The 1980's Have Called, with a warning.

[American4Americ]

In 2012 during a presidential debate with Mitt Romney, Obama seemed to score points when stumping Mitt Romney on what was the bigger threat in the world (seen in the quote below). Mitt Romney contended Russia is the bigger threat to the world than Al-Qaeda. From then on, he was accused of "Cold War thinking." Then, it appeared certain he was wrong. But today, with Vladmir Putin ignoring flaccid warnings from Obama and invading Ukraine and blockading Crimea; it appears Romney words were not only right but eerily prophetic. Both Romney and Palin predicted this, and were brushed off.

"Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaeda's a threat because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geo-political threat facing America, you said Russia. Not Al-Qaeda; you said, Russia.

And the 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War has been over for twenty years."

The 1980's are now calling to deliver a warning. Don't let Russia reassert its previous dominance over what was the former Soviet Union.

The U.K alone could probably stomp Russia today, FYI. The Russian Federation is a funny jape in comparison to the Soviet Union.

 

[Pheonixops]

Obama did weaken the U.S. Is our military now stronger or weaker than when he took office?
Russia is invading the Ukraine. That is not a civil war.
The USA has an interest in seeing freedom triumph and maintaining the integrity of the Ukraine as a sovereign state.
Russia is not too busy to send armed troops to the Ukraine.

Palin was correct. Obama is a boob. And you are a moron.

Without question, our military is much stronger than when Bush was in charge

Bush had us engaged in two overseas wars. Our military was stretched thin and morale was low as Bush sent them on rotation after rotation. He then decided to extend rotations to 15 months? Bush stretched our military too thin and left us vulnerable.
Readiness was lower as Bush sacrificed maintenance and training to keep his wars going.

Wrong.
The military is the smallest it's been since 1940. They are shelving one of the most effective aircraft we field.
Obama's surge in Afghanistan cost many many lives, including those who committed suicide on returning home.

Just because it's smaller doesn't mean that it doesn't have a LOT more military capability than it did during 1940. Is there an aircraft that is slated to take the place of those aircraft we are "shelving"? Would you rather have the numbers and capability we had in 1940 or the numbers and capability we have in 2014?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not just the CIA but every intelligence agency in the West as well. And they were consistent in this for years.
No the truth is everyone thought there were WMDs because Saddam intentionally created that impression. But WMDs were not the sole or even primary reason for invading. That reason was repeated undermining of terms and violation. This part goes down the memory hole with Democrats.

You are correct that it was all the intelligence information we had, and you are correct that Saddam actually created this illusion himself. What you are missing is the fact that Hans Blix and the UN Inspectors were not finding any WMD, and yet we still decided to start a war that was useless in the end. Had we just waited a bit longer, it would have become evident that Iraq had nothing and all of the mess that became the Iraq War could have been avoided. On top of that, it would have given us much more manpower to put to use in Afghanistan where the real problem was.

Saddam had kicked the inspectors out many times. He denied access to many sites. There was never a scenario in which the inspectors would find nothing.
Obama pursued a surge strategy in Afghanistan because Bush had been successful with it Iraq (over Obama's objections btw). But it was a failure. No army has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 200 years, which is why Bush did not pursue that strategy.
Bush made the right calls, tough as they were.

The inspectors would have found nothing that time because US troops didn't find any WMD's after the illegal invasion. The fact that "do-overs" were needed for both wars tells you just how badly they were executed by Bush in the first place. Zero exit strategy. No grasp of the local politics. No understanding of the local culture.

 

[Redfish]

You are correct that it was all the intelligence information we had, and you are correct that Saddam actually created this illusion himself. What you are missing is the fact that Hans Blix and the UN Inspectors were not finding any WMD, and yet we still decided to start a war that was useless in the end. Had we just waited a bit longer, it would have become evident that Iraq had nothing and all of the mess that became the Iraq War could have been avoided. On top of that, it would have given us much more manpower to put to use in Afghanistan where the real problem was.

Saddam had kicked the inspectors out many times. He denied access to many sites. There was never a scenario in which the inspectors would find nothing.
Obama pursued a surge strategy in Afghanistan because Bush had been successful with it Iraq (over Obama's objections btw). But it was a failure. No army has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 200 years, which is why Bush did not pursue that strategy.
Bush made the right calls, tough as they were.

The inspectors would have found nothing that time because US troops didn't find any WMD's after the illegal invasion. The fact that "do-overs" were needed for both wars tells you just how badly they were executed by Bush in the first place. Zero exit strategy. No grasp of the local politics. No understanding of the local culture.

they didn't find them because they had been shipped to Syria. Syria used some of them in their current conflict. others degraded due to shelf life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Saddam had kicked the inspectors out many times. He denied access to many sites. There was never a scenario in which the inspectors would find nothing.
Obama pursued a surge strategy in Afghanistan because Bush had been successful with it Iraq (over Obama's objections btw). But it was a failure. No army has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 200 years, which is why Bush did not pursue that strategy.
Bush made the right calls, tough as they were.

The inspectors would have found nothing that time because US troops didn't find any WMD's after the illegal invasion. The fact that "do-overs" were needed for both wars tells you just how badly they were executed by Bush in the first place. Zero exit strategy. No grasp of the local politics. No understanding of the local culture.

they didn't find them because they had been shipped to Syria. Syria used some of them in their current conflict. others degraded due to shelf life.

Of course you can't provide any credible proof to support that allegation either!

 

[thanatos144]

What the fuck does Bush and Iraq have to do with the Ukraine situation? Nothing. Stop letting the dishonest liberals derail the thread because this shows how weak those god Obama has made the country

tapatalk post

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the fuck does Bush and Iraq have to do with the Ukraine situation? Nothing. Stop letting the dishonest liberals derail the thread because this shows how weak those god Obama has made the country

tapatalk post

Your fellow extreme rightwingers raised the topic by bringing up Palin. I suggest that you berate them for "derailing" the thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

Without question, our military is much stronger than when Bush was in charge

Bush had us engaged in two overseas wars. Our military was stretched thin and morale was low as Bush sent them on rotation after rotation. He then decided to extend rotations to 15 months? Bush stretched our military too thin and left us vulnerable.
Readiness was lower as Bush sacrificed maintenance and training to keep his wars going.

Wrong.
The military is the smallest it's been since 1940. They are shelving one of the most effective aircraft we field.
Obama's surge in Afghanistan cost many many lives, including those who committed suicide on returning home.

Just because it's smaller doesn't mean that it doesn't have a LOT more military capability than it did during 1940. Is there an aircraft that is slated to take the place of those aircraft we are "shelving"? Would you rather have the numbers and capability we had in 1940 or the numbers and capability we have in 2014?

I'd settle for the numbers and capability we had in 2007 before the current Dunce In Chief took over.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are correct that it was all the intelligence information we had, and you are correct that Saddam actually created this illusion himself. What you are missing is the fact that Hans Blix and the UN Inspectors were not finding any WMD, and yet we still decided to start a war that was useless in the end. Had we just waited a bit longer, it would have become evident that Iraq had nothing and all of the mess that became the Iraq War could have been avoided. On top of that, it would have given us much more manpower to put to use in Afghanistan where the real problem was.

Saddam had kicked the inspectors out many times. He denied access to many sites. There was never a scenario in which the inspectors would find nothing.
Obama pursued a surge strategy in Afghanistan because Bush had been successful with it Iraq (over Obama's objections btw). But it was a failure. No army has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 200 years, which is why Bush did not pursue that strategy.
Bush made the right calls, tough as they were.

The inspectors would have found nothing that time because US troops didn't find any WMD's after the illegal invasion. The fact that "do-overs" were needed for both wars tells you just how badly they were executed by Bush in the first place. Zero exit strategy. No grasp of the local politics. No understanding of the local culture.

The inspectors were barred by Saddam from visiting certain sites. So there was no way they could have found nothing.
Wars are messy business. You should study one sometime.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Saddam had kicked the inspectors out many times. He denied access to many sites. There was never a scenario in which the inspectors would find nothing.
Obama pursued a surge strategy in Afghanistan because Bush had been successful with it Iraq (over Obama's objections btw). But it was a failure. No army has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 200 years, which is why Bush did not pursue that strategy.
Bush made the right calls, tough as they were.

The inspectors would have found nothing that time because US troops didn't find any WMD's after the illegal invasion. The fact that "do-overs" were needed for both wars tells you just how badly they were executed by Bush in the first place. Zero exit strategy. No grasp of the local politics. No understanding of the local culture.

The inspectors were barred by Saddam from visiting certain sites. So there was no way they could have found nothing.
Wars are messy business. You should study one sometime.

First hand experience of the "messy business" trumps armchair warriors. The Bush admin rushed to war without bothering to allow the process to play out. That cost people their lives and limbs for an unnecessary war. It had the opposite effect as intended and ended up converting and recruiting more terrorists than it eliminated. It was completely mismanaged and it will continue to be a burden on taxpayers for many decades to come.

 

[rightwinger]

The inspectors would have found nothing that time because US troops didn't find any WMD's after the illegal invasion. The fact that "do-overs" were needed for both wars tells you just how badly they were executed by Bush in the first place. Zero exit strategy. No grasp of the local politics. No understanding of the local culture.

The inspectors were barred by Saddam from visiting certain sites. So there was no way they could have found nothing.
Wars are messy business. You should study one sometime.

First hand experience of the "messy business" trumps armchair warriors. The Bush admin rushed to war without bothering to allow the process to play out. That cost people their lives and limbs for an unnecessary war. It had the opposite effect as intended and ended up converting and recruiting more terrorists than it eliminated. It was completely mismanaged and it will continue to be a burden on taxpayers for many decades to come.

And that was the key. There was no "rush" to invade Iraq. We were already fully involved in Afghanistan and Saddam had been contained for a decade

Yet Bush ignored Hans Blix and insisted he had to invade NOW

 

[The Rabbi]

The inspectors would have found nothing that time because US troops didn't find any WMD's after the illegal invasion. The fact that "do-overs" were needed for both wars tells you just how badly they were executed by Bush in the first place. Zero exit strategy. No grasp of the local politics. No understanding of the local culture.

The inspectors were barred by Saddam from visiting certain sites. So there was no way they could have found nothing.
Wars are messy business. You should study one sometime.

First hand experience of the "messy business" trumps armchair warriors. The Bush admin rushed to war without bothering to allow the process to play out. That cost people their lives and limbs for an unnecessary war. It had the opposite effect as intended and ended up converting and recruiting more terrorists than it eliminated. It was completely mismanaged and it will continue to be a burden on taxpayers for many decades to come.

Please post which unit you were general of.
There was no rush to war. It was debated for months. The situation had been building for months, if not years. The war was very necessary. A nuclear Iraq unfettered was a destablizing force in the region.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The inspectors were barred by Saddam from visiting certain sites. So there was no way they could have found nothing.
Wars are messy business. You should study one sometime.

First hand experience of the "messy business" trumps armchair warriors. The Bush admin rushed to war without bothering to allow the process to play out. That cost people their lives and limbs for an unnecessary war. It had the opposite effect as intended and ended up converting and recruiting more terrorists than it eliminated. It was completely mismanaged and it will continue to be a burden on taxpayers for many decades to come.

Please post which unit you were general of.
There was no rush to war.

History says otherwise!

It was debated for months. The situation had been building for months, if not years. The war was very necessary. A nuclear Iraq unfettered was a destablizing force in the region.

Iraq didn't even have a functioning reactor. It was decades away from becoming a nuclear threat. The yellow cake myth was totally discredited. Furthermore claiming that Iraq was a "destablizing force in the region" is disingenuous. All of the nations in the ME fit that criteria!

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post which unit you commanded.

Your insistence on something doesnt make it true. There were months of debate.

 

[zeke]

Please post which unit you commanded.

Your insistence on something doesnt make it true. There were months of debate.

Sillwabbit. Doesn't fucking matter if they "debated the invasion of Iraq for years. We still invaded and destroyed a country that hadn't attacked us. And Iraq wasn't gonna attack us.

But in your fucked up world, invading and destroying a country that doesn't attack you is what passes for brilliance in the rabbit world. Right rabbit?

Who should we invade next without provocation?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Please post which unit you commanded.

Your insistence on something doesnt make it true. There were months of debate.

Ironic coming from someone who is pretending that Iraq was an "imminent nuclear threat" to the USA!

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post which unit you commanded.

Your insistence on something doesnt make it true. There were months of debate.

Ironic coming from someone who is pretending that Iraq was an "imminent nuclear threat" to the USA!

Ironic coming from someone who now has to deflect to cover his lies.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post which unit you commanded.

Your insistence on something doesnt make it true. There were months of debate.

Sillwabbit. Doesn't fucking matter if they "debated the invasion of Iraq for years. We still invaded and destroyed a country that hadn't attacked us. And Iraq wasn't gonna attack us.

But in your fucked up world, invading and destroying a country that doesn't attack you is what passes for brilliance in the rabbit world. Right rabbit?

Who should we invade next without provocation?

Its' Zeke, toothless stumbroke of USMB. Hey Zeke, it does matter because the claim was we rushed into war. We didnt rush into war. We debated it for months.
But never mind. Back to your bottle, little man.

 

[Meathead]

How soon we forget the millions of dying children of Iraq because of US-led sanctions. I suppose "dying" children an be easily forgotten once their usefulness has been spent.

 

[The Rabbi]

How soon we forget the millions of dying children of Iraq because of US-led sanctions. I suppose "dying" children an be easily forgotten once their usefulness has been spent.

It's like Darfur. WHen Bush was president the Left was up in arms to "do something" about Darfur. Bush wisely declined to send the military.
Heard anything about Darfur from the left recently? Nope.