• 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!

US troops coming home? Obama to say on Wednesday

apdst said:
How's that new boat? Float better than the one you just jumped out of? :rofl
Click to expand...

i guess i do owe you 'thanks' for making my case about sadam being contained, warranting no further military action
 
apdst said:
If that were true, there wouldn't have been a need for a, "no-fly", zone.
Click to expand...

I thought someone already explained to you what the NFZ was for? No? Well here you go:

"The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south."Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BTW, who were those troops we were fighting in 2003? The Iraqi Army, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Yeah they really whooped our ass with their great fleets of tanks, planes and missiles didn't they? Oh, wait................no they didn't, because we destroyed that capability in the Persian Gulf war. :sun
 
apdst said:
I say we crack down on Muslims, in general.
Click to expand...

People that are scared will do just about any damn thing it would seem. They really need to get a grip.
 
apdst said:
How's that new boat? Float better than the one you just jumped out of? :rofl
Click to expand...

You make a lot of leaps. How big a fight did that army put up in either war? You have a lot of your facts wrong. We were not afraid of Iraq in any shape way or form,and 2003, neither were Iraqis neighbors. But, we did Iran the favor of invading. They even helped. :coffeepap
 
justabubba said:
i guess i do owe you 'thanks' for making my case about sadam being contained, warranting no further military action
Click to expand...

I never made any such claim. You took my comments totally out of context. To say otherwise is a ****ing lie.

But, this is coming from the same guy that thought the Boers fought with a conventional army during the Boer Wars. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
I thought someone already explained to you what the NFZ was for? No? Well here you go:

"The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south."Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Yeah they really whooped our ass with their great fleets of tanks, planes and missiles didn't they? Oh, wait................no they didn't, because we destroyed that capability in the Persian Gulf war. :sun
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
You make a lot of leaps. How big a fight did that army put up in either war? You have a lot of your facts wrong. We were not afraid of Iraq in any shape way or form,and 2003, neither were Iraqis neighbors. But, we did Iran the favor of invading. They even helped. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You can't seriously be comparing the leathality of the Kuwaiti Army with the United States Army.

You folks really need to get your historical facts from hisotry books vice the news.
 
apdst said:
You can't seriously be comparing the leathality of the Kuwaiti Army with the United States Army.

You folks really need to get your historical facts from hisotry books vice the news.
Click to expand...


Tough choice...............take the personal opinion of an internet guy that goes by Apdst, or United Nations Security Council Resolution 688.

Thanks for playing! :sun
 
Catawba said:
Tough choice...............take the personal opinion of an internet guy that goes by Apdst, or United Nations Security Council Resolution 688.

Thanks for playing! :sun
Click to expand...

The tough choice--'specially for Libbos--is to accept reality, or harp on-n-on about some Leftist talking point that was inaccurate from the git-go.

Why is it so hard for Libbos to understand that the no-fly zones were specifically tasked with targetting the Iraqi military? Could someone explain that one for me?
 
apdst said:
The tough choice--'specially for Libbos--is to accept reality, or harp on-n-on about some Leftist talking point that was inaccurate from the git-go.

Why is it so hard for Libbos to understand that the no-fly zones were specifically tasked with targetting the Iraqi military? Could someone explain that one for me?
Click to expand...

don't understand why you need help with this
you have already stated it yourself: sadam's military was contained
the no-fly zone was an essential aspect of the containment strategy
one so successful that further military intervention was NOT required
 
justabubba said:
don't understand why you need help with this
you have already stated it yourself: sadam's military was contained
the no-fly zone was an essential aspect of the containment strategy
one so successful that further military intervention was NOT required
Click to expand...

I never made any such statement. Are lies really all you have to respond with?
 
apdst said:
You can't seriously be comparing the leathality of the Kuwaiti Army with the United States Army.

You folks really need to get your historical facts from hisotry books vice the news.
Click to expand...

I could write a book on all the mistakes in this resonse, but I will point out again, the Iraqi army did not hold up, could not stop us in any way, was not a threat to us. And Saddam knew better than to make the Kuwati mistake again. You simply can't justify invade Iraq on any of this you have thrown out so far. And that includes the silliness that Kurds in iraq were not Iraqis.
 
apdst said:
I never made any such statement. Are lies really all you have to respond with?
Click to expand...

let's see what you said:
apdst said:
The reason for the no-fly zones, were because of the military threat that the Iraqi armed forces posed for it's neighbors and it's citizens.

Set them back a hundred years my ass! They still had jets and tanks in 2003. Ever been fired upon by a T-72? Or a Mig 21?

The Iraqi Army fielded 5 corps(+) in 2003, with nearly a half million troops afield. That's a military threat, in anyone's neighborhood.



For comparitive purposes, this is the Kuwaiti Army.



Kuwaits Army consisted of a little more than two divisions, while Iraq's army consisted of 41.

The Saudi Army,



The Saudi Army can field the equivalent of about 5 divisions, to Iraq's 41.

The argument we heard from the Leftists in 2003 was there was no need to invade Iraq, because Saddam's army was, "contained". The reason it was contained, was because it still posed a threat to it's neighbors.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba for the reading impaired]
you made my case
you undermined your own
now you want to whine about it
say what you mean and mean what you say. i used your words against your argument and now you complain. here is what i said:
don't understand why you need help with this
you have already stated it yourself: sadam's military was contained
the no-fly zone was an essential aspect of the containment strategy
one so successful that further military intervention was NOT required
Click to expand...
you lost the argument
you gave me the very statement to prevail in this debate with you
man up and deal with it
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I could write a book on all the mistakes in this resonse, but I will point out again, the Iraqi army did not hold up, could not stop us in any way, was not a threat to us. And Saddam knew better than to make the Kuwati mistake again. You simply can't justify invade Iraq on any of this you have thrown out so far. And that includes the silliness that Kurds in iraq were not Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the Iraqi Army was a threat to somebody, since the no-fly zones were put in place to prevent it's movement.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, the Iraqi Army was a threat to somebody, since the no-fly zones were put in place to prevent it's movement.
Click to expand...

Yes, Iraqis. I've linked that for you, more than a few times. :coffeepap
 
justabubba said:
let's see what you said:
[emphais added by bubba for the reading impaired]
you made my case
you undermined your own
now you want to whine about it
say what you mean and mean what you say. i used your words against your argument and now you complain. here is what i said:

you lost the argument
you gave me the very statement to prevail in this debate with you
man up and deal with it
Click to expand...

And again--for the reading impaired--where did I ever say that there was no need for further military intervention? Where did I say that the Iraqi Army was a threat to the United States, as Boo keeps harping?

Reality just isn't working in ya'lls favor.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, Iraqis. I've linked that for you, more than a few times. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

So, we're in agreement that the reason for the no-fly zone was because the Iraqi Army still posed a threat?
 
apdst said:
So, we're in agreement that the reason for the no-fly zone was because the Iraqi Army still posed a threat?
Click to expand...

why would we contain a military that posed no threat?
but there was no threat to the USA, which would necessitate further USA military intervention
that is the point you keep missing
sadam's military - and any threat it posed - was contained
the iraq war was one of choice
and the shrub - at dick's urging - stupidly chose to go to war
 
apdst said:
So, we're in agreement that the reason for the no-fly zone was because the Iraqi Army still posed a threat?
Click to expand...

Not outside Iraq, no. If you support invdaing Iraq, you have support invading Lybia, and argue we should have been in Sudan, Rawanda, and anywhere where a leader is a threat to his own subjects. Do try to understand what is being said here.
 
justabubba said:
why would we contain a military that posed no threat?
but there was no threat to the USA, which would necessitate further USA military intervention
that is the point you keep missing
sadam's military - and any threat it posed - was contained
the iraq war was one of choice
and the shrub - at dick's urging - stupidly chose to go to war
Click to expand...

Obviosuly, someone believed that the Iraqi Army did pose a threat to someone, or else there would have been no need for the no-fly zones.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not outside Iraq, no. If you support invdaing Iraq, you have support invading Lybia, and argue we should have been in Sudan, Rawanda, and anywhere where a leader is a threat to his own subjects. Do try to understand what is being said here.
Click to expand...

You firing wild, now. :lamo

I never said I supported invading Iraq. Where are you boys getting this crap from? Certainly not from any of my posts. :lamo
 
apdst said:
You firing wild, now. :lamo

I never said I supported invading Iraq. Where are you boys getting this crap from? Certainly not from any of my posts. :lamo
Click to expand...

Besides exhibiting that you do not understand why we had the no fly zones, what is the purpose you being in this debate then?
 
Boo Radley said:
Besides exhibiting that you do not understand why we had the no fly zones, what is the purpose you being in this debate then?
Click to expand...

Because it's so much fun to watch Libbos make asses of themselves. ;)
 
apdst said:
Because it's so much fun to watch Libbos make asses of themselves. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, you didn't do that. You might look at the possibility that you made yourself look foolish. But, if you admit you have no point, I'm moving on. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom