• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

We had plenty of troops hit Omaha beach. 6,400 casualties that day.

So you don't believe the Generals in the field should know the troop level needed but a mental midget like Hussein Obama does?

Never heard of a president not giving the Generals in the fiewld the troops they need until now.........
 
So you don't believe the Generals in the field should know the troop level needed but a mental midget like Hussein Obama does?

Never heard of a president not giving the Generals in the fiewld the troops they need until now.........
I was under the impression that the current Afghan surge was using the numbers requested by the top general. If he needs more, he'll get them.

Look back into history for a moment. Which party's Presidents always upscale the wars?
 
I was under the impression that the current Afghan surge was using the numbers requested by the top general. If he needs more, he'll get them.

Look back into history for a moment. Which party's Presidents always upscale the wars?

Yes it is now but it took your boy Obama 3 months of Begging by the General to get Obama to make the decision to send the troops.......That has never happened in any war we have been in......

I don't know who upscaled them but lets just see who was prez when the war started or was upscaled.....

WW2: FDR Democrat

Korean War: Truman Democrat

Viet Nam: JFK/LBJ Democrat

Gulf War: Bush 1 if you actually want to call that a war

Iraq war: Bush 2

Afghanistan: Bush 2 escalted by Obama

Now lets talk about losses

WW2: millions lost

Korean: over 100,000

Vietnam: 58,000

Iraq and Afghanistan 5,000

So we lost more men in the Vietnam war then the gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan combined

Kind of shoots holes in your theory..........
 
Yes it is now but it took your boy Obama 3 months of Begging by the General to get Obama to make the decision to send the troops.......That has never happened in any war we have been in......

I don't know who upscaled them but lets just see who was prez when the war started or was upscaled.....

WW2: FDR Democrat

Korean War: Truman Democrat

Viet Nam: Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ/Nixon Democrat/Republican

Gulf War: Bush 1 if you actually want to call that a war

Iraq war: Bush 2

Afghanistan: Bush 2 escalted (sic) by Obama

Now lets talk about losses

WW2: millions lost(416,00) us

Korean: over 100,000 (36,516)

Vietnam: 58,000

Iraq and Afghanistan (4,296) 5,000 (914)

So we lost more men in the Vietnam war then the gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan combined

Kind of shoots holes in your theory..........
Once again General McCrystal's plans never called for troops before April which is this month. All the begging in the world wouldn't have changed anything. So in this war means only under Obama, because you weren't complaining when General Kiernan was calling for more troops for years out of Bush and was ignored.

Fixed your estimates you overestimated and underestimated
 
Last edited:
Yes, we all know the GOP and the big companies that bought them off are unhappy about the healthcare bill. It means they cannot rape the public any longer. I know this annoys various forms of big business scum.

It's high time business got a taste of its own medicine.

you consider 55% of the American people "scum"?
 
Once again General McCrystal's plans never called for troops before April which is this month. All the begging in the world wouldn't have changed anything. So in this war means only under Obama, because you weren't complaining when General Kiernan was calling for more troops for years out of Bush and was ignored.

A link please...........

Petraeus was the man and as soon as he twisted the arms of the dem senate he got his troops.............
 
So you don't believe the Generals in the field should know the troop level needed but a mental midget like Hussein Obama does?

Never heard of a president not giving the Generals in the fiewld the troops they need until now.........

....obviously you have never heard of Donald Rumsfield (not president, but had his charter...) Given we made the goofy decision to prosecute that war, it should have been done with sufficient troops. Generals were fired over that one. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html)

Bush did not give the generals what they needed and wanted in Afghanistan, largely because he was busy with Iraq.

BTW.

Point 1: Our armies are commanded by civilians. Its the way our system works. Generals are the subordinates of those civilians. In any business, the subordinate does not always get exactly what he asks for, as sometimes that subordinate asks for more than he needs. The good boss knows when and when not to "trim the fat"

Point 2: The mission the general had was to give Obama options of what could be done with different troop commitment levels. Obama weighted strategic options. To my knowledge, there was never a specific request for a specific number of troops..... that was something created by the media.

Point 3: The war was in its 8th year, during most of this time, it operated without much in the way of strategic direction. Three months, or whatever, was expedience compared to its historic MO.
 
Last edited:
Only 55% and that coming from the rights favourite polling institute (for the most part)? Tsk, they could have padded the numbers better if you ask me.

In a week or two the numbers will be very different, and in a month or two even more different.. and I dont expect it to go up, but down.
Can you prove that they padded the numbers? Put up or shutup.
 
....obviously you have never heard of Donald Rumsfield (not president, but had his charter...) Given we made the goofy decision to prosecute that war, it should have been done with sufficient troops. Generals were fired over that one. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html)

Bush did not give the generals what they needed and wanted in Afghanistan, largely because he was busy with Iraq.

BTW.

Point 1: Our armies are commanded by civilians. Its the way our system works. Generals are the subordinates of those civilians. In any business, the subordinate does not always get exactly what he asks for, as sometimes that subordinate asks for more than he needs. The good boss knows when and when not to "trim the fat"

Point 2: The mission the general had was to give Obama options of what could be done with different troop commitment levels. Obama weighted strategic options. To my knowledge, there was never a specific request for a specific number of troops..... that was something created by the media.

Point 3: The war was in its 8th year, during most of this time, it operated without much in the way of strategic direction. Three months, or whatever, was expedience compared to its historic MO.

That is because Afghanistan should be the major responsibility of NATO, not the U.S.
 
That is because Afghanistan should be the major responsibility of NATO, not the U.S.

Didn't start out that way. And the deterioration of Afghanistan started long before the switch to NATO.
 
We should not even be in the UN my left wing friend...........

I agree. I think we should bring about some reforms and changes to the present UN, especially because we, the american taxpayers, fund most of it.

The UN should benefit america more than it presently does.:usflag2:
 
I agree. I think we should bring about some reforms and changes to the present UN, especially because we, the american taxpayers, fund most of it.

The UN should benefit america more than it presently does.:usflag2:

You do know that most of your friends on the left disagree with you on that.........We had a poll awhile back about whether we should be in or out of the UN and the people who wanted to stay in were mostly on the left........
 
You do know that most of your friends on the left disagree with you on that.........We had a poll awhile back about whether we should be in or out of the UN and the people who wanted to stay in were mostly on the left........

Even though I seem like a pablum puking type of liberal at times, I consider myself an extreme centrist. I am totally for the right to bear arms and I own a ivory handled british bulldog 38 caliber pistol, a 1917 Eurfurt crown type, 9 mil. german luger w/holster. All the parts number match and it is in mint condition. The holster is almost pristine for it's age with no frayed stiches or major wear and it smell real goo. and i love the sh!t out of it, and an 8 shot 22 cal midnight special.

I even have ammo for them all. The bulldog requires low explosive gunpowder but I will never shoot that sob.:)
 
:confused: NATO wasn't in charge at the beginning. We invaded and we allowed it to deteriorate.

NATO is always in charge.......Even though we have most of the troops there NATO is in charge NOW.......It is obvious you know nothing about that organization......
 
I agree. I think we should bring about some reforms and changes to the present UN, especially because we, the american taxpayers, fund most of it.

The UN should benefit america more than it presently does.:usflag2:

agreed! given that nations that benefit from free riding on our largess also have the ability to vote down proposed reforms to the UN, how do you propose we go getting them in line?
 
I wonder why the left hates big business so much.......Hell most of the CEOs are democrats and liberals like Bill Gates.....Why would you hate your own kind?

You would think they would want big business to be successful because they are the people that do the hiring....When Obama sticks big tax programs on them they are forced to lay off people........I wonder if any of these lefties were hired by someone who is poor.........
Because big business, or rather, special interests and their monetary influence on our government, is destroying. The People are too stupid, distracted and brainwashed to stop it. Well, some of us anyway.
 
This is actually an interesting question. Some say it's because new taxes on small businesses will stall growth, in turn keeping the "big dawgs" in the corporate world at the top.

Edit to add: Remember, it's usually always about power and money.
What new taxes on small business?
 
Do you have any problem with the government forcing people to bu health insurance they don't want?
Do you have car insurance or are you an insurance rebel?
 
Back
Top Bottom