Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 28, 2015, 11:16:59 AM
-
Confirming what we already knew.
No Lie
Bob Woodward throws cold water on the left's claim that Bush lied the nation into war with Iraq.
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/cde33af/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F82%2F7d052c1e535c99476c6f3dcd000233%2F8313FE_PR_081208bush_legacy.jpg)
Nope, didn't lie.
By Peter Roff
May 26, 2015
For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.
Like him or not – and there are plenty who don't – he's got the scalps on his belt to prove he knows what he's doing.
His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.
Bush's political opponents like to make this claim to delegitimize not just the war but his entire presidency. No man who knowingly and dishonestly took a nation to war is worthy of any kind of honor, hence history's reluctance to focus on the substantive accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson. Whatever good he did is eclipsed by his use of a fabricated incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to secure congressional authority to increase the number of combat troops being sent to South Vietnam. The notion that Bush lied in similar fashion about Iraq discredits – in the eyes of his political opponents certainly – everything he did, everything he stood for and everything he accomplished.
It's a brutal axe but, according to Woodward, one that is itself based on an untruth. An argument could certainly and persuasively be made, he told moderator Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," that the Iraq War was a mistake, but "there was no lying in this that I could find."
According to Woodward, Bush himself was skeptical about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and urged caution on then-CIA Director George Tenet lest he stretch the case that there were.
The whole thing of course exploded after Bush, in a speech to Congress, asserted that foreign intelligence sources had shared with the U.S. information that Saddam Hussein's regime had attempted to procure yellowcake uranium from guy, a country in the African Sahara, only to have former U.S. Amb. Joe Wilson claim he had investigated the claim and found it wanting, as he said in The New York Times in a piece called "What I Didn't Find in Africa."
That Wilson's investigation was hardly thorough enough to be called the last word on the matter was soon lost in the rising storm over the claim that someone in the White House (it later turned out to be the No. 2 man at the U.S. Department of State) had, in pushing back on what Wilson was saying, told at least one reporter that Wilson's wife (who went professionally by the name Valerie Plame) was a covert CIA employee.
For a time the whole business made celebrities out of Wilson and his wife among Democrats, the left-wing intelligensia and the Hollywood crowd. And it made goats out of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others who asserted that Hussein's drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction – in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended 1991's Gulf War – rendered him a global threat that needed to be dealt with harshly and severely.
Woodward's already being bashed for letting this little bit of truth out into the open. Esquire magazine is already up with a post questioning his integrity and saying he sounds like "someone waiting for that check from a Nigerian price to clear." More of the same is coming. Too many people have too much invested in the idea that Bush lied to allow the debate to start up again on the chance that they were wrong. It won't change what happened if those people were in fact wrong, any more than it will change any of the outcomes; what it will do is generate some confusion about who wears the white hats and who wears the black ones, which is not what the progressive Democrats – who are still reeling from President Barack Obama's foreign policy failures – need right now. After all, if Bush didn't lie, how can it be his fault that the Islamic State group continues to gain ground in Iraq now that Obama has pulled almost all the troops out of there?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war
-
Confirming what we already knew.
No Lie
Bob Woodward throws cold water on the left's claim that Bush lied the nation into war with Iraq.
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/cde33af/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F82%2F7d052c1e535c99476c6f3dcd000233%2F8313FE_PR_081208bush_legacy.jpg)
Nope, didn't lie.
By Peter Roff
May 26, 2015
For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.
Like him or not – and there are plenty who don't – he's got the scalps on his belt to prove he knows what he's doing.
His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.
Bush's political opponents like to make this claim to delegitimize not just the war but his entire presidency. No man who knowingly and dishonestly took a nation to war is worthy of any kind of honor, hence history's reluctance to focus on the substantive accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson. Whatever good he did is eclipsed by his use of a fabricated incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to secure congressional authority to increase the number of combat troops being sent to South Vietnam. The notion that Bush lied in similar fashion about Iraq discredits – in the eyes of his political opponents certainly – everything he did, everything he stood for and everything he accomplished.
It's a brutal axe but, according to Woodward, one that is itself based on an untruth. An argument could certainly and persuasively be made, he told moderator Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," that the Iraq War was a mistake, but "there was no lying in this that I could find."
According to Woodward, Bush himself was skeptical about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and urged caution on then-CIA Director George Tenet lest he stretch the case that there were.
The whole thing of course exploded after Bush, in a speech to Congress, asserted that foreign intelligence sources had shared with the U.S. information that Saddam Hussein's regime had attempted to procure yellowcake uranium from guy, a country in the African Sahara, only to have former U.S. Amb. Joe Wilson claim he had investigated the claim and found it wanting, as he said in The New York Times in a piece called "What I Didn't Find in Africa."
That Wilson's investigation was hardly thorough enough to be called the last word on the matter was soon lost in the rising storm over the claim that someone in the White House (it later turned out to be the No. 2 man at the U.S. Department of State) had, in pushing back on what Wilson was saying, told at least one reporter that Wilson's wife (who went professionally by the name Valerie Plame) was a covert CIA employee.
For a time the whole business made celebrities out of Wilson and his wife among Democrats, the left-wing intelligensia and the Hollywood crowd. And it made goats out of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others who asserted that Hussein's drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction – in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended 1991's Gulf War – rendered him a global threat that needed to be dealt with harshly and severely.
Woodward's already being bashed for letting this little bit of truth out into the open. Esquire magazine is already up with a post questioning his integrity and saying he sounds like "someone waiting for that check from a Nigerian price to clear." More of the same is coming. Too many people have too much invested in the idea that Bush lied to allow the debate to start up again on the chance that they were wrong. It won't change what happened if those people were in fact wrong, any more than it will change any of the outcomes; what it will do is generate some confusion about who wears the white hats and who wears the black ones, which is not what the progressive Democrats – who are still reeling from President Barack Obama's foreign policy failures – need right now. After all, if Bush didn't lie, how can it be his fault that the Islamic State group continues to gain ground in Iraq now that Obama has pulled almost all the troops out of there?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war
but all that other liberal shit that Woodward said... that's cool, right?
which is it? is he credible? Cause we can pull out plenty of Woodward liberalisms which getbiggers dismissed as rants form a bedwetting lib.
-
lol
I knew this would cause a state of confusion for liberals. Bob Woodward is part of the Notorious GWB Iraq War Conspiracy. Along with Hillary, Bill et al. lol
-
lol
I knew this would cause a state of confusion for liberals. Bob Woodward is part of the Notorious GWB Iraq War Conspiracy. Along with Hillary, Bill et al. lol
repubs shit all over woodward for 8 years.
today they can't stop slurping the guy cause he said one thing they agree with.
tomorrow, he'll diss jeb and suddenly be a liberal idiot again. Typical RINO behavior.
-
lol
I knew this would cause a state of confusion for liberals. Bob Woodward is part of the Notorious GWB Iraq War Conspiracy. Along with Hillary, Bill et al. lol
I never ever thought that Bush lied in order to get us into war......I do think he was ill-served by the intelligence he was given and by guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney.....I wish people would stop accusing him of that.....Bush had a hard-on for Saddham though, and looking back, I don't know if the war was worth it.....also I hate when people say Bush created ISIS...that's ridiculous
-
also I hate when people say Bush created ISIS...that's ridiculous
obama and repubs like mccain created isis. feeding weapons and $ to syrian rebels then acting all surprised.
-
repubs shit all over woodward for 8 years.
today they can't stop slurping the guy cause he said one thing they agree with.
tomorrow, he'll diss jeb and suddenly be a liberal idiot again. Typical RINO behavior.
O Rly? Which Republicans did this for eight years?
I know this is hard for a 911 Troofer who is also a Bush-hating, Obama-loving water carrier, but you'll get over it.
-
I know this is hard for a 911 Troofer who is also a Bush-hating, Obama-loving water carrier, but you'll get over it.
attack the messenger. typical RINO behavior.
-
I never ever thought that Bush lied in order to get us into war......I do think he was ill-served by the intelligence he was given and by guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney.....I wish people would stop accusing him of that.....Bush had a hard-on for Saddham though, and looking back, I don't know if the war was worth it.....also I hate when people say Bush created ISIS...that's ridiculous
No, Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't lie either. Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs.
The war was mismanaged at the start. Should have listened to Shinseki about the size of the force needed. They also made a pretty bad miscalculation about how we would be received by the Iraqis and how we would be fighting insurgents (which is related to the insufficient size of the force). Lots of mistakes. But no lies by Bush.
-
attack the messenger. typical RINO behavior.
Silence troll.
-
Silence troll.
(http://cdn2.screenjunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Al-bundy-ed-oneill-animated-gif-10.gif)
-
(http://www.psych2go.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tumblr_nan57pgOAe1sbub06o1_500.png)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/JTH164i.gif)
-
I read all his books on the war...he was pretty even handed. You read em all 240?
-
No, Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't lie either. Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs.
The war was mismanaged at the start. Should have listened to Shinseki about the size of the force needed. They also made a pretty bad miscalculation about how we would be received by the Iraqis and how we would be fighting insurgents (which is related to the insufficient size of the force). Lots of mistakes. But no lies by Bush.
I don't think Cheney and Rumsfeld lied either.....but they didn't serve Bush well...Rumsfeld went in with too small a force and would not change course when the insurgents were hitting us hard with casualties....which is why Bush had to eventuially ask for his resignation....Cheny was gung-ho and damn the consequences...I kinda think he was running a sort of shadow presidency....I have no proof of this however..just speculation....it was supposedly he who ordered that all planes be grounded on 9/11 not Bush.....
and the intelligence was awful....even Colin Powell bailed out on that
-
Yeah...I have a problem with the force...actually we were told to alow alot of what happened after the invasion. They didn't see the insurgency happening. In any event gents be prepared to do it all over again...units are now getting warno's about deployments to Iraq....Heavy Brigade combat teams...not bullshit small units. This summer is gonna be rocky and we have an infant in charge.
-
Yeah...I have a problem with the force...actually we were told to alow alot of what happened after the invasion. They didn't see the insurgency happening. In any event gents be prepared to do it all over again...units are now getting warno's about deployments to Iraq....Heavy Brigade combat teams...not bullshit small units. This summer is gonna be rocky and we have an infant in charge.
;D
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/72/44/c3/7244c3b2d8c1de57af905c176a3f7a03.jpg)
-
I read all his books on the war...he was pretty even handed. You read em all 240?
lol That must be a rhetorical question.
-
I don't think Cheney and Rumsfeld lied either.....but they didn't serve Bush well...Rumsfeld went in with too small a force and would not change course when the insurgents were hitting us hard with casualties....which is why Bush had to eventuially ask for his resignation....Cheny was gung-ho and damn the consequences...I kinda think he was running a sort of shadow presidency....I have no proof of this however..just speculation....it was supposedly he who ordered that all planes be grounded on 9/11 not Bush.....
and the intelligence was awful....even Colin Powell bailed out on that
I agree with everything you said, except for the "shadow presidency."
One thing I will say is I miss strong leadership, which is what we had with Bush/Cheney and we definitely do not have with Obama/Biden.
-
Yeah...I have a problem with the force...actually we were told to alow alot of what happened after the invasion. They didn't see the insurgency happening. In any event gents be prepared to do it all over again...units are now getting warno's about deployments to Iraq....Heavy Brigade combat teams...not bullshit small units. This summer is gonna be rocky and we have an infant in charge.
You mean while Obama is running around the world bragging about there being no ground troops in Iraq, we're getting ready to send ground troops to Iraq? Pretty dishonest.
-
Confirming what we already knew.
No Lie
Bob Woodward throws cold water on the left's claim that Bush lied the nation into war with Iraq.
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/cde33af/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F82%2F7d052c1e535c99476c6f3dcd000233%2F8313FE_PR_081208bush_legacy.jpg)
Nope, didn't lie.
By Peter Roff
May 26, 2015
For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.
Like him or not – and there are plenty who don't – he's got the scalps on his belt to prove he knows what he's doing.
His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.
Bush's political opponents like to make this claim to delegitimize not just the war but his entire presidency. No man who knowingly and dishonestly took a nation to war is worthy of any kind of honor, hence history's reluctance to focus on the substantive accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson. Whatever good he did is eclipsed by his use of a fabricated incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to secure congressional authority to increase the number of combat troops being sent to South Vietnam. The notion that Bush lied in similar fashion about Iraq discredits – in the eyes of his political opponents certainly – everything he did, everything he stood for and everything he accomplished.
It's a brutal axe but, according to Woodward, one that is itself based on an untruth. An argument could certainly and persuasively be made, he told moderator Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," that the Iraq War was a mistake, but "there was no lying in this that I could find."
According to Woodward, Bush himself was skeptical about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and urged caution on then-CIA Director George Tenet lest he stretch the case that there were.
The whole thing of course exploded after Bush, in a speech to Congress, asserted that foreign intelligence sources had shared with the U.S. information that Saddam Hussein's regime had attempted to procure yellowcake uranium from guy, a country in the African Sahara, only to have former U.S. Amb. Joe Wilson claim he had investigated the claim and found it wanting, as he said in The New York Times in a piece called "What I Didn't Find in Africa."
That Wilson's investigation was hardly thorough enough to be called the last word on the matter was soon lost in the rising storm over the claim that someone in the White House (it later turned out to be the No. 2 man at the U.S. Department of State) had, in pushing back on what Wilson was saying, told at least one reporter that Wilson's wife (who went professionally by the name Valerie Plame) was a covert CIA employee.
For a time the whole business made celebrities out of Wilson and his wife among Democrats, the left-wing intelligensia and the Hollywood crowd. And it made goats out of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others who asserted that Hussein's drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction – in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended 1991's Gulf War – rendered him a global threat that needed to be dealt with harshly and severely.
Woodward's already being bashed for letting this little bit of truth out into the open. Esquire magazine is already up with a post questioning his integrity and saying he sounds like "someone waiting for that check from a Nigerian price to clear." More of the same is coming. Too many people have too much invested in the idea that Bush lied to allow the debate to start up again on the chance that they were wrong. It won't change what happened if those people were in fact wrong, any more than it will change any of the outcomes; what it will do is generate some confusion about who wears the white hats and who wears the black ones, which is not what the progressive Democrats – who are still reeling from President Barack Obama's foreign policy failures – need right now. After all, if Bush didn't lie, how can it be his fault that the Islamic State group continues to gain ground in Iraq now that Obama has pulled almost all the troops out of there?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war
Of course Bush lied, 9/11 was the pretext to invade Iraq. Who the F cares what Bob Woodward thinks about WMDs. The elephant in the room is 9/11, not WMD crap. Woodward story only deflects the REAL truth & confuses an already fuuucking stupid public.
9/11 could not be more obvious. Anyone who believes that 2 Boeing Jetliners can EVAPORATE ( official Pentagon & Shanksville story) need their heads examined. Go look at the pictures you FUCKKKING MORONS. What more do you need? It's right in front of your eyes, just OPEN them!!!
With regards to WTC, NEVER in the history of mankind has fire caused steel framed buildings to Explode/Collapse at the SPEED OF GRAVITY and turn to molten metal & dust. I REPEAT........NEVER BEFORE & NEVER AGAIN. Did the Laws of Physics take the day off ..............along with NORAD ?
Who needs Demolition companies when all you need is Kerosene & and office furniture? Wake the fuuuuuuuuucccccccckkkkkk kk up.
Oh, and don't forget Building # 7, ( no plane necessary) a 47 story STEEL FRAMED building which collapsed neatly into its footprint in 6 seconds. Explain that one, because the 9/11 commission would NOT touch that subject. They completely left out Building 7 from their bogus report.
The dumbed down/cell phone addicted US public deserves everything it gets for being ENABLERS.
-
You mean while Obama is running around the world bragging about there being no ground troops in Iraq, we're getting ready to send ground troops to Iraq? Pretty dishonest.
not dishonest at all..you're supposed to prepare for contingencies.....nothin g wrong with that..you're splitting hairs..we're also preparing for war with China as well..doesn't mean we want to fight with them though
-
not dishonest at all..you're supposed to prepare for contingencies.....nothin g wrong with that..you're splitting hairs..we're also preparing for war with China as well..doesn't mean we want to fight with them though
O Rly? We're preparing to send boots on the ground into China? lol
Yes, it's dishonest of the president to be claiming some kind of victory over not having ground troops in Iraq, knowing full well that we're likely going to have to send them in very soon. He's probably just trying to run out the clock till the next president takes over his mess. Very dangerous game.
-
I never ever thought that Bush lied in order to get us into war......I do think he was ill-served by the intelligence he was given and by guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney.....I wish people would stop accusing him of that.....Bush had a hard-on for Saddham though, and looking back, I don't know if the war was worth it.....also I hate when people say Bush created ISIS...that's ridiculous
Im sorry, did you say that looking back, you don't know if the war was worth it? At this point with what we know, what it's cost, that if it was to be done all over again, you might be on the fence about going to war with Iraq??
-
O Rly? We're preparing to send boots on the ground into China? lol
Yes, it's dishonest of the president to be claiming some kind of victory over not having ground troops in Iraq, knowing full well that we're likely going to have to send them in very soon. He's probably just trying to run out the clock till the next president takes over his mess. Very dangerous game.
Oh I definitely agree he's trying to run out the clock..but what do we have to gain by going to war again there????..why should our boys shed blood for the world again???..nobody else wants to.....even the arabs..and we are 18 trillion in debt...no more blood and treasure, I say
-
Oh I definitely agree he's trying to run out the clock..but what do we have to gain by going to war again there????..why should our boys shed blood for the world again???..nobody else wants to.....even the arabs..and we are 18 trillion in debt...no more blood and treasure, I say
In perfect world, my preference is to leave that entire part the world and let them all kill each other.
Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. As we saw from 9/11, some parts of the ME can serve as terrorist training grounds, which directly affect us. We also have allies in the region that need our help. The reality is we cannot just leave.
The issue here, however, is the president not being straight about that entire situation. We're not going to let ISIS take control of Iraq. We're not going to stop them by dropping bombs. It's a mess.
-
Saddam should never have been removed. He was an asshole but ISIS is way worse. But thats history now.
ISIS needs to be destroyed.
Period.
-
Saddam should never have been removed. He was an asshole but ISIS is way worse. But thats history now.
ISIS needs to be destroyed.
Period.
Truth.
-
In perfect world, my preference is to leave that entire part the world and let them all kill each other.
Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. As we saw from 9/11, some parts of the ME can serve as terrorist training grounds, which directly affect us. We also have allies in the region that need our help. The reality is we cannot just leave.
The issue here, however, is the president not being straight about that entire situation. We're not going to let ISIS take control of Iraq. We're not going to stop them by dropping bombs. It's a mess.
"As we saw from 9/11"
Wow, do you actually believe that The Laws of Physics & Thermodynamics can take a day off ? ( serious question )
-
"As we saw from 9/11"
Wow, do you actually believe that The Laws of Physics & Thermodynamics can take a day off ? ( serious question )
No.
-
In perfect world, my preference is to leave that entire part the world and let them all kill each other.
Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. As we saw from 9/11, some parts of the ME can serve as terrorist training grounds, which directly affect us. We also have allies in the region that need our help. The reality is we cannot just leave.
The issue here, however, is the president not being straight about that entire situation. We're not going to let ISIS take control of Iraq. We're not going to stop them by dropping bombs. It's a mess.
agreed..it is a mess....but no one else wants any thing to do with it either......the EU..china..Russia...the moderate gulf states....I think the best thing to do is just keep them perpetually fighting so that they're distracted.....The American people just don't want to fight over there any more.....All polls show that..Obama is just fulfilling the will of the people
-
Saddam should never have been removed. He was an asshole but ISIS is way worse. But thats history now.
ISIS needs to be destroyed.
Period.
Agreed...but who is going to do it?..thats the question
-
agreed..it is a mess....but no one else wants any thing to do with it either......the EU..china..Russia...the moderate gulf states....I think the best thing to do is just keep them perpetually fighting so that they're distracted.....The American people just don't want to fight over there any more.....All polls show that..Obama is just fulfilling the will of the people
Although I question the existence of the polls you mention, defense, national security, military operations, etc. are not determined by polls. Or at least they shouldn't be.
We cannot just sit back and do nothing. If we just cut and run the fight will wind up right on our doorsteps (like it did on 9/11).
-
Agreed...but who is going to do it?..thats the question
Yep.
Really the only choice is the US.
Russia and China doesnt give a shit.
Europe won't do shit without the US as always.
-
Although I question the existence of the polls you mention, defense, national security, military operations, etc. are not determined by polls. Or at least they shouldn't be.
We cannot just sit back and do nothing. If we just cut and run the fight will wind up right on our doorsteps (like it did on 9/11).
we aren't doing "nothing"...we are bombing the hell out of them....we are training their army and doing logistics..they have to do the fighting
-
Yep.
Really the only choice is the US.
Russia and China doesnt give a shit.
Europe won't do shit without the US as always.
yes..all true....but we cant keep asking our boys (and women) to keep fighting on behalf of the world
-
not dishonest at all..you're supposed to prepare for contingencies.....nothin g wrong with that..you're splitting hairs..we're also preparing for war with China as well..doesn't mean we want to fight with them though
No boys...as in pack your shit....guys at Hood and Riley. We'll see
-
we aren't doing "nothing"...we are bombing the hell out of them....we are training their army and doing logistics..they have to do the fighting
They won';t fight because we're not using enough air. We don't have much if anything flying....no attack helicopters...just carrier shit and stuff from Qatar .
-
They won';t fight because we're not using enough air. We don't have much if anything flying....no attack helicopters...just carrier shit and stuff from Qatar .
Us putting boots on the ground has failed.....it failed in Iraq and it is failing in Afghanistan...there are some situations that we just can't do anything about
-
Us putting boots on the ground has failed.....it failed in Iraq and it is failing in Afghanistan...there are some situations that we just can't do anything about
No it didn't. Iraq had a government in place and was stable before Obama "ended the war in Iraq."
-
Iraq had a government in place and was stable before Obama "ended the war in Iraq."
lmao... at what date was Iraq "stable"?
Cause we can surely post stories of suicide bombings and idiots killing all over the place, which doesn't happen in 'stable' nations. Its civil war has shrunk, but it still exists.
they're still battling isis and other rebels in their own cities. "Iraq was stable"? LMAO... iraq hasn't been stable since the day Shock & awe began. Maybe it's "less unstable".
-
lmao... at what date was Iraq "stable"?
Cause we can surely post stories of suicide bombings and idiots killing all over the place, which doesn't happen in 'stable' nations. Its civil war has shrunk, but it still exists.
they're still battling isis and other rebels in their own cities. "Iraq was stable"? LMAO... iraq hasn't been stable since the day Shock & awe began. Maybe it's "less unstable".
Do your homework. Google is your friend.
-
yes..all true....but we cant keep asking our boys (and women) to keep fighting on behalf of the world
If ISIS is allowed to spread, you maybe looking at WW3 down the road.
And imagine the shit-storm they can cause through terrorism if these nutjobs control large parts of the middle East.
Taking them out now is the smart thing to do in my opinion.
-
Us putting boots on the ground has failed.....it failed in Iraq and it is failing in Afghanistan...there are some situations that we just can't do anything about
Yep its fucked up.
But ISIS is pure evil.
Whatever it takes to destroy them. Its like nazi germany. To defeat them took i-dont-know how many lives, but the alternative would be Hitler ruling the world.
I would rather see the entire middle east nuked to oblivion, than see a blood-thirsty radical muslim rule it.
-
No it didn't. Iraq had a government in place and was stable before Obama "ended the war in Iraq."
uh huh...sure.....and when we left Vietnam they were stable too.,..until two years later when the Vietcong invaded...Iraq...same thing
and since you have all the answers please tell us what exactly we should do ol' wise one
-
lmao... at what date was Iraq "stable"?
Cause we can surely post stories of suicide bombings and idiots killing all over the place, which doesn't happen in 'stable' nations. Its civil war has shrunk, but it still exists.
they're still battling isis and other rebels in their own cities. "Iraq was stable"? LMAO... iraq hasn't been stable since the day Shock & awe began. Maybe it's "less unstable".
YEP
-
If ISIS is allowed to spread, you maybe looking at WW3 down the road.
And imagine the shit-storm they can cause through terrorism if these nutjobs control large parts of the middle East.
Taking them out now is the smart thing to do in my opinion.
agreed....but again...who...is Sweden going to help out?? ;D
-
No.
Correct, the Laws of Physics/ Thermodynamics can never take a day off.
First: please explain how Building 7 collapsed at freefall speed from scattered office fires in 6 seconds.
( official story )
After that, we'll discuss how 2 commercial jetliners "EVAPORATED", one @ at the Pentagon & one in Shanksville Pa. ( official story)
-
"As we saw from 9/11"
Wow, do you actually believe that The Laws of Physics & Thermodynamics can take a day off ? ( serious question )
I understand your scepticism... There are tons of things you have read on the net to cause it. I will not go into detail nor will I reply - but I assure you that your information is incorrect. I lost a very good friend at the Pentagon that day and several of my former colleagues that either never left or went back have spoken with me in depth. Things may not be as clear as it would be believed but I KNOW that "we" didnt do this.
-
I understand your scepticism... There are tons of things you have read on the net to cause it. I will not go into detail nor will I reply - but I assure you that your information is incorrect. I lost a very good friend at the Pentagon that day and several of my former colleagues that either never left or went back have spoken with me in depth. Things may not be as clear as it would be believed but I KNOW that "we" didnt do this.
"I will not go into detail or reply"
No Shiit, because if you did, I'd make a fool out of you.
Move on boy.
-
uh huh...sure.....and when we left Vietnam they were stable too.,..until two years later when the Vietcong invaded...Iraq...same thing
and since you have all the answers please tell us what exactly we should do ol' wise one
I think your grasp of history is a bit off......I don't know why you guys bother at times.
-
I think your grasp of history is a bit off......I don't know why you guys bother at times.
exactly which part of history is off, ol' wise one???
-
uh huh...sure.....and when we left Vietnam they were stable too.,..until two years later when the Vietcong invaded...Iraq...same thing
and since you have all the answers please tell us what exactly we should do ol' wise one
We didn't leave a stabilizing force behind in Vietnam. We did in Germany and South Korea. That's exactly what we should have done in Iraq. Had we done so, we wouldn't be talking about ISIS running through Iraq and headhunter wouldn't be getting WARNOs for possible deployments back to Iraq.
-
Correct, the Laws of Physics/ Thermodynamics can never take a day off.
First: please explain how Building 7 collapsed at freefall speed from scattered office fires in 6 seconds.
( official story )
After that, we'll discuss how 2 commercial jetliners "EVAPORATED", one @ at the Pentagon & one in Shanksville Pa. ( official story)
Nah. I tried having a discussion with 911 Troofers many years ago. Was a complete waste of time. Your conspiracy theory is nutty. You should talk to 240 is back, who is a fellow 911 Troofer. He can tell you all about how one of the commercial airliners was secretly landed overseas, all the passengers were killed and their bodies were secretly disposed of, how we used holograms to fake the plane crashes, etc.
-
We didn't leave a stabilizing force behind in Vietnam. We did in Germany and South Korea. That's exactly what we should have done in Iraq. Had we done so, we wouldn't be talking about ISIS running through Iraq and headhunter wouldn't be getting WARNOs for possible deployments back to Iraq.
you know exactly why we couldn't be in IRAQ..stop being dishonest..they did not want us there and not grantlng us the agreement we wanted was tantamount to kicking us out of the country...we could not stay there against their wishes as an occupying force....
I'm still waiting for your solution to ISIS
-
you know exactly why we couldn't be in IRAQ..stop being dishonest..they did not want us there and not grantlng us the agreement we wanted was tantamount to kicking us out of the country...we couldn not stay there againast their wishes as an occupyig force....
I'm still waiting for your solution to ISIS
Ok andre. Whatever you say. ::)
I gave you my solution. We should have left a stabilizing force behind.
Let me ask you a question: if we didn't have a choice, and we only let because they kicked us out, then why is Obama running around the country bragging about ending the war in Iraq?
-
Ok andre. Whatever you say. ::)
I gave you my solution. We should have left a stabilizing force behind.
Let me ask you a question: if we didn't have a choice, and we only let because they kicked us out, then why is Obama running around the country bragging about ending the war in Iraq?
because the war had ended before they kicked us out...he was in the process of withdrawing our troops and wanted to leave a small force behind.....they said no to the agreement and then we took all our marbles and left....
and you know all of this.....you just play the deveil's advocate....and I still want to hear what we should do about ISIS...specifically
-
because the war had ended before they kicked us out...he was in the process of withdrawing our troops and wanted to leave a small force behind.....they said no to the agreement and then we took all our marbles and left....
and you know all of this.....you just play the deveil's advocate....and I still want to hear what we should do about ISIS...specifically
Obama: "Four years ago I promised to end the war in Iraq, and I did." Then he claimed he had no choice.
He's in office because Obamabots like you don't hold him accountable for things like this:
I gave you my "solution" for ISIS in Iraq several times: a stabilizing force just like we have in Germany and South Korea.
-
Just when you think these internet physicists with their stellar interpretation of video have died off...they come back like fucking zombies.
-
because the war had ended before they kicked us out...he was in the process of withdrawing our troops and wanted to leave a small force behind.....they said no to the agreement and then we took all our marbles and left....
and you know all of this.....you just play the deveil's advocate....and I still want to hear what we should do about ISIS...specifically
This is not even close to what happend. Let me be clear ok.....Bush planned to leave about 25K troops and was negociating with the Iraqis for around that number. It included 2 HBCTS/air - fixed and helicopter/police and army training teams called MTT's/SOF in a direct action role and SOF conducting training with the Iraqis. The mix was roughly that. The Iraqi PM could deal with that number. After shitbird was elected...that all changed. We withdrew faster then anticipated and Obama decided that the number would be roughly 3K...or 1HBCT. 1HBCT can just about protect itself and thats about it. The Iraqi PM could not sell 1HBCT to parliment. That level of commitment comes with less equipment for the Iraqi military and far less training. He could withstand the political pressure with 25-30K Americans and their dollars. Obama knew this and knew we'd have to leave...so we left. Thats it. Obama left the mess we're seeing.
-
This is not even close to what happend. Let me be clear ok.....Bush planned to leave about 25K troops and was negociating with the Iraqis for around that number. It included 2 HBCTS/air - fixed and helicopter/police and army training teams called MTT's/SOF in a direct action role and SOF conducting training with the Iraqis. The mix was roughly that. The Iraqi PM could deal with that number. After shitbird was elected...that all changed. We withdrew faster then anticipated and Obama decided that the number would be roughly 3K...or 1HBCT. 1HBCT can just about protect itself and thats about it. The Iraqi PM could not sell 1HBCT to parliment. That level of commitment comes with less equipment for the Iraqi military and far less training. He could withstand the political pressure with 25-30K Americans and their dollars. Obama knew this and knew we'd have to leave...so we left. Thats it. Obama left the mess we're seeing.
Thank you.
-
This is not even close to what happend. Let me be clear ok.....Bush planned to leave about 25K troops and was negociating with the Iraqis for around that number. It included 2 HBCTS/air - fixed and helicopter/police and army training teams called MTT's/SOF in a direct action role and SOF conducting training with the Iraqis. The mix was roughly that. The Iraqi PM could deal with that number. After shitbird was elected...that all changed. We withdrew faster then anticipated and Obama decided that the number would be roughly 3K...or 1HBCT. 1HBCT can just about protect itself and thats about it. The Iraqi PM could not sell 1HBCT to parliment. That level of commitment comes with less equipment for the Iraqi military and far less training. He could withstand the political pressure with 25-30K Americans and their dollars. Obama knew this and knew we'd have to leave...so we left. Thats it. Obama left the mess we're seeing.
Dude...you are basically saying what I said......the other stuff about Parliament and political pressure and all that stuff can be debated.......Obama wanted to leave a small force in place.....of course he wanted to get the hell out of there,,..that was why he was elected....Iraq would not sign the agreement.....convenient for Obama.....because he wanted to leave any way.....end of story dude