secret is in the bent coat hanger used for the frame.

So you're the person who keeps pushing the frame option. Tinfoil hats work perfectly well without that added gizmo. It's like an undercarriage treatment or tire siping--no added benefit, just pure profit for the dealer.

---

Looks like the state governors, including Florida governor Skeletor, are rallying against accepting refugees.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/sy...ect-215927

 

They can't actually block them, but this does send a message.

 

 

How dare you insult Skeletor by comparing him to Rick Scott! Besides, Scott looks a lot more like Bat Boy.

 

But yeah, my take on the refugees: I don't think a great number of ISIS operatives are coming across. In fact, I think ISIS actually wants us to deny asylum to refugees in hopes that it drives a further wedge between the US and the Middle Eastern Muslim population. It's also worth pointing out here that the attackers in Paris were all there legally, and none were refugees.

 

That said, I think we have to look at the reality of the situation we're in. There are tens of thousands of people wanting to escape a war-torn country--a country in which one of the major warring factions is a terrorist group that has demonstrated numerous times that they will go to any lengths to kill westerners wherever they can find them. Denying asylum to the 99.999-ish% of refugees who are just trying to escape a terrible situation won't build us any new bridges with that part of the world, but I just can't find any particularly good, compelling reason to risk letting ISIS sympathizers into the US right now. It's a no-win situation for us, really. If we shut down the flow of refugees, we basically give ISIS what it wants. If we keep holding the doors open, even if by a crack, we're inviting them to come on over.

 

As much as I hate to suggest internment camps (again), I think that ultimately might be the best solution. Refugees are welcome to come over, but they live under tightly-controlled conditions in an enclosed environment (like a military base) while it's determined via personality assessment, interviews and monitoring of daily activities whether or not they harbor the sort of anger or resentment towards the west that would lead them down the road to ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-TBpKGACmw

---

Blakes Life Matters

I can't believe the level of ignorance on display in this thread.  Iraq was about oil?  Really?  ISIS was formed by remnants of Sadaam Hussein's army? Really?  It was all George W. Bush's fault?  It started after the Iraq invasion?  Really?

 

Question.  Why was there a revolution in Iran in 1979?  What was the reason for that and what were the consequences?

 

What role did Iraq play in that region during that time frame?

 

What was going on in Afghanistan throughout the 1980's and why?  I'll give a bit of a hint here.  This is where it got very dangerous.

 

What was happening in the 1990's in the region and throughout the world?  Why were terrorist attacks happening back then?  Why did Sadaam Hussien invade Kuwait?  What else was he doing at the time?

 

What about the Arab Spring?  What was that all about?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I can't believe the level of ignorance on display in this thread.  Iraq was about oil?  Really?  ISIS was formed by remnants of Sadaam Hussein's army? Really?  It was all George W. Bush's fault?  It started after the Iraq invasion?  Really?

 

It didn't start after the Iraq invasion but ISIS grew exponentially as a direct result of Saddam Hussein's removal from power and being replaced by his opponents. ISIS had existed in a small form before that but after Hussein's demise their gathered support among Hussein's followers. The support later waned once ISIS revealed just how brutal they could be but by then it was too late.

 

Like it or, Hussein was a stabilizing force in the Middle East, without him a massive power vacuum was created the effect of which are becoming brutally clear now. Going into Iraq was a terrible, terrible decision by the Bush administration.

---

It's convenient that you left out the rest of Jag's post.  

 

The power vacuum was created by our withdrawal from a country that wasn't strong enough to resist the gravity of religious fundamentalism in that part of the world.  It is also important to point out our fundamental and unconditional withdrawal from the war on terror as a concept.  The Obama administration basically abolished the term.  He displayed no commitment to meet new and emerging threats with the use of force.  He wanted out of the region at any cost.  The doctrine of this administration has been to apologize for perceived transgressions and hope that everyone wants to sing kumbayah.  The eventuality of this threat wasn't considered when we pulled out and the emergence of this threat wasn't taken seriously.  Even in the face of escalating violence around the globe we basically do nothing.  We are fighting a fake counter offensive where 75% of our sorties, that cost millions of dollars mind you, come back without dropping any bombs.  

---

I see Germany Vs Holland International Friendly was called off due to a bomb threat tonight also..

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

Funny how it went from, "We have irrefutable proof that there are WMDs in Iraq, and that's why we're invading," to, "We have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was pursuing the ability to acquire WMDs, and that made it worth the time, money and American and coalition lives to invade, even though what we're left with now is a far bigger mess than we would have been in with Saddam."

 

Just admit it already; Iraq was an oil war.

No it wasn't.  It was a revenge war.  Bush went after Iraq because Hussein put a price oh his fathers head.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

No it wasn't. It was a revenge war. Bush went after Iraq because Hussein put a price oh his fathers head.

I'll give you that to a point, but control of oil was certainly a motivating factor.

---

It's convenient that you left out the rest of Jag's post.


The power vacuum was created by our withdrawal from a country that wasn't strong enough to resist the gravity of religious fundamentalism in that part of the world. It is also important to point out our fundamental and unconditional withdrawal from the war on terror as a concept. The Obama administration basically abolished the term. He displayed no commitment to meet new and emerging threats with the use of force. He wanted out of the region at any cost. The doctrine of this administration has been to apologize for perceived transgressions and hope that everyone wants to sing kumbayah. The eventuality of this threat wasn't considered when we pulled out and the emergence of this threat wasn't taken seriously. Even in the face of escalating violence around the globe we basically do nothing. We are fighting a fake counter offensive where 75% of our sorties, that cost millions of dollars mind you, come back without dropping any bombs.

Once again, BUSH negotiated and signed the agreement to withdraw all forces by the end of 2011. Obama's hands were tied by that agreement regardless of his desires.

---

Not true. It was expected that nearing the conclusion of the agreement a new SOFA Would be negotiated and the military requested about 24k.


Obama wanted out of the region he campaigned on it and acted on it. He has also made no signifigant military move in the region since the emergence of isis now including yheir direct attacks on us and our nato ally

---

Had there been no oil in Iraq we would have never invaded either time. It's the only reason we ever cared about that place. Good grief.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

It's convenient that you left out the rest of Jag's post.  

 

The power vacuum was created by our withdrawal from a country that wasn't strong enough to resist the gravity of religious fundamentalism in that part of the world.  It is also important to point out our fundamental and unconditional withdrawal from the war on terror as a concept.  The Obama administration basically abolished the term.  He displayed no commitment to meet new and emerging threats with the use of force.  He wanted out of the region at any cost.  The doctrine of this administration has been to apologize for perceived transgressions and hope that everyone wants to sing kumbayah.  The eventuality of this threat wasn't considered when we pulled out and the emergence of this threat wasn't taken seriously.  Even in the face of escalating violence around the globe we basically do nothing.  We are fighting a fake counter offensive where 75% of our sorties, that cost millions of dollars mind you, come back without dropping any bombs.  

 

The genesis of the power vacuum was de-Ba'athification. The surge only worked because we bought them out. Did you think we would keep paying them?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

It's convenient that you left out the rest of Jag's post.


The power vacuum was created by our withdrawal from a country that wasn't strong enough to resist the gravity of religious fundamentalism in that part of the world. It is also important to point out our fundamental and unconditional withdrawal from the war on terror as a concept. The Obama administration basically abolished the term. He displayed no commitment to meet new and emerging threats with the use of force. He wanted out of the region at any cost. The doctrine of this administration has been to apologize for perceived transgressions and hope that everyone wants to sing kumbayah. The eventuality of this threat wasn't considered when we pulled out and the emergence of this threat wasn't taken seriously. Even in the face of escalating violence around the globe we basically do nothing. We are fighting a fake counter offensive where 75% of our sorties, that cost millions of dollars mind you, come back without dropping any bombs.

Prior to the withdrawal ISIS had been reduced to a fragment of what it had been and what it is now. They had lost the popular support of the masses in North Iraq and Iraq was more than capable of handling its remnants on its own.


Then the civil war in Syria started and it provided ISIS with a bedrock of choas to grow virtually unopposed. Syria couldn't reach them because of the civil war thing and Iraq couldn't do anything because it all happened across the border. By the time ISIS came across the border again they were big enough that Iraq was on equal footing at best.


The withdrawal didn't help because it means ISIS could expand into Iraq but if US troops were still in Iraq ISIS would still be big, they just wouldn't be in Iraq.

---

Having a meaningful ground force in the region means that we would have been able to respond in kind to whatever sectarian group rose up to threaten stability in the region, supplemented by our Iraqi Allies.  Under our leadership there would have been a lot less of just abandoning the vehicles that we paid for and going home.  We also would have had the pieces in place to make a RED LINE against using WMD a meaningful ultimatum instead of a political show and that could have influenced what happened in Syria. 

---

Prior to the withdrawal ISIS had been reduced to a fragment of what it had been and what it is now. They had lost the popular support of the masses in North Iraq and Iraq was more than capable of handling its remnants on its own.


Then the civil war in Syria started and it provided ISIS with a bedrock of choas to grow virtually unopposed. Syria couldn't reach them because of the civil war thing and Iraq couldn't do anything because it all happened across the border. By the time ISIS came across the border again they were big enough that Iraq was on equal footing at best.


The withdrawal didn't help because it means ISIS could expand into Iraq but if US troops were still in Iraq ISIS would still be big, they just wouldn't be in Iraq.

 

Prior to the withdrawal ISIS had been reduced to a fragment of what it had been and what it is now. They had lost the popular support of the masses in North Iraq and Iraq was more than capable of handling its remnants on its own.


Then the civil war in Syria started and it provided ISIS with a bedrock of choas to grow virtually unopposed. Syria couldn't reach them because of the civil war thing and Iraq couldn't do anything because it all happened across the border. By the time ISIS came across the border again they were big enough that Iraq was on equal footing at best.


The withdrawal didn't help because it means ISIS could expand into Iraq but if US troops were still in Iraq ISIS would still be big, they just wouldn't be in Iraq.

 

One more thing the entire reason ISIS is armed and as big as they are is because the west armed them to take on Assad. This entire mess boils down back to the west trying to pick and remove foreign regimes 

---

One more thing the entire reason ISIS is armed and as big as they are is because the west armed them to take on Assad. This entire mess boils down back to the west trying to pick and remove foreign regimes 

This. 

---