• 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!

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture

The reality is that at least he is trying. His original projections for pulling out may have been far too aggressive for the reality of the situation, but he is working towards that goal in earnest. And that is what is important. He's trying to get us out of there as quickly and responsibly as he can.

Nobody is making any case of importance over whether or not he actually makes his 18 month time line. No plan survives contact with the enemy.





I don't think he is "working" any harder on it than Bush was in the end. Do you?
 
What substance and facts am I confusing?

No you have gone from lacking substance to being deliberately obtuse; did you not make the following comment?

Originally Posted by Gibberish
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.

If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.


I think it is pretty obvious what is lacking substance in that claim.....I bolded it for you to make it easier for you.

But of course you will now argue that you were in all the meetings and can read George Bush's mind and divine all his intents right?

:roll:
 
HAA!~! :rofl

Sorry, but from just the brief time I've been here, the "blatant partisan" in this exchange is obvious.

And it ain't Lerxst, my friend. ;)

He's just mad that I won't indulge his attempt to derail.
 
Now then... tell me how it is that The Obama deserves the pass Lerxst gives Him, based on the idea that "no plan survives contact with the enemy', whereas GWB does not.

The difference is, and I know you will never get this, is that Bush's plan was both a horrific **** up and absolutely unnecessary.

The devil is in the details. Bush and his administration willfully rejected the advice of the generals who were charged with executing the campaign. They exacerbated the situation by continuing to implement strategies that had little chance of success. This Bush plan didn't survive contact with it's own generals let alone the enemy.

Obama on the other hand made a campaign promise to have our troops out within 18 months. It's now become obvious that his plans were somewhat aggressive and the reality is that it will be longer than 18 months.

If you don't see the stark contrast between the two example then you are blind. Bush doesn't get a pass because the situation doesn't warrant one. He got thousands of our men and women killed by invading and occupying a country unnecessarily. It was a war of choice, and it was horribly planned and executed.
 
Huh? :lol:
Ten character limit thing.

Bush had already started the withdrawal, no? Has obama done anything different? if so what?
Obama is trying to accelerate the timeline and reduce our role in that nation, which would bring more of our troops home. He's realized we will be unable to completely withdrawal for many years. Given our history in Korea, Japan, Germany...probably never.
 
The difference is, and I know you will never get this, is that Bush's plan was both a horrific **** up and absolutely unnecessary.

The devil is in the details. Bush and his administration willfully rejected the advice of the generals who were charged with executing the campaign. They exacerbated the situation by continuing to implement strategies that had little chance of success. This Bush plan didn't survive contact with it's own generals let alone the enemy.

Obama on the other hand made a campaign promise to have our troops out within 18 months. It's now become obvious that his plans were somewhat aggressive and the reality is that it will be longer than 18 months.

If you don't see the stark contrast between the two example then you are blind. Bush doesn't get a pass because the situation doesn't warrant one. He got thousands of our men and women killed by invading and occupying a country unnecessarily. It was a war of choice, and it was horribly planned and executed.

Two things; (1) Do you REALLY think that Bush made these plans? and (2); do you really think that Generals plans are infallible and take into account ALL possible outcomes?

In BOTH cases you are definitely speaking from ignorance if you answer either in the affirmative. :roll:
 
No you have gone from lacking substance to being deliberately obtuse; did you not make the following comment?

Originally Posted by Gibberish
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.

If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.


I think it is pretty obvious what is lacking substance in that claim.....I bolded it for you to make it easier for you.

But of course you will now argue that you were in all the meetings and can read George Bush's mind and divine all his intents right?

:roll:

And you obviously lack the knowledge of the subject matter to understand where he is going with his comment. Bush knew there was a very high probability of an insurgency and sectarian violence, yet he ignored it in favor of trying to recreate the 1991 Gulf War success. Which he did, but he failed on the follow through. His piss poor planning landed our military right where it wasn't prepared to be. If you know anything about George W. Bush you will know that his faith in God played a pivotal role in how made decisions.
 
Ten character limit thing.


Obama is trying to accelerate the timeline and reduce our role in that nation, which would bring more of our troops home. He's realized we will be unable to completely withdrawal for many years. Given our history in Korea, Japan, Germany...probably never.

I am curious; why is it that Liberals never railed about bringing our troops home from Germany, or Japan, or any of the other hundreds of places you will find our troops?

Why does it have to be Iraq? Does this same "bring them home now" rule apply to Afghanistan, and if not, why not?
 
And you obviously lack the knowledge of the subject matter to understand where he is going with his comment. Bush knew there was a very high probability of an insurgency and sectarian violence, yet he ignored it in favor of trying to recreate the 1991 Gulf War success. Which he did, but he failed on the follow through. His piss poor planning landed our military right where it wasn't prepared to be. If you know anything about George W. Bush you will know that his faith in God played a pivotal role in how made decisions.

Once more, your hyperbole and highly speculative argument doesn't have a lot of FACT to stand on.

I will keep asking you this same questions until you finally realize how absurd you sound; (1) Do you actually think that Bush planned the whole thing; and (2) Do you actually believe that Generals can make infallible plans that anticipate every possible outcome?

I keep hearing this BS about welcoming us as liberators; WELL, they actually did! What part of REALITY are you trying to avoid now?

Do you really want to attribute the actions of a few insurgents and terrorists to an entire nation; over 65% of whom VOTED to establish a Democratic form of Government? Are you really going to argue that living under a murderous despot like Saddam was better for the Iraqi people? Are you so blind with partisan hate that you actually believe that the small band of thugs attempting to usurp the will of the Iraqi people serves as any kind of mandate as to whether our invasion was a good idea or not?

I'm sorry, but did you say you live on planet Fantasy; because all I see from Liberals like you is a desperate defense for terrorists and a desire to avoid REALITY and the FACTS here.

You talk a lot about others lack of knowledge; have you read the absolute nonsensical BS you write? Nothing you write is a FACT; it is pure hypothetical garbage laced with your rabid partisan hyperbole in a vacuum of the FACTS or of REALITY.
 
Last edited:
No you have gone from lacking substance to being deliberately obtuse; did you not make the following comment?

Originally Posted by Gibberish
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.

If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.


I think it is pretty obvious what is lacking substance in that claim.....I bolded it for you to make it easier for you.

But of course you will now argue that you were in all the meetings and can read George Bush's mind and divine all his intents right?

:roll:

I don't need to read Bush's mind. He and his admin freely expressed how easily the invasion of Iraq and reformation of a Democracy would go. There is nothing obtuse about it.
 
I don't need to read Bush's mind. He and his admin freely expressed how easily the invasion of Iraq and reformation of a Democracy would go. There is nothing obtuse about it.

Really; so you would have a source to these statements about how easily it would go?
 
Two things; (1) Do you REALLY think that Bush made these plans?
Bush approved the plans that were butchered by Rumsfeld and Company. It was Bush's decision ultimately to invade with a plan that his administration had been fully advised was not up to par. Powell cautioned the administration about what they were doing. It was well known they didn't have enough troops or enough training to pull this off successfully.
and (2); do you really think that Generals plans are infallible and take into account ALL possible outcomes?
And this is where you betray your own ignorance of the subject matter. General Tommy Franks presented an off the shelf plan for the invasion of Iraq that had been developed after Desert Storm and updated over the course of the following decade by military and civilian planners. It called for an estimated 400,000 troops with much of the emphasis being placed on the difficulties of the post invasion occupation and potential insurgency (thus the high troops levels). Rumsfeld rejected it because there wasn't time to raise the necessary troop numbers or resources and still meet their desired invasion time line. The occupation force levels were reduced substantially. Rumsfeld was highly criticized for this later. What did he have to say? I think his famous "you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time" sums it up pretty good. The only problem is he knew full well we didn't need to invade at that time. It was the administrations desire to meet their time line of choice that led to this debacle. Not the military's failure to develop a plan. The Pentagon had a plan, the Bush administration rejected it and opted for their own version.

And shame on Tommy Franks and shame on General Richard Myers (then JCS) for not exercising their capabilities under the Goldwater-Nichols Act to force debate on the train wreck they knew was coming.

In BOTH cases you are definitely speaking from ignorance if you answer either in the affirmative. :roll:
You were saying? Get a pen out, I'll give you a list, head to Books-A-Million. You've got some reading to do.
 
I am curious; why is it that Liberals never railed about bringing our troops home from Germany, or Japan, or any of the other hundreds of places you will find our troops?

Why does it have to be Iraq? Does this same "bring them home now" rule apply to Afghanistan, and if not, why not?

Well let me sum it up for you as best I can since you haven't gotten in the entire time you've been on this forum.

Iraq=Unnecessary and avoidable. Militarily contained and not an immediate threat to the region, to the U.S., or to the world.

Germany and Japan=War of necessity, each of which involved an enemy who attacked first and posed a legitimate threat to world security.

Afghanistan=War of necessity. The government there actively aided and harbored terrorist groups that planned and carried out attacks against the U.S. and other nations. The Taliban was a religious extremist group that ruled through fear and murder. They actively supported Islamic militancy. Afghanistan was at risk because short of actually destroying the Taliban and the terrorist organizations it gave safe haven to the populace would most likely be subjected to the same situation it was after the Soviet Union withdrew it's forces. The Taliban would reemerge and get back to business.

Iraq on the other hand was run by a secularist Pan-Arab strongman. As evil as this man was he kept a lid on his populace and wasn't in the business of exporting terrorism to the U.S. or anywhere else at the time we attacked. He stood in direct contrast to Iran. He wasn't going anywhere and he lacked the ability to actually threaten any nation militarily.

Next?
 
I don't understand the reasoning as to why Gitmo has to be closed in order for what has been deemed torturous interrogation tactics to cease. It seems stupid to me to bring these people onto American soil where they will be afforded Constitutional rights.
 
Really; so you would have a source to these statements about how easily it would go?

Prewar predictions coming back to bite Officials who forecast a brief conflict.
WASHINGTON -- Armchair generals and media critics aren't the only people whose comments are giving heartburn to administration officials defending the progress of the war with Iraq. The officials also face questions about their own remarks made before the fighting began.

Then, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke optimistically in interviews and at briefings about the prospects that the war would be short, Iraqi resistance limited and Iraqi citizens welcoming.

Now, the president has pounded the podium when asked how long the war will last -- "However long it takes," he replied Thursday with open annoyance -- and Myers said Sunday, "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory."

Four weeks ago, it was Myers who spoke with reporters about "a short, short conflict" against an Iraqi force that was "much weaker" than it was in the 1991 Gulf War.
Factcheck.org...
Cheney, March 16, 2003: I'm confident that our troops will be successful, and I think it'll go relatively quickly, but we can't...

Q: Weeks?

Cheney: ...we can't count on that.

Q: Months?

Cheney: Weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of--of complications that you can't anticipate, but I'm--I have great confidence in our troops. The men and women who serve in our military today are superb. Our capabilities as a force are the finest the world has ever known. They're very ably led by General Tommy Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld. And so I have great confidence in the conduct of the military campaign. The really challenging part of it to some extent may come in the--in the aftermath once the military segment is over and we move to try and stand up a new government and--and turn over to the Iraqi people the responsibilities to their nation.

RUMSFELD: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

Assorted Quotes said:
"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03
 
hey do me a big favor don't use any refererance to the Nazi's when talking about the Republican Party or as a matter of fact any Political Party.

I'm sure you can find something else to use.
As long as people like Jallman will use epithets like "dear leader" when referring to Obama or any of the myriad of disparaging names the bullies use, I will make sure that you and yours know how it feels. Obviously it bothers you. How do you like it?
 
As long as people like Jallman will use epithets like "dear leader" when referring to Obama or any of the myriad of disparaging names the bullies use, I will make sure that you and yours know how it feels. Obviously it bothers you. How do you like it?

I actually think the Celticlord is the serial title rapist who exclusively makes the moronic references to Obama as "Dear Leader." But it's okay when he ignorantly likens Obama to Kim Jong-Il because Celticlord is considered really smart.
 
As long as people like Jallman will use epithets like "dear leader" when referring to Obama or any of the myriad of disparaging names the bullies use, I will make sure that you and yours know how it feels. Obviously it bothers you. How do you like it?

When did I ever use the term "Dear Leader" to reference Obama?

You wouldn't be lying again, would you?
 
:lol: You mean this one? :rofl

Oh, hell. I guess I did. Once. Somewhere.

I usually just refer to him as the Comrade, actually.

Slippery Slope is still a liar, for the most part. An hysterical one at that.
 
Back
Top Bottom