JJFIVEOH

It's all good, I was actually picking on your misspell. :P

I know the league is cracking down on fighting and anything else that makes the game exciting. Doing their best to make it no-hit league. But did anybody catch the Preds-Jets game the other night in which the Preds won 7-0? I saw a picture of the penalty boxes and there were packed, I figured something significant must have happened so I went back to watch it. Scheifele skated into the zone and the whistle blew but he put the puck in the net anyways. Preds didn't like that so they followed him along the board and a scrum ensued. There were no fights, no punches thrown, no cheap shots................ but the refs gave every single player on the ice unsportsmanlike coinduct penalties! Thirteen different players got minors including Rinne. It seems to me like the refs were given orders by Napoleon during the offseason.

Not me, I just entered.

Good discussion, I gots to run.

I agree with you, but they wouldn't be able to say we didn't give them a choice. And I wouldn't even consider it an ultimatum because we're not asking for anything in return. The avenue we're currently on isn't working. Another avenue is what has been proposed on here which is to rebuild their nations, instill Enlightenment and teach them about peaceful religion. That won't work either because it is totally impractical to expect us to foot the bill to rebuild nations for 200,000,000+ people in places where the framework doesn't even exist (and may not even work in the first place since we're already trying to do it on a small scale). Aside from not providing them with weapons, I'm open to other avenues but there aren't many left.

It's part of the ultimatum. Yes I do want to stay out, I don't want to be over there, I don't want another dime spent over there, I don't want another American life lost over there. The "swift repercussions" happens if they decide they don't want to play nice. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone............. it's up to you whether or not we remain peaceful. Not sure how attacking them en masse plays into their hands. So far everything else we've done is playing right into their hands because nothing has been accomplished in the last 10-15 years. I'm still not convinced this has any impact on oil. As of right now it's the only thing propping up their economy. They can only go so long before they need to sell again. Point is, using this strategy, it can be easy and painless. It's up to them how it turns out.

We've spent well over a decade trying to assist these nations that are harboring terrorists in dealing with said terrorists all while protecting their own people. We've even spent billions building schools, neighborhoods, utilities........ It's not working. The only thing that has been accomplished is we're worse off because we've spent trillions of dollars over there while we get nickel and dimed to death over here. At this point we really need to withdraw our troops and leave them to fend for themselves. We've tried to train their own troops and police force and for the most part they've wanted no part of it. We can be a peaceful nation, we need to tell these Middle Eastern countries that we're backing out. After that we need to tell them we'll stay over here and you stay over there. We're a peaceful nation but it's up to you whether we remain that way. If we leave these terrorist groups should subside. It's up to these nations to keep it that way if they want to protect their people. If they decide to ignore it and continue to attack our allies and possibly us again, then there should be swift repercussions. What is wrong with this strategy? Is this really about the morality of killing civilians?

Not sure, I haven't heard about any significant weakening. But a lot has transpired in the last couple of days.

Good idea.

The option was either take care of the problem on your own, or we do it. Civilians are getting killed in other nations because of ISIS. Why are their civilians more important than us and our allies? ISIS is getting stronger by the day, stronger than we ever thought they would. We're at risk of losing more civilian lives in the name of saving some in the countries harboring terrorists. Where is the morality in that? Lives are going to be lost either way. It's a harsh reality some can't seem to fathom. My conscience leans towards saving the lives of us and our allies first.

It is obvious. Either way they would have been given an option.

Perhaps the message has been sent and received, but it certainly hasn't been understood. Things are no different than they were 10 years ago, if anything they're worse. This isn't retaliation, these are minor disturbances. Don't tell me to say what you want me to say. I want them to attack areas known for harboring terrorist. If it means civilian casualties then so be it. Attacking ME nations for the sake of killing everybody is different than large scale attacks on terrorist targets in which there might be some civilian casualties. If these nations start losing some civilians then they might step up and do something about the terrorist organizations. It's their countries it's about time they helped us do their job.

Send it to the countries that are aiding and abetting these terrorists, the ones harboring ISIS. Tell them they have two choices, either deal with them on their own or suffer the risks of casualties because of large scale attacks from the US and our allies. Us leaving would change the situation dramatically. If they aren't willing to help deal with their own problems we should have no choice but to deal with them swiftly. Sounds harsh but sometimes there are harsh consequences when terrorist groups attack other countries on their own soil. I'm tired of giving them all the benefit of the doubt while civilized nations are under attack.

What I said may not be on topic but it certainly is a valid point in the way people think. 'Bad things are going to happen' but we can't stop doing them out of being scared. Funny how that logic isn't used in support of gun rights and mass shootings (we can't be safe all the time from everything) for those who ARE American citizens. Sad that refugees and immigrants get more support than Americans. Our leader is supposed to protect us. We haven't had a real leader since 9/11. Bringing in refugees is not about who we are. No, it's not worth the risk of losing American lives when we know there is a legitimate threat from the outside. But, that's just my opinion.

What we've done since 9/11 isn't retaliation. We haven't had a leader with the balls to retaliate. What we've done is fail to send a message, yet stay there long enough to pass off the ME'ers and manage to help create ISIS by providing weapons and anger then by infiltrating their society. All while not managing to improve the situation. Why should you not have said anything?

Won't see that on CNN.

Your Team Comparison Chart leads us right back to this thread. Maybe it's time we sent you down to Rochester for a few games.

Couldn't be worse timing. Tough to sleep knowing it's on the way.

Damn, that's a nasty line coming through.

#2 How many times does this need to happen before taking out these targets trumps killing citizens? At what point are more citizens going to get killed at the hands of terrorists over the amount to get killed in taking out ISIS targets? I wasn't aware France got permission to do this, I thought they did it on their own. Either way, I commend them on having the stones to stick up for their citizens regardless of how they might be viewed, or how politically correct it may or may not be.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some who think it's not fair to lump all Muslims as radicals just because of a tiny percentage all while vilifying gun owners because of the tiny percentage of mass shootings. Sorry, I wasn't purposely vague. It wasn't directed at anybody in particular, but it's a common theme throughout much of the media.

Rub it in...................

I've lost a couple of friends from overdosing, let's outlaw................. oh wait.