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

[WTF]

Without countering you many small picture points, I will focus on the big picture that you can not seem to grasp.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

. Before us, it was Great Britain. Before Great Britain, it was France. The further back in history you look, there was a leading country that had a military presence in large areas of the world.

Yes...and the reason those empires collapsed was because the cost of securing and maintaining resources or trade as you call it outweighed the resources/trade gathered. You are making my point for me herface! Maintaining a large military presence all over the world is exactly why nations fail. I will say that it does benefit the vast industrial military complex that you seem to fall under. Like I said you're just another welfare junkie making a case of why taxpayers should give you their $$$$...4-6 TRILLION in Iraq so far.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

.

A nation's security and economy both rely on a strong defense. A healthy economy depends on a healthy international trade. A healthy international trade depends on freedom of movement of goods, as well as freedom of movement of resources from their source to the factory. A strong military depends on a strong economy.

Securing both insures that the military could secure our national interests which includes national security.

If you crack open a world history book and read with the intentions of understanding what you are reading, you'll see precisely what I'm talking about.

You need glasses for your short sightedness!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

You made similar supporting posts in response to other people that have argued on your side of the argument. You have no legs to stand on when accusing me, or anybody else, of being anybody's butt boy when you do to exact same thing with others on your side of the argument.
[LMAO you will have to find something to back that up.
JD previously indicated that he deployed to the Persian Gulf, during the Persian Gulf War. I combat deployed to Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. One common trend that you would see on this thread is that both JD and I are on the same side of the argument. I pointed that fact out.
Both you and JD are both right wingers is why you are on the same side of the discussion.
Just as I can make a post disagreeing with you, and others on your side of the argument, I could easily make a post supporting others on my side of the argument.

You're actually attacking an action that I've seen you take on this and on other threads.

I take every opportunity to call bullshit when ir appears.

Your responses to my posts are typical of that of somebody who has set stress shields up. Intellectually, you know that your argument got destroyed. To add damage to injury, you had to see every one of your arguments, that I addressed, destroyed.
Your taking my comments regardless of the topic or to whom addressed, and start your anti democratic rants are typical right wing tactics.
You dismiss the other side of the argument as making stupid remarks, but you failed to prove them wrong. When you failed to prove the other side wrong, you do not have a leg to stand on telling them that they are making stupid remarks.
If I prove them wrong the wingers just keep on with their same BS as nothing happened.
Your posts, as well as that of other posters on your side of the argument, insinuated that the Republicans were to blame. You guys argued that President Bush should not have engaged in what you guys considered an "ill-advised" action. You guys were gloating over this crisis as if you guys are saying, "Ah Ha, I told you so!" I countered your side of the argument's argument by pointing the finger at the group of people that are actually to be blamed. I also pointed out the fact that we secured victory for the United States. It was up to Washington DC to have the political will to develop and further what we secured.
I have always thought the original excuses for the war was BS, and I still feel the same way.
Bottom line, my responses addressed the anti-conservative/anti-Republican propaganda that your side of the argument was advancing.
My responses were addressed to the anti liberal BS that always arises on this board if anything happens anywhere.
You win an argument by advancing the facts, and arguments based on reason, facts, and logic. You advanced this argument in the face of the opposition's failure to prove you wrong. You, and those that are arguing on your side of the argument, have seriously failed to prove our side's argument wrong.
Your side has failed to prove my argument was wrong.
Even now, you consistently insist on attacking me, as well as making assumptions about my actions, instead of attempting to argue against my argument. Your tactics are typical of those tactics taken by the losing side of the argument.
You can attack me and it is ok ?
Intellectually, you see that your side of the argument is getting destroyed. Your excessive pride; however, refuses to see that. It drives you plow on into a losing fight. You, and those who are arguing on your side of the argument, remind me of the black night in this video:
I thought someone who claims to have a MS would be smarter, however nothing surprises me here anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4



You're deliberately missing the point behind my mentioning the fact that I've been to Iraq. That deployment gives me a first-hand account of what goes on in that country. I've seen the dynamics that goes on in that country that doesn't get captured in the news.

In other words, I have a better vantage point over your side of the argument when it comes to this very topic. This is a damaging fact for those on your side of the argument. JD and I are war veterans from the conflicts in that area. So far, nobody on your side of the argument has stepped forward and answered my question about serving in Iraq and in what capacity.

This tells me that you guys are arguing based on third and fourth hand information. Based on what I've seen, you guys are advancing the very arguments that the tinfoil hat wearing crowd on the left advance.

Your side of the argument doesn't want to care about the fact that JD and I have a first-hand perspective on this topic, because it gives us credibility in this argument as opposed to your side of the arguments lack of credibility.



This is another tactic that the left wingers like to use, accusing the opposition of displaying the very traits that these left wingers display. Your arguments, as well as those that are arguing on this thread on your side of the argument, show left wing talking points and bias.

Again, I'll live done was put things in proper perspective based on the facts surrounding the argument. This has left you, and some of your allies, in the position of throwing accusations around as well as insults. Not much of an attempt to argue against our argument.

When you resort to attacks as a main thrust of your reply, you show that you've ran out of argument. Those with the facts on their side could continue to advance an argument. If anybody has lost credibility, it is you as well as the other posters on your side of the argument.



Your question fails to capture the reality surrounding what's being argued about on this thread.

First, the Iraqis were willing to give us a SOFA agreement. Had the Obama administration been willing to work with the Iraqis, using channels that would've gotten his an SOFA agreement, we would've had that SOFA agreement.

The Iraqis wanted thousands of US troops to remain behind to train and continue to train the Iraqi forces. We were in a position of strength in that negotiation.

The question assumes a different reality than the one that was actually taken place on the ground.

Second, you're going to have collateral damage in a firefight. When there is property damage, there was compensation process. The Iraqis that had property destroyed as a result of a firefight, or as a result of negligence on the US military's part, were able to file a claim. Once an investigation proved that collateral damage happened as a result of a firefight where the rules of engagement were disregarded, or as a result of negligence, the Iraqi with a property damage grievance was able to get compensated.

A SOFA agreement would've allowed the US military to hold US service members accountable for negligent homicide on the battlefield. This would be applicable if the rules of engagement were violated, as a result of negligence, or as a result of deliberate acts of murder.

Third, we strictly abided by our rules of engagement. These rules of engagement called for engaging only the enemy. The vast majority of the Iraqi population understood that we strictly followed these rules of engagement. In fact, one of our interpreters related a discussion that he had with one of the local Iraqis.

These local Iraqis understood that if the coalition member shot you, it was because you were shooting at them. He contrasted that with what the terrorists would do. They'd Kill you regardless of whether you were there intended target or not.

The current administration had no desire to work with the Iraqi government to extend our SOFA agreement.

Therefore, your shotgun question, which doesn't capture the reality that we are arguing, isn't applicable.

I see by your responses that you would not care if the Iraq.s brought you up on charges of killing a civilian in a fire fight. So I guess with your expert testimony that Obama was wrong not to have agreed to the SOFA agreement. I did not think it was right for Him to agree to it without legal immunity for our troops. I was wrong . Hell Who knew it.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I see by your responses that you would not care if the Iraq.s brought you up on charges of killing a civilian in a fire fight. So I guess with your expert testimony that Obama was wrong not to have agreed to the SOFA agreement. I did not think it was right for Him to agree to it without legal immunity for our troops. I was wrong . Hell Who knew it.

ur'a bitchimp is clueless... did you serve, bitchimp?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

ur'a bitchimp is clueless... did you serve, bitchimp?

Yes I did slutchimp how about you?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

First, WHERE, in the statement that you quoted, do I specifically state that our debt went down from 2003 to 2007?

What I actually said, which could be found in what you quoted:

"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." -- herfacechair

WHERE, in THAT statement, do I argue that the debt went down during that period? Let's simplify this.

I said that something went down. Well? What went down? The answer is highlighted in the above quote.

I tried to find it by reading that quote again, and I tried to let the computer help me via a "control f" search, in both instances. The only mention in my quote was in reference to the debt still being there under Clinton.

This is an example of you advancing a strawman argument:

Let "X" be my argument.
Let "Y" be your assumption of my argument, which is absolutely not close to what I said.
You advance this argument: "Y" is wrong, therefore, "X" is "wrong."

The surplus that we had in the 1990s resulted in the Republicans strong-arming everybody else into agreeing with them in cutting spending, and spending less than what we were taking in. The factors that you mention in your reply would not matter if we would've spent more than what we were taking in. The latter scenario would've given us a deficit.

Also, if you look at two of the graphs that you posted in your post, it shows the debt. It shows both gross debt, and federal debt. In both of those graphs, you noticed that the bars representing the years 2003 two 2007 are small relative to the current debt as well as that of the projected debt.

The Iraq War officially ended at the end of 2011. The funding for operation dropped along with the removal of the US forces. The debt continued to increase despite combat operations being over in Iraq, and despite the fact that we are in a massive drawdown in Afghanistan.

So you can't even use the debt in this argument, because the debt is projected to continue going up even after we close the Afghanistan war.

If you read my statement and the context of the argument that I'm making, "However long it takes," is not the same thing as consistently maxing out what we are spending over there.

Again, more tax revenue alone isn't going to do much for the deficit, or debt, if the government is going to insist on spending more than what they're taking in. Clinton and the Democrats wanted to do that, the Republican majority wanted to spend less than what they were taking in.

Also, you're implying that increases in taxes bring more tax revenue in. The reality is that the government collects more tax revenue after taxes are lowered. This happened after Kennedy lowered taxes, after Reagan lowered taxes, and after Bush II lowered taxes.

When Bush 1 and Clinton inched taxes up, they didn't spike these taxes to the level they were in before Reagan dropped the tax rates. We were pretty much well within the margin of the Reagan tax cuts.

Increases in taxes would bring more revenue in on a temporary basis, but in the long run it brings less revenue in than what it could otherwise bring in.

President Clinton did raise taxes. The idea that this led to the increased revenue that led to an economic boom is just a myth:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesk...-tax-increase/

Second, combat operations ended in Iraq in December of 2011. Any security that we had there, that was military, was there on a non-combat status... as they are elsewhere in the world where they are in a noncombat status. Any substantial training we were giving them during that period stopped when we pulled out.

We were no longer there in a combat, or combat support, capacity after 2011. So no, you can say that we were there for 11+ or 12 years in the sense that you're trying to argue on this thread.

You first argued this:

"We have been in Iraq 12 plus years," - flghtr65

Then you argued that we were there, "11 +" years based on inductive fallacy... itself a contradiction of your original argument.

The math doesn't support either one of your arguments... 2003 to 2011 is 8 years. In fact, we were there for approximately 8 years, 9 months and 12 days. That's the amount of time we had to stand them up and to train them. When we left at the end of 2011, we were no longer giving them substantial training... the kind of training they'd need to repel borders or to contain infighting.

You implied that we were giving them substantial training still, which wasn't the case for well over 2 years now. So yes, in order to make up for the mistake that this administration made, we have to send military back.

Again, our deficit went down from 2003 to 2007, despite the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Our debts during that period is small compared to what it is now. We were consistently winning in Iraq, so obviously they were getting enough money to do what it took. My statement, "as much as it takes" was said in that context, and not the out of context strawman that you're making it to be.

I think from an accounting perspective we are talking apples and oranges. How do you define deficit? The reason I ask is that after 2003 the "rolling debt" increases slightly. This says to me that at end of the current fiscal accounting year the government spent more money than it took in. Let's get on the same page with the accounting terms and then continue.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Your text over exaggerations gave me a good laugh because I knew that I got through your skin. [/Color]

You being naive enough to believe that you got through my skin gave me a good laugh.

Fat chance that will ever happen!

As for the rest of your Breitbart and FAUX News WMD infested "talking points," try 'em in some other venue. They have already been tested here and failed to pass the reality test. The fact is that WMD's were the reason used by the the Shrub Administration to invade Iraq during the Spring of 2003. And despite your futile attempts to convince us otherwise, none were found.

In case you missed it, consider the following:

"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!

In simpler terms! You can put lipstick on a pig and dress it up in the finest New York City fashions.

But at the end of the day, it's still swine!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Without countering you many small picture points, I will focus on the big picture that you can not seem to grasp.

It's always easier from the perspective of the clouds you inhabit while sipping flavored coffees at the Barnes and Noble.

Right now there are people being lined up in ditches and shot or beheaded.

So what do you suggest?

Oh, when I say "people" ... women and children included.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I see by your responses that you would not care if the Iraq.s brought you up on charges of killing a civilian in a fire fight. So I guess with your expert testimony that Obama was wrong not to have agreed to the SOFA agreement. I did not think it was right for Him to agree to it without legal immunity for our troops. I was wrong . Hell Who knew it.

Hillary also blames A-Maliki for no agreement before the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq during her interview with Fox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ame-out-ahead/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's always easier from the perspective of the clouds you inhabit while sipping flavored coffees at the Barnes and Noble.
First lie LL, I do not drink coffee.
Right now there are people being lined up in ditches and shot or beheaded.
Second lie. Right now as you typed there were people being lined up and shot....who told you that? Are you typing from the ditch?
So what do you suggest?
I suggest you volunteer to go fight over there against the volunteer rebel fighters and quit asking the American soldiers and taxpayer to fight your cause.
Oh, when I say "people" ... women and children included.

What are you waiting on LL, catch the next plane to help save the women and children. Good luck with that.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Hillary also blames A-Maliki for no agreement before the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq during her interview with Fox news.

Of course.

She blamed the "great right-wing conspiracy" for Bill's blow jobs!

I saw that interview also.

Placing unrealistic and unreasonable conditions on an agreement, then blaming "the other side" for not reaching an agreement, is as old as rock. For someone who does little "negotiating" it might seem novel or credible, but it's not.

It's just another failed effort on her part as an "international figure."

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

What are you waiting on LL, catch the next plane to help save the women and children. Good luck with that.

LL is just a Wannabe USMC! Personal responsibility does not rate high on his list of priorities. He greatly prefers others to help save the women and children. Once others have done the dirty work, LexiLiar will tell them how they should have done it. No injury risk to him, of course!

Who has been Shrubya's biggest Yale style "Yell-Leader?"

LexiLiar, The Wannabee USMC, of course.

[Yssup Rider]

Obama's going to lose Iraq? Is that the topic of this circle jerk?

I wasn't aware that Iraq was OURS to lose.

As I recall, getting us out of the Bush weapons testing ground was one campaign promise even your reactionary neocon asswipes would agree that he kept.

I'm not happy we sent 275 special forces groups back.

should have sent them to Salina Kansas.

[boardman]

Cultural change happens over decades and generations not months and years. Going back several thousand years the Israelites were not allowed to enter the promised land until the generation that doubted God was dead and gone or at least not in the majority. When the next generation was allowed to enter they did so knowing they had right on their side.
I specifically remember prior to going into Afghanistan, 43 made the comment that this would take a long time. The vast majority of the people seemed to think this meant "months" since the first Iraq war officially lasted only a few weeks. We thought we would go in, kick ass and everything would change. It doesn't work like that.
Do you think all those Japanese deserted their loyalties to the Emperor at the drop of a couple devastating bombs in 1945. My guess is it probably infuriated them more than ever. It took time for them to get over that. It took American intervention in both military presence and people like Edwards Demming to show them how to be an economic super power. Only once the next generation bought into economic exceptionalism did the Japanese become exceptional as well. Korea is similar and the dichotomy between north and south is clear.
We had two choices in Iraq. Stay there, be protectors and mentors until this radical generation that doesn't want us dies off and the next generation doesn't know anything other than us being there accepts it and moves on...or we pull out and let them kill each other over their religious fanaticism.
There is no in between with these people. They didn't want the SOFA and neither did the Obama Admin. albeit for different reasons. When we gave them a choice the cause was lost.
I think going into Iraq, at the time based on what we knew, was the right thing to do. There was plenty of evidence of WMD's as well as a history of Saddam using them against his own people and possibly even against us. Where did they go, why didn't we find them? Hell, I don't know. We did find plenty of evidence just not the weapons themselves. My guess is the weapons used by Syria last year might have been some of the remnants but NO I can't prove that. Just my opinion.
Hindsight being 20/20 I would have preferred we had done things more covertly to topple Hussein and destroy the WMD's and let the ragheads all kill each other rather than spend decades occupying them.
People on both sides of the aisle as well as military leadership predicted the current situation if we pulled out too soon and here it is. What we have managed to do is infuriate the radicals, instigate the Arab Spring and given terrorist groups enormous recruiting power. We have opened the door to Iran getting involved which bolsters their position immensely in the ME. We turned a retaliation against Al Qaeda into a regional crisis. More importantly is the way that Muslims are perceived in non-muslim countries. They are gaining acceptance through taquiyya and changing perceptions throughout the non-muslim world to the point were the idea of Sharia Law, while still not accepted, has become a topic of conversation. Once the conversation begins it will becomes a part of the lexicon. Once it is a part of the lexicon it gains acceptance and possibly a part of life of the next generation.
The Muslims are actually fighting us by generation. They have been for a while. Why we think we can change their minds overnight is beyond me.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Hillary also blames A-Maliki for no agreement before the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq during her interview with Fox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ame-out-ahead/

You, flighty, and other lib-retards continue to ignore the facts:

[T]he [Odumbo] administration's negotiating strategy was flawed ... [it] sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.

Al-Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...l_negotiations

Originally Posted by bigtex

You being naive enough to believe that you got through my skin gave me a good laugh.

Fat chance that will ever happen!

As for the rest of your Breitbart and FAUX News WMD infested "talking points," try 'em in some other venue. They have already been tested here and failed to pass the reality test. The fact is that WMD's were the reason used by the the Shrub Administration to invade Iraq during the Spring of 2003. And despite your futile attempts to convince us otherwise, none were found.

In case you missed it, consider the following:

"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!

In simpler terms! You can put lipstick on a pig and dress it up in the finest New York City fashions.

But at the end of the day, it's still swine!

You're still all wet, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat. Numerous "other reasons" were enumerated in Congress' AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002, but, evidently, you're just too damn illiterate to read them or understand them, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat. United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 is but one of several UN resolutions enumerated in Congress' authorization to use military force, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994)

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Since I answered the last question chimp-o-matic, and you are too dumb to comprehend Why should I answer this one? It will fall on a idiot. Your simple flailing around with your big fonts is reeking of desperation.

The only thing reeking here are your stupidity and your lies, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. You didn't answer the questions, and your jackass stupid POV was irretrievably destroyed by facts, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You, flighty, and other lib-retards continue to ignore the facts:




You're still all wet, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat. Numerous "other reasons" were enumerated in Congress' AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002, but, evidently, you're just too damn illiterate to read them or understand them, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat. United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 is but one of several UN resolutions enumerated in Congress' authorization to use military force, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat.






The only thing reeking here are your stupidity and your lies, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. You didn't answer the questions, and your jackass stupid POV was irretrievably destroyed by facts, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

Sorry ass wipe you have been checkmated . Fuck off.