Lt. Army Colonel: "Obama Tried To Romance Putin And He Got Date-Raped"

[JoeB131]

Confirm that Clinton destroyed the last of them. Not rhetoric..............There is no way you or he knew that.......Period...............

And why the change from Saddam didn't have them, to OH CLINTON DESTROYED THEM ALL...........Grow the F up....................

How do I confirm Clinton got the last of them.

There weren't any found when we invaded.

Now, it's possible that there weren't any when Clinton bombed, either.

 

[eagle1462010]

Baloney...........you have supported him no matter the situation...............and defending him for virtually everything. And again you play the Race Card.

No, I've been pretty clear.

Getting involved in Libya was a mistake.

I also think he goofed up with the ACA in that he went along with the insurance companies instead of fighting for single payer and a public option.

I could list a bunch of other stuff, but I don't have time.

I just don't subscribe to the batshit crazy you guys do when you are stroking yourselves to the "latest proof he had Ambassador Stevens murdered" or whatever nutiness you are engaging in.

And Syria...........................

 

[Wyatt earp]

Putin is now building new aircraft and Naval ships. These aircraft and ships aren't non capable platforms unless you are a dolt.

Um, yeah, the problem is, the ships the Russians are building are crap compared to ours.

He still snubbed or noses after the strikes by Clinton to DESTROY WMD'S..........It wasn't until Bush ordered troops into the region that Saddam was finally willing to allow more inspections that he thwarted since Clinton even after the strikes.

And if Bush let the inspectors do their job, they'd have confirmed he didn't have any WMD's after Clinton destroyed the last of them.

But Bush was out to avenge his pappy!

Confirm that Clinton destroyed the last of them. Not rhetoric..............There is no way you or he knew that.......Period...............

And why the change from Saddam didn't have them, to OH CLINTON DESTROYED THEM ALL...........Grow the F up....................

He had them. We destroyed some in the 1st gulf War.
Clinton's strikes probably destroyed more............

But no one really knew the extent of the damage or what we didn't know about. No one trusted Saddam and rightfully so...................

Now that you are ready to throw your sugar daddy under the Bus...............Obama demanded Assad be removed from power.................During the Libya campaign he already was providing arms to the FSA. We now know that some of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS...............Now we train the FSA to fight ISIS, as Syrian forces attack both ISIS and the FSA.........as we bomb ISIS but not Syria..........who kill more of the FSA than ISIS......................

What a circle jerk from hell...............Assad is killing those we support.............We kill ISIS.............ISIS kills both................Obama wants Assad gone..................but will not protect those he supports in the conflict who are being killed by ASSAD.

Great policy isn't it.

No there Aircraft carrier is kind of cool

 

[JoeB131]

[
Please continue............I know we have highly capable ships.............so show us the problems with the Russian Navy......................

Hmm... Okay. Because we know you are too stupid to Google.

BBC NEWS Europe Russia s rusting navy

The decline of Russia's armed services has been unmistakeable for more than a decade, but it is the crisis in the navy that has been most conspicuous of all.
The declaration from the navy commander-in-chief that the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great is too dangerous to be at sea is only the latest in a string of problems.

The sinking of the Kursk submarine during exercises in 2000, was Russia's worst peacetime military disaster, leading to the death of 118 sailors.

It was followed by the death of nine more men last year when another submarine, K-159, sank as it was being towed to a scrapyard.

The incident graphically illustrated the depth of the navy's problems - Russia is decommissioning warships so fast it does not have the resources to scrap them.

 

[eagle1462010]

Confirm that Clinton destroyed the last of them. Not rhetoric..............There is no way you or he knew that.......Period...............

And why the change from Saddam didn't have them, to OH CLINTON DESTROYED THEM ALL...........Grow the F up....................

How do I confirm Clinton got the last of them.

There weren't any found when we invaded.

Now, it's possible that there weren't any when Clinton bombed, either.

They found older rounds...........for the most part.

But show me the exact proof they were all gone before we went in...............

You can't and neither can the intel agencies either..........All types were saying he still had them. He ditched the UN inspectors for years................and other countries were saying he still had them. Hell Saddam was even bragging about it. Foolish for Saddam to do so, but he was doing it to play I'm Macho Saddam.

 

[JoeB131]

Now that you are ready to throw your sugar daddy under the Bus...............Obama demanded Assad be removed from power.................During the Libya campaign he already was providing arms to the FSA. We now know that some of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS...............Now we train the FSA to fight ISIS, as Syrian forces attack both ISIS and the FSA.........as we bomb ISIS but not Syria..........who kill more of the FSA than ISIS......................

What a circle jerk from hell...............Assad is killing those we support.............We kill ISIS.............ISIS kills both................Obama wants Assad gone..................but will not protect those he supports in the conflict who are being killed by ASSAD.

Now, here's some of that crazy I was talking about. YOu paint all these fancy conspiracies when the simple matter in Syria was that as noxious as Assad is, the American people just don't have the taste for another war.

Republicans and Democrats alike think we should do 'something', but our options are really non-existent. We don't have the military capability to go in, and if we did, all sides would be against us because we back Israel.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And they have cruises still bad ass mother fucking ones

 

[eagle1462010]

[
Please continue............I know we have highly capable ships.............so show us the problems with the Russian Navy......................

Hmm... Okay. Because we know you are too stupid to Google.

BBC NEWS Europe Russia s rusting navy

The decline of Russia's armed services has been unmistakeable for more than a decade, but it is the crisis in the navy that has been most conspicuous of all.
The declaration from the navy commander-in-chief that the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great is too dangerous to be at sea is only the latest in a string of problems.

The sinking of the Kursk submarine during exercises in 2000, was Russia's worst peacetime military disaster, leading to the death of 118 sailors.

It was followed by the death of nine more men last year when another submarine, K-159, sank as it was being towed to a scrapyard.

The incident graphically illustrated the depth of the navy's problems - Russia is decommissioning warships so fast it does not have the resources to scrap them.

Same situation under Reagan.............wouldn't you know.............I served on a Rust bucket next to the Midway which was a rust bucket..................

If they don't replace them or spend a lot of money retro fitting them they will fall apart. We've been there, and Reagan fixed that problem with the modern fleets we have today.

 

[JoeB131]

They found older rounds...........for the most part.

But show me the exact proof they were all gone before we went in...............

You can't and neither can the intel agencies either..........All types were saying he still had them. He ditched the UN inspectors for years................and other countries were saying he still had them. Hell Saddam was even bragging about it. Foolish for Saddam to do so, but he was doing it to play I'm Macho Saddam.

They found discarded rounds someone had buired in 1991. Even Bush didn't try to push a "See, we found them" narrative when this first came to light in 2006.

Saddam probably did want the IRanians and his own people to think he still had some capability. But the point you keep missing is you don't go to war because someone is talking smack.

 

[eagle1462010]

Now that you are ready to throw your sugar daddy under the Bus...............Obama demanded Assad be removed from power.................During the Libya campaign he already was providing arms to the FSA. We now know that some of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS...............Now we train the FSA to fight ISIS, as Syrian forces attack both ISIS and the FSA.........as we bomb ISIS but not Syria..........who kill more of the FSA than ISIS......................

What a circle jerk from hell...............Assad is killing those we support.............We kill ISIS.............ISIS kills both................Obama wants Assad gone..................but will not protect those he supports in the conflict who are being killed by ASSAD.

Now, here's some of that crazy I was talking about. YOu paint all these fancy conspiracies when the simple matter in Syria was that as noxious as Assad is, the American people just don't have the taste for another war.

Republicans and Democrats alike think we should do 'something', but our options are really non-existent. We don't have the military capability to go in, and if we did, all sides would be against us because we back Israel.

What conspiracy.........................Obama has admitted to arming FSA. Is openly supporting them and training them now.....................

ISIS versus FSA versus Assad in a death match is not a conspiracy.

 

[JoeB131]

Same situation under Reagan.............wouldn't you know.............I served on a Rust bucket next to the Midway which was a rust bucket..................

If they don't replace them or spend a lot of money retro fitting them they will fall apart. We've been there, and Reagan fixed that problem with the modern fleets we have today.

YOu mean when he wasn't pissing away money on $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats?

 

[rightwinger]

what makes the lt. col an expert on international affairs?

He knows more than a major

possibly. rank isn't synonymous with knowledge.

people need to become smarter consumers of information. this particular lt. col - does he have special insight in any way? why is his opinion given a "news" story and a thread when it's no more informed or valid than that of anyone else? and why do people allow themselves to be fooled into accepting qualifications for one realm of knowledge as qualifications for all knowledge?

the op needs to grow up and learn to discern good information from trash

I guess Fox News couldn't find any 2nd Lieutenants with sufficient Obama hatred to pass muster

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 10460667

3. Clinton used the military option in the past because of the imminent threat of WMD'S including Nuclear Weapons during his term. Even after this occurred Saddam still continued to deny the weapons inspections to get rid of the WMD's in his country.

Was Clinton's "military option" in 1998:

(A) The same as, or similar, to the Bush43 option in 2003?

(B.1) because Saddam Hussein let inspectors back in?
(B.2) because Saddam Hussein forced the inspectors out?


Answers: (A) No. 1998 was limited air strikes only. 2003 was massive ground invasion that toppled the government.

Clinton's "military option" in 1998 was engaged because of (B.2).

Bush43's "military option" in 2003 was engaged despite (B.1)

 

[eagle1462010]

They found older rounds...........for the most part.

But show me the exact proof they were all gone before we went in...............

You can't and neither can the intel agencies either..........All types were saying he still had them. He ditched the UN inspectors for years................and other countries were saying he still had them. Hell Saddam was even bragging about it. Foolish for Saddam to do so, but he was doing it to play I'm Macho Saddam.

They found discarded rounds someone had buired in 1991. Even Bush didn't try to push a "See, we found them" narrative when this first came to light in 2006.

Saddam probably did want the IRanians and his own people to think he still had some capability. But the point you keep missing is you don't go to war because someone is talking smack.

He refused to allow the continuance of UN inspectors and had done so for quite some time. He was in violation of the UN Resolution and remedies he agreed upon after the 1st Gulf War. He slaughtered the Shiites to put down the rebellion. And we were forced into enforcing NO FLY ZONES IN IRAQ. Followed by Air and cruise missile attacks by Clinton.

No one really knew how much was destroyed, whether the programs were ongoing

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 10460667

3. Clinton used the military option in the past because of the imminent threat of WMD'S including Nuclear Weapons during his term. Even after this occurred Saddam still continued to deny the weapons inspections to get rid of the WMD's in his country.

Was Clinton's "military option" in 1998:

(A) The same as, or similar, to the Bush43 option in 2003?

(B.1) because Saddam Hussein let inspectors back in?
(B.2) because Saddam Hussein forced the inspectors out?


Answers: (A) No. 1998 was limited air strikes only. 2003 was massive ground invasion that toppled the government.

Clinton's "military option" in 1998 was engaged because of (B.2).

Bush43's "military option" in 2003 was engaged despite (B.1)

He let them in after we were poised for invasion. At that point Bush had already decided to pull the trigger........if that is what you are getting at.

A option didn't solve the inspection problem did it...................

 

[eagle1462010]

Same situation under Reagan.............wouldn't you know.............I served on a Rust bucket next to the Midway which was a rust bucket..................

If they don't replace them or spend a lot of money retro fitting them they will fall apart. We've been there, and Reagan fixed that problem with the modern fleets we have today.

YOu mean when he wasn't pissing away money on $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats?

Our military was overhauled by Reagan whether you like it or not. Every President since then has had the advantage of the modernization of the military that was pushed by Reagan.

You ditched the Russian fleet as Rust Buckets............I served on a Rust Bucket that should have been decommissioned then...............So I threw Reagan in your face.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bombing of Iraq 1998 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Degrading", not eliminating[edit]

Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albrightwas asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:[6]

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=555

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

"The discovery of a number of ... chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.... They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery … points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."
The consensus on which President Bush relied was first fully formed in the Clinton administration, as these statements indicate:

• "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s [WMD] program." – Bill Clinton, 1998
• "Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." – Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998
• "[Saddam] will use those [WMD] again, as he has ten times since 1983." – Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, 1998

Also in 1998, a group of Democratic Senators -- including such luminaries as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry -- urged President Clinton "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its [WMD] programs."

Nancy Pelosi, then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, stated: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of [WMD] technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Florida Democrat Bob Graham declared:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Senator Carl Levin reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

"Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Senator Hillary Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

 

[eagle1462010]

continue reading and ignore that other countries during these time periods were saying the same thing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eag1 10462408

He let them in after we were poised for invasion. At that point Bush had already encedecided to pull the trigger........

Do you see the difference between what Bush versus Clinton did??

Clinton launched limited air strikes AFTER SH forced inspectors out?

Bush launched a full scale ground invasion that toppled the government AFTER SH had let UN inspectors in. The inspectors were forced to leave, not by SH, but because GWB had decided to invade.

Do you see the fallacy in your argument that Clinton did exactly what Bush43 did?

eagl 10459319

But it doesn't change one iota of the fact that Clinton was saying the same thing via his intel long before.

eagl 10459549

My point was explained in the video.....Showing prominent Dems including Clinton stating that Saddam was a threat with WMD's. That was going on before 9/11 ever happened and until after we went into Iraq. Bush pulled the trigger, and there is no doubt on that, but the Dems helped pack the barrel to help prime the musket to fire.

Whether you agreed or not is not in question. Hell I didn't agree with the Nation building process, as I knew we would get stuck there just because it is the middle east. That doesn't change the fact that your side was saying the same damn thing leading up the the War. Why was the Clinton Administration reporting the same things Bush was doing before any of this.............................

He was saying back then via his intel that they were building WMD's during the time of No Fly Zones...........

eagl 10459708

Clinton felt so strongly that Iraq had WMD's that he attacked Iraq long before Bush ever took office.

Your logic and reasoning are shown to be weak.

That is why you refuse to acknowledge that Bush projected two images of himself for public consumption during the run-up to the invasion. One was a tough revengeful and fear-mongering leader ready to decide the need for war and the second was hopeful that efforts through the UN will lead to a resolution that is peaceful and will not require war.

The hopeful one got his inspections but the tough leader was the one who told them to get out of his way.

Bill Clinton would never have told the inspectors to leave so he could make war. Clinton made war because Hussein drove the inspectors out. It was the reaction to that.

Bush got inspectors back in but told them they had to leave. That was a huge error and you are fabricating a fake reality that Bill Clinton did the same thing.