Author Topic: Obama's War(s)  (Read 37587 times)

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #100 on: June 08, 2015, 07:04:11 PM »
You said what we should have done..too late for that..what do we do NOW

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #101 on: June 08, 2015, 08:34:35 PM »
"I think Obama has failed in every way with Iraq, but Bush handled things pretty well"

               - Stone cold fcking idiot blind partisan person.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #102 on: June 09, 2015, 09:40:17 AM »
Iraqi security forces can no longer handle the job. Iranian forces have'nt done much better. Obama's current plan is no longer working. It was based on "hope". He hoped they could do the job with air power to back them. It has been proven not to work. There are very few options that any of you libs are going to like. If you are not ready to send in troops then you work a deal now where you massively increase aid directly to the kurdish north. You tell Baghdad that the Kurds are getting Kirkuk and their own country and if they don;t want to get beheaded then thats the deal. Then you deploy a Marine MEU to the North along with almost an entire SOF group to train and assist the Kurds as they push South. If and when this bogs down you deploy 2-3 BDE's of HBCT's and finish the fucks and pull out. You leave an HBCT rotating out of Kurdistan every year. You also deploy the appropriate amount of carrier and helo assets to do the job.

Heavy brigade combat teams -
L

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #103 on: June 09, 2015, 09:45:45 AM »
Look who is criticizing Bush now

Quote
Rumsfeld: 'Unrealistic' for Bush to try to build democracy in Iraq

Getty Images
By Ben Kamisar - 06/09/15 07:41 AM EDT

President George W. Bush made an “unrealistic” decision to try to build a democracy in Iraq, one of his top Cabinet members told a British newspaper.

“I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories,” former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told The Times.
“The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”

Rumsfeld added that President Obama’s strategy to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has not been helpful, according to Bloomberg.

“If leaders aren’t willing to [confront ISIS], why the hell should a guy with a wife and kids in the community put himself at risk?” he said.

Rumsfeld served as Bush’s first Defense secretary, heading the Pentagon during the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of his main responsibilities was developing the wars' plans and publicly touting the strategies.

“This was the man stoking the fires for going into Iraq on the day of 9/11,” veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“He was the chief spokesman and agitator that we don’t just do Afghanistan, where bin Laden was, but we are going to do Iraq. He was pushing it and kind of sandpapered the whole war plan down.”

When asked about the timing of these comments, more than a decade after the war, former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told “Morning Joe” that Rumsfeld might have been trying to give GOP candidates that have been dogged by questions about the war “wiggle room.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/244377-rumsfeld-unrealistic-to-build-democracy-in-iraq

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #104 on: June 09, 2015, 11:47:56 AM »
Iraqi security forces can no longer handle the job. Iranian forces have'nt done much better. Obama's current plan is no longer working. It was based on "hope". He hoped they could do the job with air power to back them. It has been proven not to work. There are very few options that any of you libs are going to like. If you are not ready to send in troops then you work a deal now where you massively increase aid directly to the kurdish north. You tell Baghdad that the Kurds are getting Kirkuk and their own country and if they don;t want to get beheaded then thats the deal. Then you deploy a Marine MEU to the North along with almost an entire SOF group to train and assist the Kurds as they push South. If and when this bogs down you deploy 2-3 BDE's of HBCT's and finish the fucks and pull out. You leave an HBCT rotating out of Kurdistan every year. You also deploy the appropriate amount of carrier and helo assets to do the job.

Heavy brigade combat teams -

there are aspects of your idea that I like and agree with..... begin arming the kurds...and just giving up on the whole idea of a united Iraq.....its not going to happen....however, the Turks don't want the kurds armed and thats the problem...they feel the Kurds will turn those arms on them....I think politically thats whats holding back the United States from arming them......I probably would like for us to try and secure the border between Iraq and Syria so that ISIS can't just move men and material across it like they have been doing..

and it has nothing to do with Libs and Conservatives...the American people do not want to send troops back there again.....Our military is STILL recovering from all the wounds and mental illnesses caused by their last involvement there...This whole thing started due to Assad not wanting to share power with his people.......thats where ISIS and the war really started...yet you guys are strangely silent about that..also Putin vetoed all attempts at first initiall to solve the problem through the UN.....yet you guys are silent about that as well because you have some need to blame Obama for everything

BUT..also if you break up Iraq there could be another civil war down the line because WHO WOULD HAVE CLAIMS TO THE OIL???????...the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds would soon fight over that as well

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #105 on: June 09, 2015, 03:17:21 PM »
You said what we should have done..too late for that..what do we do NOW

I already told you.

I suggest he have a strategy, which includes picking one of the "lots of options" the Pentagon has given him. 

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #106 on: June 09, 2015, 03:27:04 PM »
I already told you.


tell me again in plain language...WHAT WOULD YOU DO RIGHT NOW???...you're such a bull-shitter and fence-sitter its amazing..if you repeat "I already told you" again then consider yourself destroyed (again) and lets end the thread and move on

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #107 on: June 09, 2015, 03:36:22 PM »
tell me again in plain language...WHAT WOULD YOU DO RIGHT NOW???...you're such a bull-shitter and fence-sitter its amazing..if you repeat "I already told you" again then consider yourself destroyed (again) and lets end the thread and move on

 ::)  You like to repeat questions that have already been answered.  Early onset Alzheimer's?   :)

And . . . . I already told you. 

I suggest he have a strategy, which includes picking one of the "lots of options" the Pentagon has given him. 

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #108 on: June 09, 2015, 07:13:19 PM »
::)  You like to repeat questions that have already been answered.  Early onset Alzheimer's?   :)

And . . . . I already told you. 


In other words you've got nothing....DESTROYED.... ...AGAIN 8)

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #109 on: June 10, 2015, 04:55:30 AM »
How many wars and bombings has this Nobel Peace Prize winner been involved in?

Don’t Call It a War? Administration hit for refusing to use ‘w’ word for ISIS mission
Published September 12, 2014
FoxNews.com

The Obama administration is refusing to describe the expanded military campaign against the Islamic State as a war -- despite plans to launch airstrikes across two tumultuous Middle East countries, dispatch hundreds more U.S. military personnel and build a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network.

The reluctance to use that label has generated confusion on Capitol Hill, particularly in light of new intelligence estimates that the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s the size of a small army – and close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001.  

Yet in television interviews on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly avoided the term “war” to describe the mission, instead calling it a “major counterterrorism operation” that could last a long time.

“It’s hard to find a response to that,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”

McCain and other lawmaker suggest Kerry’s comments do not square with President Obama’s stated goal of defeating the Islamic State, or ISIS.

“This is John Kerry, vintage,” McCain said.

Other members of the administration besides Kerry appeared to be struggling to both define the conflict and the terms of victory, as the U.S. enters a new and potentially risky phase of its operation against the terror group.

Asked Thursday what would constitute “destroying” ISIS, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: “I didn't bring my Webster's Dictionary with me up here.”

Earnest tried to explain the operation as falling under the umbrella of the 2001 authorization to use military force – the measure that provided the legal basis to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. (Kerry also compared the operation to strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen.)

The administration is using this argument in order to avoid seeking new congressional authorization for the fight against ISIS.  

But the Islamic State was not originally linked to the Sept. 11 attacks and has since split from the perpetrator of those attacks, Al Qaeda.

Some lawmakers say the administration is on shaky legal ground by treating this as a mere continuation of the counterterrorism missions in other countries, and is effectively downplaying the entire challenge ahead.  

McCain said that if the president doesn’t understand the difference between the Islamic State and terror networks in places like Yemen, “then … he is oblivious to the size, shape, strength and ability of ISIS. It’s like comparing a little league team to the New York Yankees.”

A CIA spokesperson confirmed to Fox News on Thursday that the ISIS fighting force has sharply increased from the original estimate of at least 10,000 fighters.

“CIA assesses the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports from May to August,” the spokesperson said. “This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.”

Asked Thursday whether the government still views these operations as part of the “war on terrorism,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “It’s certainly not how I would refer to our efforts.”

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”

“Words matter,” McCaul said Friday.

McCaul praised the president for moving to expand the mission into Syria, where the “head of the snake” of ISIS is located. But he said the administration is being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.

“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/dont-call-it-war-administration-hit-for-refusing-to-use-w-word-for-isis-mission/

Both parties suck & could give a rats ass about ANY of you.

Dems & GOP need and want WAR, it's the only business still performing well in our crappy economy.

Dems & GOP = Two piles of dog shit. The ONLY difference is the sprinkles they put on top as window dressing.

Chocolate sprinkles - Dems
Vanilla sprinkles- GOP

Other than the top coating, BOTH are IDENTICAL & leave the taste of shit in your mouth.

Now go back and argue for the sprinkles you love. But remember, under the facade of YOUR sprinkles is the same SHIT as your opposition.

Chow down Boys!!!

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #110 on: June 10, 2015, 07:09:45 AM »
If the dem's want war why is Obama not starting one with ISIS?

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #111 on: June 10, 2015, 07:10:54 AM »
Yeah...more drivel.....unless you have any grasp of foreign policy why don't you stay out of these threads.
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #112 on: June 10, 2015, 07:15:50 AM »
there are aspects of your idea that I like and agree with..... begin arming the kurds...and just giving up on the whole idea of a united Iraq.....its not going to happen....however, the Turks don't want the kurds armed and thats the problem...they feel the Kurds will turn those arms on them....I think politically thats whats holding back the United States from arming them......I probably would like for us to try and secure the border between Iraq and Syria so that ISIS can't just move men and material across it like they have been doing..

and it has nothing to do with Libs and Conservatives...the American people do not want to send troops back there again.....Our military is STILL recovering from all the wounds and mental illnesses caused by their last involvement there...This whole thing started due to Assad not wanting to share power with his people.......thats where ISIS and the war really started...yet you guys are strangely silent about that..also Putin vetoed all attempts at first initiall to solve the problem through the UN.....yet you guys are silent about that as well because you have some need to blame Obama for everything

BUT..also if you break up Iraq there could be another civil war down the line because WHO WOULD HAVE CLAIMS TO THE OIL???????...the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds would soon fight over that as well



Of course I blame Obama....he tried to reset with Putin and Putin knows he's a weak leader. The russians didn;t dare do a damm thing while Bush was in office besides screwing around in Georgia....read on how that went militarily. Obama is weak....or doesn't care. He only cares when he's made to look bad. Red lines....and all that shit.

Having been on that border....yeah we're gonna need a DIV plus to secure it. There's not much out there.
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #113 on: June 10, 2015, 07:28:19 AM »
They're increasing the amount of advisors as of today....so 3K on the ground. This is how it begins.
L

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #114 on: June 10, 2015, 07:56:07 AM »
Both parties suck & could give a rats ass about ANY of you.

Dems & GOP need and want WAR, it's the only business still performing well in our crappy economy.

Dems & GOP = Two piles of dog shit. The ONLY difference is the sprinkles they put on top as window dressing.

Chocolate sprinkles - Dems
Vanilla sprinkles- GOP

Other than the top coating, BOTH are IDENTICAL & leave the taste of shit in your mouth.

Now go back and argue for the sprinkles you love. But remember, under the facade of YOUR sprinkles is the same SHIT as your opposition.

Chow down Boys!!!


Dude.....you're losing it.....you gotta stay consistent when taking Xanax....miss a day and you get posts like the above

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #115 on: June 10, 2015, 08:03:56 AM »


Of course I blame Obama....he tried to reset with Putin and Putin knows he's a weak leader. The russians didn;t dare do a damm thing while Bush was in office besides screwing around in Georgia....read on how that went militarily. Obama is weak....or doesn't care. He only cares when he's made to look bad. Red lines....and all that shit.

Having been on that border....yeah we're gonna need a DIV plus to secure it. There's not much out there.

of course you blame Obama...because it suits you politically to do so.....again....Assad gets no blame...Putin gets no blame.....Bush gets no blame.....the Chinese get no blame...the EU get no blame...its ALL Obama.......OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA........and yes the Russians invaded Georgia on Bush's watch........and contrary to what you say, the Russians are still occupying Georgian territory.....did that make Bush weak???...no it didn't.....the US simply can't intervene everywhere....what did the US do?...NOTHING........nor should we have........same as with Ukraine......this is in the backyard of the EU...did they respond militarily???????????...so why should we?..the US was the leader in getting sanctions done on the Russians......

but you want to repeat the Republican broken record of just usign the military when it is clear that in the middle east it simply does not work......ask Israel.....they are in worse shape today than ever.....even with their military victories over the palestinians and Hezbollah what has that changed EXACTLY?????....NOTHING

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #116 on: June 10, 2015, 12:02:40 PM »
Must be part of his non-strategy strategy. 

Obama approves sending up to 450 more US troops to Iraq
Published June 10, 2015
FoxNews.com
 
The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama has approved sending up to 450 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, in a bid to boost local forces fighting the Islamic State's advances.

The troops will be sent to help train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces, at a base in eastern Anbar province.

"The President made this decision after a request from Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and upon the recommendation" of top U.S. military officials, the White House said in a statement.

The decision comes after recent ISIS gains, most significantly the takeover of the Anbar capital of Ramadi. Obama came under criticism earlier this week for saying his administration still did not have a "complete" strategy for ramping up training of Iraqi troops.

While the decision to send more trainers won praise in some corners -- House Speaker John Boehner called it a step in the right direction -- the administration continues to face accusations that its strategy in the region is rudderless.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was dismissive of Wednesday's decision. "This is incremental-ism at its best or worst, depending on how you describe it," McCain said.

Even Obama's former military intelligence chief, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said in Capitol Hill testimony Wednesday that there's "no clear U.S. policy" in Iraq and Syria.

Obama continues to resist demands for combat troops or for more U.S. soldiers on the ground to call in air strikes.

Under the latest plan, the number of U.S. training sites in Iraq would increase from four to five, enabling a larger number of Iraqis to join the fight against the Islamic militant group. Most of the fighters would be Sunni tribal volunteers, under the plan. 

The Defense Department stressed in a written statement that the decision "does not represent a change in mission," but provides another location for DOD personnel.

The additional U.S. troops would join the roughly 3,100 U.S. troops already in Iraq. They are currently training about 3,000 Iraqi fighters.

ISIS' gains, though, have raised pressing questions about the ability of the Iraqis to blunt the terror network's advances. The Iraqi government, and the U.S., face the immediate challenge of recruiting enough Sunni fighters, to battle the Sunni-aligned terror group.

Most of those currently being trained are Kurds or Shiite Muslims.

Obama earlier this week urged Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to allow more of the nation's Sunnis to join the campaign against the violent militant group.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said recommendations on how to improve and accelerate the Iraq training efforts were discussed at a White House meeting last week and said follow-up questions were asked about how the proposed changes would be implemented and what risks they would pose to U.S. troops and to U.S. commitments elsewhere in the world.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest indicated the plans could continue to develop, and said the engagement is not a "short-term proposition." He predicted some U.S. military personnel would still be in Iraq when Obama leaves office.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/10/obama-approves-sending-up-to-450-more-us-troops-to-iraq/

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #117 on: June 10, 2015, 12:31:22 PM »
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.  

i'm serious.  it's honestly fucking adorable.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #118 on: June 10, 2015, 12:49:18 PM »
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.  

i'm serious.  it's honestly fucking adorable.

There will likely never be peace in the Middle East.  And as much as I'd like to pack our stuff and let them all kill each other, that's not in our best interests, or those of our allies in the region. 

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #119 on: June 10, 2015, 01:30:48 PM »
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.  

i'm serious.  it's honestly fucking adorable.

Correct.

Muslims have been killing muslims in the middle East forever.

Its not gonna change anytime soon.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #120 on: June 10, 2015, 02:17:59 PM »
maybe a president doesn't make 100% of his war strategies public.  What a concept lol.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #121 on: June 10, 2015, 03:56:16 PM »
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.  

i'm serious.  it's honestly fucking adorable.

Thank you 8)

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #122 on: June 10, 2015, 03:57:34 PM »
There will likely never be peace in the Middle East.  And as much as I'd like to pack our stuff and let them all kill each other, that's not in our best interests, or those of our allies in the region. 

that's exactly what I've been saying....you just can't bring yourself to agree with me, hence why I have to keep destroying you :)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #123 on: June 10, 2015, 04:12:18 PM »
that's exactly what I've been saying....you just can't bring yourself to agree with me, hence why I have to keep destroying you :)

A legend in your own mind aren't you?  lol

But what exactly is it that you want me to agree with?  That the president has no strategy?  Yes, I agree with that. 

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's War(s)
« Reply #124 on: June 10, 2015, 04:14:56 PM »
A legend in your own mind aren't you?  lol

But what exactly is it that you want me to agree with?  That the president has no strategy?  Yes, I agree with that. 

whatever strategy he has its better than yours ..you don't have a strategy either