Graham: Military leaders ‘need to be fired’ if they don’t support my plan for war in Iraq

a reply to: beezzer

If the Democrat "messiah' the right is always going on about being unquestioned can't even get support for a war, I think your point about Hillary drumming up support for one is rather weak.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was hardly a united front against war.

Most will follow their ideological leaders though, regardless of where it goes.

There are steadfast adherents to both political ideologies. It's a stupid way to live and make decisions, just voting on party lines and not on the issues themselves, for sure. However, the phenomenon is not exclusive to the Democratic party.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was hardly a united front against war.

Most will follow their ideological leaders though, regardless of where it goes.

There are steadfast adherents to both political ideologies. It's a stupid way to live and make decisions, just voting on party lines and not on the issues themselves, for sure. However, the phenomenon is not exclusive to the Democratic party.

True.

Republicans are just as bad.

But then again, most people just love sucking the teat of mama government so they'll follow and bleat where ever they are told to go.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was hardly a united front against war.

Most will follow their ideological leaders though, regardless of where it goes.

There are steadfast adherents to both political ideologies. It's a stupid way to live and make decisions, just voting on party lines and not on the issues themselves, for sure. However, the phenomenon is not exclusive to the Democratic party.

True.

Republicans are just as bad.

But then again, most people just love sucking the teat of mama government so they'll follow and bleat where ever they are told to go.

That's something I can agree with 100% on.

I don't often agree with you, Usagi-kun. Must be a red letter day.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12

I've already accepted that if we end up with a Republican in office, it is likely that we are going back to war in the Middle East. I have also seen that statistically, when a 2 term President leaves office, the opposite party almost always wins. In other words, expect a war in about 2 or 3 years from now.

But the current president is sending troops back in, right now and using air power.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Most will follow their ideological leaders though, regardless of where it goes.

Completely agree...

The Right wing would would jump into the veritable pits of hell if Rush told them to.
Rush has the largest political following of anyone in American history, even though he's not a candidate.

www.quora.com...

Rush is a media genius. That's why he has so many imitators.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yupp, doesn't matter who is in office, war is business and they want business to be good.

At the same time, he isn't doing enough apparently, as there is still plenty of people that are calling for more from our beloved politicians.

Here is the lead-in & set-up....

The Islamic State has attached great importance to the Syrian city of Dabiq, near Aleppo. It named its propaganda magazine after the town, and celebrated madly when (at great cost) it conquered Dabiq’s strategically unimportant plains. It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo or its Antietam.

this WH & Administration is deliberately allowing the ISIS/IS Jihad fighters to make hay on Shia or Christians or other minority Muslims there in the M.E.
Graham the war-hawk will gladly mount a 'boots-on-the-ground' offensive against the 7 or so, various groups that are fighting for and have sworn allegiance to the Caliphate (IS)

the 'key' is to crush- smash- completely eradicate the Caliphate/IS on their home turf...
AT their chosen focus point -
>> the town of DABIQ---->>>
draw the lawless killer-fighters (of the caliphate/IS/ISIS/AQ/boko harem/et al) into a last-stand scenario at DABIQ~~~

then use a tactical nukes on the lawless ones in ALL the major cities in Syria & Iraq (including Dabiq) held hostage by the Caliphate as the means to wreak total Chaos on many peoples in advancing the Islamic End-Times final battle....

Lindsey Graham would be a useful person to bring about ridding the globe of Jihadists fighting for their End-Times battle of the ages.
He's rather casual with nukes, recall the threat he made that Charleston harbor could be nuked if 'we' did not return order to Iraq-Syria by force...

there are useful idiots on both sides of the chessboard...BHO is a mandingo to the puppet masters from the stuff I've read over the last 6
+ years

I say this cautiously...but as a tactician not as a 'sponsor'. I have NO voice or Credibility with any government agency's or think tanks or PNACs

a reply to: St Udio

Really, nukes?

Screw the innocent people that would just be in wrong place right?

this WH & Administration is deliberately allowing the ISIS/IS Jihad fighters to make hay on Shia or Christians or other minority Muslims there in the M.E.

Just all around BS.

We can't afford a war, that is the harsh reality of it all.
Strange how when we want to bring up universal health care or taking care of our kids education bills it is all about the money and how it will ruin our country.

But bring up going to war and it is a damn blank check.

The military is not going to say no but, they also are not going work hard to sell something they do not agree with either. If he were to just start canning people who disagreed with him he would find that the people in the military leaking every stupid idea he has followed by a group of high level resignations who then go public with how unhappy the troops are with the President. It would be a disaster. Do not get me wrong the military does not have universally love a President and the will follow orders but, if you start interfering with what they consider there own business like firing officers they publicly rip you apart when they are out of service.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12

I've already accepted that if we end up with a Republican in office, it is likely that we are going back to war in the Middle East. I have also seen that statistically, when a 2 term President leaves office, the opposite party almost always wins. In other words, expect a war in about 2 or 3 years from now.

But the current president is sending troops back in, right now and using air power.

Yea Yea I know... I don't approve of Obama's pseudo-war either... I've said over and over on these forums that I wish we'd just leave the Middle East alone completely. I'm not going to defend Obama bombing them if that is what you are trying to suggest here or anything. But at least we aren't balls to the wall in full war mode, like I think we will be with a Republican President.

This what you are gonna get if you elect another republican president. The UN weapons inspectors told Bush repeatedly there were no WMDs in iraq. Just like Lindsay Graham, Bush wouldn't listen and we got a war that devastated the economy and made us look like tyrants.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

If the Democrat "messiah' the right is always going on about being unquestioned can't even get support for a war, I think your point about Hillary drumming up support for one is rather weak.

She was on the bandwagon for the last couple. She has a complicit media.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The media is irrelevant if they can't convince the public. The media was gung-ho for Obama's war in Syria too. The people STILL said no.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12

I've already accepted that if we end up with a Republican in office, it is likely that we are going back to war in the Middle East. I have also seen that statistically, when a 2 term President leaves office, the opposite party almost always wins. In other words, expect a war in about 2 or 3 years from now.

But the current president is sending troops back in, right now and using air power.

Yea Yea I know... I don't approve of Obama's pseudo-war either... I've said over and over on these forums that I wish we'd just leave the Middle East alone completely. I'm not going to defend Obama bombing them if that is what you are trying to suggest here or anything. But at least we aren't balls to the wall in full war mode, like I think we will be with a Republican President.

What I'm pointing out is I don't think there will be a difference. Remember, Hillary was ALL for the OIF/OEF wars in the beginning, as were most of the Democrats. They voted for them before they "changed their minds" after a bit. If it serves their purposes, they will just be as balls to the wall in a ME conflict.

a reply to: NavyDoc

My point in this thread has always been that the PEOPLE didn't want another war regardless of what the politicians (from either party) wanted. I think you've been misreading me or something.

Though I think it is more likely that a Republican would be more likely to stick to his guns of being pro-war despite public opinion. Though, you never know. Hilary could be the same way, but watching her opinions change with the tide, I think that is doubtful.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

My point in this thread has always been that the PEOPLE didn't want another war regardless of what the politicians (from either party) wanted. I think you've been misreading me or something.

Though I think it is more likely that a Republican would be more likely to stick to his guns of being pro-war despite public opinion. Though, you never know. Hilary could be the same way, but watching her opinions change with the tide, I think that is doubtful.

That would depend where the tide shifts then, doesn't it?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
If the people elected Lindsay Graham into the oval office I'd renounce my citizenship. That would mean I had lost all faith in the American people now and for my lifetime. An atheist begging, please god don't let this wacko into office. Don't tell me we're THAT far gone.

For the record, I don't think he has a chance.

No worries. Lindsay Graham has absolutely zero chance of being POTUS.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
If the people elected Lindsay Graham into the oval office I'd renounce my citizenship. That would mean I had lost all faith in the American people now and for my lifetime. An atheist begging, please god don't let this wacko into office. Don't tell me we're THAT far gone.

For the record, I don't think he has a chance.

No worries. Lindsay Graham has absolutely zero chance of being POTUS.

This. He's just a bit of a noisy distraction at present

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

My point in this thread has always been that the PEOPLE didn't want another war regardless of what the politicians (from either party) wanted. I think you've been misreading me or something.

Though I think it is more likely that a Republican would be more likely to stick to his guns of being pro-war despite public opinion. Though, you never know. Hilary could be the same way, but watching her opinions change with the tide, I think that is doubtful.

That would depend where the tide shifts then, doesn't it?

Well Hillary is going to have to bank on some crazy event happening that she can take advantage of then (I'm not going to call false flag because I think such premises are stupid).