Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

More troops to iraq

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:57:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

This is the same Obama that declared Bush's spending was "irresponsible", and his national debt ammount was "unpatriotic", then? He outspent all other 43 Presidents combined spiealing the national debt to nearing $20 trillion. Bwahshahaha! All he needs now is the orange hair and a big red nose to finish being a clown.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:59:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

We could call it yoyo-anomics. Get all the troops out! Whoa! Whoa! Send them back.l! Send them back!
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:05:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:59:35 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

We could call it yoyo-anomics. Get all the troops out! Whoa! Whoa! Send them back.l! Send them back!

That's my point, all those crying under bush are crickets now.

You catch a lot of shlt on here but at least you're consistent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:37:55 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

The Iraq/Bush/Obama situation was all pretty much the same thing. The Bush administration established a time table as the interim government was set up, then once said interim government became sovereign, it was expected that US forces would play the primary role of being their military until such as one was fully trained, equipped, and put into play. The US forces would enjoy a SoFA, in which acting as the military, the US wouldn't be held to certain local legal obligations. The SoFA, however, was not renewed after the interim government became sovereign. Without those protections the SoFA provided, US troops were in a much more precarious situation, so, we withdrew them.

At pretty much every diplomat's behest, Iraqi politicians declined our involvement to aid in assuring that a power vacuum didn't result in something grotesque evolving, but since US occupation was a plank in Iraqi politics, the elected would prefer to serve the constituencies desire of ousting us as occupiers than keeping the US as protectors. Oops.

Now, with the Iraqi army ill equipped to handle the enemy the developed in the power vacuum, we send specialized men to train, possibly to lend direct fire assistance, however in the grand scheme of what constitutes war, soldiers, and boots on the ground, these deployments are well short of what would be considered forceful acts by the US military.

600 here and 300 there are not going to influence city take overs. They are there to provide training, organization, and in general, further polite request that we put US hardware back into the sandbox to halt the spread of ISIS and its affiliates. Obviously, though, this becomes problematic for other conflicts next door.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:55:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:37:55 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.



The Iraq/Bush/Obama situation was all pretty much the same thing. The Bush administration established a time table as the interim government was set up, then once said interim government became sovereign, it was expected that US forces would play the primary role of being their military until such as one was fully trained, equipped, and put into play. The US forces would enjoy a SoFA, in which acting as the military, the US wouldn't be held to certain local legal obligations. The SoFA, however, was not renewed after the interim government became sovereign. Without those protections the SoFA provided, US troops were in a much more precarious situation, so, we withdrew them.

At pretty much every diplomat's behest, Iraqi politicians declined our involvement to aid in assuring that a power vacuum didn't result in something grotesque evolving, but since US occupation was a plank in Iraqi politics, the elected would prefer to serve the constituencies desire of ousting us as occupiers than keeping the US as protectors. Oops.

Now, with the Iraqi army ill equipped to handle the enemy the developed in the power vacuum, we send specialized men to train, possibly to lend direct fire assistance, however in the grand scheme of what constitutes war, soldiers, and boots on the ground, these deployments are well short of what would be considered forceful acts by the US military.

600 here and 300 there are not going to influence city take overs. They are there to provide training, organization, and in general, further polite request that we put US hardware back into the sandbox to halt the spread of ISIS and its affiliates. Obviously, though, this becomes problematic for other conflicts next door.

Geez that's naive and condescending. Many won't know your acronym: status of forces.

And just a timeline correction... the interim gov was found in 04, became the transition gov in early 05 when the constitution was drafted and then final elections in late 05 becoming permanent.

The point of the sofa, negotiated in 08, was not to turn around and start sending more back over. 6000 isn't a couple hundred here or there. Neither is the use of our Air Force. Plus, those 5000 are not just training but also accompanying the Iraqi army on missions and, as even the defense secretary stated, will be in the line of fire.

Withdrawal and disengagement means just that... not incremental increase in forced.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:10:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:55:45 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:37:55 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.



The Iraq/Bush/Obama situation was all pretty much the same thing. The Bush administration established a time table as the interim government was set up, then once said interim government became sovereign, it was expected that US forces would play the primary role of being their military until such as one was fully trained, equipped, and put into play. The US forces would enjoy a SoFA, in which acting as the military, the US wouldn't be held to certain local legal obligations. The SoFA, however, was not renewed after the interim government became sovereign. Without those protections the SoFA provided, US troops were in a much more precarious situation, so, we withdrew them.

At pretty much every diplomat's behest, Iraqi politicians declined our involvement to aid in assuring that a power vacuum didn't result in something grotesque evolving, but since US occupation was a plank in Iraqi politics, the elected would prefer to serve the constituencies desire of ousting us as occupiers than keeping the US as protectors. Oops.

Now, with the Iraqi army ill equipped to handle the enemy the developed in the power vacuum, we send specialized men to train, possibly to lend direct fire assistance, however in the grand scheme of what constitutes war, soldiers, and boots on the ground, these deployments are well short of what would be considered forceful acts by the US military.

600 here and 300 there are not going to influence city take overs. They are there to provide training, organization, and in general, further polite request that we put US hardware back into the sandbox to halt the spread of ISIS and its affiliates. Obviously, though, this becomes problematic for other conflicts next door.

Geez that's naive and condescending. Many won't know your acronym: status of forces.

And just a timeline correction... the interim gov was found in 04, became the transition gov in early 05 when the constitution was drafted and then final elections in late 05 becoming permanent.

The point of the sofa, negotiated in 08, was not to turn around and start sending more back over. 6000 isn't a couple hundred here or there.

08, its 16 now, that would be... what, 2K a year? Divide that out by how many installations might require trainers and advisers. Like I said, its not a lot. Important people, to be sure, but numbers wise, its simply not a lot.

Btw "The Pentagon has about 6,000 troops, mostly operating as advisors and trainers, in Iraq. U.S.-led coalition warplanes based outside Iraq have carried out thousands of airstrikes since mid-2014.".

Sounds familiar.

Neither is the use of our Air Force. Plus, those 5000 are not just training but also accompanying the Iraqi army on missions and, as even the defense secretary stated, will be in the line of fire.

Withdrawal and disengagement means just that... not incremental increase in forced.

It should mean that. But the locals decided they could do it better. Har dee har, right?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:26:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:10:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:55:45 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:37:55 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.



The Iraq/Bush/Obama situation was all pretty much the same thing. The Bush administration established a time table as the interim government was set up, then once said interim government became sovereign, it was expected that US forces would play the primary role of being their military until such as one was fully trained, equipped, and put into play. The US forces would enjoy a SoFA, in which acting as the military, the US wouldn't be held to certain local legal obligations. The SoFA, however, was not renewed after the interim government became sovereign. Without those protections the SoFA provided, US troops were in a much more precarious situation, so, we withdrew them.

At pretty much every diplomat's behest, Iraqi politicians declined our involvement to aid in assuring that a power vacuum didn't result in something grotesque evolving, but since US occupation was a plank in Iraqi politics, the elected would prefer to serve the constituencies desire of ousting us as occupiers than keeping the US as protectors. Oops.

Now, with the Iraqi army ill equipped to handle the enemy the developed in the power vacuum, we send specialized men to train, possibly to lend direct fire assistance, however in the grand scheme of what constitutes war, soldiers, and boots on the ground, these deployments are well short of what would be considered forceful acts by the US military.

600 here and 300 there are not going to influence city take overs. They are there to provide training, organization, and in general, further polite request that we put US hardware back into the sandbox to halt the spread of ISIS and its affiliates. Obviously, though, this becomes problematic for other conflicts next door.

Geez that's naive and condescending. Many won't know your acronym: status of forces.

And just a timeline correction... the interim gov was found in 04, became the transition gov in early 05 when the constitution was drafted and then final elections in late 05 becoming permanent.

The point of the sofa, negotiated in 08, was not to turn around and start sending more back over. 6000 isn't a couple hundred here or there.

08, its 16 now, that would be... what, 2K a year? Divide that out by how many installations might require trainers and advisers. Like I said, its not a lot. Important people, to be sure, but numbers wise, its simply not a lot.


Btw "The Pentagon has about 6,000 troops, mostly operating as advisors and trainers, in Iraq. U.S.-led coalition warplanes based outside Iraq have carried out thousands of airstrikes since mid-2014.".

Sounds familiar.

Neither is the use of our Air Force. Plus, those 5000 are not just training but also accompanying the Iraqi army on missions and, as even the defense secretary stated, will be in the line of fire.

Withdrawal and disengagement means just that... not incremental increase in forced.

It should mean that. But the locals decided they could do it better. Har dee har, right?

the redeployment of forces (not contractors) began in 2014... similar to the air strikes you mention.

My underlying point is simple: disengagement with a sovereign nation should mean just that, no matter the result to that sovereign nation. Bush and Obama are full of... bush for the nation building (the worst part of this whole debacle), Obama for for re-engagement after withdrawal.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:47:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

If Trump wins, at his first press conference a question will be "why does America have so many troops in Iraq??" Then the anti-left will end its hibernation.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:23:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

That increase is to fight ISIS and ensure the country does not fall to ISIS.

That is why there isn't the outrage. What would you propose instead to ensure Iraq does not fall to ISIS?
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:25:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:59:35 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

We could call it yoyo-anomics. Get all the troops out! Whoa! Whoa! Send them back.l! Send them back!

Your guy wants to put troops back in to defeat ISIS. You are unbeknownstly ridiculing Trump and yourself.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:33:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:47:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

If Trump wins, at his first press conference a question will be "why does America have so many troops in Iraq??" Then the anti-left will end its hibernation.

What are you talking about? Trump has already said we need to send 20,000 to 30,000 troops to the middle East to defeat ISIS,

It is probably doubled in his mind now that he understands he should use nuclear weapons.

On another note, I am really tired of the lack of knowledge people have about their candidates stance. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket because feelings and rhetoric take precedence over facts.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:34:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:05:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:59:35 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

We could call it yoyo-anomics. Get all the troops out! Whoa! Whoa! Send them back.l! Send them back!

That's my point, all those crying under bush are crickets now.

You catch a lot of shlt on here but at least you're consistent.

Being consistently wrong with sky is falling tactics is not a good thing.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:30:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:33:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:47:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

If Trump wins, at his first press conference a question will be "why does America have so many troops in Iraq??" Then the anti-left will end its hibernation.

What are you talking about? Trump has already said we need to send 20,000 to 30,000 troops to the middle East to defeat ISIS,

It is probably doubled in his mind now that he understands he should use nuclear weapons.

On another note, I am really tired of the lack of knowledge people have about their candidates stance. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket because feelings and rhetoric take precedence over facts.

Not my candidate. I'm talking about the press and peace left that are quite about America's troop build up in Iraq. If Clinton wins the silent will continue, and more people will be killed. At least if Trump wins the press will start asking questions. Maybe even congress will vote.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:52:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:30:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:33:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:47:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

If Trump wins, at his first press conference a question will be "why does America have so many troops in Iraq??" Then the anti-left will end its hibernation.

What are you talking about? Trump has already said we need to send 20,000 to 30,000 troops to the middle East to defeat ISIS,

It is probably doubled in his mind now that he understands he should use nuclear weapons.

On another note, I am really tired of the lack of knowledge people have about their candidates stance. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket because feelings and rhetoric take precedence over facts.

Not my candidate. I'm talking about the press and peace left that are quite about America's troop build up in Iraq. If Clinton wins the silent will continue, and more people will be killed. At least if Trump wins the press will start asking questions. Maybe even congress will vote.

now that's a darn good insight actually, I think what you are saying and i would really agree, if Trump wins he will be under constant scrutiny while Clinton wouldn't be, very interesting indeed, I would prefer the POTUS and all of government be under constant scrutiny but the liberal media is so biased.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 4:10:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:34:39 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:05:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:59:35 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

We could call it yoyo-anomics. Get all the troops out! Whoa! Whoa! Send them back.l! Send them back!

That's my point, all those crying under bush are crickets now.

You catch a lot of shlt on here but at least you're consistent.

Being consistently wrong with sky is falling tactics is not a good thing.

Neither is being quiet and blind letting our government send troops to something that's not our fight.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:07:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:10:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:34:39 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:05:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:59:35 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

We could call it yoyo-anomics. Get all the troops out! Whoa! Whoa! Send them back.l! Send them back!

That's my point, all those crying under bush are crickets now.

You catch a lot of shlt on here but at least you're consistent.

Being consistently wrong with sky is falling tactics is not a good thing.

Neither is being quiet and blind letting our government send troops to something that's not our fight.

I think that u forgot to consider that Bronco supports Trump who has listed Isis as one of the most grave threats facing the US, ergo he is in direct opposition of your proposed policy.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:16:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:30:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:33:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:47:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

If Trump wins, at his first press conference a question will be "why does America have so many troops in Iraq??" Then the anti-left will end its hibernation.

What are you talking about? Trump has already said we need to send 20,000 to 30,000 troops to the middle East to defeat ISIS,

It is probably doubled in his mind now that he understands he should use nuclear weapons.

On another note, I am really tired of the lack of knowledge people have about their candidates stance. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket because feelings and rhetoric take precedence over facts.

Not my candidate. I'm talking about the press and peace left that are quite about America's troop build up in Iraq. If Clinton wins the silent will continue, and more people will be killed. At least if Trump wins the press will start asking questions. Maybe even congress will vote.

You obviously don't follow right wing media such as Fox or Breitbart if believe Clinton would get a free pass on anything.

I'm going to repeat this, the reason why it is not huge media coverage is because most people agree with the mission to rid Iraq of Isis and they support doing it by sending advisers, trainers, and special ops. Many including myself would very much be against traditional ground troops. Media conspiracy isn't even needed to explain it. Besides they are too busy following the joke named Trump to report out real news.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:19:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:52:53 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:30:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:33:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:47:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

If Trump wins, at his first press conference a question will be "why does America have so many troops in Iraq??" Then the anti-left will end its hibernation.

What are you talking about? Trump has already said we need to send 20,000 to 30,000 troops to the middle East to defeat ISIS,

It is probably doubled in his mind now that he understands he should use nuclear weapons.

On another note, I am really tired of the lack of knowledge people have about their candidates stance. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket because feelings and rhetoric take precedence over facts.

Not my candidate. I'm talking about the press and peace left that are quite about America's troop build up in Iraq. If Clinton wins the silent will continue, and more people will be killed. At least if Trump wins the press will start asking questions. Maybe even congress will vote.

now that's a darn good insight actually, I think what you are saying and i would really agree, if Trump wins he will be under constant scrutiny while Clinton wouldn't be, very interesting indeed, I would prefer the POTUS and all of government be under constant scrutiny but the liberal media is so biased.

You mean how the liberal media gave HWB and Colin Powell their free pass when they were building a false case to invade and occupy Iraq.

Conspiracy, conspiracy everywhere!
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:36:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
The sad part about the 'case' many are rightfully, me included, upset about is there were legitimate, legal justifications for attacking Iraq that had nothing to do with terrorism or 'WMD'... another term I hate because in the military we refer to them as NBC.

Simply put, along with the 12 other violations of the GW1 ceasefire, painting our and British Aircraft with radar is an internationally recognized act of war.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

51st state.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 12:16:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

Just imagine if Barack Insane O-bomb-a had left the troops there and finished the job. How many lives, how many crisis, how many terrorist celss and innocent ISIS cells would have never manifested. People talk about the soldiers who lose lives, which is a nobel subject, but by my estimates, the troop removal cost the world millions of lives, hundreds of ISIS terrorist events, a European migrant crisis, the rape of Cologne, the slaughter of Paris, San Bernerdino, New York, New Jersey, Boston Marathon...etc etc. He caused a worldwide Islamic caliphate allied with extremism and ISIS.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 12:19:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
And having been raised in Indonesia you'd think if anyone would have understood how the caliphate works, it would have been him. He did know. Now discern whether it was intentional or the mindless act of a blundering President.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 1:09:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 12:16:29 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

Just imagine if Barack Insane O-bomb-a had left the troops there and finished the job. How many lives, how many crisis, how many terrorist celss and innocent ISIS cells would have never manifested. People talk about the soldiers who lose lives, which is a nobel subject, but by my estimates, the troop removal cost the world millions of lives, hundreds of ISIS terrorist events, a European migrant crisis, the rape of Cologne, the slaughter of Paris, San Bernerdino, New York, New Jersey, Boston Marathon...etc etc. He caused a worldwide Islamic caliphate allied with extremism and ISIS.

Just imagine if Obama left the troops in after Bush formally gave control back to the Iraqi gov and Obama defied the orders to remove all fighting wishes. You really think that would have ended with bunnies and rainbow wishes?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 2:21:07 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 1:09:38 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:16:29 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

Just imagine if Barack Insane O-bomb-a had left the troops there and finished the job. How many lives, how many crisis, how many terrorist celss and innocent ISIS cells would have never manifested. People talk about the soldiers who lose lives, which is a nobel subject, but by my estimates, the troop removal cost the world millions of lives, hundreds of ISIS terrorist events, a European migrant crisis, the rape of Cologne, the slaughter of Paris, San Bernerdino, New York, New Jersey, Boston Marathon...etc etc. He caused a worldwide Islamic caliphate allied with extremism and ISIS.

Just imagine if Obama left the troops in after Bush formally gave control back to the Iraqi gov and Obama defied the orders to remove all fighting wishes. You really think that would have ended with bunnies and rainbow wishes?

The Iraqi government would have done as it was told. It bowed down to ISIS and cowered in fear, but if 500,000 U.S. troops were present? Of course they would have tried to fight them. Cue circus music.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 2:27:14 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 2:21:07 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:09:38 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:16:29 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

Just imagine if Barack Insane O-bomb-a had left the troops there and finished the job. How many lives, how many crisis, how many terrorist celss and innocent ISIS cells would have never manifested. People talk about the soldiers who lose lives, which is a nobel subject, but by my estimates, the troop removal cost the world millions of lives, hundreds of ISIS terrorist events, a European migrant crisis, the rape of Cologne, the slaughter of Paris, San Bernerdino, New York, New Jersey, Boston Marathon...etc etc. He caused a worldwide Islamic caliphate allied with extremism and ISIS.

Just imagine if Obama left the troops in after Bush formally gave control back to the Iraqi gov and Obama defied the orders to remove all fighting wishes. You really think that would have ended with bunnies and rainbow wishes?

The Iraqi government would have done as it was told. It bowed down to ISIS and cowered in fear, but if 500,000 U.S. troops were present? Of course they would have tried to fight them. Cue circus music.

We never had more than 190k in Iraq for this war... we did have 500k for gw1

http://www.cnn.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 2:36:28 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 2:27:14 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 2:21:07 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:09:38 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:16:29 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

Just imagine if Barack Insane O-bomb-a had left the troops there and finished the job. How many lives, how many crisis, how many terrorist celss and innocent ISIS cells would have never manifested. People talk about the soldiers who lose lives, which is a nobel subject, but by my estimates, the troop removal cost the world millions of lives, hundreds of ISIS terrorist events, a European migrant crisis, the rape of Cologne, the slaughter of Paris, San Bernerdino, New York, New Jersey, Boston Marathon...etc etc. He caused a worldwide Islamic caliphate allied with extremism and ISIS.

Just imagine if Obama left the troops in after Bush formally gave control back to the Iraqi gov and Obama defied the orders to remove all fighting wishes. You really think that would have ended with bunnies and rainbow wishes?

The Iraqi government would have done as it was told. It bowed down to ISIS and cowered in fear, but if 500,000 U.S. troops were present? Of course they would have tried to fight them. Cue circus music.

We never had more than 190k in Iraq for this war... we did have 500k for gw1

http://www.cnn.com...

So...you think that a military force that retreated from ISIS would obviously bow up to a 200,000 man U.S. force not including allies.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 2:56:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 2:36:28 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 2:27:14 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 2:21:07 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:09:38 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:16:29 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

Just imagine if Barack Insane O-bomb-a had left the troops there and finished the job. How many lives, how many crisis, how many terrorist celss and innocent ISIS cells would have never manifested. People talk about the soldiers who lose lives, which is a nobel subject, but by my estimates, the troop removal cost the world millions of lives, hundreds of ISIS terrorist events, a European migrant crisis, the rape of Cologne, the slaughter of Paris, San Bernerdino, New York, New Jersey, Boston Marathon...etc etc. He caused a worldwide Islamic caliphate allied with extremism and ISIS.

Just imagine if Obama left the troops in after Bush formally gave control back to the Iraqi gov and Obama defied the orders to remove all fighting wishes. You really think that would have ended with bunnies and rainbow wishes?

The Iraqi government would have done as it was told. It bowed down to ISIS and cowered in fear, but if 500,000 U.S. troops were present? Of course they would have tried to fight them. Cue circus music.

We never had more than 190k in Iraq for this war... we did have 500k for gw1

http://www.cnn.com...

So...you think that a military force that retreated from ISIS would obviously bow up to a 200,000 man U.S. force not including allies.

No I was just using the correct figure before internet warriors jumped in flaming.

My contention is we should have left in 03 after we took Baghdad. No reason to nation build... that's where we got ourselves in trouble. Same as Afghanistan. Stupid wmd/terrorism argument. We had plenty of reason to slap iraq around without those 2 arguments dating back to 92.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 1:53:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 2:21:07 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:09:38 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 12:16:29 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I was for the war. I was for the first 3 weeks. I was not for the nation building.

Now people want to know why there is backlash against Obama for his Iraq policy? Just as Bush was 100% wrong for the nation building aspect, which is where all the money and lives were lost, Obama then made a grandiose proclamation of ending troop involvement.

Why is it then, every couple of months, we get one of these:

https://www.google.com...

Why is it since 2014 we've INCREASED troop presence from several hundred to 5262 as of yesterday?

Fvcking hypocrite, as are his defenders and detractors. Don't tell me you supported me over there on a convoy wearing your bs flag pin while bltching and supporting bs rhetoric over here.

Just imagine if Barack Insane O-bomb-a had left the troops there and finished the job. How many lives, how many crisis, how many terrorist celss and innocent ISIS cells would have never manifested. People talk about the soldiers who lose lives, which is a nobel subject, but by my estimates, the troop removal cost the world millions of lives, hundreds of ISIS terrorist events, a European migrant crisis, the rape of Cologne, the slaughter of Paris, San Bernerdino, New York, New Jersey, Boston Marathon...etc etc. He caused a worldwide Islamic caliphate allied with extremism and ISIS.

Just imagine if Obama left the troops in after Bush formally gave control back to the Iraqi gov and Obama defied the orders to remove all fighting wishes. You really think that would have ended with bunnies and rainbow wishes?

The Iraqi government would have done as it was told. It bowed down to ISIS and cowered in fear, but if 500,000 U.S. troops were present? Of course they would have tried to fight them. Cue circus music.

If that is all you could have imagined as result of a second invasion and occupation after giving control to Iraq then it points that you are not capable of advanced analysis or forward thought other than giving platitudes.

I also like how you and others are willing to give up your fellow citizens lives to chase fairy tales and unicorns.