Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 104

Thread: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

  1. #91
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,943

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Who? This sorry excuse for a president, that's who. It's clear to many of us that B. Hussein Obama started by bowing and apologizing for this country, and that he has consistently tried to appease Islamic extremists ever since. He probably feels more sympathy for them than he does for Americans. He does not wish this country well and wants to see it humbled. His appeasement of the Islamist thugs who rule Iran has been especially shameful--and dangerous.
    Ah, so no one on this forum. The POTUS does send appeasement drones from time to time to blow away a few terrorists. He also sends aircraft to bomb them, and works with our allies in the ME to try to turn the tide. Would you have him commit troops as well? How many?
    Making Russia great again!



  2. #92
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,943

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Syria...hmmm...yes...Syria happened. What happened in Syria? Who are we even SUPPORTING in Syria?
    I have no idea who is worth supporting in Syria. It looks like the bad guys against the worse guys to me.
    Making Russia great again!



  3. #93
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,456
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I have no idea who is worth supporting in Syria.
    It looks like the bad guys against the worse guys to me.


    No matter who comes out on top in Syria I doubt that the USA will have friends there.

    Iran or Saudi Arabia might end up with some.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,009

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Nope. Bush Sr. kicked off this mess in 1991 and the USA has gained nothing since then.
    Oh that's right.

    I remember back in the 90s when ISIS was marching town to town unchallenged killing all those who got in their way.

    Oh wait, that didn't happen until Obama based a critical Foreign Policy decision on a stupid Political narrative.

    Obama himself acknowledged a peaceful stable Iraq and when Bush jr left it Iraq citizens were voting in open elections.

    Even Iraqi Women were allowed to vote without the fear of persecution.

    Your Bush obsession is clouding your judgement ....again.

  5. #95
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,292

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    5 years ago it wasn't stable. Balancing a pin on its point does not mean it's stable. It is in fact unstable. It held for as long as we would be there as a force, but we cannot be there for infinity. This is one of the main failures of the original invasion, we invaded a place that could not stand on its own. It stood so long as there was sufficient force, be that Saddam or some occupying force. But occupying forces are always at a disadvantage, it's a race against the clock. We lost.

    If you're going to topple governments, you need to be able to plan for success afterwards. We did not. So 14 years and we've only gone backwards.
    Oh I DO agree we did not plan for success. Hell...we had the very same people that were on record as touting their reasons and purpose for supporting the war flipping the script and lying less than 2 years later as they plunged headlong into an election. We have democrat senators touting their DECADES of experience and knowledge backing their play on the Iraq war vote, only to cry 'victim' and claim they were suddenly lied to....as if the same intel Clinton had been feeding them for 8 years was somehow different. And lets not forget the Clintons. Both of them. Oh...we have some REALLY good video of BOTH of them touting their reasoned war vote...and then suddenly they too were 'lied to'. Yes...its pretty tough to sell a long term plan or commitment when politicians are more concerned about themselves and their parties interest every 2 years.

    Thats not to say Bush didnt make some doozy mistakes all on his own. But the bipartisan war effort ended the moment Saddam surrendered and hauled ass.

  6. #96
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,292

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I have no idea who is worth supporting in Syria. It looks like the bad guys against the worse guys to me.
    Yep. Its kind of a bitch when you jump into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda to oust Bashir Assad. That makes it pretty tough to know who the players are and who the good guys are. Might explain why that whole game has been such an epic screw up.

  7. #97
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,270

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    5 years ago it wasn't stable. Balancing a pin on its point does not mean it's stable. It is in fact unstable. It held for as long as we would be there as a force, but we cannot be there for infinity. This is one of the main failures of the original invasion, we invaded a place that could not stand on its own. It stood so long as there was sufficient force, be that Saddam or some occupying force.

    If you're going to topple governments, you need to be able to plan for success afterwards. We did not. So 14 years and we've only gone backwards.
    Are you denying the claims your president made in his December 14, 2011 speech at Fort Bragg--almost three years into his presidency? He said we were "leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq." He spoke of "this moment of success" that American troops had brought about it Iraq and called it "an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making."

    What had become of that "sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq," just three years later? Where has it gone? Either Mr. Obama was lying, or he has quickly squandered that extraordinary achievement he boasted of. He, General Dempsey, and others in his administration are now openly admitting they were caught by surprise--that they had no plan to counter what has happened. For more than a year, Mr. Obama watched as this malignancy grew in Syria. But he did nothing, dismissing ISIS as a "JV team." He finally began a token military effort last summer, but it has been so puny that the jihadists have gained ground against it. Within the past few weeks Ramadi, a city of a half-million or more people only sixty miles from Baghdad, has fallen to them.

    But occupying forces are always at a disadvantage, it's a race against the clock.
    Really? What evidence is there for that? The U.S. still maintains a substantial force in South Korea, more than sixty years after the end of the war there. I don't see that it is at any disadvantage to anyone or ever has been, or that there has been any race against the clock. It was and is a strong military force, and the U.S. will maintain it there as long as it sees fit.

    Military experts argued for a somewhat smaller force of that kind to be left in Iraq, but Mr. Obama didn't want one. So he used an existing status-of-forces agreement as a flimsy excuse for throwing up his hands helplessly and doing nothing. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower, or John Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan meekly letting the U.S.-approved leader of a piss-ant country the U.S. had overrun with hundreds of thousands of troops deny him, if he had been determined to keep a small part of that force there.

  8. #98
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,270

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That's because our military is not built for imperial policing endeavors, nor should we try to use it as such.
    I note your slur against this country, and it doesn't surprise me. It is drivel. No great power in history has ever had less ambition for empire than the United States. For four years after WWII, only this country had the atom bomb. By 1949, we had about 200 of them, before anyone else had even one. With an advantage that enormous, the U.S. could have dictated terms to every nation on earth, and built an empire like the world had never seen.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    50,419

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I note your slur against this country, and it doesn't surprise me.
    My slur against this country, huh? I fear your imagination is running away on you.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #100
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    50,419

    Re: Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul: PM

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Are you denying the claims your president made in his December 14, 2011 speech at Fort Bragg--almost three years into his presidency? He said we were "leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq." He spoke of "this moment of success" that American troops had brought about it Iraq and called it "an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making."
    Words are wind, measurement is fact. Obviously that was wrong because none of that held.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    What had become of that "sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq," just three years later? Where has it gone? Either Mr. Obama was lying, or he has quickly squandered that extraordinary achievement he boasted of. He, General Dempsey, and others in his administration are now openly admitting they were caught by surprise--that they had no plan to counter what has happened. For more than a year, Mr. Obama watched as this malignancy grew in Syria. But he did nothing, dismissing ISIS as a "JV team." He finally began a token military effort last summer, but it has been so puny that the jihadists have gained ground against it. Within the past few weeks Ramadi, a city of a half-million or more people only sixty miles from Baghdad, has fallen to them.
    The self-reliant Iraq never existed. It was propped up by American force, but was never able to stand on its own.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Really? What evidence is there for that? The U.S. still maintains a substantial force in South Korea, more than sixty years after the end of the war there. I don't see that it is at any disadvantage to anyone or ever has been, or that there has been any race against the clock. It was and is a strong military force, and the U.S. will maintain it there as long as it sees fit.

    Military experts argued for a somewhat smaller force of that kind to be left in Iraq, but Mr. Obama didn't want one. So he used an existing status-of-forces agreement as a flimsy excuse for throwing up his hands helplessly and doing nothing. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower, or John Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan meekly letting the U.S.-approved leader of a piss-ant country the U.S. had overrun with hundreds of thousands of troops deny him, if he had been determined to keep a small part of that force there.
    What evidence? Korea, Vietnam, hell our own Revolution.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •