No, you were right to point that out. It is perfectly conceivable John McCain was advocating that the USA bomb FIFA.
Liberals would fail in this regard. You are making an important and valuable contribution to the standing of republicanism by remaining vigilant on behalf of us all.
Ahem… Not “everyone”. But there are a few who might need a little help. 
Thanks. 
You know though that if you went to the mall and asked random people if we should bomb FIFA that half would say yes.
Wouldn’t be too bad an idea either.
Well, there’s always the collateral-damage problem: Can we bomb the FIFA officials – and the fans, who deserve it even more – without harming the players?
Nuke them from orbit - it’s…
Oh, never mind.
Regards,
Shodan
Everyone knows there is an ethical imperative when the US blows the living shit out of countries. It’s called precision bombing. It’s done with surgical strikes. Often using laser-guided systems. It’s one reason the US kept civilian deaths in Iraq down to a few hundred thousand. Is that about half the population of Switzerland?
I want to bomb LIFO. Stupidest damn warehousing system ever. All the really old crap accumulates in the back.
Just make a heartfelt campaign contribution and Mr McCain will get right back to you.
Fwiw, I think we live in a world now where the default for both intervention and non-intervention is failure, and the US mindset - population, military, politicians - is yet to adjust to that.
The loss of Ramadi is a temporary setback, nothing more.
It doesn’t change the long-term prospects for Iraq - either partition, or the subjugation of the Sunnis under Shia rule, or an all-inclusive government. Either way, I.S. will be put down. It’s taking longer than we thought, is all.
This isn’t even an option. You really need to get up to speed on the realities.
In other news, it’s another success for Senator McCain’s foreign policy initiates as Sepp Blatter resigns.
What, exactly, isn’t even an option?
By whom?
In Iraq, it’ll be the Iraqi government, the Shia militias, their Iranian backers, and the Kurds.
In Syria - different story. There, I can imagine I.S. hanging on for a very long time indeed, even longer than in Iraq.
The reference (evidence) that I provided provided links to support that view. If you don’t mind, fill in the spaces in you post with supporting links
Ok?
I’m mumbling; your opinion needs no links
I hear you (:-
Before leaving this topic, if I saked fellow members of this thread to view the web page wniversalknowledge.net and post there view of it, would I be called a “spammer”-?
just asking
If we did that for every small band of crazy fucks, we’d never stop bombing. Obama made the right decision based on the information at the time
It is MORE important to ensure that everyone knows we’re not at war with Islam than it is to stop ISIL. ISIL will eventually fall, Islam won’t, and has about a billion more people adhering to the latter than the former.
In a vacuum, yes, but nothing happens in a vacuum. ISIL is colored by the ghosts of Iraq, by the “War on Terror”, by the bungling of the 9/11 response by Bush and his neocon cronies. Because of that, right now, we cannot as easily use our military force in the Middle East or else everyone will just think its the same old shit again. Without the disaster that the Iraq war was, we’d have much more political capital to act
Not much we can do and I refuse to think that unilateral action is a good thing. We’ll wait until Iraq and possibly other Middle East countries ask for our help, then we’ll destroy ISIL in a few weeks. It took us like 3 weeks to blow up Saddam’s Revolutionary Guard. ISIL’s growth is nothing, its insignificant.
Correction: One president who destroyed all American credibility that future presidents cannot act without looking like the former.
Would I be allowed to create a thread about a thread that I found on the internet “universalknowledge”-?