Dempsy is a scum sucking Obama butt kisser

You need to have Mudwhistle teach you how to cite a source. He and I had a discussion yesterday, and when I asked for a source to prove a claim, he gave one.

You make other conservatives look bad with your silly "AHAHAHA" antics.

Be more like Mudwhistle.
One's opinion doesn't need to be sourced, pipsqueak. Now shush, you're becoming a redundant bore.


58653431.jpg


I knew if I was persistent enough, I could get you to admit your bullshit claims were just 'opinions'.

I guess that concludes this 'conversation'.

Thank god, now run along dimwit and cherish your faux victory, I notice you claim things....after the fact. It reveals how utterly worthless and weak you are. But IU suspect you've been told you're worthless and weak many times. No? Oh and are you gay? You seem gay

How funny :laugh: Now I'm 'worthless', 'weak',and 'gay' because I caught you in a lie.





Thanks for the win :thup:

I never got caught in a lie. Sigh...you keep claiming "victory" and you haven't won. Let me guess, you got trophies for participating in school didn't you, Moon Beam?


You told me "the Iraq war was won."
I said it wasn't.
You said it was.
I told you to source it.
You said "you can't source opinion."

If you were able to follow that simple line of dialogue, you'll see that your initial claim was proven false when you admitted it was just opinion.

Opinion and fact are not the same thing, dear.

(By the way, I'm not a conservative, so being called 'gay' or 'female' won't work as insults. Us moderates and liberals are past that :wink_2:)


Once again, thanks for the win :thup:
 
One's opinion doesn't need to be sourced, pipsqueak. Now shush, you're becoming a redundant bore.


58653431.jpg


I knew if I was persistent enough, I could get you to admit your bullshit claims were just 'opinions'.

I guess that concludes this 'conversation'.

Thank god, now run along dimwit and cherish your faux victory, I notice you claim things....after the fact. It reveals how utterly worthless and weak you are. But IU suspect you've been told you're worthless and weak many times. No? Oh and are you gay? You seem gay

How funny :laugh: Now I'm 'worthless', 'weak',and 'gay' because I caught you in a lie.





Thanks for the win :thup:

I never got caught in a lie. Sigh...you keep claiming "victory" and you haven't won. Let me guess, you got trophies for participating in school didn't you, Moon Beam?


You told me "the Iraq war was won."
I said it wasn't.
You said it was.
I told you to source it.
You said "you can't source opinion."

If you were able to follow that simple line of dialogue, you'll see that your initial claim was proven false when you admitted it was just opinion.

Opinion and fact are not the same thing, dear.

(By the way, I'm not a conservative, so being called 'gay' or 'female' won't work as insults. Us moderates and liberals are past that :wink_2:)


Once again, thanks for the win :thup:

It was won, then Obungles bungled it. You lose...I win.
 
58653431.jpg


I knew if I was persistent enough, I could get you to admit your bullshit claims were just 'opinions'.

I guess that concludes this 'conversation'.

Thank god, now run along dimwit and cherish your faux victory, I notice you claim things....after the fact. It reveals how utterly worthless and weak you are. But IU suspect you've been told you're worthless and weak many times. No? Oh and are you gay? You seem gay

How funny :laugh: Now I'm 'worthless', 'weak',and 'gay' because I caught you in a lie.





Thanks for the win :thup:

I never got caught in a lie. Sigh...you keep claiming "victory" and you haven't won. Let me guess, you got trophies for participating in school didn't you, Moon Beam?


You told me "the Iraq war was won."
I said it wasn't.
You said it was.
I told you to source it.
You said "you can't source opinion."

If you were able to follow that simple line of dialogue, you'll see that your initial claim was proven false when you admitted it was just opinion.

Opinion and fact are not the same thing, dear.

(By the way, I'm not a conservative, so being called 'gay' or 'female' won't work as insults. Us moderates and liberals are past that :wink_2:)


Once again, thanks for the win :thup:

It was won, then Obungles bungled it. You lose...I win.


In your opinion
wink_2.gif


See ya!
 
We won in 2003. The shots they called after that failed to win the peace. Of course they didn't really have a plan, we were going to be greeted as liberators remember?

:cuckoo: We put their first government together...we owned that country but OBAMA didn't pull his weight. He could have forced them to allow a residual force to remain in place but he is a political coward.
No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister.

Indeed real leaders with spines aren't afraid to twist a few arms when it comes to their national interests and foreign policy. But Obama isn't a real leader.
 
Thank god, now run along dimwit and cherish your faux victory, I notice you claim things....after the fact. It reveals how utterly worthless and weak you are. But IU suspect you've been told you're worthless and weak many times. No? Oh and are you gay? You seem gay

How funny :laugh: Now I'm 'worthless', 'weak',and 'gay' because I caught you in a lie.





Thanks for the win :thup:

I never got caught in a lie. Sigh...you keep claiming "victory" and you haven't won. Let me guess, you got trophies for participating in school didn't you, Moon Beam?


You told me "the Iraq war was won."
I said it wasn't.
You said it was.
I told you to source it.
You said "you can't source opinion."

If you were able to follow that simple line of dialogue, you'll see that your initial claim was proven false when you admitted it was just opinion.

Opinion and fact are not the same thing, dear.

(By the way, I'm not a conservative, so being called 'gay' or 'female' won't work as insults. Us moderates and liberals are past that :wink_2:)


Once again, thanks for the win :thup:

It was won, then Obungles bungled it. You lose...I win.


In your opinion
wink_2.gif


See ya!

LOL Bye little one. :) Freaking toad
 
Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister
Read This:No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Doesn't change much. I don't put much credence in Chris Hayes or National Review.

Here: Iraq s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com
 
Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister
Read This:No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Doesn't change much. I don't put much credence in Chris Hayes or National Review.

Here: Iraq s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

Time? LMAO
 
What is it with the ODS kooks and their insane rewrites of history? Who do they think they'll convert? Every bedwetter in the nation is already firmly in the ODS camp. There isn't anything to gained by appealing to that demographic.

My guess is the ODSers are trying to convince each other that they haven't been played for UsefulIdiots. And they're failing, judging from the sulking. Deep down, even the ODSers now seem to realize how they've been played into betraying their country. Alas, they've dug too far down into the stupid hole, and it would be too humiliating for them to admit to their lifetime of failure. Hence, their only choice now is to put on a brave face and keep digging.
 
We won in 2003. The shots they called after that failed to win the peace. Of course they didn't really have a plan, we were going to be greeted as liberators remember?

:cuckoo: We put their first government together...we owned that country but OBAMA didn't pull his weight. He could have forced them to allow a residual force to remain in place but he is a political coward.
No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister.

Indeed real leaders with spines aren't afraid to twist a few arms when it comes to their national interests and foreign policy. But Obama isn't a real leader.

LOL, so in the last minute BugOut plans signed by President Bush, whose arm was being twisted?
 
Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister
Read This:No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Doesn't change much. I don't put much credence in Chris Hayes or National Review.

Here: Iraq s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

Time? LMAO

Beer-thirty. Oh and go piss up a tree.
 
We won in 2003. The shots they called after that failed to win the peace. Of course they didn't really have a plan, we were going to be greeted as liberators remember?

:cuckoo: We put their first government together...we owned that country but OBAMA didn't pull his weight. He could have forced them to allow a residual force to remain in place but he is a political coward.
No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister.

Indeed real leaders with spines aren't afraid to twist a few arms when it comes to their national interests and foreign policy. But Obama isn't a real leader.

LOL, so in the last minute BugOut plans signed by President Bush, whose arm was being twisted?

Last time I checked, the Obama admin favored a residual force. Or at least they pretended to. We already know that Bush did. But Bush didn't blow the SOFA agreement with Iraq and Bush didn't grant ISIS an opening to fill the vacuum left behind our troops. Obama did. Bush was long out of office.
 
Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister
Read This:No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Doesn't change much. I don't put much credence in Chris Hayes or National Review.

Here: Iraq s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

Time? LMAO

Beer-thirty. Oh and go piss up a tree.

I bet your pooch has one helluva time pissing up a tree....all blind and all
 
We won in 2003. The shots they called after that failed to win the peace. Of course they didn't really have a plan, we were going to be greeted as liberators remember?

:cuckoo: We put their first government together...we owned that country but OBAMA didn't pull his weight. He could have forced them to allow a residual force to remain in place but he is a political coward.
No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister.

Indeed real leaders with spines aren't afraid to twist a few arms when it comes to their national interests and foreign policy. But Obama isn't a real leader.

LOL, so in the last minute BugOut plans signed by President Bush, whose arm was being twisted?

Last time I checked, the Obama admin favored a residual force. Or at least they pretended to. We already know that Bush did.
.

He only said it every chance he could........to many liberals utter dismay.
 
Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister
Read This:No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Doesn't change much. I don't put much credence in Chris Hayes or National Review.

Here: Iraq s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

Time? LMAO

Beer-thirty. Oh and go piss up a tree.

I bet your pooch has one helluva time pissing up a tree....all blind and all

Well yeah since she squatted.......
 
:cuckoo: We put their first government together...we owned that country but OBAMA didn't pull his weight. He could have forced them to allow a residual force to remain in place but he is a political coward.
No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Why did President Bush acquiesce to the demands of the Iraqis and the UN in 2008? The only way President Obama could have done it was to illegally bypass the Iraqi Parliament and made a deal with the Prime Minister.

Indeed real leaders with spines aren't afraid to twist a few arms when it comes to their national interests and foreign policy. But Obama isn't a real leader.

LOL, so in the last minute BugOut plans signed by President Bush, whose arm was being twisted?

Last time I checked, the Obama admin favored a residual force. Or at least they pretended to. We already know that Bush did.
.

He only said it every chance he could........to many liberals utter dismay.

It's ok, he blew it. And now were back in Iraq (just as Bush predicted). ISIS is the result of the incompetency of he Obama admin.
 

I bet your pooch has one helluva time pissing up a tree....all blind and all

Well yeah since she squatted.......

Oh.
 
Where did Dempsey earn the bronze star with the V? Nobody seems to know
Oh? So why is Iraq in turmoil? What has happened in Ramadi? Again, you're just trying to defend the indefensible, Obama blew the victory
Your deflections and back peddling only work with the members of you circle jerk. The comment was made that Iraq was lost and another was made that Democrats don't win wars. Iraq has not been lost and a ghost town in Iraq being given up does not constitute the lose of Iraq, no matter how much you try to spin it. On the subject of Democrats not winning wars, you and the rest of the circle jerkers are just blank. You were asked which Republican won a war in the last 100 years. Silence.

I pulled up the latest map I could find. They control more than a ghost town.Whoopsies! Meant to give you these links:

Right up to date reporting here. Great website.

Iraq Situation Report: April 16-17, 2015

This is the article I lifted the map from.

Here s all of the area that ISIS controls - Business Insider




screen%20shot%202015-03-05%20at%208.44.27%20am.png


And even though they have been losing some territory they still hold Mosul and Raqqa.

The map is garbage. A normal map that we would have used in the military would have labeled much more territory as enemy controlled than simply where they had a physical presence. They wouldn't dare do the same to the Iraqi Security Forces. Essentially, they just followed the main road to the cities along it where ISIS controlled the area. What of the huge blank space in-between those roads? MOSTLY NOTHING IS THERE BUT DESERT!!! (The roads follow the waterways for obvious reasons) That map is garbage

Holy toledo there Publius. I'm not military. I don't pretend to be. And the Business Insider article is a reprint from an article from the Institute for the Study of War.

The woman who is President of this think tank appears to have excellent credentials considering she served as part of General McCrystal's assessment team in Kabul. What I've read about the think tank certainly confirms that they are professionals.

The map is obviously strictly designed for individuals like myself to try to wrap my brain around how ISIS is moving about, what they are capturing and what they are losing.

In other words whoever designed the map put in crayon for me. And I appreciate that.

The article itself clearly points out that ISIS's game plan is to control the roadways and urban regions.

Do you take issue with ISW? If so could you at least point out why they can't be trusted to be a credible source of information?

"ISW President Kagan has conducted eight battlefield circulations of Iraq since starting ISW for the MNF-I Commanding General, three of which were in Afghanistan for CENTCOM United States Central Command and ISAF International Security Assistance Force.

She participated formally on the Joint Campaign Plan Assessment Team for Multi-National Force – Iraq U.S. Mission – Iraq in October 2008, and as part of the Civilian Advisory Team for the CENTCOM strategic review in January 2009.

Kagan served in Kabul as a member of General Stanley McChrystal's strategic assessment team, composed of civilian experts, during his strategic review in June and July 2009.

She returned to Afghanistan in the summer of 2010 to assist General David Petraeus with key transition tasks following his assumption of command in Afghanistan.

Kagan also serves on the Academic Advisory Board at the Afghanistan- Pakistan Center of Excellence at CENTCOM."

Institute for the Study of War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
How does anything you just posted refute what I posted? Appeal to authority? I guess you argument is that these people seem to know what they're talking about, and thus, my critique of the map is wrong? Military maps on enemy and friendly controlled territory are listed as area of operations, area of influence, area of responsibility, area of control etc etc etc. They usually shade these areas in bulk. Why did they not do this with the map posted above?

All they did was pinpoint enemy locations and ignored their true area of control. This was likely done to mitigate the assumption that ISIS now holds 1/4th of Iraq (Which is the case). The map as it stands makes the influence of ISIS seems smaller than what it is because they exclude a vast open and empty desert that neither the Iraqis or ISIS controls but nevertheless falls within the ISIS sphere of influence because they control the surrounding territory. When you make poorly annotated maps such as the one you referenced people assume that all areas that aren't held by ISIS are held by Iraq. This is what they want you to think. That's why the map is the way it is. its a propaganda piece for the White House and their allies to point at and tell the American public "see, they don't really control that much" all while they know damn well that those areas left largely blank are nothing but vacant desert and fall within the ISIS sphere of influence (Area of Control). The map is garbage and doesn't give the public a true sense of the situation in the region, which of course, is what the goal of every map is. Iraq is falling apart at the hands of these ISIS bastards and no one has any true sense to what extent this is true because of maps like that.

HEEEEYYYYY!! LOOOOOOK. I'm being plagiarized by the Daily Beast Exclusive Pentagon Map Hides ISIS Gains - The Daily Beast
 
Dempsy is a scum sucking Obama butt kisser

the perfect RW' ... living up Obamas ass.
 

Forum List

Back
Top