ABC Frontline: "Obama's War"

[Modbert]

Speaking once to the commander in theater, FAIL, the new rules of engagement, FAIL, not visiting the troops, FAIL, there is your FAIL FAIL FAIL!

You're judging Obama's actions, not the war. Two entirely different things. Also, I would not consider not visiting the troops to be a failure. As for the "new rules of engagement", you'll have to clarify.

 

[AllieBaba]

Iraq is much better since we went. My son is going to help pull our forces out in December. So **** you, Dogbert.

Tell that to all the dead innocent civilians. Don't bring your son into this, it's dishonest. We should of had never gone to Iraq in the first place. It's as simple as that.

You're wrong. And the Iraqi people are thankful.


"Another 3 Year Stay

The Iraqi Parliament has reached an agreement allowing U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for another 3 years, although Iraqi security forces are expected to take over by 2009. Elizabeth Palmer reports.

Thanksgiving for the American soldiers in Iraq had all the trimmings. As Elizabeth Palmer reports, the invitation of Iraqi soldiers is a sign of the improved situation in Iraq.

Iraq's parliament will vote on a bill to set a U.S. troop withdrawal date after appealing to ethnic groups to remain calm, reports Elizabeth Palmer.


(CBS/AP) The Iraqi parliament approved Thursday a security pact with the United States that allows American troops to stay in the country for three more years."

"The security pact meets an Iraqi goal of a clear timetable for the departure of American forces and has been described by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a path toward full sovereignty for Iraq.

White House press secretary Dana Perino called the vote "an incredible success story for our military and for the Iraqi Security Forces."

"The June 2009 date is consistent with the Joint Campaign Plan, and the end of 2011 date should give U.S. forces and the ISF enough time to solidify gains made in the last year," Perino added.

But CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported from Baghdad that, while most military analysts say the Iraqis are not ready to take over security duties yet, there is broad recognition that the national forces have made huge strides in the last year.

One small but symbolic piece of evidence of that improvement came Thursday as U.S. troops at Falcon Base, south of Baghdad, enjoyed a Thanksgiving feast - alongside their Iraqi counterparts.

Palmer reports that mistrust between American and Iraqi troops is genuinely starting to melt away as they work more closely together."


Iraqi Pols Approve U.S. Troop Pact - CBS News

 

[Modbert]

I did address it, it isn't the fact we went to war, that happens, no turning back now. It is important what we are doing today. Are we helping our troops? Are well giving them all they need to win? I say a big **** NO this President is derelict in his duty.

Again, you failed to address my point. How are we not giving the troops what they need to win? Do they have a lack of equipment? A lack of manpower? These things if they have a lack of are the fault of the prior Administration because that will have been going on for the past eight years.

Also, Obama is not going to write blank checks of troops to just send overseas. As much as you like to think that sending troops to Afghanistan is easy, it's not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey pond scum, Bush went over there at least twice a year or more and this isn't BUSH! It is OBAMA now pickle brain!

And you ignore my entire point. When Bush or Obama go over there, they are a hinderance than a help. They throw the entire situation off and make people take guard jobs that they could be elsewhere. And for what? Political grandstanding? Obama and Bush could of had easily gone to places when they came home from deployment, visited troops in the hospitals, or even attended a funeral or two if the family allowed.

That's one thing you never see, a President going to the funeral of a military person. The dead served just as valiantly as the living if not more in some cases.

STOP with BUSH! This is all about Obama and his administration tying our troops hands now. Stop living in the past dick weed.

You cons will never escape Bush's administration, as you never should. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now to pretend that what happened then has somehow no effect on what is going on now. Terry, I don't mind you being political, but do not think you will get away with being unethical here. Obama is having to clean up your bushtoid's messes, and, yes, it's going to be dirty. Get over it.

 

[Terry]

Speaking once to the commander in theater, FAIL, the new rules of engagement, FAIL, not visiting the troops, FAIL, there is your FAIL FAIL FAIL!

You're judging Obama's actions, not the war. Two entirely different things. Also, I would not consider not visiting the troops to be a failure. As for the "new rules of engagement", you'll have to clarify.

If he touts out how much he cares for our Military he should be visiting them...It is called MORAL and it goes a long way with our TROOPS. BIG FAIL

The Commander in theater has requested not only more troops but equipment this has been sitting on the Presidents desk since AUGUST, it doesn't seem important enough for Obama but the Olympics, chiming in on a so called racist cop, going out on dates, is so much more important then our troops.

Yes the new rules of engagement is our air support, our land support cannot go into a village to clear it out if there are children in there because something might happen and a child might get harmed. In the mean time the enemy is fortifying itself in these villages and hiding behind woman, then fire upon our soldiers who are sitting around waiting for an OK from the WH. BIG FAILURE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Terry]

And you ignore my entire point. When Bush or Obama go over there, they are a hinderance than a help. They throw the entire situation off and make people take guard jobs that they could be elsewhere. And for what? Political grandstanding? Obama and Bush could of had easily gone to places when they came home from deployment, visited troops in the hospitals, or even attended a funeral or two if the family allowed.

That's one thing you never see, a President going to the funeral of a military person. The dead served just as valiantly as the living if not more in some cases.

STOP with BUSH! This is all about Obama and his administration tying our troops hands now. Stop living in the past dick weed.

You cons will never escape Bush's administration, as you never should. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now to pretend that what happened then has somehow no effect on what is going on now. Terry, I don't mind you being political, but do not think you will get away with being unethical here. Obama is having to clean up your bushtoid's messes, and, yes, it's going to be dirty. Get over it.

Face facts there starkey Obama isn't cleaning out anything but his ******* nose from coke he blew last night. He is sitting on his ******* ass doing shit while our troops get killed. If he cares about them then let them do their job or bring them ******* home. To sit there and do nothing is without a doubt shows he is incompetent to wipe Bush ass.

 

[Modbert]

You're wrong. And the Iraqi people are thankful.

That's not the people. This is the people:

Iraqi Public Opinion Polls and the Occupation

According to this poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC and NHK to assess the effects of the US military's surge strategy, 70 percent of Iraqis believe the strategy has made Iraq's security situation worse. The poll finds 47 percent of Iraqis want US-led forces to leave Iraq immediately and 34 percent want the troops to leave when the security situation improves. The results of the survey indicate the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development and has not improved security. The findings come as US Commander General David Petraeus prepares to deliver his own assessment of the ‘surge' strategy to Congress.

Going back further:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com

 

[Modbert]

If he touts out how much he cares for our Military he should be visiting them...It is called MORAL and it goes a long way with our TROOPS. BIG FAIL

The Commander in theater has requested not only more troops but equipment this has been sitting on the Presidents desk since AUGUST, it doesn't seem important enough for Obama but the Olympics, chiming in on a so called racist cop, going out on dates, is so much more important then our troops.

Yes the new rules of engagement is our air support, our land support cannot go into a village to clear it out if there are children in there because something might happen and a child might get harmed. In the mean time the enemy is fortifying itself in these villages and hiding behind woman, then fire upon our soldiers who are sitting around waiting for an OK from the WH. BIG FAILURE!!!!!!!!!!

He realizes visiting our troops in Iraq would hurt more than help. So strike #1 on your part.

Strike #2: The cop thing happened before August, and Obama spent less than 14 hours in Copenhagen. Plus, he had the Afghanistan general flown in for a talk. So that's a half a strike.

Strike #3 and a half: Do you think killing innocent children will endear us to the Afghanistan people? It's not a failure of our government because they refuse to mow down innocent women and children you dumb *****.

 

[Terry]

You are so full of bullshit it isn't even funny, but thank you for showing your red streak.

 

[Modbert]

You are so full of bullshit it isn't even funny, but thank you for showing your red streak.

Show me where I'm wrong. You're being a dishonest loon and you really need to check yourself. You have been completely wrong in this thread and you feel your anger is justified and therefore makes you right. Well guess what honeybunny? It doesn't. It makes you for what you are in this situation, irrational and therefore your opinion means little.

Maybe we can have a talk when you clear your head.

 

[AllieBaba]

We're targeting Afghani children?

News to me.

 

[Modbert]

We're targeting Afghani children?

News to me.

Terry thinks we shouldn't care about that and go ahead and kill.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where did Terry say we should target Afghani children?

Oh, that's right. She didn't.

So show me where we're targeting Afghani children, liar.

 

[Modbert]

Where did Terry say we should target Afghani children?

Oh, that's right. She didn't.

So show me where we're targeting Afghani children, liar.

She's the one who brought it up, not me. See her post at 2:02 PM EST. She says our new rules of engagement is wrong.

This is what she says:

Yes the new rules of engagement is our air support, our land support cannot go into a village to clear it out if there are children in there because something might happen and a child might get harmed.

She says the new rules of engagement is a big failure. Therefore, one can conclude she doesn't care about the children and thinks we should bomb anyways.

 

[American Horse]

Hey pond scum, Bush went over there at least twice a year or more and this isn't BUSH! It is OBAMA now pickle brain!

And you ignore my entire point. When Bush or Obama go over there, they are a hinderance than a help. They throw the entire situation off and make people take guard jobs that they could be elsewhere. And for what? Political grandstanding? Obama and Bush could of had easily gone to places when they came home from deployment, visited troops in the hospitals, or even attended a funeral or two if the family allowed.

That's one thing you never see, a President going to the funeral of a military person. The dead served just as valiantly as the living if not more in some cases.

Each time Bush visited, his visit was un-announced. When it was dangerous, he spiraled in, visited as many as possible, did what would help the effort, and got out.

If his being there had been disruptive we would've heard about it on the news, and we did not, though I don't know what was being said by Keith Olbermann on Countdown. Cheney and Rumsfeld also visited many times.

Bush also visited hospitals. I don't think it's realistic to condemn President Bush for not attending funerals; to attend one would require his attending virtually all of them. But he certainly did write parents and family. Most people know and understand those facts.

 

[Modbert]

Each time Bush visited his visit was un-announced. When it was dangerous, he spiraled in, viseted as many as possible, did what would help the effort any got out. If his being there had been disruptive we would've heard about it on the news, and we did not, though I don't know what was being said by Keith Olbermann on Countdown. Cheney and Rumsfeld also visited many times. Bush also visited hospitals. I don't think it's realistic to condemn President Bush for not attending funerals; to attend one would require his attending virtually all of them, but he certainly did write parents and family. Most people know and understand those facts.

It doesn't help that he was a hinderance than a help. I know he wrote letters, I'm simply saying that one could go to funerals. Besides, I'm not saying Bush didn't visit hospitals, you're misrepresenting my argument.

 

[Terry]

Where did Terry say we should target Afghani children?

Oh, that's right. She didn't.

So show me where we're targeting Afghani children, liar.

She's the one who brought it up, not me. See her post at 2:02 PM EST. She says our new rules of engagement is wrong.

This is what she says:

Yes the new rules of engagement is our air support, our land support cannot go into a village to clear it out if there are children in there because something might happen and a child might get harmed.

She says the new rules of engagement is a big failure. Therefore, one can conclude she doesn't care about the children and thinks we should bomb anyways.

Hey you sniffling panty waist....do you think our troops actually go out of their way and target kids? You're such a ******* idiot, trying to look all smart on a message board when you know **** about our Military and War.

Get this, just because if one kid is even in an area our troops can do NADDA. War is war, our troops do their very best to not harm innocent but sometimes it happens. That is the reality of WAR but you want to own the anti war of the 70's and paint our troops as baby killers.

Go ahead an try and look smart by parsing words you stupid ****.

 

[Modbert]

Hey you sniffling panty waist....do you think our troops actually go out of their way and target kids? You're such a ******* idiot, trying to look all smart on a message board when you know **** about our Military and War.

Get this, just because if one kid is even in an area our troops can do NADDA. War is war, our troops do their very best to not harm innocent but sometimes it happens. That is the reality of WAR but you want to own the anti war of the 70's and paint our troops as baby killers.

Go ahead an try and look smart by parsing words you stupid ****.

YOU are the one who brought up the children. YOU are the one who brought up the targeting. YOU are the one who doesn't like the rules of engagement. YOU can go **** yourself.

I don't think our troops are baby killers, so YOU are a dishonest *****. I have NEVER said our troops go out and target kids. SHOW ME where I said that or GO BACK TO YOUR HOLE.

 

[Terry]

Iraq is much better since we went. My son is going to help pull our forces out in December. So **** you, Dogbert.

Tell that to all the dead innocent civilians. Don't bring your son into this, it's dishonest. We should of had never gone to Iraq in the first place. It's as simple as that.

yeah asshole, keep dreaming

 

[Modbert]

yeah asshole, keep dreaming

We shouldn't of gone to Iraq in the first place. Don't dodge my question above *****. Show me where I said those things or go back to your hole.