thoughts on this quote?

[Pogues]

God hath spoken to me, and she told me you all have gone way off topic.

Practicality vs. Ideology...we as a nation are concerned with not having the best scores in the world, the best doctors, physicists, chemists, mathematicians. To try and close that gap, we have lost so much more. And all because some politicians and school officials think EVERY child should be intelligent...and damnit were going to school them and test them until they are!

[Bob Kohm]

Wahahahahahahaha! Talk about seeing the world through Obama-tinted glasses!

...

Hussein had a much larger military, and despite getting their butts kicked by us, were far more formidable than ISIS. Let's remember that the Iraqis fought Iran - a much larger nation with what was presumed to be a better arsenal behind them - to a draw.

I can see a rationale for going after ISIS. But more dangerous than Iraq in Hussein's day? LOL!!

Wow.

Chance, you're making the most Cold War-esque argument I've seen since Paul Wolfowitz dropped off of the front pages. Iraq was a bigger threat than ISIS because they had more T-54s (we blew up most of their already outdated T-72s & T-62s in 1991 ) than does ISIS? And were you expecting them to stream those 54s through the Fulda Gap?

ISIS' asymmetric warfare capability is far more dangerous to the United States than was Saddam Hussein's decrepit, poorly trained and tactically unsound "brick & mortar" army which had absolutely no capability to project its miniscule power to the United States. Let's run with the brick & mortar thing-- which is more a threat to you, personally-- a gang of hoodlums who might stage an armed robbery of a bank your money is in when you aren't physically in the bank or a gang of hackers who can steal your identity, even though they are unarmed? The asymmetric threat is clearly more of a problem as it can directly impact, in the example, you-- just as ISIS' asymmetric threat can more directly threaten the united States than could Saddam's photogenic tank force.

Your WMD argument is a complete misdirection, by the way. The primary danger never was from WMDs in either situation, it was from socio-economic disruption. The WMD "argument" is as valid as reports of Nigerian yellowcake.

[chancellor]

ISIS' asymmetric warfare capability is far more dangerous to the United States than was Saddam Hussein's decrepit, poorly trained and tactically unsound "brick & mortar" army which had absolutely no capability to project its miniscule power to the United States. Let's run with the brick & mortar thing-- which is more a threat to you, personally-- a gang of hoodlums who might stage an armed robbery of a bank your money is in when you aren't physically in the bank or a gang of hackers who can steal your identity, even though they are unarmed? The asymmetric threat is clearly more of a problem as it can directly impact, in the example, you-- just as ISIS' asymmetric threat can more directly threaten the united States than could Saddam's photogenic tank force.

Are you saying ISIS has more asymmetric capability than Hussein did? Sorry, but that's laughable. Hussein funded more terror groups in a month than ISIS can hope to do in years. ISIS isn't attacking us asymmetrically for heaven's sake, they're beating the crap out of the Syrian, Iraqi, and Kurdish armies they've faced and are carving out a niche in the Middle East. We don't have a problem, but our Jordanian and Saudi allies sure do - ISIS has managed to figure out how to squash them like a bug should they so need to engage them in military conflict.

I'm not tracking with the WMD comment. If I'm concerned about who's more dangerous, using your analogy, I'd be more concerned for my wife and kids by a person who's already killed women and children than one who hasn't. If I'm worried about who could or could have created a bigger WMD disaster, it'd clearly have been Saddam - as I noted, and is irrefutable, he actually used WMDs on multiple groups. ISIS has not, and most likely would not against us. I'd posit that if ISIS did get a WMD or WMDs, that they'd hit Tel Aviv long before the US. Nothing rallies Arab nations like killing Jews. And that assumes they'd even have the balls to use them knowing the retaliation they'd get from whomever they hit them with - unless, of course, it was fellow Arabs. Then, as Iran, Iraq, and thousands of dead Kurds can attest to, it's perfectly OK in the Arab world to launch WMDs.

To a point I made earlier: That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with ISIS now. But, crap, considering them more dangerous than Hussein with the vast resources at his disposal, and a proven track record of supporting terror groups and using WMDs is pretty bizarre.