Guess How Many Troops Obama Just Authorized 2B Deployed to Iraq?? Sound Familiar, LOL?

[deltex1]

It is a fact that Bush attacked Iraq

It is an opinion that it caused further unrest in the ME.

 

[percysunshine]

It is a fact that BHO bobmbed Libya.

It is an opinion that it caused further unrest in the ME.

It is amazing how stupid are the far right subversives.

Take the test to see how silly you are. Critical Thinking Multiple Choice Quiz

Now you are deflecting, Jake.

It is a fact that BHO bombed Libya.

And it is a fact that the result of the bombing and overthrow of the Libyan government resulted in a massive weapons supply to the arms trade industry in North Africa.

It would be like Willy Wonka using his chocolate factory as a venue for a Colorado Marijuana Growers Association meeting. The consequences are obvious.

.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

to train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces,
Isn't this what the US military was supposedly doing for the past 12 plus years?
Either the Iraqi military is beyond stupid or the US military makes lousy teachers.
asking Congress for $5.6 billion
Really $5.6 billion for what exactly, if they are only there to train and advise?
Books and Operation Manuals? Someone is lying!

As I said yesterday and Gary Bernsten reiterated this morning on fox...the Iraqis should pay for these services.

Agree 100%, why are we paying for it?

 

[deltex1]

to train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces,
Isn't this what the US military was supposedly doing for the past 12 plus years?
Either the Iraqi military is beyond stupid or the US military makes lousy teachers.
asking Congress for $5.6 billion
Really $5.6 billion for what exactly, if they are only there to train and advise?
Books and Operation Manuals? Someone is lying!

As I said yesterday and Gary Bernsten reiterated this morning on fox...the Iraqis should pay for these services.

Agree 100%, why are we paying for it?

Probably to give Obabble money to divert to keep our borders secure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Failed the test, did you, 1776?

 

[Judicial review]

This President is fucking retarded. Holy shit. Should have sent in 100,000 troops plus air power and send these isis fuckers to hell in a matter of 2 weeks, which is all it would take with some American casualties. Attack them from the north and south and corner them into the center then drop a bunker buster bomb or two right on them.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This President is fucking retarded. Holy shit. Should have sent in 100,000 troops plus air power and send these isis fuckers to hell in a matter of 2 weeks, which is all it would take with some American casualties. Attack them from the north and south and corner them
into the center then drop a bunker buster bomb or two right on them.

Obama isn't retarded, he merely hopes that Americans are. He hopes that all Americans are as stupid as JakeStarkey is and believe that American's aren't going into combat in Iraq.

 

[Camp]

This President is fucking retarded. Holy shit. Should have sent in 100,000 troops plus air power and send these isis fuckers to hell in a matter of 2 weeks, which is all it would take with some American casualties. Attack them from the north and south and corner them into the center then drop a bunker buster bomb or two right on them.

Corner them in the center?

 

[TooTall]

Bush did what he believed was the right thing to do and he did, as you stated, take the advice of the miltary experts. Obama thought he knew better, and it has turned into a first class clusterfuck.

It was Obama who understood the true situation in Iraq. If only Bush had listened

obama was advising bush when he was in office?..LMAO..
poor bitter little partisans...they're coming completely unhinged now.

Obama would have made a better adviser than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

That sound like he thought Saddam was junior varsity, just like ISIS.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama would have made a better adviser than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

W opened Pandora's Box and we have been over a decade trying to get it closed again. All so DICK and his followers could reap some tidy profits from a "war of choice."

What Obama tried to explain was that Iraq was no threat and if we broke it, it was ours
Bush did not listen.....Obama is paying the consequences

And what of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine,

Iraq.......5000 US dead
Libya.......0 dead
Syria........0 dead
Egypt.......0 dead
Ukraine.....0 dead

I like Obamas policy better

 

[rightwinger]

It was Obama who understood the true situation in Iraq. If only Bush had listened

obama was advising bush when he was in office?..LMAO..
poor bitter little partisans...they're coming completely unhinged now.

Obama would have made a better adviser than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

That sound like he thought Saddam was junior varsity, just like ISIS.

About that. Neither is a significant threat to the US

 

[TooTall]

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

W opened Pandora's Box and we have been over a decade trying to get it closed again. All so DICK and his followers could reap some tidy profits from a "war of choice."

What Obama tried to explain was that Iraq was no threat and if we broke it, it was ours
Bush did not listen.....Obama is paying the consequences

And what of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine,

Iraq.......5000 US dead
Libya.......0 dead
Syria........0 dead
Egypt.......0 dead
Ukraine.....0 dead

I like Obamas policy better

Vietnam.......58,200

 

[TooTall]

obama was advising bush when he was in office?..LMAO..
poor bitter little partisans...they're coming completely unhinged now.

Obama would have made a better adviser than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

That sound like he thought Saddam was junior varsity, just like ISIS.

About that. Neither is a significant threat to the US

That isn't what the Sec of Defense said, but I am sure you know more than he does.

"The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is beyond "just a terrorist group" and poses a greater threat than al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

"This is beyond anything that we've seen," he said during a briefing on Thursday afternoon about the Sunni militant group that has taken over territory in Iraq and Syria and earlier this week beheaded American journalist James Foley.


"ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen," Hagel said, using another acronym for the group. "They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded."

"So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it ... and get ready," he said.

Hagel's remarks come months after President Obama dismissed ISIS, calling the group "JV".

 

[deltex1]

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

W opened Pandora's Box and we have been over a decade trying to get it closed again. All so DICK and his followers could reap some tidy profits from a "war of choice."

What Obama tried to explain was that Iraq was no threat and if we broke it, it was ours
Bush did not listen.....Obama is paying the consequences

And what of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine,

Iraq.......5000 US dead
Libya.......0 dead
Syria........0 dead
Egypt.......0 dead
Ukraine.....0 dead

I like Obamas policy better

Historical consequencs are not define by the number of dead in any given conflict...

 

[rightwinger]

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

W opened Pandora's Box and we have been over a decade trying to get it closed again. All so DICK and his followers could reap some tidy profits from a "war of choice."

What Obama tried to explain was that Iraq was no threat and if we broke it, it was ours
Bush did not listen.....Obama is paying the consequences

And what of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine,

Iraq.......5000 US dead
Libya.......0 dead
Syria........0 dead
Egypt.......0 dead
Ukraine.....0 dead

I like Obamas policy better

Vietnam.......58,200

We didn't learn from our mistakes did we?

 

[rightwinger]

Obama would have made a better adviser than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

That sound like he thought Saddam was junior varsity, just like ISIS.

About that. Neither is a significant threat to the US

That isn't what the Sec of Defense said, but I am sure you know more than he does.

"The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is beyond "just a terrorist group" and poses a greater threat than al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

"This is beyond anything that we've seen," he said during a briefing on Thursday afternoon about the Sunni militant group that has taken over territory in Iraq and Syria and earlier this week beheaded American journalist James Foley.


"ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen," Hagel said, using another acronym for the group. "They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded."

"So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it ... and get ready," he said.

Hagel's remarks come months after President Obama dismissed ISIS, calling the group "JV".

A threat to Iraq and Syria

Not our problem

 

[TooTall]

all over the map..you change the subject with every post...chase your tail...

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

That sound like he thought Saddam was junior varsity, just like ISIS.

About that. Neither is a significant threat to the US

That isn't what the Sec of Defense said, but I am sure you know more than he does.

"The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is beyond "just a terrorist group" and poses a greater threat than al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

"This is beyond anything that we've seen," he said during a briefing on Thursday afternoon about the Sunni militant group that has taken over territory in Iraq and Syria and earlier this week beheaded American journalist James Foley.


"ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen," Hagel said, using another acronym for the group. "They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded."

"So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it ... and get ready," he said.

Hagel's remarks come months after President Obama dismissed ISIS, calling the group "JV".

A threat to Iraq and Syria

Not our problem

Then why is Obama doubling the number of troops in Iraq?

 

[deltex1]

If only Bush had listened....


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

That sound like he thought Saddam was junior varsity, just like ISIS.

About that. Neither is a significant threat to the US

That isn't what the Sec of Defense said, but I am sure you know more than he does.

"The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is beyond "just a terrorist group" and poses a greater threat than al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

"This is beyond anything that we've seen," he said during a briefing on Thursday afternoon about the Sunni militant group that has taken over territory in Iraq and Syria and earlier this week beheaded American journalist James Foley.


"ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen," Hagel said, using another acronym for the group. "They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded."

"So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it ... and get ready," he said.

Hagel's remarks come months after President Obama dismissed ISIS, calling the group "JV".

A threat to Iraq and Syria

Not our problem

Then why is Obama doubling the number of troops in Iraq?

They have no response to that question

 

[JakeStarkey]

Causation or Consequence: "And it is a fact that the result of the bombing and overthrow of the Libyan government resulted in a massive weapons supply to the arms trade industry in North Africa."

Merely an unfounded opinion without the evidence to support it.

 

[Camp]

Then why is Obama doubling the number of troops in Iraq?

Specifically, allegedly to train 9 new Iraqi Army brigades and 2 Peshmerga brigades. In addition, 2 Operation centers, one dedicated to Anbar Province.