Monkeyboy wrote:Who should they take it back for? Cruz? Rubio? Jeb? The real problem is the GOP has no credible candidate right now....

I would like to see the GOP rethink their direction, but I don't see that ever happening because the money is too entrenched....

What it means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely destroy ISIS. To put things in perspective. In the first Persian Gulf War we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet bombed them for 37 days. Saturation bombing after which our troops went in and mopped up what was left of the Iraqi army. Right now Obama is launching between 15 and 30 air attacks a day. We need to use overwhelming air power and we need to be arming the Kurds and we need to be fighting and killing ISIS where they are.

BLITZER: To be clear, senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, where there are a lot of civilians? Yes or no.
CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is. The location of the troops. You use air power directed. But the object isn't to level a city, the object is to kill the ISIS terrorists. To make it, listen, ISIS is gaining strength because the perception is that they're winning. And president Obama fuels that perception.

Bucky wrote:

pacino wrote:Mike Rowe seems like an obtuse dope

yeah. he writes well and speaks well, but is captain of the "I WORKED HARD AND EVERYONE ELSE CAN BE WEALTHY TOO IF THEY JUST WORKED AS HARD" team

pacino wrote:

BLITZER: To be clear, senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, where there are a lot of civilians? Yes or no.
CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is. The location of the troops. You use air power directed. But the object isn't to level a city, the object is to kill the ISIS terrorists. To make it, listen, ISIS is gaining strength because the perception is that they're winning. And president Obama fuels that perception.

On combating ISIS: Where's the real substantive difference with Obama?

Yes, we heard Republican after Republican criticize President Obama's handling of ISIS. But outside of the rhetoric, where are the substantial differences? The differences were more on style and tactics. But cut through the rhetoric and it is hard to find a big strategic difference, beyond Lindsey Graham who is calling for more substantial ground forces. Many of the other Republican candidates are calling for more attacks from the air. Well, Americans have been launching more attacks from the air. Republicans say there need to be U.S. special forces directing Arab/Kurdish ground forces against ISIS. Well, that's what Obama has already proposed. Republicans believe there needs to be a Muslim face to any ground troops, so does this administration. Sure, the rhetoric is different. And the charge from many that this administration hasn't managed the coalition well is fair game, but there isn't a large policy gulf. In fact, take a look at Clinton's speech yesterday and find the substantial POLICY differences. Again, we get the charge that EXECUTING the strategy is where some are critical but the blueprint isn't all that different.

pacino wrote:i dont think Cruz knows what carpet bombing is:

What it means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely destroy ISIS. To put things in perspective. In the first Persian Gulf War we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet bombed them for 37 days. Saturation bombing after which our troops went in and mopped up what was left of the Iraqi army. Right now Obama is launching between 15 and 30 air attacks a day. We need to use overwhelming air power and we need to be arming the Kurds and we need to be fighting and killing ISIS where they are.

BLITZER: To be clear, senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, where there are a lot of civilians? Yes or no.
CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is. The location of the troops. You use air power directed. But the object isn't to level a city, the object is to kill the ISIS terrorists. To make it, listen, ISIS is gaining strength because the perception is that they're winning. And president Obama fuels that perception.

pacino wrote:i dont think Cruz knows what carpet bombing is:

What it means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely destroy ISIS. To put things in perspective. In the first Persian Gulf War we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet bombed them for 37 days. Saturation bombing after which our troops went in and mopped up what was left of the Iraqi army. Right now Obama is launching between 15 and 30 air attacks a day. We need to use overwhelming air power and we need to be arming the Kurds and we need to be fighting and killing ISIS where they are.

BLITZER: To be clear, senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, where there are a lot of civilians? Yes or no.
CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is. The location of the troops. You use air power directed. But the object isn't to level a city, the object is to kill the ISIS terrorists. To make it, listen, ISIS is gaining strength because the perception is that they're winning. And president Obama fuels that perception.

Bucky wrote:even if they are aware, they won't say anything to risk sound like a dove to the base. Heck, I'm guessing even Cruz knows that this is implausible but he's saying what people want to hear.

Bucky wrote:even if they are aware, they won't say anything to risk sound like a dove to the base. Heck, I'm guessing even Cruz knows that this is implausible but he's saying what people want to hear.

Youseff wrote:"In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems—our airports and all of the other problems we've had—we would've been a lot better off.

I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle East, we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have wiped away, and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete mess.

I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart."

[Reveal] Spoiler:

— Donald Trump, last night