View Poll Results: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama

    35 54.69%
  • Romney

    29 45.31%
Page 72 of 82 FirstFirst ... 22627071727374 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 817

Thread: For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

  1. #711
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    This is a no-brainer - OBAMA, hands down.

    A check of both WhiteHouse.gov under "Defense" and "Veterans" clearly shows President Obama is doing and has DONE so much more for our Defense Department, active duty service personnel and their families and veterans.
    Well, I believe a check of active duty personnel under Obama would clearly show something different. However, getting your facts from a website controlled by the Obama administration is sure to tell the whole story. Carry on, Sir.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  2. #712
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    As Sheikh Sattar was successful in gaining U.S. support in police recruitment, his popularity and influence grew. And as the Anbar Awakening in Ramadi was successful and gained more U.S. support, his vision of the Awakening also grew. He started talking about expanding the Awakening beyond Anbar and even Iraq, envisioning it as a way of changing the Sunni world.
    Enabled by US forces.....

    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  3. #713
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Actually, yes. But that doesn't change fact CP. The fact is it wasn't our idea.
    What a fascinating claim. So we had the idea that local, tribally based Iraq forces were going to be necessary to defeating AQI, then we convinced the amenable Sheikhs to return from Syria, then we gave them protection, then we gave them weapons, then we gave them money, then we gave them radios, then we gave them our comm freqs, and then we trained them, and then we gave them operational freedom in our AO's, but the fact that they later went up against AQI had noting to do with us.

    right

    They did it completely on their own.
    see above. If they had done it completely on their own, AQI would have murdered them all, as it successfully did to Sheikh Satar later. That's why they fled to Syria to begin with.

    You're merely letting your ideology color your perception. Facts are what they are.
    no, I am remembering what we did, and I am noting that it is directly in line with what we said we were going to do.

  4. #714
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The surge did not have a role in the Anbar Awakening. Surge troops that came to Anbar in 2007 were not seen as useful, other than on the eastern border with Baghdad where the ISF acted as a sectarian militia. In fact, U.S. troops in general were not seen as useful even before the surge.

    http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/...uri_Jensen.pdf


    Man, I was in Fallujah in 2007 (hint, that's in Anbar). When we rolled into that city there were M&I events going down on a daily basis, the locals were terrified to leave their houses at night or send their kids to school, and if we were in place for 15 minutes we were getting small arms fire (half an hour and they could bring mortars on-line). Then we moved into the city itself, moved to block and control traffic, set up local forces, trained local forces, paid local forces, moved in to live with local forces in their neighborhoods to provide 24 hour security, and rounded up a bunch of bad guys. Attacks dropped from 200 at the beginning of the year in our AO to 2 by October. M&I stopped. Locals were sending kids to school, opening up markets, by Ramadan they could enjoy staying out late together... I remember one of our terps (a guy out of Baghdad) turning to our boss, with amazement in his voice: "Sir... they're.... happy...."

    The most common question we got was whether or not we were going to stick around long enough to make sure that AQI couldn't take back over. The most effective enemy propaganda campaign we faced were posters by them quoting our own political leadership saying that we were going to abandon the fight, so Iraqi's shouldn't work with us.


    Now before the Surge, I would agree, US troops weren't being employed all that usefully. The idiotic "anti-terrorist" strategy VP Biden wanted us to pursue in Afghanistan wherein we live on big bases and only leave to do raids ensured that we would have poor intelligence and degraded effects. We didn't provide security to the populace (the high ground in a counterinsurgency), and so we basically abandoned them to AQI. But you are sticking your head in the sand.

  5. #715
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That doesn't address the point. The Awakening happened on it's own and largely away form where we were targeting. They did that on their own. There is not doubt on that point.
    Away from where we were targeting? lol. Anbar Province was one of the most contested areas of both OEF and OIF. There were Marine RCT's there not to mention Army personnel. The surge, once again, provided the sercurity needed for The Awakening to happen.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  6. #716
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    This is one of those, "Eat alittle crow/if it ain't broke, don't fix it" moments.

    Granted, President Obama did implement an increase in troop force similar to the surge that was used in Iraq, but let's get a few things straight about that.

    1. It took GW Bush nearly a year to finally decide to switch tactics and go with the surge long after Gen. Petraeus recommended a new "counter-insurgency" strategy over the "counter-terrorism" strategy that was in place. Source: The War Within by Bod Woodward and The Gamble by Thomas E. Ricks

    2. It took President Obama a mere 6 months to make a similar decision concerning Afghanistan. Source: Obama's Wars by Bod Woodward

    Now, granted, President Obama had the advantage of hindsight in his favor - his ability to review the mistakes made concerning implenting the Iraq surge and the military leaders at his disposal. There's also the fact the w/Petraeus' military acumen at his disposal, President Obama and his defense team combined facets of counter-terrorism w/counter-insurancy to tackle the AfPak problem. So, it's the same as the surge but different. (See "Memorandum for the Principals: President Obama's Final Orders for Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy or Terms Sheet" at the end of the book, "Obama's Wars" for details)
    I think you just debated yourself dude. I might be wrong though. I think you just advocated that President Obama made a faster decision but only because President Bush was his case study.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  7. #717
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Well, I believe a check of active duty personnel under Obama would clearly show something different. However, getting your facts from a website controlled by the Obama administration is sure to tell the whole story. Carry on, Sir.
    Well, if you have a problem believing the information from the Executive Branch, perhaps you'll believe the figures directly from DoD.

    Active Duty military force strength as of FY2010:

    Fiscal year 2010 DoD AC end-strength totaled 1.42 million servicemembers. This represents a slight increase from the FY09 AC total of 1.41 million. In FY10, the Army, the largest of the military services, had 562,000 active duty servicemembers, an increase of 13,000 from FY09. The Army expansion accounted for half of AC growth between FY08 and FY09, but for nearly all of the growth between FY09 and FY10. The Marine Corps and Air Force each grew by 2 percent from FY08 to FY09, but they changed little
    in size from FY09 to FY10. The Navy shrank by 2,500 personnel between FY08 and FY09, and continued to decrease between FY09 and FY10 by 1,000.
    There's lots more public information you can find on our armed forces by going to their respective ".mil" websites or DoD's website itself.

    Sidenote: I find it interesting that you'd dismiss the information contained on the President's website where much of it is derived directly from the various branches of government including Congress (i.e., signed legistlation), but it seems you're quick to accept information derived from a civilian's website who very likely receives his information from partisan sources that may not be as reliable (i.e., "The U.S. Navy has only 284 ships today" which is two short of the actual number of warships in our active duty fleet. We have several more in our inactive fleet ready to activate when necessary; always have. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of the truth.)
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-13-12 at 07:23 PM.

  8. #718
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I think you just debated yourself dude. I might be wrong though. I think you just advocated that President Obama made a faster decision but only because President Bush was his case study.
    Well, sure he was and I clearly admitted that. However, that doesn't mean that you can't admit when you're wrong and change contingency plans and make them better in order to carry out the mission. Any sitting President would be stupid NOT to take the good that was done by his predecessor, fine tune it and make it work better especially where military warfare is concerned.

  9. #719
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Well, if you have a problem believing the information from the Executive Branch, perhaps you'll believe the figures directly from DoD.

    Active Duty military force strength as of FY2010:



    There's lots more public information you can find on our armed forces by going to their respective ".mil" websites or DoD's website itself.

    Sidenote: I find it interesting that you'd dismiss the information contained on the President's website where much of it is derived directly from the various branches of government including Congress (i.e., signed legistlation), but it seems you're quick to accept information derived from a civilian's website who very likely receives his information from partisan sources that may not be as reliable (i.e., "The U.S. Navy has only 284 ships today" which is two short of the actual number of warships in our active duty fleet. We have several more in our inactive fleet ready to activate when necessary; always have. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of the truth.)
    Using force size as an indicator of President Obama's support for the military is misleading. Normally, the policies of the previous POTUS dictate the size and scope of the military. Its very hard to recruit fast and even harder to boot people once you don't need them anymore. While the military doesn't have a union, its just bad form to kick someone to the curb without some sort of chance to transition. Especially when that person potentially went to war for the country.

    I will ask this question again to everyone. Where is the Scott Walker like outrage against President Obama for the planned hike in contributions military members must make to their medical care? Especially considering the fact that he cannot be considered a "peaceful" POTUS by any stretch. President Bush may have been a warmongerer but at least he gave us the assets we needed and took care of us. President Obama would rather cut funding, still ask the same of the military as before the cuts, and make us pay more for the healthcare we will need from fighting the war he has doubled down on.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  10. #720
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Oh, really, Mr. Romney? Care to explain how the latest smart bombs, advanced weapons capable of shooting around corners, or the latest in snipper riffle technolog such as the Army's XM2010 with an effective range greater than 2,000 meters has found its way into combat action in Afghanistan? Or how he used Stealth Helicopters in concert with SealTeam 6 using the most advanced weaponry to kill OBL?

    I mean, c'mon, people. Some things are just clear cut! There's no argument as to which person is doing and HAS DONE MORE or will do for our military. One clue as to who it's not: MITT ROMNEY! But don't take my word for it. Just go to the aforementioned web sites and check out the facts for yourself.
    Hate to tell you this bro but most of those weapons you speak of were procured during the Bush years. 3 years is not enough time to identify a short fall, put it up for bid, have various companies bid on it, have those companies develop prototypes, test all of them (usually 3 or 4), award the contract, then that company produce them en mass, test them again, train trainers on the gear, train the users, then field it. Yes, it takes that long to get a piece of gear to the military. The only exception to that rule that I have seen is the MRAP. It was rapidly pushed to the front of the line. The XM2010 took a year from contract approval to fielding. That's just one step of the process.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 72 of 82 FirstFirst ... 22627071727374 ... 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
  •