In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

BTW: Your "buddy" BigTitsLiar is the one who constantly brings up WMDs .. that's all he's got!

Are you really searching for a reason that I bring up WMD's? You've got to be shitting me! Please tell me you're not that fucking stupid? You still haven't connected the dots? Damn, you're dense!

WMD's are brought up only because it was the reason used by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq during the weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's why it is constantly brought up!

Why in the hell did you like the term WMD's when The Shrub was shouting it out to the world during the spring of 2003 but you don't like it when you are reminded that Shrubya never found those illusive WMD's? In other words, you liked it prior to the spring of 2003 invasion but you don't want to discuss the end result. How fucking convenient!

Duh, connect the dogs, Dipshit!

Were you expecting me to bring up Pearl Harbor or the sinking of the Lusitania? While we are going down that path, why not bring up Fort Sumter, Lexington and Concord? Perhaps we could even throw in The Battle of Waterloo? Geez!

All right, let's take it from the top, shall we? If there was another reason used more to invade Iraq during the spring of 2003 than WMD's, please let me know. Otherwise do us all a favor and STFU!

It should be noted that I am fully aware that LexiLiar has no desire to discuss the after-effects of Shrub's repeated use of the phrase WMD's prior to the spring of 2003 invasion. Instead he prefers only to discuss what might have been had Shrubya not invaded!

And now for a trip down Memory Lane:

WASHINGTON -- The argument for going to war in Iraq was clearly made. Over and over again, Saddam Hussein was said to be a turn-of-the-millennium Hitler, a madman bent on destroying America with his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, that turned out to be false, but at the time, the justification was no mystery. The word "weapons" shows up 1,107 times in the Congressional Record during the period when the House and Senate were voting to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. The more specific "weapons of mass [destruction or murder]" comes up 368 times.

Now, with Iraq on the verge of unraveling after the departure of U.S. forces, conservative pundits and some politicians who were wrong about Iraq then are declaiming a new reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, saying it was to liberate the Iraqis. The United States sacrificed 4,500 Americans in the name of freedom for the Iraqis, and President Barack Obama is blowing it, they say.

The word "freedom" shows up 118 times in the Congressional Record during the authorization votes, but it's generally in reference to securing freedom for America, and only occasionally for Iraqis. The word "liberate" shows up 12 times. And that's mostly in reference to Kuwait.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5500337.html

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Thanks for serving, however you are just another republican ass kisser who blames everything on the democrats or independents, So you have lost your credibility.

So you are a credibility expert? ...right...ur'a bitchimp.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

WTF, good post. Bush lowered taxes and got the USA involved in two wars instead of just one. Bush took the small surplus that Clinton gave to him and turned it into a deficit that just kept growing. The math just won't work with this "spend as much as it takes" approach. You need to increase taxes or start a war tax. We have been in Iraq 12 plus years, spent 4 trillion and counting, 4 thousand lives lost and the Iraq government still can't defend itself without outside help.

Obama kept the tax cuts for most Americans, gave them another FICA tax break and upped the tax for those making $450K+
The "Clinton" Surplus was gone by the time Bush took office. Discussed many times before.
More American lives lost in Afghanistan than during Bush and with Obama's exit strategy and the Taliban Dream team, the Afghan govt won't be able to defend itself either.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

So you are a credibility expert? ...right...ur'a bitchimp.

You are on the list also monkey nuts.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

[COLOR="blue"]

When we are fighting an entity that wants to exterminate our civilization and replace it with an Islamic caliphate, you are damn straight we will spend what we have to spend to prevail over them.

Here is the one big failing of your whole argument. You are assuming that the US forces can defeat this new ISIS militia. Only militias from the Shiite & Kurdish side can counter, not "trained" armies... 1300 y. ago, same spot & situation, Heracles used Arab tribes: "Only a diamond can cut a diamond".

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Thanks for serving, however you are just another republican ass kisser who blames everything on the democrats or independents, So you have lost your credibility.

JD Barleycorn was right on the mark with his comment, and voiced what most critical thinkers would think when they read your comments.

By acknowledging that I served, and by following that up with one traditional method that losers use when they know they lost the argument, you did the writing equivalence of spitting on war veterans.

Don't dismiss a fact based analysis of what's being argued as someone simply "kissing ass." I'm simply telling it like it is based on the extensive research that I've done on this topic, and based on my first hand experiences. This has everything to do with following the facts, and presenting what the facts present and nothing to do with trying to cozy up to Republicans or against any other groups.

Now, show me where, in my posts, do I blame everything under the sun on the democrats and on the independents... by this I mean quote my statement where I blame every single problem that one could face on the democrats and the independents.

I don't group independents with the democrats. I also criticize republicans. See what happened to Eric Cantor? That happened in my state, and in the hands of other people like me. I'll criticize any politician, regardless of what party they're a part of.

Also, your saying that I "lost" credibility is you refusing to admit that your argument got destroyed. The mere fact that I've combat deployed to Iraq, which is the geographic location generally argued on this thread, gives me credibility in this topic where you, and the others that I've argued against, have none.

You actually have to present an argument for me to destroy before you could even think about telling me, or anybody else on my side of the argument, that we "don't" have credibility. You didn't even address any part of my argument, so you don't have a leg to stand on telling me that I "lost" credibility.

You lost credibility by resorting to attacks as your sole response in the face of your blatantly losing in this argument.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

Glenn Beck is that you?

If I were to go on an internet forum, and say that one plus one equals two, would it be safe for someone reading that to assume that you were the one that made that post because you also agree that one plus one equals two? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste the question and the options to your reply, then put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me the nonsense that you want to add.

I know that you won't answer that question per the parameters that I set, because the simple common sense reply destroys your argument.

Again, if two different people view the facts and come up to the same conclusion, that's not one person telling the other person what to think. It's simply two or more people looking at the facts and independently coming up to the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by WTF

What a fucking buffoon. Or in political talk ...just another neocon.

A neocon is someone that used to be a liberal until reality mugged them.

You're calling me a "buffoon" for presenting a reasoned, fact based logical argument... one that showed you how much you didn't really know. I'd rather have you use the "I just lost, so I'm going to sling poo" tactic by calling me a "buffoon" than to actually be a buffoon that knows a lot about what's not the case... buffoon...

Originally Posted by WTF

You are delusional.

You are a liberal wanting to spend others money and lives trying to make the world over as you see fit. You are no different than the small group of fucked up radical Muslims you speak of.

You're the one that's pulling shit out of your ass, not me. If anybody is delusional between the two of us, it's you.

Your statement proves that you choose to remain ignorant rather than abandon a disproven argument... it's like you're breathing your own exhaust in. My post represented an all-out attack of reason against you, but the force field that your empty noggin set up to protect itself from all attacks of reason prevented you from seeing what I was actually saying.

You need to quit typing as if a retarded ghost possesses you before accusing someone of being delusional.

What I said is fact, and has already happened. Again, it's blatantly obvious that you haven't step foot in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't stepped foot outside of the United States, and if you did go to another country, you didn't pay attention to your surroundings.

If you paid attention to what you quoted, and read with the intentions of understanding what I was saying, you'd notice what's quoted here by someone else who independently came up to similar conclusions:

"For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake -- literally everything." (Dopfner, 2004)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

You see, if you combat deployed to Iraq and saw what I saw, you'd notice that the Iraqis were very appreciative of what we had done for them... of what we were doing for them. We weren't forcing them to become like us... we weren't forcing them to bend to our way of thinking and behaving.

If you were there, you'd see that the Iraqis, like most anybody in other countries in the world, were rushing head over heal to become like us. The Iraqis were rapidly westernizing when we were there, they WANTED to westernize. What they didn't want was to live the kind of life that those radical Muslims wanted them to live.

This is the case in most of the places I've been to on the 4 continents outside of the United States that I've been to.

Again, we're locked in mortal combat with an enemy that wants to eliminate our way of living and to force us to live under the banner of Islam. Only one option is going to happen... either we prevail in the long run, or they prevail in the long run.

If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that there's a difference between what we're trying to achieve, and what the radical Muslims are trying to achieve. You'd also know that there's a glaring difference between what the US military is trying to achieve, and what the radical are trying to achieve. You would've gotten that clue had you been there.

Unfortunately, your posts show that you're pretty good at speaking out of your ass.

Originally Posted by WTF

Spend as much as it takes? There you have it folks. What he calls for is a permanent military state. And you want other folks to fund your obsession. Read the way Empires collapse...hint it is by spending more on wars/resources than those wars/resources produce. Simple math.

Where, in my posts, do I specifically call for a permanent military state?

Would it hurt for you to actually understand what you're reading, instead of just moving your eyeballs over the words and having a few blood capillaries explode? Your anger management issues, and your need for control, are getting in the way of you actually understanding what you're reading.

What I'm calling for is for us to not get complacent in front of an extremely patient, long term thinking enemy.

As long as they exist, this war will continue to go on. The moment when the majority of the populace thinks like you is the moment when the momentum shifts to the enemy's side... on our own home turf.

Just as you're clueless about what's going on in the War on Terror, you're also clueless about how empires collapse. You're wrong in every sense of the word, and all you've done is repeat some tin foil hat wearing talking head's points with regards to the Iraq War and the fate of old empires.

Ironically, the decline of the Roman Empire began when an emperor decided to wage economic war against the senatorial class... he was the first emperor that did precisely what the progressives/liberals in this country are calling for our government to do... force the rich to pay more in taxes.

The decline of the Roman Empire is matched not just to the end of the Roman Warm Period, which was hotter than any time during our lifetimes, it was also matched by similar economic policies that would've made today's democrats proud. These policies reduced the incentive to generate wealth, which reduced the empire's ability to field and train a powerful army. Other factors came to play, like rampant corruption, incompetence, etc.

The transition into Medieval civilization/culture actually started during Roman rule, and it was partly a result of the reaction against the government taxing the crap out of the rich and, when the rich were scarce... the middle class to death.

So, no matter how you try to look at this, your argument falls flat on its face.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

WTF, good post. Bush lowered taxes and got the USA involved in two wars instead of just one. Bush took the small surplus that Clinton gave to him and turned it into a deficit that just kept growing. The math just won't work with this "spend as much as it takes" approach. You need to increase taxes or start a war tax. We have been in Iraq 12 plus years, spent 4 trillion and counting, 4 thousand lives lost and the Iraq government still can't defend itself without outside help.

Sorry, WTF didn't make a good post, he advanced a strawman. He addressed an argument that I didn't make, because he knew that he couldn't stand a chance against the argument that I actually made. It would've helped if he contained his control and anger issues and actually read what was written, instead of emotionally coming up with responses to what he thought I said.

Perhaps you could help him with the questions that I asked him.

Now, to address your other inaccuracies.

Bush lowered taxes to get the economic engine running again, that was a necessity. That surplus that you talked about existed because of a Republican Congress. Congress has the power of the purse. Per the Constitution, congress manages taxes and they manage the budget.

Clinton and the other Democrats wanted to spend like drunken sailors, the Republican majority cattle prodded both into reducing their urge to spend, into agreeing with reduced spending, and into focusing on paying down the debt.

You could thank the Republican Congress for giving us that surplus.

Also, that surplus simply meant that we were spending less than what we were taking in. The debt still existed under the Clinton Administration.

The 9/11 attacks woke this country up to the reality that there was an entity waging a deadly war against us, that surplus disappearing in the face of that threat, and a poor economy, was a necessity.

Also, the deficit went down from 2003 to 2007, when both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were going on. We still had the tax cuts during that time. Raising taxes when the economy is poor is equivalent to taking laxatives to prevent diarrhea. Raising taxes generally leads to reduced incentives to spend money. Lowering taxes generally leads to greater incentives to earning more money and to spending it.

Also, the invasion of Iraq took place in 2003, and the pullout took place in 2011. That doesn't look like "12 plus years" to me. You blame the Iraq government for not being able to defend itself, but give a pass to the administration that failed them, and that failed to capitalize on the success that we handed to them.

Had Obama truly wanted a SOFA, we would've had one, and we would've been able to stay behind to provide further training and assistance.

Also, the Iraqi military HAS repelled ISIS in many areas in Iraq. The government is inside a location that ISIS can't penetrate.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by bigtex

WMD's are brought up only because it was the reason used by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq during the weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's why it is constantly brought up!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq

"This nation, in world war and in cold war, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help OTHERS to find FREEDOM of their own." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-...un-12-09-2002/

"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without FREEDOM for both sides." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sh.transcript/

"The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of humanliberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose." -- George Bush, 2003 (Emphasis mine)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/

"...the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement.

"Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear." -- George Bush, May 1, 2003

"And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on." -- George Bush, May 1, 2003

See the trend here?

HENCE; Operation Iraqi FREEDOM

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Here is the one big failing of your whole argument. You are assuming that the US forces can defeat this new ISIS militia. Only militias from the Shiite & Kurdish side can counter, not "trained" armies... 1300 y. ago, same spot & situation, Heracles used Arab tribes: "Only a diamond can cut a diamond".

Wrong, that's not a failing, and that's not an assumption.

I know for a fact that in a face to face battle, the United States military would destroy ISIS. If the United States military were to re-enter Iraq and take on the insurgency, ISIS would run and resort to using IEDs and mortar attacks. If the US were to make a move on a city controlled by ISIS, the later would more than likely run instead of fight. If we were to cordon the city, they'd blend in with the population and bleed away.

You fail to factor in the fact that we're masters at psychological warfare... and that our fliers showing their likeness as part human and part scull tugged at their emotional chords like a mother fucker... all the time. These people RUN because they know that fighting US forces is suicide... for them. It didn't matter who it was that we were going against. We had other PSYOP tricks under our sleeves as well, and the vast majority of those tricks were very effective.

Again, I know for a fact that we'd be able to defeat ISIS on the ground. Since you missed it the first time I said it... The unit that we worked with, and trained while I was there, successfully fought off ISIS.

If the Iraqi Soldiers that we worked with, and trained, could easily route ISIS, what makes you think that the US military wouldn't be able to defeat them? So yes, not only CAN trained forces defeat ISIS, they HAVE defeated ISIS.

Another thing that you're missing is that we utilized the Iraqi Military more and more as we stood them up and trained more of them. By the time I left, they practically were in the front when it came to clearing out the terrorists.

Contrary to your assumptions, we used the same concepts that the ancients used when dealing with local fighters, just like what we've done in previous wars.

My whole argument is based on both, my first-hand experiences in Iraq, and on my extensive research on the topic. My entire argument is sound.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What do you not do? You don't rebut one single charge other than call them a "republican ass kisser" (do you have proof of that?) and therefore everything that they say has no credibility. Think about that EVA. That is how stupid you sound when you go off like that.

You're a Gulf War Veteran, I'm an Iraq War Veteran, "RedLeg505" in OK sounds like an Artillery Man to me... safe to guess that he's a veteran as well.

Notice how we're on the same side, and those opposing us haven't answered my question on who has stepped foot in Iraq. There's a good chance that we have arm chair generals arguing against boots on the ground experience. That even makes them look more stupid.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

JD Barleycorn was right on the mark with his comment, and voiced what most critical thinkers would think when they read your comments.

By acknowledging that I served, and by following that up with one traditional method that losers use when they know they lost the argument, you did the writing equivalence of spitting on war veterans.

Don't dismiss a fact based analysis of what's being argued as someone simply "kissing ass." I'm simply telling it like it is based on the extensive research that I've done on this topic, and based on my first hand experiences. This has everything to do with following the facts, and presenting what the facts present and nothing to do with trying to cozy up to Republicans or against any other groups.

Now, show me where, in my posts, do I blame everything under the sun on the democrats and on the independents... by this I mean quote my statement where I blame every single problem that one could face on the democrats and the independents.

I don't group independents with the democrats. I also criticize republicans. See what happened to Eric Cantor? That happened in my state, and in the hands of other people like me. I'll criticize any politician, regardless of what party they're a part of.

Also, your saying that I "lost" credibility is you refusing to admit that your argument got destroyed. The mere fact that I've combat deployed to Iraq, which is the geographic location generally argued on this thread, gives me credibility in this topic where you, and the others that I've argued against, have none.

You actually have to present an argument for me to destroy before you could even think about telling me, or anybody else on my side of the argument, that we "don't" have credibility. You didn't even address any part of my argument, so you don't have a leg to stand on telling me that I "lost" credibility.

You lost credibility by resorting to attacks as your sole response in the face of your blatantly losing in this argument.

If you wish to be JD'S butt boy that is you choice.

You took each of my comments regardless of the content or who's stupid remark they were addressed to then went on your anti democrat rant. Typical stupid right wing ploy. I did not lose anything you just displayed your bias.

As far as your deployment I thanked you for serving like a lot of us have as where I really don't give a shit.

As for your bias and silly right wing talking points you lost credibility.

I will ask one question of your expertise .
If you and your team were in a firefight, and there was collateral damage.
Would you want to be answerable to the Iraq's and subject to their court system?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

See the trend here?

HENCE; Operation Iraqi FREEDOM

"The argument for going to war in Iraq was clearly made. Over and over again, Saddam Hussein was said to be a turn-of-the-millennium Hitler, a madman bent on destroying America with his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, that turned out to be false, but at the time, the justification was no mystery."

"The word "weapons" shows up 1,107 times in the Congressional Record during the period when the House and Senate were voting to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. The more specific "weapons of mass [destruction or murder]" comes up 368 times."

"The word "freedom" shows up 118 times in the Congressional Record during the authorization votes, but it's generally in reference to securing freedom for America, and only occasionally for Iraqis. The word "liberate" shows up 12 times. And that's mostly in reference to Kuwait."

See the trend here?

HENCE: Weapons of Mass Destruction!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

See the trend here?

HENCE: Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Yes, do you?


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

"CLINTON: Good evening. (December 1998)

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

[BigLouie]

Alarmists fail to realize that areas "conquered" by ISIS are largely Sunni with no motivation/incentive to fight. Not the case with Bagdad