ADVERTISEMENT

No. 2 Isis dead

CowboyUp

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
26,076
6,712
113
Austin Tx
"We are systematically eliminating isis hi command"--top US General
Scoreboard
Hail to the Chief!
 
"We are systematically eliminating isis hi command"--top US General
Scoreboard
Hail to the Chief!

That's a good thing cup. No one here is opposed to this. Grow up you little feckless douche bag. Sick of your trolling bs. Aren't you the one all high and mighty when it comes to the board rules?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
Well the goat herding idiot has finally realized that his lack of any real clue hasn't worked. Boots on the ground SippyCup. Boots on the ground. It's what the Republicans called for day one. Boot on the ground.

Islamic State wouldn't control the second largest city in Iraq if the dumbass jumbo eared Kenyan had listened to knowledgeable folks about the consequence of complete troop withdrawal. Many Iraqi lives have been lost to a brutal genocidal terrorist state created because of his myopic fantasy of his legacy. What a tool.

Boots on the ground. What is it the blithering idiot said about boots on the ground? None? The only successes have been with boots on the ground Sippy. Looks like the Republicans can say "I told you so moron."

We told you so SippyCup. Hail to the Republicans!
 
So awesome. It makes up for all of the soldiers that died because he was afraid to send a high number of troops to get the job done years ago because Bush bush bush bush Cheney
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Hey SippyCup, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that more boots on the ground are headed to Iraq soon, despite Commander in Diapers pledge of no boots on the ground. Seems the big eared Kenyan idiot has figured out that Republicans are right. Told you so Mr. Optics SippyCup. Boots on the ground=success against ISIS. Kenyan Crap the Pants strategy=LOSER.

Hail the genius Republicans! Dickless in Chief is an idiot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
But SippyCup wants to celebrate the Republican idea of killing ISIS with BOOTS ON THE GROUND! Don't rob him of this Republican victory. Puss in Chief said NO! to boots on the ground. Boots on the ground, THE REPUBLICAN ANSWER TO THE OBAMA FUNDED ISIS IS!!!! BOOTS ON THE GROUND FOR VICTORY! !!!!

OBAMA=ZERO
BOOTS ON THE GROUND=SUCCESS!!!!!!
 
64b7758efc706218f0ee106faf7f18b3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Islamic State wouldn't control the second largest city in Iraq if the dumbass jumbo eared Kenyan had listened to knowledgeable folks about the consequence of complete troop withdrawal

The SOF agreement was agreed to by Bush for 2011. Once Obama saw the need for an extension he attempted to negotiate new one. This attempt failed and was always going to fail as the Iraqi parliament and PM Malki wanted US troops gone. We had no choice but to leave at that point.

Now, what should Obama have done? If Nixon (our last great president) was in office he and Kissinger would have made sure Maliki was a dead man before 2011 and had half the parliament bribed. But we don't do those things anymore. Obama is to soft and Bush was too stupid.
 
Did he lead this raid too? He's so brave.

Mega,

At least he's not so gd'd stupid that he's sending a lot of those who are brave to die in a foreign land for no good reason. That's one hell of an improvement over the last guy in office.

And I say that as someone who remembers that you were one of the few on this board who was even willing to concede that there were good arguments for not engaging in invading Iraq.

Medic007,

Explain to me how the President of the USA can simply unilaterally insert a large force of US military forces into a sovereign country without their permission? (Without violating any number of International Law principles.) Do you have a memory so short that you have forgotten that Malaki refused our offers of assistance to help prevent the takeover of Mosul?

Does your memory not also extend to the absolute and utter failure of our misguided escapades in that country for over a decade prior? How many more thousands of US dead do you think we should commit to the region? Do you think such an expansion of force (in the numbers required to do what you are suggesting) would have lead to no blow-back or unintended consequences?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
The SOF agreement was agreed to by Bush for 2011. Once Obama saw the need for an extension he attempted to negotiate new one. This attempt failed and was always going to fail as the Iraqi parliament and PM Malki wanted US troops gone. We had no choice but to leave at that point.

Now, what should Obama have done? If Nixon (our last great president) was in office he and Kissinger would have made sure Maliki was a dead man before 2011 and had half the parliament bribed. But we don't do those things anymore. Obama is to soft and Bush was too stupid.
Just about everything in this post is a lie.

The Iraqis were begging Obama to leave a force. The Obama administration put a bunch of demands in their proposed agreement that they KNEW the Iraqis would not accept.

Getting back to the topic at hand President Obama said there would be no boots on the ground. THE USA HAS OVER 5 THOUSAND BOOTS ON THE GROUND!

Still, these people they are currently killing should of been eliminated 2 years ago.

President Obama is a clueless moron. Are you watching NSA?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Mega,

At least he's not so gd'd stupid that he's sending a lot of those who are brave to die in a foreign land for no good reason. That's one hell of an improvement over the last guy in office.

And I say that as someone who remembers that you were one of the few on this board who was even willing to concede that there were good arguments for not engaging in invading Iraq.

Medic007,

Explain to me how the President of the USA can simply unilaterally insert a large force of US military forces into a sovereign country without their permission? (Without violating any number of International Law principles.) Do you have a memory so short that you have forgotten that Malaki refused our offers of assistance to help prevent the takeover of Mosul?

Does your memory not also extend to the absolute and utter failure of our misguided escapades in that country for over a decade prior? How many more thousands of US dead do you think we should commit to the region? Do you think such an expansion of force (in the numbers required to do what you are suggesting) would have lead to no blow-back or unintended consequences?

hwood, comparing him to Bush and the Iraq war is a very low bar for calling something successful.

I think it's clear my point in this thread isn't about Obama, it's about the OP's pathetic idolization of a shitty politician and his vaguely heil hittleresque salute he reflexively gives him every time he manages not to shit the bed on something.
 
Last edited:
There was a new number 2 minutes after this SOB was killed.
Exactly, big freaking deal the number two guy was taken out. They're spreading all over the globe and Obama is being patted on the back for killing one guy.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, big freaking deal the number two guy was taken out. They're spreading all over the globe and Obama is being patted on the back for killing one guy.
They are his brothers. If he kills too many he will become a homeless orphan.
 
hwood, comparing him to Bush and the Iraq war is a very low bar for calling something successful.

I think it's clear my point in this thread isn't about Obama, it's about the OP's pathetic idolization of a shitty politician and his vaguely heil hittleresque salute he reflexively gives him every time he manages not to shit the bed on something.

That's f'n hilarious
 
Mega,

At least he's not so gd'd stupid that he's sending a lot of those who are brave to die in a foreign land for no good reason. That's one hell of an improvement over the last guy in office.

And I say that as someone who remembers that you were one of the few on this board who was even willing to concede that there were good arguments for not engaging in invading Iraq.

Medic007,

Explain to me how the President of the USA can simply unilaterally insert a large force of US military forces into a sovereign country without their permission? (Without violating any number of International Law principles.) Do you have a memory so short that you have forgotten that Malaki refused our offers of assistance to help prevent the takeover of Mosul?

Does your memory not also extend to the absolute and utter failure of our misguided escapades in that country for over a decade prior? How many more thousands of US dead do you think we should commit to the region? Do you think such an expansion of force (in the numbers required to do what you are suggesting) would have lead to no blow-back or unintended consequences?

I'm good with giving the POTUS the praise for this as long as the OP is also good with blaming him for collateral civilian deaths
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT