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

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So now you do admit that I answered your question even if you don't understand the answer. If you apologize for being an idiot I may except it but only if you admit being a liar as well.

As for your contempt, you've already made my special list for a personal meeting.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

BANG!!!!

Good ,looks like you blew your brain out. Assholes like you claim you were military personnel, then dishonor them.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

He is losing it...
Crying like a girl about being called a name , while calling others names in the next sentence.

In a perfect LLIdiot world, name-calling restrictions only apply to others and not himself.

Yesterday afternoon LLIdiot was crying about (1) me threatening to out him in this forum. And then a few, short minutes later in the Houston Co-Ed forum he was crying that I was (2) "stalking" him.

I thought it was comical!

LLIdiot cearly meets the basic criteria to forever be known as a Hypocritical, Paranoid Idiot. A modern day version of Mel Gibson's famous movie character known as Jerry Fletcher.

I thought about referring to him as Jerry Fletcher but LLIdiot has a certain ring to it! Indded, it's got pizzazz!

Click the link for LLIdiot's favorite song: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...70138588,d.b2U

[stevepar]

Iraq was LOST about 2 minutes after operation shock and awe was completed....although prez george landed on an aircraft carrier under a banner that said "MISSIOM ACCOMPLISHED we all knew he was wrong....
the current situation is caused by the p.m. of Iraq....al malika or some such spelling who refuses to reach out to anyone other than those of his own religion....he's a shiite....when repeatedly trying to form a government....he excluded the kurds and sunnis'...
.the u.s. would love to see him leave office....he is a major roadblock to any formation of any semblance of an inclusive government in Iraq....

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are a simple fuck my comment was not addressed to you , and there was no reply to the other post.

Wrong, here's what you said:

"However I am finished with this discussion," I'va biggen

It doesn't matter if you replied to me directly or indirectly. The fact of the matter is you said that you were finished with this discussion. You didn't indicate whether you were finished talking to me, or finished talking to others on this thread. All you said was, "I am finished with this discussion."

You made that statement implying that you won't come back to entertain our argument. The actual statement actually applies to the thread.

When you pulled shit out of your ass about my being an, "empty suit," quotations used strongly, you were making a statement about the arguments I've made on this thread. HENCE, you were addressing me indirectly... like I said you would.

You were trying to have it both ways. Not only that, but when I called you out on it, you turned around and replied to me directly, contradicting your intentions of "being done" with this "discussion."

You replied to me indirectly, while using an ad homonym attack. I would've been a "simple fuck" if I ignored that and moved on, but I didn't. A "simple fuck" wouldn't have seen what your true intentions were. I did. You'd have to have a simple "mind" to think that your, "I'm done" comments would work.

Those comments don't work with me unless the "I'm done" comment is said by itself, without further comment, and is acted on via non action in the face of the expected reply.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Thanks for verifying you are a empty suit

Replying to you, and calling you out on the lack of consistency between your comments and action, doesn't make me an "empty suit." You, and those that are arguing on your side of the argument are empty suits on the account that you guys don't have an argument, yet you act as if you guys are "right" when you guys are actually dead wrong. You guys are equivalent to the emperor's new clothes.

My side of the argument actually has an argument, describing any one of us as being an "empty suite" is like describing the areas of the world covered by the ocean as "barren dry land."

The only thing that you've verified with your most recent reply to me is that you have nothing in the empty head of yours except for a toy monkey banging its cymbals together.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

or you would not have replied.

And this is what it's all about, isn't it? You gave me the, "I'm done with this discussion" canard in an attempt to discourage me from replying, didn't you? Well, you need to burn this into your brains... what I said earlier in this thread:

"Those ploys never worked with me. The sooner they realize that my reply to them is almost as guaranteed as death or taxes, the better for their credibility. " -herfacechair

Here's how it works. Let "X" be your reply to me. Let "Y" be my reply to you. What's happening here is this: "If 'X,' then 'Y.'"

Meaning, if you rebut something that I said, you could always count on me counter rebutting your rebuttal. This'll keep going on until you take the "X" out of the "If 'X,' then 'Y,'" relationship.

This doesn't make me an empty suite, this makes me someone that's going to keep hammering you for as long as you try to let your BS go unchallenged.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You and JD must be idiots in law.

Love to burst your rainbow bubble with this: JD and my replying to you, and destroying your ignorant comments, doesn't make us idiots. It makes us fact checkers. The only idiots, that I see on this thread, are those on your side of the argument and you.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

(RED HERRING, STRAWMAN, REPEAT POINT)

It would be interesting had Obis signed it without legal immunity for our forces, and there were several standing trial in Iraq courts.
.

](RED HERRING, STRAWMAN, REPEAT POINT)

Your argument is both a strawman and a red herring, it's a strawman because it deliberately distorts reality and assumes that we are arguing that alternative distorted reality. You're not addressing the actual reality on the ground there. It's a red herring, because it's designed to draw away from the actual argument.

Again:

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 a SOFA agreement, we would've had that SOFA agreement.

The Iraqis, and the US military, 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.

Your 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.

Had this administration worked with the Iraqis in getting SOFA, the military leadership deployed to the green zone, and the US ambassador, would've made sure that Al Malaki would've continued to have an inclusive government.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

the barrage of blame coming from the right. Bottom line is either way it gives the o'blamers something to whine about

You people, including your dear leader, love to blame the Republicans for trivial shit. You guys also love to blame the Republicans for things that are rightfully the issues that your dear leader dropped the ball on.

We conservatives are going to research and analyze before we pin the blame. When we do pin the blame, it'll be a rightful placement. For example, Obama's failure with Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc.

If you listen to those "on the right," you'll get the actual facts that Obama had no will to work on a Status of Forces Agreement. NONE. He deliberately made it hard for the Iraqis, who were more than willing to give us immunity under A SOFA agreement.

His failure to follow the advice of the military, as well as that of the Iraqis, contributed greatly to the situation we have on the ground in Iraq right now. That's a rightful placement of the blame, and it's based on the facts.

Since you ignored my questions the last time, here they are again:

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I predict that after this reply, you're going to come here and comment. Your going to prove, through your own actions, that you're wrong about your own actions just as you were wrong like you were majority of times on this thread.

When you do jump on this thread to directly or indirectly address something that I said, or something that someone in my side argument has said, you're going to prove... with your own actions... that I'm right even when I'm talking about your actions in the face of you being wrong.

You're not the first person that repeatedly hinted that he/she was "done" with an argument. Like the others, you're not saying this because you're tired of the argument, but because you're hoping that you're saying this will discourage others or me from challenging your BS.

Once again, you were wrong about what you said with regards to what you were going to do. I was right about what you were going to do. Even when it comes to your actions, you're wrong and I'm right. If you can't get straight what you're going to say, what makes you think that anything else that you talk about is going to be right?

So I'va biggen, were you wrong about you being finished with this "discussion"? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Simply copy and paste this question, and the "yes" and "no" option to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Add no further nonsense to your reply.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Good ,looks like you blew your brain out. Assholes like you claim you were military personnel, then dishonor them.

With the way you talked to me, and to other veterans, you shouldn't be complaining about someone else allegedly dishonoring military personnel. Bigtext is hinting that he was military, he dishonors the war dead by using their numbers in an argument against a war the vast majority of them supported.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

frankly, I think this guy is an IBIdiot wannabe.

Wrong, Gidyup Gay Ridden, I've been like this years before I posted on ECCIE. I never posted on the message board that preceded ECCIE, and I didn't start posting on ECCIE until 2010. I've argued like this YEARS before coming here.

How does that constitute my trying to be like IB if I've been like this before I saw IB's first post? You've also failed to answer my question, so here we go again:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

Which leads to the question:

Where, in my posts here, did I claim to be the ONLY veteran?

I know for fact that you can look at that question, and the preceding quotes, and realize that you're wrong. You're understandably, and rightfully, feeling embarrassed because of that mistake. If you choose to ignore that question then consider this question:

Where you wrong when you accused me of claiming to be the only veteran on the board? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I posted the following (related) excerpt from an article a few weeks ago:

Yes, and I rebutted that article right after you posted it. What makes you think that I'm going to see things differently now if I rebutted it the last time? This is why I associate you, and others on your side of the argument, with a parrot that keeps asking Polly if she wants a cracker. What is it that they say about doing the same thing and expecting different results? Now, watch me rebut it AGAIN.

Originally Posted by bigtex

(REPEAT POINT)
"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."

In fact, Condi took it a step further when she made the following claim:

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Please note: Condi referenced a "mushroom cloud," not "freedom."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr....html?_s=PM:US

Here's the argument that you added to this:

"See the trend here? HENCE: Weapons of Mass Destruction!" -bigtext

First:

How many times does the word "Independence" show up in the Declaration of Independence?

Using your own logic, the American Revolution "couldn't" have been about our securing our independence from the crown.

Second, what you said to follow that argument up, and my response:

"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!" -- bigtex (Emphasis mine)

What part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand? The thrust of your argument was that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq, te wit:

"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." -- bigtex (Empahsis mine)

Both statements imply that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq. You further challenged the opposition to provide evidence that there was another reason. I helped him do that by linking to George Bush's own speeches. Your better came in and provided an official document.

Regardless of how many times WMD is mentioned in the documents and speeches that you reference, that doesn't dismiss the fact that you were WRONG by arguing that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq.

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

So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the reply that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.

Also, WMD were found in Iraq. Many of the IEDs used against the troops were laced with Sarin, Mustard, and Blister agents. In fact, prior to my going on R & R leave during my Iraq deployment, a couple of Iraqi security members in our AO suffered blister laced IED attacks.

Again, Sarin, blister, and mustard agents ARE weapons of mass destruction, and they were used against our forces post invasion. Many containers of these chemical agents were found in Iraq and dealt with by the US forces post invasion.

Anybody, Republican or Democrat, that states that there were "no" WMD in Iraq is simply wrong. Nowhere in this thread that I mentioned that the Republicans were right 100% of the time.

Your implication that I insinuated a single reason to going into Iraq was also in error, because my argument has been consistent that WMD, freedom, and other reasons were used for going into Iraq. I've made that argument since late 2003.

bigtex: My argument all along has been (and still remains)

Your argument all along has been, and still remains, WRONG. My replies to your arguments are consistent to similar arguments spewed in the past.

bigtex: that there would have been justification for an invasion

You do realize that there was a cease fire agreement, right? A cease fire agreement isn't a declaration of peace, or an end of war. In this case, it was putting war on hold pending Iraq's meeting certain conditions.

Among these conditions was that Saddam Hussein had to come clean with his weapons programs, any chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon or weapon components.

His failure to meet those conditions were enough for us to go to war with them. We had the option to go to war with Iraq the moment they had their first violation. But we didn't. We gave diplomacy a chance... twice. Diplomacy didn't work.

Remember, a cease fire isn't an end of war. A cease-fire puts a war on hold.

bigtex: had there been conclusive evidence indicating that Iraq had the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons at the time.

First, this wasn't a specific requirement in Iraq's nuclear program. The aim of the cease fire agreement, and the UN resolution, was in all components of weapons mass destruction in Iraq. This included, chemical, biological, and nuclear related material.

You are zeroing in on the "nuclear" aspect of it. You are zeroing in on the nuclear stockpile question. The actual resolutions zeroed in on the entire program.

Almost immediately, the Iraqis were caught red-handed with WMD program related items after the Iraqi government claimed that they didn't have it. The first incident would've been justification for invading Iraq.

The reality is we had a legal justification to resuming combat operations in Iraq the moment they violated the terms of the agreement.

bigtex: And quite frankly,

Given the lack of credibility, and the factual sufficiency of your comments, you're being "frank," only suggests that you're being frank about shooting BS at us as if they were machine gun ran rounds.

bigtex: that is the specific reason the UN Inspectors were in place during the months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Weapons Inspectors were there specifically to determine whether Iraq had nuclear capability at the time. There was no other reason for them to be in place during the weeks and months leading up to the spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Wrong, these inspectors were not there to only look for nuclear weapons. They received a broad mission the required them to search for evidence of either program or weapons. They were looking for chemical, biological, and nuclear related materials or activity.

One of the first steps that the Iraqis had to take was to provide an inventory and accounting of their WMD programs. The Iraqis did provide an inventory, but it had a lot of holes in it. There were too many inconsistencies.

In 2003, the inspectors discover 12 chemical warheads. Although 11 were empty, chemical agents were used against the troops post invasion. Contrary to what you claim, the UN called for an accounting of chemical, biological, and nuclear material, not just nuclear.

Again, the UN resolution on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was far more than just what you claim.

Also, weapons of mass destruction consists of chemical, biological, and nuclear materials. Chemical agents have been used against the troops post invasion. Saying that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction is like saying that the sun does not produce its own light.

The Iraq war was not ill fated or ill advised. It was well advised, the Iraq war was the logical next step in the war terror. The United States military succeeded in Iraq, so it was not ill fated either.

Your arguing with my side of the argument; however, is both ill-fated and ill advised for you.

bigtex: I said at the time (in another forum), let's give the Inspectors time to complete their mission. Hans Blix even put a specific time period on how long it would take (weapons inspectors) to complete their task. That being approximately 6 months.

Now THAT would've been ill fated and ill advised. If you look at the timeline of the inspection, both in the 1990s and last decade, you'd see a pattern of deception coming from Iraq under Saddam. From the beginning of the inspections in the 1990s, the Iraqis had been caught red-handed with something that they claimed they didn't have.

It didn't matter if that "something" was a chemical, biological, or nuclear agent, or if that "something" was a missile that they weren't supposed to have. The Iraqis were deceptive and consistently worked against the inspectors.

According to Stanislav Lunev, a Russian defector, the Russian Special Forces were in Iraq assisting Saddam Hussein move his weapons of mass destruction. The Russian Special Forces were helping Iraq deceive the weapons inspectors with regards to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

He knew, because he was one of those forces. He wasn't Special Forces, but he was in a unit that was considered an auxiliary to the Special Forces. He detailed his account of how he trained the Iraqis to create a casing to look like a normal rock in order to hold the weapons of mass destruction.

In the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein complained about the spies that were in the weapons inspection teams. That wasn't a BS claim. Every major power had spies in that inspection team. The Russian spies in the inspection team worked with the Russian Special Forces helping the Iraqis move their WMD around so that they could help the Iraqis stay one step ahead of the weapons inspection teams.

This pattern repeated itself last decade, before the Iraq war.

Whenever I hear a dummy tell me that inspection team should've had more time, I end up hearing this, "We should've let the Russians fool us a lot longer."

The Iraqis played this game with the inspection teams from 1991 to 1998. They resumed playing these games in 2002. Historical trend showes that they would've continued playing these games with the inspectors had they been given more time.

Given the asymmetrical realities that I talked about earlier in this thread, we had to go in. Thanks to those Russian special forces, Hans Blix would've have found shit regardless of how long they would've been allowed to keep looking.

It was blatantly obvious, and the weeks leading to the invasion, that Hans Blix was trying to delay the inevitable despite the lack of cooperation he was getting. He even pleaded with the Iraqis to quit playing games... on the account of the buildup of military forces near their borders and in the Persian Gulf.

bigtex: If the Inspectors were to find nuclear capability, a targeted invasion would have been justified (something along the lines of GHW Bush's invasion during the early 90's).

Actually, if they were to find a nuclear capability, that only would've indicated the tip of an iceberg. A targeted invasion would've been pointless. You suggested an invasion similar to that which didn't destroy Saddam Hussein's capability. After the invasion, Saddam Hussein played games with the UN inspectors.

Historic trends show that giving the inspectors more time to inspect would've been giving them a chance to waste more time. It also shows that a limited invasion would not have solved the problem. The invasion that we actually did actually solved the problem with Iraq and WMD. The last time I checked, the current Iraq government isn't engaged in a weapons of mass destruction program.

bigtex: Instead the U.N. Inspectors were removed from Iraq, the invasion occurred and the rest is sordid history.

Which is what should've happened. It was blatantly obvious that the Iraqis were playing the same games prior to the Iraqi invasion that they played in the 1990s. If we would've taken your suggestions, which is consistent with the arguments that the liberals were advancing, we'd still be hearing reports from the inspectors in Iraq getting led around by the nose.

This isn't sordid. Invading Iraq was a right course of action for the reasons stated prior to the Iraq invasion. These are the reasons I've argued on this thread and on other threads over the past 10 years. It was up to the current administration to capitalize on our successes. The Obama administration failed to do so, more on that later.

bigtex: Despite your repeated efforts to portray the spring of 2003 invasion as something noble,

It's "repeated" because there's a repeated effort by ignorant people, people susceptible to propaganda, people that are useful idiots to the enemy, to denigrate the Iraq invasion as something other than noble.

Unlike you, I have boots on the ground experience with regards to the Iraq War. I've seen firsthand the efforts that we've put into there. We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory. Your dear leader is in the process of losing it.

bigtex: it turned into the worst US foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.

WRONG. Invading Iraq was one of the smartest things this country could do. It was "brilliant." If you look at the map the Middle East, you see a checkerboard pattern of countries in different states of democracy. If you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll see a country in between those two... a key "steal" if they end up coming to our side. If your dear leader would only do what's required for Iraq and Afghanistan, that'd happen.

Ever since last decade, I've argued that our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were going to create a ripple effect. People were going to talk to each other. People would eventually want what the Iraqis and Afghanis were getting under US occupation.

Like you, people insisted that I was "wrong," quotation marks used strongly. Well, the first state of that ripple effect happened in the form of the Arab spring.

It was up to Pres. Obama and his administration to capitalize on that. Instead of capitalizing on that movement, the White House consistently took the wrong side. He almost failed to act in time to assist the Libyan rebels against Qaddafi. He sided against the Egyptian people in the form of his support for the Muslim brotherhood... they ended up grabbing their democracy despite Obama's fluttering on this one. President Obama failed to take initiative in Syria by quickly finding moderate rebels and making them stronger than the other rebels.

And get this, as with Benghazi, Pres. Obama received warning signs that the terrorists were to flood into Iraq. The leader of Iraq tried to get Obama to provide military assistance months before it happened. He saw the writing on the wall, Obama didn't.

Just as Pres. Obama failed the diplomatic corps in Benghazi, he failed our allies in Iraq. President Bush made a brilliant move to invade Iraq. The US military won it with a straight cut victory. Pres. Obama, and people like you, did for this war what your anti Vietnam War counterparts did right after the Vietnam War ended for the US in 1973: pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

The blame should go on President Obama.

bigtex: Even Glen Beck now agrees the spring of 2003 invasion proved to be a mistake.

Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a "mistake," quotation marks used strongly. Electing Pres. Obama to the White House WAS the mistake. His policies resulted in these mistakes which resulted in loss of our gains in Iraq, as well as the gains the US made on the world stage prior to his arival.

Glenn Beck lost all credibility with me when he raised the white flag and failed to see that.

Like I said before:

The vast majority of the Iraqis wanted to be free. I saw that from information feeds that I got from units there, I got that from first hand observations when I was there. The Iraqis showed their appreciation for having the chance to enjoy their freedoms.

Even in many areas under ISIS control, strict Islamic law isn't being implemented... the people want to continue being free from that. Also, many Iraqis have answered the Iraqi government's call to take up arms and to be ready to fight ISIS.

They did this, because they WANT freedom.

Glenn Beck doesn't know his asshole from a hole on the ground with that statement, because he's here and isn't privy to what's going on over there... outside of second hand information.

The liberals were wrong about the Iraq War, and they're STILL wrong about it. I'm taking that argument with me to the grave.

The blame should be pinned on Washington DC's failure to capitalize on the successes that the military gained over there. Again, as was stated earlier in this thread, had this administration been willing to keep forces there to provide training and support, the Iraqi military would've been able to repel borders today.

Obama failed to get an agreement that the Iraqis were willing to agree to... we're seeing the results before our eyes.

Again, see my example above. Glenn Beck is wrong. His abandoning the facts in the face of the situation getting tougher... in order for us to "come together" with the liberals who've always been wrong about Iraq... is a piss poor strategy to take.

I'll be willing to "come together" with the liberals on Iraq the moment they pull their heads out of their asses and remove their horse-blinders. The moment they do this, they'd stop spewing their anti Iraq War drivel.

bigtex: The invasion itself ultimately cost us 4500+ American lives and approximately $1 trillion taxpayer dollars. (REPEAT POINT)

First, you don't speak for those that have fallen. The vast majority of those that have fallen in combat in Iraq believe in the very concept that I'm advancing on this thread. The vast majority of those that died in Iraq had an understanding of what was going on disagreed with what you argued on this thread.

Since I identify with most of them, it's safe to say that they wouldn't appreciate you using their deaths in an argument against the war that the vast majority of them believed in. I most certainly would not have appreciated my family members, my friends, or anybody else using my "death," had I gotten killed over there, in an argument against that war.

Here's an example. This Soldier voices frustration at those who opposed Iraq war, and who were trying to act that opposition out by defunding the Iraq war. What this guy said is representative of how the vast majority of us Iraq War Veterans feel, and he expressed the frustration that we had with those that opposed the war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh1dWrf-k_E:

bigtex: and approximately $1 trillion taxpayer dollars.

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

"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)

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.

A European gets it but you don't, this is a struggle were one or the other side accomplishes its objective. If we lose, that $1 trillion would be chump change compared to what our descendants would be paying in both money and suffering.

bigtex: Iraq turned into one of, if not the, leading reason that the Democratic nominee won the next two Presidential elections.

Just as you are clueless about the Iraq war, about asymmetrical warfare, and about global current events, you seem to be clueless about US current events.

Prior to the stock market crash, John McCain was making progress. He was getting to the point to where he would've passed Obama up. However, the stock market crash and economic events related to it guaranteed that the Democrats would win.

This hinged heavily on a largely emotional and uninformed electorate that is easily susceptible to propaganda. Here's an example, these people were very "knowledgeable" about the things that the mainstream media wanted them to know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

This is consistent with other videos testing democrat voter knowledge... these people are mightily ignorant and clueless... but hey, they knew the stupid shit! :mrgreen: One trend that I saw with that and other videos, as well as your posts and those on your side of the argument, is the gullibility trend. I wouldn't be surprised if you people were to believe a provider if she were to tell you that her poo was actually chocolate. :roll:

The Democrats weren't the only one celebrating Obama's victories. Our enemies were also celebrating. Our enemies, and our adversaries, rightfully see the Democrats as being incompetent when it comes to waging a war and when it comes to foreign policy.

President Obama's colossal failure at foreign policy, and addressing geostrategic issues, proved to be a boon to both our adversaries and to our enemies.

Both the Chinese and Russians have gotten bolder with there actions against their neighbors because they rightly know that president Obama is indecisive.

Cheering the collective action of a group of people that cannot think, who are very susceptible to propaganda, isn't something to cheer. Remember, Adolf Hitler won his election utilizing the same principle, fooling a lot of people to vote for him.

What you're praising is a result of a propaganda effort that started in the 1930s. This is a propaganda effort started by the Soviets. This propaganda effort called for influencing schools, Hollywood, political parties, and other institutions with opinion leaders.

The aim of that propaganda? To destroy the United States from within by waging war against the very philosophy that made it great in the first place. The election results of 2006, 2008, and 2012 are positive impact indicators for those who want the United States to move closer to communism.

Cheering Democrat victories in 2008 and 2012 is essentially cheering the United States move to communism. It's also cheering the media's success in making gullible people vote for the media's choice for president.

bigtex: You can hide your eyes in the sand if you like.

The problem isn't with me, it's with you. You have your head shoved so far up your ass that you need a glass belly button to see. It doesn't help that you have horse blinders on too. If you pulled your head out of your ass, and removed your large horse blinders, you'd see that I'm not the one with my eyes "in the sand," quotation marks used strongly.

It's blatantly obvious that I'm the only one, between the two of us, that has combat deployed to Iraq. Your arguments against the Iraq war are based on ignorance, and they're arrogance based emotion. Had you gone to Iraq, as a combat deployed soldier, you wouldn't be spewing drivel and rubbish like you are doing on this thread.

bigtex: But the fact remains:

What fact? You've spewed nothing but BS.

bigtex: The spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq was a HUGE mistake. (REPEAT POINT)

Wrong, Bush contributed to US military and the coalition's winning the war in Iraq. The most idiotic statements I've heard are statements saying that we lost Iraq war, that there were no WMD, that there was a civil war there, that Iraq was a mistake, and so on.

The people that opposed the Iraq war did so based on misinformation, and based on lack of understanding of the geostrategic situation. These people have no understanding of the enemy that we're dealing with. Under asymmetrical warfare, going into Iraq made perfect sense. It was up to the politicians in Washington DC, specifically the current administration, to continue to build on what we started over there.

We won Iraq war with a straight cut victory. It was on the American people to select the right people to political office to nurture what we handed to them. Remember the Democrat victory in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012? Yup, that contributed to the mess that we're seeing in Iraq today.

bigtex: Quit trying to put lipstick on a pig (Darth Cheney), you will never make ol' "Dick" attractive. (Inductive Fallacy)

First, my independently coming to a similar conclusion that Cheney came to ins't me putting lipstick on him or his argument. It's simply me coming up with a very similar conclusion based on the facts.

Your statement is as idiotic as saying that I am putting lipstick on you because I also agree that one plus one equals two.

Second, if you have issues with me constantly advancing my arguments on this thread, then realize that I'm responding to the ignorance being spewed on this thread. You, and the others that I'm arguing with here, are extremely ignorant and clueless about what's going on in the world and in the United States.

I'm showing neutral readers of this thread how clueless your side of the argument is. People on my side of the argument are engaging in a personal counter propaganda campaign here and on other threads on the internet.

bigtex: Excellent description of your post. Indeed, it was a powerful way to summarize your very own words! I could not have said it better myself!

A critical thinker interpreted that statement as his accurately describing your posts. You've done nothing but spew BS on this thread, and so have the people that are arguing on your side of the argument.

bigtex: LLIdiot is still trying to put lipstick on the (Darth Cheney) pig.

Again, providing your side of the argument with the facts that your propagandists held back from you doesn't constitute putting lipstick on Mr. Cheney. It's simply them independently coming up with similar conclusions based on looking at similar facts.

bigtex: Despite 12 years of trying, he has yet to make ol' "Dick" (or the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq) attractive. Keep up the futile work, LLIdiot!

Not "trying" but succeeding in countering your propaganda every step of the way. He's not expecting you to change your mind... that doesn't matter. What matters is that we consistently destroy your misinformation with the facts so that a third person... not interested in taking a stake in either of our arguments... would see that your side of the argument is full of BS.

Again, the invasion of Iraq was the right move at the right time. It was the logical next step in the war on terror. We had to go in given the asymmetrical threats that we faced from Saddam and his antics.

His destroying your arguments isn't "futile," because you lose credibility every time one of our counter rebuttals destroys your rebuttals.

I'm seeing this statement for what it is... you trying to tell the opposition to quit destroying your argument in a way that even causes you to doubt your own arguments. You're making a futile effort to get him to let your BS stand. Not happening.

bigtex: It should be noted that the Patriarch of the Idiot Klan, errrr Clan

You do realize that the KKK had its beginnings in the hands of disgruntled Democrats, do you? Their first job was to bother northerners (Federal troops and contractors), Republicans, and blacks, who were mostly republican after the Civil War.

I had to mention this on the account of the ignorant assumption that the "Klan" was a Republican thing... it wasn't/isn't. Your associating us with the Klan reflects your colossal lack of understanding of US history.

bigtex: has a very long history of being totally incapable of admitting mistakes. It seems to run rampant in the entire Idiot Family.

Considering your consistent failure to answer the simple, straightforward, questions that I've asked you on this thread, you don't have a leg to stand on telling people that they can't admit to their mistakes.

My question calls your own argument into question, and you know that the correct answer to that question destroys your argument. That'd require you to admit to your mistakes. But, given your inability to admit to your mistakes, you avoid my question in a futile effort to get me to forget asking it so that you wouldn't have to deal with it.

Sorry, as long as you reply to me, or respond to any argument that I'm supporting, I'm going to keep asking you my questions.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Since you brought the issue up, please tell us of your vast amount of "military experience."

Please Note: There is no need to share Cub and Boy Scout adventures!

I've given you information based on my first hand experiences from my combat deployment to Iraq. You attempt to dismiss those experiences, as they counter the argument that you're trying to make here.

Why should they share their military experiences with you when you've shown that you have absolutely no respect, or care, for other people's military experiences... especially if they have everything to do with the argument, and if they go against your arguments?

You like to say, "Airborne" as if you were a jump qualified veteran. Given your arguments on this thread, your admitting to be a veteran actually makes you look worse. You simply lack the analytical thinking abilities of most veterans, and you spew too much BS.

But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you did jump out of airplanes. This'd lead to another question. You've jumped out of airplanes, but you're afraid to answer simple, straightforward questions?

Originally Posted by bigtex

I agree somewhat! I believe that Cheney and Rummy both felt that the elder and smarter Bush held them back during the early 90's and this was their final opportunity to complete the Mission they hoped to Accomplish 10-12 years earlier.

Wrong. The conditions on the ground were different in the early 1990s than they were early 21st Century. Back then, we weren't dealing with an asymmetrical threat that was leading all of our threats. There was no need to invade all of Iraq in 1991. The only required action then was to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and to get the Iraqis under a UN resolution that required foreign oversight.

After asymmetrical warfare was used against us in a way that took thousands of lives in one day, people woke up to the asymmetrical warfare reality that we faced.

It's like what I said earlier in this thread... under asymmetrical warfare, allowing Iraq to play games with the UN with regards to its WMD programs is like standing in a room full of easily flammable liquids with someone playing with matches... we HAD to go in.

Second, the "Mission Accomplished" sign was applicable to the Navy ship's mission, not to the overall military mission. The ship's specific mission was to serve as a platform for naval air fire power. Given the mission on the ground, they had to stay on station longer than what they would've done had the Iraq War not take place. When the ship finally accomplished that mission, they proudly displayed that banner... it was intended only for the ship, not for the entire military.

Neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney were itching to invade Iraq constantly since the 1990s.

Originally Posted by bigtex

I further believe that Cheney and Rummy convinced Bush the Dumber that the spring of 2003 invasion was necessary and the Shrub bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

Wrong. Right after the 9/11 attacks, someone recommended that Iraq get invaded. President Bush rejected that option, and chose to invade Afghanistan first. If what you said were true, we would've invaded Iraq first. That didn't happen.

Iraq was given a chance to avoid getting invaded, Saddam blew it. The asymmetrical realities that we faced dictated that we had to go into Iraq militarily.

Also, if you're looking for a dummy that sat in the White House, look no further than the dummy that's president now.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Unfortunately, so did many members (both Democratic and Republican) of the US Congress.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, both side of the political isle woke up to a more serious threat than conventional. This was the asymmetrical threat that allowed weak and small organizations to give a strong country a "sucker punch." Both sides saw reality, and acted based on that reality.

Unfortunately, your side of the political isle slumped back into a stupor and went back on your "I hate Bush" feeding frenzies... doing exactly what our enemies wanted all of us to do... oppose the Iraq War.

Based on what you've stated here, on the arguments you've made in the past, you've essentially admitted to being a useful idiot to our enemies.

Originally Posted by bigtex

In any event, Shrubya ("The Decider" In Chief) had the final say

And he decided to invade Afghanistan first, as opposed to going to Iraq first as someone had suggested to him.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Let us all hope there will never be a worse foreign policy decision made in the future, by an American President.

The worst foreign policy decisions made, by a US president, were made since 2009. Dragging ass with Benghazi? Obama's policy. Dragging ass with arming the right groups early in Syria? Obama's policy. Refusing to take action in late 2013 when it was becoming clear that the terrorists were going to flood into Iraq? Obama's policy. Fast and Furious? Obama's policy.

Historically, Democrats have proven to be incompetent when it came to foreign policy from John F. Kennedy and afterwards.

Originally Posted by bigtex

The Declaration was a different age and a different time.

It doesn't matter. You're advancing an argument, erroneously, that since weapons was mentioned a certain amount of time, that the justification for war with Iraq was ONLY because of WMD. By logical extension, if other reasons weren't mentioned, that these other reasons "weren't" really reasons.

To counter that, you had your face shoved into your own inductive fallacy with the point that "Independence" doesn't show up in the text of the Declaration of Independence. Using your own line of argument, this'd mean that the American Revolution "wasn't" about independence at all.

Originally Posted by bigtex

It is hard to ignore those simple facts, ain't it?

It comes easy for you, partly because you ignore my questions consistently.

Originally Posted by bigtex

We finally found something we can agree on.

"All the Way" back at ya!

You missed out on the sarcasm, didn't you? He had "Airborne" in quotes. Assuming that you're jump qualified, are you insinuating that you have no issues jumping from airplanes, but are afraid to answer my simple questions? This is just one example, of which there are many, where you show that it's very easy for you to ignore the facts.

"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)

I'm going to keep asking you this question for as long as you insist on replying to me or as long as you insist on replying to something I argued:

So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the reply that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

Running around the deck of a ship with Marines that will actually go to combat is not the same as combat experience JD.

First, during OIF 1, ships in the Persian Gulf had to go to battle stations/General Quarters in response to actual missiles headed to their area. Amphibious ships, supply ships, aircraft carrier battle groups, etc, all had to react. Prior to many of these ships sailing to station in the Persian Gulf, the US Air Force bombarded anti-ship missile batteries that could threaten these ships.

Second, if I remember right, JD said that he was in the Army during the Gulf War. He would've deployed to the northern part of Saudi Arabia, and then into Iraq, as boots on the ground.

Third, it's a good thing that you're on bigtext's side of the argument, otherwise he would've complained about you dishonoring service members. You simply DON'T denigrate someone's service because of where they were during time of war, or what they've done relative to the war effort. Its one thing to see if their military service gives them relevance on a thread or not. It's another issue when you use it as an attempted slam.

WTF: It is apparent that actual facts mean nothing to you.

BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAA! :mrgreen: This from the guy that argues against the facts, because they go against his own beliefs. :mrgreen: Facts mean nothing to those that I'm arguing against here.

WTF: You think the 2003 invasion of Iraq was correct

I know for a FACT that it was the correct course of action.

WTF: I would put Iraq more on Cheney and all the Democrats that went along even after the WMD inspectors had found nothing and wanted more time....and of course people like you who were gung ho to get us into that war.

The Bush Administration handed a succeeding operation to the Obama Administration. The United States military won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. All that was required was for Washington DC to work with both, the US military and with the Iraqi government in order to capitalize on our successes there. President Obama failed miserably, and we're seeing the results right now.

Leave it to the Democrats to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Oh yeah, you owe some answers to:

Are Super Bowl fans on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl in lieu of the football players on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl? YES [ ] NO [ ]

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 these questions and their "yes" and "no" options to your reply and put an "X" in the appropriate option that represents your reply. Spare me any nonsense reply that you'd want to add to that.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by stevepar

Iraq was LOST about 2 minutes after operation shock and awe was completed

Iraq was won the moment we started military operations against that country... which really was a continuous operation since the end of the Gulf War. The moment shock and awe happened, and the US military rolled into Iraq, we won. We won consistently, and soundly, throughout the Iraq operation.

I'm an Iraq War veteran, I combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman. Based on my own first hand experiences, to include what we saw while we were there, I know for a FACT that the United States military won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory.

Originally Posted by stevepar

....although prez george landed on an aircraft carrier under a banner that said "MISSIOM ACCOMPLISHED we all knew he was wrong....

Wrong. Those of you that opposed George Bush wanted him to be wrong. You guys; however, were dead wrong.

Again, the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the ship wasn't intended to communicate for George Bush, and it wasn't intended to communicate for the United States military. It was intended to communicate for the ship displaying that banner.

I know. I was in the Navy before I joined the Army. The ships that I was on did the same thing. That banner was intended specifically for the family of the members of the crew, generally for the community surrounding that ship's home port, and loosely for the American public.

If you read the text of his speech he made that day he landed on the flight deck, you'd notice that nowhere in there does he proclaim that the Iraq War was over. He only said major combat operations were over, he never said anything about minor combat operations being over. He also described how it was going to be like over there... to include the "dangerous road ahead" and the fact that we weren't going to leave there until Iraq was stable. That's precisely what happened.

So, those who thought they "knew," quotation marks used strongly, that Bush was "wrong," quotation marks used strongly, simply didn't know what they were thinking... they just ran off with what liberal talking heads said, and allowed the liberal Kool-Aid to be forced down their throats... instead of doing the research necessary to actually know what was going on.

Originally Posted by stevepar

the current situation is caused by the p.m. of Iraq....al malika or some such spelling who refuses to reach out to anyone other than those of his own religion....he's a shiite....when repeatedly trying to form a government....he excluded the kurds and sunnis'...

This is an example of a narrative that I'm hearing from liberal propagandists.

When the US military was in Iraq, the military leadership and the US Ambassador made damn sure that al Malaki formed an inclusive government. As the end of 2011 drew near, the Iraqis were becoming more willing to agree on a SOFA. President Obama deliberately didn't want to work with Iraq.

The result? The US military wasn't able to remain behind to put force behind the US Ambassador's will for Iraq to maintain an inclusive government. After the US military left, al Malaki started to arrest key members and to isolate the other groups in favor of his Shiite majority.

That didn't play out very well... it wouldn't have played out at all had Obama worked with the US military and with Iraq, and the Iraqi military would've been able to prevent the terrorists from spilling over.

You're not able to let Obama off the hook on this one. He had a chance to correct his mistakes when the Iraqis, and US organizations, started to raise the alarm about the terrorist groups forming and being able to spread into Iraq in the face of the decline of the quality of their security forces.

[Yssup Rider]

HERASSMENT ... This might be the biggest blowhard motherfucker on the board.

Everything that's arrogant, annoying, intolerant, ignorant, irresponsible, rude and irritating about everybody you find distasteful in this forum is stuffed into one bucket of shit... And then some. No matter which way you lean.

Come on, herassment, argue with every single fucking word of this post, like anybody wants to read it.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU'D SEEN THE APEX OF DIPSHITTERY, ANOTHER ONE RISES FROM THE OOZE!

[Yssup Rider]

BTW -- I predict he'll be back every day this week to continue his arguing over his debating tactics.

Please, herassment, prove me wrong.

() YES. () NO

Please prove me wrong by staying out of my booby traps!

[i'va biggen]

LMAO her ass chair is trying his/her ass off for the dumbest mother fucker on the board award. The babbling/ parroting idiot is really pathetic. Even the other right wingers should bitch slap him/her it is making the rest look bad....

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LMAO her ass chair is trying his/her ass off for the dumbest mother fucker on the board award. The babbling/ parroting idiot is really pathetic. Even the other right wingers should bitch slap him/her it is making the rest look bad....

Wait s second! You mentioned him by name! Does this mean you fell into another of his intricately conceived and skillfully laid BOOBY TRAPS?

( ) YES ( ) NO

Do you believe all men are mortal?

( ) YES ( ) NO

Is Socrates a man?

( ) YES ( ) NO

Do you conclude on this hooker board, then, that Socrates is mortal?

( ) YES ( ) NO

How about that only the veterans on this board have a fucking clue about foreign policy?

( ) YES ( ) NO

Are there more veterans on this board than HERASSMENT and JDIdiot?

( ) YES ( ) NO

DO YOU GIVE A FUCK?

( ) YES ( ) NO

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU'D SEEN THE APEX OF DIPSHITTERY, ANOTHER ONE RISES FROM THE OOZE!

Don't worry, AssupRidee, DEM, DOTY 2013-2014. Your title is secure..

DIPSHIT EMERITUS

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

. See , I'm not a hypocrite

Now THAT'S funny! Reminds me of the crook who assured everyone that "I am not a crook." He didn't fool anyone, and neither do you. WPF!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Good ,looks like you blew your brain out. Assholes like you claim you were military personnel, then dishonor them.

Like a rag master like you would know anything about the military.