Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guy, that wasn't even a good dodge.
In Bosnia, there were definite goals of what we wanted to see done, and they were met in a reasonable period of time. It was done with the full co-operation of our allies (but mostly because they didn't want to see refugees).
The point is, it was obvious after 2009 that the Afghans did not support the Karzai regime and never would, but we didn't have the nads to tell him it was time to go.
Petreaus got what he wanted in Afghanistan, and it didn't work.
Who decided that Afghanistan was the good war?
You folks. You on the left. You decided that we had to go in there and do something, be it get Bin Laden or just prove that you could run a war better than Bush.
Well it's pretty obvious by your own admission that you can't.
I was against the surge in Afghanistan. We had avoided massive amounts of troops in country because the mission was just to chase Bin Laden out of the region and end the Saturday afternoon beheadings. You on the left wanted us to pull out of Iraq and move in force into Afghanistan. Not us.
We didn't commit massive amounts of troops to Afghanistan because Baby Bush was too busy carrying out his family's vendetta against Saddam's family.
In 2002, massive amounts of troops might have done some good when the Taliban was on the ropes. Bush gave them 7 years to regroup and rebuild, and turned a blind eye to Pakistan helping them. (Including hiding Bin Laden a block down from the Pakistani West Point.)
Now, to his credit, Obama made a good faith effort to win Afghanistan where Bush had failed. But you don't win a war after 8 years of neglect and after the guy we've been propping up steals the election and completely undermines the point.
[
I think the point of this thread was that Obama didn't make a good faith effort neither in Iraq or Afghanistan. Years ago I pointed out that he didn't believe in the mission and he had no intention on pressing any kind of offensive. Now his Defense Secretary verified it.
You claim Bush allowed the Taliban to rebuild. Just what do you think Obama'a dithering has done? What do you think his restrictive Rules of Engagement have done to the morale of our troops?
Bush basically did the same thing in Afghanistan that Obama did in Libya. Bush provided support to the Northern Alliance and sent in some Delta guys to help with command and control. He bombed Tora Bora and kept the causalities to minimum but all you have to say is Bush fucked up. Obama gave aid to so-called rebels in Libya and what did we get? Benghazi. We got rape and murder. We got God knows what kind of mess in Libya. I think your views are highly selective and frankly, you really don't have a clue. As with Hillary and Obama, your views are political and have no basis in reality.
[
He didn't win an easy re-election. He did everything he could to make sure that he hampered the oppositions' ability to defeat him. Even if it meant sending the IRS after them, or accusing them of murder. He spent over a billion dollars on his re-election. That is not easy to do. He also spent millions of our taxes traveling all over the country campaigning.
That's one thing he's good at. Campaigning. He has to spend most of his time, when he's not golfing, campaigning so that every time another screwup is discovered he doesn't have to face the music over it.
It's kind of hard to talk with you when your irrational hatred blinds you to everything he does.
Right. Romney lost because some Teabagger group couldn't get a tax exemption for their "Social Welfare" organization...
The Koch Brothers and Adelson and the rest of the monied interests dumped tons of money into trying to beat Obama.
What they couldn't do is make Romney likable.
This was a guy who said, "I like to fire people" and thought it was wonderful that a factory in China had barbed wire around a dorm where 120 women shared a bathroom to make him money.
You are one fucked up asshole. Whoa geeze.
Let me see. All the media scoffing at multiple sclerosis and Anne's
therapy.
Just a rich bitch with MS OH AND ALSO HAD BREAST CANCER.............who chose dressage.
How crazy is this?
You bastards and bitches on the left picked on a woman who had MS and Breast Cancer and bitched about any treatment she got.
You guys are pigs.
Who decided that Afghanistan was the good war?
You folks. You on the left. You decided that we had to go in there and do something, be it get Bin Laden or just prove that you could run a war better than Bush.
Well it's pretty obvious by your own admission that you can't.
I was against the surge in Afghanistan. We had avoided massive amounts of troops in country because the mission was just to chase Bin Laden out of the region and end the Saturday afternoon beheadings. You on the left wanted us to pull out of Iraq and move in force into Afghanistan. Not us.
We didn't commit massive amounts of troops to Afghanistan because Baby Bush was too busy carrying out his family's vendetta against Saddam's family.
In 2002, massive amounts of troops might have done some good when the Taliban was on the ropes. Bush gave them 7 years to regroup and rebuild, and turned a blind eye to Pakistan helping them. (Including hiding Bin Laden a block down from the Pakistani West Point.)
Now, to his credit, Obama made a good faith effort to win Afghanistan where Bush had failed. But you don't win a war after 8 years of neglect and after the guy we've been propping up steals the election and completely undermines the point.
I think the point of this thread was that Obama didn't make a good faith effort neither in Iraq or Afghanistan. Years ago I pointed out that he didn't believe in the mission and he had no intention on pressing any kind of offensive. Now his Defense Secretary verified it.
You claim Bush allowed the Taliban to rebuild. Just what do you think Obama'a dithering has done? What do you think his restrictive Rules of Engagement have done to the morale of our troops?
Bush basically did the same thing in Afghanistan that Obama did in Libya. Bush provided support to the Northern Alliance and sent in some Delta guys to help with command and control. He bombed Tora Bora and kept the causalities to minimum but all you have to say is Bush fucked up. Obama gave aid to so-called rebels in Libya and what did we get? Benghazi. We got rape and murder. We got God knows what kind of mess in Libya. I think your views are highly selective and frankly, you really don't have a clue. As with Hillary and Obama, your views are political and have no basis in reality.
[
I think the point of this thread was that Obama didn't make a good faith effort neither in Iraq or Afghanistan. Years ago I pointed out that he didn't believe in the mission and he had no intention on pressing any kind of offensive. Now his Defense Secretary verified it.
You claim Bush allowed the Taliban to rebuild. Just what do you think Obama'a dithering has done? What do you think his restrictive Rules of Engagement have done to the morale of our troops?
Bush basically did the same thing in Afghanistan that Obama did in Libya. Bush provided support to the Northern Alliance and sent in some Delta guys to help with command and control. He bombed Tora Bora and kept the causalities to minimum but all you have to say is Bush fucked up. Obama gave aid to so-called rebels in Libya and what did we get? Benghazi. We got rape and murder. We got God knows what kind of mess in Libya. I think your views are highly selective and frankly, you really don't have a clue. As with Hillary and Obama, your views are political and have no basis in reality.
Obama didn't press any kind of offensive because he realized there was no public support for escalating the wars.
This is what you don't seem to get. the message of 2006 and 2008 was 'We are sick of your wars, we want them done!"
Make Israel and the Oil Companies fight their own damned wars. Done.
We didn't commit massive amounts of troops to Afghanistan because Baby Bush was too busy carrying out his family's vendetta against Saddam's family.
In 2002, massive amounts of troops might have done some good when the Taliban was on the ropes. Bush gave them 7 years to regroup and rebuild, and turned a blind eye to Pakistan helping them. (Including hiding Bin Laden a block down from the Pakistani West Point.)
Now, to his credit, Obama made a good faith effort to win Afghanistan where Bush had failed. But you don't win a war after 8 years of neglect and after the guy we've been propping up steals the election and completely undermines the point.
I think the point of this thread was that Obama didn't make a good faith effort neither in Iraq or Afghanistan. Years ago I pointed out that he didn't believe in the mission and he had no intention on pressing any kind of offensive. Now his Defense Secretary verified it.
You claim Bush allowed the Taliban to rebuild. Just what do you think Obama'a dithering has done? What do you think his restrictive Rules of Engagement have done to the morale of our troops?
Bush basically did the same thing in Afghanistan that Obama did in Libya. Bush provided support to the Northern Alliance and sent in some Delta guys to help with command and control. He bombed Tora Bora and kept the causalities to minimum but all you have to say is Bush fucked up. Obama gave aid to so-called rebels in Libya and what did we get? Benghazi. We got rape and murder. We got God knows what kind of mess in Libya. I think your views are highly selective and frankly, you really don't have a clue. As with Hillary and Obama, your views are political and have no basis in reality.
What is it with you guys and Benghazi?
Many more Americans died in Afghanistan than in Libya. By the way, in Libya, another well known anti-American Terrorist met his end, Mommar Gaddaffi, that's unlike Afghanistan, where Bin Laden got his "get out of Jail Free" card from Tora Bora into posh Pakistani digs.
Seems you guys have no problem with massive amounts of Americans dying when a Republican is at the helm but all of a sudden get squeamish when a Democrat is at the helm.
It's kind of hard to talk with you when your irrational hatred blinds you to everything he does.
Right. Romney lost because some Teabagger group couldn't get a tax exemption for their "Social Welfare" organization...
The Koch Brothers and Adelson and the rest of the monied interests dumped tons of money into trying to beat Obama.
What they couldn't do is make Romney likable.
This was a guy who said, "I like to fire people" and thought it was wonderful that a factory in China had barbed wire around a dorm where 120 women shared a bathroom to make him money.
You are one fucked up asshole. Whoa geeze.
What part of that was incorrect?
[
Dude, get a clue.
Most of the negativity over the wars was because of politics. Both Obama and Hillary admitted to Secretary Gates that their primary reasons for being against the surge was politics. It had nothing to do with whether it was the right thing to do or not. They helped make the Iraq war unpopular.
How can anyone feel good about the war when Democrats and their media friends constantly disparaged it. Before it was even underway they were criticizing how long it was taking. Then the moment we started getting casualty reports they started haranguing Bush over the loss of life. All the while he was president the media was repeatedly announcing deaths. It was a constant drumbeat of bad news.
Now that Obama is president the flag draped coffins are still coming but nobody knows about it, unless we discover during the shutdown that Obama cut off benefits to family members of the dead, nobody would even know we were even in a war. Obama is screwing over soldiers and vets but not paying a price for it. Some specialist in Abu Grab taking pictures and all of the sudden Bush and Cheney are accused of giving torture orders to the troops. He is accused of neglect because some reporter discovered peeling paint and mildew in Walter Reed, but no matter what happens Obama remains blameless. He doesn't know anything about nothing. It's not his fault. Yet when something succeeds he's quick to claiming credit.
Obama talked shit about the war for years. He helped to make it unpopular, and all he wanted to do once he got in office was bail on it. He didn't care who got the shaft in the process.
[
Most of it.
Romney never said he likes to fire people for the fun of it.
Obama get's glowing coverage and people don't trust him.
Romney was constantly panned by the media, yet if you were to conduct a survey right now he would have more credibility than Obama. Romney adopts a black baby and MSNBC makes fun of him. Romney says he is concerned about security in the Olympics and he is accused of insulting the Brits.
The primary difference is the media tries to help our inept campaigner in chief yet gives both barrels to anyone on the right who dares to be in the public eye. Obamacare has turned out to be a total cluster yet all the media has to do is invent some scandal over traffic cones and all is forgotten.
[
Dude, get a clue.
Most of the negativity over the wars was because of politics. Both Obama and Hillary admitted to Secretary Gates that their primary reasons for being against the surge was politics. It had nothing to do with whether it was the right thing to do or not. They helped make the Iraq war unpopular.
No, what made the war unpopular was BUSH LIED...
He said there were WMD's. There were no WMD's.
He said that Saddam was in Cahoots with Bin Laden. He wasn't.
And frankly, most people were against the surge because it was like a gambler who has already looted the life savings and the college fund and wants one last chance with the mortgage.
How can anyone feel good about the war when Democrats and their media friends constantly disparaged it. Before it was even underway they were criticizing how long it was taking. Then the moment we started getting casualty reports they started haranguing Bush over the loss of life. All the while he was president the media was repeatedly announcing deaths. It was a constant drumbeat of bad news.
I agree, the Media did emphasize the bad, but that's what the Media does. It really doesn't excuse Bush's mendacity or incompetence giving them things to talk about. .
Now that Obama is president the flag draped coffins are still coming but nobody knows about it, unless we discover during the shutdown that Obama cut off benefits to family members of the dead, nobody would even know we were even in a war. Obama is screwing over soldiers and vets but not paying a price for it. Some specialist in Abu Grab taking pictures and all of the sudden Bush and Cheney are accused of giving torture orders to the troops. He is accused of neglect because some reporter discovered peeling paint and mildew in Walter Reed, but no matter what happens Obama remains blameless. He doesn't know anything about nothing. It's not his fault. Yet when something succeeds he's quick to claiming credit.
And some day, he might even pay you rent on all that space he occuppies in your head. Again, can't hold Obama politically accountable for a war someone else started.
Obama talked shit about the war for years. He helped to make it unpopular, and all he wanted to do once he got in office was bail on it. He didn't care who got the shaft in the process.
Given it took bush 8 years to not come anywhere close to winning the war, are you really surprised it was unpopular.
Here's the ugly truth about wars. The longer they go on, the more unpopular they become.
Even World War II, the supposed "Good War", was pretty unpopular by the middle of 1945.
If Bush was serious about the war, he'd have started a draft, raised taxes, sold war bonds and do all the things a country that is "at war" does. Instead, he let it fester for years, got distracted in side fights that had nothing to do with what we were originally fighting over, and then handed it over to the new guy and said, "Meh, you deal with it. And this Defense Secretary I'm leaving you isn't going to totally stab you in the back. Promise."
[
Dude, get a clue.
Most of the negativity over the wars was because of politics. Both Obama and Hillary admitted to Secretary Gates that their primary reasons for being against the surge was politics. It had nothing to do with whether it was the right thing to do or not. They helped make the Iraq war unpopular.
No, what made the war unpopular was BUSH LIED...
He said there were WMD's. There were no WMD's.
He said that Saddam was in Cahoots with Bin Laden. He wasn't.
And frankly, most people were against the surge because it was like a gambler who has already looted the life savings and the college fund and wants one last chance with the mortgage.
I agree, the Media did emphasize the bad, but that's what the Media does. It really doesn't excuse Bush's mendacity or incompetence giving them things to talk about. .
And some day, he might even pay you rent on all that space he occuppies in your head. Again, can't hold Obama politically accountable for a war someone else started.
Obama talked shit about the war for years. He helped to make it unpopular, and all he wanted to do once he got in office was bail on it. He didn't care who got the shaft in the process.
Given it took bush 8 years to not come anywhere close to winning the war, are you really surprised it was unpopular.
Here's the ugly truth about wars. The longer they go on, the more unpopular they become.
Even World War II, the supposed "Good War", was pretty unpopular by the middle of 1945.
If Bush was serious about the war, he'd have started a draft, raised taxes, sold war bonds and do all the things a country that is "at war" does. Instead, he let it fester for years, got distracted in side fights that had nothing to do with what we were originally fighting over, and then handed it over to the new guy and said, "Meh, you deal with it. And this Defense Secretary I'm leaving you isn't going to totally stab you in the back. Promise."
Obama kept Gates in place because he didn't know anyone who could do the job, plus he needed a scapegoat in case everything went to shit. He constantly uses Bush as an excuse for his own malfeasance. Every time he's caught in the act he claims it was a Bush appointee that was responsible.
I don't hold Obama accountable for starting the war, only how he conducted the war once he was in office. When it comes to Afghanistan he is partly responsible because he supported it. His mismanagement while in office is not Bush's problem.
8 years is a drop in the bucket compared to hundreds of years dealing with Islamic aggression. The Crusades were over the same kind of threat. If one studies the mind of a Muslim you'd understand that any war against radical Islamic fundamentalism is a never ending struggle. Maybe you need to read up on the subject so you can discover just how silly your statements are.
The war was unpopular because of media focus, not because of how it was being conducted.
I think the point of this thread was that Obama didn't make a good faith effort neither in Iraq or Afghanistan. Years ago I pointed out that he didn't believe in the mission and he had no intention on pressing any kind of offensive. Now his Defense Secretary verified it.
You claim Bush allowed the Taliban to rebuild. Just what do you think Obama'a dithering has done? What do you think his restrictive Rules of Engagement have done to the morale of our troops?
Bush basically did the same thing in Afghanistan that Obama did in Libya. Bush provided support to the Northern Alliance and sent in some Delta guys to help with command and control. He bombed Tora Bora and kept the causalities to minimum but all you have to say is Bush fucked up. Obama gave aid to so-called rebels in Libya and what did we get? Benghazi. We got rape and murder. We got God knows what kind of mess in Libya. I think your views are highly selective and frankly, you really don't have a clue. As with Hillary and Obama, your views are political and have no basis in reality.
What is it with you guys and Benghazi?
Many more Americans died in Afghanistan than in Libya. By the way, in Libya, another well known anti-American Terrorist met his end, Mommar Gaddaffi, that's unlike Afghanistan, where Bin Laden got his "get out of Jail Free" card from Tora Bora into posh Pakistani digs.
Seems you guys have no problem with massive amounts of Americans dying when a Republican is at the helm but all of a sudden get squeamish when a Democrat is at the helm.
You have an extremely warped view of reality.
Why did Gaddaffi all of the sudden have to go? Why did Mubarak all of the sudden have to go? Why did Assad all of the sudden have to go? Who decided that it was better to turn over the Middle East to terrorists instead of the dictators that run the region?
What do you consider to be massive? 4000 men died during the practice leading up to D-Day. 52,000 died in Vietnam. How many died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Roughly 4000? Most of them because of IEDs provided by the Iranians. Nobody likes when anyone dies in these things but I don't think you have any idea what the definition of mass casualties is.
[
Most of it.
Romney never said he likes to fire people for the fun of it.
Obama get's glowing coverage and people don't trust him.
Romney was constantly panned by the media, yet if you were to conduct a survey right now he would have more credibility than Obama. Romney adopts a black baby and MSNBC makes fun of him. Romney says he is concerned about security in the Olympics and he is accused of insulting the Brits.
The primary difference is the media tries to help our inept campaigner in chief yet gives both barrels to anyone on the right who dares to be in the public eye. Obamacare has turned out to be a total cluster yet all the media has to do is invent some scandal over traffic cones and all is forgotten.
So by your logic, we should just abandon democracy because people are too dumb to know what they are voting for?
I give people a bit more credit than that.
They elected Obama in 2008 because Bush fucked up- well, everything.
They elected him again in 2012 because the GOP nominated a guy they really didn't want, who proved himself pretty clueless as to what most people were going through.
Romney lost because he was an awful candidate. My opinion, the Media didn't go hard enough on him. They didn't do the full expose on what Mormons really believe, for instance, which would have scared the shit out of most Americans because it is pretty fucking scary.
What is it with you guys and Benghazi?
Many more Americans died in Afghanistan than in Libya. By the way, in Libya, another well known anti-American Terrorist met his end, Mommar Gaddaffi, that's unlike Afghanistan, where Bin Laden got his "get out of Jail Free" card from Tora Bora into posh Pakistani digs.
Seems you guys have no problem with massive amounts of Americans dying when a Republican is at the helm but all of a sudden get squeamish when a Democrat is at the helm.
You have an extremely warped view of reality.
Why did Gaddaffi all of the sudden have to go? Why did Mubarak all of the sudden have to go? Why did Assad all of the sudden have to go? Who decided that it was better to turn over the Middle East to terrorists instead of the dictators that run the region?
What do you consider to be massive? 4000 men died during the practice leading up to D-Day. 52,000 died in Vietnam. How many died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Roughly 4000? Most of them because of IEDs provided by the Iranians. Nobody likes when anyone dies in these things but I don't think you have any idea what the definition of mass casualties is.
Suddenly?
He should have took a dirt nap after Lockerbie. Ask Reagan. He instigated it. Then didn't follow up.
And do you really have to ask why the Middle east was suddenly unstable? Really? Seriously?
We just knocked over 2 countries in the region. One of which had been relatively stable. Do you forget that after the Iraqis were "liberated" it caused a civil war? Do you forget the Kurdish terrorists bombing the shit out of Turkey? Do you forget about all the people fleeing into places like Jordan, Egypt, and other various nations in the region?
Man..you are really something else.
This was all basically outlined by people against the invasion of Iraq. They said it would make the whole region unstable. What exactly do you think that meant?
[
Most of it.
Romney never said he likes to fire people for the fun of it.
Obama get's glowing coverage and people don't trust him.
Romney was constantly panned by the media, yet if you were to conduct a survey right now he would have more credibility than Obama. Romney adopts a black baby and MSNBC makes fun of him. Romney says he is concerned about security in the Olympics and he is accused of insulting the Brits.
The primary difference is the media tries to help our inept campaigner in chief yet gives both barrels to anyone on the right who dares to be in the public eye. Obamacare has turned out to be a total cluster yet all the media has to do is invent some scandal over traffic cones and all is forgotten.
So by your logic, we should just abandon democracy because people are too dumb to know what they are voting for?
I give people a bit more credit than that.
They elected Obama in 2008 because Bush fucked up- well, everything.
They elected him again in 2012 because the GOP nominated a guy they really didn't want, who proved himself pretty clueless as to what most people were going through.
Romney lost because he was an awful candidate. My opinion, the Media didn't go hard enough on him. They didn't do the full expose on what Mormons really believe, for instance, which would have scared the shit out of most Americans because it is pretty fucking scary.
Romney lost because Obama used the power of the U.S. government to depress the conservative vote and the media to distort the facts about his opposition. His actions were highly unethical and in some cases illegal, however we won't see any charges brought till after he leaves office and a full investigation can be conducted. He's using his office and the DoJ to protect him for now.
Your problem with Romney seems to be based purely on prejudice, not on rational thought.
Obama kept Gates in place because he didn't know anyone who could do the job, plus he needed a scapegoat in case everything went to shit. He constantly uses Bush as an excuse for his own malfeasance. Every time he's caught in the act he claims it was a Bush appointee that was responsible.
I don't hold Obama accountable for starting the war, only how he conducted the war once he was in office. When it comes to Afghanistan he is partly responsible because he supported it. His mismanagement while in office is not Bush's problem.
8 years is a drop in the bucket compared to hundreds of years dealing with Islamic aggression. The Crusades were over the same kind of threat. If one studies the mind of a Muslim you'd understand that any war against radical Islamic fundamentalism is a never ending struggle. Maybe you need to read up on the subject so you can discover just how silly your statements are.
The war was unpopular because of media focus, not because of how it was being conducted.
You have an extremely warped view of reality.
Why did Gaddaffi all of the sudden have to go? Why did Mubarak all of the sudden have to go? Why did Assad all of the sudden have to go? Who decided that it was better to turn over the Middle East to terrorists instead of the dictators that run the region?
What do you consider to be massive? 4000 men died during the practice leading up to D-Day. 52,000 died in Vietnam. How many died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Roughly 4000? Most of them because of IEDs provided by the Iranians. Nobody likes when anyone dies in these things but I don't think you have any idea what the definition of mass casualties is.
Suddenly?
He should have took a dirt nap after Lockerbie. Ask Reagan. He instigated it. Then didn't follow up.
And do you really have to ask why the Middle east was suddenly unstable? Really? Seriously?
We just knocked over 2 countries in the region. One of which had been relatively stable. Do you forget that after the Iraqis were "liberated" it caused a civil war? Do you forget the Kurdish terrorists bombing the shit out of Turkey? Do you forget about all the people fleeing into places like Jordan, Egypt, and other various nations in the region?
Man..you are really something else.
This was all basically outlined by people against the invasion of Iraq. They said it would make the whole region unstable. What exactly do you think that meant?
So Bush fucked up in Iraq and you figure Obama has the right to fuck up in Egypt, Libya, and Syria?
So Obama rubs elbows with one dictator(Castro) yet feels he has to free the Middle East of any stability they had under others.
