as Defense Secretary.

Oooooooo, ISIS, be aflaid, be velly aflaid, as my friend Elmer Fudd would say.

My question is this....

Does "Mad dog" approve this Senate?

nice me likey

Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

(01-20-2017 06:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

And how do you propose to win total victory in our wars in the middle east?

(01-20-2017 06:30 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

And how do you propose to win total victory in our wars in the middle east?

I'd settle for the destruction of Iran's nuclear program through strategic air strikes.

(01-20-2017 06:34 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:30 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

And how do you propose to win total victory in our wars in the middle east?

I'd settle for the destruction of Iran's nuclear program through strategic air strikes.

I think an accident would be much better. An oops moment if you will.

(01-20-2017 06:34 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:30 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

And how do you propose to win total victory in our wars in the middle east?

I'd settle for the destruction of Iran's nuclear program through strategic air strikes.

You backed off total victory pretty quick

(01-20-2017 06:38 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:34 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:30 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

And how do you propose to win total victory in our wars in the middle east?

I'd settle for the destruction of Iran's nuclear program through strategic air strikes.

I think an accident would be much better. An oops moment if you will.

Oh yes much better. You can never be too careful with those nuclear materials.

It worked so well for us the last time heh? We kicked ass!

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

Yea, Barry's red lines really worked so well.

No I'm thinking about W's fiasco.

(01-20-2017 06:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

Yea, Barry's red lines really worked so well.

Right? And kept his promises... not!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-20-2017 06:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No I'm thinking about W's fiasco.

When will you get it through your head that Bush beat the crap out of Saddam and if Oblunder hadn't pulled out and announced it to boot then Isis would never have formed.

(01-20-2017 06:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

Yea, Barry's red lines really worked so well.

About as good as W's "Mission Accomplished" banner. If the goal is to just overthrow a dictator then sure we can do that anytime we want, but every time we do it things just get worse over there. Nah what am I talking about keep bombing them to the stone age and kicking out dictators!!!

(01-20-2017 06:49 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

Yea, Barry's red lines really worked so well.

About as good as W's "Mission Accomplished" banner. If the goal is to just overthrow a dictator then sure we can do that anytime we want, but every time we do it things just get worse over there. Nah what am I talking about keep bombing them to the stone age and kicking out dictators!!!

I can tell you from experience that we were actually winning over there until Oblunder decided to change missions and everything went to ****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-20-2017 06:54 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:49 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

Yea, Barry's red lines really worked so well.

About as good as W's "Mission Accomplished" banner. If the goal is to just overthrow a dictator then sure we can do that anytime we want, but every time we do it things just get worse over there. Nah what am I talking about keep bombing them to the stone age and kicking out dictators!!!

I can tell you from experience that we were actually winning over there until Oblunder decided to change missions and everything went to ****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define "winning?" Killing a lot of them? Building a stable democracy over there that would be tolerant and sustainable without us? The only thing we "accomplished" was having the forever war they want.

Senate Confirms Gen. John Kelly To Head DHS…

Quote:The Senate on Friday confirmed President Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, the second cabinet pick to receive Senate approval.

John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general who commanded the U.S. military in South America, had one of the smoothest confirmation hearings of any Trump nominee, despite his coming role in implementing the president’s immigration policies.

“Naming someone of John Kelly’s stature and integrity to lead the troubled agency is a giant first step towards securing our borders and improving the defense of our homeland,” Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., one of the founding members of the House Freedom Caucus, told the Examiner in December.

Most Senate Democrats also embraced him. “Perhaps this is a love-fest that we’re having with you today,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., said at one point in the hearing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2612526/