A Soldier On Obama

In retrospect, it might have been better to have just fortified the Saudi boarder. Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil. Kuwait is no more a democracy that Iraq was.

They had a cement plant and food on the table before our invasion. Any work being done was being done by iraqis. We closed their industries and brought in scab labor working for less than a living wage and put the country out of work.

Where was it our business in the first place to get rid of a man who was no threat to us when we had an actual enemy to deal with elsewhere?
 
Without actually getting into the politics of it: If, hypothetically, Obama was morally opposed to the war in Iraq (I have no idea if he was opposed "Morally", hence hypothetically) wouldn't a change after just because it turned out well be ethically questionable?

No one is asking Obama to change his (IMO, misguided) opinion about invading Iraq in the first place. He can continue to think that was a mistake until hell freezes over for all I care. But after the invasion happened, he (as President) would have had a responsibility to make the best of the situation as it now stood. After the invasion even Obama should not deny that al-Qaeda and Iranian militants were active in Iraq, trying to create chaos, trying to turn Iraq to their own purposes. And things could either get better or worse at that point depending on what we did.

Now Obama was always consistent in saying we should cut and run. But in particular, when asked if he'd have changed his opinion about the surge and revision of tactics in January 2007 when he authored a bill to force withdrawal of combat brigades by March 2008, knowing what we know now about how successful those things have been in converting what was a worrisome/bad situation into what one might characterize as a victory over al-Qaeda and those militants, he said no. That's what I mean by Stuck On Stupid. He shows an unwillingness to adapt to the situation at hand and that's not a good characteristic in a President or a Commander In Chief.
 
Yup, a Republican lecturing a soldier on strategy while he believes that Rummy had an occassional rational thought during the six years he diddle around with the defense structures.

You don't know anything about me or what I believe about *Rummy*, lefty.

Wouldn't hurt you to learn something about military strategy. Trey reading Vom Kriege. I don't think Clausewitz would give W or Gates very high marks right about now.

Were those the ones that taught you to wave the white flag, lefty? Somehow, I don't think so. So I wonder where you picked that up? :D

I doubt McSame ever read Clausewitz, either.

Actually, you can be sure he did since it's required reading at the US Naval Academy. You did know he went there, didn't you? And by the way, here's what a professor at the Naval Academy had to say about Clausewitz:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/04spring/fleming.pdf

Can Reading Clausewitz Save Us from Future Mistakes?

BRUCE FLEMING

Answering the question: No, though to read the commentators, we’d
never know it.

An Author for All Seasons

Some works are so broad in scope, so inclusive, even of contradic-
tions internal to themselves, that they can be used to justify almost anything. One such book is that patchwork written over many centuries and by many hands that we call the Bible. For the Renaissance, it was Virgil’s Aeneid, opened at random to provide divination (Sortes Virgilinae). For the Victorian era, it was the works of Shakespeare, a mine of quotable quotes removed from their contexts. For theorists of war in the last several decades, it has been Carl von Clausewitz’s On War.

:D

He says some dumb stuff about the Vietnam war having been winable.

But it was, lefty. :)

In fact, the North Vietnamese commander who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam, General Bui Tin, publically stated (http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp ) that we would have won the war if, instead of letting the anti-war left and left leaning mainstream media characterize Tet as a defeat and thus demoralize the American public, had treated Tet as the great victory for American and ARVN forces that it was and then done what Westmoreland was asking our democrat President (Johnson) to do at the time; namely, close the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and bomb the north.

General Giap has admitted that the North was so demoralized by the military results of Tet, that he was ready to sue for peace. Giap threw all available assets against every major target in South Vietnam. That was supposed to cause a massive revolt in the South. But instead, Tet just ended up destroying the effectiveness of the Viet Cong for years to come and inflicted serious losses on NVA forces ... with nothing tangible to show for that expenditure. The South Vietnamese people, horrified at the prospect of a Communist takeover, sat tight and did not revolt (a political victory for the south). US and ARVN troops crushed the attack in a matter of days. The VietCong and NVA troops failed to achieve any of their objectives other than capturing the old imperial citadel at Hue, and they lost that just three weeks later. The government of South Vietnam survived the shock; the ARVN did a credible job; and US forces performed admirably.

So suing for peace was what Giap was contemplating doing ... that is until he saw how Walter Cronkite and the rest of the liberal media in the US were portraying the battle. Then he realized that all they had to do was outlast us ... that the American Public, thanks to the lies the American media was feeding it, saw Tet as a military and political defeat. And the democrat President ignored his top general's recommendations for winning the conflict. Good thing Bush didn't ignore HIS generals back in January 2007 ... like Obama would have done. :D
 
Iraq military personnel are donating to Obama over McCain at a ratio of 6:1.

You're being deceptive again. That statistic is based on a total of 134 overseas military personnel giving to Obama versus 26 giving to McCain. I really doubt that indicates our troops, in general, prefer Obama over McCain. It's more an indication that very few people in our military give campaign contributions. And I suspect that democrats in the military are more likely to give contributions than republican because even in the military those types are somewhat fanatical about their dislike of Bush. :D But you go ahead and think whatever you want to think ... because if you do, I suspect you are in for a big shock come election time.

By the way, if you total up Republican contributions from the military overseas versus democrat contributions, the ratio is closer to 1:1. And if you total up Republican contributions (here and abroad) versus democrats (here and abroad), you find Republicans leading donations by a factor of about 1.7:1. But even then, the number of contributions is tiny. :D
 
They were better off under Saddam, when rival religious fac tions were not blowing each other to hell

:rolleyes:

Prior to the invasion, the UN, WHO and various individuals on your side of the political fence were insisting that THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children were dying in Iraq EVERY SINGLE MONTH as a result of a lack of clean water, medicines, sanitation and food. While that was happening, Saddam's regime was diverting the bulk of the revenues from oil sales, that were supposed to go to helping meet those needs and rebuild war damaged infrastucture, into rebuilding and maintaining Saddam's brutal military, banned weapon programs, the construction of palaces and monuments to Saddam, several huge mosques (odd, in what you folks continue to claim was a secular state), the hedonistic lifestyle of Saddam's sons, large bribes to certain UN and non-coalition nation members, and various bank accounts owned by Saddam and his top associates.

I guess lefty has never heard of the Black Book of Saddam, either.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12218&R=EC643701F

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20458

:D
 
Last I heard 25% of the Iraki population was either killed or refugees.

Utter NONSENSE.

The number of Iraqis who fled Iraq was estimated to be about 2 million according to the UN (and they do have a habit of inflating numbers). Another 1.7 million were said to have been displaced internally. AT MOST, a couple hundred thousand people have died in Iraq since the war started. Which gives a total of about 4 million. The population of Iraq was over 27 million in 2007, according to the CIA. So the number of killed and refugees hasn't exceeded 15%. But then Saddam killed millions even before the war began. So ...

You end up with "specialists" who can do exatly what they were trained for, but not think their way out of other problems.

The only one stuck on stupid that I see is Obama.
 
BeAChooser said:
The only one stuck on stupid that I see is Obama.
Unfortunately, the political arena is chock-full of people like you.
 
Cool, claiming that only 15% is dead or displaced instead of 25% suddently makes it alright, and they should be real gratefull for the US effords.:jaw-dropp

The OP is still a nasty piece of propaganda.
Waving the flag and screaming freedom is a lame excuse used for almost anything.

Your humanitarian line of arguments overlook all the other countries that does not have democracy, freedom and so on.
Could it have something to do with oil ;)

How is democracy doing in saudi arabia?
How is human rights doing in saudi arabia?

Dont claim to help the irakis, it does not hold water.
 
Dont claim to help the irakis, it does not hold water.

Yea, gee, I mean come on! What good could possibly come from the disposal of a long time dictator to let the people have their oil-rich country again? :rolleyes:
 
Bush idin't do it for the Iraqis. He did it for himself. And his nosferatu-looking puppet master Cheney egged him on to do it for the oil industry and PNAC.

Why do you think he is still trying to get an oil law out of al Maliki that lets ouyr companies drill the oil? Remember who was drilling it before we busted down the country?
 
Actually, you can be sure he did since it's required reading at the US Naval Academy. You did know he went there, didn't you?

Yeah, right. That doesn't mean the dimbulb understood it. I kind of doubt he would even have graduated had someone not been just afrtaid enough of daddy McCain's stars to send the drooling maniac home. You do know how far from the bottom of the class the jerk was, don't you? He was sitting in a seat that should really, in an ideal world, have gone to someone qualified for it. He got there by affirmative action, you know, don't you?

Now tell me what people's war was ever put down by military force without nearly wiping out of enslaving the rebellious people. Giap may have been thinking that Nixon was just enough of a thug to ignore the fact that we would not have tolerated the extermination of the Vietnamese.
As for ignoring generals, don't get so smug. You may recall that Rummy and the dummy thought they were better strategists than Shinseki. Boy were they wrong. The next couple months showed that Shinseki, who built the force that Rummy piddled away, was right. Had they done it right in the first place, there would have been no supply of old artillery shells to make IEDs.


Where do Republicans get the idea that they know best about how to conduct a war? They haven't had a competant war time leader since Eisenhower.

And don't try to feed me that crap about Reagan winning the Cold War. Osama had almost as much to do with that as had old Jelly Brain.

Gorby wanted to make peace, but that was unacceptable to Reagan, because the Republican mindset cannot grasp the idea of a war ending in any other way than the crushing of an enemy. So doofus kicked Gorby in the shins like a schoolyard bully and called himself winning and, as a result, the end of the Soviet Union was the begining of a kakiocracy that in turn has led to the rise of Vladimir Putin and maybe another Cold War.

Of course, if McCain is elected, it may turn into a shooting war because he has never seen a problem he didn't want to shoot at.
 
Yea, gee, I mean come on! What good could possibly come from the disposal of a long time dictator to let the people have their oil-rich country again? :rolleyes:

Which people?
The oil people?
How many irakis will be left in the country?
Why does that not apply to saudi arabia?

I can´t think of any war without a propaganda smokescreen of justice and humanity.
 
Cool, claiming that only 15% is dead or displaced instead of 25% suddently makes it alright, and they should be real gratefull for the US effords.

I didn't say it was wonderful that happened ... just wanted to correct a bit misinformation. But even if we hadn't invaded, just as many people would have died by now if we are to believe what the UN, WHO and many liberals were saying was happening in Iraq in the years before the invasion. Several thousand innocent iraqis were dying EVERY MONTH. And while Saddam was in power, Iraqis died in several major wars ... as many as a million died.

As for external refugees, I'm sure that under Saddam many would have loved to leave Iraq's brutality behind ... but could not. And with regard to internal refugees, do you think Saddam's actions had nothing to do with the movement of Iraqis? Those wars he started displaced lots of Iraqis. And post 1991 oppressive government policies led to the internal displacement of nearly million people, mostly Kurds and Marsh Arabs.

So I'm just saying that when all is said and done, probably that 15% statistic isn't all that different from what it would have been had Saddam remained in power ... especially if his actions then led to another major war with a neighboring country. At least NOW, Iraqis can return to an Iraq with a democracy, a system of laws, and a promising future.

How is democracy doing in saudi arabia?
How is human rights doing in saudi arabia?

Are you recommending we do something about that? What? :D

Dont claim to help the irakis, it does not hold water.

Recent polls seem to suggest the Iraqi people are really hopeful about the future. Why can't you be? Oh yes, you're trying to get Obama elected. :D
 
You miss the point here.
The OP claim the invasion and occupation was/is for the benefit of the iraki.
Done for justice, freedom, democracy, and to rid the world of an EVIL dictator.

Take a look around the world, if those arguments were more than a smokescreen there would be alot of humanitarian invasions going on.

You are repeating the propaganda screen of a major armed robbery.

Recent polls seem to suggest the Iraqi people are really hopeful about the future. Why can't you be? Oh yes, you're trying to get Obama elected
Perhaps because it can´t get worse?
I don´t care much who you elect, they are both paid off, maybe even by the same interrests.
 
We never could afford the war, the war is going to cost us money we cannot afford to spend on it for decades unless we end the occupation now. The occupation CREATED al Qaeda in Iraq.

Bush actually finished the Iran/Iraq war from the 80s. He gave the victory to Iran.

Republicans have no grasp of military strategy. It was not our war and it has cost us in terms of the only thing we have close to a real war to fight, thousands of miles away.

Military force is a stupid way to fight an enemy with no physical location to begin with.
 
That doesn't mean the dimbulb understood it.

Well it means you were wrong when you claimed he never read it. He did. As for being a dimbulb ... he still managed to make it through the Naval Academy and that's no small feat. What are your educational credentials, by the way?

I kind of doubt he would even have graduated had someone not been just afrtaid enough of daddy McCain's stars to send the drooling maniac home. You do know how far from the bottom of the class the jerk was, don't you?

Actually, he did fine in most of the course work. The reason he didn't graduate high in class ranking was because he had a lot of demerits and those figure into it. He was a maverick even then.

And since you want to sneer at him, where did you graduate in your class? You did graduate from a university, didn't you, lefty?

Now tell me what people's war was ever put down by military force without nearly wiping out of enslaving the rebellious people.

Off the top of my head? Iraq. :D

Giap may have been thinking that Nixon was just enough of a thug to ignore the fact that we would not have tolerated the extermination of the Vietnamese.

Johnson was president at the time of Tet, lefty. And for the record, after we left Vietnam, it was the North Vietnamese who engaged in extermination. Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese died. Studies indicate 165,000 people alone died in the *re-education* camps. Conditions were so bad that millions fled, taking their chances as boat people. Between 100,000 and 250,000 died on those boats, lefty. Yet you no doubt voted for John Kerry who assured the public that no more than a few thousand would die when we withdrew from Vietnam. :rolleyes:

As for ignoring generals, don't get so smug. You may recall that Rummy and the dummy thought they were better strategists than Shinseki.

This is sooooooo funny. Here you are championing a candidate who was against the war back in 2003 and that has insisted we cut and run at every opportunity since then. But General Shinseki, didn't object to the invasion and instead of withdrawing wanted to put hundreds of thousands more soldiers in Iraq post war. And I seriously doubt that Shinseki will be voting for Obama. :)

And don't you realize it wasn't feasible ... then or now ... to up the number of US forces by hundreds of thousands? Where were we going to get the forces, lefty? Borrow them from the Chinese? Wait a year to enlist and train them? And during that time, what would Saddam and the terrorists in Iraq have been doing?

Also, Rumsfeld's complaint with Shinseki was that he was fixated on the wrong type of war. Shinseki wanted to maintain the size of the Army at the cost of not enlarging special forces and the Marines ... the type of forces that have turned out to be especially useful in the WOT and in Iraq. Shinseki wanted systems, like the Crusader, which are not relevant to the current threats.

Boy were they wrong. The next couple months showed that Shinseki, who built the force that Rummy piddled away, was right. Had they done it right in the first place, there would have been no supply of old artillery shells to make IEDs.

That's debatable since we found tens of thousands of hidden ammunition caches that Saddam had prepositioned in preparation for the insurgency. Perhaps all you'd have done would been to give Saddam even more time to hide ammunition caches and train terrorists (like it's Fedayeen) in using those caches. Perhaps all you would have done is given the terrorists more targets.

And don't try to feed me that crap about Reagan winning the Cold War. Osama had almost as much to do with that as had old Jelly Brain.

ROTFLOL! There comes a time in every debate with a lefty that one doesn't really need to continue. They've shot themselves in the foot enough times that one can be confident that very few people are going to give that lefty much credibility. I think we've reached that pont in this debate, lefty. :D
 
There comes a time in every debate with a lefty that one doesn't really need to continue. They've shot themselves in the foot enough times that one can be confident that very few people are going to give that lefty much credibility. I think we've reached that pont in this debate, lefty.

You are amacing.
Guess you would not consider a scenario where the us invade to get a client state in a usefull location, and controll of a huge oil reserve.
Do you really belive in the humanitarian mission propaganda?:eye-poppi
 

Back
Top Bottom