Republican nominee for President

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

NC your posts are way too long. If you go past one or two paragraphs I don't read them. You're not that interesting. Write more concisely, then we can actually converse.

Don't worry, I won't expect anything meaningful out of you unless it's insults.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Don't worry, I won't expect anything meaningful out of you unless it's insults.

Was your War and Peace response to me basically a semantics argument over what constitutes a war?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Was your War and Peace response to me basically a semantics argument over what constitutes a war?

You can't call every military campaign a "war". Were we at war with Lybia? Africa? War is used too loosely as I already pointed out. When it becomes a situation when we mobolize a good portion of our troops to the effort, then we can call it a war.


So yes, it is a semantics argument.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You can't call every military campaign a "war". Were we at war with Lybia? Africa? War is used too loosely as I already pointed out. When it becomes a situation when we mobolize a good portion of our troops to the effort, then we can call it a war.


So yes, it is a semantics argument.

Makes no sense. If we weren't running an aerial campaign ISIS would still control a lot more real estate and revenue generating assets, funding itself well enough to pay its soldiers enough to convince even young impressionable people to commit to their cause, even if they don't share the full fledged radical views. Money talks.

It's a war. You seem to be unfamiliar with the specifics. We've strategically targeted the oil fields, refineries, distribution centers, and critical infrastructure first. Our guys in the Pentagon have picked those targets for a reason, to degrade their capability to fund themselves.

It's as war-like a strategic mindset as you'll find.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Makes no sense. If we weren't running an aerial campaign ISIS would still control a lot more real estate and revenue generating assets, funding itself well enough to pay its soldiers enough to convince even young impressionable people to commit to their cause, even if they don't share the full fledged radical views. Money talks.

If we didn't arm and support these idiots to fight out faux war against Syria, there would be no ISIS. In order to get rid of all the radicals in the Middle East, you'd have to nuke the entire region. Get rid of one group and another will pop up. You can't fight an ideology, you can only hope to change it. Their religion is much like Christianity was some hundreds of years ago before we progressed.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

If we didn't arm and support these idiots to fight out faux war against Syria, there would be no ISIS. In order to get rid of all the radicals in the Middle East, you'd have to nuke the entire region. Get rid of one group and another will pop up. You can't fight an ideology, you can only hope to change it. Their religion is much like Christianity was some hundreds of years ago before we progressed.

What is it you hope to change?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Hog1

What is it you hope to change?

There are tons of things about their religion that could be tweaked for the benefit of all. Some of there practices are a tad bit barbaric.
Im sure they all aren't so brutal to women, etc.
This guy seems to have a handle on right and wrong. Need the son to "change" and be more like the dad. Well too late now but,....we need others to change.


http://m.ndtv.com/world-news/pakista...e-shot-1434725