Terrorist attack going on in Paris right now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Not the PP but my husband has been fighting these sorts of guys for a decade through countless hairraising deployments. Only regret is not prosecuting this effort in a fight it to win it fashion. We simply have to decide what we are doing here, and then do it. Fight or withdraw. Half gestures are a waste of everyone's time and dedication.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Was he part of the original invasions that created this mess in the first place? In that case, thanks but No thanks. I would have preferred to pay a little more at the pump than radicalize a huge terrorist movement for the sake of oil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is also a TGV train that derailed in France about a good hour ago? But I don't know, if it is at all related, and have only seen an aerial picture - Alsace region of France.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/14/456017093/french-high-speed-train-derails-close-to-german-border
French High-Speed Train Derails Close To German Border

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Not the PP but my husband has been fighting these sorts of guys for a decade through countless hairraising deployments. Only regret is not prosecuting this effort in a fight it to win it fashion. We simply have to decide what we are doing here, and then do it. Fight or withdraw. Half gestures are a waste of everyone's time and dedication.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Was he part of the original invasions that created this mess in the first place? In that case, thanks but No thanks. I would have preferred to pay a little more at the pump than radicalize a huge terrorist movement for the sake of oil.

You must be young and ignorant. They've been radicalized for centuries.

[Anonymous]

O hope this is not true:

Syrian who apparently passed through Greece as refugee was 'one of Paris killers'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/syrian-greece-refugee-paris-attacks-killers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Not the PP but my husband has been fighting these sorts of guys for a decade through countless hairraising deployments. Only regret is not prosecuting this effort in a fight it to win it fashion. We simply have to decide what we are doing here, and then do it. Fight or withdraw. Half gestures are a waste of everyone's time and dedication.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Was he part of the original invasions that created this mess in the first place? In that case, thanks but No thanks. I would have preferred to pay a little more at the pump than radicalize a huge terrorist movement for the sake of oil.

You must be young and ignorant. They've been radicalized for centuries.

That wasn't the point. We would have been better off letting Saddam count his money than having a faction in his place that is actively trying to hurt us. We created this problem...or Bush did? Interpret it however you want, but terrorists were not in Iraq before the war. We set them up really nicely, hell we even gave them weapons and vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Not the PP but my husband has been fighting these sorts of guys for a decade through countless hairraising deployments. Only regret is not prosecuting this effort in a fight it to win it fashion. We simply have to decide what we are doing here, and then do it. Fight or withdraw. Half gestures are a waste of everyone's time and dedication.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Was he part of the original invasions that created this mess in the first place? In that case, thanks but No thanks. I would have preferred to pay a little more at the pump than radicalize a huge terrorist movement for the sake of oil.

You must be young and ignorant. They've been radicalized for centuries.

That wasn't the point. We would have been better off letting Saddam count his money than having a faction in his place that is actively trying to hurt us. We created this problem...or Bush did? Interpret it however you want, but terrorists were not in Iraq before the war. We set them up really nicely, hell we even gave them weapons and vehicles.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea, but your timeline is wrong -- 9/11 happened before that.

Also, PP's DH is in no way responsible for any of this. Shame on PP for saying so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Not the PP but my husband has been fighting these sorts of guys for a decade through countless hairraising deployments. Only regret is not prosecuting this effort in a fight it to win it fashion. We simply have to decide what we are doing here, and then do it. Fight or withdraw. Half gestures are a waste of everyone's time and dedication.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Was he part of the original invasions that created this mess in the first place? In that case, thanks but No thanks. I would have preferred to pay a little more at the pump than radicalize a huge terrorist movement for the sake of oil.

You must be young and ignorant. They've been radicalized for centuries.

That wasn't the point. We would have been better off letting Saddam count his money than having a faction in his place that is actively trying to hurt us. We created this problem...or Bush did? Interpret it however you want, but terrorists were not in Iraq before the war. We set them up really nicely, hell we even gave them weapons and vehicles.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea, but your timeline is wrong -- 9/11 happened before that.

Also, PP's DH is in no way responsible for any of this. Shame on PP for saying so.

+1 I like to see pp put herself in the battlefront instead of being an armchair critic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Not the PP but my husband has been fighting these sorts of guys for a decade through countless hairraising deployments. Only regret is not prosecuting this effort in a fight it to win it fashion. We simply have to decide what we are doing here, and then do it. Fight or withdraw. Half gestures are a waste of everyone's time and dedication.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Was he part of the original invasions that created this mess in the first place? In that case, thanks but No thanks. I would have preferred to pay a little more at the pump than radicalize a huge terrorist movement for the sake of oil.

You must be young and ignorant. They've been radicalized for centuries.

That wasn't the point. We would have been better off letting Saddam count his money than having a faction in his place that is actively trying to hurt us. We created this problem...or Bush did? Interpret it however you want, but terrorists were not in Iraq before the war. We set them up really nicely, hell we even gave them weapons and vehicles.

This is all true but there is nothing that can be done about that now. And I’d remind you Hillary and John Kerry voted for the war in 2003. Now we’re stuck with it. So now what do we do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Not the PP but my husband has been fighting these sorts of guys for a decade through countless hairraising deployments. Only regret is not prosecuting this effort in a fight it to win it fashion. We simply have to decide what we are doing here, and then do it. Fight or withdraw. Half gestures are a waste of everyone's time and dedication.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Yes. He was..he went where your president, and your next president sent him. I am responding to the idea that to have an opinion one need to head to the recruiting center. I actually believe we all are entitled to an opinion, including you, and thats first and foremost what my husband has spent twenty years of his life dedicated to protecting. Your rights . You're welcome.

Was he part of the original invasions that created this mess in the first place? In that case, thanks but No thanks. I would have preferred to pay a little more at the pump than radicalize a huge terrorist movement for the sake of oil.

[Anonymous]

Yes. He was..he went where your president, and your next president sent him. I am responding to the idea that to have an opinion one need to head to the recruiting center. I actually believe we all are entitled to an opinion, including you, and thats first and foremost what my husband has spent twenty years of his life dedicated to protecting. Your rights . You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

All eyes will be on Hillary tonight at the Democratic debate, If she is likely to be the next president,I assume millions of voters want to know exactly what she will do about ISIS - specifically. For myself, she will lose me if she wiggles and waffles.

[Anonymous]

I predict after this Trump will become republican nominee. All the other candidates, including marc Rubio look weak. Rubio's chances just shifted based on this event

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I predict after this Trump will become republican nominee. All the other candidates, including marc Rubio look weak. Rubio's chances just shifted based on this event

Possibly, but I don't want Mr. "You're Fired!" In charge of our country during conflict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I predict after this Trump will become republican nominee. All the other candidates, including marc Rubio look weak. Rubio's chances just shifted based on this event

It has certainly made him more appealing. 9-11 sealed Bush's reelection.

[Anonymous]

Ted Cruz ans Carly fiorina