GOP-igs want war, then let them fight the damn thing......

[tigerred59]

It is estimated that at least 100 US soldiers a month will be slaughtered once we place troops on the ground in the middle east. An estimated 1000 a month, thus far will and has qualified for some for of disability for the rest of his or her life. Meanwhile, we have the American stupid all rallying for war against terrorism at any cost while their corn fed blue eyed Mitt Rommney children all stay at home, getting their masters and running dad's companies....its up to the little guys and gals folks to keep them all safe.

All the war generals and big wigs, all products of electronic leadership via the tv.....giving advice to a president that is hesitant and cautious...because war is hell. And to those advising the president...NONE HAVE ACTUALLY FOUGHT IN ANY DAMNED WAR PERIOD!!

The gain in all this???? Only God knows...the aftermath in all this, just look at what the Vietnam war rendered us. Bottom line, if the GOP is so thirsty to fight...than dust off the zillions dollar arsenals, their buying up and have at it!!

 

[Obiwan]

Uh, you DO realize that Obama is sending more troops into the ME in his half-hearted attempt to annoy ISIS, don't you???

So when are you enlisting where you can support your Idiot-in-Chief???

 

[tigerred59]

Uh, you DO realize that Obama is sending more troops into the ME in his half-hearted attempt to annoy ISIS, don't you???

So when are you enlisting where you can support your Idiot-in-Chief???

in a private session at the White House, Mr. Obama explained that his refusal to redeploy large numbers of troops to the region was rooted in the grim assumption that the casualties and costs would rival the worst of the Iraq war.

 

[Obiwan]

Uh, you DO realize that Obama is sending more troops into the ME in his half-hearted attempt to annoy ISIS, don't you???

So when are you enlisting where you can support your Idiot-in-Chief???

in a private session at the White House, Mr. Obama explained that his refusal to redeploy large numbers of troops to the region was rooted in the grim assumption that the casualties and costs would rival the worst of the Iraq war.

So in other words, Obozo has just decided to play Santa Claus and send ISIS more high-ranking "troops" from Gitmo where they can fill THEIR ranks...

Got it...

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Thanks to the coward in chief, we are fighting ISIS here and not there.

 

[Obiwan]

Thanks to the coward in chief, we are fighting ISIS here and not there.

Well, one of his "solutions" for closing Gitmo was to just bring the terrorists here, on US soil...

Looks like he's succeeding...

Now if he will just catch on to the fact that we don't want them running around loose...

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. troop levels in Iraq are at 132,000.[1]

• January 5, 2007: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to Bush stating, “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake.”

• January 10, 2007: Bush officially announces the troop surge. “I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” Also in his speech, Bush defines the objective of the surge as "to create a united, democratic. federal Iraq...", and the means, "Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”[2]

March, 2007

• March 2, 2007: The Pentagon states that 7,000 more troops will be sent to Iraq. “President Bush’s planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday.”[13]

• March 20, 2007: U.S. Troop strength is 152,000[14]

• March 27, 2007: McCain tells CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.” He later acknowledges, “There is no unarmored humvees. Obviously, that’s the case.”[15]

 

[eagle1462010]

Where is the Ops link to the 100 deaths a month prediction.

In 2007 Bush started the Surge..........Casualties did increase but steadily tapered down as the strategy WORKED. The Dems of the time said it wouldn't work...............The Counter Intel and lighting raids had suppressed the Civil War....................Obama went cold turkey and hauled ass.........and then let the place get taken over before any action was taken..................

He owns the expansion of ISIS.

 

[irosie91]

In the late 1930s --------war was ongoing in Europe (it is reasonable to date its onset to about 1938) The pamphlets that littered the little Nazi town of my childhood ---all the way thru 1940 were ALL DENIAL . The present ongoing war can logically
be dated back------if you need an approximate year of onset is -----2010 AD

 

[Agit8r]

When we are ready to give up all of our civil liberties out of paranoia and declare perpetual war, Orwell will be remembered as an oracle, and the terrorists will have won.

 

[August West]

Thanks to the coward in chief, we are fighting ISIS here and not there.

The fight would be so much easier if people of your ilk would stop arming the terrorists. Helping criminals and crazy people acquire guns wasn`t enough for you?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. troop levels in Iraq are at 132,000.[1]

• January 5, 2007: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to Bush stating, “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake.”

• January 10, 2007: Bush officially announces the troop surge. “I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” Also in his speech, Bush defines the objective of the surge as "to create a united, democratic. federal Iraq...", and the means, "Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”[2]

March, 2007

• March 2, 2007: The Pentagon states that 7,000 more troops will be sent to Iraq. “President Bush’s planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday.”[13]

• March 20, 2007: U.S. Troop strength is 152,000[14]

• March 27, 2007: McCain tells CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.” He later acknowledges, “There is no unarmored humvees. Obviously, that’s the case.”[15]

The rules of engagement change under the coward in chief and deaths skyrocket.

 

[eagle1462010]

Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. troop levels in Iraq are at 132,000.[1]

• January 5, 2007: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to Bush stating, “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake.”

• January 10, 2007: Bush officially announces the troop surge. “I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” Also in his speech, Bush defines the objective of the surge as "to create a united, democratic. federal Iraq...", and the means, "Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”[2]

March, 2007

• March 2, 2007: The Pentagon states that 7,000 more troops will be sent to Iraq. “President Bush’s planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday.”[13]

• March 20, 2007: U.S. Troop strength is 152,000[14]

• March 27, 2007: McCain tells CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.” He later acknowledges, “There is no unarmored humvees. Obviously, that’s the case.”[15]

The rules of engagement change under the coward in chief and deaths skyrocket.

In 2007, 20,000 more troops went into the battle and the mission objectives changed..............Troops started staying in the hot zones and prevented the enemy from intimidating the local populous because our troops were right there with them.............

The left said the WAR WAS LOST...............that the Surge wouldn't work...........they were wrong...........

They withdrew too early and didn't leave a residual force with INTEL to allow the country from being over run. The DEMS OWN THIS...........................

Most of our casualties are from IED'S, especially since Iran started sending improved ones to the War..................Not in direct fighting with the enemy.

 

[eagle1462010]

Thanks to the coward in chief, we are fighting ISIS here and not there.

The fight would be so much easier if people of your ilk would stop arming the terrorists. Helping criminals and crazy people acquire guns wasn`t enough for you?

Tell that to Obozo....................Libya was a gun running Operation.............as was Benghazi.........and most of the arms ended up in ISIS's hands.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The fight would be so much easier if people of your ilk would stop arming the terrorists. Helping criminals and crazy people acquire guns wasn`t enough for you?

Excuse me?

 

[irosie91]

When we are ready to give up all of our civil liberties out of paranoia and declare perpetual war, Orwell will be remembered as an oracle, and the terrorists will have won.

orwell wrote science fiction-----he did not evaluate the current world situation
Isaac Asimov-----IMHO -----had psychosexual issues. What do your
civil liberties have to do with the fact that there is a war going on-----now?

 

[tyroneweaver]

It is estimated that at least 100 US soldiers a month will be slaughtered once we place troops on the ground in the middle east. An estimated 1000 a month, thus far will and has qualified for some for of disability for the rest of his or her life. Meanwhile, we have the American stupid all rallying for war against terrorism at any cost while their corn fed blue eyed Mitt Rommney children all stay at home, getting their masters and running dad's companies....its up to the little guys and gals folks to keep them all safe.

All the war generals and big wigs, all products of electronic leadership via the tv.....giving advice to a president that is hesitant and cautious...because war is hell. And to those advising the president...NONE HAVE ACTUALLY FOUGHT IN ANY DAMNED WAR PERIOD!!

The gain in all this???? Only God knows...the aftermath in all this, just look at what the Vietnam war rendered us. Bottom line, if the GOP is so thirsty to fight...than dust off the zillions dollar arsenals, their buying up and have at it!!

Vietnam, the democrats war, and then you go off on a tirade about the gop.
Little bit of unequal scholarship hear folks.

 

[Agit8r]

When we are ready to give up all of our civil liberties out of paranoia and declare perpetual war, Orwell will be remembered as an oracle, and the terrorists will have won.

orwell wrote science fiction-----he did not evaluate the current world situation
Isaac Asimov-----IMHO -----had psychosexual issues. What do your
civil liberties have to do with the fact that there is a war going on-----now?

There has never been freedom during time of war. Perpetual war is the perpetual cessation of freedom. If you have to ask how our civil liberties have been abandoned since 9/11, then you ought to be paying attention.

 

[tigerred59]

Thanks to the coward in chief, we are fighting ISIS here and not there.

You don't know what your talking about, no president can prevent 300 million people in this country from doing what they want in terms of terrorism, not even Donald. You want to go to war, than strap up and join the military.