Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-06-2012, 03:15 PM   #126
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nextJin View Post
All irrelevant in regards to fighting an insurgency.

Eaglekeeper 0 - Petraeus 1
there was no insurgency in Afghanistan, nor was there one in Iraq at the beginning.

The insurgencies came at a later time when the military was pulled back from the objective of destroying the enemy.

the the civilians took over.

Do not blame the military for a job they were not trained nor equipped for and are handicapped in trying to do.
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 03:19 PM   #127
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
there was no insurgency in Afghanistan, nor was there one in Iraq at the beginning.

The insurgencies came at a later time when the military was pulled back from the objective of destroying the enemy.

the the civilians took over.

Do not blame the military for a job they were not trained nor equipped for and are handicapped in trying to do.
I beg to differ, Iraq standing army was crushed in 3 weeks and in Afghanistan there never was a standing army.

We had several encounters with civilians shooting at us even before "Mission Accomplished", so please do tell me how I am wrong when I was in the middle of both.
__________________
"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded." - Vladimir Putin
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 03:24 PM   #128
Nebor
Lifer
 
Nebor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nextJin View Post
All irrelevant in regards to fighting an insurgency.

Eaglekeeper 0 - Petraeus 1
If you're not a senior military officer there's very little to gain by pretending that COIN is or has ever been effective. It's a scam concocted by some sycophantic generals in order to sell war to anti-war politicians.

First of all, EagleKeeper is right: there was no insurgency in Iraq or Afghanistan until we allowed it to develop by fighting a half-ass fight and then sticking around to be targeted.

Second, if you want to see how to actually defeat an insurgency, look at Chechnya or Sri Lanka.
__________________
"Governments may think and say as they like, but force cannot be eliminated, and it is the only real and unanswerable power. We are told that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I know which of these weapons I would choose" -Lieutenant-General Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart
Nebor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 03:30 PM   #129
shadow9d9
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
What has been launched since then?

More people have died as a result of other conventional wars because no one steps in and says enough is enough.

No one can justify the use of a nuke.
We haven't NEEDED to go to war since then. That is the point! Adghanistan, Iraw, korea, vietnam.. all a WASTE!
shadow9d9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 03:31 PM   #130
Nebor
Lifer
 
Nebor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nextJin View Post
I beg to differ, Iraq standing army was crushed in 3 weeks and in Afghanistan there never was a standing army.

We had several encounters with civilians shooting at us even before "Mission Accomplished", so please do tell me how I am wrong when I was in the middle of both.
Poor planning for the post-game allowed the broken Iraqi military to form the backbone of the insurgency. If we could have snagged Saddam and some WMDs in the first few weeks of the war, we wouldn't have stayed around for the nation building & COIN.

Afghanistan never merited the involvement of conventional forces in the first place. The intent was being met for several years with SF & air strikes, but a bunch of O6's with right sleeve envy were looking at their OIF veteran peers and managed to convince people that the conventional Army (and Marines) had a place in Afghanistan. All we've succeeded in doing is further alienating the populace, propping up a terrible, ineffective government, wasted billions of dollars and given the anti-American forces in the region more readily available targets. The most effective program in actually providing some measure of security for America against terrorism? The extrajudicial drone program, not the 100,000 troops driving around getting blown up at any given time over the past 3 years.
__________________
"Governments may think and say as they like, but force cannot be eliminated, and it is the only real and unanswerable power. We are told that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I know which of these weapons I would choose" -Lieutenant-General Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart
Nebor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 03:34 PM   #131
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
We haven't NEEDED to go to war since then. That is the point! Adghanistan, Iraw, korea, vietnam.. all a WASTE!
Your version of need may be different.

I am sure that much of the world enjoyed the Soviet occupation.
Give up your electronics coming out of china and Korea.

We could have done nothing about Afghanistan and been targeted multiple times in the past 10 years.
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 03:56 PM   #132
PJABBER
Diamond Member
 
PJABBER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebor View Post
Poor planning for the post-game allowed the broken Iraqi military to form the backbone of the insurgency. If we could have snagged Saddam and some WMDs in the first few weeks of the war, we wouldn't have stayed around for the nation building & COIN.
Iraq is a developed country that benefited from transition efforts. Who knows, it may be that effort will bear fruit in the long run.

Quote:
Afghanistan never merited the involvement of conventional forces in the first place. The intent was being met for several years with SF & air strikes, but a bunch of O6's with right sleeve envy were looking at their OIF veteran peers and managed to convince people that the conventional Army (and Marines) had a place in Afghanistan. All we've succeeded in doing is further alienating the populace, propping up a terrible, ineffective government, wasted billions of dollars and given the anti-American forces in the region more readily available targets. The most effective program in actually providing some measure of security for America against terrorism? The extrajudicial drone program, not the 100,000 troops driving around getting blown up at any given time over the past 3 years.
Agree with a lot of this, except that it wasn't the O6s that put those conventional forces on the ground.

It was a political play by the Democrats that they, too, could be manly men and fight a war. Afghanistan is the Democrats' "good war" and the more lives and resources they pump into it the gooder they like to think they are.
__________________
Rules for a happy life:
1. Free your heart from hatred.
2. Free your mind from worries.
3. Live simply.
4. Give more. Expect less.
PJABBER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 04:01 PM   #133
Steeplerot
Lifer
 
Steeplerot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ☭
Posts: 13,039
Default

Big government military industrial socialists want more money from the taxpayer?

It could never happen.
Steeplerot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 04:13 PM   #134
CrackRabbit
Lifer
 
CrackRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 16,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
The US military was unable to mount a deterrent against the Japanese conquest well before '42.

That is one reason is why the Japanese were able to sweep down through SW Asia and the islands of the East Indies/Philippines.

The US was unable to put up any decent resistance.
We had pockets of areas but not enough to turn the tide; it was a delaying action for 2-3 years, buying time to rebuild.

The attack against the fleet was to ensure that there would be no direct Naval support to challenge the island hopping going on. The Japanese air cover in their push made it easy against what resistance was available. Had we lost the carriers also; New Zealand and Australia would have been isolated. the Japanese were already knocking on their door from New Guinea.
Your post makes no sense, we weren't able to put up much resistance because the Japanese damaged or destroyed much of our main fleet in one shot.
Without any support it is amazing that the defenders of our Pacific territories held out as long as they did.
__________________
Official member of the ATOT Night Crew
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusTheBrewer View Post
Don't we have enough left handed reddit haired stepchildren around here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MmmSkyscraper
Tomorrowned!!11!1!1!
CrackRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 04:52 PM   #135
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJABBER View Post

It was a political play by the Democrats that they, too, could be manly men and fight a war. Afghanistan is the Democrats' "good war" and the more lives and resources they pump into it the gooder they like to think they are.
What the fuck? It was the only country we should have ever been involved with and Bush and Co pulled resources to fight in Iraq.

Don't try and pussyfoot around this, Obama refocused on Afghanistan. He is also trying to get us out, your idiocy has no bounds.

Sad state of affairs sir.
__________________
"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded." - Vladimir Putin
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 04:55 PM   #136
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebor View Post
Poor planning for the post-game allowed the broken Iraqi military to form the backbone of the insurgency. If we could have snagged Saddam and some WMDs in the first few weeks of the war we wouldn't have stayed around for the nation building & COIN.

Afghanistan never merited the involvement of conventional forces in the first place. The intent was being met for several years with SF & air strikes, but a bunch of O6's with right sleeve envy were looking at their OIF veteran peers and managed to convince people that the conventional Army (and Marines) had a place in Afghanistan. All we've succeeded in doing is further alienating the populace, propping up a terrible, ineffective government, wasted billions of dollars and given the anti-American forces in the region more readily available targets. The most effective program in actually providing some measure of security for America against terrorism? The extrajudicial drone program, not the 100,000 troops driving around getting blown up at any given time over the past 3 years.
The bolded part is where I stopped reading.
__________________
"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded." - Vladimir Putin
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 05:12 PM   #137
D-Man
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Dundee IL
Posts: 2,891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ichy View Post
Military officers tend to have right of center political views? Surprise surprise.
And that sir is why you have your freedom today.
D-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 05:28 PM   #138
shadow9d9
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
Your version of need may be different.

I am sure that much of the world enjoyed the Soviet occupation.
Give up your electronics coming out of china and Korea.

We could have done nothing about Afghanistan and been targeted multiple times in the past 10 years.
You think our random failures of invasions affected the soviet occupation? Haha. The Soviet Union collapsed on its own. It had nothing to do with us.

The ME keeps going after us because we continue to interfere with their affairs. From Israel to propping up dictators we like via oil deals.
shadow9d9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 04:54 AM   #139
Nebor
Lifer
 
Nebor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nextJin View Post
The bolded part is where I stopped reading.
I would have thought that the "if" that prefaced it would have meant something to you. I've seen the 3rd Corps operational order directing their withdrawal from Iraq. The generals running the fight expected to go in, smash up the Iraqi Army, kill\capture Saddam and his WMDs (that they were assured he had) and then withdraw. In case you don't recall, entire regiments withdrew from Iraq back to Kuwait, only to be ordered back into Iraq for "stability operations." President Bush didn't want us to leave empty handed, without Saddam or WMDs, so we stayed.

And I'm not saying we didn't have a positive influence on Iraq. I'm just saying that COIN didn't carry the day the way most people like to think. It just so happened that when we embraced COIN, the Sunnis decided that a continuing civil war wasn't in their best interest.
__________________
"Governments may think and say as they like, but force cannot be eliminated, and it is the only real and unanswerable power. We are told that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I know which of these weapons I would choose" -Lieutenant-General Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart
Nebor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 06:36 AM   #140
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackRabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackRabbit View Post
Yes, very likely.
They knew the US Navy was the only thing that could keep them from dominating the entire Pacific (even in its "gutted" state in 1941, which BTW we still had one of the most modern navies in the world at the time), as the British and Australians were busy fighting Hitler and Mussolini in Europe and North Africa and didn't have the resources to spare for a two front war.
Hence the whole surprise attack to destroy as much of our Pacific fleet as possible in one blow.

Seriously, your posts lately have made me lose a great deal of respect that I had for you.
The US military was unable to mount a deterrent against the Japanese conquest well before '42.

That is one reason is why the Japanese were able to sweep down through SW Asia and the islands of the East Indies/Philippines.

The US was unable to put up any decent resistance.
We had pockets of areas but not enough to turn the tide; it was a delaying action for 2-3 years, buying time to rebuild.

The attack against the fleet was to ensure that there would be no direct Naval support to challenge the island hopping going on. The Japanese air cover in their push made it easy against what resistance was available. Had we lost the carriers also; New Zealand and Australia would have been isolated. the Japanese were already knocking on their door from New Guinea.
Your post makes no sense, we weren't able to put up much resistance because the Japanese damaged or destroyed much of our main fleet in one shot.
Without any support it is amazing that the defenders of our Pacific territories held out as long as they did.
From my view, it seems as if we are stating the same.

US Army (assisting other forces) was unable to stop or slow the advances on the mainland.
The Navy would have been needed to slow the island hopping.
The Japanese attempted to remove the Navy so the island hopping would succeed - and it did.
The lack of a total Navy destruction allowed the Japanese to totally secure their hold.
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 06:55 AM   #141
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigurros81 View Post
More importantly, what is the big deal about 500 retired military personnel endorsing a candidate? Does being in the military make them more knowledgeable of politics than any other American?

I respect these guys for their service to their country, but I'm also pretty sure half of these guys are crazy tea-party supporters just as well.
Being military does make them more knowledgeable about military affairs and needs. If you think Obama or any president comes with that expertise built in...well they don't.

His horses and bayonets comments during the debate were meant to be sarcastic but really just exploited his ignorance.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:03 AM   #142
Northern Lawn
Golden Member
 
Northern Lawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Being military does make them more knowledgeable about military affairs and needs. If you think Obama or any president comes with that expertise built in...well they don't.

His horses and bayonets comments during the debate were meant to be sarcastic but really just exploited his ignorance.
Yeah right. Your army is full of Bureaucratic pigs.. "Do you need more money?". What do you expect them to say?

They will say Yes.

Their budget could be cut in half and they would probably become more powerful by becoming more efficient.. not to mention the good that would do for your own country.

If those generals were really on Americas side they would want budget cuts and TRUE fiscal Conservatism.
Northern Lawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:05 AM   #143
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Lawn View Post
Yeah right. Your army is full of Bureaucratic pigs.. "Do you need more money?". What do you expect them to say?

They will say Yes.

Their budget could be cut in half and they would probably become more powerful by becoming more efficient.. not to mention the good that would do for your own country.

If those generals were really on Americas side they would want budget cuts and TRUE fiscal Conservatism.
Are you attempting to model the US military after Canada's because the United States doesn't have another country to rely on as a matter of policy and military planning should that be required.

Do you know how to run a battalion sized outfit with less than half strength in manning and equipment that doesn't function? Does that equate to efficiency? Military folks are tasked in the US to do what they do as are Canadian Forces. The difference is the scope and responsibility of each countries involvement. Ask the average GI or even general if they want to be engaged where they are at. It's likely that they may not agree but they all are directed in their actions by their government.

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 11-07-2012 at 07:12 AM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:08 AM   #144
Northern Lawn
Golden Member
 
Northern Lawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Are you attempting to model the US military after Canada's because we don't have another country to rely on as a matter of policy and military planning should that be required.
No one can invade you. You have nukes, you spend more money than the rest of the world combined and all you can do is what? defend your military's budget?

It's killing your country along with other fiscal policies.
Northern Lawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:17 AM   #145
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Lawn View Post
No one can invade you. You have nukes, you spend more money than the rest of the world combined and all you can do is what? defend your military's budget?

It's killing your country along with other fiscal policies.
The US military budget is half of all the other just welfare spending. This doesn't include Social Security and Medicare. Do I think the US should back away from many of its military commitments? Yep, have we done this yet? Nope. Congress and fucked up executive orders from the President drive this. Even worse, the UN drives some of this.

Do you think China and all the other shitheads in the world are going to stand down....nope. Canada is actually ramping up it's military to deal with Russia...we aren't alone with our geopolitical issues.

Last edited by Angry Irishman; 11-07-2012 at 07:19 AM.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:24 AM   #146
Northern Lawn
Golden Member
 
Northern Lawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Do you think China and all the other shitheads in the world are going to stand down....nope. Canada is actually ramping up it's military to deal with Russia...we aren't alone with our geopolitical issues.
Well Canada should ramp it up. We've been relying on NATO strength and relative peace in our part of the world for too long. But we shouldn't go over board, there is no reason we should be buying American planes just to help America in it's middle east bull shit foreign policy.

I think we should build our own planes like we used to. Build our own subs like the nordic countries do and build nukes as well.

We could go nuclear in no time. Hell we sell YOU uranium.
Northern Lawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:26 AM   #147
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebor View Post
I would have thought that the "if" that prefaced it would have meant something to you. I've seen the 3rd Corps operational order directing their withdrawal from Iraq. The generals running the fight expected to go in, smash up the Iraqi Army, kill\capture Saddam and his WMDs (that they were assured he had) and then withdraw. In case you don't recall, entire regiments withdrew from Iraq back to Kuwait, only to be ordered back into Iraq for "stability operations." President Bush didn't want us to leave empty handed, without Saddam or WMDs, so we stayed.

And I'm not saying we didn't have a positive influence on Iraq. I'm just saying that COIN didn't carry the day the way most people like to think. It just so happened that when we embraced COIN, the Sunnis decided that a continuing civil war wasn't in their best interest.
I remember very well, my point this entire thread is that COIN allowed our forces to get out in general. I'm not sure if you followed my history here but I have been against the Iraq war ever since my first tour over there. I am a Libertarian and do not believe we need to be poking at the hornets nest that is the ME.
__________________
"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded." - Vladimir Putin
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:28 AM   #148
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Lawn View Post
Well Canada should ramp it up. We've been relying on NATO strength and relative peace in our part of the world for too long. But we shouldn't go over board, there is no reason we should be buying American planes just to help America in it's middle east bull shit foreign policy.

I think we should build our own planes like we used to. Build our own subs like the nordic countries do and build nukes as well.

We could go nuclear in no time. Hell we sell YOU uranium.
Well then do it...you'll be following the same path as us. Believe me, there are many veterans and active military in the US that would like to scale back to some degree. The problem is Obama isn't going to do it wisely or safely to ensure our countries security nor yours...both countries are linked in that regard.

He does not listen to his military expertise and Americans have already died as a result.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:38 AM   #149
Northern Lawn
Golden Member
 
Northern Lawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Irishman View Post
Well then do it...you'll be following the same path as us. Believe me, there are many veterans and active military in the US that would like to scale back to some degree. The problem is Obama isn't going to do it wisely or safely to ensure our countries security nor yours...both countries are linked in that regard.

He does not listen to his military expertise and Americans have already died as a result.
I'm not sure of any harm Obama has caused the Military that can be even remotely compared to the apocalypse that Bush did to it with lying to get involved in the Iraq war.. on a BUDGET with 100,000 troops..

Rumsfeld on eve of Iraq war: ‘If you think we’re going to spend’ $1 billion in Iraq, ‘you’re sadly mistaken.’

So what has Obama done that even remotely compares with Bush/Rumsfeld/Rove/Chaney? Not to mention Romney promising to put troops on the ground in Syria and attack Iran.

So how many troops killed in an illegal unnecessarily war in Iraq? and what's the financial cost? Dead.. injured? ANd what Exactly did Obama do?

Obama killed Bin Laden.. I thought that was a good thing?

Jullian Assange is the Greatest Hero of America during the last 10 years in my opinion.

Last edited by Northern Lawn; 11-07-2012 at 07:43 AM.
Northern Lawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:52 AM   #150
Angry Irishman
Golden Member
 
Angry Irishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Lawn View Post
I'm not sure of any harm Obama has caused the Military that can be even remotely compared to the apocalypse that Bush did to it with lying to get involved in the Iraq war.. on a BUDGET with 100,000 troops..

Rumsfeld on eve of Iraq war: ‘If you think we’re going to spend’ $1 billion in Iraq, ‘you’re sadly mistaken.’

So what has Obama done that even remotely compares with Bush/Rumsfeld/Rove/Chaney? Not to mention Romney promising to put troops on the ground in Syria and attack Iran.

So how many troops killed in an illegal unnecessarily war in Iraq? and what's the financial cost? Dead.. injured? ANd what Exactly did Obama do?

Obama killed Bin Laden.. I thought that was a good thing?

Jullian Assange is the Greatest Hero of America during the last 10 years in my opinion.
If you really think Obama killed Bin Laden and deserves that credit....you were watching the political ads. The military and it's expertise killed Bin Laden and that was in play for a long time before our saviour came around to take the credit.

Bush and his regime are gone....I wish the world would get over that. Four years have passed and I'd love the man to take responsibility for his presidency.

He hasn't done anything terrible to the military yet...it's coming. He is going to gut the military; not cut it back smartly and safely. Why, for one, he has no conceptual idea of what is required to run a military of this size and scope and two, he won't listen to anyone who tells him otherwise and have the expertise to provide him counsel.
Angry Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.