ISIS aka The Islamic State
- Thread starter cheryl
- Start date
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
No but I suspect that you wouldn't understand that.
Yes Obama did what he said that he would do and many people warned this would happen when he did it. That leaves him responsible.
Thanks for playing again.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
And I suspect that you can't explain it.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
It TROLL, not TOS.Still with the space camp stories? Sorry, thats too far back in the way machine mr peabody!
TOS.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Oh I just assumed you knew it was untrue when you claimed that he said mission accomplished.
He announced that major combat operations had ended which they had. Our forces switched from linear combat operations to a COIN mission.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
And they did. One of the worlds largest standing armies was crushed in weeks.
See how I successfully predicted that you couldn't understand?
Anyway this is what he actually said.
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. "
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed...because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free."
And the war lasted another eight years, with most of the casualties coming after 'major combat operations' had ended.
Hindsight's 20-20 I guess.
And the war lasted another eight years, with most of the casualties coming after 'major combat operations' had ended.
Hindsight's 20-20 I guess.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Actually it's called foresight when he said "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. "
The goal was to remove the regime from power which happened. Some of you guys don't like it but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Nothing he said in that speech was incorrect and that is what kills you guys.
You were wrong about the war THEN, just as you are now. Iraq was a huge waste of manpower, lives, money, effort and energy.
Before we invaded , there were no car bombings, no rioting in the streets, no clans of terrorists roaming the streets.
WE provided that opportunity with SHOCK and AWE that was suppose to bring terrorists to their knees, and all it really did was bring American to its knees with a giant recession that almost crippled this country permanately.
All you monday morning GI's believe we should have left troops on the ground to be a part of a clusterfluck now at a cost of 1 billion a week, driving up our deficit and piling on more debt for your beloved grandchildren you always cite when you talk about the deficit.
You cant have it both ways. You either want a deficit and a ruined economy or you want wars we cant pay for.
Better to sit in your old beat up chair and monday morning quarerback the football game and leave wars and the falacy of them to people who can think outside the box.
In addition, maybe you should visit the graves of the almost 10,000 dead military personnel who gave their lives for absolutely nothing in both wars and tell them how they lie in the dirt so you can feel better about president Bush.
TOS.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Oh lookie troll is wrong again.
Tell you what I'll gladly visit the 10000 grave right after after you visit the mass graves of the hundreds of thousands killed by the regime of Hussein.
Troll at this point your concern for the deficit is laughable at best.
Last edited:
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of countries with regimes that have committed mass killings, and nary a peep from the US.
But, that's not why we went into Iraq, was it?
In terms of the deficit, the unnecessary war in Iraq has already cost us over $2,000,000,000, and additional costs vis-a-vis Veteran's benefits and accrued interest may reach between $4 and $6 trillion...(Reuters estimate)
It's already well established that the Iraq war was a misadventure, that it put us in a more precarious position on the world stage (terrorism, etc.).
I wish we had those 10,000 US soldiers back.
I wonder what we could do in this country with $2 trillion (infrastructure, schools, health care, border security, on and on.
Absolutely, let's blame Obama.
But, that's not why we went into Iraq, was it?
In terms of the deficit, the unnecessary war in Iraq has already cost us over $2,000,000,000, and additional costs vis-a-vis Veteran's benefits and accrued interest may reach between $4 and $6 trillion...(Reuters estimate)
It's already well established that the Iraq war was a misadventure, that it put us in a more precarious position on the world stage (terrorism, etc.).
I wish we had those 10,000 US soldiers back.
I wonder what we could do in this country with $2 trillion (infrastructure, schools, health care, border security, on and on.
Absolutely, let's blame Obama.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
So when your fabrication of Bush quotes doesn't work you really want to use the deficit argument? I can't help but think that your concern for deficit spending is disingenuous at best. It's laughable when in the span of a couple of sentences you go from the argument of we shouldn't do something because it's deficit spending to we should have used that deficit spending on something else.
I would, however, say that it is appalling that you and troll have to fabricate a death toll in a feeble attempt to bolster an argument but I have come to expect that type of thing here. That in itself is proof those lives are nothing more than a cheap political game to you. You're not even in the ballpark guesstimate range. Sad. Just sad.
I'll say that we fought a necessary war, won the necessary war, elected a clown with elephant ears and not even a most basic understanding of the military to execute a tactical surrender in order to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We are now paying the price for that fools decisions, not to exempt his supporters as I also feel this blood is on your hands as well.
Go ahead and fabricate some more numbers, quotes, post a silly meme, or come up with a goofy cartoon. I enjoy laughing at some of you.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
You're nothing if not consistent.
Look guy, you and I start from differing premises.
I don't buy yours, and you don't buy mine.
We're not ever going to come to common ground.
That's A-OK.
Here's a quote from you:
"I'll say that we fought a necessary war, won the necessary war..."
I disagree in the strongest possible way.
It wasn't a necessary war, and we certainly didn't / haven't won it.
I'm cherry-picking your post, but the point remains the same.
We most certainly didn't win the 'un' necessary war, and it's cost us in dead soldiers and straight up cash. If the Iraq war was a 'small business' venture, with the American people as investors, that business failed. Miserably.
Our premises are different: I disagree with yours, you disagree with mine, and never the twain shall meet.
Anytime you want to meet for a beer, I'm game.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with a disagreement. I have however consistently mocked troll for his many fabrications. You had a problem with that a couple days ago and now you are consistently fabricating things to try and validate your point. It was posted, and you may recognize this,that I should address valid points. I replied along the lines of I have addressed valid points and now I can add that I also addressed your invalid points.
Your guy Obama claimed it was a success. Did I just get you to admit him a liar? If you really think that the war was unsuccessful what goal did we have at the onset that wasn't met and why haven't you mentioned that?
I'm a fan of beer.
So yes beer if we ever meet.So just to get this straight. You didn't have a problem with you and troll grossly exaggerating death numbers but your problem solely lies with necessary war? Seriously? No problem with the fabrication and gross distortion of a Bush quote? The big problem here is necessary war. Dude war has rarely been necessary in our worlds history yet we stay at war more or less constantly. Yes I was mocking you as in a different situation if I had asked there is a better than 50/50 chance you'd support Obama bombing Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. Obviously I think your credibility is pretty low right now so no need to reply to that.
I think that you are probably no more than a party line guy who believe what his side says. Don't take that as some type of attack I feel like most people are that way. I think troll is different. He has a talent of making the average person look like a genius. All one needs to do is disagree with him and they will be proven correct most of the time.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Cheers mate, I can say the same.
Again, I'll just say that you and I are cut from different cloth, in terms of how we view the world-geopolitical-structure.
It's cool, I know that I won't change your mind, and you should know that you won't change my mind.
Like I said in a previous post, we're starting from differing premises.
Not a problem, let us continue to watch the world rotate... (did you see those pics of the Rosetta comet?).
P.S. You do yourself a disservice by continually labeling TOS as 'troll'.
By definition, he's posting from "THE OTHER SIDE".
He (I'm assuming the poster is a male) is consistently taking the most left/liberal position possible. It's amusing, certainly, yet it's sometimes educational.
TOS is literally taking the other side...yet he/she clearly means it.
When the only rebuttal is 'TROLL', that stops the conversation/debate point-blank.
If you disagree with TOS, argue with him on the merits.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
wkmac
Well-Known Member
On the economic front, ISIS is good for business. If true, is ISIS a natural emergence of a reaction or something else?
As to Jones post, it seems rather obvious to me that the Middle East nationstates being taken down or attempting too are one's led by a secular gov't of some form. In the wake of their collapse, an islamic theocratic gov't seems to either emerge or at the least is holding a larger influence than before. Why is that?
As to Jones post, it seems rather obvious to me that the Middle East nationstates being taken down or attempting too are one's led by a secular gov't of some form. In the wake of their collapse, an islamic theocratic gov't seems to either emerge or at the least is holding a larger influence than before. Why is that?