• 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!

America’s Dumbest War, Ever

Uhh..no, that wasn't me. I was the guy that asked you if you knew that any changed and you admitted that you didn't know and it was just a vibe you got. That's me. That guy. Hiiiii!
Awesome.

I'm also the guy that rocks multiple SIPRnet accounts (because you know that every organization/location has their own account set up right?), so plain ol SECRET things aren't a huge obstacle. I've seen lots of ROEs. I've seen lots of them change. I've never seen or even heard of them changing because of Obama taking over, you half term Whig, and I'm glad you admitted you hadn't either. That's refreshing, thanks.

Here is the part I like. I said they changed. You said they didn't. And now above, bolded you now agree with me that the rules of engagement have changed. They have changed to make it more difficult for us to engage. Who is more likely to tie the Military's hands, President Bush or the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama?
 
President Bush or the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama?

Well since the latter option is a fictional person that does not exist in the real world the answer is niether.
 
Here is the part I like. I said they changed. You said they didn't. And now above, bolded you now agree with me that the rules of engagement have changed. They have changed to make it more difficult for us to engage.

No, you said they changed when the Venerable Barack Hussein Obama, the President and Commander-in-Chief, took over. I know better. And you're admittedly just guessing.

Who is more likely to tie the Military's hands, President Bush or the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama?

Well, you 15 minute Roundhead, what's likely doesn't really matter when one knows. And you don't.

Marxists are very aggressive, by the way, and Salafists hate them, so actually Bush would probably be more likely than a Marxist, if one somehow got in charge of the country.
 
That must be it! Since the left wing are the one's that peddled the war in Iraq I can see why they would want to tie it to 9/11 which would whip Americans into war mode!
This is not very important to me. So I offer one small tidbit from a "recent" story.

During his first visit to Iraq as defense secretary, Leon Panetta seemed to link America’s presence in the country to the 9/11 attacks.

“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,” Panetta said to American troops at Camp Victory in Baghdad Monday, as reported by the Washington Post. “And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.” (9/11 victims may have had voicemails hacked into by journalists)

Democrats allege the Bush administration tried to connect Iraq to the 9/11 attacks in order to build a case for war.​
Read more: Obama defense secretary seemingly ties Iraq to 9/11 attacks in Baghdad speech | The Daily Caller
 
No, you said they changed when the Venerable Barack Hussein Obama, the President and Commander-in-Chief, took over. I know better. And you're admittedly just guessing.
But of course you don't actually know better.

Well, you 15 minute Roundhead, what's likely doesn't really matter when one knows. And you don't.
I cannot tell why you are so invested in your story. Sometimes it happens. You are not going to convince me. I am not going to convince you.

Marxists are very aggressive, by the way, and Salafists hate them, so actually Bush would probably be more likely than a Marxist, if one somehow got in charge of the country.
The one term Marxist has been very aggressive. His minions rammed through Obamacare with no Republican votes. He has put us on the path to bankruptcy to make his change more palatable. While I did not like President Bush he did not make the claim thta he would fundamentally transform America. The one term Marxist did.
 
But of course you don't actually know better.

Uhh...yeah, I do.

I cannot tell why you are so invested in your story. Sometimes it happens. You are not going to convince me. I am not going to convince you.

That's fine. You're on a guy on a messageboard. When I badge into work in the morning, no one considers your hearsay as anything important. If they did, they'd just log into SIPRnet and figure it out.

The one term Marxist has been very aggressive. His minions rammed through Obamacare with no Republican votes. He has put us on the path to bankruptcy to make his change more palatable. While I did not like President Bush he did not make the claim thta he would fundamentally transform America. The one term Marxist did.

No, Obama did that. And it makes you mad. Just breathe, bro.
 
Last edited:
We went over there with a club seeking to install a puppet government just as we have in every invasion since Vietnam. Folks you need to stop believing our government's press releases which are dutifully repeated by the press. Our numerous invasions of other nations are aimed at installing puppet governments are aimed at installing puppet governments. Our assassinations in other countries are aimed at installing puppet governments.


So you don't want cheap oil?
 
Uhh...yeah, I do.
Do not. Do too. Do not... uh-huh.

That's fine. You're on a guy on a messageboard. When I badge into work in the morning, no one considers your hearsay as anything important. If they did, they'd just log into SIPRnet and figure it out.
By all means go take a good look at the changes to the rules of engagement as we moved from President Bush to the one term Marxist. Be honest if you can.

I wrote, "The one term Marxist has been very aggressive. His minions rammed through Obamacare with no Republican votes. He has put us on the path to bankruptcy to make his change more palatable. While I did not like President Bush he did not make the claim that he would fundamentally transform America. The one term Marxist did."

To which you wrote,
No, Obama did that. And it makes you mad. Just breathe, bro.
LOL. We agree at last. The one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barack Hussein Obama did do that.
Thanks again for playing, bro.
 
So you don't actually know what you're talking about. That's awesome, thanks, 18 term Federalist. Don't get mad, though.
 
It is an excellent point. We will need to change the majority in the Senate from Democrat to Republican and retain the House.

Thanks for the nice wish. If my luck holds we have a slim chance of retaining a nation that can once again return to prosperity with less danger of the loss of our liberty.

Changing from the Tweedledumocrats to the Tweedledeeblicans isn't going to make a big difference, either. We've tried that before.
 
FYI, Misterveritis' entire argument here is based upon something is that is qualitatively untrue.

So take it with a grain of salt. And I don't even like liberals.
 
rofl, theyre still telling lies to themselves about this???


The senior intelligence official responsible for Tony Blair's notorious dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction proposed using the document to mislead the public about the significance of Iraq's banned weapons.

Sir John Scarlett, who as head of the Joint Intelligence Committee was placed "in charge" of writing the September 2002 dossier, sent a memo to Blair's foreign affairs adviser referring to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional".

The memo, released under the Freedom of Information Act, has been described as one of the most significant documents on the dossier yet published.*

Memo reveals intelligence chief's bid to fuel fears of Iraqi WMDs | UK news | The Observer

Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs

Curveball's German intelligence handlers saw him as "crazy ... out of control", his friends called him a "congenital liar", and a US physician working for the Defense Department who travelled to Germany to take blood samples seeking to discover if Anthrax spores were present was stunned to find the defector had shown up for medical tests with a "blistering hangover",[19] and he "might be an alcoholic".[20]


Curveball (informant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Italy: We Warned U.S. On WMD Docs


Italian secret services warned the United States in January 2003 that a dossier about a purported Iraq-Niger uranium deal were fake, an Italian lawmaker said Thursday after a briefing by an Italian intelligence chief.

Italy: We Warned U.S. On WMD Docs - CBS News

European and French intelligence reports

French intelligence informed the United States a year before President Bush's State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with hard evidence.[9]*

wiki

Outside of the US the world knows that the excuse to go into Iraq was based on a questionable document lifted from a student thesis as intelligence.

You've probably never heard of Robin Cook and Dr David Kelly?

On WMD's and in particular chemical weapons,*In an interview with BBC in June 2004, David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, made the following comment:

"Anyone out there holding – as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said – the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, [is] really delusional."
In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector heavily criticized the Bush administration and media outlets for using the testimony of alleged former Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, as a rationale for invading Iraq;

We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, and if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all. Because in 1990, he didn't work for the Iraqi nuclear program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace.

He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, I'm Saddam's "Bombmaker". So they call the CIA and they say, "We know who you are, you're not Saddam's 'Bombmaker', go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud.

And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as a expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and I've told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about.

On June 4, 2003, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts announced that the U.S. Select Committee on Intelligence that he chaired would, as a part of its ongoing oversight of the intelligence community, conduct a Review of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. On July 9, 2004, the Committee released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. On July 17, 2003, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an address to the U.S. Congress, that history would forgive the United States and United Kingdom, even if they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction. He still maintained that "with every fiber of instinct and conviction" Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. He was wrong.
 
So you don't actually know what you're talking about. That's awesome, thanks, 18 term Federalist. Don't get mad, though.
Where are we today? You claim to know and I claim to know. I cannot prove my point of view. Neither can you.

On to the next subject.
 
Well since the latter option is a fictional person that does not exist in the real world the answer is niether.
Jet, are you finally agreeing with Conservative that the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barack Hussein Obama, is nothing more than an empty suit?
 
No, you said they changed when the Venerable Barack Hussein Obama, the President and Commander-in-Chief, took over. I know better. And you're admittedly just guessing.
Well, you 15 minute Roundhead, what's likely doesn't really matter when one knows. And you don't.
Marxists are very aggressive, by the way, and Salafists hate them, so actually Bush would probably be more likely than a Marxist, if one somehow got in charge of the country.
I have been involved since 2005. I pay attention to our customer, the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. You and I agree that the rules of engagement have changed. While the military fought the insurgents the ROE were tight. Now they are so tight we hardly fight back.
 
Changing from the Tweedledumocrats to the Tweedledeeblicans isn't going to make a big difference, either. We've tried that before.
Then you won't mind if we try it just this one more time. After all, from your perspective it will make no difference. So let's agree to replace Democrats and RINOS with conservative Republicans.
 
FYI, Misterveritis' entire argument here is based upon something is that is qualitatively untrue.

So take it with a grain of salt. And I don't even like liberals.
Pull out the ROE beginning in 2005 and up to today. Let's all see them so we can compare just how difficult it has become under the Obama Regime. It should be easy for you to prove, after all you are claiming you know because you have them all.
 
Outside of the US the world knows that the excuse to go into Iraq was based on a questionable document lifted from a student thesis as intelligence.

You've probably never heard of Robin Cook and Dr David Kelly?

On WMD's and in particular chemical weapons,*In an interview with BBC in June 2004, David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, made the following comment:

"Anyone out there holding – as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said – the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, [is] really delusional."
In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector heavily criticized the Bush administration and media outlets for using the testimony of alleged former Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, as a rationale for invading Iraq;

We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, and if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all. Because in 1990, he didn't work for the Iraqi nuclear program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace.

He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, I'm Saddam's "Bombmaker". So they call the CIA and they say, "We know who you are, you're not Saddam's 'Bombmaker', go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud.

And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as a expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and I've told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about.

On June 4, 2003, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts announced that the U.S. Select Committee on Intelligence that he chaired would, as a part of its ongoing oversight of the intelligence community, conduct a Review of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. On July 9, 2004, the Committee released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. On July 17, 2003, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an address to the U.S. Congress, that history would forgive the United States and United Kingdom, even if they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction. He still maintained that "with every fiber of instinct and conviction" Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. He was wrong.

Good deceptions have that effect. I was an intelligence officer for most of my 20 year Army career. I also had some responsibilities for developing our deception doctrine. It was valuable to have one's opponents sift through all of the difficult, conflicting information in order to come, on their own, to the conclusions the deceivers want them to hold. Once your opponent is convinced, through his own brilliance, that Fact "A" is true and Fact "B" is untrue conflicting facts that counter those views are filtered out.

I believe that we became convinced because the scientists and program managers responsible for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs were deceiving Hussein. In turn we were deceived as well.

On the plus side it has a happy ending. Iraq has an opportunity to grow into a free, and thriving country in the heart of the Middle East.
 
Pull out the ROE beginning in 2005 and up to today. Let's all see them so we can compare just how difficult it has become under the Obama Regime. It should be easy for you to prove, after all you are claiming you know because you have them all.

Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself, you 89 term Knickerbocker.
 
Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself, you 89 term Knickerbocker.


Sometimes people that don't know anything feel determined to prove it, eh?
 
Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself, you 89 term Knickerbocker.
So, no proof for your unbelievable claims then? Okay. It is what I expected. You have appealed to authority. You have claimed near perfect knowledge. So show us the documents. Darn. They are classified aren't they? So the only ones we can see are posted on Wikileaks.

You cannot prove your claims. I cannot prove my claims. We know Bush. And we know Obama. My claims are more believable.

Oh, I see you have a fanclub, of one, Hi Dave.
 
Sometimes people that don't know anything feel determined to prove it, eh?
I completely agree with your assessment of OldWorld. But be as gentle with him as I am. He has made claims of near perfect knowledge. It is difficult to escape delusions that run that deep.

My only claim is that the people I serve have complained of how difficult it is to fight with both arms tied behind their backs. I never heard that before the Bamster took over.
 
So, no proof for your unbelievable claims then? Okay. It is what I expected. You have appealed to authority. You have claimed near perfect knowledge. So show us the documents. Darn. They are classified aren't they? So the only ones we can see are posted on Wikileaks.

You cannot prove your claims. I cannot prove my claims. We know Bush. And we know Obama. My claims are more believable.

Oh, I see you have a fanclub, of one, Hi Dave.

wait...we know Obama? i thought he was hiding his college transcripts and true beliefs from us? and his birth certificate?
 
Back
Top Bottom