(02-10-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

The strategy would either be what they're doing now, bombing in conjunction with other groups' land forces, or we invade Iraq and Syria ourselves.

There are several strategies we can use, but yes ultimately if you want to destroy ISIS you will need some boots on the ground. The President has done a good job of convincing people that it would require a ton of troops to actually get this done, when in reality it won't.

All he needs is to actually unleash our Air Forces and Navy forces (not small surgical bombing) and do heavy bombing and missile strikes followed up by a multinational ground force to clear out the area and gather intelligence. Desert Storm's ground action took a month in order to defeat one of the better armed Armies in the world at that time. We can take ISIS in weeks and leave.

No we can't. First, we'd have to invade Syria too. That's problematic at best since they still have a government (and army) to speak of unlike the area ISIS is in across the border in Iraq. And heavy bombing is not all that effective against a dispersed enemy that looks like civilians. Then you still have the problem of the endgame. If we then left, we'd have the same power vacuum we had when ISIS moved in.

Yes you are correct, we would have to put troops in Syria as well as Iraq, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on that. And your bombing part kind of made my argument for me as to why groundtroops are necessary.

But obviously why would you take my word seriously, I'm just a message board poster, so please I encourage you to look up strategies by retired Gen. Conway who agrees with me that you have to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

Look I understand no one wants to put troops on the ground after long drawn our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately if this threat was preemptively handled and not ignored it wouldn't have required all of this. But men, women and children are being killed and raped, I personally would like to see some leadership and strength on this issue instead of constant remarks about the "crusades" and "existential threats".

(02-10-2015 03:49 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

The strategy would either be what they're doing now, bombing in conjunction with other groups' land forces, or we invade Iraq and Syria ourselves.

There are several strategies we can use, but yes ultimately if you want to destroy ISIS you will need some boots on the ground. The President has done a good job of convincing people that it would require a ton of troops to actually get this done, when in reality it won't.

All he needs is to actually unleash our Air Forces and Navy forces (not small surgical bombing) and do heavy bombing and missile strikes followed up by a multinational ground force to clear out the area and gather intelligence. Desert Storm's ground action took a month in order to defeat one of the better armed Armies in the world at that time. We can take ISIS in weeks and leave.

No we can't. First, we'd have to invade Syria too. That's problematic at best since they still have a government (and army) to speak of unlike the area ISIS is in across the border in Iraq. And heavy bombing is not all that effective against a dispersed enemy that looks like civilians. Then you still have the problem of the endgame. If we then left, we'd have the same power vacuum we had when ISIS moved in.

Yes you are correct, we would have to put troops in Syria as well as Iraq, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on that. And your bombing part kind of made my argument for me as to why groundtroops are necessary.

But obviously why would you take my word seriously, I'm just a message board poster, so please I encourage you to look up strategies by retired Gen. Conway who agrees with me that you have to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

Look I understand no one wants to put troops on the ground after long drawn our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately if this threat was preemptively handled and not ignored it wouldn't have required all of this. But men, women and children are being killed and raped, I personally would like to see some leadership and strength on this issue instead of constant remarks about the "crusades" and "existential threats".

I'm not arguing that we wouldn't need troops on the ground to take out ISIS. I don't think it necessarily has to be our troops. I do disagree that it would not require as much if we had handled it "preemptively". Unless you're saying we should have stayed in Iraq until such time as a Republican was president and he deemed it was safe to leave, regardless of what happened afterwards, then it would have been okay. Or we stayed there indefinitely with constant casualties in perpetuity.

Still, I would have less problem with us going in there now than when we went in there after Hussein.

(02-10-2015 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:49 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The strategy would either be what they're doing now, bombing in conjunction with other groups' land forces, or we invade Iraq and Syria ourselves.

There are several strategies we can use, but yes ultimately if you want to destroy ISIS you will need some boots on the ground. The President has done a good job of convincing people that it would require a ton of troops to actually get this done, when in reality it won't.

All he needs is to actually unleash our Air Forces and Navy forces (not small surgical bombing) and do heavy bombing and missile strikes followed up by a multinational ground force to clear out the area and gather intelligence. Desert Storm's ground action took a month in order to defeat one of the better armed Armies in the world at that time. We can take ISIS in weeks and leave.

No we can't. First, we'd have to invade Syria too. That's problematic at best since they still have a government (and army) to speak of unlike the area ISIS is in across the border in Iraq. And heavy bombing is not all that effective against a dispersed enemy that looks like civilians. Then you still have the problem of the endgame. If we then left, we'd have the same power vacuum we had when ISIS moved in.

Yes you are correct, we would have to put troops in Syria as well as Iraq, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on that. And your bombing part kind of made my argument for me as to why groundtroops are necessary.

But obviously why would you take my word seriously, I'm just a message board poster, so please I encourage you to look up strategies by retired Gen. Conway who agrees with me that you have to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

Look I understand no one wants to put troops on the ground after long drawn our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately if this threat was preemptively handled and not ignored it wouldn't have required all of this. But men, women and children are being killed and raped, I personally would like to see some leadership and strength on this issue instead of constant remarks about the "crusades" and "existential threats".

I'm not arguing that we wouldn't need troops on the ground to take out ISIS. I don't think it necessarily has to be our troops. I do disagree that it would not require as much if we had handled it "preemptively". Unless you're saying we should have stayed in Iraq until such time as a Republican was president and he deemed it was safe to leave, regardless of what happened afterwards, then it would have been okay. Or we stayed there indefinitely with constant casualties in perpetuity.

Still, I would have less problem with us going in there now than when we went in there after Hussein.

I'm talking about when ISIS first started to aggressively move back in 2012 we could have struck them then. They were far less organized and far less armed until they started taking Iraqi weapons and tanks making them far more dangerous then they were. So yes I do believe if we had struck then instead of referring to them as "JV" that it would have been far less problematic.

Just my $.02

Let's consider for a moment the possibility that ISIS may not be all bad, given the available options.

Iran is Aryan Shias. The "Shia crescent" extends south to include Semitic Shias in southern Iraq, Kuwait, and the Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia. Iraq should really be three countries, the Semitic Shia south as mentioned, the Aryan Sunni Kurds in the north, and Semitic Sunnis to the west. Of the three the southern Semitic Shia Iraq and the northern Aryan Sunni Kurdistan would have sufficient resources to be functional countries. The Semitic Sunni west would essentially have no resources, no oil, no water, nothing, and thus would have a hard time surviving.

Now look to the west. That "Shia crescent" swings through pockets in eastern Turkey, and then increases in strength down along the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. Shias are a minority in Syria as a whole, but they are concentrated in the west around Damascus and the Mediterranean. Assad is an Alewite Shia. Eastern Syria is almost entirely Semitic Sunni. So a Semitic Sunni nation separating eastern Semitic Sunni Syria from western Semitic Shia Syria, and joining the eastern part with adjacent western Semitic Sunni Iraq, actually makes some sense.

Getting the people on the ground there to behave in a manner that makes it reasonable is, of course, a different matter. And we would anticipate opposition from the Saudis, particularly considering the proximity of a potentially warlike ISIS immediately to their north and fairly close to Riyadh. But given the religions and ethnicities involved, it actually makes a lot of conceptual sense.

ETA: I agree that in the foregoing I'm taking some liberties in calling the Kurds Aryan. There are indications that other ethnicities may also be involved. But they are clearly not Semitic, and tend not to get along well with Semitic people.

(02-10-2015 04:12 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:49 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  There are several strategies we can use, but yes ultimately if you want to destroy ISIS you will need some boots on the ground. The President has done a good job of convincing people that it would require a ton of troops to actually get this done, when in reality it won't.

All he needs is to actually unleash our Air Forces and Navy forces (not small surgical bombing) and do heavy bombing and missile strikes followed up by a multinational ground force to clear out the area and gather intelligence. Desert Storm's ground action took a month in order to defeat one of the better armed Armies in the world at that time. We can take ISIS in weeks and leave.

No we can't. First, we'd have to invade Syria too. That's problematic at best since they still have a government (and army) to speak of unlike the area ISIS is in across the border in Iraq. And heavy bombing is not all that effective against a dispersed enemy that looks like civilians. Then you still have the problem of the endgame. If we then left, we'd have the same power vacuum we had when ISIS moved in.

Yes you are correct, we would have to put troops in Syria as well as Iraq, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on that. And your bombing part kind of made my argument for me as to why groundtroops are necessary.

But obviously why would you take my word seriously, I'm just a message board poster, so please I encourage you to look up strategies by retired Gen. Conway who agrees with me that you have to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

Look I understand no one wants to put troops on the ground after long drawn our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately if this threat was preemptively handled and not ignored it wouldn't have required all of this. But men, women and children are being killed and raped, I personally would like to see some leadership and strength on this issue instead of constant remarks about the "crusades" and "existential threats".

I'm not arguing that we wouldn't need troops on the ground to take out ISIS. I don't think it necessarily has to be our troops. I do disagree that it would not require as much if we had handled it "preemptively". Unless you're saying we should have stayed in Iraq until such time as a Republican was president and he deemed it was safe to leave, regardless of what happened afterwards, then it would have been okay. Or we stayed there indefinitely with constant casualties in perpetuity.

Still, I would have less problem with us going in there now than when we went in there after Hussein.

I'm talking about when ISIS first started to aggressively move back in 2012 we could have struck them then. They were far less organized and far less armed until they started taking Iraqi weapons and tanks making them far more dangerous then they were. So yes I do believe if we had struck then instead of referring to them as "JV" that it would have been far less problematic.

Just my $.02

I think by the time we got back in there it would have been too late. Basically because the Iraqi "army" shrivelled up so fast, probably faster than most of us, even the pessimists, would have expected. If we were in there the whole time that would have been different, but that goes back to my previous comment about continued casualties.

I'm hoping Jordan gets involved in the fray. They're none too happy about having their pilot burned alive.

Also my $.02

(02-10-2015 03:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:08 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 05:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I was referring the the r word. And I clicked on nothing. I don't have you on ignore so I see it when merely scrolling this thread.

And I asked you why we should keep GITMO open and you provided nothing as I expected. So again, why should we keep it open?

And no, having it open does not 'keep terrorists from running amok'. As evidenced by all the terrorists running amok. And if you're referring to the roughly 120 who still remain there, they can easily be held in one of our Supermax prisons.

Come on man, you know I didn't say it to offend you or any mentally ill person out there. Retard is used in an entirely different manner, I would never disrespect a slow or mental person with that term.

For terrorists, I'd rather they weren't in our prison system infecting and recruiting in our home country, we've got enough of that as it is.

Really...you honestly think we'd have them in a general population having interactions with other prisoners?

And your gal Sarah begs to differ. So just act like an adult and use a different word please. Thanks.

Alright man, look, I've been saying that word in reference to stupid people since I joined this board and there's never been a peep out of you about it until now. If I EVER said that in regards to an innocent mentally challenged person then you and Sarah can get together and rage out on me, however, that term doesn't even ring a bell for a mental person when I hear or say it.

Inmates can pass messages in jail, pretty easy. So if they wanted to recruit, they could. It's best to keep them in Gitmo or just kill them. They aren't human anyways.

(02-10-2015 04:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 04:12 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:49 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No we can't. First, we'd have to invade Syria too. That's problematic at best since they still have a government (and army) to speak of unlike the area ISIS is in across the border in Iraq. And heavy bombing is not all that effective against a dispersed enemy that looks like civilians. Then you still have the problem of the endgame. If we then left, we'd have the same power vacuum we had when ISIS moved in.

Yes you are correct, we would have to put troops in Syria as well as Iraq, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on that. And your bombing part kind of made my argument for me as to why groundtroops are necessary.

But obviously why would you take my word seriously, I'm just a message board poster, so please I encourage you to look up strategies by retired Gen. Conway who agrees with me that you have to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

Look I understand no one wants to put troops on the ground after long drawn our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately if this threat was preemptively handled and not ignored it wouldn't have required all of this. But men, women and children are being killed and raped, I personally would like to see some leadership and strength on this issue instead of constant remarks about the "crusades" and "existential threats".

I'm not arguing that we wouldn't need troops on the ground to take out ISIS. I don't think it necessarily has to be our troops. I do disagree that it would not require as much if we had handled it "preemptively". Unless you're saying we should have stayed in Iraq until such time as a Republican was president and he deemed it was safe to leave, regardless of what happened afterwards, then it would have been okay. Or we stayed there indefinitely with constant casualties in perpetuity.

Still, I would have less problem with us going in there now than when we went in there after Hussein.

I'm talking about when ISIS first started to aggressively move back in 2012 we could have struck them then. They were far less organized and far less armed until they started taking Iraqi weapons and tanks making them far more dangerous then they were. So yes I do believe if we had struck then instead of referring to them as "JV" that it would have been far less problematic.

Just my $.02

I think by the time we got back in there it would have been too late. Basically because the Iraqi "army" shrivelled up so fast, probably faster than most of us, even the pessimists, would have expected. If we were in there the whole time that would have been different, but that goes back to my previous comment about continued casualties.

I'm hoping Jordan gets involved in the fray. They're none too happy about having their pilot burned alive.

Also my $.02

Fair enough, and I appreciate being able to have an intelligent debate without name calling and nonsense like so many of these threads go to. I too hope Jordan and many other nations get involved as I feel this is a threat to muslim nations as well.

(02-10-2015 04:42 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 04:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 04:12 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:49 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  Yes you are correct, we would have to put troops in Syria as well as Iraq, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on that. And your bombing part kind of made my argument for me as to why groundtroops are necessary.

But obviously why would you take my word seriously, I'm just a message board poster, so please I encourage you to look up strategies by retired Gen. Conway who agrees with me that you have to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

Look I understand no one wants to put troops on the ground after long drawn our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately if this threat was preemptively handled and not ignored it wouldn't have required all of this. But men, women and children are being killed and raped, I personally would like to see some leadership and strength on this issue instead of constant remarks about the "crusades" and "existential threats".

I'm not arguing that we wouldn't need troops on the ground to take out ISIS. I don't think it necessarily has to be our troops. I do disagree that it would not require as much if we had handled it "preemptively". Unless you're saying we should have stayed in Iraq until such time as a Republican was president and he deemed it was safe to leave, regardless of what happened afterwards, then it would have been okay. Or we stayed there indefinitely with constant casualties in perpetuity.

Still, I would have less problem with us going in there now than when we went in there after Hussein.

I'm talking about when ISIS first started to aggressively move back in 2012 we could have struck them then. They were far less organized and far less armed until they started taking Iraqi weapons and tanks making them far more dangerous then they were. So yes I do believe if we had struck then instead of referring to them as "JV" that it would have been far less problematic.

Just my $.02

I think by the time we got back in there it would have been too late. Basically because the Iraqi "army" shrivelled up so fast, probably faster than most of us, even the pessimists, would have expected. If we were in there the whole time that would have been different, but that goes back to my previous comment about continued casualties.

I'm hoping Jordan gets involved in the fray. They're none too happy about having their pilot burned alive.

Also my $.02

Fair enough, and I appreciate being able to have an intelligent debate without name calling and nonsense like so many of these threads go to. I too hope Jordan and many other nations get involved as I feel this is a threat to muslim nations as well.

Cool. ISIS does seem to be making more enemies than is good for them. Hopefully that comes home to roost.

(02-10-2015 04:42 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 04:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 04:12 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:49 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  Yes you are correct, we would have to put troops in Syria as well as Iraq, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on that. And your bombing part kind of made my argument for me as to why groundtroops are necessary.

But obviously why would you take my word seriously, I'm just a message board poster, so please I encourage you to look up strategies by retired Gen. Conway who agrees with me that you have to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

Look I understand no one wants to put troops on the ground after long drawn our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately if this threat was preemptively handled and not ignored it wouldn't have required all of this. But men, women and children are being killed and raped, I personally would like to see some leadership and strength on this issue instead of constant remarks about the "crusades" and "existential threats".

I'm not arguing that we wouldn't need troops on the ground to take out ISIS. I don't think it necessarily has to be our troops. I do disagree that it would not require as much if we had handled it "preemptively". Unless you're saying we should have stayed in Iraq until such time as a Republican was president and he deemed it was safe to leave, regardless of what happened afterwards, then it would have been okay. Or we stayed there indefinitely with constant casualties in perpetuity.

Still, I would have less problem with us going in there now than when we went in there after Hussein.

I'm talking about when ISIS first started to aggressively move back in 2012 we could have struck them then. They were far less organized and far less armed until they started taking Iraqi weapons and tanks making them far more dangerous then they were. So yes I do believe if we had struck then instead of referring to them as "JV" that it would have been far less problematic.

Just my $.02

I think by the time we got back in there it would have been too late. Basically because the Iraqi "army" shrivelled up so fast, probably faster than most of us, even the pessimists, would have expected. If we were in there the whole time that would have been different, but that goes back to my previous comment about continued casualties.

I'm hoping Jordan gets involved in the fray. They're none too happy about having their pilot burned alive.

Also my $.02

Fair enough, and I appreciate being able to have an intelligent debate without name calling and nonsense like so many of these threads go to. I too hope Jordan and many other nations get involved as I feel this is a threat to muslim nations as well.

Yes, here's to rational discussions about events without mudflinging.

(02-10-2015 02:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't have to show that they are a "direct threat to our existence" to show that they are a major problem, certainly a far greater threat than this administration is trying to convince us that they are. Our economy, our liberty, our property, our well-being, among other things, are all potentially threatened by them. And those threats could in fact ultimately constitute at least an indirect threat to our continued existence.

Can I prove that they are a "direct threat to our existence"? No.
Do I have to go that far to prove that they are a serious danger? No.
Is this administration actively engaged in dishonest attempts to mislead us about the seriousness of the threat? I believe so.

The most bewildering aspect of these statements from the administration are that they come in the context of asking congress to authorize boots on the ground. This makes me think that their request is nothing more than a political ploy...what would they do if congress said "yes"?

Susan Rice is making the case that intervening in Syria is a war of choice... a war based on nothing more than the whims of the president. It's almost like they're being led by the Secretary of State, who must recoil with each westerner who is beheaded by ISIS and say to himself "I clearly just wasn't haughty enough the last time I spoke about ISIS".

(02-10-2015 03:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The key word is existential...meaning existence. And she's right. ISIS is not a threat to our existence.

/end thread.

Not by a long shot... not until you can explain why she'd make those kind of statements.

(02-10-2015 04:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's consider for a moment the possibility that ISIS may not be all bad, given the available options.
...
Now look to the west. That "Shia crescent" swings through pockets in eastern Turkey, and then increases in strength down along the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. Shias are a minority in Syria as a whole, but they are concentrated in the west around Damascus and the Mediterranean. Assad is an Alewite Shia. Eastern Syria is almost entirely Semitic Sunni. So a Semitic Sunni nation separating eastern Semitic Sunni Syria from western Semitic Shia Syria, and joining the eastern part with adjacent western Semitic Sunni Iraq, actually makes some sense.

Those are essentially the facts on the ground at this stage. There is a de facto Kurdish state that runs in Northern Iraq, and now Northern Syria. ISIS has carved out the semitic Sunni areas that you describe. And, the Lebanonese/Hezbollah-Syrian/Alawaite and official Iraq (Shia that don't want to share with the Sunni or Kurds) are all kind of three closely allied pseudo-states at this point in time.

When I was in Shanghai, one of my guests could muster enough English to say "Taiwan... Chinese Province". Likewise, Syrians view Lebanon as a province that has temporarily broken away. We are watching the Arabs/Kurds/Shia tribes carve out borders to their own liking.

The only reason any of you have a problem with these statements is because they came out of the mouth of a member of Obamas Administration. You sound like petty schoolgirls, trying to find anything you can to hate Becky, that slut.

If a republican had said this, this thread would not have been made and this discussion would never have happened. It's really depressing.

(02-10-2015 09:57 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If a republican had said this, this thread would not have been made and this discussion would never have happened. It's really depressing.

You are welcome to make a front page post about the Republican who stated something similar.

(02-10-2015 09:57 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The only reason any of you have a problem with these statements is because they came out of the mouth of a member of Obamas Administration. You sound like petty schoolgirls, trying to find anything you can to hate Becky, that slut.

If a republican had said this, this thread would not have been made and this discussion would never have happened. It's really depressing.

Please. Lying whore would be much more appropriate.

But, it's disturbing when Obama's response to truly random violence is to seek to curtail civil rights of Americans, but his response to political violence is to compare it to the trivial problems of a big city mayor.

Sometimes the hyperbole of the media needs to be put in proper context. This is one of those times. For each american who died by terrorist means last year, about 5,000 americans died from diabetes alone. ISIS is a threat, as is terrorism, and no one is saying otherwise. But like a patient suffering from uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, and congestive heart failure, Ebola shouldn't be your main health concern. The media likes stories that include explosions and the deaths of innocent people, putting that risk into proper context is something a person in her position should do.

Yet here we are, 8 pages later, still discussing this non-story. Everything she said was accurate, no one has made any sort of compelling case otherwise, yet this is still an issue to many people on this messageboard.

(02-11-2015 09:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  no one has made any sort of compelling case otherwise,

There have been many well reasoned responses in this thread. You've simply elected to ignore them.

The only well-reasoned responses to this thread revolve around the fact she spoke the truth, and that these threats aren't 'existential threats'.

(02-11-2015 09:59 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  no one has made any sort of compelling case otherwise,

There have been many well reasoned responses in this thread. You've simply elected to ignore them.

Name one post then, by number please. Thanks.

(02-11-2015 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:59 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  no one has made any sort of compelling case otherwise,

There have been many well reasoned responses in this thread. You've simply elected to ignore them.

Name one post then, by number please. Thanks.

#29
#31
#32
#34
some parts of #36
#42
#48
#51
#56
#59 through #63
#64
#65
#67 (the poster even commented on the civility of the debate)
#70

Perhaps you could lend to the debate now? Without name calling, like you did in post #36?

(02-11-2015 09:38 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:57 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If a republican had said this, this thread would not have been made and this discussion would never have happened. It's really depressing.

You are welcome to make a front page post about the Republican who stated something similar.

The Republicans on here would no doubt find some rationale for the statement, if it came from one of their own.

(02-11-2015 10:32 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:38 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:57 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If a republican had said this, this thread would not have been made and this discussion would never have happened. It's really depressing.

You are welcome to make a front page post about the Republican who stated something similar.

The Republicans on here would no doubt find some rationale for the statement, if it came from one of their own.

Probably, just like the liberals are rationalizing Rice's statement.